Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport Written Evidence


SUBMISSION 55

Memorandum submitted by Phoenix Cinema

REVIEWING THE FILM COUNCIL

  The Phoenix is a small community cinema of two hundred and fifty seats which has been showing films on the same site since its construction late in 1910, making us one of the oldest continually operating cinemas in the country. We are now a charitable trust, founded after the GLC bought the freehold for us in the 1980s consequent on a local campaign to save the cinema from closure. In consequence, the trust has taken very seriously its role as a "community" cinema serving the cultural interests of its locality, broadly interpreted!

  We have enclosed information about our building (which is listed) and our work.

  There are three parts to this submission: an introduction, general comments and Phoenix-specific comments.

INTRODUCTION

  As a small community cinema of two hundred and fifty seats with a committed Board of Trustees and competent management we have modest but solid connexions with the wider independent cinema scene. We welcome the commitment of the Film Council (and Film London) to support and fund specialised cinema and film exhibition and distribution and to work for their improvement. We wish to support their efforts effectively since they share most of our aims and objectives.

  As a London cinema, we are very conscious of a prevalent view that our city is well provided with screens by comparison with other UK districts. In central London this is so. However, in the densely populated and socially and ethnically diverse northern suburbs where we are located we are the furthest outpost in a swathe of boroughs with no independent cinema—a situation that has been deteriorating over the last 20 years as North London's former repertory cinemas have closed down.

  We continue to show a range of British, European and world films to highly appreciative audiences and to cater for a public whose interests and tastes are neglected by the major distributors and exhibitors. There is a wide age range reflected in our audience; additionally we have a specific service to children through the "Phoenix Freddies" Saturday morning films and summer youth projects to view films and workshops to make them. There is a loyal local following but we also provide for a niche market from a wider catchment—in part because we are favoured by an Underground service. We believe we have a responsibility to sustain a broad film culture and to deal with the specific concerns of our more immediate communities. In fact, our education programmes and work in schools are possible because we are a local community facility.

Festivals

  Over the past five years we have annually held Jewish Film Festivals. Last year we held an Asian Film Festival and next year will be a base for the African Film Festival.

  Yet we receive no external revenue support from either local authority or Film Council resources. However, we are keen to develop both building and programmes and are not afraid to be independent after some success in fundraising. We have assembled a group of patrons who help us and who feel as passionate as we do about our place in the local community and the wider film world. We made a second stage bid for development of our facilities two years ago but this has disappeared into the Arts Council system. We receive no local authority funding, although our provision of non-mainstream films in the south of the borough of Barnet nevertheless serves to complement the council's general cultural provision in the area. Nor does the borough of Haringey contribute though it has no independent cinema, we abut its western order and their people come to us.

  Consequently, we lead the characteristic hand-to-mouth existence of the independent cinema not part of a commercial chain.

GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE UK FILM COUNCIL

  Most of our comments are structured around the Film Council's Annual Review 2001-02. We were not sent this document by the Council and it is not immediately clear how the review's distribution was organised. Since it is clearly an influential document we feel that perhaps we should not have had to seek it out for ourselves. We are surprised that distribution did not include the full range of exhibitors. We have referred to the Report for policy and implementation relevant to us. As an independent cinema, we have been in contact with LFVDA-now Film London-the Film Council's regional organisation. We also have an interest in the work of bfi where it touches us, ie the Programme Unit and Education Department.

  The UK Film Council has the opportunity to play a valuable part as industry informant and co-ordinator as well as key developer of policy and conduit for funds.

  Presumably the Council is expected to represent the interests of cinema with and through other agencies, yet we note that the long-awaited London Mayor's Cultural Strategy (June 2003) while emphasising improvements to access and cultural industries in its comparative measures for London's excellence/achievement mentions film locations and production revenue (p23) but doesn't count London's poverty of screens (independent in particular ) until para 87 and then it is West End screens; surely this is an important omission the UK Film Council might have questioned?

  Perhaps the Council might yet play a significant part in developing that full scope and richness which we and others believe is possible in the world of British cinema—but at the moment we feel this is a question rather than a certainty.

1.  COMMUNICATIONS

  (a)  We referred above to the unclear process by which the Annual Review was distributed. This may also apply to their other documents which will shape the future development of film exhibition and distribution. How does the UK Film Council communicate with stakeholders in the various sectors? We feel disadvantaged because the Council has no regular paper or e-mail bulletin posted out to which we can refer for information on:

    —  distribution and exhibition issues, policy and activity. We would find it helpful to know what is happening or is predicted in exhibition and distribution as those sectors develop and change, and as other agents intervene. Even after two or three years the Council appears to be remote from grass roots exhibitors with independent programming policies like ourselves. To suggest a different practice, Film London inherited the East London Moving Image Initiative e-bulletin published monthly on 20 or 30 pages which proves very enlightening on a regional level—a national monthly review might be equally helpful. Both the Council and their constituency may be the poorer for not having this channel.

  (b)  Will substantial Council publications be sent to all stakeholders in future to ensure their fullest use in the field?

  (c)  We remember that our regional organisation used to organise workshops for managers in exhibition to review issues. These are currently in abeyance. We would like to see them revived and invitations extended to the trustees of cinemas, whose role is to monitor management and help develop policy. These would provide opportunities for exchange of best practice and networking.

  (d)  We observe that in most public discussion of exhibition and distribution issues the representatives of the production sector present are usually not too aware of the processes downstream of their activity. Is there a need for the Council to suggest specific education here?

  (e)  Should not the Council also be addressing the near-stranglehold the big distributors have on exhibition practices? We don't have space to develop this.

2.  CONSULTATION

  How do public bodies dealing with film exhibition and distribution consult with stakeholders, including audiences? We are not fully aware that they do. A recent example arose at the related organisation, bfi, where the Programming Unit, a fund of professional knowledge available to cinemas, was recently broken up and "restructured". Prior to this the Unit programmed eighteen cinemas and was available for consultation to one hundred and fifty others. We were not asked to contribute to the decision yet we might well in the future have had an interest in alternative provision. Were other cinemas asked? Were the past users of the service involved? To our knowledge no consultation took place with anyone in the field before radical changes were made.

  Is it fair to assume that this process of centralised decision making where there are external consequences is characteristic of public bodies serving the cinema in Britain?

  If the UK Film Council could proceed in more consultative mode this might reduce the perceived remoteness of its operations from its constituency—particularly those parts of the exhibition sector supportive of a lively British cinema who are working hard to expand audiences open to a broader film culture than that provided by the multiplexes.

3.  THE DISTRIBUTION AND EXHIBITION STRATEGY AND FUND

  (a)  This strategy is intended (p60 Annual Review) to alleviate the problems in these two areas. We have recently become aware of the strategy and the fund and its broad intentions. Since we have a bid for development funding pending for two years we must ask why we were not invited to reapply under the new scheme? Multiplication of the multiplex and their provision of modern standards of comfort widens the difference between them and us perceived by our audience. One feature of our "antiquity" they do not appreciate is our seating, and we are seeking sponsors to help replace them. The cost will be £35-40k and revenue will not pay for them. We wish to escape the "flea-pit" image. We welcome the new fund and look forward to its rapid implementation.

  (b)  The Council claims to have consulted on the fund in April 2002 from which came the Distribution and Exhibition Fund proposal. We do not recollect being approached.

  (c)  The "Digital Fund" seems to be regarded as addressing the key problem area but it is not immediately most useful to cinemas with one auditorium. Instead, our bid (above) included a plan to build a new space for video, DVD and digital projection for another specialised audience; this is unlikely to have a place within the multiplexes but it may foster future development not only of audience but also film-makers. We are very conscious that funds go to independent makers of short and experimental movies which are then rarely shown except at festivals of short films! Our space might also cater for this interest.

4.  BFI ARCHIVE—RESTRICTED DISTRIBUTION OF ARCHIVE RESTORATION PRINTS:

    —  very skilled restoration of classic film prints is undertaken by bfi under the Film Council's aegis. These prints then have very restricted availability. Specialised cinemas with competent projectionists would be grateful to share the benefits of these restorations with their audiences. The recent wider distribution of The Leopard and currently, The Great Dictator, is a fairer exercise.

THE PHOENIX CINEMA'S CONCERNS

  Many of our major concerns are already reflected in what has gone before.

  We provide a rare service in North London for those who feel dissatisfied with the standard multiplex provision. Yet we receive neither revenue support to tide us over the inevitable difficulties which attend small independent (listed!) cinemas, nor capital assistance for development projects which were approved by the relevant institutions two years ago. The consultants KPMG were quoted as of the view that "independent cinema is unable to survive in a purely market-based situation—there will be a need for public funding to ensure its provision"(2002). We are embarking on a fundraising campaign to replace very old seats, in part because our audience complains to us, but also because our earlier spending on a new foyer and disabled access disappointed them because it didn't include new seats! Our next stage bid for development—a new smaller space (3b above) is still not aimed at upgrading comfort for audiences, but at modernising projection and flexibility of programming.

  The Distribution and Exhibition Strategy and Fund raises hopes for independent cinemas, but the assumption that "The Digital Fund" is a prior need does not recognise the problems of the single auditorium cinema:

    —  The Fund should consider securing and improving independent screen access in areas of London studded with multiplexes.

    —  Three years after the foundation of the Council, there is no agreement on an exhibition or distribution policy for the London region which might allow the disbursement of funds. We need to be informed when this policy is decided.

    —  We will not receive funding from our local authority which has not included us in its new Cultural Strategy required by Government.

  By contrast, in the recently published and highly informative bfi manual for starting an independent cinema (At a Cinema Near You: 2002) case studies reveal that the Edinburgh Filmhouse receives money from the City Council, Scottish Screen and a European source. The Watershed Bristol receives funding from South West Screen, South West Arts, the City Council and "is one of the very best cinemas in Britain". Clearly we are lagging in our capacity to attract such funding but this may be because we are a London screen. We have emphasised that in our locality we are an outpost of independence with commitment to community and diversity—but we need more help than we have received to date.

    —  we are in touch with a diverse audience for which we provide a different cinematic experience;

    —  this audience and a small group of patrons help us raise funds for the cinema;

    —  a revenue flow, not solely project based, from public funds would make us more secure and free up time to spend on programme and technical development.

Communications

    —  we have had to search out the UKFC publications for ourselves; this is unhelpful;

    —  a small independent cinema depends on good up-to-date information on policy and development—e-bulletins and inclusion on the Film Council's mailing list for documents might help;

    —  centrally organised workshops help management and trustees to benefit from opportunities to share "best practice" and network with other independent operators;

    —  we might all benefit if creators of film were better informed of the realities of distribution and exhibition in UK—is this a role for the UKFC?

Consultation:

    —  we are unaware of public consultation by the UKFC;

    —  closer consultation with practitioners will bring reciprocal benefits to the Council and the exhibitors—we feel this is self-evident;

    —  we are concerned that, for example, a recent decision to restructure the bfi Programming Unit was taken without any reference to stakeholders, current and potential;

    —  the Archive's restorations of classic films might be more widely distributed.

  If the Film Council can proceed in more consultative mode this might reduce the perceived remoteness of its operations from its public—especially those parts of the exhibition sector supportive of a lively British cinema and working hard to expand audiences open to a broader film culture than that provided by the multiplexes.

  If our contribution has been critical of the UK Film Council from the perspective of a small independent community cinema in North London this is a product of our lack of service from this public body in matters we feel to be simple; funding support, communication and consultation. The importance of this body and its regional organisation to independent cinema is impossible to over-estimate. The Council has the finance and organisation to transform access to a greater variety of film, where currently, the proliferation of multiplexes is standardising the availability of the Hollywood product and restricting choice more and more. We are one among a small minority of organisations, most in commercial chains, but some independent community cinemas, who feel passionately that our cinemas and their programmes are vital to the survival and development of appreciation of the greatest art form and entertainment of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, internationally, reflecting the diversity of our many worlds, not merely the Californian "cornucopia".

8 September 2003


 
previous page contents

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2003
Prepared 18 September 2003