Memorandum submitted by MeCCSA
THE ISSUES
FACING THE
BRITISH FILM
INSTITUTE NATIONAL
LIBRARY
MeCCSA is the Media, Communication and Cultural
Studies Association is the HE subject association which represents
academics and departments researching in film, television and
related area in the UK. We present this paper as a contribution
to the current debate and to stress the crucial importance of
the collections which the British Film Institute currently manages.
INTRODUCTION
Following a strategic review in 2004, the British
Film Institute (BFI) suggested that the BFI National Library (BFINL)
might benefit financially from being brought closer to, and possibly
re-housed by, a partner in the HE sector. Following concerns expressed
by MeCCSA and others, MeCCSA was asked by the BFI to join a working
group to look at the issue of how the BFINL might benefit from
new partnerships and we welcomed that opportunity. Other parties
represented in this group were the AHRC, British Library and HEFCE.
The main issue under discussion was the feasibility of bringing
the BFINL closer to what the BFI terms its "core constituency"
in higher education. The value would be "increased access
to a key user group, bringing in new investment and allowing the
BFI to share the cost of provision" (BFI 2006:2.1).
In November 2006, after a study by the Chartered
Institute of Library and Information Professionals (CILIP), the
BFI told those in the group that they were minded to accept CILIP's
advice that a consortium of HEIs, with one as lead institution,
should be awarded a partnership to work with the BFI. This partnership
would aim to enhance the environment and experience for all Library
users, on developing learning and knowledge archive aspects and
formal learning modules, to develop joint research and publishing
projects, to develop knowledge transfer and participation projects
with HE partners and others, to add value to investment in a National
Film Archive digital hub, increase the engagement between BFI
curatorial staff and the academy, and to increase the take-up
of film as an object of study and learning tool, securing media
literacy as an essential learning skill.
The BFI's decision is a response to short-term
issues (BFI, 2006: section 4), and may involve temporary re-location
for the BFINL (BFI, 5.7). We also recognise that the BFI's rationale
for proposing this change is financial, presumably as a response
to immediate issues facing the BFINL of inadequate accommodation,
resourcing and collection care, and the recognition that the BFI
is facing cuts in real terms over the next several years, especially
in the face of other priorities (BFI, 2006:section 4).
MECCSAS
VIEWS
MeCCSA strongly welcomes the BFI's general desire
for a closer engagement with HE, and is delighted to note the
evidence that this is already happening in practice; for example
in digitisation projects and in outreach work by BFI staff in
the sector. "The BFI's role is to grow the value of specialist
film" (BFI 2006:1), and this is certainly in tune with the
HE sector's activities. However, there is a danger in confusing
this aspiration with the need to solve the problems facing the
BFINL. Solutions to these may be aligned with this desire for
partnership, but they are not the same.
The BFINL is an internationally important library
and archive of primary and secondary material documenting moving
image culture, in the same way as the British Library (BL) is
an important source for material in, say, English literature.
It is the world's largest collection of information about film
and television (National Audit Office, 2003:7), and is a major
national resource for the UK.
MeCCSA accepts that the BFI's aims for partnership
(BFI 2006:5.7) go some way towards recognising the importance
of the BFINL as a central location for film learning. However
we are concerned that the solution proposed does not help the
BFI to fulfil one of its primary objects, the establishment, care
and development of collections reflecting the moving image history
and heritage of the UK (Royal Charter, 2000 section 2). The partnership
aims noted above may be useful proposals for exploiting the collection,
but do not address the core issues facing the BFINL. These are
not just financial in terms of resource-based demands on existing
holdings and the acquisition of material retrospectively but they
concern how the nation collects, preserves and accesses different
forms of documentation on the moving image in and for the future.
With this proposal the BFI is seeking to draw in income for a
range of new activities, and to re-draw the arrangements for existing
ones, in relation to a core clientele. This is understandable,
as a short-term response to the BFI's financial problems. However,
the quid pro quo is far from straightforward, and includes the
following problematic arrangements:
1. The notion that a consortium of Higher
Education Institutions (HEIs) should partner the BFINL is based,
correctly, on the recognition that HE users account for a significant
level of use of the BFINL (5.3), and that therefore the HE funding
councils might legitimately contribute to its cost. However, the
idea of selective partnership, or of an HE partner housing the
collection, translates this use into a different set of controls
and drivers. Selected HEIs, and in particular the lead HEI, will
have disproportionate power over the direction and management
of the collections. This proposal loses sight of the BFINL as
a national resource as, say the British Library is, and positions
it as an HE resource. This is likely to prove problematic when
developing national strategies for the moving image, which necessarily
involve more than Higher Education.
2. There is also the problem of how to retrieve
the BFINL from such an arrangement, later. The plan allows for
the possibility that the proposed Film Centre may not go forward,
the implication being that this partnership could be a longer-term
backup plan. MeCCSA believes the BFINL is and should remain a
national resource, in the same way as other museums and libraries
created by and run for the nation. Coming under the wing of one
HEI is likely to lead to absorption of many activities by the
host, and thus a `temporary solution' carries with it a danger
of permanence.
3. It is clear that such an arrangement
will involve a lead partner (BFI 2006, 5.5). This effectively
returns to the original proposal of 2004, about which there was
an outcry from HEIs. Whether there is one HEI, or a lead HEI,
the net effect is that a national archival and information collection
will privilege one university over others, particularly in the
competition to attract funding and students. It is worth a considerable
amount to a host HEI, but consequently runs the risk of drawing
funding away from others. MeCCSA does not wish to see one HE institution
become the de facto single base for film culture.
4. MeCCSA does not believe that the extension
of the proposal to a consortium consisting of HEIs will necessarily
mitigate this problem and could cause further complications. Instead
it is likely to exacerbate it, as the partners seek to exploit
their association with the host HEI. The arrangement is potentially
divisive and unrepresentative. The value to members of that consortium
includes a seat at a management or advisory table; the ability
of those outside the consortium to raise issues of concern is
reduced.
5. The announcement from the BFI refers
to the probable location of the lead HEI as London (BFI, 2006
5.5). This is based on the argument that current users are mainly
London-based. However, as the current location is London, this
is hardly surprising; the argument is therefore circular and precludes
any discussion of other appropriate locations. An opportunity
to re-think what has been a long-term problem for non-London users
is therefore lost and, in effect, the announcement excludes all
except a handful of HEIs from leading a bid. MeCCSA regards this
as inequitable.
6. As a response to short-term issues (section
4), which may involve temporary re-location for the BFINL (BFI,
2006 5.7), the question of what is to be the medium- or longer-term
solution is important. MeCCSA notes that the BFI's proposals for
a new Film Centre in London are still at the feasibility stage,
and in any case we are concerned that such a centre would be operational
by the hoped-for date of 2012 MeCCSA would welcome both a clear
statement of long-term aims for the BFINL and a firm timetable
for achieving these and believes that no short-term solution should
be adopted without also adopting a clear longer-term plan for
financial stability for the BFINL.
7. It is necessary to consider also the
future development of the BFINL in a way which does not devolve
responsibility for the future to the proposed partners . . . While
the BFINL is facing pressing problems in relation to its current
activities, there are other problems of a more fundamental nature
which MeCCSA wishes to see addressed; these are indicated below.
THE FUTURE
CARE OF
THE NATION'S
MOVING IMAGE
HERITAGE
MeCCSA recognises that this is not just a simple
question of how the BFI might deal with short-term financial problems,
or how the HE sector might best partner a specialist library.
There are a number of important issues that inform and affect
this relationship, including legal deposit, copyright, storage
and access. There are issues about the core infrastructure for
a developing field, how the BFINL should fit in with library services
nationally, and whether the call by Lord Puttnam for the National
Film and Television Archive (NFTVA) to be linked more closely
to the British Library (Puttnam, 2006) also extends to the BFINL.
There are of course similar issues in relation
to HE's relationship with the NFTVA, the BFINL's sister department
within the BFI. The NFTVA has been the subject of some public
discussion in recent years, over changes in staff structure and
numbers, and policies. Both departments have at various times
over the past half-century suffered from under-funding and inadequate
resources. Both departments have acquisition and access policies
shaped in part by pragmatic responses to that lack of resource,
within the context of a voluntary rather than a legal deposit
system concerning the moving image in the UK. This has resulted,
rather paradoxically, in some world-renowned acquisitions residing
in what is overall a partial collection. Examples of this include
the recently rescued Mitchell and Kenyon collection of Edwardian
films in the NFTVA and the superb collection of papers in the
Michael Balcon collection in the BFINL. On the other hand, there
are no more than a few tens of screenplays of the silent era,
to 1930, in the possession of the BFI whereas, by contrast, French
archives hold at least 10,000 screenplays dating from 1907 to
1923.
The size and significance of the BFINL collection
has also grown in another way. As other media libraries have closed
and passed to the BFINL, such as those of the Independent TV Companies
Association (ITCA) and the Independent Television Commission (ITC),
the importance of the BFINL as a single source of documentation
has increased. Similarly, the role of the NFTVA as the repository
for material acquired on closure of film companies or as archive
for non-BBC television companies is extremely important. In addition,
the BFI has also grown a corpus of staff expertise and knowledge
in both departments that is well-known and highly respected, and
upon which much of their successful work depends. Both collections
are successful despite the obstacles, but there is no guarantee
this will be the case in the future.
It is our view that the short-term issues currently
facing the BFINL have their root in the difficulties in developing
a robust moving image heritage policy over the last century in
the UK. It is therefore important that we consider such issues
as a whole and afresh, recognising this as an opportunity to establish
a firm basis for a new system of moving image and related documentation
archives and collections, to last over this century. This may
mean a break with past practice and will certainly involve a commitment
from all partners and stakeholders in the field to work towards
an agreed goal. MeCCSA recognises the efforts of the BFI to address
these issues as well as the short-term problems and would like
to join with the BFI in promoting an open, reasoned debate about
establishing a commonly-agreed long-term strategy for acquiring,
preserving and accessing the UK's moving image heritage, both
for future material and retrospective acquisition. It is because
of this that we do not wish to see any decisions taken in the
short-term which might close off the options in such a debate.
The participation of all stakeholders in our
nation's moving image heritage in the process of (re-) formulating
these aims and timetable is crucial These stakeholders go well
beyond HEIs and include other libraries and archives such as the
British Library, the National Media Museum, the National Archives,
the BBC, ITN, the Imperial War Museum, the British Universities
Film and Video Council, the Film Archive Forum and regional film
archives, local authority libraries and museums and many small
independent collections; and users and funders such as the Department
for Media Culture and Sport, the Higher Education Funding Councils,
the Research Councils (particularly AHRC), Joint Information Systems
Committee (JISC) the Heritage Lottery Fund, MeCCSA, and individual
Universities. In addition interested bodies and parties include
the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council, the National Council
on Archives, the British Screen Advisory Council, the action group
Custodes Lucis, and Lord Puttnam.
We note the increase in public discussion about
this issue in recent years, and other recent and relevant work
such as the Gowers Review of Intellectual Property, published
on 6th December 2006, in which Andrew Gowers recognised the importance
of enabling and access to (and therefore preservation of) the
UK's cultural heritage (HM Treasury 2006:2). We are aware that
the BFI is also concerned about the long-term issues. It seems
appropriate that moving image heritage should be the subject of
a working conference to attempt the achievement of a national
consensus on moving image heritage strategy. The stakeholders
mentioned above, together with other interested participants and
international observers, should be invited to participate.
SUMMARY
MeCCSA would like to draw attention to various
concerns about the BFI's proposals for a partnership between the
BFINL and HE for the following reasons:
(i) The BFINL is being positioned as an HE
resource rather than as a national resource;
(ii) This "temporary solution"
is likely to become permanent in the absence of a clear strategy
for future development;
(iii) Having a lead HEI partner privileges
that partner in other competitions for funding and may draw funding
away from other HEIs;
(iv) Partnership in a consortium of HEIs
is not representative of the sector as a whole and and would not
solve the problems associated with a lead partner;
(v) The BFI suggestion that the probable
location of the lead HEI be London excludes a debate on London-centric
provision;
(vi) This partnership is proposed as an answer
to short-term financial problems but it impacts upon future development
of the library, about which there are no plans yet;
(vii) The long-term problems with collecting,
preserving and accessing documentation on the moving image in
the UK are not the focus of these proposals. However, this wider
picture is fundamental to the re-establishment of a sure footing
for the BFINL and its sister collection, the NFTVA.
In order to consider these matters and build
relationships, MeCCSA proposes a working conference on a national
strategy for moving image heritage to be attended by stakeholders.
References
British Film Institute (2006) Library Partnerships:
next steps. 5pp.
HM Treasury (2006) Gowers sets out intellectual
property system fit for the digital age. Press Release 06/12/06
www.hm-treasury.gov.uk accessed 12 December 2006.
National Audit Office (2003) Improving access
to, and education about, the moving image through the British
Film Institute. Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General.
HC593 2002-3 11th April 2003.
Puttnam (2006) All national archives will be
"under one roof" one day but I won't live to see it.
Archive Zones Spring 4pp.
January 2007
|
