Written evidence submitted by Edward Schlesinger
(arts 65)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
& INTRODUCTION
I write as an individual, an independent filmmaker,
who has lived and worked in both the United States and the United
Kingdom. I am representative of filmmakers whose work is produced
outside of mainstream broadcast and studio production systems.
The work of the Arts Council England, the UK Film Council and
Skillset have a direct impact upon my industry and changes to
public subsidy may have the following effect:
— Funding cuts may reduce access to information
on technological developments.
— Funding cuts may reduce the opportunity
for professional growth and mentorship.
— Elimination of the UK Film Council may
result in a higher barrier for UK filmmakers and producers for
entry to the global film market.
— Cuts to funding may result in reduced
access to filmmaking resources.
— Shifting from public to private funding
of the arts will likely have a negative impact on the ability
for organizations to consistently finance their operations and
for the public to access the arts.
FACTUAL INFORMATION
1) Cuts to arts organizations may result
in a decreased access to high-grade information on technological
developments in the film and television industry. Example: The
British Society of Cinematographers, with funding by SkillSet
and the UK Film Council, organized a conference for the purpose
of a side-by-side evaluation of film and digital camera systems.
The only other place in the world where a similar test has been
organized to date is in Hollywood, California. This event was
open to the public and attended by filmmakers, producers and imaging
technicians. It served to keep the film industry up-to-date, cost-effective
and competitive.
2) Cuts to funding may result in a reduction
or lack of mentoring and growth opportunities for upcoming artists
and filmmakers. Example: An event called "The Long and the
Short of It", part of the 24th BFI London Lesbian and Gay
Film Festival, where a panel of established filmmakers, producers
and film distributors took an afternoon to give guidance and speak
in small groups with upcoming LGBT filmmakers. Events such as
these help nurture and develop new talent, and keep existing talent
in London and the United Kingdom.
3) Elimination of the UK Film Council may
result in a more difficult path for filmmakers seeking to use
the UK as a base from which to enter the global market. Example:
At the 2010 Cannes Film Festival, the UK Film Council organized
a pavilion at the festival that served to attract producers from
foreign countries to shoot in the United Kingdom and to assist
producers, writers and filmmakers from the UK who were bringing
projects to Cannes. I prepared for the festival with information
published on the UK Film Council's website, I attended one of
the many workshops at the pavilion designed to assist filmmakers
at the market and used the pavilion as a resource for networking
with other filmmakers from the UK and Europe. These resources
help filmmakers from the UK operate more successfully at global
markets such as Cannes.
4) Cuts to funding may result in reduced
access to filmmaking resources. The United Kingdom has an amazing
array of resources that has helped me as an artist and filmmaker.
Spending cuts will likely reduce these opportunities. Three examples:
The Cultural Industries Development Agency, which has helped me
with business advice and support, Space Studios, an organization
that has provided low-cost access to workspace and filmmaking
technology, and Own-It, an organization that has produced events
I have attended to learn how to use and protect intellectual property.
These are just a few of the outstanding organizations that make
London a creative and intellectual hub and help the growth of
myself and other filmmakers and artists.
5) Regarding the role of businesses and
philanthropists playing a long-term role in funding the arts at
a national and local level, I have lived and worked in the United
States, where arts organizations derive a large degree of their
funding from individuals and corporations. Because funding from
the public and corporations is variable and inconsistent, arts
organizations constantly struggle to keep their doors open. I
have worked with arts organizations where, unfortunately, large
amount of time and resources have to be spent raising the money
from the public and from private foundations that let them keep
their programs running. I have seen other organizations, the kind
that currently provide services to artists here in London, forced
to close due to lack of private funding. Another cost is that
to the public: in the United States, the majority of museums and
art exhibition centres depend on public and private funding and
one way they raise money is by charging admission for entry. This
has the effect of reducing the opportunity for the public to attend.
One great thing about England's museums and art exhibition centres
is that the majority of them do not charge for admission, one
can go and spend time regardless of financial ability.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
ACTION
I urge the continuation of levels of public
funding that keep London and the United Kingdom a global creative
hub, accessible to artists and the public alike. Additionally,
prior to a shift towards depending on business and philanthropic
subsidy, I recommend further study of the effect private funding
has had on the arts in the United States.
September 2010
| 
