|
|
Response
to the enquiry of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee of the House of Commons:
Is There a British Film Industry?
Response title: Developing a Sustainable Film Industry: the Role of Film Culture
Submitted by Sylvia Harvey and Margaret Dickinson, 2 March 2003
DEVELOPING A SUSTAINABLE FILM INDUSTRY: THE ROLE OF FILM CULTURE
A Response to the call for evidence on the topic 'Is There a British Film Industry?'
Sylvia
Harvey
Principal Associate Director
Margaret Dickinson
Senior Research Fellow
2 March 2003
Introduction 1. Contact:
Sylvia Harvey Margaret Dickinson Email: madickinson@lincoln.ac.uk
We welcome the decision of the Committee for Culture, Media and Sport to inquire
into various aspects of the British film industry including the performance
of the Film Council. This seems especially appropriate as the Film Council approaches
its third anniversary.
2. Our main programme of research into British film policy is scheduled to take
place during 2003-4. Consequently we are only able to offer some preliminary
and rather general comments at this time, in response to the questions being
asked by the Committee. We hope to have the opportunity of offering more substantial
comment at a later date.
Comments on Selected Questions
1. Is it important to seek to preserve a capacity to make British films about
Britain in the UK?
Yes. It has been the declared policy of British Governments since 1927 to preserve
a capacity to make British films about Britain. Feature films have a special
relationship to the representation of national identity and national culture
in all of its various and changing forms. This remains the case even in an increasingly
global, culturally hybrid and cosmopolitan world. However, for most of its history,
the British film industry has remained in the shadow of its American counterpart
with British films occupying a relatively small proportion of UK cinema screen
time, varying between approximately five per cent and twenty per cent of time.
By contrast, the UK has developed a world-class television industry, with a
wide range of fictional and factual genres successful both at home and abroad.
There have been periods when American cinema has been strikingly more innovative
and progressive than many British offerings, particularly during the 1920s and
1930s, and there have been generations of voracious film viewers who have preferred
these imported images to the sometimes old-fashioned and socially conservative
home-grown variety. It is in part as a consequence of this history that it has
been difficult for sharp and innovative British work to reach its home audience.
Other factors impeding the development of a UK industry have been:
Film in the English Regions
The Film Council's devolutionary policies and, in particular, its Regional Investment
Fund for England are to be welcomed. However, there are a number of emerging issues
that should be noted and addressed if we are to achieve best value in the use
of public resources. We list some of these emerging issues here:
2. What should the relationship be between British broadcasters and the film
industry?
During the 1980s Channel Four successfully demonstrated that the risks of investing
in feature film production could bring great rewards both culturally and, to some
extent, economically. It established a model for the low to medium budget feature
film that reflected many of the under-represented realities of life in Britain,
tackled new subjects, sparkled with visual delights and attracted new audiences
to the medium of cinema, permitting the films a decent window of theatrical opportunity
prior to television screening.
More recently British broadcasters and the Film Council itself have shown an unwillingness
to support the theatrical premier and that window of opportunity in cinemas that
can, in fact, also build audiences for subsequent television screenings (two recent
examples of this are Bloody Sunday and Tomorrow La Scala).
In addition, and with regard to the availability of the best of world cinema for
UK audiences, the increasing reluctance of UK broadcasters to shown foreign language
films has undermined the economics of foreign language film distribution more
generally. As a result those UK cinemas that seek to provide greater choice to
audiences have found it difficult to obtain good foreign films. It is important
here to recognise that the building of a lively, pluralistic and international
film culture can also provide a positive environment for showcasing the best of
British work.
3. Does the film industry merit support from Government, if so, how can existing
support be improved?
We believe that the film industry does merit support from Government and that
this support must extend to the creation of an exhibition infrastructure that
satisfies and builds audiences through the development of a vigorous, international
and pluralistic film culture.
We would prefer to reserve any comments on the specific mechanisms of support
until we have been able to conduct further research on this.
4. How can the production, distribution and exhibition of British films be
improved in the UK? Is the right balance being struck between these elements of
the industry?
In general, we feel that the role of distribution and exhibition in 'getting the
product to market' has been given insufficient attention and that the cultural
and educational factors involved in building audiences for UK and international
cinema require fuller consideration. There have been times when there has been
more interest in, and a wider availability of British films in the major cities
of other countries (for example, in Paris) than in Britain. This strange imbalance
clearly needs to be addressed.
However, we would prefer to reserve our comments on the specific mechanisms (and
inter-relationships) of production, distribution and exhibition until we have
been able to conduct further research.
5. How effectively has the Film Council contributed to a sustainable film industry
since 2000? Does the Council have the right strategy and approach?
We do not feel able to make judgements on this question at this point and believe
that, in particular, some detailed consideration of the Film Council's strategy
for investment in film production is required. However, we feel it is important
to acknowledge the valuable actions of the Government in establishing an agency
and allocating resources to sustain the film industry and to develop film
culture and education.
The Role of the British Film Institute
We have some concerns about the role of the British Film Institute and its relationship
to the Film Council. The BFI was founded in 1932 and is one of the premier international
institutions concerned with the study and promotion of film. The BFI holds one
of the finest film archives and one of the best library collections on this subject
in the world.
However, we feel that there are two problems here. Firstly we have a sense that
the new Film Council has been unsure of its relationship with the older body and
has at times (perhaps unintentionally) begun to treat it as a kind of unwanted
elder sister. The BFI has been relatively well-supported, financially, but in
a wider sense it has been 'starved of oxygen' by the newcomer, and the benefits
of its cultural and educational remit appear not to have fed back into the Film
Council. We also feel that this has been matched by a period of 'policy drift'
at the BFI where services seem to have become too much focused on London and the
Institute's wider national and regional remit has been weakened. We think that
the BFI should not become the 'London Film Institute' and that it still
has a considerable public interest role to fulfil throughout the country. With
the right leadership, and with appropriate support from the Film Council, the
BFI has the capacity to build on its considerable international reputation and
to make a significant contribution to film culture, film exhibition, film archiving
and film education throughout the United Kingdom.
6. What has the Council contributed to education about, and access to, the moving
image? What should the Council do with the BFI and the Museum of the Moving Image?
The Film Council was charged with responsibility for the development of the film
industry and also film culture. However, it may have under-estimated the role
that the British Film Institute can play in this wider process (as indicated above).
There may also be some scope for reviewing the decision to remove the BFI's responsibility
for experimental film funding. In general, and on the basis of a review of the
significant changes that have taken place over the last three years, the Film
Council should clarify the remit of the BFI and confirm its support for the UK-wide
activities of the Institute.
In the exhibition sector the Film Council seems to have been unable to make any
significant impact, and there seems to have been little or no improvement in the
range of films available to the British public in different parts of the UK. It
appears still to be the case that there is a significantly wider choice for film-goers
in, for example, Belgium or France than in the UK.
The original concept for the Museum of the Moving Image made a bold contribution
to the range of facilities available in London to UK and foreign visitors. However,
the Museum proved to be an extremely costly venture and one that required higher
levels of grant-aid than appeared to be available. In particular the work of renewing
the exhibits was probably under-costed in the original plans. Along with the IMAX
facility, MOMI should no longer be regarded as a priority for the BFI or Film
Council, unless significant new sources of heritage support can be identified.
Professor of Broadcasting Policy
Principal Associate Director
AHRB Centre for British Film and Television Studies
Faculty of Media and Humanities
University of Lincoln
Brayford Pool
Lincoln LN6 7TS
Tel: 01522 886431
Email: sharvey@lincoln.ac.uk
Senior Research Fellow
