Response
to the UK Film Council's consultation document: Three Years On.
Submitted by Sylvia Harvey and Margaret Dickinson, 20 February, 2004
THREE YEARS ON
Response to the UK Film Council from the University of Lincoln, AHRB Centre
for British Film and Television Studies
Sylvia
Harvey
Principal Associate Director
Margaret Dickinson
Senior Research Fellow
20 February 2004
Advocacy: 1. In a short time the UK Film Council has established a strong presence in
relation to the feature film business and the Government. We think it has been
most effective in making an economic case to the Government for supporting British
film production and the development of related infrastructure and skills base.
It has also argued that film has value in a wider context but up to now we find
this has been less precisely and less forcefully stated. 2. We think a list of national priorities for film should include archiving
and film-related scholarship. We recognise that the UK Film Council may regard
these as BFI responsibilities and for this reason does not refer to them. 3. We welcome the work of the Research and Statistics Unit and have not yet
fully examined the information available. Our assessment so far is that more
data on regional output would be helpful and more detailed research tracking
films through distribution with an emphasis on films with poor records. 4. BECTU, rather surprisingly, is not mentioned. As the main representative
organisation of the workforce in all sectors of the industry we think closer
cooperation with BECTU would improve opportunities both for research and the
dissemination of information. In relation to the nations and regions we would
suggest closer working with Local Authorities, Regional Arts Councils and Regional
Cultural Forums. Closer cooperation could extend the reach of the Regional Screen
Agencies and make for better integration within their regions. 5. Establishing the right relationship with the BFI will be the key to the
success of long- term policy objectives. The Film Council should value the critical,
analytic function of the BFI and make this one of the main criteria in defining
a division of responsibility between the Council and the BFI. The importance
of the BFI as a national institution would be diminished if its role were to
be defined as narrowly educational or in terms of an artificial divide between
film as commerce and film as culture. The BFI provides important services to
education, to the public and to film professionals but it is able to do this
because it is more than a service provider. While an important part of the BFI's
work will be to develop and make more accessible resources such as its library
and information service and the National Film and Television Archive, such tasks
should be integrated with the role of supporting and participating in scholarship,
public debate, and experimentation. In order to perform effectively the BFI needs a considerable degree of autonomy
and needs to be seen as independent from direct government influence. Its relative
autonomy is important firstly, in the interests of pluralism and secondly, because
we live in a fast changing environment in which it is not easy to predict commercial,
political or social developments. In order to respond to the possible challenges
of the future it is necessary to support a very wide range of research, comment
and experimentation some of which may seem now of little practical relevance
and some may not be entirely in tune with the wisdom of the present. 6. We have not seen the proposed revised treaties and as the report does not
include this information we reserve comment. 7. At present we can only comment on one aspect. It is our experience that
France, Germany and the USA have cultural agencies which provide far more support
for foreign audiences and film-makers who wish to see films in addition to those
on current release in their countries, or to develop contacts with national
film-makers, critics, film historians. We appreciate that it is the British
Council rather than the UK Film Council which has the relevant responsibility
in these areas but we would suggest that the UK Film Council might be able to
offer more support and advice in this work. 8. At present we do not have enough information to comment usefully. 9. At present we have no comment other than referring to our point under 7.
Raising the profile of British film in a cultural context seems likely to create
or increase an audience for current British releases. 10. We are concerned that there appears to be no plan to promote artistic diversity
or diversity of content. We also find the use of the word 'diversity' in Council
publications problematic because its meaning seems to be narrowed to refer only
to ethnic, gender or age divisions within a population. By contrast, successive
Broadcasting Acts have used the word primarily with reference to generic variety
of programme content. We find that in the context of the media the general public
also assume the reference is to content unless otherwise indicated. A certain confusion therefore results from the terminology as it seems to elide
two quite separate issues, one essentially related to equal opportunities -
whether there are groups in the population under-represented in audiences and
production teams; the other related to issues of choice and creative expression
which affect all audiences and creative workers. The distinction is important
not only in terms of developing policies for promoting diversity of content
but also for addressing the issues of equal opportunity adequately. Since there
is a de facto division between mainstream cinema and forms of cinema described
as 'specialist' in UK Film Council documents it is important to consider inclusion
in both areas. For example it may be noted that the under-representation of
women at senior levels in the workforce appears to be greater in mainstream
production than in 'specialist' production. 11. We think low-income groups may be missing out on what the UK Film Council
has to offer. We recognise that there are references to the problems, for example
of the children of low-income parents obtaining media training and entry to
the industry, but they are mostly in the context of the exclusion of ethnic
minorities. We think it important to separate the two issues. Otherwise there
is a danger firstly, that low-income people from the majority community might
justly complain of discrimination, secondly that if there are reasons other
than economic ones explaining why minorities are under represented, those problems
can be more effectively addressed if isolated from the more general question
of low income. We think also that people in the regions and nations may still
be under-served. Although we welcome the Council's regional strategy we think
it may not be adequate given firstly, the long history of London-centred cinema
culture and secondly, the recent and continuing reduction of television production
in the regions which previously provided important training and work opportunities.
12. This is partly covered by our comments on partners above. In addition we suggest that a better regulation of internships would help all
low-income people seeking entry to the industry. While internships are potentially
an excellent adjunct to education and training, at present many so-called internships
are grossly exploitative. One example will suffice. We found that one of the
major, well known feature producing companies was using interns who were not
shadowing paid employees but were doing, unpaid, essential work, expected to
work many evenings and some weekends and on an open ended arrangement rather
than for a fixed term. The work did provide good experience and some eventually
were offered paid jobs but our point is that if it is necessary to 'buy' a job
by donating many months of more than full time labour this will tend to exclude
people who do not have their own money or parents in a position to support them.
13. We think that this is more the BFI's area of responsibility or should be
carried out by a variety of organisations, particularly local ones, funded through
the Council. We are not in a position to comment about the adequacy of work
currently being done. 14.The strategy is achievable. We have reservations as to how appropriate it
is. We see a case for more synergies with HEFCE funded courses and wonder if
the proposal was based on adequate analysis of existing provision either of
conventional undergraduate and post-graduate courses or continuing professional
development. 15. The Film Council should continue to research digital technologies and where
appropriate provide funds to assist in their purchase both for cinemas and non-traditional
exhibition venues. We think a capital strategy for independent cinemas is also
a high priority. While we support the commitment to working with the circuits
and multiplexes to encourage them to show more varied product, we do not think
the Council should provide them with public funds for the installation of digital
projection. Past experience suggests that the central management of such venues
will be a bar to any real involvement by local communities in programming or
use of facilities. 16. We are concerned that there is very little support for films which intentionally
differ from the kind backed by the Premiere fund. We suggest that a fund should
be set up to do this. It should be separate from the other funds and should
be able to support development, production and promotion. Our thinking here
is that although the brief of the New Cinema Fund includes 'creativity and innovation',
it seems to interpret these fairly narrowly. So far it seems willing to support
on the one hand, feature films which are cheaper and more British but not radically
different from those supported by the Premiere fund and on the other, shorts
made by young, often first time directors whose longer term aim is to make conventional
feature films. We think there is also a case to support film-makers who want
to develop different cinema strategies over the long term. Such film-makers
can achieve a high profile and reach significant audiences. Examples are as
diverse as Derek Jarman, the Dogme group and Nicolas Philibert (Etre et Avoir).
There are influential film-makers who continue through their lives to move backwards
and forwards between cinema fiction, documentary and more experimental forms.
Godard and Agnes Varda would be examples. The UK has never provided much support
or encouragement for film-makers who do not settle down in the mainstream. To
provide such support is difficult because, by definition, there are no rules
to follow. The BFI Production Board attempted to do the job and although its
work was criticised from all sides it did launch the careers of, among others,
Mike Leigh and Peter Greenaway, two of the few British film-makers whom foreign
cinema-goers are likely to have heard of; and compared to other film funding
sources of the time, it gave better opportunities to women (e.g. Sally Potter)
and black filmmakers (e.g. Menelik Shebazz). We are not suggesting that a new
fund should be like the Production Board but it should be structured differently
from the New Cinema Fund and in a way which permits a more pluralist approach.
17. The Council provides a great deal of information but it would be helpful
if there was a regularly updated document which brought together key information
including a list of board members and all senior staff, and of funding opportunities;
in addition or linked with this, short newsletters could be useful providing
very brief summaries of recent reports and information on current consultations.
There should be hard copy versions which could be supplied to the RSAs and major
public libraries. 18. We think the Council could improve by developing better human networks
in the regions, through contacts mentioned under 4 and could make more use of
established local information centres like public libraries. We recognise that
the UK Film Council has tried to consult widely. However in our view the pattern
has involved rather too many public consultations launched with insufficient
publicity and sometimes allowing insufficient time to respond. 19.We have not yet done work relevant to this. 20. The Council could use the human networks and information centres mentioned
under 18. Contact:
Sylvia Harvey Margaret Dickinson Email: madickinson@lincoln.ac.uk
Partnerships:
Economy:
Diversity and inclusion:
Excellence and innovation:
Openness:
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