Film
What's on at the cinema plus reviews of the latest movie and DVD releases
Bookmark this page
The UK Film Council is dead. Let's give the British Film Institute a chance
The closure of the public body which put money into films like 'Hunger' and 'In the Loop' is a sad thing. But might this be an exciting new time for British cinema, asks Dave Calhoun?
Ten years ago, the then Culture Secretary Chris Smith gave birth to the UK Film Council, a body designed to boost homegrown film-making by investing Lottery and public money in British talent. Some of the strongest films in which the UKFC invested were ‘Vera Drake’, ‘Hunger’, ‘In the Loop’ and ‘Man on Wire’, and with less fanfare the UKFC has done good work to help the release of smaller films by funding extra posters and prints, as well as spearheading the switch to digital projection. Then, last week, Tory Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt pulled the plug on the show. The move came without ‘any real discussion’, according to UKFC chief John Woodward, and even its critics agreed it wasn’t much of a tenth birthday gift. As I write, Facebook, Twitter, an online petition and the letters page of The Guardian are alive with calls to save the UKFC.Without doubt, the end of the UKFC is a blow, and directors like Mike Leigh and Mike Figgis have understandably spoken out against the move, not least because it creates huge uncertainty at a tough time. But should we run along uncritically with all this surprise and shock? The end of the UKFC is being portrayed as Tory axe-wielding, but the truth is, firstly, that the trouble started under Labour and, secondly, that a new approach to how and where we spend public money on film could be a good thing for British cinema.
To understand last week’s move, you need to know that last August Labour culture minister Sion Simon proposed a merger of the UKFC with the British Film Institute, the country’s other big film body, which manages the National Film Archive, runs BFI Southbank and organises the London Film Festival. The plan was to cut costs and prevent overlap. It’s now clear that the Tory solution is to run away with Labour’s plans by getting rid of one body entirely – and the UKFC was always more vulnerable. The UKFC was a New Labour quango and the sort of bureaucracy for which the Tories have been sharpening their knives for ages. Moreover, the BFI is a charity, protected by royal charter – it can’t be dismantled. Even more importantly, the BFI is a cultural body; too many of the UKFC’s activities existed to help the industry turn a greater profit – is that really the job of money designated to promote culture? Neither did it help the UKFC’s cause that so many of its execs were on high salaries compared to those doing similar jobs at the BFI. It looked bad.
Behind closed doors, the BFI and its canny chairman Greg Dyke will be thrilled. Not only have Dyke and his colleagues fended off talk of a merger but they find themselves back in the pre-2000 position of being funded by government rather than in the pay of the UKFC, an organisation too often embarrassed to treat film as culture. In the end, that was Chris Smith’s biggest mistake: to subjugate the BFI, a cultural body, to the UKFC, a trade one. That mistake has been corrected.
Yet this is no time for dancing on tables. Whatever its faults, the UKFC performed a crucial role in developing and producing British films. There has been wild talk about the UKFC only producing box-office disasters like ‘Sex Lives of the Potato Men’ or big films in no need of support. Neither is true. Filmmakers like Andrea Arnold and Steve McQueen needed government help and received it from the UKFC. It’s these filmmakers we should now be most concerned about.
However, let’s not call time on British independent film just yet. The Tories’ announcement last week suggested that the money given to film by the UKFC – £15m a year – is safe (even if the exact figure is not clear). The big question is: who will dish it out? Will the BFI be asked to manage a production fund, as it did pre-2000, producing films like ‘Under the Skin’, ‘Gallivant’ and ‘Love is the Devil’ ? Will the Arts Council assume a role? Or will a new body be established, with key roles for BBC Films and Film Four?
I think the most exciting – and daring – result would be for the BFI to take on the most essential of the UKFC’s work – meaning that a cultural body would be putting money into film as culture. But at the same time we must redefine what needs support. If the demise of the UKFC means that films on the level of ‘The Constant Gardener’, ‘Bend It Like Beckham’, ‘Gosford Park’ and ‘Girl With a Pearl Earring’ – all of which received UKFC help – have to go without, so be it. With its archive and twin focus on heritage and education, the BFI celebrates film as an art form, a principle that should apply to future funding. Our culture needs raw visions, new talent, difficult stories. We need to take risks. We need to be prepared to put money into films that might not make a single penny but which nurture and develop both talent and audiences and which progress British cinema rather than just repeating past successes and chasing foreign awards. Let’s ask ourselves why we give public money to film. Is it to provide support to an art form? Or is it to provide extra capital to an industry? I’d argue that it’s the former – and no organisation is better placed to honour that approach than the BFI.
Author: Dave Calhoun
User comments on this story
-
- query said...
- will the latest money making film(s) now reund the grants from the national lottery funds Posted on Jan 31 2011 18:49
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Robin Jacob said...
-
The recent news of the intended demise of the UK Film Council is well overdue. It is an ineffectual organization populated by, with the exception of Tim Bevin (recent recruit) clueless individuals earning ridiculous sums of money. Now there are some that will herald a few successes as champions of the UK film industry but the successes are too few and far in-between to make any difference to the industry.
The question now arises what will replace it, what will the replacement organization contribute to the British Film Industry, which to frank is and has been in a shambles for decades.
Again, too many focus on one aspect of the industry and do not wish or have the capacity to grasp the BIG PICTURE. The core problem in the UK is the attitude of banks, hedge funds, financial institutions, etc towards film investment; they regard the film industry as a losing proposition, and quite honestly have little or no real experience in it. So when they do get involved they behave in the time honoured fashion of screwing the film makers, and attaching themselves to the perceived industry leaders who are as much responsible for the demise of the UK film industry as the banks, government and talent agents.
A new approach is needed, one that acknowledges the need for government assistance, especially at the early stage of development, script, budgeting, locations, etc. and the involvement of the private sector or ‘High Net Worth Individual’ as the source of major funding. What shape would the government entity take and who would run it? Well, ‘Film UK’ would be an appropriate title; it should be run by film makers with good legal and accounting support. Where would its funding come from? At the moment the lottery fund is the main source however, I would propose that ‘bums on seats’ should be the main funding source. A percentage of all income from Theatre ticket sales should go to Film UK. VAT is currently at 17.5%, 5% should go to the Film UK, 12.5% to the government. In 2008 theatre income was £850M, the 5% Vat would mean approximately £36M in funding. A similar approach for DVDs would contribute another £62M to the coffers.
The total available would be £98M P/A on average. A similar approach to other delivery formats might net another £30-40M. (I believe the Lottery money should go to other causes, medical research, etc.)
The question is then just how many people do you need to run Film UK approximately 10 experienced professionals plus legal & accounting and no one gets a salary of more than £80K P/A.
The second phase of the new approach is to create an environment where investors can garner tax relief on their investment in a feature movie. This involves the co-operation of Companies House and HMRC. A new classification of company should be installed, ‘Film Public Limited Company’. It is only for films or documentaries of no less than 80 minutes in length. The minimum capitalization should be £10K and the shares should be split into two entities - foundation shares, ‘A’ shares belonging to the owners of the intellectual copyright of the film and ‘B’ shares, the investors. B share investors would be able to get 30% tax break on all money invested in a film project (minimum buy in £1,000) on the year of investment. If they sell the shares within 3 years they would pay capital gains on any profit made. No capital gains to pay if they sold the shares after 3 years. Companies’ house would issue a special film company number and HMRC would issue their own special tax number showing that any investor buying shares in the company can claim tax back in the appropriate year. Once all funds have been raised the project is closed to funding and on completion HMRC must receive audited accounts, DVD of the finished project, etc. There should be no limit on how many or how much an investor can put into a film(s) projects.
The combination of increased funding available for development through the Film UK and the opportunity for investors to garner a tax relief on investment would increase the number of film projects undertaken but moreover it would give the film maker the control of the funding and take it away from certain film funds that have abused the tax system, screwed a number of HNWI and most of all screwed the film makers who have often had to give away the rights to the product just to get it made.
The added bonus is that if you shoot in the UK there is a UK VAT tax rebate on all UK spend be it talent, location, etc. This incentive should remain in place.
The real idea here is to generate more UK made movies, which in turn gives the UK more films to sell overseas where the real money is. It will generate employment, encourage young and first time film makers, hopefully also allow more on the job training and create more tax payers. Posted on Sep 15 2010 12:11 - Report as inappropriate
-
- Christie said...
- The distinction between funds raised through taxation and funds raised by the lottery is crucial. The latter MUST go to 'good causes', such as the Arts - and Film is the great twentieth century art form. It should continue to be supported by lottery funds. This the coalition governments affirmed - but that was about all it affirmed. The rest was left uncertain, which was crass and negligent on their part, and damaging to confidence in the industry. I think we can all agree here that, additionally, the government should maintain and develop initiatives, such as tax breaks, to stimulate film production in the UK. When they'll get around to it, I don't know. Posted on Aug 04 2010 17:15
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Nova Invicta said...
- Lottery money IS public money that's why politicians decide where and how it gets divided up. Once inside the organisations it's destined for they decide how it is spent but it's completely accountable as it's still public money so technically it's different to taxes but still handled by the public purse. Posted on Aug 04 2010 00:26
- Report as inappropriate
-
- JayV said...
- Here, here. Mr Calhoun. One point, which someone else picked up on: the money is not 'public' in the sense that it came via the Government from taxpayers. It comes from the National Lottery - which was set up to permit a scaling back of Government investment in, among other things, the Arts. Posted on Aug 03 2010 23:47
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Christie said...
- No, Mr Invicta, I didn't think that for one minute. ~ If the tax concessions remain, some body or other will have to administer the cultural test - although I'd love to see the test itself reformed to allow for easier co-production, especially within the EU. ~ Nevertheless, Lottery FUNDS should be used to further artistic achievement in British film - and this does require a certain amount of commercial success, of course - bring it on! - but it's also about education and distribution. ~ Regarding distribution, the UKFC betrayed UK independent filmmakers in its management of the hugely promising Digital Screen Network. For this reason, I am not mourning its demise. Posted on Aug 03 2010 23:37
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Nova Invicta said...
- The UK Film Council administer the cultural test which provides the certification for tax concessions for inward investment films. Lottery funding is quite separate and is primarily for UK independent production. The government however DO expect a return on lottery investment whether the former Labour government or the new colilition government. Film is a collaborative enterprise but if you think for one minute the majority of producers, directors etc are making films as art without wanting commercial success you are sadly wrong. Success both critical and financial opens doors to further opportunities for the creatives to express themselves, critical acclaim only makes that much harder. On a final point on this Chistopher Nolan can create an artistic thought provoking film like Inception because of the success of the Batman films he did, if they had failed it would have been harder to convince the studios to do Inception. Posted on Aug 03 2010 21:57
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Christie said...
- Let's get this straight. The funds the UKFC was set up to disburse came from the Lottery and NOT the taxpayer/government. Lottery funds are intended to promote good causes, including those of culture, and NOT to prop up an 'industry'. If film is only to be understood as a business, then it has no claim on Lottery money whatsoever. However, film patently is an artform, albeit a commercial, collaborative one, which employs thousands of people. Posted on Aug 03 2010 15:01
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Nova Invicta said...
- Rose if you re-read my email your note I was not advocating retaining the UK Film Council so bt default John Woodward would lose his job. My complaint is about government medling in the film industry and peoples livelyhoods if that philistine (i.e. these people have families and mortgages just like everyone else) then so be it the UK unlike the US treats film as art not a business thats why the US control the industry. Indecision is the death of a business and Jeremy Hunt & Ed Vaizey has effectively created indecision by not making annoucements about where the roles of the UKFC will be transferred to. I have been in this business for 35 years its always politicians that mess it up! Posted on Aug 01 2010 19:46
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Craig said...
- I think someone has already mentioned, film is a business and should be treated as such. I think this shows the short sightedness of our government, this isn't a question of art against business, this is a question of jobs and prosperity in the future, close to a billion pounds has been taken on film this year which is a good return for £15million and 75 salaries at the UKFC. To answer your question, the BFI had their chance which from my memory produced very mediocre results. Posted on Aug 01 2010 19:32
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Rose said...
- Nova Invicta: what absolute nonsense! John Woodward (chief exec of the Film Council) was director of the BFI just before the FC was created. He set about systematically destroying the BFI as he prepared to switch roles. He closed down the Museum of Moving Images, cut the archive staff by half and took key aspects of the BFI's work away with him to the UKFC. And all without consulting any of the BFI staff. The BFI's 'previous record' had nothing to do with it. It was all about undermining a 'cultural' institution and re-investing in 'industry'. Philistinism through and through. Posted on Aug 01 2010 10:18
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Nova Invicta said...
- Well Gary I maybe a bit of a moaner but when government makes decisions without consulting with the industry it affects and alarms it's largest foreign customers then you know it's a bad decision. I'm not advocating retaining the UK Film Council but the BFI is a poor choice for the industry it's previous record was one of the reasons the UK Film Council was set up. Politicians and jourrnalists don't work in the film industry, I do and have over 100 people I'm responsible for who bring foriegn earnings into the UK and as a result we subsidise UK producers with cheaper rates these are facts not emotions. Posted on Jul 31 2010 21:33
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Billy Wiz said...
- Bless you Dave x Posted on Jul 30 2010 19:06
- Report as inappropriate
-
- will said...
- the ukfc are funding kill list actually. do some research. Posted on Jul 30 2010 15:36
- Report as inappropriate
-
- Gary Thomas said...
- The best article I've read on this. And Nova invicta is a bit of a moron. Posted on Jul 30 2010 08:33
- Report as inappropriate
Most popular on this site
Top Stories
The 10 worst date movies
Just in time for Valentine's Day, we present ten of the least romantic films ever made
Where to watch this year's Oscar-nominated films
Find out where to watch 2012's Oscar-nominated films in London cinemas
10 unlikely badboy biopics
Featuring Phil Collins, Jeremy Clarkson, Nick Clegg, David Starkey and a host of other unlikely subjects
Interview: Sean Durkin on 'Martha Marcy May Marlene'
The first-time director of the brilliant new thriller discusses religious cults and robot boxing
Has David Cronenberg turned tame?
Has director David Cronenberg veered too far from his radical and bloody roots with new film 'A Dangerous Method'?
Pop-up cinema for Valentine's Day
Side-step romantic clichés with some alternative Valentine’s viewing
What do you think?
Post your comment now