Independent British Film – Perhaps the most shocking statistic of all.

These are not glorious times for the British Film Industry. That was the narrowly reached verdict of a debate chaired by Stewart Till at London’s Goldsmith College on 3 February.
During the debate Screen International reported that Paul Trijbits, who for several years was Head of the UKFC’s New Cinema Fund, cited a recent study by Oxford Economics which found that the total value of film to the UK economy was £4.5bn, but of that, independent British films only represent 1.3%.
There you have it. That’s just how bad things are for UK independent film-makers: 1.3%. That’s just how much of an American cultural colony we are. In fact it wouldn’t surprise me if even French films have a bigger share than we do.
Oh yes – in France 10% of the turnover of every single broadcaster has to be spent on French film production and film acquisition.

British filmmaking heads towards the sunset

Recently ScreenDaily.com hosted a round-table discussion about the state of British independent film production. The participants were all leading producers whose credits ranged from “Made in Dagenham” to “Fish Tank” and “Adulthood”.
To save time, here’s a summary of the key points:

*The UK tax-credit is designed to help the industrialised film business – the studio system. On a budget of $100m, they can take $20m out of the UK. And Britain has been effectively cut-off from European filmmaking ever since the Tories took Britain out of Eurimages – the EU co-production funding system – in 1996.

(note: The UK joined Eurimages in April 1993. The number of films awarded Eurimages funding and involving UK co-production companies was 12 in 1993, 21 in 1994 and 22 in 1995, and the total amounts awarded were £2.66 million, £5.45 million and £6.138 respectively; this being about three times what the government had contributed to the fund.)

*Everyone is suffering. Today no one is promoting independent cinema on the world stage, as Miramax did, and so it’s very hard to make any deals with US producers.

*The English language could be a disadvantage. France, Italy, Spain and Japan are protected by their language (and quotas – JW) but our cinema is so dominated by industrialised product that we don’t even have a chance.

*Digital screens put in by the UK Film Council at large expense, have been of no benefit to British filmmakers.

*The handful of established production companies (and directors) will continue to stagger along; but it’s a handful of people who are getting older and older. No younger and more innovative people seem to be managing to break into the industry; and without major changes it’s hard to see how they can.

Shameful facts hidden in the UK Film Council’s Statistical Report 2009

The UK Film Council has just published its Statistical Yearbook for 2009. In order to save you from the hassle of wading through its obfuscatory pages, here’s some of the key data – from which you’ll get some idea of just how foreign dominated the UK market is

Ten distributors had 92.2% of the UK market – slightly down on last year. Of these one is French (Pathe) and one English (Entertainment). Almost all of Entertainment’s films involved their acquiring UK rights from major US distributors – Warners, Universal, and New Line in particular.

All together these ten companies had a total box office gross of £1billion (near as makes no difference). The other eighty-three (yes, 83) distributors shared £83.5 million.

Nine of the ‘other 83 companies’ were the largest distributors of foreign (i.e. non-English language – funny how ‘American’ is not classed as ‘foreign’) films, distributing between them a total of 62 films with a combined box-office gross of £17.2million. Foreign-language films are particularly attractive as, if of EU origin, they are heavily subsidised.

Of course foreign films featured widely in the portfolios of other distributors as well, but the UKFC doesn’t bother trying to give a clear picture (of anything, really); however it would be safe to assume at least £20million+ (i.e.25% of what the ‘other 83’ share).

This would appear to suggest that approximately 75 distributors had a bit less than 5% of the box office – a total of about £60 million gross. Subtract from that both what the cinema owners take and the distributors’ prints and advertising costs and you’re left with a net of, what? Less than £20million? And don’t forget, that’s not from 75 films, but from the total portfolios of 75 companies.

From all this it’s clear that, if your film wasn’t acquired by one of the American majors (or Pathe) the chances of it grossing even £100,000 (and you therefore seeing maybe £10,000) at the box office are remote.

But what we really want to know is, how much do films make on that all important DVD market? The UKFC provides us with virtually no data at all on this. All they do tell us is that a film with a box of gross of £100,000 would sell, on average, 20,000 copies – from which the filmmaker might see £50,000

The UKFC provides no data on the straight to DVD market – even though that’s where most UK films go. Nor do they provide any data for revenues from TV sales or any other markets. But it is safe to say that it must be really, really hard for a filmmaker to net just £100,000 – and that’s the measure of just how American dominated our film market is.

How many Business Link Advisers does it take to change a Light bulb?

Friday 18 December and I’m down to attend Northwest Business Link’s seminar ‘Innovation in Arts And Media’ at ‘The Sandbox – University of Central Lancashire’.

I drive over, road conditions are not good and there is nowhere to park – but because of the snow and the slippery pavements I doubt I’ll get a ticket on a side street nearby.

The ‘Sandbox’ is located on the top floor of UCLAN’s new media building. And what a building it is! I doubt if many of the students will get to work in an environment like this when they graduate (let alone get a job in the media either). It all makes me think. “Is this a vision of the future, or is this what you have to spend in order to attract enough students and enough research grants to Preston in order to pay media staff salaries?”

I arrive a bit late. Not to worry, as it appears to be the case that us ‘arts and media’ people are probably outnumbered by Business Link Advisers. Whilst hanging around drinking coffee waiting to see if any more turn up, I find myself in conversation with Yusuf Musa, who’s the ‘Digital and Creative Adviser’. Now it might be the case that he could advise me as to who might be a decent firm of accountants – and I am not knocking the guy – but he has no idea about the UK film industry.

Actually it’s worse than no idea, he’s just another person who’s part of this enormous chain which stretches from the European Regional Development Fund and central government, to Regional Development Agencies, to ‘Business Links’, to whatever else it is that’s housed in shiny new offices with the resources to go on ‘fact-finding missions’, to hire fancy conference centres, to lay on excellent buffets, to provide ‘networking opportunities’, and to have a head full of  Film Council/New Labour New Speak. Happy shiny people….

Various people made short presentations with no particular common link. Head of the ‘Sandbox’ – a media-lab which uses play-based methods: Lego, an inflatable Wendy house, adult-sized primary school furniture in happy shiny colours – showed off their amazing software a told us about how they sold their creative solutions brain-storming services to some of the country’s biggest clients, and how they were going to be setting up a branch in Singapore. He then quite rightly left the room and went back to his office; I mean, the Sandbox is for people for whom £100,000 fees represents value for money.

I hung around for a while eating a few canapés and left. Fortunately no one had left a ticket on my frosted windscreen.

But I can’t leave it at that. These organisations exist. And at least the business ones have an orientation towards business. What I think needs to happen is for us: the region’s filmmakers, short film night organisers and film festival programmers, to organise a seminar where we invite the Business Link staff to come and tell us what they can do for us. We need somewhere we can afford (i.e. for free); and where people can either bring sandwiches or get food from the bar.

Here’s what I’d have as the theme: Denmark has the same size population as the Northwest of England, but it’s never had anything like Manchester United, Liverpool, the Beatles and so on, and so it doesn’t command the same degree of global awareness. Denmark produces approximately 20 £2million+ budget feature films per year of which most are box-office successes. Why then doesn’t the Northwest? What steps need to be taken and how can Business Link contribute?

Steve Perrin to lead UK’s Digital Funding Group – Screen Daily headline today

Ah yes, Steve Perrin, the man who was centrally involved in the UKFC’s lottery funded ‘Digital Screens Network’ which handed out a £multi-million susidy, most of it to the US studio owned exhibition chains, which was sold as the creation of a network which would benefit foreign (not American – isn’t amazing how people don’t think that those are foreign…) non-mainstream UK independent and classic films.
The one part of this deal which was delivered was the 3D projectors that Hollywood would have paid for if the British weren’t such total mugs. The fact that Perrin used to work for Warner Bros before robbing lottery players pockets on their behalf comes as no surprise.
All that the specialist filmmakers and distributors got out of all this was a very bad taste in the mouth.

What’s the point of making derivative genre films?

My good friend Jenny Inchbald, of Asha Media, Manchester, pointed out to me that the US multiplex monopoly means that the Arthouse circuit represents the only theatrtical opportunity for independent British films. Unfortunately the UK Film Council adopted the line that the British filmakings failure was due to the failure to make multiplex fare. The result has been an endless parade of derivative genre films made on a tenth of their US equivalents’ budgets which, despite often being no worse than the dross they aim to copy, fail to secure any form of widespread release.
But it has also resulted in the UK Film Council losing increasing amounts of money as this ‘dumbing down’ strategy backfires and blows up in their face.
What’s more by being mainstream they have no arthouse appeal, will never make it on to anyone’s ‘must see list’, and are not attractive to discerning European audiences who’d much rather watch anything by Ken Loach, Mike Leigh, or Shane Meadows. As a result these films have no backend either. So, strangely, making films we’re actually proud of is probably makes better commercial sense.

American cartel controls British screens – the bare facts and the marketing myth

Today Screen Daily mentioned some devastating statistics – that 95% of the UK film market is dominated by only 10 distributors, leaving more than 80, yes 80, fighting for a share of the remaining 5% – that’s crumbs from the table which wouldn’t even feed one mouse!

http://www.screendaily.com/news/opinion/distributing-the-wealth/5005237.article#commentsubmitted

What Screen Daily fails to point out though is how the top 9  are North American, with Pathe creeping in at number 10 with a meagre 2% – whereas the American majors occupy the top 5 and take some 70%. But this is hardly surprising when you consider that most Uk screens are American owned as well.

Many have claimed that this dominance is down to a mixture of better films and better and bigger marketing. It plainly isn’t. Besides the blockbusters most screens are stuffed with often very poor fare with little marketing besides the display of foyer posters which have been re-cycled from the film’s American run, re-cycled trailers, and printed details in ‘forthcoming attractions’ programmes. On top of that they’ve been able to re-cycle prints from the american run as well, rather than having to produce new dubbed versions for non-English speaking countries. These add up to minimal prints and advertising costs – the blockbuster advertising blitzes bring in the punters and the foyer adverts take it from there. It is impossible for any other distributors to compete against such advantages.

When it comes to other industries this is called ‘dumping’ and governments take steps to protect their own producers from it.

Don’t believe the hype…

Recently the UK Film Council has been trumpeting the fact that Hollywood has recently outsourced several blockbuster, such as The Dark Knight and Warner’s ‘Harry Potter’ to UK production facilities as being somehow a triumph for British Cinema.  And this trumpeting reached a farcical volume with its now ex-chairman, Stuart Till’s wild claims that British films had 15% of the box office. When there’s that much noise it makes you wonder what they’re trying to cover up with the racket.

And the bare facts are nothing short of appalling. The Film Council invests soft loans in British films, but it does have a target to make back around 30%. The trouble is it’s now nowhere near this target – which is hardly surprising given how for British filmmakers Film Council policies things made things go from bad to worse, with now maybe forty-nine out of fifty British films losing money.

Ah! But then they point to ‘Slumdog’. OK, so its UK revenues go to Pathe, and the rest of the world to Fox; but, as Screen International terms such films, it was made ‘outside of the US’. The ‘Slumdog’ effect was to boost independent film’s box-office returns by more than 6% in the first half of this year. But take Slumdog out of the equation and you discover that the indie box-office share has plummeted by over 25%.

There’s a recession going on, private investment has dried up, soft money’s being cut, and it’s Hollywood with the resources to clobber the rest of us with 3D blockbusters we simply can’t compete with. Already this year Hollywood’s global market share has jumped by a third to over 66%. 

But has all this caused the Film Council to grapple with reality, campaign for similar quotas to France, Germany –  and anywhere else that wants to preserve its own filmmaking, to call for a quota for British films on terrestrial TV, to advocate the introduction of an optional ‘un-rated 18′ as in America which would be of real benefit to no and micro-budget filmmakers and to UK distributors as well? No it hasn’t. Instead they chalk all this up as one great big bloody success.

“Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow” – and an interesting thought experiment

Below is a posting of mine from Shooting People.

The core of the problem is this: freedom for the pike is
death for the minnow. With regards to feature films the USA is
the pike, and the pike is always looking to find ways of
stuffing more minnows into its maw. Very many countries take
steps to defend at least part of their film industry.
Sometimes these steps involve very large sums of money.
 
For example, the EU spends .75billion euros every five years.
A sizeable chunk of this money goes into supporting the
distribution and exhibition of ‘non-national European films’.

The assumptions behind this are that, all bar one, member
states are not only protected against the ‘pike’ through
language, but also through the imposition of quotas and other
forms of regulation and support. But the pike still has
enormous financial muscle through its ability to already be in
profit through its domestic market. Hence the EU tries to
counter this by encouraging each EU country to also screen
films from its European neighbours. The result is that US
blockbusters still dominate – and why not – but they don’t
when it comes to lower budget films.

But this EU policy works differently in the UK. American
domination is essentially total. The only British films that
get general release are American owned (or occasionally
French; even more rarely as with Slumdog Millionaire,
American/French films). But not only is (actual) British
filmmaking a completely un-protected minnow, it’s also up
against large EU subsidies which further disadvantage it when
it comes to both the arthouse and festival circuits. Pretty
amazing when you think about it, isn’t it, that the Americans
have managed to turn EU policies aimed at curbing their
operations into a means of further cementing their dominance
over here.

And it’s not surprising that the UKFC and the BFI seem quite
happy with all this – just visit the UKFC website and look at
the Chairman and the board of directors. Almost all of them
are either leading executives from the US majors, or the heads
of companies which make much of their earnings from directly
servicing them (the term c*ck-suckers wouldn’t be far off the mark).
>
> I’ll finish with a thought experiment.
>
> Imagine that you live in a country in which 95% of the music
> you hear on the radio (which is 95% US owned – there’s no BBC
> and no ‘public service regulations), or find on the shelves of
> music stores, is American. Most of the rest is not British as
> there are organisations like the ‘British Music Council’ which
> gives lots of money to subsidise non-British music. Outside of
> a handful of little clubs and pubs all live performances are
> by American (plus a few other foreign) bands.
>
> The American-run ‘British Music Council’ is pretty happy with
> this state of affairs because a lot of this American music is
> recorded in fancy recording studios situated in the London
> area; but the ‘British music industry’ would do even better if
> even more tax breaks and subsidies were given to the
> Americans.
>
> The British music industry is not interested in recording and
> releasing British music as it won’t get played, performed, etc
> and so won’t make any money.
>
> Now what would you think of any musician who turned round and
> said to another who was actively campaigning against this
> state of affairs, “get over it, don’t fight it (man) let
> someone else do it (who?), you’ll just do your head in. Hey,
> why don’t we go back to talking about the problems you get
> when you lend people box sets of your (American) CD’s.”
>
> A growing number of us are starting to do something about it.
> Anyone who wants to join in is welcome to contact me directly.
>
> Best wishes Jon Willaims

Mike Leigh joins in in condemning Hollywood’s dominance over British screens

I just found this…

From: The Guardian, 29 April 2009

‘Mike Leigh, speaking at Queen Mary University of London this week… condemned the “tragedy that innovative, important, entertaining work is being made, but doesn’t get an airing on our screens – because we are flooded with material from the mostly sterile source of Hollywood”. In film, he added, “there is, and always has been, tons of unadulterated shit”.’