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.

Time for a reality check – a posting to Shooting People. org

Recently two completely different things have been being conflated in these bulletins: productions for which a market exists (e.g. advertising, corporate, training, factual for large niche interest groups, wedding, etc) and which should thus be realistically budgeted; and productions with no access to any markets (short and long narrative fiction, ‘art’) which, if left to their own devices, could, and would, only be made on a spare time ‘hobby’ basis by people with other sources of income (state benefits, bar work, part time teaching, pension).

Access is the key word in the above. Clearly there is a fair amount of interest here in short films, as instanced by the fact that ‘short film nights’ have become a regular feature in many towns and cities. But that isn’t a market because, in its present form, it generates effectively no income.

Now I know that many rather bristle at being referred to by words such as ‘amateur’, or ‘hobbyist’, but that’s what we are.

Right now there is only one market for short fiction: the UKFC – either directly or by proxy through the tiny amounts it gives to its RSAs, or to whatever are the currently fashionable minority groups – largely as a  meaningless exercise in social engineering.

Short film schemes are part of the UKFC’s ‘talent spotting’ – a notion that someone somewhere might make something that Lenny Crookes (New Cinema Fund)thinks is worth watching, who can then be developed by the UKFC. This, of course, is seen as a joke; commissioned work is seriously under-funded and, on completion, put on a shelf to gather dust – they cannot be put anywhere else as they have no access to any markets.

Once in a blue moon someone in London does, as a result of courting nepotism, make it through to UKFC-financed feature film development (the UKFC has recently announced that, in future 25% will go to the regions, which is around about a 4-fold increase). The prospect of the resulting film breaking even is less than one in twenty, regardless of its quality or merit, as it will have no meaningful access to any markets. What’s more the highly-paid arts administrators see it as their duty to ‘train’ the producers of these films in the intricacies of film finance by making their awards dependent on ‘match-funding’. But no one is going to invest in any UK independent feature film by first or second time producers and directors who are Shooting People members. All it adds up to is ‘we’ll give you far less than your film would cost to make, but we’ll only actually give you half of that – the rest you’ll just have to get from deferrals and in kind’.

Does the UKFC do anything to create a sustainable market for British filmmaking?

Do they call for the establishing of theatrical exhibition quotas, which would simply bring the UK into line with most other countries?

Do they call for similar quotas to those regulating most other forms of terrestrial TV programming to be extended to films?

Do they call for broadcasters to restore whatever little support they once gave through regular UK short film seasons?

Do they call for the introduction of an “unrated 18” certificate, again in line with many other countries?

Do they complain to the monopolies and mergers commission about the whole raft of restrictive practices which disadvantage UK filmmaking?

Do they actively promote a UK film festival culture in which a hugely multi-award winning short like Chris Jones ‘Gone Fishing’, would be screened at more than only two ‘British’ festivals?

But, more importantly, do you? Are you an active member of any organisations which campaigns on your behalf on any of these issues? Do you ever even write to your MP or the press?

Or are you nothing more than an ‘amateur’ or a ‘hobbyist’?

Jon Williams

writer/producer Diary of a Bad Lad – http://www.bad-lad.com

The campaign to reform the VRA http://reformthevrauk.blogspot.com/

North-West New Wave – which is dedicated to raising the profile of new underground independent filmmaking, and which has already established itself as a major thread at both the Salford and Pennine Film FestivaLS.

Regular speaker/workshop leader for Manchester-based ‘Future Artists’ which is seriously dedicated to developing and communicating about new models for independent film production, distribution and exhibition.

And a 61 year old with ME and a heart condition…

Why is it that most British Film Festivals ignore most British films?

Chris Jones – he of the Guerilla Filmmakers Handbook, some well-regarded low-budget features, and no slouch when it comes to promotion – has recently published some film fest data on his multi-award-winning named-cast 35mm short, “Gone Fishing”. Any film which has picked up thirty-six (yes, 36) awards to date and which came within a gnat’s kneecap of getting an Academy award nomination, is not something to be ignored; except when it comes to the UK. Out of all the many UK festivals Chris submitted to – and remember that he is someone with a bit of a reputation – the film was accepted by a grand total of …two.

So, if that’s what happens when you’re Chris Jones, what chance is there for the rest of us?

Don’t just be annoyed, do something…. And one thing you can do is to sing the praises of the Cornish Film Festival – a fantastic event with a near total focus on Cornish filmmaking; and of the Salford Film Festival which this year made the burgeoning North West New Wave of underground shorts and features one its main strands.  What’s more this festival is now working with these filmmakers with the aim of taking the ‘best of the fest’ out across the region.

Here’s how the Regional Screen Agencies could support British indie films at no cost!

Make a film on little or no money and you don’t qualify for a tax-break. Make it independently of the UKFC and you won’t get any awards either. But here’s a simple way in which around £3,000 could given to anyone producing a feature film, or a collection of shorts on DVD.  And it wouldn’t involve any form-filling at all.

All it requires is for the Video Recordings Act (1984) to be ammended so that it allows films to be released as ‘unrated-18’ – just like they can be in quite a few other countries besides the USA.  At a stroke independent filmmakers would no longer have to pay the BBFC to classify films for theatrical release. And then for a DVD certificate. And then to classify all the extras which, when it comes to audio commentaries, the BBFC claims that these represent different versions of the film and charge accordingly. The bill could come well end up coming to more than the film cost to make.

And then there are all the organisations that have been springing up in towns and cities across the country devoted to screenings short films in anywhere from upstairs rooms in pubs to arts centres. These could be bringing out their own compilations on DVD if it wasn’t for the costs of paying the BBFC.

So, if the RSA’s really want to support British independent filmmaking and new forms of exhibition as well, they should be pointing out to the government the significant and lasting benefits of such an ammendment.

There you are. It wouldn’t even cost a penny!

Here’s some info that’s useful for indie filmmakers releasing their films on line

We all know the ‘old model’ is dead and that what we need to be doing is making our films available from our websites and telling people about them through things like Facebook. But, if you’re anything like me you probably don’t have any real idea about spreading the message. You discover that there are all sorts of ‘gurus’ out there promising you the ‘secrets’ if you subscribe to their service, buy their expensive courses, and so on. But I’ve just found http://www.undergroundtraininglab.com/635/tap-into-facebook/#more-635 , and these good people have posted a video of one of their seminars. OK, it’s American and as it progresses it becomes a bit ‘hard sell’ at times, but it’s just made me feel a lot more confident. If we’re going to make a success of our own distribution we need to share stuff like this.

Thursday 3 September, Jon attends Film London’s Vanity event: “Microbudget Film: Where’s the beef, where’s the audience?” at the Cornerhouse, Manchester.

What a silly title to the event: Where’s the beef? On the butcher’s counter in Tesco, Doh! Where’s the audience? In the multiplex watching something American on a screen probably subsidised by the Film council. Doh!

 Nothing much to say about this vanity event really. Film London a while ago started playing the game of ‘Fantasy Executive Producer’ with a plan to fund a few £100,000 micro-budget features over the next few years with lottery and tax-payers money. And Maggie Ellis, Film London’s ‘Head of Production’ is enjoying what’s probably the twilight of her career  touring her microbudget roadshow around provincial venues, such as the Cornerhouse, with her panel of lottery and tax-payers beneficiaries in tow, and all paid for by the lottery and the tax-payer. Not only is the event free, there’s a networking opportunity afterwards with FREE DRINKS (just one each).

 The panel included Kolton  Lee, director of Film London’s forth-coming feature ‘Freestyle’ – a basket ball themed teen film – yep, a copy of any $15million US teen movie on 0.5% of the budget; Laurence Gough who made horror-genre ‘Salvage’ with North West Vision money which looks quite good and has got into the major festivals; Independent producer-businessman Colin Pons, who produced horror-genre ‘Hush’  on around a £1million budget with a third of that from the Film council and who freely confesses that ‘he’s made a living from gambling with other people’s money; and Andrew Woodyat, head of marketing at distributor ‘Revolver’ who’ve agreed to handle Film London productions on a no-advance basis.

 Maggie Ellis explains how they’d only come up with about 60% of the budget but they’d accept it if the filmmakers came up with the other 40% ‘in kind’. ‘And we’ve been able to get so many great deals on equipment and facilities’, she says, suddenly remembering that this might be because “we’re in London”. 

 It gets worse. “Hands up all those in the audience who want to be a producer”, she says, followed by “And hands up who wants to be a writer?”  Oh God, can this get worse?

 Film London’s best known effort to date is ‘Shifty’. It got excellent reviews and the Film Council gave Revolver a £150,000 marketing grant. It opened on 50 screens and audiences big enough to, if it had got general release, maybe put it in the top five for that week. Audiences figures as expected dipped sharply, but then they started to rise on the back of good word of mouth to levels which bettered most American films which had been out for a similar number of weeks. Did this success mean that more screens in other parts of the country started to book the film? Of course not, and it closed seven weeks later grossing less money than the Film Council’s grant.

 Was Maggie Ellis concerned about this whole problem of American films monopolising British cinema screens? Err, no. In fact she thought opening the film on 50 screens had been a big mistake and it would have been much better if it had only been a few. “What are we going to do with all these 35mm prints?” she lamented.

 From the floor I pointed out that, on its own figures, 19 out every 20  Film Council funded films lose money. Colin Pons’ production, ‘Hush’ was made with a Film Council award, and so I asked him how much of their £300,000 the Film Council was likely to lose on it? “Brutal”, whispered Salford Film Festival programmer, Steve Balshaw, who was sitting next to me in his customary pork-pie hat. But I wasn’t being, and Colin – with whom I’m slightly acquainted’ didn’t take it that way and explained that he’d made deals with cast and crew whereby some of their contribution to the film counted as an investment, so they all started getting a share of whatever it made from the start, instead of  (because 19 out of 20 lose money) getting none of the promised ‘backend royalties’ at all. So good for you Colin. BTW this is the way that Pleased Sheep works – every contributor is an investor; it’s just that, being ‘up North’ the Film council will never give us any money which does have an upside to it – we don’t have to devote most of our time dealing with twats.

 For a moment a bit of reality had crept into the evening, but Maggie Ellis soon put a stop to it; “We didn’t start the scheme thinking about money. Money isn’t important to us.” See, it’s a game – Fantasy Executive Producer.

 The good thing was that most of us North West indie filmmaker people were there and, after two hours of largely being patronised, we’d been goaded enough to all agree that we needed to stage an event which was actually real. So watch this space…

 BTW I am going to add a PS here. A long time ago Michael and I had an idea for a film based on Fred and Rosemary West. It went like this – the West’s had shot amateur videos of their crimes which someone has got hold of and is trying to find a film production company venal enough to buy them and make them into a film. So it was a film about just how low people were prepared to go. Only some totally cynical scumbag with a criminal record, we thought, would be low enough to take such an idea on. But we’d counted without Film London who financed the Fred and Rosemary West inspired torture porn black comedy ‘Mum and Dad’. How could anyone in their right mind be inspired by the Wests? And think such a story had some comic potential? “Horror, that’s a good genre to do”, says a grinning Maggie Ellis, tipping the wink to the audience in an aside to the audience whilst singing its praises. Who’d have thought it? Makes your flesh crawl, doesn’t it? It does mine…

The situation right now

The following is very much based on an entry in US indie film producer, Ted Hope’s blog: Truly Free Film.

 Ted was dealing specifically with the American context, which does have many similarities with that in the UK, but I’ve attempted to make it more UK specific.

Here’s my version of his ‘first the bad news’ beginning.

• US arthouse admissions are down 66%. I’ve never found details for arthouse admissions in the UK, but I would not be surprised if the impact of both ‘indiewood’, centralised programming, and the decline in decent film journalism had not had a significant impact here.
• Ted estimates that now only 4% of independent US features get traditional distribution. In the UK the chances are considerably less.
• Even if a film obtains a UK distributor or sales agent acquisition offer, it will not include an advance.
• Private investment has ‘withered on the vine’.
• International sales prices have dropped by 40% and presales have all but dried up.
• Recession hits non-profit making arts organisations and festivals particularly hard, they are one of the first places where cuts fall. 

This isn’t the result of a ‘Hollywood’ conspiracies. If  there’s a decline in the number of indie film oriented magazines and critics, then it’s hard to get exposure for indie films. If you’re an exhibitor, why should you take a chance on a film with no ‘A’ or ‘B’ list stars, little or no media coverage and no marketing budget? If you’re a distributor, why should you acquire, let alone pay an advance for, a film which is unlikely to make you any money?

   And if you’re an audience member who’s a fan of indie films and who doesn’t live in London, the easiest way you can see them is to download them from the internet – and if the bootleggers seem to care more for you than the ‘industry’ you’ll have few qualms about downloading for free.

   That’s the current state of ‘the old model’ –  it’s going nowhere other than off the edge of a cliff.

 The good news though is, there’s maybe an alternative.

 The social media which enable peer to peer dialogue exist. Word of mouth is far more important and far less ephemeral. You cannot afford to ignore these technologies; you have to develop a fan base, to enter into a dialogue with your audience. We have to start thinking and acting more like fringe theatre companies and bands.

   But we need more than just facebook or twitter, we need a more precise knowledge of our audiences, where they are and how to reach them. In America many theatrical screenings of ‘Four-Eyed Monsters’ have been the result of fans campaigning for their local independent cinema to put the film on – or maybe it would be better to call such people ‘friends’?

   When it comes to such as music, theatre, or fine art, it’s the writers, performers, musicians and artists who’ve been the innovators – whether in form, promotion, marketing, design, experimentation, or event organisation. As filmmakers we have to do the same.

   Once we saw film festivals as how we’d try to sell our films to sales agents and distributors. But that’s changed. Now they can play an important part in publicising your film, your website, your social networks, of building your fan base  – and communicating that it’s available on DVD.

Video Recordings Act UK (1984) – Exempt Material

I posted the following on today’s Shooting People.org bulletin. It questions whether this act – strangely passed in 1984…and amended in 1993&4 – and therefore several years before the advent of the DVD, is being applied by the BBFC to DVD extras material which could well be exempt, or presented in a way which would make it so, under the terms of the act. But the draconian penalties – a maximum 2 years in prison and unlimited fines means that none of the small distributors are prepared to challenge the BBFC. But there is something we can all do.

Read on:

Material designed to educate, inform and instruct is exempt under the Video Recordings Act of 1984 and its ammendments (1993 & 1994), with certain provisions regarding sexual and violent content or instruction in criminal activity.

As most DVD extras material is designed to educate and inform – and such as ‘deleted’ scenes can be put into this context if accompanied by explanation, I contacted the BBFC about such material.

I’ll paraphrase their reply. It is not up to the BBFC to decide whether material is exempt or not, it is up to the distributor/supplier. If anyone sends material to the BBFC they will classify it – and charge hundreds/thousands of pounds for so doing – regardless. In fact, they comment, many distributors like having exempt material classified(!) They then referred me to the VSC where I could find a summary of the Act.

So I went and read their summary which did suggest that most ‘extras’ material was exempt, or could be edited/presented in ways which conformed to both the letter and spirit of the law.
But, as the penalties are horrendous – up to two years in gaol, £5,000 fines and so on, I needed further clarification.

The Act is enforced, not by the police, but by Trading Standards. So it’s all down to how Trading Standards officers interpret the law (if they can; and if, since the introduction of European Human Rights legislation, R18 and so on, they can be bothered.

The trouble is though, this is down to individual officers in individual boroughs. But the law gave them the power to ‘cross over the states line”, so to speak, and enforce their judgements in any other officer’s territory. So Trading Standards in Manchester could say youhave no need to bother with the BBFC, just stick an ‘E’ on your extras disc, and you end up getting busted by someone in jackboots from Tunbridge Wells.

There’s only one solution – to get the opinion from as many local Trading Standards offices as possible. Just Google, go to the right page, fill in your post code and you’ll get the email address for you local one.

I’ve just emailed mine with a detailed account of the confusion and a set of specific examples. Anyone who would like to use this as a model letter and copy and paste it to theirs is more than welcome to contact me.

Oh yes, please forward their replies to me as I will be publishing a summary of the results.

Lessons from The Butterfly Tattoo

Phil Hawkins has been drawing lessons from his low/micro-budget adaptation of Philip Pullmans’ novel, The Butterfly Tattoo. Phil’s sales agent negotiated a limited theatrical + DVD release in the USA and the film has sold to several other territories. As we’ve come to expect it has not sold to the UK.
But now the film is being illegally downloaded in very large numbers – already more than 200,000. Phil writes about this, taking the line that it’s inevitable and that filmmakers have to learn how to connect with this – and how that’s difficult if you are looked into a conventional sales and distribution deal.
His post has generated at least 30 comments. There’s much food for thought here as well as some very good ideas and suggestions. Check it out at:
http://philmmaker.tumblr.com/post/120631058/two-years-work-downloaded-in-six-minutes

Film and TV classification laws called into question in New Zealand

From: 3 News (3news.co.nz) Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:34p.m.

New Zealand film and television classification laws are being brought into question with many businesses calling them outdated and prohibitive.

Every film or television show that comes to New Zealand cinemas, video stores or retail outlets has to be rated or classified to a particular age group.

If the movie is geared towards an older audience that classification has to be obtained in New Zealand.

Video store owner Andrew Armitage says business’ just want fairness with classification laws.

“We’re not asking for a relaxation of classification or censorship we just want fairness restored because it is too often prohibitive,” he says.

New Zealand adopts or cross-rates G, PG and M ratings from Australia and Britain.

Mr Armitage wants to see the threshold raised for the 15 plus age group.

Chief Censor Bill Hastings says they have been warned against such a move.

“The Australian New Zealand trans-Tasman Recognition Committee has decided that there are sufficient differences between Australia and New Zealand culture and law, that they recommended against creating a single market,” he says.

Five seasons of unclassified television show The L Word would have cost distributors $17,600 to be processed.

Mr Armitage says such price tags are a huge deterrent.

“Anything that has this red sticker on it has to go through the classification process, so that’s $1100 worth of classification costs right there,” he says.

Mr Hastings says the fees have remained the same for 13 years despite inflation, making them a bargain.

“Our classification fees are extremely competitive with Australia classification fees which range from $500 AUD to $5000 AUD.

The Chief Censor can also grant fee waivers dropping that cost to $275 each, a reduction automatically given to film festival movies.

International film festival director Bill Gosden says costs are still high despite the waiver.

“Although we do receive a concession rate, a fee waiver from the classification office, we still spent in excess of $30,000 last year in film censorship,” he says.

“Because so many titles are unavailable locally and legitimately consumers are finding other ways to access them, which retailers say not only affects business, but can also lead to illegal purchase and distribution.”

3 News