The last credit at the end of my film “The Criminal” (2000) reads “The Criminal was shot entirely on location in the UK. It was made with real money and no public funds whatsoever”. If that sounds like sour grapes, that’s probably because almost all of the grapes contained in the statement are at least a little way past their sell-by date. Our experience with the arts council funding bodies at that time (a previous incarnation of the UK Film Council) was discouraging to say the least. The film was apparently “too commercial” (although box office receipts would ultimately prove that to be incorrect) and we were told that funding is only given to those films that would not otherwise be made. The movie was about an innocent man who finds himself on the run from the police and the victim of an all-powerful quasi-government conspiracy. Perhaps, it was helpfully suggested, said innocent man might be given some kind of disability, to allow Arts Council funding to be forthcoming?
The following decade provided myriad other experiences of piss-poor development instincts, broken promises, missed deadlines and bureaucratic incompetence on the part of what had by then become the UK Film Council. These were not smart people. There is an aphorism concerning public defenders in the legal system: who would trust his life to someone who wasn’t smart enough to succeed in private practice? And perhaps this can be countered by the argument that people have higher aspirations; that public service is its own reward. But this is not the legal profession we’re talking about. Nor the medical profession, nor teaching or policing or putting out fires. The film industry (also theatre, dance, writing, art etc) is a commercial profession; you create something people want to see in order that they buy tickets in sufficient quantities to cover the costs, pay the participants and, hopefully, seed money into the next project. We would rightly assume that someone who entered the oil industry with the intention of not making a profit would be missing the point. Likewise the employee of the public arts fund.
So I am not going to miss the UK Film Council and I am certainly not going to be signing any petition or “liking” any Facebook page in a hopeless and misguided effort to stay its execution, regardless of my personal feelings about the government that axed it or their transparent anti-cultural agenda. And I’m frustrated by the narrow boundaries of the questions being raised, which seem to amount to “if the UK Film Council is not to administer public funding for British films then who should?” The real question, surely, is more fundamental than this: should the arts receive any public funding at all?
I don’t doubt that, for every one of my infuriating experiences with arts funding, there was another film-maker jumping for joy because his or her dream project had been made flesh by the very same people who had frustrated me. There are certainly a lot of examples of films that, it is claimed, would “never have been made” were it not for the UK Film Council. But really, if you honestly believe that the participation of the UK Film Council provided your only hope of getting your film made, you need (like those authors given to self-publishing) to take a long hard look at why no one else in the world was interested in investing in your project. And if you’re going to give up because the UKFC can’t or won’t fund your film, then you should find another profession post haste.
The Facebook page dedicated to battling the government’s decision name-checks Christoper Nolan and Ridley Scott as examples of fine British film makers (which they are) and implies a connection that simply doesn’t exist on any level between their success and the existence of the UK Film Council. The plain fact of the matter is that these are film-makers with determination and tenacity, who get their films made by hook or by crook. They didn’t need the UK Film Council, whether they in fact received help from them or not. (Worth noting, also, that both Nolan and Scott are invoked as British film-makers in this argument by the same arts funding apologists who more usually dismiss their work as glossy commercial studio product.)
Looking at the bigger picture, public funding for the arts has, time and again, demonstrated a cancerous effect on creative output. Those with the most success at securing this funding are not those with the best ideas, but those with an aptitude for completing application forms and for ticking the variously required special-interest boxes that are an integral part of those applications. In time, those people rise to be the heads of their production companies (because who wouldn’t promote the rain-maker?) and thus the company’s output becomes entirely that which is designed to appeal not to an audience but to a funding body. And so British film (and British theatre) becomes something which is paid for by the public but which wilfully fails to appeal to that public. Just how is that a desirable outcome for anyone other than those whose salaries depend on such ever decreasing circles of self-interest?
The British film industry, we are told, was in rude health until the government made their fateful decision to axe the UKFC. I think it probably was. And I think it probably still is and will be. Because the British film industry is not a handful of small Soho production companies growing fat on subsidies, it is a broad spectrum of talented, hard-working artists and craftspeople whose mortgages have rarely been paid from public funds but by productions like “Harry Potter” and “Pirates Of The Carribean” and “Prince Of Persia” and “Sherlock Holmes”; studio-funded product which shoot over here, fill our studios and create thousands of jobs and opportunities for training. The resurgence in scripted television will provide more opportunities for writers, directors and actors over the coming years than the Film Council ever could. Any producer smart enough to secure a good script, a good director and a good cast will always find the money from somewhere to make his or her film and that film, if it is successful, will reward the participants handsomely; creating more jobs and paving the way for those who come after. As it ever was, so shall it ever be.
And what of this public money? What of these tens of millions of pounds that “should” be administered by the likes of the UK Film Council? Well, what if that money was ploughed instead into schools? What if ordinary schools all over the country suddenly received funding for their arts and creativity programmes that would allow them to take pupils to see great plays and art exhibitions and ballets? What if those schools could mount their own productions and train their pupils in the means of production? What if that money could at least help to radically change how we educate our children and send them out into the world with a degree of creative confidence they currently lack?
Would those kids be happy to collapse in front of soap operas and reality television at the end of the working day, or might they demand something a little more challenging from their entertainment and, in so doing, change the face of mainstream culture and render commercial that which, back in the mists of time, required funding from the UK Film Council?
Your crime movie/merit point is well taken. If only a lot more crime movies could be anywhere as good as ‘Chinatown’. I really don’t believe that they actually said that if you put in a disabled character, you’d get funded. That’s a myth/excuse everyone rolls out when they get the rejection letter from UKFC/British Screen.
All I can say is that I learnt a hell of a lot from attending Inside Pictures and several other courses as well as networking with some very good other attendees plus those talking. Many producers bang their heads on doors for a long time, not understanding how this industry works. I fear that once the funding for such independent courses is withdrawn the industry will be the worse off. We need people who understand STORY as much as we need people who understand the money side too.
Of course the UKFC isn’t the be all and end all of the industry, but it’s somewhere to go where more difficult films can be funded. Films are not just about bums on seats.
What we do need industry/financially speaking is EQUITY. We need more outfits that will do more flexible equity instead of attaching it to tax breaks. Everyone’s money is incompatible with everyone elses out there, with too few genuine equity funders to match it with. The UK has a risible record of equity funding, that’s where the problem is. Studios, agencies and craftspeople do not make films. It’s the money that does it and we need more of it from somewhere.
There’s not much I can do about you not believing me. It is true. It especially sticks in my mind because one of the producers had a disabled family member and took particular exception to the patronising attitude of British Screen.
Of course you’re right that funding a movie in the UK is very difficult but that’s really a separate discussion isn’t it?
I too wish that every crime movie were as good as Chinatown – we can but try!
Tampon? Fuse? Lit?
Glad you got engaged with this one, Mike, and thanks for taking the time to respond – this is meant to be a debate after all, not just me ranting at thin air!
I think I acknowledged that there were some sour grapes involved with British Screen not helping out with my movie, not because I felt that we had a god-given right to be funded but because I resent the idea that if I put a disabled character in then they WOULD fund it. And, for the record, it wasn’t a gangster movie, it was a thriller and it didn’t go straight to DVD, it got released by Paramount. The point of the blog, though, was a much more general one about arts funding across the board and I assure you I was trying to be as objective as possible.
You say that crime movies have no artistic merit. I assume you’re including The Big Sleep, Chinatown, The Godfather, Heat etc etc etc in that judgement? Not sure many people would agree with you there!
It’s a very good point that there are other things the UKFC did outside of production funding but I’d have landed on the London and various regional film festivals they help out with (which I truly hope can survive this decision) rather than Script Factory et al. Producers/directors/writers learn by DOING, not by sitting in seminars or classrooms being told how to do by people who haven’t done for a very long time.
You talk about “engaging the industry” but my point is that the UKFC is not the industry. The industry is the studios, the agencies and the craftspeople. You can’t make a film without engaging some or all of those. You really can make one without the UKFC.
So, what I can garner from this blog post is that you have a beef with British Screen (the previous funding body before the UKFC) because they didn’t fund you film which eventually got made using private investment, therefore the UK Film Council can rot in hell because they’re the same?
You seem to be making crime movies. Any producer with a brain would avoid the UK Film Council with a movie like this. It’s like going to a commissioning editor at the BBC with a project that is so obviously a C5 one. Same goes here. So why are you surprised when the UK Film Council turn this sort of thing down? It has no artistic merit (that’s if you think shooting people etc is in which case I’d go see a therapist) and is so clearly not the sort of film they’d ever consider funding. It’s a low budget crime drama that’ll go straight to DVD. What the UKFC try and fund are films with at least some sort of originality and a voice, not low budget crime dramas of which there are ten (ten? a thousand) a penny out there, which never make any real money I might add (except for distributors, private investors take note here). It’s not about commerciality. That’s a totally different thing.
The UK Film Council do an awful lot more than funding films. It is this activity that will be sorely missed. It means less informed producers and writers funded via their schemes by third parties like Script Factory, Inside Pictures or your regional funding agency, for instance. I can’t see private investment funding this as it has no return. So where do producers get the knowledge? I really don’t know after 2012. Media courses? Don’t make me laugh.
Sure, the UKFC p**s off a lot of film makers – usually naive film makers who don’t fully understand what it is they are doing, thinking they have some god given right to be funded. Sorry if that offends but it’s the truth. If you can’t be bothered actively learning how the business works, then don’t be surprised when you get rejection letters or your calls not returned. It’s not a conspiracy by the chattering classes.
Yes, films can get made funded privately, but not engaging the industry in the process of financing will let you know if a film is going to succeed, get into festivals, get seen, get word of mouth, audience anticipation, get good distribution – or sink like a stone because it’s the same as a hundred other films.
Martyrs. It’s always hard knocking that last nail in by yourself.
Really interesting post. I have just finished working on a project that couldn’t get public funding and – with a LOT of graft – it was made with private investment, and has since been sold. Public funding wouldn’t have made the process any easier (and may have caused the film to be compromised beyond measure).
There was a very interesting interview with a university vice-chancellor, who took a similar stance over scientific research: he calls for a halt in government-funded research, believing privately-funded science responds to market needs and therefore contributes to economic growth. (http://bit.ly/8ZRtbO if you’re interested).
Having said all that: public funding can work. A production company I work for has received slate money, giving them time (room to breathe) to develop a number of different projects, and associated support in overseas market. I imagine this cases are few and far between.
I’ve had no direct experience with the UKFC, but can’t help but suspect that their collapse might have a positive effect on UK film-makers.
Time for people to discard their begging bowls, stop jumping through various hoops and find funding elsewhere, while making the films they actually want to make.
It’s good to see you back on form, blog-wise. Great post.
Great post. While I’m not overly keen on the idea of the government randomly cutting funding for important projects… I certainly think they could spend our money way more sensibly.. on things we actually need… or at least want.
The notion that anything commercially viable can’t possibly have real merit is ridiculous. Of course there is plenty of popular crap out there, but there are also plenty of brilliant and amazing films which also happened to make a bit of money.