Film Policy Review: David Cameron, Ken Loach, Charlie Brooker, Stewart Lee & what TV can teach them.

Just  a few weeks ago, David Cameron drew the ire of an industry with his comments on making more commercially successful films. The Film industry is still smarting since the government decided to squash the successful UKFC.  Ahead of the Film Review Policy (FPR), the stage was set at Pinewood for Cameron to proclaim;

“Our role, and that of the BFI, should be to support the sector in becoming even more dynamic and entrepreneurial, helping UK producers to make commercially successful pictures that rival the quality and impact of the best international productions”

Ken Loach was the first to rebuke Cameron’s “Commercially Successful” plea , with his astute counter-claim that;

“If everybody knew what would be successful before it was made, there would be no problem”

It didn’t take long for the bandwagon to form; Charlie Brooker lined up his guns in the Guardian and comedian Stewart Lee waddled in with a piece in the Observer. They largely made good points about nurturing creativity and the problem of creating art with commercial pressures.

True to form, a week after Cameron’s praise of the film industry, the Government mothballed Project Pinewood (artists impression, right). The ambitious plan was to create habitable, global-themed film sets; spread over 100 acres of former landfill. Local residents objected vehemently to the proposals that would have created 1000 jobs and 1400 homes. They claimed that Pinewood shouldn’t build on greenbelt land, their concern over house prices and building work may also have played its part too.

The Peel Group (who own most of Pinewood and Mediacity in Salford) will be bitterly disappointed but their continued commitment to invest in UK media and film property is remarkable, we hope it doesn’t wane in light of Cameron’s misleading support and their curtain twitching-neighbours.

The noise, anger and vitriol generated from Cameron’s speech in newspapers and social media, only fogged the real issue in hand: The Film Policy Review. All of the comments from Cameron, Loach, Brooker and Lee should be put to bed, the storm consigned to its teacup.  Attention should now fall entirely on the FPR and the upcoming communications act. Will David Cameron and his government live up to his tub-thumping speech made at Pinewood?

Jeremy Hunt, Secretary of State for Culture, has all but disappeared from the view of the Film Industry, focusing instead on his lust for local TV stations; this leaves Culture Minister, Ed Vaizey to steer the Film Policy Review  towards the next Communications Act.

For a Conservative, Vaizey is generally liked with the industry and is seen to ‘get’ film, a small badge of honour from the left leaning business. When tasked with undertaking the FPR, he played a deft hand in appointing Lord Chris Smith to oversee a panel of 8 experts, including Iain Smith & Tessa Ross.

Smith’s review lasted 6 months from June to December 2011, taking in 90 meetings with key players in Film and Broadcasting. The key members of the panel could begin to form a consensus of advice and gradually shaped a reasoned, sensible plan.  Together, they presented 56 recommendations and highlighted 10 key factors;

1.       Growing the Audience of tomorrow

2.       Digital readiness

3.       Getting Films on the big Screen.

4.       A more integrated & fluid BFI

5.       The role of Broadcasters in Film

6.       International Strategy

7.       Skills and Talent Development

8.       Screen heritage

9.       Research, knowledge for producers

10.     The BFI taking a lead role.

To read all of the 56 of the recommendations, visit http://www.culture.gov.uk/news/news_stories/8778.aspx

Chris Smith explains key recommendations in A Future for British Film - it begins with the audience

During the FPR announcement at the Vue Cinema, Leicester Sq, the report was welcomed by Directors UK, WGGB and PACT, among others.  One wily observer questioned the capacity for the BFI to handle so much responsibility – less a comment on the individuals working at the BFI, more a concern about the increased workload and their bandwidth to deliver. Perhaps a body like the UKFC was what’s needed?

In terms of actual film production, a key area to explore is point five, the role of Broadcasters in Film. Notably, ITV and Sky were named and shamed when compared to the commitment of BBC and Channel 4 into Film. Channel 5 barely garnered a paragraph in the 111 page report, which perhaps mirrors their cultural significance.

ITV plan to spend £800m on content in 2012, which is nearly a third of its turnover. Sky have committed to £600m on original UK content, which reflects around 10% of its annual turnover. By coincidence, Sky announced profits of £601m last week. Both broadcasters invest significant sums and could be said to make a considerable contribution to the creative industries. However, they still have deep pockets and could contribute a substantial amount of money directly in to film production. They both benefit substantially from UK films attracting advertisers and subscribers when they are screened on their respective channels.

Recommendation 32 from the FPR states;

32. The Panel recommends that the Government  initiates immediate discussions with each of the  major broadcasters – the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 and BSkyB – with the aim of agreeing a Memorandum of Understanding with each broadcaster setting out its agreed commitments to support British film. Should this approach prove unproductive, then the Government should look at legislative solutions, including new film-related licence requirements to be implemented in the new Communications Act

Which loosely translates as: ‘You have the carrot, don’t make us get the stick’. 

All of Lord Smith’s recommendations are just that, recommendations. Vaizey must now take the FPR recommendations and negotiate them into the forthcoming communications act. The ministers role is not an easy one, particularly given his government’s previous form with the creative industries (see above). Depending on the view from the broadcasters, he could also face a barrage of lobbying against the ‘legislative solutions’ from broadcasters. The relationship between the Government and News International is not quite what it was this time last year. 

Can these changes in policy be successful for Film in the UK? Clever legislation can bring incredible rewards for the creative industries.  There is a clear precedent that we can examine. What happened to the TV industry during the noughties is the best place to look for comparison.

In 2002/2003, Pact lobbied the government aggressively to redress the imbalance between broadcasters and independent production companies. Eileen Gallagher (right), then chair of Pact, successfully campaigned the then Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell into making delicate yet very significant policy changes to the 2003 communications bill. It was hard fought, long-sustained and a quite brilliant campaign that has since reaped huge rewards.

Previously, broadcasters commissioned and bought all the rights to a project and either exploited them or sat on them, in perpetuity. Once sold, the production companies were relatively helpless, they simply waved goodbye to their projects. Independents were only able to take project costs and mark-up on a single commission. This led to many production companies going under, struggling between commissions and cash flow. The 2003 Bill changed the terms of relationship, meaning independents could retain the IP after the agreed window of broadcast. They could then turn to the worldwide markets and sell proven content and programme ideas to eager overseas buyers.

This little change of policy gave birth to the Super-Indies as we know them now. It was no longer feast or famine at the mercy of the broadcaster, but a steady and healthy growth of income based on IP, ideas and good content – rewarding creativity. Because the indie producer could now sell to a much bigger market, they have a more secure business. They now turnover hundreds of millions of pounds and London has become the central media hub for the whole of Europe.

Investors now view TV companies as very viable and credible propositions. Private equity companies began to swoop for TV production companies;  Permira bought All3 Media in 2006, Goldman Sachs took a piece of Endemol in 2007. They do not always make for happy bedfellows, the pursuit of profit and creative chaos are not natural partners. However, For super indies, there is security in producing content and selling it, there is profit to be made and thousands of jobs to be created.  Can film in the UK get to the point where it can attract both large investment without losing its creativity & cultural identity?   

At the FPR launch, Tessa Ross discussed how producers of successful films could retain the development money from the BFI (recommendation 20). Like a credit line at a bank, if a producer made an economically successful film, they would no longer have to go cap-in-hand to the BFI for every single project. Instead, they could develop what projects they wanted at their own nimble pace. If recommendation 32 is implemented, producers would also have 2 more muscular financiers in ITV and BSkyB.

The exhibitors in the UK are also called upon to increase screenings for domestic productions. One startling statistic from the FPR is that average cinema occupancy is only 20%. The review would like to see cinema chains be bold enough to screen British films in fallow screens. There is no mention of a quota in the review, but legislation could be the fallback position.

The ideal position for the UK film industry is to mirror the success of the TV industry in ten years time. We should be able to create stable production companies that attract large scale investors and can sell big, ambitious projects into any territory in the world. The TV industry has also been able to produce challenging and diverse productions on reasonable budgets. Having a rich creative industry means being able to operate and produce at every level on the financial scale, giving the audience something fresh and engaging, without losing any cultural significance or impact.

If the review is implemented in to the communications act, the UK film industry can cement its position as the third biggest in the world (behind the US & India). It can be a more stable, confident industry, capable of producing the biggest blockbusters as well as intimate, independent, low-to mid-budget cinema. More money would also mean better development of talent and projects.

After the dispute between David Cameron and Ken Loach, it could be that with this Film Policy Review, both of them could get their way.

thecallsheet comment

ONLY REGISTERED MEMBERS ARE ABLE TO LEAVE COMMENTS.