Wow.
The unravelling of the infrastructure of the public funding of film continues apace with the sudden collapse of my own regional screen agency, Screen East, which appears to have gone under not due to the government cuts but due to internal theft…
Read the full news story here but the short of it is that Finance Director Melvin Welton has been arrested and the doors are closed…
Much like the Film Council, Screen East had just completed a major internal reorganisation and had just started handing out funds from a new pot of European monies based around encouraging a carbon neutral approach to filmmaking. The biggest question is, with the government already looking to cut funding to film, are we likely to see Screen East replaced by anything? At all?
Answers on the back of a postcard please…
Tweets that mention Ben’s Blog » Blog Archive » Wow. -- Topsy.com September 10th, 2010 at 1:29 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Steven Keevil, Blaine Brothers. Blaine Brothers said: Wow.: The unravelling of the infrastructure of the public funding of film continues apace with the sudden collapse… http://bit.ly/cJvKaQ [...]
Nick Hughes September 10th, 2010 at 10:50 am
Not surprised, but not because I’m cynical about the government. I’ve been involved with 3 government film agencies over the years and all of them closed down because of “financial irregularities”. It seems the industry would give a pot of money to goodness knows who and told them to run a local film agency. I think it’s disengenuous to say that the government is cutting film funding altogther: Nowhere is the Department of Culture, Media and Sport saying that…they are cutting the UKFC but the word is that the money is going to go to another organisation…probably the BFI. I think it’s time to let go of the UKFC, it was never that good to begin with.
Daniel Cormack September 10th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
This does not surprise me. I cannot speak directly about Screen East, but my general observation would be that we urgently need to encourage as many people in possible in the filmmaking community to engage with industry bodies and to put themselves forward as candidates for director and trustee positions and also to have proper training about what those roles entail; both the powers and also the legal responsibilities.
Too often the governing boards are emasculated or unaware of their precise role or the questions they should be asking. Too often, boards are elected unopposed (or, even worse, appointed). With membership organisations, there is a woeful lack of engagement with ordinary members so that the board can see whether the policies and strategies they are pursuing are really in their members’ interests.
By accident – and sometimes, sadly, by design – the result is too often that the governance of film industry bodies is cliquey, undemocratic and ultimately ineffective in safeguarding the organisation and protecting the interests of its members or stakeholders.
This should be a wake-up call.
Ben Blaine September 10th, 2010 at 1:51 pm
Ah now be careful Nick. You’re dead right, nowhere is DCMS saying that they are cutting funding but with politicians you have to listen to the silences. They’ve said that they are committed to the BFI, keeping the tax break not cutting lottery funding, indeed Tristram Hunt has mooted returning the lottery money it to the level it was at before the previous government started tapping into gambling to pay for the NHS.
However, the interesting silence hangs around the DCMS grant in aid, roughly £25m a year. This was the other money going into the UK Film Council, who were then in charge of funding everything else, including the BFI. The government may well be protecting the BFI and increasing its budget from the £16m that the UKFC currently gives it… but so far nothing has been said about Skillset, the UKFC’s support for Festivals and the Regional Screen Agencies.
Don’t be confused by all the talk in the media of £15m, this is purely the film production fund… the UKFC spent a lot more than this and supported a much wider range of activities – about which no one is currently saying anything. So are they looking to cut funding to film? Well… they’re looking to cut funding in every other area of the budget so why d’you reckon film is safe?
Learnfilmonline September 10th, 2010 at 11:05 pm
Stop relying on the government create your own buzz to get your films moving.
Ben Blaine September 10th, 2010 at 11:57 pm
Frankly Denny go fuck your self.
For starters this is a posting about an organisation that has closed due to some combination of mismanagement and fraud, in so doing it has put some good friends of mine out of a job. If it was the damn sandwich shop at the end of the street I’d still be angry.
More to the point no one is talking about relying on the government. The banking industry relies on the government, without my government pouring our money into those mismanaged businesses half that industry would have gone under. That’s reliance. Thankfully if the removal of the UKFC does signal a tacit withdrawal of government funding to the film industry, this will be a problem not a poison.
What the government offered through the UKFC was support. Is it right that our industry gets support of this kind? I happen to think it is, in a global market Britain is a tiny player that creatively punches above its weight (a fact we generally refuse to recognise because it requires us first to accept how small we really are…) But it is only support and if you think anyone on Shooters is relying on anything except their talent, guts and determination then you’ve not been paying attention.
I find your comment glib and offensive I’m giving you a day to think of something more coherent and beautiful to add to this page or I’m deleting you. Sweet dreams.
James Allchurch September 11th, 2010 at 9:50 am
I agree with the comment by Learnfilmonline. If you have REAL talent you will succeed in the film business regardless of what structures are (or aren’t) in place to help you. And just be thankful you now have the internet to help you reach out and communicate with other people. It must have been a hell of a lot harder for filmmakers to succeed in the days before it existed.
James Allchurch September 11th, 2010 at 10:08 am
It’s also much easier to make a film nowadays. All you need is a mobile phone and there are loads of competitions to enter your work in. Excuses begone, you’ve never had it so good!
Ben Blaine September 11th, 2010 at 10:27 am
James, you are wrong in what you suggest and you are also confused about the issue.
It is comforting for us all to pat ourselves on the back say “don’t worry, talent will out”, but trust me – this is not the case. I know a great many very talented filmmakers. I know a great many successful filmmakers. If I were to draw you a venn diagram then thankfully the two circles would intersect, but they don’t match. I know as many people who have success without talent as I do those who talent without success. Open your eyes, look around you. Do you really see the world operating as a happy meritocracy with the cream naturally rising to the surface? Personally I see a damn dog fight and I know a great many amazingly gifted creative people who have stepped away from this industry because they are too sick of watching the rich and connected clamber to the top with nothing to show for it but an address book.
Crucially though this isn’t the real issue at hand. The discussion of government funding for the film industry is not about personal growth or personal achievement. It’s a simple issue of global economics. This country takes our tax revenue and redistributes it. It does this to benefit society as a whole. As an economic sector the film industry is something in which we have a very long and very impressive track record of creative talent. Taxably resident in this country we have some of the most acclaimed acting, writing, directing and craft talent in the world. What we don’t have is such an impressive record of production, which is a shame as improving this area of the industry would not only further help talent in other areas but, crucially it would keep more of the profits of their work within the UK economy. Whatever principles you think should drive the tax system, wise, targeted spending on film will generate jobs for our skilled workforce and increase the money paid back in tax.
Currently, due to a major failure in another industry, we face a debt crisis in this country. There are many ways of tackling this but our government has chosen the course of swinging cuts across the board. All this will achieve is to paralyse us as a nation and in seven years time see us swamped in films about how tough it was. We are locked on the wrong course and scrapping the UKFC without a clear plan for replacing it is just one of many indicators.
You and Denny from Learnfilmonline caricature my argument as being a whinging complaint from a filmmaker unwilling to stand on his own two feet. You both need to raise your eyes to the horizon and see the bigger picture. I’m not complaining about what could be taken away, nor am I standfast for the flaws of the old system – rather I am challenging the orthodoxy that limits what could be built. It is not about cash hand-outs to lazy filmmakers who don’t want to get in the game – it’s about the necessary measures needed to keep money and jobs in the UK economy. What would you rather, your own youtube channel and a telesales dayjob or a paid gig on a feature film?
Ben Blaine September 11th, 2010 at 10:34 am
Oh hang on, wait a minute… James, are you real?
Am I actually arguing with spam?
You’re email address looks weird and you don’t seem to be a member of Shooting People – shame on you.
Wow, is this like the first part of the Turing Test? Am I arguing with a robot?
James Allchurch September 11th, 2010 at 10:50 am
I thought this blog was open to everyone and not just “the rich and connected”.
Ben Blaine September 11th, 2010 at 11:28 am
Ok James, you win a point for proving yourself not to be a spambot. Only a real human mind would come back with an argument that inept
Are you trying to imply that Shooting People’s £30 a year subscription charge leaves it only open to “the rich and connected”? That’s sweet. Remember that phone you said you’d make all your films on? How much do you pay for that a month? I’d urge you to do the maths but I doubt it’d help you see the basic financial error you’re making.
Shooting People membership is a steal. It’s a must for anyone trying to spark their career. Anyone with an internet connection is welcome to comment on my blog but if you’ve not had the gumption to invest £30 in your own career I do think you’ve lost the right to debate about the rights and wrongs of government support for film.
James Allchurch September 11th, 2010 at 11:39 am
“It’s a must for anyone trying to spark their career.”
Yes, I’m sure it’s impossible to make it in films without being a member of shooting people first.
Ben Blaine September 11th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
Sparking your career is about connecting to people who can help you. People who will work with you, people who will work for you, people who will invest in your work. Shooting People is a peerless resource for connecting people in the independent film sector. The team who run it work tirelessly to support the creative ambitions of thirty thousand other people, using the weight of the community to bring the best work to the attention of wider public.
I never said that you had to be a member to make a film, I simply implied that if you are making films holding back that £30 is a false economy, but hey, you know, keep making those films on your phone honey, real talent will out blah blah. Do you need me to tie your shoe laces too? Mind how you go.
Ben Blaine September 11th, 2010 at 2:45 pm
Some of you reading this may think that I’ve been a tad intemperate in my curt responses to James and Denny. I apologise for any offence caused but the simple truth is it deeply offends me when people equate public subsidy with either laziness or inefficiency.
Governments the world over intervene in the pure action of markets in order to produce a result they see as beneficial. In the UK film making and the arts in general are amongst the most effective things we do – supporting this with public money makes economic sense.
This little film is quite clear. If you disagree with me, rethink your position or challenge mine, don’t just snipe childishly from the comfort of your ignorance.
Ben’s Blog » Blog Archive » Cut Off. September 12th, 2010 at 10:26 pm
[...] the collapse of Screen East sparked a remarkably angry debate here, fanned no doubt by the fact that the up coming cuts in arts funding have been on my mind. A couple [...]
zahra September 13th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
Can’t believe I’ve missed this little argument going down… Damn you flu!!!
The simple fact is that without some form of government intervention in the film industry, we won’t have a film industry… Hell we barely have one now. The US, Australia, NZ, Canada, Ireland and most of Europe have all sorts of incentives for film production – when an industry is as portable as film is, then producers will always choose to shoot where there is an incentive – they’d be dumb not to.
As for thinking of UKFC or RSA money as handouts is outdated and actually untrue… We recently received a TINY sum from Norther Film & Media into the development of one of our films. If we go on to receive ANY further investment (ie if we get a development deal or if the film goes into production) then we have to repay that plus 50% on the first day of principle photography. So it’s not like its FREE money anyway.
Making films is hard – and making money from films is even harder – anyone who thinks otherwise or thinks “just make something good and you’ll get discovered” or in other words “build it and they will come” is both ill-informed and naive. The competition for eyes is fiercer than ever – why should anyone pay to see my little film or your little film when they could see Avatar for the same price – or squirrel on waterskis for nowt? They have to know about your film, which means you need to market it to them and guess what that costs money too!
Ben Blaine September 13th, 2010 at 3:43 pm
or if that embed doesn’t work… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xxKwesCKJk
zahra September 13th, 2010 at 3:45 pm
My favourite!!! Thanks Ben x
Annabel Grundy September 14th, 2010 at 8:50 am
It’s good to see that agencies are not above the law, after all.
Nick Hughes September 14th, 2010 at 11:17 am
Ben, I’m not arguing against some kind of national film agency designed to support film in this country. My point here, and elsewhere is that the UKFC was not doing a very good job at it. Neither did a lot of its predecessors. My dealings with it usually left me shaking my head in disbelief or else depressed. If it was really doing its job well, the decision to cut it would have been hardrer and the outcry would have been far greater. But there are so many professionals in the business who aren’t shedding a tear for the UKFC and that can’t be ignored, nor can the views of the public who aren’t clamoring to see it back. To me it’s like a piece of once useful bit of junk that someone promises “will work one day, just you see” when it needed to be thrown out. I want to see a new version, when the country isn’t so broke, which doesn’t piss money away and is run by people not tempted to dip their hands in the coffers whilst promoting films that either don’t support British films or don’t engage the public.
Ben Blaine September 14th, 2010 at 12:16 pm
Thanks for raising this Nick as I think it’s important.
I feel very strongly that had the UKFC been axed for any of the reasons you and others suggest then you would have reason to celebrate. But had it been axed due to its failures then surely we’d have seen a clear a plan for replacing it. Of course it will be replaced and I hope that soon we can stop discussing the failures of the past and instead build a consensus as to what sort of replacement would best serve the needs of our industry.
What concerns me is the message sent out by axing with no forward strategy. That, I think, tells us a lot about the reasons behind the decision. I do not think that the UKFC has been a victim of its own failures, rather it is just another area of public life in Britain that is being cut to repay the deficit caused by the failures of the banking industry. It’s being cut to save money.
Celebrating the demise of a body you didn’t like distracts from the important questions of what is going to replace it and what funds that replacement will really have to offer. Celebrating the end of the UKFC distracts from the real question of how our government should be spending our money, of where it invests to build our economy and how best to get out of the mess we are in.
Good, bad, indifferent – gone. This is what worries me about the demise of Screen East. Whatever the causes the fact is it has gone at a point where the argument for funding a replacement organisation is going to be hardest to make.
Pete Jenkinson September 15th, 2010 at 12:40 am
What would you rather, your own youtube channel and a telesales dayjob or a paid gig on a feature film?
Ahem, but you don’t champion paid gigs on films Ben, you’ve been a long term advocate of not paying contributors. If you did champion paying contributors then you’d probably have left Shooting People years ago on a principled stance.
Take the criticism, its well meant.
Ben Blaine September 15th, 2010 at 10:41 am
You really want to start that again Pete? Really? Now?
I’m amazed by the simple binaries that come up in these arguments. Just because I support the right of people to work together to make a film for their mutual benefit it doesn’t mean that I’m against being paid, in the same way that questioning the current cuts in arts funding doesn’t mean I think all films should be state funded.
My stance on both these issues is quite straightforward. I want to live in a country with a vibrant, creative film industry. I want it to be easy for keen and talented people to work together, gain experience and build a career. I also believe strongly that there is no better way of improving your skills than by practicing them. Shooting People enables those new to the industry to gain vital experience, it opens a door which for many people would simply have remained shut. Equally the support that government’s grant in aid gives the industry, funding Skillset, funding the Regional Screen Agencies, has played a vital role in enabling people to develop their skills and carve out a niche in the industry.
What’s your stance Pete? I could understand if you were saying that my opposition to cuts in funding was a sign that I’d come round to your side of the argument; you’d be wrong but at least it would positive. Instead you seem to be suggesting that I shouldn’t oppose cuts in arts funding because I support low paid jobs in films.
Again the key issue here is not the UKFC or the £15m production fund. The key issue is the DCMS grant in aid of £25m for which no protection has been offered. This is the money that funds Skillset, the money that funds the RSAs, the money that allows new filmmakers a possible alternative to making their films for no money and not being able to pay anyone involved.
Rather than smugly sniping at me, shouldn’t you be on my side? Or is it better that we bicker about old arguments and just let this cash strapped government decrease further the opportunities for people without personal wealth to get into the film industry…?
Pete Jenkinson September 15th, 2010 at 11:04 am
1. It aint vibrant if people cant sustain a living.
2. For how many years have you been confusing an unpaid hobby with an industry?
3. One of the quickest ways to deny access to the film industry is to only provide unpaid jobs for those rich enough to be afford to work for nothing.
Be on your side, maybe you could develop a coherent argument first.
and maybe you could start listening to those who disagree with you, they might have a point and also might be personally affected. Oh and have a look at this http://gu.com/p/2jafd
Ben Blaine September 15th, 2010 at 3:42 pm
How does cutting funding help people sustain a living?
Why are you attacking me when we’re both in favour of people getting paid for the work that they do?
Why do you refuse to engage with that side of the argument?
If you take a while to go back and reread my previous comments about the National Minimum Wage debate you will see that I have never been in favour of people being abused by employers who can pay but think they can avoid it. The people who run Shooting People have taken steps to stop this happening, any work advertised through Shooting People now takes place through a pro former which alerts all concerned to their rights and obligations.
The extremist point of view that you represent would not prevent people being abused by low wages, it would merely stop people benefiting from working together. There are innumerable examples of groups of creative people coming together to work for their own mutual benefit and using Shooting People to enable this happen. Through this work they have been able to put themselves in a position where they can access paid employment within the film industry.
I’ve already watched the tedious “Out To Lunch” film you link to. I could list its many flaws and petty niggles but I repeat my central point. This is not an argument about the National Minimum Wage. This not an argument about whether the UKFC was fit for purpose. This is an argument about the level of funding the government should put into our industry and why. Do I take it from your response that you are in favour of cuts? If so why? If you are not in favour of cuts why does it annoy you so much that I agree with you?
Barry Nigel Gomez September 15th, 2010 at 7:31 pm
Just a quick question: is it possible to make a film in the uk without public funding?
Ben Blaine September 16th, 2010 at 1:26 am
Well of course it is but if you’re about to wittily cut my argument to shreds by suggesting that this means we shouldn’t try and protect what public funding there is then I’d urge you read some what I’ve already written on this page…
Actually, as it goes, the very fact that it is has always been possible to make a film in the uk without public funding is one of the reasons I’m so baffled by the vitriol that gets spat at the UKFC. They were never the final arbiter of what got made and what didn’t, they were always just one useful source of funding. Crucially, with the DCMS grant in aid which enabled them to fund infrastructure and training within the industry they were also able to offer support beyond the simple green light of production.
The £15m production fund is what has been ring fenced and is remaining… it’s the £25m that was spent in the regions, in promoting the work of marginalised voices and in general training and education that no one in government has yet commented on.
I keep pointing this out. All my original post here said was that it was sad that Screen East had closed because it is unlikely that anything will replace it in the near future. All I have gone on to say is that the silence regarding an annual investment of £25m into the infrastructure of our industry is not something we should all shrug our shoulders about, especially as this is precisely the sort of investment that helps prevent work in film being the preserve the rich.
I’m going to throw some more statements your way, shout when disagree…
Night is darker than daytime.
Stones sink in water.
All shoes are made of leather except for those that aren’t.
Babys are younger than adults.
The earth moves around the sun.
Owls do not make good bookmarks.
Guinness is not a vegan product.
The brontosaur isn’t a dinosaur.
Any takers?
Pete Jenkinson September 16th, 2010 at 9:39 am
Jeez for someone who’s just been commissioned to write a play it might be worth reconsidering how you take criticism.
1. You can’t direct criticism, the public are allowed to take away and make their own opinions and form their own perceptions from your work and its flaws.
2. You did put your work in the public domain and must expect not to please everyone.
People disagree with you and you’ve tried to limit a small argument that exists within a wider issue ie. is the UKFC doing a good job, which inevitably influences whether others think it deserves to survive, to negate that is like writing a half-baked play, totally unsatisfying for your audience.
Ben Blaine September 16th, 2010 at 10:04 am
Pete, I’m not trying to negate your criticism I’m asking you to engage with the current issue and to move the debate on from personal sniping. Sure, we disagree about the role collaboration plays within fostering the growth of talent and creativity within the industry, but why does that mean we don’t agree about the need to protect public funding of the arts? I know many people hated the UKFC, but why does that mean we celebrate when investment to our industry is under question?
This is my blog and my own tiny domain so within these four virtual walls I do technically have the power to just delete your comments. I’m not doing that though because I don’t want to silence your opinion, I want to understand it, I want to change it. I’m not limiting what you can say, you’ve said it loud and clear, I’m just asking you explain why you’re saying it. Why, when I think we agree about the cuts, do you attack me?
After all, if the director of my play said she hated a line and I asked why and she said because in a previous draft there was a different line she hated, then yeah, I would try and direct her criticism back to her problem with the line in the current draft so that together we can make that draft better.
Come and see my play Pete. I’m there each night with my eyes wide and my heart in mouth trying to learn something about a new way of writing. In the meantime, if you must respond to this try doing so with a message that attacks my opinion about arts cuts rather than my right to hold it.
Pete Jenkinson September 16th, 2010 at 11:13 am
As others have tried to tell you arts cuts exists within the context of ‘is the Arts Council a worthy organisation that’s doing the right things with its grants?’ – that’s the argument you negate and its intrinsic to the debate.
Ben Blaine September 16th, 2010 at 12:15 pm
Thank you.
Though I don’t think it’s me who is negating the debate about whether the Film Council was a worthy organisation, surely Tristram Hunt negated this debate when he axed it! Bitching about the UKFC seems an oddly redundant past time now that we all know it won’t last beyond April 2012. It’s over – move on – lets use this a chance as to make something better but lets protect what was good.This has been precisely my point all along, it’s a mistake to waste so much energy attacking a body that has already been axed. (Do check, I’ve spent few words in active defence of the UKFC, much more in criticism of a decision made without a thought-out next step).
The campaign to save the UKFC was always doomed, no government could u-turn on a decision like this without looking very foolish, but the campaign to save the UKFC did make it clear that the British Film Industry is important, is worth protecting and does offer a valuable return on the public investment. It is always worth making this case loud and clear and always far better to say what you’d like to see put in the place of the UKFC rather than just delighting in the fact that it has gone. You don’t build by knocking.
An interesting freudian slip in your previous comment, “is the Arts Council a worthy organisation…” considering the fact that we find out today that the Arts Council is one of the front runners to take over the UKFC’s job… is this a good suggestion? I seem to remember hearing people spitting the same sort of black bile about the Arts Council as they have done about the UKFC…
Arts Council, BFI or Nesta…? Which would you like to see in charge?
Barry Nigel Gomez September 16th, 2010 at 1:51 pm
so public funding, although helpful, isn’t essential to filmmaking in this country.
so instead of moaning about cuts you can do nothing about why don’t you focus your “talents” on the other means available to you to get your work done?
Ben Blaine September 16th, 2010 at 2:04 pm
Oh Barry this is so boring now. You’re clearly not reading my responses or for some reason are too scared to actually engage with the points I make preferring instead to do nothing more constructive than make your own self congratulatory jibes.
I wish you all the best with your endeavours, allow me to get on with mine.
Pete Jenkinson September 21st, 2010 at 7:19 pm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11247572