Mark Versus

Having read just a few short pages of the report before needing to start typing furiously (the typing, not the mood) this will only cover one principle of the report as I feared that if I waited until the end I may have no spirit left. I want to talk about this idea of the audience for British film.

I will state this up front and outright – THERE IS NO AUDIENCE FOR BRITISH FILM.

Why do I say this? Because ‘British’ or otherwise, the British film industry operates in the English language market. That market is very well stocked with films from all across the world (by which I mean America) and Britishness becomes as relevant as Australianess. It is relegated to a sub-genre. The report states research that says that people when surveyed overwhelmingly declared their support for British film. But was that only because they asked? And, being asked, who’s going to say “NO, I think the British film industry is a pointless waste of time”.

Without taking into account the fact that no English language British film operate in a market of its own there will never be a successful British film industry, because in order to survive it must compete. Not with itself but with  every other English language film available. And that means Hollywood.  And to do that, you have to compete with them on their terms too, with big box office grosses over there. That means (and I doubt you will hear it said in the halls of the BFI) the British film industry needs to make American films. In America.

There are people doing it. “Paul”, the 2011 film starring Simon Pegg and Nick Frost is not the most British Film in the world, but it certainly has more than a red, white and blue streak was made for $40million and grossed just under that in the US but with a worldwide gross of $90 odd million. “Shaun of the Dead” a very British success grossed $13million in the States. See, even their slightly worse films deal in bigger numbers.

Here is a conversation that NEVER happens:

Boy “Hey, do you want to go see a film?”

Girl “Yes, let’s. What would you like to see?”

Boy “A British film” 

Now, it may be the case that the boy may say ‘THAT British Film‘ but I would be willing to bet that it would be based on something other than its Britishness. Most likely that they heard it was a good film. So here is solution number one to growing the film industry – ONLY MAKE GOOD FILMS.

Well, if we knew which they were going to be we’d be doing that. So here comes solution number two – MAKE SO MANY FILMS THAT STATISTICALLY ENOUGH OF THEM WILL BE GOOD/SUCCESSFUL THAT THE BAD ONES CAN BE IGNORED BECAUSE THEIR COST WAS COVERED BY THE HUGE BOX OFFICE OF THE ONE THAT SUCCEEDS.

That’s how Hollywood does it and, guess what, it works. It costs more money that the British Film Industry has to spend and requires that UK production companies taking the benefit of US box office successes so that that money can go into making more terrible films in the hope of a gem or two.

But until the UK film bods stop talking about the British film industry and start talking about the English language market we will always remain a cottage industry. If the BFI want a truly British film industry then they should invest in the production of Welsh language and Gaelic or Cornish language films and develop a foreign language British Film industry*, because with the report reading like they are treating the UK as a distinct market, we are going to do as well with a  Welsh film in the English language market as a French or Italian film would. Subtitles are subtitles after all. And these films would be uniquely British.

If they want a successful industry then they need to support business looking to compete, and that means productions signing big stars and filming people talking in American accents and doing American things and letting the money come back. Because nobody cares that Braveheart was an Australian guy if he’s talking in English.

Pah! I’ve run out of steam now but would love some comments and further discussion on the subject.  I can;t wait for the inevitable chunk on piracy.

* I would personally love to see these industries developed more actively than they are and see the regional funds for these films as a way to marginalise them out from the British Film Industry. We should have a Foreign language Oscar contender annually.

Looking at the statistics for this site over the last year or so it appears that there is a lot of interest in the subject of crowdsourced funding, and in particular crowdsourced funding of film. The most popular post on this blog is by some margin [The crowdsourcing post link]. I can only agree with the figures given that it is the subject that caused me to write the most. Obviously it holds interest for me. Due to this popularity and following a number of conversations I have been having on the subject I think that it is time to weigh back in.

I feel obliged to state from the outset that these are opinions based on zero practical experience of raising finance for a film. Some might think that should invalidate what follows. I say that if there is anything to add to a debate then let’s hear it irrespective of the source. I can choose to disregard it after the fact. There may, however be something worth hearing. I hope so here.

I would also add that the basis for my lack of experience in financing a film in this manner is, in part, that until something new is added to the formula, the process simply does not work well enough to be a viable course of action. This statement is meant as no disrespect to those people who have worked or are attempting to work in this manner. On the contrary, I would wish to see them held up as the pioneers of whatever comes out of the flux that independent film finance is currently (but seems always to be) in. It would nonetheless be foolish of me to wait in a queue behind them to pick at the same fruitless tree. Instead I have the luxury of watching how their experiments play out and learning fro their successes ad failures. What exists as fact at the moment is that the crowdfunding model for film finance does not work. It is not refined enough, it is not efficient enough and it is not effective enough. If it was, everyone would be doing it. The truth is that the act of building and maintaining a community is itself a challenging enough prospect (particularly in the company of scammers and social media ‘consultants’ and ‘experts’). The labour of doing such a thing is Herculean and does not suit being placed alongside the similarly epic task of developing a film. When both tasks are undertaken by the same person it is no surprise that the process takes so long or loses its momentum before it has really begun.

That is not to say that you cannot make a film that has been crowd funded. I could not claim that. But the question needs to be asked (as it should be always) “Is there a better way?”. Rather that an old world attitude of “If it ‘aint broke dont fix it” those looking to make films should be asking “If it never worked to begin with why not accept that it is probably broken?”.

Crowdfunding is, in the most part, a means to an end. The end is a film of whatever description you care for. I would doubt that there are many, of any, filmmakers who attempted to crowdfund a film purely to see if it could be done. Instead, they are looking for a workable way to meet the costs of producing a script. To these people it doesn’t matter how the money is raised, just that it is raised. I would add that these people are, intentionally or otherwise, looking to operate outside of the standard systems of film finance and that any alternative to the crowdfunding model needs to meet this accessibility criteria. The rise in crowdsourcing generally is a byproduct of (as good as) free access to an audience and it is this or other benefits of the information age from which we are likely to find what we are looking for.

» Read the rest of this entry «

Just a short one to encourage you to have a read of some of @thatkevinsmith‘s recent online output.

I know that Kevin Smith has had success that can afford him a little luxury. Luxury that your average independent film-maker may feel they can’t afford when trying to finance and exhibit their films. But Kevin has made a pretty balls out move in respect of his latest “Red State” by eschewing the standard distribution outlets – the system within which has up until been the source of his luxury – in favour of an alternative.

He describes his process here in a post that is also a nice summing up of the way the money flows in distributing a film.

A few people have shit on the idea, either because they aren’t a fan of him, or the film, or his choice to work in this way.  Personally I think that for independent film-makers the traditional distribution model is not necessarily the most appropriate path for these films and it is good to see someone, particularly someone established and at risk of alienating an awful lot of people in the industry, taking a step in a different direction.

More people should follow suit and mix it up. And hats off to Kevin Smith for being one of the first, and let’s face it the noisiest, to give it a shot.

So the magic of award season is upon us, and despite often getting angry at the whole process I always find myself a little fixated on the nominees. There is always the gap between who I would like to win and who I think will win to reconcile. Generally, I reconcile this by accepting that I am right and everyone else is wrong and perhaps next year they will learn.

So this year I have decided to employ the magic of internet technology to conduct a poll in the form of a sweepstake to find out just how far from the pulse my filmfinger (note: register www.filmfinger.com) actually is.

So, the link is here >> bit.ly/MarkVersusOscarSweepstake2011

Click on it, share it, fill out your choices and, come February, we’ll see whose filmfinger is up their shamenose.

The Film Council looks dead.  Yesterday Jeremy Hunt released a statement in which he has proposed the shutting down of the UK Film Council (along with a heap of other smaller organisations) as part of the government’s cost cutting measures.  Almost immediately a small corner of Twitter was ablaze with outrage at the announcement.  And rightly so. And wrongly so too.

Personally, I agree with the outraged that it is obscene that an organisation that employs nearly 100 people and which provides, to some degree, the cornerstone of the British film industry (financially at least) can be disbanded with what appears to be a minimum of consultation over its function or value.  The thinking behind this decision is entirely opaque and the cost-saving benefits are not proven.  It should not have happened this way.

But that is not to say it should not have happened.  But, I think we all would have rather known why.

[I apologise for the poor grammar from here on in.  It may be appropriate to refer to the UKFC in either the past or present tense and I may veer wildly between the two.]

The Film Council fulfilled a number of roles. Their main function is to distribute the Lottery money allotted to Film both through itself and the regional film agencies.  The manner in which this was distributed has recently changed, with the distinct funds for development, or for first time film-makers  folded into the one single fund.  They also administered the  cultural test used to determine a films qualification for the UK Producer Tax Credit.  The records they keep on the UK film industry provide an incredibly useful resource.  Less tangibly, though no less importantly, they provided a foundation and an anchor upon which a lot of the UK’s film finance industry is based. They were a starting point for the development process for a lot of films and a focus for the financing efforts of inexperienced and veteran producers alike.

By disbanding this organisation in the fashion that seems to be proposed will lead to the knowledge and experience built up over 10 years being abandoned.  Any steps that the organisation has made towards a greater understanding of the film industry in this country, steps that can only be taken over these longer periods of time, will have to be retrod, as whatever replacement system that is put in place learns how to walk and the collective wisdom of the industry has to be coaxed and corralled from the individuals who provided it before.  There will be a cost to this and it will not be small.

Nevertheless, I am exited by it all.

The UK Film Council was not the perfect example of what they could be.  To some extent they were not even a good example.  Statistically it has been shown that for every £1 of lottery money invested in films by the UK Film Council £5 was made at the box office for those films.  This looks like a vindication of the work that were doing and a demonstration of the government’s philistinism and contempt for the industry (which, don’t get me wrong, I think that they do indeed have) but it is not.   It does not even come close to doing that.  And people should know better than to fire it off around the internet in a knee-jerk.   For starters, it does not mention how much it costs the UKFC to invest that £1.  The bureaucratic costs could inflate that side of the equation far beyond the £5 it returns.  And I would expect that with the staff of 90 that it has considerable costs.  They could, and should run a tighter ship.

The only information that this figure provides is that, on average, the films that it invests in are profitable and this should not necessarily be viewed as a good thing.  Of course, commercial success should be nurtured to ensure the growth of the industry but this number might suggest that the UKFC are only investing in what are already safe bets.  The pressure that has built over these last 10 years (10 years that have seen developments in film-making, particularly technologically, not experienced since the 40s and 50s) to demonstrate a track record of success has dulled the risk taking by the Film Council to the point where it is increasingly difficult for a film-maker with no track record to get their support.  There are a number if small and first time film-makers on the roll of recipients of Film Council money, but as often as not these film-makers have applied and been turned down and then gone out and made the film under their own steam only to have the UKFC turn up at the last minute with an offer of finishing funds once it is obvious to all that the film has merit.  Are the film-makers grateful for the money? Of course they are, but it is a little like waiting for the final lap of the race before betting on the winner.  But, the talent was always there. The Film Council weren’t prepared to take the risk.

Which is, I think, one of the jobs that an organisation like that is supposed to do.

It would be nice to imagine that public money could actually be spent with no consideration of returns.  The Film Council should be an organisation that allows a film-maker to fail, so that important, though less commercial, films can be made and appreciated for their value to the industry outside of how well it competes with the latest Ben Stiller comedy on its opening weekend.  This is no longer the Film Council’s interest and is now no longer its concern.

The fear of failure and the narrowing of vision has made it incredibly hard for someone wishing to get started in the British film industry to find support from the UKFC.  They increasingly return to tried and tested film-makers and the merging of their funds effectively removed their obligation to fund first time film-makers.

If the money that is allotted remains at the current level rather than being slashed (as people seemed to assume this announcement indicated despite insistence to the contrary) then the structure of funding can be completely rethought.  Film-makers (myself included) who have applied and been turned down may get another opportunity to present themselves without the old system as a barrier.  I would like to see a more face-to-face approach to the application process. I would like to see a fund that focuses in the development of producers (of course I would). But with all of these being ore of the same I would desperately like to see a stronger focus on the development if distribution infrastructure.  There are teams out there making amazing films with or without the Film Council’s development or production finance.  The new Film Council should spend as much money as is required to allow these films to be distributable.  The technology is available so let’s get them out there.  Give us more digital screens. Give us decent access to these films over the web.

I think we should all view this as an opportunity to move forwards.  I want to hear your thoughts in the comments.

As a postscript, when all is said and done, this is still bureaucracy.  With our political figures pretty much interchangeable across parties, I think we need to be prepared that their schemes will be so too.