Uncertain picture for film funds
Glad to hear that Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt is finding consolation in art - according to his blog, the arrival of new artwork for his office is taking the edge off discussions about his department's cultural settlement.
Those who work in the film industry may be less inclined to look on the bright side after the axing of the UK Film Council.
The body - established less than 10 years ago - has funded work by Andrea Arnold, Peter Mullan, Lynne Ramsay and Kevin MacDonald - to name but a few.
It's also been responsible for setting up training and other schemes to nurture newer, younger talent and for pushing for better distribution.
Its support of the festival circuit was also important. And although its funding of the Edinburgh International Film Festival had already ended ahead of the 2012 Olympics - many were hopeful its support would resume.
Future funding
Like any quango, it has its detractors, and there are plenty of disenchanted film-makers ready to weigh in about what it chooses to fund. Do commercially viable films like Street Dance require public subsidy?
Or should it concentrate on arthouse films, seen by only a limited audience? Did it really take enough risks? Or was it simply trying to repeat the success of films like Four Weddings and a Funeral?
Some feel the UK Film Council never successfully achieved that balance - although from a Scottish point of view, In the Loop, Touching the Void and Red Road seem to offer a fair range of both talent and content. And in the current climate - the demise of any source of revenue is to be lamented.
The UK government says support for film - largely via the lottery - will continue. But the big question is who will decide who gets the cash?
The quango was created to allow an arms-length body to take those tough decisions. Will the funding now be administered directly from Westminster?
That must surely cause concern among film-makers north of the border, even those who've been previously unsuccessful in their bids for money.
And it must put added pressure on the newly formed Creative Scotland, to support and appease a film-making community which already feels compromised by the change.
Not London’s South Bank, but the south bank of the River Clyde in Glasgow - every bit as lively in cultural terms as its namesake. I’m Pauline McLean, ³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ Scotland’s arts correspondent, and I’ll be blogging here about arts events and issues happening across the country.
Comment number 1.
At 28th Jul 2010, kylabromhead wrote:I think it is a real shame that the film council will lose out. I do feel however that the amount being paid to actors for there parts in such films should be paid less.. and perhaps they should contribute more towards the films they make
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 28th Jul 2010, Calum McKay wrote:So Scotland's film industry relies upon -
- Film Council set up in another country,
- A Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt who is responsible for another country's culture and not Scotland's,
- Crumbs from the table of funding (the majority of which goes to London), guess what a city in another country
and
- a tory government, elected, yes you've guessed it, in another country.
If Scotland wishes to have a film industry, we have to have the imagination to fund it ourselves and make films about Scotland aimed at audiences beyond our shores and border.
Why should the English folk have to pay for a Scottish film industry when in reality they are our competitors?
So much Scottish talent apperars to be wasted replicating the main stream generic uk garbage that comes out of London. We need to be acountable for what we produce and not go on and on living off the scraps from someone else's table!
C McK
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 29th Jul 2010, kaybraes wrote:Considering the amount of cash the council used, and the number of "jobs for the boys" it created, what it has produced over the years was poor commercial value for money. If these quangoes cannot produce something that is profit making and value for money, then they must be closed down. They survive on the taxpayers' money but the taxpayer is the last person given any consideration in their introvert agenda.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 30th Jul 2010, MacScroggie wrote:The cold wind of financial reality will start to blow across Scotland up to 12 months later than in the rest of the UK.
We canna spend money we havena got, and we certainly canna borrow even more.
So "value for money" has to be the future priority, and unfortunately "The Arts" don't come into the "essential" category.
If The Arts can obtain sponsorship, that would be great: but if not, they will have to go on the back burner - at least for a year or two until a pattern of fiscal recovery is established.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)