Short Film Export Report - BFI

More documents

Recommendations

Info

4.2 Data analysis The analysis covered: Sundance Film Festival (January) Berlin International Film Festival (February) Clermont-Ferrand International Short Film Festival (February) Tampere Film Festival (March) Aspen Shortsfest (April) Cannes Film Festival (May) Hamburg International Short Film Festival (June) This sample was designed to include profile-raising cultural events as well as more salesdriven festivals, specialist short film events and broader festivals with a significant shorts programme. The results of the main international competition section for each event between 2005 and 2007 were collated. From a total of 176 available prizes 24 were awarded to British shorts. These 24 awards were accounted for by 19 short films made by 18 different filmmakers. (Further details on this data are given in Appendix B.) We then broke down these films under a range of headings. Funding models Self funded 6 UK Film Council funded 3 Self funded + UKFC* 3 Self funded + other support 3 Filmschool 2 Other funding 2 Total 19 * Including completion fund Distribution models Self-distributed 10 UK sales agent 3 Non-UK sales agent* 4 Production company 1 Filmschool 1 Total 19 * Some shorts are represented by more than one agent, although none in this sample were. Filmschool (2) Mix of self-funding and other (3) Non-UK sales agent (4) Other funding (2) Mix of self-funding and UKFC (3) Prod company, filmschool (2) UK Sales agent (3) Self-funded (6) UK Film Council (3) Self-distributed (10) 12
Genre Fiction 11 Animation 7 Documentary 1 Total 19 4.3 Observations based on this sample Animation (7) Documentary (1) 4.3.1 Strong international appetite for UK shorts UK films received 14 % of the total prizes, comparing favourably with the 16% given to shorts from the USA and 12% to French-made shorts; particularly impressive given that no domestic festivals were included in the sample while the US and France picked up many of their awards in their home countries. British shorts have a proven ability to play well at both European and North American festivals as well as further afield (although East Asia is not represented in the sample, in recent years the UK has performed very well at shorts festivals in countries including Japan, Hong Kong and Singapore). This was confirmed by our consultations with international programmers, who talked of actively looking forward to the British Council‟s package of new films each year and of their admiration for the originality and skill of UK filmmakers. 4.3.2 Diversity of films, filmmakers and of funding models Many filmmakers consulted felt that one of the festival scene‟s strengths was its openness to new voices, providing an important platform for talent that might not emerge through other routes like television or advertising. This is borne out by the data, which includes a wide range of genres and approaches and a strong showing for women and BME filmmakers. More recent festival successes also back this up, with a number of UK prize-winners emerging from the world of animation, music video or visual arts. 7 It‟s also important to note the range of funding sources including broadcasters, film-schools and Arts Council support, with a third benefitting from some form of UK Film Council funding and at least two thirds made with some element of self-funding. 4.3.3 Significant proportion of self-distribution As well as funding their own shorts a large proportion of UK filmmakers distribute their work too. Reasons given for this included: failure to get picked up by an agent; a fear of losing half the return on the film in the form of sales commissions; or a lack of faith that the agent will represent their film effectively. However, many short film buyers do not have the time to deal with individual producers and prefer to pick up packages from agents or distributors. This predominance of self-distribution represents a missed opportunity for British short film, not just in terms of sales but also international visibility of the work, although self-distribution can reap rewards for some. (See Hibernation, below.) 4.3.4 Festivals are hard work Many filmmakers talked of the time-consuming and expensive process of submitting to festivals and award schemes, coordinating print transport and representing a film internationally. The producers of Milk, a Scottish Digital Short which won the Golden Bear for Best Short at Berlin in 2005, totalled up the administrative and shipping costs and the human resources involved in festival promotion of the film. This was close to £5,000, as against the £1,200 which the film 7 Crossovers between the film and art worlds are particularly striking here, with successes in 2008 for artists Ben Rivers and Desperate Optimists (Rotterdam) and Steve McQueen and Sam Taylor-Wood (Cannes). Drama (11) 13
Page 1 and 2: Short Film Export Policy Report to
Page 3 and 4: 1. Executive Summary This report pr
Page 5 and 6: 8. Establish baseline figures for U
Page 7 and 8: shorts across traditional and new p
Page 9 and 10: 3. Existing Promotional Support for
Page 11: 4. Short films at festivals UK shor
Page 15 and 16: journey, these plaudits were clearl
Page 17 and 18: 5. Short Film Sales Short film sale
Page 19 and 20: good reputation and around one mill
Page 21: A billion videos are viewed every m
Page 24 and 25: Although it was widely felt that fe
Page 26 and 27: 6.2 Policy recommendations Problem
Page 28 and 29: Appendix A: Individuals consulted d
Page 30 and 31: Appendix C: Lists of key festivals
Page 32 and 33: AFI FEST Grand Jury Prize - Short F
Page 34 and 35: European Short Film - Prix UIP www.
Page 36 and 37: NASHVILLE FILM FESTIVAL (TENNESSEE,
Page 38 and 39: British Council Festivals List 1 Th
Page 40 and 41: Appendix D: Overview of seven UK an
Page 42 and 43: Appendix E: Media Coverage of „So
Page 44 and 45: Playing Palm Springs' opening night

Short Film Export Report - BFI

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?