Northern Alliance - BFI

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Arguably, if the intention is to bring the best talent to the attention of what is very much an international film industry, success in the leading non-UK festivals and awards programmes is a key performance indicator. This would seem to be particularly appropriate for the programmes designed to launch the careers of new feature film directors where, even for financiers, producers, distributors and agents based in the UK, certain international awards have currency (see Appendix XVIII for further analysis of the role of film festivals). Table 7: International festival screenings and prizes, from inception to August 2009 33 Scheme Number of films produced High profile awards won / nominations Per film A-list festival selections Per film Cinema Extreme 24 5 0.21 4 0.17 Digital Shorts Plus/ Digital Nation 25 2 0.08 6 0.24 The level of success also needs to be compared against the cost of securing it. 33 Source: UK Film Council. Please note that these figures, and those included in similar tables above and below, are simply comparing the totals of films and selections/awards – one film can be selected for many festivals and receive several awards, and that will be included in the total and averaged across all films. Conversely, a film may not win any awards but be allocated its average share of the awards won by other films. Page 26
Table 8: Success and its cost, from inception to August 2009 Scheme Number of films produced Total cost to NCF 34 (£) UK Film Council recorded outputs Cost of success (£) Selected Cost per for A-list High screening festivals profile at A-list Cost per for awards and festivals award/ shorts nominations for shorts nomination Cinema Extreme 24 966,574 26 11 37,176 87,870 Completion Fund 72 675,240 18 8 37,513 84,405 Digital Shorts 684 4,129,571 86 31 48,018 133,212 Digital Shorts Plus / Digital Nation 25 448,871 14 8 32,062 56,109 Again, it would seem appropriate to highlight the cost of achieving international recognition for the „higher level‟ programmes. 34 Where possible, scheme-specific management, marketing and distribution costs (to the NCF) have been added, including the attribution of the total costs of the management company for the short film schemes (ie Lifesize Pictures). The latter has simply been split in four and added to each scheme - an admittedly crude allocation, but there does not appear to be any reliable basis for allocating the costs of Lifesize to the activity it manages on behalf of the UK Film Council. Page 27
Page 1 and 2: Northern Alliance Review of short f
Page 3 and 4: Appendices I Case studies 56 II Def
Page 5 and 6: 1. Executive summary 1.1 Introducti
Page 7 and 8: support a single disabled filmmaker
Page 9 and 10: emerge as a result of the structure
Page 11 and 12: target audience consists of the var
Page 13 and 14: While our interviewees had sympathy
Page 15 and 16: 3.2 The UK Film Council‟s strateg
Page 17 and 18: Table 2: Summary of the NCF‟s pro
Page 19 and 20: All of the entities in the table ab
Page 21 and 22: Table 4: Recent applicants and awar
Page 23 and 24: Table 5: Strategic partners‟ prio
Page 25: There is a need to ground all futur
Page 29 and 30: Shorts appears relatively efficient
Page 31 and 32: As noted in section 4.2 above, the
Page 33 and 34: Given that Cinema Extreme positions
Page 35 and 36: Figures for the Digital Shorts prog
Page 37 and 38: “We have no brief to work towards
Page 39 and 40: 4.5.2. Revenues Table 14: Scheme re
Page 41 and 42: Others were more critical, openly q
Page 43 and 44: 4.7 Support for showcasing films at
Page 45 and 46: The provision of culturally signifi
Page 47 and 48: less than a quarter of the cost of
Page 49 and 50: Recommendation: The UK Film Council
Page 51 and 52: emove the perceived element of comm
Page 53 and 54: As part of our review we checked th
Page 55 and 56: films produced in the UK. We would
Page 57 and 58: million in only a few weeks. I was
Page 59 and 60: That dedication and persistence has
Page 61 and 62: Appendix II Definitions Exactly wha
Page 63 and 64: Directors, started in 1989 and prod
Page 65 and 66: Appendix IV Why short films are mad
Page 67 and 68: Appendix V The public value of shor
Page 69 and 70: Social networking sites, such as Be
Page 71 and 72: Investment in the production of sho
Page 73 and 74: Agency Scheme Number of shorts Budg
Page 75 and 76: Appendix VIII Overview of the UK Fi
Page 77 and 78:
Some rules, such as the requirement
Page 79 and 80:
The future The short film schemes h
Page 81 and 82:
Appendix XI Short film internationa
Page 83 and 84:
Beyond Europe 1: New Zealand Film C
Page 85 and 86:
Appendix XII Data availability Summ
Page 87 and 88:
it subject to loss because of staff
Page 89 and 90:
Appendix XIII Platforms and audienc
Page 91 and 92:
“There isn‟t much of an audienc
Page 93 and 94:
Appendix XV Access and diversity Pa
Page 95 and 96:
Appendix XVI Business affairs Short
Page 97 and 98:
(b) VAT is paid on awards and provi
Page 99 and 100:
Completion Fund, and from the Natio
Page 101 and 102:
The training scheme is best known f
Page 103 and 104:
Appendix XVIII The role of film fes
Page 105 and 106:
Appendix XIX List of interviewees O
Page 107 and 108:
Appendix XX Sample survey questionn
Page 109 and 110:
3. Measuring success How does your
Page 111 and 112:
4B. Festival screenings of short fi
Page 113 and 114:
4E. Revenue generated: Please provi
Page 115 and 116:
4H.Of the above, how many have subs
Page 117 and 118:
'Developing exceptional talent' and
Page 119 and 120:
for making and reporting distributi
Page 121 and 122:
Of the filmmakers supported by resp
Page 123 and 124:
Filmmaker activity On average, each
Page 125:
Appendix XXII Northern Alliance Nor
show all

Northern Alliance - BFI

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?