Northern Alliance - BFI

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 12: Minority groups as a percentage of each scheme‟s total, 2006-09 47 Minority group as a percentage of each scheme‟s total Writers (%) Producers (%) Directors (%) Scheme 48 Females BME 49 Disabled Females BME Disabled Females BME Disabled Cinema Extreme 33% 5% 0% 53% 5% 0% 5% 13% 0% Completion Fund 18% 0% 0% 43% 7% 0% 19% 15% 0% Digital Shorts 21% 2% 1% 40% 7% 0% 22% 6% 2% Digital Shorts Plus / Digital Nation 50% 20% 0% 23% 8% 0% 23% 23% 0% A larger group of films should be more able to reflect the composition of the society in which they are made; in this context, the involvement of minorities in Digital Shorts programmes appears disappointingly low. Given that the programme is tasked with breaking new feature filmmaking talent and that it operates at the entry level to professional filmmaking, it might be expected that it would give people from all sections of society a chance to demonstrate whether they have what it takes to become a filmmaking practitioner. 47 Monitored minority groups as a proportion of the total number of filmmakers (writers, directors, producers) per scheme over the last three years, as recorded by the UK Film Council’s strategic partners. Figures reflect activity up until May 2009. 48 Source: strategic partners questionnaire, except for Cinema Extreme figures where source is UK Film Council official collected statistics. 49 Black and minority tthnic (BME). Page 34
Figures for the Digital Shorts programme in the table above exclude the targeted interventions, Blank Slate and the more recently introduced The Magic Hour, which support diversity within entry-level short films. However, it should be noted that targeted diversity schemes have been promoted from time to time since at least 1996, 50 and typically had similar, temporary objectives to these recent schemes. The fact that such catch-up schemes are still necessary may reflect either the scale of the challenge and/or the ineffectiveness and inconsistency of previous initiatives. “I haven‟t noticed a particular impact from the public intervention to date – in terms of diversity - as film is still very much a white man‟s domain. Oddly, UK theatre seems much more diverse: how and why has that been achieved?” Alexandra Stone, Creative and Management Productions (CMP) Certainly, the mainstream schemes have largely been cost-inefficient at involving minority filmmakers. Table 13: Scheme cost per minority filmmaker, 2006-09 51 Digital Blank Magic Shorts Slate Hour (Other) 52 Digital Shorts Plus / Digital Completion Cinema Nation Fund Extreme £ per minority 3,563 6,467 6,234 10,000 12,222 25,000 filmmaker 53 £ per female director £ per black & minority ethnic director £ per disabled director 57,000 97,000 25,263 n/a 54 55,000 200,000 9,500 n/a 96,000 30,000 n/a 200,000 57,000 19,400 480,000 n/a n/a n/a 50 The Low Budget Funding Guide (1996) lists two strands targeting diversity: Black Tracks and the Disability Arts Video Project (both Arts Council England). 51 Cost (NCF + diversity) divided by filmmaker statistics as noted in Table 12 above. Figures reflect activity up to May 2009. 52 ie the Digital Shorts programme excluding Blank Slate and The Magic Hour 53 Because it has not been possible to identify any double counting within the number of minority directors, the figure given for the main Digital Shorts programme is the minimum possible figure. 54 n/a = not applicable; in this instance, there were no female directors and hence no relative cost. Page 35
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 and 26: There is a need to ground all futur
Page 27 and 28: Table 8: Success and its cost, from
Page 29 and 30: Shorts appears relatively efficient
Page 31 and 32: As noted in section 4.2 above, the
Page 33: Given that Cinema Extreme positions
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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?