Northern Alliance - BFI

More documents

Recommendations

Info

feature films. For example, with average revenue per film of less than £160, 63 the emphasis placed by the UK Film Council on securing a share of revenues, although not currently great, is disproportionate. The recoupment position it insists on may actually disincentivise sales; Network Ireland, for instance, expects to generate €5,000 to €8,000 per short film it represents. Similarly, interviews with filmmakers indicated that there is significant under-reporting of the true cost of films; filmmakers top up funding available from the UK Film Council and its strategic partners, but do not report it for fear of breaching actual or perceived budgetary limits that are largely unpoliced. We appreciate the argument that the application of feature film standards of business affairs can have an educational function, but we believe this hinders the primary objective of developing directors. The UK Film Council should therefore simplify its business affairs, ceding the first tranche of recoupment to filmmakers (eg £5,000 being required to be earned before income is reported or paid to the UK Film Council), and securing its investment by a very simple, standard short form assignment. Responsibility for practical matters, such as ensuring a clear chain of title to the underlying intellectual property, should be delegated to strategic partners. Any strategic partners lacking the requisite skills to undertake such business duties should be encouraged to join consortia, or contract with other strategic partners who can provide such skills. Recommendation: The UK Film Council should simplify its business affairs in respect of its short film activity; it should cap its contribution to the budgets of short films, and not the budgets themselves. The UK Film Council should not take final cut rights on any bottom tier (Digital Shorts) films. It should, however, continue to take final cut rights on all mid and top tier films, as well as full approval rights over the principal creative, financial and physical production elements of those top tier films. In section 4.5, we also found that there is a need to reconsider the efficiency and effectiveness of employing an intermediary company to manage all of the UK Film Council‟s short film activity. We believe that it is the role assigned to Lifesize Pictures, and not its inherent capability, that is the issue. We therefore recommend that the management and control functions are brought back in house by the UK Film Council, and that Lifesize is engaged either by the UK Film Council or directly by strategic partners to provide support and guidance to the schemes and the filmmakers. This should help to 63 This figure is arrived at by dividing the total revenue by the number of films in Table 14 analysing revenues accruing to Digital Shorts and Digital Shorts Plus/Digital Nation. Page 50
emove the perceived element of command and control, and create a customer/supplier relationship between the strategic partners and Lifesize. We think this would be particularly helpful for those agencies that may lack the human resources to meet the increased demands of the NCF for high quality short films. Recommendation: Management and control functions should be brought back in house, with greater co-ordination and integration of functions in areas such as data collection and monitoring. Lower tier schemes should be managed at the level of the scheme, rather than at the micro-level of the films they support including, for example, the UK Film Council ceasing to take a right of final cut on Digital Shorts. We also found in section 4.5, that there is a need to consider the efficiency and effectiveness of the UK Film Council‟s short film activity and re-assess whether that activity is optimally balanced. There is a strong consensus that it takes time for talent to develop to the point at which it is clearly of feature film calibre. We would therefore strongly recommend that the UK Film Council proceeds with caution in any re-arrangement of its support for short film, as a reduction in the effectiveness of programmes may take many years to become apparent. In particular, we believe the existing configuration of programmes, especially the relationship between Digital Shorts and Digital Nation, should be retained for the short to medium term, though within this core framework, resources should be reallocated to promote greater effectiveness and efficiency. Recommendation: The concept of a clear pathway for directors leading from lower tier schemes (eg Digital Shorts) into UK-wide higher programmes (eg Digital Nation) should be retained. For that reason, the UK Film Council should continue to adopt the National and Regional Screen Agency footprint as the primary means of allocating funds to the lower tier for the short term, but with clear advice as to the extent of success expected and therefore the level of expertise required. Agencies should be encouraged to consider forming consortia or sharing resources to deliver programmes where the level of activity is not cost efficient, or the agency is not equipped to support filmmakers within its area of responsibility. Recommendation: Agencies lacking the scale, resources or experience to deliver improved levels of effectiveness in short filmmaking should be encouraged to consolidate with, or sub-contract, responsibilities to agencies or third parties that do. Page 51
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 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: Recommendation: The UK Film Council
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?