Northern Alliance - BFI

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 17: Support for short film in a sample of European countries 88 France Belgium Netherlands Ireland Poland Greece Population (mn) 63.5 10.6 16.3 4.4 38.2 11.2 Domestic feature films and coproductions p.a. 133+95 42+15 20+1 5+10 39+9 20+5 Short films p.a. 450 100 160 50 250* (*see note 1) 80 Short film CNC, Grec, Procirep, Centre du cinema Netherlands Film Irish Film Board, Polish Film Institute, Greek Film Center, financiers Ministry of Youth and et de l‟Audiovisuel, Fund, Dutch RTE (Irish TVP (Polish ERT (broadcaster) Sport, regional &local Hainaut Cinema, Cultural broadcaster) broadcaster), authorities CLAP, Agence Broadcasting Fund, Polish Filmmakers‟ Wallonne des Rotterdam Film Association Telecomms., VAF Commission Schemes 9* (*see note 2) 5 5 8 3 3 Awards per film €2k-€70k €35k-€87k up to €30k €10k-€90k n/a* (*see note 3) €10k-€28k Support Pre-production, post- Production Development, Production Film schools and Production & prizes available for production, companies, production, training programmes for finished films digital production distribution & that produce short technology, expenses, first timers (18-30 yrs old) marketing films, production Notable schemes CNC Corporate Promimage One Night Stand Virtual Cinema Short Film Script Microfilm Program Interest-free loans 9 x 40-minute Under 2-minute Competition The broadcaster Backs the growth of to audiovisual shorts per year, all films aimed at new 18 x 30-minute films ERT finances 15 dynamic production projects that screened at a distribution made each year, by short films a year, companies by develop or use festival, broadcast platforms students or directors selected via a two- supporting max 3 films innovative digital on TV and screened who have not yet round script Notes: per company tools or procedure digitally online made a feature/ fulllength film competition 1 This figure includes films made as part of higher education 2 Excludes some regional measures 3 Polish Film Institute support is indirect – it is channelled via film schools and training schemes 88 Source: adapted from Short film production support institutions in Europe (February 2009), MEDIA Desk France. Page 82
Beyond Europe 1: New Zealand Film Commission‟s (NZFC) short film strategy Outside Europe, New Zealand provides an interesting example of a smaller country whose focused short film strategy has been successful in assisting filmmakers to progress to feature filmmaking and in making a mark internationally. A recent review of the NZFC‟s short film strategy revealed that of the 197 filmmakers that made short films through its short film scheme between 1997 and 2007, 89 over one-third have accessed NZFC feature film development funding and/or been credited as a writer, director or producer on a feature film – exceeding its original target of 25%. On the exhibition side, film festivals are generally regarded as the most important showcase of short films internationally. There are more than a thousand festivals in the world that showcase short films, but only a handful of these are seen as having a significant impact on progression to feature films. 90 Of the 73 NZFC short films completed by June 2007, 50% were invited to A-list festivals, 91 defined by the organisation‟s marketing team as “major events with prestige and influence”, as follows: Annecy International Animation Film Festival Berlin Film Festival <strong>BFI</strong> London Film Festival Cannes Film Festival Clermont-Ferrand Short Film Festival Edinburgh International Film Festival Hiroshima International Animation Film Festival Melbourne International Film Festival New York Film Festival Pusan International Film Festival Rotterdam International Film Festival Sundance International Film Festival Tampere Film Festival Telluride Film Festival Valladolid International Film Festival Venice International Film Festival 89 The review focused only on films made through the NZFC’s own scheme (which is not aimed at entry level filmmakers) and not on all short films made in New Zealand, nor all publicly funded shorts. 90 Source: Ian Francis, Short Film Export (November 2008); policy report to the UK Film Council Film Export Development Team. 91 Source: Ruth Harley et al, Review of NZFC Short Film Strategy (October 2007). Page 83
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 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: Appendix XI Short film internationa
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?