Download (1.77 MB - PDF) - British Film Institute

UK Television and the British Film Industry in the Seventies
Even without a state-regulated system for re-directing
a percentage of TV revenue into feature film production
such as exists in many European countries,
the UK television industry has, over the decade,
increased and consolidated its relationship with the
British film industry.
As a medium of distribution, TV has often been identified
as the major reason for declining cinema
attendances, although of course it should be remembered
that the audience for films has not declined,
but has merely changed viewing habits. A recent
survey put feature films second only to sport as the
most popular form of entertainment on TV. Feature
films regularly attract audiences of around 11 million
viewers, with some audiences estimated at a
considerably higher number; ‘The Spy Who Loved
Me’, for example, was seen by 22.9 million people. In
this respect television has given the film companies’
libraries a new lease of commerical life as TV transmission
rights are added to their possible revenue
sources.
In the past, too, the British film industry has often
d iversified towa rds the television industry. S u ch
companies as Granada, Rank and EMI made substantial
investments in commercial television. Over
the last ten years, however, there has been a gradual
escalation of TV company involvement in feature
film (and film series) production. The increasing
number, for example, of TV producer members of
the British Film Producers Association prompted a
change of name to the British Film and Television
Producers Association (on 17 June 1981).
There are several reasons for such an increased
involvement. One is the need to maintain continuity
of supply of feature-length material. During the seventies
pre s s u re for such prog ramme material
increased to such an extent that the CEA voted in
1980 to allow TV transmission only three years after
cinema release (rather than the previous five-year
agreement). The alternative to buying in films was,
of course, for the television companies themselves
to underwrite the financial risk and enter the field
as producers.
Another reason (which could be called the carrot of
the argument, rather than the stick) is the burgeoning
number of sales possibilities based on new technologies.
Income from overseas sales is no longer
restricted to TV tra n s m i s s i o n s , but now also
includes cable TV systems, satellite TV systems and
the video market. Potentially higher profits provide
the incentive for production and an argument for
increased investment per production (based on the
assumption that higher production values do more
to ensure eventual sales).
A further incentive came from the possibility of
ploughing profits which would otherwise have been
handed over to the Inland Revenue back into production.
Provided the expenditure can be seen as
BFI Information Services
5
‘ p ro p e r ly ch a rged to reve nue account which is
incurred by the contractor in connection with the
provision of television programmes’ (i.e. used for
producing programmes for TV transmission in the
UK)*, ITV companies can offset production costs
against the levy on profits due to the Exchequer.
Furthermore, the income from overseas sales is not
considered ‘relevant income ‘ when assessing the
Levy; consequently all costs can be offset ayainst the
Levy but some of the profits are exempt from payment
into it.
footnote* The relevant section of the Act is included in
‘Additional payments by pro g ramme contra c t o rs :
Statement of principles, a leaflet available from the IBA.
This of course, led inevitably to an interest in producing
films with some overseas sales potential,
which continued unchecked until the Independent
Broadcasting Authority (which collects the Levy on
behalf of the Exchequer) disallowed an
HTV/Columbia Pictures TV co-production ‘Goliath
Awaits’ for Levy relief on the grounds that it was
intended as much for the USA as for the UK, and so
wasn’t relevant expenditure. (Two years earlier a
similar HTV/CPT co-production, ‘The Curse of King
Tutankhamun’s Tomb’, had been allowed through;
charges were therefore laid against the IBA of ‘tightening
the rules’ and making things difficult for international
co-pro d u c t i o n . C f . B roadcast 02/11/81).
‘Goliath Awaits’ was finally made in the USA and,
when shown on British TV, it was seen by over 12
million viewers.
Given greater potential sales outlets, co-production
reducing the amount of initial cash needed by any
one company became attractive especially if the
partners had other (e.g. cable distribution) connections.
Smaller TV companies, with staff expertise but
not so much readily available finance, were also able
to consider productions which, had they to go it
alone, would have proved a considerable risk. The
main advantages of co-production are in realising
additional (overseas) sales, reducing pro d u c t i o n
costs and/or increasing production values, and committing
less production resources in any particular
period of time.
F u r t h e r m o re, ITV companies make their prog
rammes under Independent TV Companies
Association negotiated agreements which incorporate
some measure of residual payments. These
have to be paid to the performers involved should
those programmes be exploited (for example) overseas
or in non-TV markets. Films and film series
made by companies who are members of the British
Film and TV Producers Association, however, come
under agreements negotiated with the performers
by BFTPA; and arrangements for residual payments
(among other things) are much simpler, and allow
some greater measure of commercial exploitation.
C o - p ro d u c t i o n , t h e re f o re, with a BFTPA member
could allow a TV company to fund a film made