Memorandum submitted by the Writers' Guild
of Great Britain
IS THERE A BRITISH FILM INDUSTRY?
1. PREAMBLE
1.1 The Writers' Guild of Great Britain
(WGGB), founded in the 1950s, is a trade union affiliated to the
TUC, now also incorporating the old Theatre Writers' Union. We
are very small—just over 2,000 members—comprising
about 1,400 professional writers, 400 "Candidate" members
who hope to become professional writers, 150 retired members and
50 writers' agents, who are "Affiliated" members. Of
the professional members, probably more than half work principally
in television drama, a third write for the theatre, and the remainder
for radio, film (including animation), book publishing and new
media (although there is considerable overlap between the genres).
1.2 Virtually all our members are self-employed
freelance writers. Nevertheless for many years the Writers' Guild
has negotiated Minimum Terms Agreements with large corporations
and trade associations to set the general terms and minimum fees
that will be enshrined in individual writers' contracts (although
in many cases successful writers are able to command multiples
of the minimum fees and advantageous terms on royalties, merchandising,
etc). This approach has generally been successful in regulating
writers' fees, terms and conditions and has suited both "sides"
in the industry. Such agreements cover all the main sectors of
our activity, except for book publishing, where they are almost
extinct. The standard minimum terms are observed by most broadcasters
and producers in the industries covered and ensure that there
are relatively few problems arising out of writers' contracts,
but it is relevant to say that we deal with a disproportionate
number of film contracts that are not in accordance with the agreed
minimum terms and/or are dishonoured by producers.
1.3 Our theatre agreements are reviewed
annually. Our agreements with BBC TV and the independent TV producers
(Producers' Alliance for Cinema and Television) were comprehensively
renegotiated in 2002. However our agreement with PACT covering
film production is over 10 years old and PACT and the Guild have
amicably agreed that it should be renegotiated this year. A Screenwriting
Credits Agreement, under which the Guild provides a system of
arbitration over disputes, was agreed in the early 1970s with
a predecessor body of PACT, has been in force ever since, and
has the widespread acceptance of the industry.
1.4 The Guild's other functions as a trade
union include campaigning on the political and legal issues of
copyright and other authors' rights; the regulation of broadcasting
and other media; advising and representing members individually
on problems connected with their working lives; organising cultural,
educational and social events for members; providing a pension
scheme suitable for freelances with sporadic earnings; operating
a benevolent fund.
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 It is always tempting to fast-forward
through the opening credits when you watch a film on video or
DVD. But instead, considering Gosford Park (2001 USA; 2002
UK), let us freeze-frame and study them more carefully than usual:
Capitol Films (animated logo)
***
Capitol Films and the Film Council present
***
in association with USA Films
***
a Sandcastle 5 production in association with
Chicagofilms and Medusa Film
***
2.2 Gosford Park, as we know, is
a British film. Most of the actors are British. It was filmed
at a British location, in the British rain. It won the Korda award
for the Outstanding British Film of the Year, plus a BAFTA and
a bucketful of nominations. Its British writer collected an Oscar
for the Best Original Screenplay. It is presented to us by (among
several others) the Film Council, although many British and most
overseas audiences might miss the Britishness of the Film Council,
among all those American names—Capitol, USA, Chicago ...
But of course Gosford Park is a British film.
Or is it?
2.3 It all depends, as the old saying goes,
exactly what you mean by a British film. In the broadsheets as
well as the tabloids, a film is British enough if it can boast
a British director, or one or more British actors, or a British
location, or a British screenwriter, or even if it is based on
a novel or play by somebody British, even if dead. It is British
through and through if it can claim two or three of these distinctions.
It is seldom noticed whether the finance that paid for the film,
or the production company that made it, are British.
2.4 Another old saying used to be: Follow
the money. For our economy there can be no doubt there is value
in British locations, tourism spin-offs, UK skills in special
effects, animation and other production specialities and, to a
lesser extent, the fees of actors and writers. But as far as the
most successful and biggest budget films are concerned, these
occasional and disparate elements can hardly be said to constitute
a complete and mature British Film Industry. Follow the money
in Gosford Park and the trail will lead you to Britain,
to be sure, but also to Germany and Italy and, overwhelmingly,
to the United States. If you follow the takings and the profits
you will follow them in the main to America, where they will finance
the next products of the globally dominant US film industry.
2.5 To be sure, there is a kind of British
film industry producing home-grown middle and low-budget feature
films that mostly struggle for distribution and therefore audiences;
and short films that are a wonderful preparation for new talent—though
preparation for what, exactly?
2.6 There is nothing wrong with any of this,
unless you happen to think that to claim that Britain actually
has a film industry, it would need to have one that is structured
to produce on its own initiative and with its own resources all
kinds of film from the most experimental short to the world-beating
blockbuster and, above all, one in which the rewards of success
would become the seed-corn for further projects and developments
within Britain. If that is what we mean then the question to be
addressed by your Committee—Is there a British film industry?—is
a problematical one indeed. We wish you success in your inquiry
and look forward to reading your conclusions and recommendations.
2.7 We have noted a written response by
Equity and a position paper from the British Screen Advisory Council,
and in general we agree with and appreciate their specialist knowledge
about the financing and infrastructure of the film industry. We
do not wish to repeat what they have said.
2.8 We have therefore looked at the questions
the Committee has asked from the point of view of scriptwriters,
since that is our specialist knowledge.
3. RESPONSES
TO THE
QUESTIONS CIRCULATED
BY THE
CULTURE, MEDIA
AND SPORT
COMMITTEE
3.1 What direct and indirect contribution
does the film industry make to the UK economy?
Is it important to seek to preserve a capacity
to make British films about Britain in the UK?
These two questions are linked.
There is little dispute that film makes a contribution
to the economy. What in our view needs improving is the extent
to which the international revenue from British films flows back
to Britain. At present it would appear that our vibrant creative
community is generating considerable income for other countries.
Direct revenue comes primarily from exports
of films abroad and non-UK productions being shot in the UK (which
creates employment). Indirect economic benefits are from increased
tourism. The image of Britain is powerfully conveyed by those
British movies that are successful. Notting Hill undoubtedly
increased tourism; but the film, though ostensibly made by a British
company, was financed from the USA and it is there that significant
profits have gone. Four Weddings and a Funeral also had
American finance so a significant share of the profits of the
film went to the USA, which meant less "profit" to be
reinvested in the UK.
What would make a difference to the scriptwriters
in the UK and to the finance that British producers would be able
to invest in the development of new British films, would be the
ability of the producers to retain back-end revenue from their
productions.
By developing better scripts that attract leading
directors and actors, and using the tax breaks that are available,
it would be more beneficial to wholly finance more films within
the UK, thus improving the contribution to the economy. To develop
better scripts, there does need to be both development finance
and improved script-editing expertise, two areas that the Film
Council is concentrating on.
However, there is a cultural agenda in some
parts of the industry that is not always clear. Many of the critically
acclaimed British films and directors are important culturally
(Mike Leigh, Michael Winterbottom, Ken Loach). Until the Film
Council came out with a clearly commercial agenda (the Premiere
Fund and "25 words or less", for example) there was
a tendency (by the Arts Council) to be prejudiced against genre
movies and overtly commercial films.
Film is a global product and few countries can
support domestic film-making for their domestic market alone.
Once we can consistently make a number of internationally successful
movies a year (and the profits that ensue) we won't have the industrial
momentum to support culturally important films that may not be
economically rewarding without some sort of subsidy.
Again, no one disputes the importance of British
movies showing the British way of life; but without the ambition
and development skills, the movies will not compete on the global
stage, and the economy and country as a whole will not benefit
as much as they could.
3.2 What is the relationship between the film
industry and the rest of the creative industries including the
broadcasters?
What should the relationship be between British
broadcasters and the film industry?
These two questions are also linked. This response
is focused on the impact of the questions on scriptwriters.
As far as scriptwriters are concerned, television
is the main training-ground and source of income. Very few writers
(handfuls) can earn a living in the UK from writing only feature
film scripts, as there are simply too few feature films made in
the UK to sustain a large body of professional writers.
Writing for soaps and long-running series does
provide important craft skills (and a regular income) to writers,
but it does not always engender the characteristics that make
for great cinematic writers. The vast majority of people (especially
younger people) wanting to write scripts want to write feature
films.
But writing several speculative feature scripts
in isolation over a couple of years, that do not go through a
demanding and "educated" development process, will teach
the writer very little. Television drama, where writers work under
pressure as part of a collaborative process, balancing conflicting
demands, being made very aware of the importance of writing for
an audience and not for themselves, is a tough but hugely valuable
training that most people writing feature scripts never get.
While it seems Scrooge-like to discourage the
many who want to write feature films, the reality is that at present
probably 99% of them (this figure is not an exaggeration) will
not be able to earn a living by writing feature film scripts.
Therefore, the majority of writers who earn
any kind of a living from their writing are forced to have a relationship
with broadcasters and radio if they seek to be professional writers.
It would be helpful if broadcasters were able to provide more
single dramas, as these tend to have the structure of feature
films, albeit are different in other ways.
Broadcasters were impelled some years ago to
accept 25% of their programming from independent producers, a
policy that created a large and diverse array of independent production
companies. While there was not enough programming to support all
of these companies, the diversity of view and imagination has
been important to the film and broadcasting industries, and has
been important to writers as there was undoubtedly increased access
to commissions.
Unfortunately the support by broadcasters for
British films (as opposed to drama on the small screen) is lamentable.
Governments in other countries such as France impose legislation
on their broadcasters (as we did in the 25% case). It would be
a significant boost to the British film industry if broadcasters
were forced to buy and show more British films.
The benefits to the creative community would
be considerable, particularly by returning more money into the
creative/development process. It is not a question of arguing
that writers should be paid more money; it is a question of seeking
structural mechanisms that would result in more British films
being made.
Compared to the USA, the percentage of the budget
of a film spent on the development of a script is significantly
lower in the UK. This undoubtedly has a detrimental effect on
the quality of the scripts that go into production, and therefore
on the performance of the films based on those scripts. It is
a vicious circle which damages all those who work in the film
industry, including writers.
3.3 Does the film industry merit support from
Government, if so, how can existing support be improved?
The genesis of the film industry in the USA
and the film industries in European countries after the last war
was very different: Europe supported its film industries from
Ministries of Culture; the Americans had aggressive support from
their Department of Trade.
Certain types of people were attracted into
the respective industries; some, for instance Hitchcock, left
the UK because we were only making films of "talking heads".
There are specific craft skills to do with writing
cinematic scripts that make them more accessible to wider audiences
and enable them to have a greater impact on those audiences. These
skills are perfected in Hollywood while we struggle to use them.
They were developed by European immigrants who were running the
nascent Hollywood studios, trying to make films that would reach
a diverse audience, many of whom did not speak English as a first
language.
How can we achieve scripts that will reach those
audiences? Until the training organisations become less precious
about auteur writers or writer-directors and encourage
ambitious storytelling in film, we won't succeed.
The Government should provide incentives for
success. The Eady Levy was perhaps abused, but countries like
France have had productive support systems that encourage the
making of popular films. Popular does not mean down-market or
culturally unimportant. From My Beautiful Laundrette to
Bend it Like Beckham we can make films that are both culturally
significant and commercially successful, as well as reflecting
the diversity of the UK population.
The Government should be bold and aggressive
in its support for a film culture which is ambitious about competing
in what is a global market. The Film Council's support for Gosford
Park is a good example of this, particularly from the WGGB's
point of view, as the script was written by a relatively unknown
British writer.
3.4 How can the production, distribution and
exhibition of British films be improved in the UK? Is the right
balance being struck between these elements of the industry?
This is a question we would prefer to leave
to other bodies giving evidence as they have more experience of
distribution and exhibition that the WGGB does.
It would seem obvious that any financially viable
way of supporting the exhibition, perhaps in niche and art-house
cinemas, of low-budget British films that cannot get mainstream
distribution would be of enormous psychological and economic benefit
to the writers, producers, directors and actors involved in those
films.
For those low-budget films and any others that
do not receive theatrical distribution and are not sold to a local
broadcaster, a subsidised digital film channel (that could also
show shorts) would be a welcome showcase for British talent at
a modest cost.
This would ensure that exhibition (even if on
the small screen) would not be denied to the creative teams that
have worked so hard and often for low-to-no pay. It is certain
that some of the talent shown on such a channel would be picked
up and would subsequently make a greater contribution to our film
culture and the overall economic benefits that film brings Britain.
3.5 How effectively has the Film Council contributed
to a sustainable film industry since 2000? Does the Council have
the right strategy and approach?
The Film Council has been effectively in operation
for two years. The average development cycle of a feature film
is three years (up to five years or even more). It is too early
to judge the Film Council's long-term effectiveness.
However, it is possible to make comparisons
with the Arts Council and the other bodies that fulfilled the
same role the Film Council now does. British Screen performed
better than any other similar subsidy body in Europe and the ambition
stated by the Film Council when it was set up to better British
Screen's record is admirable.
The Film Council's concentration on training
and development is also benefiting the industry long-term. However
there are some areas where—specifically with regard to the
training of scriptwriters and development executives—it
might be prudent to keep a watching eye:
Encouraging an ever-increasing number of people
to write feature film scripts will result in great disappointment
and no careers for the vast majority of them. Successful screenplay
writing is incredibly difficult and there are endemic problems—many
producers do not know how to read or effectively work on scripts,
with the result that writers are told the script is good only
to discover that once other financiers come on board and the script's
faults are pointed out, the original writer is fired and new writers
brought in. In some cases the original writer might not be able
to make the difference to the script. But in many cases that writer
could, if the true collaborative nature of the process was recognised
and the team developing the script had the expertise. Organisations
such as The Script Factory—supported by the Film Council—are
doing excellent work teaching people in the industry how to read
and critique scripts.
Support for shorts and low-budget film-making,
from the New Cinema Fund, will encourage talent to rise to the
top. But it should be remembered that, for example, 500 directors
a year graduate from higher educational establishments in Europe,
and Europe makes about 500 movies a year. Over five years there
will be 2,500 graduate directors and still about 500 movies a
year. We don't need more scriptwriters, we need better scriptwriters.
But without training the others (script editors and producers
particularly), the writers will not get better.
The audiovisual balance of payments deficit
between the USA and the EU is growing larger every year. The Film
Council's strategy to support commercial scripts and commercial
films (ie popular) can be encouraged for the next few years, even
at the expense of supporting more risky, quirky, eccentric and
culturally worthy films. Once there is a sustainable film industry
we will be able to support "the right to fail" as it
is sometimes put. The Film Council should be discouraging dilettantism
by raising standards, not spending its budgets if it cannot find
material or writers of sufficient talent.
3.6 What has the Council contributed to education
about, and access to, the moving image? What should the Council
do with the bfi and the Museum of the Moving Image?
We are not aware of any significant activity
by the Film Council in this area. We think the bfi and
MoMI have important tasks and do a good job. Obviously there should
be communication and co-operation between these bodies and the
Film Council, but we believe the Film Council has its hands full
with immediate and future concerns and there would be no merit
in encouraging itself to involve itself intimately with the functions
of the bfi and MoMI.
4. SOME VIEWS
EXPRESSED BY
PROFESSIONAL WRITERS
4.1 The Writers' Guild invited experienced
members to send in views for the attention of your Committee and
some edited quotes from those received are given here. These responses
are personal opinions and not necessarily the collective opinion
of the Writers' Guild, but we hope they will be interesting to
the Committee. For professional reasons the writers are anonymous.
A is a long-established TV writer whose film script has recently
been produced to critical acclaim. B is a well-established writer
who has not had a film script produced but is involved in educating
and training would-be writers. C is a long-established screenwriter
and poet who had a feature film produced some years ago and has
experienced many frustrations in setting up another feature film
project. D is a recently-established writer who has written several
times for TV and would like to be able to write for film.
4.2 "All films begin with a script.
Without a script there is no film. Without the screenwriter there
would be no film industry. If the screenwriter is exploited and
undervalued, the industry as a whole suffers. There is a mindset
in the British Film Industry that perpetuates the myth that British
screenwriters are not writing nor are capable of writing great
scripts. This deflects attention away from the failures of the
big players, the producers and directors. The Film Council doesn't
help. Referring to screenwriters, Alan Parker is on record as
saying: `In America they're starting to respect them far too much.'
He further states that `although we're a literary nation we're
very poor at screenwriting.' I find it strange that suddenly all
our great screenwriters have disappeared given our history in
the world of films." B
4.3 "The single biggest problem facing
UK writers in film is the lack of funding for the development
of projects. Nobody—whether they're independent producers,
production companies, or even the Film Council—seems willing
to properly fund writers to spend the necessary time writing and
rewriting scripts. There is a general expectation that writers
will work on spec—or if they are paid anything at all, that
they can survive on a pittance for extended periods of development,
and that the work will be done simply because the writer is obsessed
with the idea of seeing his or her work on the screen. Even the
Film Council, to the best of my knowledge, does not pay Guild
minimum rates for the projects they're developing. The end result
of all this, of course, is that experienced professional writers
who must earn a decent living to survive, simply cannot afford
to write for film. And without experienced writers at the helm,
the industry will not generate scripts of a sufficient standard
to warrant being produced. A constant refrain from producers is
that the UK suffers from a lack of decent scripts—yet they
seem unable or unwilling to understand the reasons why those scripts
are not being written." A
4.4 "One recent example is a black
woman, a brilliant postgraduate in screenwriting, who now has
to work in a supermarket as well as act as primary carer of a
disabled parent at home. She is a qualified teacher. In order
to write, she has chosen a job that isn't as demanding. Her case
is not unique. She is sacrificing a good wage and career progression
in another profession simply because she is dedicated to her art.
The odds are against her." B
4.5 "Scriptwriters are largely undervalued
and unrecognised as an important creative force in the British
Film Industry. They contribute much and risk much for relatively
small, and often no return. The Film Council's main focus appears
to be on producers and directors and they have so far done little
to improve the lot of writers." D
4.6 "What I would like to see is a
body that I could go to for help and advice and contacts, not
necessarily money. And I would like them to start giving money
not just to the `safe bets' of huge companies but to individual
writers and small-scale companies. Basically the Film Council
are remote and arbitrary and undemocratic, and they have cornered
almost all the public money (including Eurimages and Arts Council
funds) that used to go to small film-makers. The suspicion has
to be that they are going through this `distributor-led' initiative
to give even more to large companies who don't need the money.
Distributors are notoriously hardheaded commercial types who want
to take only conservative options." C
4.7 "Since we are no longer in an age
of rich patronage for the Arts, and since the Film Council is
funded from tax-payers' money, surely it is not beyond the realms
of reason for scriptwriters to expect positive help in financial
terms from the Film Council. The Film Council boasts about the
amount of money it spends on courses to train writers. However,
once the writer has completed a course there seems little financial
assistance forthcoming from the Film Council. An absurd situation
created by the Film Council was to deny access to writers without
agents to the `25 words or less' initiative. They fund courses
for new writers, most of whom won't have agents, then tell them
they can't submit their material. They close their doors to the
very people they pretend to help." B
4.8 "My original screenplay was written
over a period of approximately 12 years. It was written in my
own time, on spec—meaning I received no money whatsoever
during the development of the project. Although several companies
and bodies showed interest in the project, nobody offered a single
penny to progress it. When it finally sold, I managed to negotiate
a £20,000 buy-out on the script; not much to cover twelve
years of work. In future, unless I'm able to find a body or company
willing to pay properly for my time, I probably will not be writing
another feature film project. I can earn more money, for a lot
less work, in television." A
4.9 "In the Relph report, commissioned
by the Film Council, writers are to make even further sacrifices.
It is astonishing how little space is dedicated to writers. It
doesn't make reference to the fact that at the Film Council only
a few people select the projects that are to be supported. There
are great scripts, they just don't recognise them. Relph writes
of the struggles facing producers. But what of the risks the writer
takes when they invest time and energy into a project and receives
the minimum reward? Where does the writer then find the time and
energy for their next project? This is what I call bad economy,
bad management and the result of an unfair and unequal distribution
of resources. Everyone dumps on the writer or tries to, squeezing
as much out of them as possible for as little as possible."
B
4.10 "We need a seedbed of emerging
talent, not silly initiatives to encourage film making in schools,
etc which will only raise the expectations of a new generation
for whom there are probably no jobs waiting. Similarly the `25
words or less' nonsense (the 90 second pitch was parodied in The
Player, now we have this!) is obviously so that the vague 25 word
treatment that appeals to one of the execs or a team of them can
then be ordered scriptwise every step of the way. This is not
the way creativity is fostered, by a committee trying to write
the script through the writer. They want too much creative control
and seem unable to let creativity blossom in the way it does best."
C
4.11 "A writer had his script selected
for the short film scheme in Sheffield. Without his knowledge
his script was altered—but not improved—by a Film
Council employee. Even the director acknowledges this. To date
he has been completely excluded from the development process.
He has received just one communication from the director which
confirmed his exclusion. All he knows is that they are shooting
this week and they haven't even bothered to inform him of the
location. Worse, they are giving him no fee whatsoever and as
yet there is still no contract in place. He is a gifted writer
with an extraordinary imagination. This scenario is commonplace.
Do we really expect to keep hold of our best writers when even
the Film Council, supposedly a public body, treats writers this
way?" B
4.12 "Too little time and money is
spent on script development by producers in the UK. There are
structural and historical reasons for this: Producers do not receive
their money until the first day of principal photography, they
therefore rush the development process to reach that day as soon
as possible and this severely hampers one of the most important
stages of any film project. In the US relatively huge amounts
are spent on script development to ensure that the project is
firmly founded on a good script. They do this because they are
hard-headed business people and know that without a good script
they will be putting their investment money at great risk. Without
a good script there is no marketable film." D
4.13 "There should be an alteration
in the way films are distributed. It would be too much to ask
for the Norwegian system, where the distributor is the state and
there is a quota of domestic product in each cinema, but unless
the content of cinemas everywhere ceases to be so limited and
American oriented and showing the same few films everywhere, we
will get nowhere in revitalising the industry and getting audiences
used to more thoughtful projects. Empowering distributors who
already hold most of the cards and are playing them conservatively
does not seem the way to go to revitalise the film industry."
C
4.14 "At the other end of the process,
is publicity and distribution. Many British films fail to get
distribution and of the few that do, most fail to make a decent
return. This is because there is not enough spent on promotion
and distribution. Our cinemas are increasingly multiplexes controlled
by Warner Village, Showcase, Odeon, etc. and overwhelmingly show
Hollywood films. Only a very few home-grown films make it on to
their screens. If this problem is not addressed, then we will
never get proper investment in British Film. A quota system is
fraught with problems, but maybe tax incentives would encourage
distributors to screen more British movies."
4.15 "Until they have more writers
or even directors reading their scripts with an open mind, looking
for quality, and not just people that they have `trained' to look
out for a particular kind of flavour-of-the-month script that
they have decided in advance will be commercial, I am afraid it
won't really work. It's a top-down structure when it should be
bottom-up. `Distribution-led' is just another way of saying that
big business knows best. Except if that is really the case, why
do we not have a viable British film industry already? We speak
English, and have an enormous advantage in that. We should be
doing better." C
| 
