TUESDAY 6 MAY 2003

MR PETER BLOORE, MR CHARLES HARRIS AND MR DAVID CASTRO

  Q136  Chairman: Gentlemen, thank you very much indeed for coming to see us. You were sitting through that. What lessons are there in it for you?

  Mr Castro: Not to make a film and not to make money out of it.

  Mr Harris: We have prepared an oral statement as you do not have a written statement from us. It is in three parts. Peter Bloore is a founder member of the New Producers' Alliance and chair of trustees, as well as a freelance writer and director. David Castro worked in business outside the film industry before becoming an award winning feature producer and also chief executive of the NPA. I am co-chair of the NPA, an experienced trainer and an award winning feature film director. I should add that the NPA is supported in part by the Film Council but our opinions are independent and we would say the same if they paid us less or more. We believe the British film industry makes a crucial, direct and indirect contribution to our culture and economy. At the same time, cinema is an art form, the most influential art form today and a vital way for the British to talk to themselves and to the world. In the NPA, we represent the new life blood of this industry. Each new film-maker is individual with individual needs. It is important that these film-makers should be able to develop their careers and be nurtured by a rich and thriving industry, one which offers many different options for progress. However, we detect certain very recent trends which cause us deep concern. What we see is an apparent narrowing of choice across the board from training through production to exhibition. There seems to be a belief in some quarters that you can somehow find the best method, somehow develop only the best people and the best projects, if only we knew which they were. However, we do not believe the world works like that. Lack of choice means narrowness, narrow people, narrow training, a narrow range of films. Choice means variety. Choice means that some projects should be driven by market forces, some should be subsidised and some benefit from automatic support such as tax incentives. We believe this applies in all areas that affect new film makers from exhibition right the way back to training.

  Mr Bloore: As an organisation, we believe that it is culturally valuable and indeed vital for the British public to have access to a diverse range of films that reflect their personal experiences and beliefs. The last speaker is a fine example of that. We believe that new film-makers with distinctive, individual voices improve this diversity. Our particular organisation, the New Producers' Alliance, plays its role in developing new talent by training new producers, writers and directors mainly in the business of film so that whatever their vision or story they will understand how best to finance it and bring it to the screen. We are the only open access, nationwide training organisation to do this. We are now in the third year of receiving Film Council support for our core activities. Without that support we would have to double our membership subscriptions and thereby exclude some people from training on grounds of cost alone. Their support has therefore been vital to us in being able to carry out our charitable training work. We welcome Alan Parker's emphasis on training in his recent keynote speech. However, we believe that recent Film Council policy has begun to focus too far on support for top end films and training of experienced producers to the detriment of lower budget films and the training of new producers. They should be of equal importance and be both part of a coherent training and production strategy. To this end we would like to see, firstly, a broadening of the Film Council's training funds to ensure that more schemes targeted at new talent can be supported. Secondly, some of the income of the current SIF levy on film production should be made available for training entry level producers and film makers via the work of organisations like our own, the Directors' Guild, Screenwriters' Workshop, First Film Foundation and other similar organisations. It is fundamentally wrong, we believe, that so little of this money raised by a levy on film production should be failing to reach the new film makers.

  Mr Castro: On production, in order to encourage new film-makers, we believe that their needs must be supported for short films and low budget feature productions as the first step on a sustainable, long term programme. To this end, we broadly welcome the Relph Report on low budget working practices. Also, many first time film makers have managed to get their films made through tax break deals for production so we strongly support tax recommendations to the House regarding maintaining these deals or similar deals in 2005. We also welcome the support of the Film Council's campaign to oblige the UK TV companies to support more British features and back the amendments in the Communications Bill to that effect. However, this is not enough. Firstly, an expansion of the new cinema fund by increasing its overall budget, targeting the extra money at new film makers and short films and reducing or even removing entirely its need to obtain match funding from other sources. Secondly, increased support for the regional funds to fund low budget first and second features as well as shorts. We are also aware that the Film Council has a very large task ahead of them as they have had for the last few years. They, as well as others need sufficient and appropriate time in order to make a significant and long lasting impact on the film industry.

  Mr Bloore: Regarding distribution, we welcome the Film Council's proposals regarding digital distribution of films and believe that it should play its role in securing exhibition for new film makers as well. We would like to thank the select committee for this opportunity to present our perspective on the industry. We are not talking about the golden past of the British film industry here; we are talking about the future. The average age of our members is 26. If we support these new film makers, then we are supporting the future.

  Chairman: Thank you. We very much appreciate the trouble you have gone to.

  Q137  Michael Fabricant: Production, as I see it, is not only working out the cost of a production and how you are going to make the movie but also getting the money. As we heard from the last witness, there are ways to do it and ways not to do it. You provide training for producers. How much training do you give in how to raise money in this rather difficult environment?

  Mr Bloore: All of our training to one degree or another is based on fund raising.

  Mr Castro: And how to do it, why to do it and where to do it, the people you need to talk to and the pitfalls to look out for when you are searching for money. Yes, you can go to A or B but that might be hard or soft money. We try to deal as much as we can with the business of film. To that end, we do an inordinate amount of networking with financiers so that our members can meet the financiers so they get to know each other, because the basis of any relationship has to start somewhere. After that, so that film makers of any kind, whether it is producers, directors or whatever, understand what they are getting themselves into at any stage because they do not want to sell everything.

  Q138  Michael Fabricant: I was interested to hear that you said it is important that we keep the current tax breaks. I do not like calling them "tax breaks"; I just think of them in terms of being a similar tax regime to that currently being enjoyed by television. I do not know whether you were here for the Directors' Guild earlier on this afternoon. They did not seem to think that the tax breaks made much difference at all.

  Mr Harris: I missed that little bit of what they said. My personal feeling is, as was said very clearly and cogently, you are selling the first Coca Cola each time.

  Q139  Michael Fabricant: Our Chairman is always cogent.

  Mr Harris: The problem is who you go to. That is why we made the point that we need a multiple route of raising money, whether for development, distribution or production. There need to be a number of different places to go to. If you have market forces, that will take you in one direction. Some films are not necessarily appropriate for market forces. Subsidy works but there is a limit to how many people you can go to for subsidy. A fund cannot have 200 gate-keepers. The advantage of tax breaks is not just for production. It can be from training right through to distribution and then you can have two million people you can go to. If you fall at the first hurdle, you always have other hurdles to try. I know of award winning films that have had to go through quite a few hoops until they finally found the hoop that was right for them. The danger is, if you only have two types of hoop, you will only get two types of film.