INTRODUCTION

  The call for evidence on the performance of the Film Council to date is appropriate and welcome.

  This is a response to the work of the Film Council from the Showroom Cinema in Sheffield. The Showroom is one of the largest independent regional cinemas in the UK, with four screens and several major annual events including the Sheffield International Documentary Festival and the Showcomotion Festival of Films for Children and Young People. We are in recipient of an annual grant support from the Film Council.

  The Showroom has also contributed to the evidence submitted by the Association of Independent Film Exhibitors (AIFE).

COMMENTS ON SELECTED QUESTIONS

1.  Is it important to seek to preserve a capacity to make British films about Britain in the UK?

  Yes. However, it is important to ensure that British films find audiences and therefore investment should be targeted at structural weaknesses throughout the industry and not solely in the production sector. The Showroom is dedicated to exhibiting a broad range of films from around the world, which extend choice for audiences beyond the commercial mainstream. Evidence from our box office is that audiences respond to films made in the UK, which tell stories relevant to people's lives. Some of the most successful films at our cinema last year included UK productions such as: Gosforth Park, Iris, 24-Hour Party People, Last Orders, All Or Nothing and Morvern Caller. However these films did not uniformly find audiences, or indeed cinemas willing to show them, across the UK and in many parts of the country these films received only limited exposure.

  In addition to the commercially successful films listed above we screened a range of "smaller" UK films which frequently found an enthusiastic and dedicated audience. We believe that with wider exposure these films would have found a much larger audience. Notable examples are The Navigators, Dirty Pretty Things and the experimental film, This Filthy Earth. Audiences for UK productions have to be carefully nurtured with dedicated local promotions to counter the blanket advertising of many big budget American films. We are therefore of the view that support for the distribution and exhibition infrastructure is a vital component in developing audiences and awareness for UK films and in helping to establish a robust and sustainable film industry.

  Very few films for children are produced in the UK (in contrast to many European countries where policies exist to support children's film productions). We believe that part of the process of building audiences is to introduce young people to relevant stories about their lives and this should be done by investing is films for children in the UK. The development of policies for the production and support of children's film, is an area, which the Film Council has not yet fully investigated.

2.  What should the relationship be between British broadcasters and the film industry?

  Whilst the television industry has invested in feature film production in a variety of ways over the previous decade, there is a current trend for co-production deals between publicly-financed production funds and the television industry. Many of the films financed in this way are excluded from (or have very limited) theatrical exhibition. Recent examples include Paul Greengrass's Bloody Sunday, which was shown on UK television prior to its success at the Berlin Film Festival (joint Golden Bear winner) from where it went on to be exhibited successfully around the world. Francesca Joseph's Tomorrow La Scala was shown successfully in "un certain regarde" at the Cannes Film Festival in 2002, but had to be pulled from a screening at the Edinburgh Film Festival. The Festival explained that this was because the producers had neglected to clear the music rights for anything other than television exhibition in the UK. Recently we exhibited Ken Loach's The Navigators through a special arrangement with the producer. However the television funders of this film insisted that no publicity for the film (other than limited local advertising) took place. We are of the view that all these films are relevant to audiences in the UK and that with some investment in promotion, a theatrical audience could be achieved. If public funding is to go into television co-production there should be at least an opportunity to find a theatrical audience.

  The role of television in introducing audiences to a broad range of films cannot be overstated. The current trend of UK broadcasters is to marginalise non-English-language and minority interest films to non-mainstream broadcast times. There is likely to be a longer-term detrimental effect on the audiences willingness to engage with these films if they are not familiar with them through television. Many UK film distributors have long complained that television no longer buys non-English films to the same extent as it once did. This has meant that it is increasingly difficult to bring these films into UK distribution.

3.  Does the film industry merit support from Government, if so, how can existing support be improved?

  We believe that the film industry will continue to benefit and grow if strategic financial interventions are made by Government. The recent Film Parliament industry discussion held during the Rotterdam Film Festival concluded that intervention into the industry was needed (across Europe). All parts of the industry agreed that this intervention should be weighted towards the creation of an exhibition and distribution infrastructure that satisfies and builds audiences through the development of a vigorous, international and pluralistic film culture.

  Whilst the creation of the Regional Investment Fund for England (RIFE) by the Film Council has many merits in allowing regional policies to be developed we are concerned that the creation of nine regional bodies with associated administration and overheads is not the most efficient use of public resources. Evidence is growing that many projects are suffering from reduced funding because of growing central costs of the regional screen agencies. At least two major regional cinemas have suffered recent grant cuts for the reason that the agency has overheads to meet. Additionally a trend among regional screen agencies is to cover central costs through Treasury funding whilst funding projects (even annual commitments) through Lottery finance. It is of great concern that the projects delivering films to audiences are suffering financially because of burgeoning bureaucracy at both the central and regional levels.

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?

  The establishment of several production funds by the Film Council has swallowed the bulk of resources to date. However to ensure that audiences are able to see these films additional resources must be invested in the distribution and exhibition of this product.

  The UK continues to suffer from a lack of specialist cinemas, which can build audiences for non-mainstream films. There are many major UK cities (eg Birmingham and Leeds), where the resident population does not have access to much UK and European cultural product (ie non-American films). The Film Council should prioritise the filling of these gaps in infrastructure, which would have an ongoing impact by increasing the revenues that non-mainstream films could generate at the UK box office.

  The continued development of audiences through education and access initiatives must remain a priority for the Film Council if it is to fulfil its remit adequately. The important role of the many film festivals throughout the UK should be acknowledged and in particular, the valuable work that these events do in broadening the range of films available to audiences.

5.  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?

  The bfi continues to have an important role to play. The bfi should be encouraged to strengthen its role in championing the "culture of film" and in making film available to the broadest range of audiences. The bfi should be asked to review its role to ensure that it has a relevance to the whole country and not only a small number of people living in London. The Museum of the Moving Image does not seem to be a core function of the bfi, and should not be a priority unless additional finance can be identified to re-open it.

  The National Film Archive should be strengthened with a new dynamic commitment to make newly restored films available to audiences through the UK. Viewing prints of restored films could be struck and promoted to exhibitors. The contents of the NFA could be publicised and promoted through the production of a catalogue or listings in the Internet.

  The National Film Theatre should be required to consult with and develop a relationship with exhibitors throughout the UK. It should be encouraged to make available many of the programmes (not only occasional tours), to cinemas outside London.

  Similarly the London Film Festival should be encouraged to develop policies that have relevance to the industry and to regional exhibitors (as does the Rotterdam Film Festival for example). The festival could easily champion "film as culture", and make dynamic cultural interventions on behalf of UK audiences. Consideration should also be given to establishing the festival as a separate body from the bfi, which would allow the festival to concentrate on its core mission.

  By concentrating on these core activities with a strong audience-focused education function, the bfi can rebuild its reputation as a centre of excellence for film culture and develop a new national relevance within the UK.

1 March 2003