Industry welcomes UKFC overhaul
The UK film industry has generally welcomed the news of the potential reorganisation of the UK Film Council, describing the major changes as “producer friendly”.
“It is a very positive thing that money recouped by the UKFC on successful films will go back into the production fund, as it is an incentive for producers to come up with commercially successful projects,” says Robert Bernstein of Ecosse Films, who produced Sam Taylor Wood’s Nowhere Boy.
Paul Raphael of Starfield Productions, who produced the 2007 drama about the Lebanon war Under the Bombs added he was “glad to see that the focus is on helping producers. It shows that the people having the discussions understand the realities we are all facing.”
However, there are concerns over how the new single Film Production Fund will be managed. “What we don’t know if the full extent of the changes in the infrastructure. Hopefully the UKFC will refine and simplify their bureaucratic practises because everyone would welcome that,” said Paul Webster of Kudos Productions, who is currently producing Rowan Joffe’s Brighton Rock with the help of UKFC funding.
Christopher Granier-Deferre of production company Possion Rouge Pictures, who produced the 2008 thriller The Hide, added: “The merging of funds is a fairly cosmetic move. It should be more about re-evaulating how the fund is run. It should be a democratic and transparent process, as to how the films are supported.”
However he welcomed the producer equity scheme, saying it “was a great way to rewards producers success”.
What is known about the new Fund is that it will be managed by one ‘head’, supported by three senior executives with distinct, creative roles. All will be appointed by April 2010. Sally Caplan, the present head of the Premiere Fund, is due to leave her position in May 2010 at the end of her five-year contract.
The existing heads of the New Cinema Fund and the Development Fund –Lenny Crooks and Tanya Seghatchian respectively– will be eligible to apply for one of the four positions. The posts will also be open to external candidates.
Internal consultation at the UKFC is now taking place on the 22 potential job losses.
Most producers were supportive of the news the fund will be focused on first and second time directors, although Paul Raphael said “he didn’t think it should be the main consideration.”
UKFC chairman Tim Bevan explained the decision saying: “Second time film-makers are our biggest problem in this country. People make a decent first movie and then choke on their second film. It is very important to get them up and running.”
However he underlined that projects from established UK talent such as Mike Leigh, Ken Loach and Stephen Frears would not be shut-out out from UKFC funding.
One of the few announcements to draw criticism is the news the UKFC p&a fund will be halved from $6.7m (£4m) to $3.3m (£2m).
“It seems very short-sighted to cut p&a support, as UK distributors notoriously don’t like to distribute British films,” said Nigel Thomas of Matador Pictures, whose credits include the upcoming Huge directed by Ben Miller, starring Noel Clarke.
Similarly, the 20% reduction in funding for the regional screen agencies has also been greeted with dismay by some.
“Cutting regional funding is a spectacular failure of vision,” added Thomas.
“We will now look to see how we can minimise the effects of the proposed cuts in RIFE [Regional Investment Fund For England] funding on delivery to our clients and to audiences across Yorkshire and the Humber,” said Hugo Heppell, the head of production at regional agency Screen Yorkshire.
He is echoed by Debbie Williams, chief executive of East Midlands screen agency EM Media. “Rest assured EM Media will be working hard in the coming weeks and months to achieve the best possible outcome for the regional film and media sector.”
Commenting on the news that the UKFC’s Film Skills Fund had been halved, Neil Peplow, head of Skillset, said: “Skillset’s proposed cut in funding from the UKFC is disappointing, but not unexpected given the diversion of lottery money to fund the 2012 Olympics and the recent tough public funding round.”
“Inevitably, we will be looking at areas that have maximum economic impact. There will be an important focus on working in partnership to make best use of available resources to deliver training when and where it is needed,” he added.
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment.
Share
Readers' comments (12)
Anonymous | 19-Nov-2009 10:42 am
The same old names, the same old faces - the same old worn out ideas recycled and served up fresh. But it's still the same old grey mush of past their sell by bureaucrats trying to hang on to their frayed positions.
Have some dignity and fall on your swords!
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 19-Nov-2009 11:18 am
took the words right out of my mouth...dispite this supposed reorganisation there will still no doubt be four people paid over £100k a year to run one relatively small fund and that's before you start on other lawyers and accountants and consultants...if any lender of any sort ran in this way it wouldn't last five minutes as investors would laugh at the fund management fees required to pay all those people - as tax payers/lottery ticket buyers are the equivalent of the investors here I would encourage everyone to take part in the consultation.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 19-Nov-2009 12:43 pm
John Woodward
The employment contract for John Woodward, the Chief Executive Officer of the UK Film Council, was renewed in 2008 for a further period of two years to run from 1 November 2008 at an annual salary of £170,171. The contract includes a six-month notice period and an option in favour of the UK Film Council to extend the contract period for a further year, such option to be exercisable by no later than 30 April 2010.
The contract also allows for the following:
(a) A contribution by the UK Film Council to a private pension equal to 16% of annual salary.
(b) A non-pensionable annual performance bonus (of up to 20% of annual salary) from which up to 5% of annual salary can be commuted by John Woodward to increase his salary for the following year of employment instead of being paid as part of his performance bonus.
(c) A non-pensionable loyalty bonus (of 12.5% of annual salary) in each year of the contract but payment for the two years of employment to 31 October 2010 is conditional upon John Woodward remaining in the UK Film Council's employment until this date. If the UK Film Council exercises its option to extend the contract of employment for a third year then payment of the loyalty bonus for such third year is conditional upon John Woodward remaining in the UK Film Council's employment until 31 October 2011.
(d) The UK Film Council staff benefits of an interest free season ticket loan, subsidised membership of a Health Club up to £100 per annum, a cinema ticket allowance of up to £250 per annum and subsidised child care up to £40 per child per week.
John Woodward's remuneration for the financial year 2008/09 was as follows:
Salary for the year ended 31 March 2009
£ 165,444
Bonus
£ 32,498
Pension
£ 26,472
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 19-Nov-2009 1:28 pm
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t ... at least the Film Council makes its Chief Executive’s salary, pension etc public. Better than most organisations who either have to be dragged kicking and screaming in to the real world or simply don’t bother disclosing any salaries at all. Anyway – isn’t it about the films, stupid? You know you've lost the argument when the best you can do is cry foul because there are people in, er, the film industry that earn more than you do ...
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 19-Nov-2009 1:36 pm
Are we forgetting that someone recently wanted £25 MILLION to run a failing commercial TV channel? £165,000 to run the UK film industry (which last time I checked was doing quite well) seems like a bargain to me.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 19-Nov-2009 2:19 pm
Yes, £165,000 is a large salary, but I think discussions about how much the top brass earn is irrelevant to this discussion. The main problem here is the Government's gross overspend on the Olympics and their decision to siphon money away from the arts in order to fund it.
It was obvious the UKFC (and the Arts Council, for that matter) would have to make cuts in the face of this. I think, given the options, the Film Council has done quite well (especially given the mess the Arts Council is going to be left in once their changes have been implemented.)
Prioritising funding for first and second-time filmmakers, putting money recouped from sales back into the production fund, the producer equity scheme.. none of that sounds bad, given what they could have come up with!
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 19-Nov-2009 3:40 pm
In 2005 - Michael Kuhn was already saying:
"To many of us it seems that this Janus-like body, representing us to the Government but not representing us; representing Government to the industry but helpless in light of, and blindsided by, recent tax changes, not hearing criticism because it is the most powerful dispenser of patronage, is in need of reform."
Cassandra-like Michael was ahead of his time
in his criticism and the response for a call for reform has come far too late.
The fish, as they say, stinks from the head.
Will we see heads roll???
I doubt it - mediocrity will always prevail.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 19-Nov-2009 6:40 pm
The industry has been asked to consult on this document – all our comments must be in by February 10th – but they are appointing the four new gatekeepers in April? This is not a real consultation. More of a fait accompli.
It does seem wrong that the overall amount of production cash (15 million) has decreased yet the amount of gatekeepers has gone up to 4.
It is hard to get proper statistics – i.e development ratio – but a look at the single projects development awards database on the UKFC website shows that £18 million has been spent since 2001 on scripts. Just under a million pounds-worth have been made. Or 29 films made out of 500 developed. (And this does not include the slate deals).
This does not seem to be a good way of running anything. Surely it is better to cut down the middle-men and get the money into shooting – if you look at the European funds they award development money on an automatic basis whereby the dev and a share of recoupment goes to the producer and which they can invest in new projects of their own choice. Cut down the bureaucracy, and get the money to the screen.
So, can anyone tell me waht happended to the amazing case of the missing £17 million gone?
Maybe there's a movie in it somewhere.....
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 20-Nov-2009 9:21 am
wow....that's a very good question.
Right now New Cinema Fund has £5 Million + Premiere has £8 million and Development has £4 million.....£17 million total for the sector...
And according to Screen - the running costs are £9.1 million.
If this is what's happening in the so called film "industry" - then what in heaven's name must be happening in hospitals, schools, roads and infrastructure where the stakes are much higher.
This mismanagement has gone on long enough, let's have a new broom, a new A team that can really lead from the front and spend this public money well.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 20-Nov-2009 3:34 pm
It's right that this venting of anger should take place and that the UKFC should realise the strength of opinion that is out there.... However we also need to move on quickly and constructively engage with the changes that they are proposing.
Like all public institutions from Parliament down, UKFC is going to undergo a far more fundamental cultural overhaul of how it thinks and operates, and this will require new staff across the board. It's amazing to me, for example, how the New Cinema Fund has operated with the same Senior Executives for some 8 years now !!! John has done a good job but is it not time for him to move on after 10 years at the helm ?
Starting with the language it uses would be a good start... Shouldnt that be "gateways" rather than "gatekeepers".
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 20-Nov-2009 6:43 pm
wow this is clearly what all the delusional failed film makers do to pass the time!! If we’re talking numbers, am I right in thinking that there’s way over 1000 producers , most of them jobbing waiters, working in the UK right now, that the ukfc’s got limited funds, and doing the maths means that most people who try to get money from ukfc will get turned down if they’re not good enough (but that’s life) ... so basically i’m guessing that all these bitter comments are coming from twisted saddos who’s second rate projects just weren’t good enough. Well here’s a thought, maybe go back to the drawing board, try again and who knows you might just get somewhere. (btw gateway or gatekeeper, glad we’re focussing on the important stuff)
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 22-Nov-2009 5:11 pm
Clearly a UKFC insider above.
Clearly indicative of the level or respect that organisation has for the people it is designed to serve.
What else can one expect from a management that has licked the UKFC management nose is falling over itself to be browned by Ed Vaizey's truer than blue conservative derriere.
Normally rats would just leave the sinking ship.
This time the vermin stay on board with little or no dignity - and the industry is supposed to have faith in this bunch of second raters?
Time for whoever, be it Labour or Conservative to take control amnd make sure this Quango is run on behalf of the people for whom it was established and not in the interests of those who serve therein.
Unsuitable or offensive?