UKFC announces sweeping reorganisation, new production fund
The UK Film Council (UKFC) is proposing to merge its Premiere, New Cinema and Development funds to create a $25m (£15m) Film Production Fund, as part of a major overhaul of the organisation following its $41.9m (£25m) budget cut.
The new fund will be used to support all production but will have an emphasis on first and second time film-makers, and will also support experimental, innovative and digital film-making. The UKFC has launched a three month public consultation into the plans today (November 17).
The $25.1m (£15m) budget for the new fund is $3.3m (£2m) lower than the total allocated to the three separate funds, although any money recouped by the UKFC from their investments will now go directly back into the Production Fund.
According to UKFC chief executive John Woodward, the fund is expected to at least equal the current spend on the three funds, as a result of the reinvestment: “Instead of recoupment going back into the top of the Film Council, the money will go directly back into the production fund, so my expectation is that in three years time there will be slightly more money in the pot than there is now.”
The fund will be led by four distinctive gatekeepers who will be appointed by April 2010. Woodward said that its emphasis on first and second time directors was because “the market is becoming more and more risk averse, so it’s the job of the film council to start taking more risks with film-makers.”
Tim Bevan, UKFC chairman added: “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.”
The UKFC is also planning to introduce a producer equity scheme that will see producers being given a 30% cut of the money recouped by the UKFC on films they have invested in.
The plans also propose a new $8.4m (£5m) Innovation Fund that will promote new business models and aims to ensure UK film’s transition into the digital age; but other funds will be reduced or scrapped completely including the Film Skills Fund, which will be reduced from $11.7m (£7m) to £5.6m (£3.5m) and the P&A Fund which will be cut from $6.7m (£4m) to $3.3m (£2m). The digital archive fund will be closed down altogether. The UKFC’s diversity budget will not be cut.
Meanwhile, the Regional Screen Agencies look set to lose out in the reorganisation – their UKFC budgets will be cut by 20% - but there is a new minimum target of 25% for non-London film production.
As part of the reorganisation, the UKFC will cut its overheads by 20% and it has confirmed that around 22 jobs will be cut, including 3 from its Los Angeles office. The UKFC’s total budget will now be $99.2m (£59.1m) over the next three years, down from $117.5m (£70m).
The UKFC has been receiving around 46% of its budget coming from lottery funds, 40% from government support through grants, and the remainder from investments and other sources; however, it has been forced to make cuts as lottery cash is now being diverted to the London 2012 Olympic Games.
Tim Bevan, UKFC chairman, said: “The support the UK Film Council has given film culture and the film industry over the past ten years has been enormous, but we’re now operating in a very different environment and we need to adapt to meet the needs of a new generation of audiences and film-makers. To do that when the UKFC itself is having to find savings of $41.9 (£25m) over the next three years is a real challenge. But it’s now more important than ever to ensure we invest as much money as possible in film production, in creative and cultural excellence, and in helping UK film make a successful transition into the digital age – and that’s exactly what we’re proposing to do.”
John Woodward added that the reorganisation takes into account the economic downturn, the lack of finance for new production and the collapse of the traditional business model as well as the cuts in budget. He said the priority was to “protect the money for development and production funding”.
According to Woodward, the overhaul remains separate from the proposed BFI merger. The BFI’s budget is $27m (£16m) a year and if the merger goes ahead, there will be savings from shared costs, he said.
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment.
Share
Readers' comments (15)
Anonymous | 17-Nov-2009 4:15 pm
why are the regions loosing out again... the UKFC is so bias towards London it's disgusting!
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 18-Nov-2009 11:34 am
Actually, I think you'll find that the Regional Screen Agencies cut includes Film London. Most of the Regions are able to access vast amounts of money from European Regional Development Fund, as well as thier Regional Development Agency, and a variety of other sources. I think it's fairly even handed.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 18-Nov-2009 2:05 pm
With it being a public consultation...how do you have your say?
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 18-Nov-2009 2:57 pm
You can have your say at www.ukfilmcouncil.org.uk/survey
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 19-Nov-2009 10:25 am
A salutory lesson - it takes a £25 million cut to get the UKFC to engage fully with its core business of film development and production. Some long fought ideas here but with the current crop I can't see this leopard changing its spots.
Who on earth felt it fair to have film investment returns syphoned off into the flabby administrative hierarchy rather than at least being reinvested back into the funds to reward the hard working and supremely creative producers who made that money for them - or better still rewarding the creatives who were offered such a poor deal on the investment in the first place.
Such sweet concern about second time film makers now when their endeavours were so poorly recognised by the inflated egos (and salaries) of the heads of the council.
It is time to end the top-down control of the grey bureaucrats right across film and enfranchise the richly coloured, irredeemably optimistic (and dogged) creatives who actually produce film and generate the very substantial income our industry generates for the UK.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 19-Nov-2009 11:28 am
hear hear! the previous commentator speaks with wisdom and understanding!
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 19-Nov-2009 12:08 pm
"Supremely creative producers"?? "Irredeemably optimistic creatives"??? Do me a favour! The main reason the Film Council was set up was to stop people like you trying to grab as much public money as you can to make pretentious films nobody will ever want to watch ... which is what used to happen under the Arts Council. At least the so-called bureaucrats now have the power to say "no" - and if they back films like Harry Brown, Nowhere Boy and Man on Wire it can't be all bad.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 19-Nov-2009 3:49 pm
The fact is THE SEX LIVES OF THE POTATO MEN is one of the most underrated films of all time.
I really don't know why this isn't brought up more often as a model of the incisive, creative genius that sit behind the desks of our Great Film Quango.
Whatever happened to the Sex Lives of The Potato Men 2?
Surely we should be told!
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 19-Nov-2009 5:38 pm
Sorry to disappoint you, but I think they’ve been rather too busy funding Oscar-winners like The Constant Gardener and Man on Wire, and Cannes hits like Fish Tank and Bright Star to come up with your sequel? Just a thought…
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 19-Nov-2009 6:29 pm
David Gritten in the Telegraph is at his most succinct when he says:
"There's a case for a body offering public subsidies to innovative, important but not obviously commercial British films....That was the Arts Council's role until 2000. But the Film Council wants to recoup its money - it wants hits.
It's a losers' game. Hollywood studios can afford to play it, because the magnitude of their hits covers the losses of their flops. But Britain isn't Hollywood, and the Film Council, taking a punt with other people's money, can never hope to win. There's no need for a quango that spends public funds on commercially minded but unsuccessful British films. Such films sink at the box-office without Film Council help - often, indeed, after the Film Council declines to back them and they are financed from elsewhere.
Veteran screenwriter William Goldman, musing on the impossibility of predicting film hits, once wrote: "Nobody knows anything." Now there's a realistic mission statement the Film Council's senior executives might consider. The rest of us might wonder why these people are allowed to waste our taxes on such fruitless, ill-judged ventures."
Go figure.....
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 19-Nov-2009 9:42 pm
In the real world - the only real savings can be from headcount.
They say that 22 jobs will go.
Uh huh. Let's see where the axe falls.
I suspect it will be junior, symbolic and cosmetic - rather than making real savings at the top end.
In these times of recession this arts administration job should be recognised for what it is. Safe, cosy, cushy, and very little to do with the real world.
Let's see some sweeping radical changes instead of musical chairs. The industry in these times requires some radical creative solutions.
Lets see some decency, honesty, integrity and good old fashioned soul searching about what is RIGHT for the whole industry - not for the fewreaucrats.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 20-Nov-2009 8:00 am
I hope all of you who are ranting here have registered your opinions at www.ukfilmcouncil.org.uk/survey.
Unsuitable or offensive?
D Hughes | 28-Nov-2009 3:21 pm
I think the Film Council are damned if they do, damned if they don't. Their £15m fund wouldn't even cover the PR/Marketing spend of a middling Hollywood release, but every company from Hawick to Haverfordwest expects a nibble at the trough. Sensibly, instead, UKFC try pick their 'winners' - their Andrea Arnolds and Terence Davies' - and have had a pretty good strike rate this past 12-18 months. But statistically (and obviously) most applicants are going to be rejected. There just isn't the money to go around. Therefore, most applicants will perceive the UKFC as boundahs - while those rare creatures who feel the warmth of their rays will see them in somewhat more heroic terms. Bottom line - that's how life is; get over it. If you love your project enough, you'll get it made.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 29-Nov-2009 9:53 pm
The reality negates the 'validity' of D.Hughs smug comment above.
The actor Robert Carlyle has made an announcement over at the 'Wired' website concerning the British Film Industry and why he has become tired of having to work in the UK in such circumstances.
His two films 'Summer' and 'I Know You Know'
did not get either proper publicity or distribution despite his claims that they are the best performances he has yet given (seen by twenty people...)
Film funding in the UK heavily subsidises the exhibition of both European art house cinema and USA cinema - not British cinema - while the rate of commissioned British scripts to production is at an extremely low percentage.
There is little use in making a film if it does not get seen.
The issue isnt from disgruntled film-makers who did not get financed. Every film company knows the score.
The issue is not 'marketing funds' or 'having a nibble at the trough' - the issue is that there is no protection for British Film - as given by other European States which protect their film industry. This means that British Films are regularly excluded from exhibition in British multiplexes.
The issue is that the 'film industry' is currently being mis-managed by those who should be changing this situation and protecting its interests i.e. the UKFC.
For those seeking the truth and details about the UKFC's mis-management, and the reasons for it, take a look at the articles printed at:
www.pleasedsheep.com
under 'Political Blogs'
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 28-Jan-2010 4:34 pm
The UKFC has had 10 years to succeed.
It has failed.
The industry votes 'no confidence.'
John Woodward and business affairs acolytes, fall on your collective swords.
Unsuitable or offensive?