The UK Film Council released its three year plan this month, a rough outline of their priorities and spending plans for the next three years. They know (and they acknowledge in the report) that funding is in danger and that the outcome of the election will determine the flow of money. The Olympics have also drained Lottery money away from the UKFC's pot.
It's not really a huge change of direction, as their number one priority continues to be funding films. Sadly, distribution and exhibition are number FOUR in their priority list. So, no change there, eh? And they lump distribution and exhibition all in the same category, with a paltry £300,000 over three years for what they call 'cross-art forms venues'. Meanwhile, distributors (including major studios) are getting £2,000,000 in prints and advertising funds. It seems nobody has learnt anything.
The only support that exhibitors are getting is the lobbying, organisational and logistical support for the Digital Funding Partnership which is a buying group for digital kit for independent (but not arthouse) cinemas. What is the point in spending tens of millions of pounds on films that no cinema in Britain will play because they receive no funding to do so? The most successful British cinema is either Hollywood-backed proven properties (Harry Potter, Bond) or high quality arthouse (Loach, Leigh) and everything in between simply fails to find an audience. Don't believe me? The UKFC's own data says that only 44% of films shot between 2003 and 2006 found a theatrical release within two years of production. It's not enough to fund these films - we have to find cinemas to play them.
A free DVD for the first person who can name the cinema in the picture, a gorgeous 1930s palace now crumbling away.
Posts
Is kick-ass a british film? its interesting hearing how Mark Millar was initially shunned by all the studios and then, without changing a thing and with the finances from Vaughan, he managed to get a better deal than the initial offer when offered a second time! The 'studios', amongst other factors, told them initially that 'Hit Girl' should either be scrapped or be 25 yrs old ...
ReplyDeleteThat would not be Kick-Ass, That would just be Ass.
Simon
www.screeninsight.com
I can vaguely remember the Astoria being a cinema. http://www.terramedia.co.uk/brighton/Astoria.htm
ReplyDeleteThe Movie Business is just that and the same has always been the case with distribution and exhibition. We certainly need cinemas like The Duke of York's to survive, especially after the dark days of the Bingo Halls.
Billy Boy you are correct. I have a DVD for you...email me your address barrenechea.jon @ googlemail com
ReplyDeleteSimon, I know what you mean about Vaughn's financing deal - but that doesn't mean I like the film. My thoughts are best reflected by the New Yorker's review: http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2010/04/26/100426crci_cinema_lane?currentPage=1
ReplyDelete