UK Film Council: The End?
Sticking with films for this afternoon's post, and referencing this morning's thought: if you had taken my advice, embarked on a script about the life of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, and got as far as a treatment, you might be disappointed to hear today's news that the government has shouted "Cut!" on the existence of the UK Film Council.
The reason, the government says, is the drive to cut down on unnecessary bureaucracy and costs - a position that when discussing a .
Sides are being taken as I type, with those coming out for and against the proposed abolition - but it seems inevitable that there is risk in changing the ecology of what is a fragile British film industry.
The government is keen to reiterate that it is axing the UK Film Council, not its commitment to continue to financially support the film industry. What's less clear is who will manage the funds if not the Film Council. The government has said it won't be the British Film Institute and it won't create a new agency. So who? The Arts Council? The DCMS itself with film officers? Hardly "arm's length".
The government hopes that this will herald a new era of cost-effective hits, while others worry that the result will be more akin to a disaster movie.
One thing is quite clear, though, for all those with films in some sort of conceptual form as far as any funding option is concerned - the UK Film Council will no longer be an option.
For this government agency, this is The End.
An arts journal by 
Comment number 1.
At 26th Jul 2010, _Ewan_ wrote:Hardly "arm's length".
You say that like it's a bad thing. Why shouldn't the spending of taxpayers' money be overseen by our democratically elected representatives rather than someone that's not accountable to us?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 26th Jul 2010, John_from_Hendon wrote:Strangely, I was not shocked by the DCMS decision. Many far more damaging cuts will take place. The film industry will suffer at the margin, particularly for new entrants and training. However this is no more than can be expected.
We have yet to see the closure of museums, galleries and the British Library - or the charging of very high usage fees which will amount to the same thing.
Why not also close down English Heritage and let the 'Big Society' protect our heritage? Perhaps the default position should be that all buildings should be listed on request unless there is a good reason not to? Already at the end of this week free swimming for the under 16s and over 60s is to end (courtesy of the DCMS) Perhaps the whole DCMS is unnecessary and it should be closed? Hunt and Vaizy, the faded label on a cardboard box under the arches at Waterloo! Nobody does 'stand up tragedy' (do they?), but I am sure when the true awfulness of the cuts percolates through it will become the new vogue in street theatre!
While we are about it cancel the Olympics too (and that is a semi-serious suggestion to save money).
Might I also suggest the Treasury too should be closed as it was through their incompetence that we are in the parlous state! I am sticking the pins in the poppets (wax dolls) right now!
Hunt and Vaizey undertakes to British Culture! They are reading the last rights for a generation.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 28th Jul 2010, gareth wrote:The UK Film Council is actually funded from the Lottery and not central government. It receives a share of the promised "Arts Funding" from the Lottery coffers, so the Government still has to ensure that money goes into film. However the UKFC is a bureaucratic beast which uses something like 10 - 20% of its income on salries, expenses and running costs. It isn't a very efficient machine.
Plus, after 10 years of making investments of over Β£150m it is still, oddly, in no way self-funding. Surely any sound investments would be generating significant profits to re-invest?
If administration passes back to the Arts Council again, it will no doubt be a leaner and less complicated structure.
But we lose a public body which represents film unlike the BFI or Arts Council does - we will lose our voice.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 29th Jul 2010, Justin150 wrote:I am not sorry to see the back of UKFC. Time and time again British Film producers complained about it - if you were not part of their favoured "clique" of directors/producers or making politically correct films (that no one watches) then you had no chance of getting money from them. How much of that is true and how much sour grapes I have no idea but so many people said the same thing that I have a feeling it is probably true.
The other problem with the UKFC is that it was supposed to be the film worlds voice to govt. It was in fact govt's voice to the film world. It had completely failed in one of its key roles
What I would like to see is the lottery money going into the regional film funds but on condition that it is used to encourage local film makers. Currently most of the regional film funds have no interest in local film makers and are only interested in a non-local to move his/her film.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 6th Nov 2010, U14675809 wrote:This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)