FEATURE
BREAKING NEWS For the latest film business news see
ScreenDaily.com
should be made by individuals or by committee. If there is a single gatekeeper, unsuccessful pro- ducers can rightly complain the person simply does not like them or share their taste. However, committees can be cumbersome, unwieldy and lack vision. “It is a question of what kind of film you’re
making,” suggests Nielsen. “If you’re making a very broad film aimed at the mainstream market, the decision by committee or consensus is often a very good way. But if you’re talking about artisti- cally taking chances, re-inventing art and mov- ing in new directions, you very often need an individual decision.” Any national film agency has to win the argu-
ment with its government about the necessity for supporting film. This tends to be a cultural rather than an economic debate. During the Second World War, the British war
ministry is said to have asked Winston Churchill to cut the culture budget to free up additional finance for defence. Supposedly, Churchill refused, proclaiming: “We need to have some- thing to defend.” This anecdote was repeated regularly by Danish culture minister Per Stig Moller last year when he made what, by Euro- pean standards in a period of austerity, was a very generous settlement — worth $407m (KRO2.1bn) — for public film funding in Den- mark between 2011-14. Measures of success include local box office
Berberian Sound Studio typifies the kind of project the BFI is looking to back
and market share, performance at major inter- national festivals, critical reception and talent development. But this can all be a little hazy. “You have to be accountable and explain what [your investments] brought to the film business and to society,” says Hans Everaert, head of business affairs at the Flemish Audiovisual Fund (VAF). “People have to be convinced it’s important to make films that come out of your local culture.”
Refresh and renew All deliberations about public film funding mod- els tend to be cyclical. Ten years ago in the UK, around the time of the UKFC’s creation, there was a backlash against the arty, Europe-oriented cinema championed by the existing public bod- ies, towards more commercially minded fare. A decade on, the wheel has turned. It is
‘At the moment, we have the least
imperfect system’ Henrik Bo Nielsen, Danish Film Institute
The Israel Film Fund backed festival hit Ajami, co-directed by Scandar Copti and Yaron Shani
Fund, which has backed recent breakout festi- val hits such as Ajami and Cannes Competition entry Footnote. They also look to producers in France who
can benefit from the ‘Compte de soutien’, the CNC’s automatic support scheme. Every quali- fying French producer and distributor receives subsidies in proportion to their film’s success in theatres in France, and also DVD and TV sales. There is a strong counter argument that public film funds should be discretionary, not
automatic. “If we’re talking art support, which is really what our work is about, it’s very, very difficult to make anything automatic,” suggests Henrik Bo Nielsen, CEO of the Danish Film Institute (DFI). “The minute you start making tax credits or automatic support systems avail- able, you should really go to a different ministry. It shouldn’t be the ministry of culture but the ministry of business support.” Another perennial, highly charged question about public film funding is whether decisions
n 36 Screen International at the Cannes Film Festival May 15, 2011
debatable whether a project as offbeat as Peter Strickland’s Berberian Sound Studio (which stars Toby Jones as a sound engineer caught up in the nightmarish world of an Italian Giallo movie) would have been supported by the UKFC in its early days. Now, the film is seen as representa- tive of the type of cinema the new-look BFI wants to champion. Denmark’s public funding system, for one,
works measurably. As Aalbaek Jensen says: “It has managed to put a silly little country on the map of international film-making.” However, even well-designed and successful
state funding systems will creak eventually, either because producers turn against it, the audience loses faith in the films it backs or its decisions seem out of step with the times. “At the moment, we have the least imperfect
system,” suggests the DFI’s Nielsen. “If I look around the globe at support systems, if you want strong artistic films, you also need strong commissioners that you only keep for a few years so there is change and new ideas. It’s a bit like democracy. It’s difficult to find other ways which are really that much better.” n
s
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80