Jim Barratt: at last, a film policy review that puts the audience first

Today's guest blogger, Jim Barratt, was Head of Research & Statistics at the UK Film Council from 2003 to 2006, and is the author of Bad Taste, a book about Peter Jackson’s debut film. He writes an occasional blog about film business research at www.biggerpictureresearch.com, where you can read his further thoughts on the Film Policy Review Panel’s proposals.

‘[A] key goal of public policy for film should be to connect the widest possible range of audiences throughout the UK with the broadest and richest range of British films and films from around the world.’ Recommendation 1.

A  press release issued last week by Downing Street advised that the Film Policy Review Panel, led by former Culture Secretary Lord Smith, was expected to recommend a ‘rebalancing’ of Lottery funding in support of more crowd pleasing, mainstream British films.

In the absence of the Panel’s full report (published yesterday), this heavily spun story drew sharp intakes of breath across the film sector. Success in the independent film business, assuming we could all agree a definition (not as easy as you might think), is almost as elusive as the Higgs Boson. Only the most naive commentator would suggest reducing film policy to the selective backing of box office winners, which would mark both a poverty of ambition and a misunderstanding of the way the business works.

Fortunately, in this case the main feature did not live down to the dim promise of the trailer. Because we can now read in full the fruits of the Panel’s deliberations, and it’s a relief to find proposals of genuine merit and substance.

While much in the report will be familiar to anyone acquainted with UK Film Council era strategising, the report’s framing device, which places audiences at the centre of public policy, is a welcome departure. Unusually for a film policy document you have to wait until chapter four to find the first references to production funding (of mainstream films or otherwise). Compare that with, say, the UK Film Council’s last three-year plan, which leads with production funding as its primary ‘core activity’.

In contrast, the first three chapters of today’s report take in the audience, new technology and theatrical exhibition; topics usually found much lower down the billing. Significantly, the opening chapter addresses the goal of audience development from the perspectives of ‘education, access and choice’, aligning public policy with the need ‘to maximise audience access to films of every kind throughout the UK’.

This reorientation of film policy, placing audiences at its heart, is the most refreshing feature of the Panel’s approach, because for too long policy interventions have targeted upstream development and production activity on the assumption that benefits will flow naturally downstream to audiences. But this is faulty logic.

In truth, the anticipation (and cultivation) of audience taste and predilection is active at every stage in the independent film value chain, from an individual film’s inception to its marketing and subsequent exploitation. And in financial terms, revenues only begin to flow back along the links of the chain once paying customers (i.e. audiences) become involved.

It remains to be seen whether this shift in emphasis is merely rhetorical or is evidence of something deeper (and we still have to await the Government’s official response), but it’s a positive start. In filmland the audience is king, and the Film Policy Review Panel’s report is the opening proclamation of a timely Restoration movement.

 

Comments

[Martin Smith]

I agree with much of this. As others too have said, this is a remarkably comprehensive and thoughtful document. Government would do well to catch the moment by responding to it positively and with enthusiasm.

Against this background and some richly deserved praise, if I were to make one general criticism of the report it would be that it neglects the issue of film industry business capacity, which is negligible in the UK, and considerably understates the future investment challenge.

Sadly, there are too few entrepreneurs and financiers who really understand film business across the entirety of the value chain. Those who do understand generally have poor access to risk capital, of which there is less about now than for a very long time.

I recognise, however, that these points apply to all the content sectors to some degree, and to the wider creative economy as a whole. For that reason perhaps they were better left alone by Lord Smith's team and reserved for another occasion.

MS

PS I am pleased that the report has picked up the issues of producer equity, recoupment and re-investment. These are crucial to the wider debate about industry "sustainability".