Some thoughts on the UKFC and BFI merger

Professionally speaking I’m agnostic about the merits of yesterday’s announcement by the Film Minister, Siôn Simon, of plans to merge the UK Film Council (UKFC) and the British Film Institute (BFI).

In broad public policy terms it’s a step in the same direction towards greater consolidation that gave rise to the UKFC in the first place, with the merging of a number of functions and agencies in 2000. But agnostic does not mean disinterested, and as I’ve worked for and with both organisations in the past I’d like to share some initial thoughts.

Reading between the lines the merger is a done deal, although it’s billed in the press releases issued by DCMS, UKFC and BFI as a proposal at this stage. But we’re not talking about a proposal that’s up for public consultation; it’s closer in spirit to a betrothal, a public statement of intended matrimony that just needs someone to order the wedding cake, book the honeymoon and decide on the wording of the wedding vows.

Inevitably, given the nature of the parties involved, it’s going to be a wedding by committee: the Minister will chair a project board of representatives from the BFI and UKFC, to ‘consider the practical and legal issues that would need to be resolved before such a merger could take place.’ As the press release reveals, this task is expected to be completed before the end of the year.

So this union is going to happen, barring any last minute intervention (some  unanticipated ‘lawful impediment’, declared from the back of the registry office?). It’s unlikely the outcome of next year’s general election will have any impact: if anything a win by the Conservatives will confirm the expedience of the proposal. David Cameron sent a warning shot across the bows of ‘the Quango state’ earlier in the summer, and any move towards streamlining and efficiencies among NDPBs like the UK Film Council will surely find favour. And with public finances in the parlous state they’re in, quite apart from the hole in DCMS’s departmental budget and the sapping of arts funding by the Olympics, the drive to save money will be just as necessary among cultural bodies if Labour pull off a surprise at the polls.

Either way, the financial case makes sense in the short- to medium-term, as Tim Bevan, the UK Film Council’s new chair, acknowledges in the press release:

‘We know that the climate for public funding is going to get much tougher, and it's therefore sensible that we ask ourselves why there are two publicly funded film organisations in the UK. We need to look at the scope for savings across the board, to push as much money as we can into new film activity.’

Both the UKFC and BFI top brass have signalled their support for the proposal- no public statement would have been possible without it. Which suggests an awful lot of work has already been conducted behind the scenes, a point confirmed in the BFI press release.

As the junior partner in this relationship (though a long-standing and venerable institution, the BFI is funded by the UKFC, as well as through other income streams) the BFI stands in theory to lose more than the UKFC as a result of the merger, a fact implied in the BFI press release’s concluding statement:

‘The Board of Governors of the British Film Institute welcomes the DCMS initiative to rationalise the funding and governance of the way we support film in Britain, as announced today after a long period of discussion. The new Film Minister has assured BFI chairman, Greg Dyke, that both the identity and critical cultural mandate of the British Film Institute will be paramount in this process.’

A quick digression: Whither television? you may ask.  Greg Dyke, a TV man to his boots, presides over an organisation that carries film in its title but whose remit extends to the moving image in all its forms, including the gogglebox (the BFI’s Royal Charter puts it thus: ‘…to encourage the development of the arts of film, television and the moving image throughout Our United Kingdom’). To this end the BFI National Archive holds TV works alongside its film holdings, the NFT hosts television screenings, talks and seasons, the BFI Library carries TV-related books and materials and BFI Publishing, now an imprint of Palgrave, includes TV-themed books in its back-catalogue.

Yet the UKFC is most stridently a film body. Will the merger help to soften this position (arguably the logic of media convergence makes it increasingly untenable in any case- plus the Conservatives have indicated they’d like to add video games to its remit)? Or will the BFI’s TV focus shift into the background, or out of shot altogether? It’s hard to imagine the latter, so we can only await with interest the implications of the former.

The stage is thus set for what Andrew Pulver, writing in yesterday’s Guardian, calls ‘the biggest upheaval in almost a decade’ to face the British film landscape. And just in closing here are my initial hopes for the outcome:

1. The UK Film Council’s research activity should continue (specifically the work of the Research & Statistics Unit), with the welcome possibility of closer association with the BFI Library's databases and enquiry service. There’s a tantalising prospect.
2. Sight and Sound’s editorial independence should be preserved at all costs. Among many other valuable services the magazine provides a unique forum for discussing UK film policy, and it has not been shy of airing debate even, on occasion, at the expense of the UK Film Council. That is as it should be, and care is needed to ensure the merged film body doesn’t exert undue influence over the magazine’s independent voice.
3. The BFI’s Education department should be preserved and strengthened in the new film body, placing learning at the very heart of it’s mission. Learning is the golden thread that runs throughout the UK Film Council’s current remit: informed and motivated audiences are likely to watch more and better, and more diverse, films provided they have the opportunity to do so. So whether we’re talking about funding UK production, support for distribution and exhibition or the promotion of film heritage, learning is key.
4. The National Archive should be set free from the merged body and incorporated as a stand alone, self-governing trust. Its work is too valuable, and the financial demands of its activities are too great, for the Archive to occupy only a proportion of the senior management’s time of a single public film body charged with a panoply of responsibilities. The Archive deserves and requires leadership that is 100% focussed on the task at hand and not diverted by the competing demands of wider film policy, and it should have a direct line of accountability to government, perhaps along the lines of the British Library.

Your comments please.

Comments

[Concerned]

Some very good intiial thoughts, Jim.

It seems to me that the Film Council have been handing out the largesse with a combination of enormous self interest and a continual narrowing of the focus of what film is and should be.

Allowing the "industry" to decide what should and should not be made with a combination of lukewarm Thatcherism with an overlay of Blairite diversity should not be allowed to spread to all areas of moving image culture.

Also what will be the role of Skillset in the combined organisation?

[Jim Barratt]

Skillset needn't be affected by the merger. As a licensed Sector Skills Council it operates independently of UKFC. UKFC has delegated funding to Skillset to support film sector training under 'A Bigger Future', the film skills strategy, and there's no reason to assume this will change under a merged body. Besides, film forms only one part of Skillset's remit, which covers the wider 'Creative Media' including animation, computer games, interactive media, publishing, radio, TV etc.

[Concerned]

My concern is more the growing remit of Skillset as a undemocratic and self elected body who are using training to impose their agenda of the entire media industries.

[Hasan Bakhshi]

Interesting post Jim. This should definitely be an opportunity to scale up the research function of the two organisations: not just data collection, but active research and knowledge creation which will support British film (in both the cultural and economic domains).

[Jim Barratt]

Thanks Hasan- I agree entirely, and such scaling up would complement the renewed emphasis on learning (in its broadest sense) that I'd like to see at the heart of the merged organisation's remit.

[JC Crissey]

Jim, I am also concerned about this. Both of these illustrious bodies have totally different remits. Also, as much as I am a fan of the UK Film Council, I would be concerned about the BFI getting lost in the shuffle. The BFI is a guardian of British Cinema and I am unconvinced the more commercial chaps in the UKFC side of a merged organisation will ever understand why the BFI requires the budget it recieves and its importance. For me the BFI is guardian of British Cinema's heritage, while the UKFC is to promote and support its future.