The British government since last September has asked both organizations to merge and save money. But now they’re at an impasse how to go about it. The standoff also puts the two co-chairman of Working Title in opposite camps. Tim Bevan, one half of Working Title, is chairman of the UK Film Council. Eric Fellner, his co-chairman, sits on the BFI board. Normally British film behind-the-scenes is a genteel biz. No more.
It was assumed that the UK Film Council would takeover the British Film Institute. That has the BFI arguing that what’s been proposed by the UK Film Council so far is unworkable given its royal charter and charitable status. Instead, the British Film Institute, the UK film culture organization, has proposed its own takeover plan for the UK Film Council. That way, the BFI would see its venerable status protected atop of the merged organisation.
But UK Film Council insiders say their proposed merger is still very much on track, claiming none of the issues involved are insurmountable, and problems such as the royal charter and charitable status are being worked through. The two British film organisations have until the end of March to come together.
If they can’t achieve a merger by then, an incoming Conservative administration could bang their heads together, one political insider told me, warning that the BFI will find itself worse off if the March deadline is missed. The British government first announced the merger last September because of the country’s huge public deficit. As a result, many arts organisations’s budgets are being slashed.
Ministers have scratched their heads as to why the UK has two separate organisations for film in the first place. They want to see significant savings by merging BFI/UKFC personnel, accounting and communications departments. UK Film Council has an annual £60 million budget but is facing an annual £4.4 million budget cut due to money being diverted to the London 2012 Olympics.The UKFC will cut its running costs by 20% over the next 5 years. The BFI’s annual budget is £16 million a year – a figure which has remained unchanged for five years.
But the BFI board, contrary to expectations, hasn’t gone along with the UK Film Council’s proposed re-organisation. One BFI insider told me, “We all agree that there needs to be a fundamental re-organisation. We’re just not prepared to be subsumed by a quango [an organization or agency that is financed by a government but that acts independently of it].”
BFI chairman Greg Dyke – former boss of the BBC – is unlikely to want to run the merged organisation, however. Others complain that the consultation process has been a waste of time and carp that the merger was a foregone conclusion even before it was announced.





This isn’t a comment on the story above, but I didn’t know how else to send it.
Love the site. Up till now, the ad mix is great. I’ve clicked on many.
But the new expanding/contracting ad at the top is really really annoying.
Animated banners are lovely. Ads that expand and contract when I move the cursor over them — i.e. that allow me to take control — are fine. But making the news text slide up and down when I’m trying to read — not nice.
Thanks!
Seriously, who cares?
UK Film Council and most of the regional film development agencies are a waste of taxpayers’ money. They encourage the UK film industry towards mediocrity. If they supported genuinely avant-garde film-making, that would be one thing, but many of the projects they tend to develop are second-rate genre movies, or concepts that should be able to raise commercial finance in the marketplace without state support. Pure Nanny State thinking: appoint a small group of people to decide which films are backed on behalf of the British people.
The UK government would be well advised to shut down these cosy bureaucracies and to channel the money saved into aggressive tax incentives for anyone who develops projects for film. Foster innovation at the coal face by giving film-financiers, studios and other investors a real incentive to back writers, producers and directors. If the UK government offered 100% tax relief against any feature film development up to a limit of £25,000, the UK Film Council’s £60m budget would provide financing for 2,400 projects per year. The strength of ideas that would result from turning the UK into a hotbed of innovation should be sufficient to attract commercial film finance. However, if the UK still felt the need to nanny its filmmakers, closing the regional development agencies should provide sufficient funding for a production matching fund, which would be triggered when certain commercial criteria were met.
Encourage real investment in the creation of world-class intellectual property and do it in a way that rewards success. Let the audiences decide what they want to see, rather than leaving it in the hands of a small group of salaried bureaucrats.
At least the BFI shows an awareness of cinema’s range and in-depth history. Instead of merging the two, just kill the Council and give the BFI a funding panel.
The thought of an expanded British Film Council makes my heart sink almost as much as the sight of their logo at the beginning of a movie. Add a Lottery funding logo and it’s a near-guarantee of the moviegoing equivalent of dinner at Applebees.
@Fan – couldn’t agree more.
The BFI is a great institution that understands everything that’s great about film and highlights film in a smart way. The UKFC is run by a bunch of idiots that have made British film a joke. Everyone i know responds to the Film Council at the start of a film with an “oh dear, this will rubbish then”. If they have to be merged they should just give the BFI the reigns. Otherwise just shut down the Film Council. Win Win.
Agree with the previous statement – the Film Council is largely a waste of money it would be better to simply encourage private enterprise. Most of what the BFI does is non-profit and needs protection – education, library, archive, exhibiting non-mainstream films. If the Film Council was eliminated we’d just have a few less Hugh Grant films. If the BFI was eliminated UK film culture would be severely damaged.
I’m a bfi member and recipient of UKFC funding. The UKFC is a bloated body which spends more money on itself than on supporting british films – FACT. Just take a look at the salaries they pay themselves! Look at how they misappropriate lottery cash! Listen to what everyone has to say in private but is too afraid to say publicly. They cover everything they touch with their logos and claim every success in the british film industry as if it were their own. they are brilliant spin merchants who have forgotten why they were set up in the first place. All spin and no substance… and that’s how the politician like it.
The poor old bfi is all substance but, alas, not so good at generating its own spin. It’s been starved of resources for years while the boys at UKFC live like pashas. It’s disgrace
I’ve dealt with the UKFC too and they are a total nightmare. Anyone within it with any vision or talent is hugely hampered by bureaucracy and a mandate that seems to produce nothing but mediocrity. British cinema has become mostly bland realism or weak U.S b-movies and I also think that the end of the UKFC would not be a bad thing. New vision and guts to take risks is desperately needed along with a desire to develop a cultural cinema that lives up to the potential out there. Every funding application meeting I have attended has been all about getting a committees approval and you cannot make films like that.
My fingers are crossed that there will be a change for the better but these lot look after eachother and I cant see that any major change will happen because they are all so interconnected.
Its a ridiculous industry run by largely by idiots with no interest in creating interesting film and who seem to do nothing but make dumbed down cinema. If you look at US tv like dead wood, the wire, sopranos, breaking bad etc etc there is a massive desire there aswell as here for challenging entertainment that says something but we seem to be incapable of producing it because the industry is under the control of committees with little imagination and vision. Sorry that was a bit of a rant. By the way if you haven’t seen the doc ‘Idi Amin an auto portrait’ and ‘Hearts and minds’ about the Vietnam war you really should….
Well, taste is a very subjective thing and it’s never possible to please everyone. It’s also true that institutions become bogged down in their own bureaucracy and in protecting the status quo and their own jobs. However, I have looked closely at the UKFC’s website and if you go into it you will see all the films they have helped finance – and there’s some very good films there. In the US where I’ve lived and worked for many years there is no government support for films, though there are good State incentives. All production companies work on a percentage basis. No one sets out to make bad films but they know that it’s risky. Make 10 films and 2 will succeed. There are too many variables to guarantee commercial and artistic success. It’s easy to knock the Film Council but could you do any better? In my view where Brit films are limited is that they are often grim, culture-specific and not entertaining enough. All film is escapism in one way or another. Avatar is not a great story but it’s fantastic visual escapism. I agree that one solution is to build a rich bed of writers and new ideas, but there are deeper cultural constraints also, a pessimism or cynicism that runs through British thinking. That’s not good for entertainment. Whatever we may think of America, that society does have built in hope, possibility, heroism, can-do. We need a lot of that also to improve our film industry – and our culture.