Very Crowded Memorial Weekend Kick-Off: ‘Hangover … 
ABC, NBC & Fox Go To DC Court Against Alki … 
Specialty B.O. Preview: ‘Before Midnight’, … 
2012-2013 Season Network Rankings: CBS Sweeps In Final … 
Full 2012-2013 TV Season Series Rankings 
TOLDJA! Paramount Pocketing $190M From Disney For Marvel … 
‘Good Morning America’ Hits 19-Year Viewership … 
MGM Buys ‘Modern Family’ Producer Ben … 
‘Fashion Police’ Writers Chant On Picket Lines: … 
Universal Makes Seven-Figure Deal For ‘The School For … 
Steven Soderbergh Will Interrupt Retirement To Direct And … 
Cannes: EOne Announces Itself As Player In U.S. … 
Will LIN TV Stations Go Dark On Time Warner Cable? 
Shareholders Quiz Time Warner Chief On Political Ties And … 
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘Modern Family’, ‘Law … 
Hammond On Cannes: Paramount’s ‘Nebraska’ … 
Cannes: J.C. Chandor Sets Next Project ‘A Most … 
Hannibal Classics Sets Cast For Nic Cage Pic … 
Hammond On Cannes: Robert Redford’s Brave New Role … 
Hot Trailer: Jennifer Aniston And Jason Sudeikis’ … 
Brad Pitt’s Plan B Banner Promotes Jeremy Kleiner To … 
Ed Vaizey, the UK arts minister, has written a stern letter to UKFC head John Woodward demanding to know whether the agency has been spending public money on campaigning for a reprieve. Vaizey wants to know whether the UKFC has been “briefing” the film industry – including Hollywood – to protest against its closure. Clint Eastwood has become the latest Hollywood star urging the government to reconsider its decision. “The prospect of losing a valuable resource such as the UKFC is of great concern to us,” Eastwood wrote. Steven Molen, DreamWorks’ head of physical production, has also written to Chancellor George Osborne. Fifty three British actors including James McAvoy, Emily Blunt and Bill Nighy have signed a public letter condemning the decision.
The government has been rattled by the strength of public support for the film agency. Nearly 50,000 people have joined the Save the UK Film Council Facebook page, while another 25,000 have signed a petition. Culture secretary wrote an article last weekend singling out the UKFC for paying eight executives more than £100,000 ($156,000) a year.
The DCMS has released a section of Vaizey’s letter to the Independent newspaper. “I am very concerned about what has come to light,” wrote Vaizey. “It looks as though sources at the Film Council have been overzealously briefing in order to protect their interests. As a result they may be damaging the film industry that they purport to represent. This is completely wrong and I will be seeking urgent reassurances that the Film Council will promote the interests of the film industry rather than its own from now on.”
The UKFC responds: “The future of the UK film industry is the only thing the UK Film Council is interested in. We will continue to do everything we can to reassure people that any change to us will not affect the UK’s film offer to the world.”
There’s been talk that the government’s sudden decision to close UKFC down is driving Hollywood away from shooting in Britain. The DCMS heard that the UKFC had been telling people Lakeshore Entertainment’s decision to shoot the fourth Underworld movie in Vancouver rather than in Britain was because of the UKFC closing. Not true, Lakeshore told the DCMS.
The argument runs that if the UK government can act so arbitrarily over the UKFC, what’s to stop it suddenly reneging on the 20% inward investment tax break? The government has repeated that film lottery funding will actually increase by £3 million a year, and that the tax credit is safe. Hollywood movies shooting in Britain this summer include Disney’s Pirates Of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, X-Men: First Class – both at Pinewood – and Captain America, filming at Shepperton. Further ahead, there’s talk of Catherine Hardwicke’s Hamlet, plus the next Alien and Batman movies shooting here.
Ironically, given that it faces closure in April 2012, the UKFC has just embarked on a major office refurbishment.
Loading ...
People are mistakenly supporting the Film Council because they think that by doing so they’re showing their support for British film. And if you’re in the industry, it’s hard to say no when you’re asked in case it looks like you’re trying to pull up the ladder behind you.
I’ve never had money from the FC but I did from its predecessor, British Screen, and reached the opinion that it’s entirely the wrong way to support an industry.
Have not met one single British filmmaker who laments the UKFC closure. Publicly people need to been seen to support it, but privately most people agree it was a hopelessly inefficient organisation that offered very little value for money, and that had a track record of backing poor films.
The UK Film Council in its battle for a reprieve will stop at nothing — including the misuse of public funds to save its own skin.
The actions of John Woodward, Tim Bevan and their massive P.R. machine, along with Woodward’s own spin doctoring skills – are putting into jeopardy the whole of the film industry.
It is their duty as (Quango-like) “public” servants to work with government to provide the best possible transition to a new scheme to administer the increased lottery fund spending and the tax credits.
But no,their rampant egomania and desperate desire to hold on to power in a production community that has long been sick and tired of their autocratic ‘Hollywood studio” like antics, is putting at risk further funding to the Uk industry.
Well done Vaizey for calling them on this and if it is found that ONE SINGLE POUND of public money has been used in this deplorable way, then they must be summarily dismissed and called to account by the law.
After the scandal of MP’s expenses, the misuse of public funds in this way cannot be tolerated.
The feeling in the UK prpduction community is, however, not to be too critical of the UKFC because they have another year or so to go, and criticism could affect funding decisions to the few beleaguered independent producers left in this country.
Vaizey and Hunt need to speed up the process of transition if there is to be stability – as long as Woodward remains in his position – the longer the bad days will remain for British production.
Film Council was never going to 100% perfect, or 100% liked, but it had begun to achieve one important function. Controversially perhaps, it had brought the squabbling hemispheres of creativity and commerce together. We all want to see a strong indigenous British film industry. It is important for a socially diverse, and hugely talented nation such as ours to be able to see itself, and be seen around the world. Unfortunately, back in the sixties and early seventies companies like Rank and ABPC lost access to, and control of, our domestic movie market. Television expanded and improved, and Hollywood aggressively began to globalise. Our industry leaders made all the wrong choices. As a result British film talent, facilities and crew increasingly had to serve a foreign coin. Over the years commercial realities came to bear. Our much embattled independent sector increasingly depended on non British appetites to justify its choices. To make anything particularly British required not only heroic talent, but also dogged willpower and endurance to survive. With a few glorious exceptions there have been very few practitioners getting rich in the British film industry. The uneasy reality is that in the absence of a vertically integrated British studio the possibility of home grown film-making now needs the industrial infrastructure to survive. Facilities and crew who can enjoy a full pay rate on international films can choose to work for much less on local fare, and many do. Award winning British writers, directors, producers and actors can still bring their productions back home because we still have our crews and our studios. Chris Nolan is a good recent example. It is a paradox that this uncomfortable symbiosis with Hollywood now keeps the British film industry alive. However, since the decision to abolish the Film Council was taken, the Soho/Pinewood divide has once again begun to break apart. Partisan bickering is all around. This cannot be good for anyone. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the decision to abolish, in this time of change it is imperative that all sectors continue talking to each other in order to sustain an industrial/cultural consensus. It is now in our interests to focus on what is possible, and in doing this the industry must encourage government to give much needed strategic leadership, and support. Without it we will be fragmented and diminished.
If the UKFC had a better track record, it would not have been abolished. The main advantage cited here is as a talking shop/co-ordinator/industry advocate. Functions that do not need a budget of over £60M per year.
An acute post, Mr Smith, and a wise conclusion – the film industry is inevitably weakened by fragmentation and division. But isn’t that exactly Ed Vaizey’s point? If the UKFC is indeed briefing against the Government (and I’m sure he wouldn’t have made the suggestion without evidence) they’re encouraging the very divisions which damage British film both in the UK and overseas. If ever there was any doubt about whether the UKFC is fit for purpose, these latest revelations are proof positive that it ain’t.
While i do not disagree that too many and unnecessary people at the UKFC were paid too much, Iain makes a precise and logical comment, which together with other examples below far outweighs the calls for abolishment.
During the limbo years of 2004-2006/7, when sale&leaseback (section 42&48) besides other regulations was prematurely and suddenly thrown out of the window and the ‘new’ UK tax credit did not work that well, Britain’s film industry lost an inward spent of ca US$500m yearly. (Iain do correct me here if I am wrong). As said the abolishment of certain structural finance vehicles were partly at fault but more importantly because the previous government did not create a coherent working alternative until late 2006 to the S&L the inward spent was lost.
So to throw out the UKFC, without a clear strategy of how to replace it, and I do not mean the funding body alone but the whole organisation as such, will be detrimental for Britain’s last remaining industries.
Abolishing the UKFC now looks (and I was routing for the Tories mind you) like a political knee jerk reaction in order to eradicate one of labour’s better legacies, while there are far better and more costly department/quangos that do not bring any business in.
Furthermore, while I do agree that too many of these non-commercial scripts were prematurely filmed, the organisation nevertheless has just started to turn itself around over the last two year. As an example stand the films I worked on, which I have to mention did not receive any funding from the UKFC. Speaking from my own experience, the employees were invaluable on an operational level and generally speaking in strengthening and nurturing local talent and businesses.
Yes you are wrong. The UK did not lose $500 million of “inward investment” in the years following 2004 to 2006/2007. The figures for this period are artificially inflated by Sections 42 and 48, which you reference, and which required all expenditure of whatever kind and in whichever country, to flow through the UK. So, for example, a French film mainly shot in France but with some UK elements was classified as 100% British spend.
During this period the cost to the Treasury (and indeed the taxpayer) of all of this was about two billion pounds. So on any realistic basis, the British film industry lost the country money during this period. No wonder the Government of the time brought the whole system to a halt.
Churm,
I checked my figures and I am more right then wrong, there are examples where the 42/48 were highly geared, however in the majority this was not the case….by the way, give your real name….
Section 42/48 did not artificially inflate anything. It helped magnificently to bring in business into the UK via co-productions of wich there are hardly any now in comparison. Being allowed to utilise 42/48 required a far higher percentage to be spend here in Britain than actually was taken from the Government as you say. The correct ratio escapes me right now…so I will have to look it up.
I’m sorry, but you are wrong. ALL section 42 and 48 film production financing structures were based on gearing the tax relief. That’s how they worked. Check any prospectus of the time.
Nor did qualification for Sections 42 and 48 require huge amounts to be spent in the UK – only the minimum required under the relevant coproduction treaty, which could be as little as 20%.
The tax costs of Sections 42 and 48 were £520 million in 2004/2005, and £560 million in 2005/2006 – check Dawn Primarolo’s statement to Parliament of 7 December 2005. So in EACH YEAR the Government was losing more money than the $500 million you claim was “lost” to the UK between 2004 and 2007.
That’s why they stopped it.
We desperately need the UK Film Council. How else is Donkey Punch 2 going to get made??
Let’s not forget The Sex Lives of the Potato Men 2: Revenge of the Horny Spud.
I’m nothing to do with the film business but I have been amazed that these Film Council people have got away with this for so long.
Misuse of public funds is tantamount to fraud.
Frauds get prosecuted.
What next?
Why on earth are they being allowed to keep their jobs, when what they are doing is verging on treasonous and certainly is creating a great argument for the government to stop funding even further.
SJJ
A major office refurbishment !! And no-one has had the wit, even now, to think that that might not look good – so out of touch, so arrogant, let’s hope they’ve ordered enough deckchairs so that they can spend time re-arranging them ……
Maybe it’s an “office refurbishment” to keep non-card carrying members out while they print the flyers, paint the posters, and churn out massive wads of press releases.
I feel sorry for their press people, being forced to carry on spinning the “THOUGHTS OF CHAIRMAN JOHN” while worrying how they are going to feed their kids next year. They would be far better off looking for anotehr job, instead of playing out Woodward’s deadly endgame which serves only one person, himself.
hey, some might get work in the new administration. But surely not while actively destroting the chances of the film industry survival….
Typical slash and burn knee jerk reaction from what appears to be a bully Tory boy and his fag Vaisey. Like all things in the present climate the UKFC needed to be mindful of its spending and was I am sure about to make some painful cuts. All of this could have been achieved by a reasonable dialogue with the present incumbents without throwing the baby out with the bath-water.
Dear O Turk, Ever since news of the Film Council broke your personal disdain against Mr. Woodward is very obvious and distasteful for many to be held on every message board such a public forum.
It is quite apparent you are bitter and hold a strong dislike for one particular individual, probably because you went for his job but didn’t get it. If you have any desire or good ideas on how to lead the UK Film Industry through this turmoil perhaps you should step out from behind your cowardly veil of anonymity, lay to rest your personal vendetta for John and voice your suggestions in a positive way rather than just trying to tear an individual for your own personal ego boost.
If you want to lead the New Film Order in the UK what do you suggest other than charging the leaders of the FC with fraud.
Nice to see the Stakhanovite Apparatchik Cadres of the UKFC are stepping in to defend their Fearless Leader.
Who is the elusive J.M. we wonder, and why does he wish to remain anonymous?
To quote the Deadline Philosophy:
“Comments On Deadline Hollywood are monitored. So don’t go off topic, don’t impersonate anyone, don’t get your facts wrong, and don’t bore me.”
The witless Mr/Ms J.M. it would appear is guilty of at least the latter.
Oh well. Takes all sorts.
This simply will not do. John Woodward is the CEO of the Film Council and sets the tone for the whole organisation. In that capacity his expenses were the second highest in the public sector, and he negotiated a contract which gives him, among other things, a 12.5% loyalty bonus just for turning up to work. Even the bankers in the City have never been that greedy.
Under his leadership the UKFC became the sort of quango which gives quangos a bad name. The buck stops with him.
This Government is simply a joke. Not enough votes to be elected so having to cut deals with their rivals. No real grasp on the real world, or the buisness world.
EVERY decision the government has made is for the worse in every sector. We have seen bad law and order policies, bad recovery plans and even worse for me personal, bad art and culture plans.
Oh how I weep to be a brit right now.
Hollywood has 95% of the UK film market. The UKFC runs the P&A (prints and advertising) fund which gives money for marketing and helps get films ‘out there’. The biggest recipients include French giant, Pathe (£2million+ virtually all foreign films), Lionsgate (US mini-major £500,000+), Universal (£500,000+), Warner Bros etc etc…..why is the British taxpayer supporting and subsidising the release of US films in the UK…whose profits are then take home to America.
It’s insane.
No wonder Spielberg and Eastwood and their like are so incensed. less cash to take home from stupid brits who just give it away…
Absolutely brilliant post! Couldn’t have said it any better myself, except I would have used really nasty, venomous swear words dipped in vitriol and most likely not been posted. Go Ottoline, my love! Go!
The “major office refurbishment” referred to is, in fact, moving the remaining staff from the two office buildings they are currently housed in into one, which the UKFC is now able to do after streamlining the organisation following public consultation last year. This streamlining includes the redundancy of two of the eight £100k + execs; something Mr Hunt seems to have been unaware of, despite the fact it happened publicly and prior to the General Election.
The office move is a major exercise in cost-CUTTING, planned and commenced before Hunt wielded the axe without warning. Prior to that, around a third of the organisation were forced by DCMS to work in the building housing the Government Art Collection, paying a hefty unnecessary levy for round-the-clock security to protect aformentioned art out of the public purse. Stopping the office move would mean that the cost of running two offices (now unnecessarily) would continue.
The refurbishment going on is minimal, stark and emulates a call-centre environment. Whether you agree or not with the axing of the UKFC, please remember there are real people behind those desks, most (if not all) of which care passionately about the UK film industry, have bills to pay and families to support on far more modest salaries than the tabloid press would have you believe.
You bet they did some cost-cutting, following the revelations that they had proportionally more senior executives on outrageous salaries (check the list of public servants earning more than the Prime Minister) and expenses (the second highest in the whole public sector) than any other body. So, now they only have two senior executives earning more than the Prime Minister, but who have been strikingly reluctant to accept any cost-cutting as far as they are personally concerned.
From the outside, this looks like tokenism of the most cynical variety. Unless you know better?
Here’s a good one from the political blogs….
In 2009, there were seven directors, a chief executive, and 92 staff. The eight highest-earning staff members earned a total of 1.04 million, or 130,000 each. The remaining 84 staff, including the tea boy and the typists, earned on average 89,000 pounds each.
The happiest Char Wallah in the world?
A cash cow is a business that pays out all its profits to shareholders. Day
after day, she arrives unbidden in the shed for milking.
The website also says the Council’s investments “garner an average profit of
400%”.
That would make it the most successful venture capital firm in Britain, and
probably the world.
Why on earth are the Tories abolishing it? Have they gone mad?
One reason might be that Council isn’t really as profitable as it’s painted.
In 2009, it turned over 63 million pounds, and made a loss of 8.3 million
pounds.
The “average profit of 400%” is actually a trading loss of 884,000 pounds.
The Council isn’t a business, so you wouldn’t want to stretch the
comparisons too far. But the above does give some useful context to the
claim.
The Council’s salaries are worth a glance, too.
In 2009, there were seven directors, a chief executive, and 92 staff. The
eight highest-earning staff members earned a total of 1.04 million, or
130,000 each. The remaining 84 staff, including the tea boy and the typists,
earned on average 89,000 pounds each.
So, calling the Council a cash cow begins to make sense.
Even more so, when you look at “related parties” in the annual return. The
Council awarded 26.8 million pounds in grants to trading organisations in
which its own directors have an interest [1]. That includes 1.1 million
pounds for Barbara Broccoli’s charitable company First Light Movies Ltd, and
102,000 pounds for Gail Egan’s Potboiler Productions Ltd.
The Council have talked a good game, and it’s persuaded people who will
never look at the figures. The 400% profitability claim is gospel on the
pages of the Guardian and the Indy.
But Treasury accountants aren’t stupid. They may work in the public sector,
but they’ll know that no organisation makes a profit of 400% year after
year.
I have see this in London Observer newspaper letters page yesterday – very sensible:
What price a movie?
Questions still remain about the high running costs of the UK Film Council, despite the spirited defence of the organisation mounted in recent days. When a possible merger with the BFI was being explored recently, the BFI board nearly fainted to a man and woman when presented with the size of the salaries at UKFC. Has anyone referred back to the public-private agency that funded British production before UKFC – British Screen – run by Simon Relph and latterly Simon Perry? As I remember during the 10 years with Perry at its head, British Screen backed 144 films, had a staff of 15 people, and an annual overhead of about £1m. Their production and development team (editorial, not including legal, accounting etc) was four people. I think UKFC, previous to their slim-down, had six for each of its three funds. I wonder if the coalition is thinking along British Screen lines to dispense the much-needed funds. Any light they can throw on future funding structures would be most welcome.
Clare Downs
London W9