Jump to content


Photo

UK Film Council scrapped


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11939 posts
  • Other

Posted 27 July 2010 - 08:38 PM

See:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-10773821


Jolly good; they were possibly the worst, most useless and ineffectual bunch of feckless good-for-nothings in the admittedly well-populated field of ineffective pointlessness. With irony you could cut into chunks and sell on ebay, a common criticism was the organisation's stated intention to produce more commercially viable output. Unfortunately it's difficult to use superlatives to describe the extent to which something was not done, and there is therefore no adequate way to express the world-spanning comprehensiveness of UKFC's unmitigated failure to produce releasable output - not that this stopped it trying to release things, to the unvarnished international embarrassment of the UK population.


Still, no need to get too excited. All that remains now is to find out who gets to decide which fashionable minority groups are the most fashionable over the next few years. Most disquieting of all, this is now the remit of the "Department for Culture, Media and Sport". This, of course, is one of those government departments that only arise when people need a vehicle for buzzwords, and implies that the same people who are currently deciding how to spend ten billion pounds allowing some people to go swimming and running in Stratford are also in charge of what's going into Shepperton next. And newspapers. And the BBC. Ah, always nice to see the government consolidating areas of common expertise, isn't it?


In short: the end is nigh.
  • 0

#2 Matt Pacini

Matt Pacini
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1246 posts

Posted 30 August 2010 - 11:20 PM

Phil, if you're not a writer, you should be!
Some of what you wrote are so quotable as to be suitable for freeway billboards! ha ha!

Your statements highlight exactly my sentiments on the whole public financing of art issue.
People who advocate it, incorrectly assume that government entities actually accomplish what their stated goals are.
Rarely is this the case.
The public forgets one important universal truth; regardless of the original intent, all organizations see to the needs of the organization FIRST.

Public art financing entities eventually morph into self-serving clubs, where those who get the money are not the most talented, gifted artists, but either well connected socially, or (as you stated) those who fit some favored political group or perceived 'oppressed' class.

With the amount of publicly funded art around the world, you have to ask: where are the modern equivalents of Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, DaVinci, etc.?
With all this free support, plus the gigantic population of the planet compared to 200 years ago, you would think there would be that level of genius' fifty times over.
Yet almost all of what we see from these government run pig-troughs, is a load of rubbish.
(And that goes for us Yanks too.)
  • 0

#3 Matt Pacini

Matt Pacini
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1246 posts

Posted 30 August 2010 - 11:23 PM

Phil, if you're not a writer, you should be!
Some of what you wrote are so quotable as to be suitable for freeway billboards! ha ha!

Your statements highlight exactly my sentiments on the whole public financing of art issue.
People who advocate it, incorrectly assume that government entities actually accomplish what their stated goals are.
Rarely is this the case.
The public forgets one important universal truth; regardless of the original intent, all organizations see to the needs of the organization FIRST.

Public art financing entities eventually morph into self-serving clubs, where those who get the money are not the most talented, gifted artists, but either well connected socially, or (as you stated) those who fit some favored political group or perceived 'oppressed' class.

With the amount of publicly funded art around the world, you have to ask: where are the modern equivalents of Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, DaVinci, etc.?
With all this free support, plus the gigantic population of the planet compared to 200 years ago, you would think there would be that level of genius' fifty times over.
Yet almost all of what we see from these government run pig-troughs, is a load of rubbish.
(And that goes for us Yanks too.)
  • 0

#4 Frank Glencairn

Frank Glencairn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 138 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Germany

Posted 31 August 2010 - 02:17 AM

Jolly good; they were possibly the worst, most useless and ineffectual bunch of feckless good-for-nothings in the admittedly well-populated field of ineffective pointlessness. With irony you could cut into chunks and sell on ebay, a common criticism was the organisation's stated intention to produce more commercially viable output.


Same here in Germany. Filmförderung (commissions) is a REAL " Shallow money trench where the wicked run rampant and good men die like dogs for no readily apparent reason - and then there is also the dark side of it"

Contrary to the name (film advancement) it is actually a Mafia who tries to keep ambitious and aspiring filmmakers out of the business instead of helping them.

You have to be part (director or producer) of three founded/granted productions, before you can ask them for a grant.

But if you did three halfway decent productions in one of those positions already, you probably don´t need that grant anymore - but get it almost automatically because you are a "member of the family" now.

Bottom line: If you need it, you don´t get it - if you get it you don´t really need it anymore.

The only way for an aspiring filmmaker over here is to prostitute himself to a producer or director who is part of the family - which almost always means, you loose most of your rights of the film (don´t get me into taking about money).

That really sucks. I´m preparing two feature film projects in the moment and I´m not a member of the family yet.

And yeah I feel dirty...

Frank
  • 0

#5 Paco Sweetman

Paco Sweetman
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 49 posts
  • Other
  • London, UK

Posted 01 September 2010 - 05:58 AM

Personally I think it's a shame. It just makes a hard job even harder in the UK.

Apparently Matthew Vaughn is to thank for this:

http://www.thisislon...film-council.do



It's a shame, because the Government are trying to save on spending and the Arts spending in the UK is something like 0.08% of the total yearly budget. Quite f***ing stupid if you ask me....

http://www.guardian....unt-arts-budget
  • 0

#6 Richard Boddington

Richard Boddington
  • Sustaining Members
  • 5482 posts
  • Director

Posted 01 September 2010 - 10:24 AM

Relax Paco it's not like they're cutting the funding to Manchester United or any thing :)


R,
  • 0

#7 Stuart Brereton

Stuart Brereton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3069 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 01 September 2010 - 01:17 PM

It's a shame, because the Government are trying to save on spending and the Arts spending in the UK is something like 0.08% of the total yearly budget. Quite f***ing stupid if you ask me....


The government is not removing the Lottery Funding, just the Film Council. The money will still be allocated in all the ridiculous ways it usually is, just by different people.


Since the UK's public finances are in crisis right now, the gov't axing BFI allows the gov't to show the public that they are at least doing some thing. The overall impact on the budget won't be noticed, but it's a smart political move that will play well on main street.


The BFI is not being axed, just the UK Film Council
  • 0

#8 Richard Boddington

Richard Boddington
  • Sustaining Members
  • 5482 posts
  • Director

Posted 01 September 2010 - 08:01 PM

The government is not removing the Lottery Funding, just the Film Council. The money will still be allocated in all the ridiculous ways it usually is, just by different people.


Good news, you're fine then!!

R,
  • 0

#9 Rhys Selby

Rhys Selby
  • Guests

Posted 02 September 2010 - 09:20 AM

Good news.

Haven't met one person that had a good experience with the UKFC.

The only people winging about it are the ''artists'' who never want to pay you to work on their projects, but expect others to hand them money hand over fist. Even though in reality in the case of the UKFC, they only account for bugger all out of an industry worth £3.1 Bill (£4.5 Bill including indirect monies) in the UK.

People in the UK need to realise that even though Film is an art form, that it's also a business, and all business' need to supply products that consumers actually want. It's not here so some muppets can put on Che Guevara t shirts, print off business cards and hang around places like Brick Lane feeling all romantic and superior because they call themselves artists.

Biggest jokes I ever come across. Imagine if Tesco's said to hell with money, lets just hang around and smoke some weed and apply for grants, oh yeah and to all its employees, we've got really good food that might lead to 'other things' but sorry we can't pay you but we'll sort out your rail card, an egg n cress sandwich and an all important credit.

These are the same people that put adds up saying how they've got a really exciting and quality project, BUT. We have no budget!!! News flash, it's not possible to make a film with no budget because someone has had to of invested substantial amounts of money into a camera and other equipment.

Happy Filming and good riddance to the 70 people that sat around all day producing nothing at the tax payers expense!
  • 0

#10 Robert G Andrews

Robert G Andrews
  • Guests

Posted 24 September 2010 - 11:00 AM

Oh no! the UKFC... where am I gonna get me fried chicken now? :D

Edited by Robert G Andrews, 24 September 2010 - 11:01 AM.

  • 0

#11 Carl Looper

Carl Looper
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1425 posts
  • Digital Image Technician
  • Melbourne, Australia

Posted 20 October 2010 - 12:01 AM

Government funding of the arts isn't the problem.

Its just that, unlike in the past, governments (monarchs, churches, etc) can't afford to fund great art. What they can afford (but is a waste of money) is mediocre art. So yes - better to scrap it altogether.

So who can afford great art?

The big studios? Well - occasionally. But most of the time their output is no better - formulaic drivel. But at least they can afford to make formulaic drivel.


Carl
  • 0


Wooden Camera

Ritter Battery

Paralinx LLC

Technodolly

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineTape

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Willys Widgets

Visual Products

FJS International, LLC

Tai Audio

Opal

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Rig Wheels Passport

Metropolis Post

Abel Cine

Aerial Filmworks

CineLab

The Slider

Glidecam

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Aerial Filmworks

CineTape

Wooden Camera

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

The Slider

Opal

Rig Wheels Passport

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

FJS International, LLC

Glidecam

Tai Audio

Abel Cine

Metropolis Post

Technodolly

rebotnix Technologies

CineLab

Visual Products

Paralinx LLC

Ritter Battery

Willys Widgets