DB7

Sadly I feel the BFI will be the architect of its own downfall. Had they embraced a wider cross-section of the community they my have garnered some sympathy and support but the general view will be one of "Tough!"
I can't see why people are complaining about the publishing list being handed over to another publisher so the BFI can concentrate on 'core activities.' Does it matter if a book/dvd is produced by the BFI or another specialist publisher?

ChristineCB

In some ways, I think it'd be great to see another publisher discover the goldmine of treasures that BFI's done less with - maybe it'd give the BFI a notion of how to improve its lot.

Bat's comment about politics being just another career seems painfully correct - the good changes that politicians should be making would eliminate their jobs to a great extent and put more people back into productive work. And that's the most threatening notion to any politician.

Wee Sonny MacGregor

Look at a list of publications over the years and ask yourselves i) how many should have been published by the British (emphasis) Film Institute and ii) how many would a commercial publisher be interested in.

The basic problem is not that the resources from central government are not available but the spending priorities. As Mendes France once said "To govern is to choose". The government has chosen other priorities, for example, the Dome, hugely ambitious computer projects and the employing of consultants,

Hanseat

Of course it doesn't matter who publishes a book or dvd, but the sad truth is that publishing has long ago stopped being a paladin of cultural heritage or even just an agent of the Arts. If it doesn't make money, it doesn't get publish. Period. Yes, there is still some niche publishing for special interests (and I mean that far less pornographic than it may sound ), but the numbers of those often courageous and usually foolhardy smaller publishers are dwindling fast. The BFI has in its time published quite a few books or booklets which otherwise never would have been pressed between two covers; and although not every one of them has dramatically changed the world and our understanding of it, in their own way each one would have been a loss if it had not been published. The same goes for films etc. Self-publishing most certainly is not the answer; and the internet might open new possibilities to reach interested parties, but it just isn't the same.

I do agree that there are persuasive arguments for a regular review of the necessity and usefulness of the different branches of any institution receiving public funding and even for trimming off some of those branches. And I also agree that the BFI could have tried to gain a larger public appeal, but there are limits to that. The reality that I encounter every day in the course of my work and in my community is that most people simply do not care about and therefore are not willing to support or subsidize the Arts in any form - apart from paying for the latest blockbuster, bestseller or downloaded hit. There is a widespread disregard for any artistic expression and even more so for people who waste their time with them - obviously only people who are useless at anything worthwhile would spend their time studying and looking after, for example, those boring old black and white films which are eeeeendlessly repeated on the telly. It is this attitude that makes it so easy for politicians to cut funding for the Arts, and I don't think that the BFI, on its own, can change this attitude.

Hanseat

Steve Crook

It doesn't matter. It's just that other "specialist" publishers don't tend to remain in that area for long if they can't see a profit being made.

It's hard enough getting a book published by the BFI. With anyone else you have to also convince them that it'll make a profit.

Film books rarely make a huge profit, certainly not quickly

Steve

Fellwanderer

I never felt that bloody woman had any interest in history apart from a return to the worst excesses of the Victorian Age and a vindictive desire to destroy anyone who might stand up to her.

I look forward to spitting on her grave.

DB7

Not entirely true, a book has been published on a Y Station local to me, I would imagine only a few hundred people know of its existence, but with the help of Keele Uni they got the book published. Similarly, the "British Film Makers" series including those the BFI wouldn't touch with a barge pole like Lance Comfort has been very popular from Manchester Uni. If you believe there aren't alternate publishers you're very mistaken.

As for DVD publishing, why should the British public subsidize works by Kurosawa? A director who bizzarely the BFI dedicate more funds to than 99% of domestic filmmakers. (BFI | Features | Akira Kurosawa)

I saw a quote from the BFI's union declaring they should embark on a nationwide campaign to 'champion the BFI', apart from Uni campuses I can imagine a frosty reception elsewhere. We knock the US but at least the yearly induction to the National Film Registry and the AFI's 100s reaches a wide audience. It's fine being elitist, but don't expect widespread support in times of strife.

The last time (government select commitee) the issue of funding the BFI arose they made various cultural promises like uk-wide access points (Mediatheques) that were binned once funding was approved.

Imho it's time their mission statement was rewritten.

ChristineCB

Some American universities seem to have interesting relations with AFI and film studios. At least several dozen have been 'hired' or given research grants by studios to do restoration work, involving students and professors in a wide range of degree programs - chemistry, film school, engineering, programming, music. All sorts. I've seen a few of the local efforts here and am pleased to see 50 or 60 students working on a single film. Interesting scholarly pursuit that results in degrees and experience, and an in-road into the studios or little companies like Industrial Lights & Magic, etc.

Aaryk Noctivagus

Can I play the editor a little and add to Wee's words...

'The government has chosen other priorities, for example, the Dome which magicly turned into a white elephant, hugely ambitious computer projects which tend not to work properly, and if they work do strange things with data and the employing of consultants who tend to be ignored whether they come to worthwhile conclusions or not.'
Ah, now I feel better

Aaryk Noctivagus

I think it a question that the Film Institute is British, rather than being an Institution of British Films

Better Kurosawa than Woo or Boll.

Hanseat

Yes, university presses do play an important role in publishing monographs on specialised subjects. But increasingly even university presses have to base their publishing decisions on economic considerations, especially when venturing outside their primary objective, i.e. offering a publishing platform for the scholarly output of their own university. Most university presses also stipulate in one form or another that any work published by them has to be of exemplary academic or scientific interest which in reality often means that you have to have good friends on the decision-making panel. All that apart, yes, it is another way of getting books published. But then again, I've never said that there are no alternatives - what I said was that there are fewer and fewer alternatives. And I do know pretty much all alternatives there are, down to desktop-published home-printed works circulated via specialist shops.

Any institution, any publisher, any university press, even the smallest, most daring niche publisher, will make decisions that someone else disagrees with. The BFI is far, far, far from perfect. Their decisions in favour or against publishing certain books or dvds may be subjectively indefensible and in some cases objectively questionable but that does not necessarily mean that the intitution as such deserves to be stripped of its funding. That would indeed be everbody's loss.

Hanseat

DB7

A good site is: Film Archive Action - The Website of the Custodes Lucis Group

The finances quoted show a degree of poor management, and the Dracula story if true is rather sad for a reputed organisation.

Lord Brett

Fellwanderer, thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to agree with you wholeheartedly on the occasion of my three hundredth post! I was determined not to waste it on the Curse of the Crimson Altar discussion.

To celebrate I'm going to listen to Elvis Costello's Tramp the Dirt Down.

Cheeky Bob

On the other hand, he's best mates with Wilf Stevenson, who ran the BFI in the 1990s - which was the point that Geoffrey Macnab was making.

And please take Film Archive Action's site with a HUGE pinch of salt - its coverage is unremittingly negative, blatantly biased and often downright inaccurate. A great many ordinary BFI staff, not just management, think the site is doing far more harm than good.

As someone correctly pointed out on its own "supporters" page, it's essentially a collection of whinges by disgruntled ex-BFI staffers. They claim to be anonymous to protect their current BFI moles, but strong and convincing rumour has it that the real reason for their anonymity is because they don't want anyone to point the finger at them. Underfunding is only part of the story - another is that the Archive has been woefully mismanaged for a very long time, and some of the 'Custodes Lucis' were undoubtedly closely involved with said mismanagement. To a very large extent, the present management that they so despise have been trying to clean up their mess!

A far superior alternative is the recently-launched but already substantial BFIWatch, run by Pam Cook. Not only is she prepared to put her head above the parapet, but as the author of what must be one of BFI Publishing's major cash cows (The Cinema Book), her opinions have real weight behind them. And she is at least trying to be genuinely constructive.

Cheeky Bob

Like it or not, Kurosawa shifts far more units than British filmmakers - and the success of his work subsidises more adventurous, potentially loss-making releases, many of them British.

Another more significant part of the problem is that the rights to most British films are tied up in other British companies, and are therefore expensive to licence - especially in the case of high-profile titles. For instance, an insider friend told me that the Archive Television DVD strand had to bite the dust when the BBC started charging silly money - in many ways it was a victim of its own success. The fact that the BFI doesn't own exploitation rights to the overwhelming majority of archive titles is a further hurdle.

And of course a key point is that the BFI exists to champion moving image culture as a whole, not just British films. That said, they've done a pretty good job with British films in recent years - Screenonline and the Mediatheque have unlocked literally thousands of rare titles, and there seem to be an increasing proportion of British DVD releases (since last autumn, we've seen The Innocents, the R.W.Paul, Quay Brothers and Ian Breakwell compilations, three Derek Jarmans, Borderline and more British Transport Films).

Can you provide some evidence to back this up? Last thing I heard, the regional Mediatheques were still very much on the agenda - the recently-launched London one was just testing the water to see if the concept had any appeal and whether the technology was up to the job.