DB7

That's fair enough, but like the BBC the more you head down a commercial route and diversify the weaker your position comes when asking for public money. You make your bed and you lie in it. If you believe the above will win over public and politician's then good luck. The BFI does not champion 'moving image', it promotes the works of certain filmmakers that most film buffs could reel off with ease. Even Alan Parker levelled similar criticisms of elitism at the BFI's door until he got the FC gig.

They've been on the agenda for a few years. The last I heard was that one was possible but it collapsed when the partner pulled out. Given their current finances I doubt there will be any spreading out to the regions.

Cheeky Bob

I'm not sure what you're arguing here - are you complaining that the BFI has been going down an excessively commercial route, or are you accusing it of elitism?

For what it's worth, I don't think the latter accusation holds much water - at least not as a pejorative one. If you exist to champion a particular culture, surely by definition you're going to end up taking an elitist position at some point? That said, I don't sense that either Screenonline or the Mediatheque can be accused of elitism - on the contrary, they cast the net refreshingly wide. Does this comment by Mediatheque curator Robin Baker sound elitist to you?

And I definitely disagree with your claim that the BFI "promotes the work of certain filmmakers that most film buffs could reel off with ease". The last two years have seen DVD releases of films by Andrew Kötting, Chris Welsby, Ian Breakwell, Kenneth Macpherson and Geoffrey Jones - and I put it to you that precisely none of those falls into that category. I consider myself pretty well informed, but I'd only heard of Kötting prior to the release of those DVDs. And surely this is exactly what the BFI should be doing - highlighting and championing outstanding work (and British work in all these cases) that might otherwise be ignored?

(Twenty years ago you could make the same claims about the largely unknown Derek Jarman, Peter Greenaway, Terence Davies and Bill Douglas - again, their profile is largely due to BFI support)

As you yourself acknowledge with the word "partner", the idea was never that the BFI would fund the regional Mediatheques single-handed.

Anyway, enough of all this negativity - what do you think the BFI should do that would make a genuinely positive impact? You state with impressive assurance that you don't think it's championing the moving image. As it happens, I totally disagree with you - but would be intrigued to see some constructive suggestions as to what you think it should be doing instead.

DB7

To be honest the Mediatheque would be the first thing despatched to the dustbin. I live in the North so it's of no significance to me and my view will be duly biased, but it's also a concept I can see being overtaken by new technologies.

Let's ask ourselves, does the BFI actually spread film culture successfully? No in my opinion. It's an organization that should be cherished but the widespread response is general indifference apart from those with a self-serving agenda. The archive 'bitch' site has just over 1,000 supporters (including the web design team!), Pam Cook's blog has less traffic than a village roundabout, even the Guardian article ran to just 5 responses (one today on locations runs to over 30).

So who are the BFI reaching? Are they just preaching to the converted in a style the Conservative Party have monopolized? How about the head of the BFI stands outside a random cinema and asks those flocking out for their general view of her charge?

Personally I'd follow the lead of others and look to put material online so that for once film can be promoted, and throughout the county. I'm sure there are copyright issues but others seem to actually look for a suitable solution rather than giving up at the first hurdle. I'd also probably do more link-ups with a main broadcaster like the Mitchell and Kenyon project and aim to raise the profile of the BFI and what it does.

Cheeky Bob

I think the problem here is that you're thinking "OK, we've all got broadband and the technology exists to stream it to everyone's home, so why don't the BFI, BBC and others just get on with it?" True, these companies could all start doing it tomorrow, and they'd be wildly popular.

But it's not their call. Look at how long the BBC's taking to offer full downloads of its programmes - Greg Dyke announced it way back in 2003 and they still haven't got round to it four years later (I believe something's finally happening next year, though with heavy usage restrictions). Look at how long it took Apple, one of the most cash-rich companies in the world, to offer DRM-free music - and it still isn't offering feature film downloads outside the US.

And the reason for this is that the technology is the easy part of the equation - what's infinitely harder to deal with are the attitudes of rightsholders, who are understandably petrified at the potential all this offers for widespread piracy, and who naturally want reasonable assurances that their work is going to be protected. It's not just rightsholders - unions like Equity also have a say, as they administer repeat fees, which is why the BBC is being very slow too, even though it theoretically owns far more than the BFI or Apple.

We all want a scenario where we can call up literally everything in the BFI archive or all surviving programmes in the BBC's archive - can you imagine how wonderful that would be? But in order to get to that stage, an awful lot of people are going to have to be persuaded that it's worth their while.

So that's why existing initiatives like Screenonline and the Mediatheque have to be restricted access (by educational status and geography) and why the Creative Archive generally offers titles that are either ancient or which don't have actors. It's not because the BFI and BBC are being perversely bloody-minded - it's because they're having to strike a balancing act between offering as much as possible while keeping the rightsholders happy.

I don't think that's remotely a fair comparison. First of all, Pam Cook's blog has been around for only just over a fortnight, so you'd hardly expect it to be a hive of activity (given its short life, it's notched up an impressive number of posts and attracted some heavyweight commenters). The Guardian piece was published exclusively on its blog, not in the paper edition, and given minimal publicity. And FilmArchiveAction has been pretty moribund for most of its three or four-year existence - it's only updated once every few months.

Well, "a random cinema" is probably going to be showing the latest Hollywood product, so what would that achieve? But what baffles me is that every time the BFI makes a genuine effort to raise its profile - notably the controversial decision to change the NFT's name to BFI Southbank - it attracts a chorus of nay-sayers and doom-mongers. Three months ago, it launched the Mediatheque to rave reviews. This reception makes it more likely that regional versions will be developed. And how do you react? "It should be the first thing despatched to the dustbin!"

Think about this for a second. You run a forum that exists to champion British cinema. The BFI has just opened an outlet that, for the first time ever, grants easy and free public access to complete and unabridged copies of vast amounts of Britain's film and TV heritage - everything from commercial features to amateur footage, some of which hasn't been seen for decades. Granted, you're up north, so there's a geographical drawback - but instead of applauding the principle and urging the BFI to develop regional versions, you're calling for it to be despatched to the dustbin! Can you really not see how ludicrous that is, and how this relentless negativity is part of the problem? (And always has been...)

As for "who are the BFI reaching?" - well, I'm constantly stumbling across Screenonline pages via Google searches for anything even vaguely connected with British cinema. I'd be surprised if I was the only one. That said, I do agree with you that part of the problem is that few people grasp the full breadth of what the BFI does, partly because individual brands (the London Film Festival and its touring spin-offs, the NFT, Sight & Sound, more recently Screenonline and the Mediatheque) are often stronger than the parent body.

This comment is as baffling to me as your earlier one. Screenonline is less than four years old, and growing every month. The Mediatheque is around three months old, and growing even faster. In the same period, the BFI launched both a free (Creative Archive) and paid-for download service. So how is this "giving up" in any form, let alone at the first hurdle? Or failing to look for suitable solutions?

And who are these "others" who are apparently doing the job far better? More to the point, do they actually own the material (like Pathé) or are they simply turning a blind eye to legal/rightsholder issues (like Google/YouTube) in a way that the government-funded BFI and BBC obviously can't?

It seems to me that the BFI does something along these lines every few months - last year saw the Friese-Greene documentaries and the Silent Britain one-off, both of which explicitly celebrated the work of the BFI, and I'm always spotting BFI pundits on things like Channel 4's endless listings programmes (in fact, wasn't one of them directly sourced from the BFI's research?). I also believe the BFI is closely involved with the BBC's upcoming celebration of British film, and I'm always seeing Screenonline links on the BBC website (especially BBC4). And of course there are the many, many programmes that make use of archive footage supplied by the BFI.

The BFI is also heavily involved with Sky Arts - I can spot several BFI titles in their current listings, including the restoration of The Edge of the World. In fact, the BFI was one of the first companies to get involved in HD broadcasting - when HD services started roughly a year ago, Sky was showing 24, the BBC Planet Earth and Artsworld (as it then was) was showing BFI-produced HD masters of Jarman, Greenaway and Quay Brothers titles.

Given how hard it is to attract the interest of mainstream broadcasters in relatively esoteric material - see Mark Cousins' plaintive letter in today's Guardian, and ponder the lack of interest that Channel 4 now has in film culture across the board - is that really such a bad track record?

DB7

I think I'm correct in saying the Beeb have crafted a player and passed Ofcom inspections and the service is currently being trialed for a launch later in the year. DRM is something of a required token gesture; it's often little more than a challenge to talented hackers who will eventually unlock it.

I agree with much of your subsequent comment, and if I lived nr London I'd probably be quite content with the current situation but I can't help but feel the BFI should do more to raise awareness for both its Royal Charter remit and to ensure its long-term survival. If diverted Olympic funding is detrimental to the BFI can they not follow the Beeb and move some resources to another area of the country with cheaper land and salaries.

I noticed this on the Meccsa site:
"The announcement from the BFI refers to the probable location of the lead HEI as London (BFI, 2006 5.5). This is based on the argument that current users are mainly London-based. However, as the current location is London, this is hardly surprising; the argument is therefore circular and precludes any discussion of other appropriate locations. An opportunity to re-think what has been a long-term problem for non-London users is therefore lost and, in effect, the announcement excludes all except a handful of HEIs from leading a bid. MeCCSA regards this as inequitable."

Cheeky Bob

Exactly. And that's a major part of the problem, and why rightsholders are so cautious. Can you really blame them?

Of course, a cynical argument is "well, if this stuff is going to be pirated on YouTube anyway, then why not just release it in superior versions?" - but I'll leave you to put that particular case to the rightsholders!

Yes, but what do you suggest it does that (a) it isn't actually doing already, and (b) which doesn't divert funds from far more worthwhile projects?

Well, the simple answer to that is to look at the row that triggered off this very thread - i.e. when the BFI proposed something far milder than what you're suggesting!

In any case, salaries make up a relatively small part of the BFI's budget - by far the largest chunk goes on preserving the archive collections, which wouldn't be affected by relocation (which would be pointless since they're outside London to begin with).

DB7

Erm, If I give it due thought it's my belief Youtube is in that "pre-Metallica Napster stage", the free party wont last forever. Imho the music industry did the right thing in changing from fighting p2p with writs to actually compete against them with a via Itunes etc

Is it worth the BBC worrying about Dr Who on-demand turning up on Youtube when it pops up on torrent sites probably 2 hrs after terrestial broadcast.

It might not be perfect for the BFI now but they could consider posting large amounts of 'teaser' material. Some material that might increase public interest and encourage people to seek the complete programme/film/documentary.

Hard to say without seeing a breakdown of funds and where it goes. Prettty much anything will divert funds from somewhere. But were I teh BFI I'd still try and raise awareness and hopefully a larger amount of public appreciation.
(or hire Kevin Spacey)

Cheeky Bob

Yes, but remember the BFI actually owns relatively little - possession of copies in the archive being an entirely different situation from being able to do much with them. So "large amounts of 'teaser' material" will by definition mean "large amounts of rights negotiation" - unless of course you restrict the material to BFI Production Board titles, Free Cinema or ancient pre-World War I silents!

(Which are already available online anyway)

So can I assume you thoroughly approve of the BFI's recent renaming of the NFT as BFI Southbank, the NFTVA as the BFI National Archive and so on?

DB7

It really wouldn't concern me. In fact I'd have sold the commercial naming rights and made it Sony Southbank.

penfold

Would this be the same Alan Parker who was one of the shortest-serving chairmen in BFI history, for less than a year in 1998, when he did bugger all except run up an expense account, and is said to be only perfectly balanced due to the chips on both shoulders???

The point is; whatever may or may not be failings at the top, the BFI is as populist, widereaching, inclusive and powerful as its funding allows. Which is not as much as it would like. It needs to get central funding from government, not filtered through the middlemen of the Film Council. Did it not strike anyone that the entire annual budget of the BFI, for everything it does is only £16m per year?? The National Galleries raise that amount on a pretty routine basis to stop one old Italian painting from being sold abroad...when is film culture going to be taken as seriously????

Bit of a Bay Window, what??

Cheeky Bob

Cary Bazalgette, the recently retired BFI Head of Education, put it very well in a letter to the Guardian last week.

"The real issue is that having the BFI managed by a body whose central remit is to address the fortunes of the British film industry is a bit like having the British Library run by the Publishers' Association: they are simply quite different kinds of organisation."

Actually no - that's the amount it gets from the taxpayer, but it's heavily topped up by sponsorship, individual project grants and of course income from its various commercial activities.

In fact, part of the problem is that the BFI generally doesn't do too badly at generating its own income - certainly in comparison with similar subsidised arts organisations. But of course that's a two-edged sword, because it leads to the assumption that it doesn't really need the money.

penfold

Of course, but so do the Galleries, State-subsidised Concert Halls, etc...

Bit of a Bay Window, what??

Cheeky Bob

Yes, but you claimed that the BFI's entire annual budget was £16m - whereas the actual figure (as revealed in last year's financial statements) is around £30m, or nearly double.

penfold

Sure, wasn't disputing what I had said was incorrect, the £16m is what The Film Council deign to give it for everything they do....it was just badly worded in my original post (Give me a break, I've just got in from my third 13 hour shift in 3 days). Of course that wouldn't take ticket and DVD sales, etc...
It still doesn't alter the point that the other Arts have far, far more taxpayer funding....that was the point of my point....

Bit of a Bay Window, what??

Mr Dean

I thought it might be useful to remind everyone what the BFI is supposed to do as set out in the Royal Charter, last renewed in 1983 and amended in 2000:

"The objects of the Institute shall be to encourage the development of the arts of film, television and the moving image throughout Our United Kingdom, to promote their use as a record of contemporary life and manners, to promote education about film, television and the moving image generally, and their impact on society, to promote access to and appreciation of the widest possible range of British and world cinema and to establish, care for and develop collections reflecting the moving image history and heritage of Our United Kingdom."

Much of the discussion in this forum seems to assume that all the BFI has to do is to make material available to the public. On the contrary, it has a clear obligation to develop moving image education and to promote interest in a wide diversity of films. Commercial publishers are unlikely to do this. The realignment plan suggests that in fact the BFI will still commission publications, but that a publishing partner will actually mange the BFI imprint. I confess, I don't quite understand how this will work.

I disagree strongly with most of DB's comments, but I would agree that one of the BFI's biggest failures has been its withdrawal from a national presence throughout the UK to become a London cultural agency. I date this back to the building of the London IMAX, for which I can see no cultural objective.