Independent
Film and Video Distribution in the UK, 1966-2000
End of Year 1 Report
The aims
and objectives of the research project have been advanced
as follows:
1.
To identify the models of distribution in operation during
the 1980s concerned with promoting the exhibition of independent
film and video in the UK:
To
date we have mainly examined the archives of the London Film-Makers
Coop (LFMC), London Video Arts/Access (LVA), the Lux, Circles/Cinenova
and the Arts Council, but have also started to examine the
impact of Channel 4, some elements of the British Film Institute,
some small-scale initiatives (eg videotheques) and artists'
personal files as networking has facilitated contacts. Our
research so far has mainly addressed the distribution of artists'
film and video. We still need to look at the BFI in all its
various guises, Film and Video Umbrella (FVU), Foundation
for Art and Creative Technology (FACT), Albany Video, the
London Film and Video Development Agency (LFVDA), together
with peripheral organisations such as Concord, The Other Cinema
and further small scale distribution initiatives, and to address
the distribution of politically orientated film/video. On
the basis of the aforementioned work, we have identified the
following models of 'distribution':
a) A traditional
model - a company which houses a physical distribution library
and compiles a catalogue of that work which is sent out
or made available online to potential customers who may
hire/buy any of the work listed (eg LFMC, LEA, Cinenova).
The organisations operating this model have mainly been
engaged in non-theatrical distribution, but the BFI and
The Other Cinema (yet to be examined in detail) also provide
an interface into the world of theatrical distribution on
35 mm.
b) A curatorial agency - an organisation that selects and
packages work into ready-made programmes and tours those
programmes around domestic and overseas venues (eg the ACGB
Filmmakers on Tour scheme, FVU)
c) Regional initiatives - touring packages of work across
a region specifically to develop new local audiences (eg
SW Independent Film Tours)
d) Videotheques/library schemes - a selection of work is
made available for members of the public to view on request
at a particular venue (eg the ICA and Arnolfini videotheques)
e) Self/DIY/grass-roots distribution - an artist, group
or production workshop distributing their own productions
(eg Leeds Animation, Duncan Reekie/Exploding Cinema, George
Barber selling direct to Tower Records).
f) Sell-through labels (eg Vidzine, Video Burn, edition à voir)
Two
key issues have emerged so far:
a) The
impact of grant-aid. A number of organisations were initially
self-supporting, but a growing dependence on grant-aid post-1976
made the sector highly vulnerable to changes in general
cultural funding policy. This has not only had a destabilising
effect generally, but some of the adjustments made by distributors
to accommodate their funder(s) have ill-served the organisations'
long-term viability (eg the COW/Circles/BFI history, the
Lux).
b) The role of marketing/promotion. Records examined show
a mix of non-promotional and promotional practices, which
were in some cases linked to acquisitions policies (ie open
vs selective) and problems of handling 16mm film technology,
but were also rooted in ideological/political positions.
However, evidence shows a consistent concern with, but uneven
pattern of approaches to, reaching audiences during the
period being researched, combined with a widespread and
enduring perception that it is the curatorial approach which
is key to raising the profile of the work.
2.
To analyse how and why those models of distribution changed
during the 1990s, and to assess to what extent that marked
an overall shift in independent film and video culture in
the UK in terms of the kinds of work being actively distributed
and the audiences for it.
This
is to be examined in more depth in year two of the project,
but research to date already suggests a number of key issues/factors:
a) Changes
in funding strategies, together with practical organisational
considerations, make some of the ideologically informed
approaches - such as open acquisitions policies and non-promotional
practices - unviable. Organisations are forced to adopt
more commercially orientated business practices by their
funders as a condition for funding.
b) Throughout the 1980s a significant portion of the distribution
of independent work was supported by various subsidy schemes,
most notably the Filmmakers on Tour (which includes video
artists from 1980). Additionally other schemes supported
both venues and distributors, and the videotheques (Bristol,
London, Nottingham and Southend) were another alternative,
cheaper, grant supported supply of independent work. Thus,
the reduction in support to all these areas in the late
1980s lead to a crisis in independent distribution. Both
distribution organisations and funders become more dependent
on Channel 4 at this time, so that when the channel became
less interested in independent work in the mid-1990s, the
network of venues and initiatives that had supported distribution
previously no longer existed.
c) As the satellite TV market gained ground during the 1990s,
there is an increasing turn to pursuing TV sales across
multiple channels (including foreign terrestrial channels,
such as those in Australia and Canada) as a means of developing
earned income.
d) Video Positive/FACT come into existence during the 1990s
and, together with Film and Video Umbrella, play a key role
in raising the profile of artists' film and video by developing
audiences through the gallery circuit and winning greater
acceptance for the work as 'Art' as opposed to the 'Film/Cinema'
connection that prevailed in the 1980s.
e) Although the curatorial approach to distribution dates
back to at least 1976, in recent years a marked favouring
of the curatorial model has developed at the funding level
and has started to displace the traditional model (the new
Lux, recent discussions about the future of Cinenova).
back
3.
To see how those models of distribution operated and how effective
they were in promoting the exhibition of independent film
and video work and building up audiences for such work throughout
the 1980s and 1990s
Both
our archive and interview-based research has evidenced the
following:
a) There
have been recurring problems with the open acquisitions
approach to distribution. It allows new film/video makers
to get into distribution, but due to the unwieldy nature
of the increasingly large collection, only a small proportion
of the work in distribution is hired/bought or can be effectively
promoted. Because the entire collection must be housed even
though only a small section rents, an open acquisitions
policy is a financial disadvantage to a distributor. Nevertheless,
these libraries were a key resource for curatorial agencies.
b) Partly to counteract the LFMC's non-promotional approach
to distribution, the Arts Council (for the film/video productions
it funded) and Film and Video Umbrella in particular developed
curatorial practices which, however, cut across and undermined
the work of traditional distributors, denying them potential
income. However, the women's distributors Circles and COW
adopted more aggressive approaches to promotion, with COW
for instance launching on average one theatrical release
per annum in the mid and late 1980s.
c) The entry of Channel 4 into the sector as a producer
and exhibitor also played a role in bypassing and undermining
the work of traditional distributors, while also giving
them a new and attractive income stream via TV sales upon
which they become increasingly dependent (on occasions amounting
to 50% of earned income).
d) There was a widespread perception among distributors
and funders alike that 'distribution' was a money-earner.
For instance, in the late 1970s, the LFMC distribution wing
earned more income that the facilities/production wing and
actually generated an income 'surplus to requirements'.
However, the operation of the distribution wing was subsidised
through grant-aid, 'donations' and volunteer labour and
masked the real cost of the distribution operation. Additionally,
from the late 1970s independent distribution increasingly
suffered from subsidised competition from funding bodies.
e) Some factors were outside distributors' control, such
as the publicity undertaken by screening venues and film/videomakers
own self-publicity, which tended to be poor. Identical complaints
of this have been registered from both distributors and
funding bodies from 1977 to 2002. FVU have, for instance,
now employed a freelance press officer to work directly
with venues screening their packages.
f) The financial instability and short-lived nature of most
organisations/distribution initiatives, combined with the
often quick turnover of staff, has meant there is a tendency
to keep reinventing the wheel. Knowledge/expertise regarding
distribution and promotion is repeatedly lost and having
to be reacquired. In the USA by contrast, the long-term
surviving independent distributors have histories of long-time
staffers.
g) Concrete financial data has been fragmentary, but there
is evidence that on occasions distributors' earned income
has fallen to very low levels (in the region of £5-6000
per annum), indicating the work was reaching only very small
audiences.
h) During the late 1970s/1980s there was a growing investment
in promotional work by funders and distributors alike, to
the neglect of the core distribution business (processing
regular hires/sales). This destabilised the independent
distribution market and paved the way for distributors to
increasingly act as their own curators. This is most apparent
in the new Lux model, where Mark Webber - originally a freelance
curator - has been brought in-house, and the organisation
now sees curating projects as its main activity. These projects
are not budgeted to cover their own costs, but employ subsidy
to interest venues in discounted programmes (eg Shoot!
Shoot! Shoot!). This outreach programme significantly
resembles the ACGB's subsidised packages of the late 1970s.
back
4.
To examine the make up of the audiences for such work in order
to assess what kinds of film/video were being shown where
and to whom.
So
far our archive research has shown that the main markets have
tended to remain fairly consistent: educational institutions
and screening venues (festivals, arts centres, regional film
theatres). And that it is the work of a relatively small number
of established artists that enjoy regular hires/sales. However,
records also show that during the 1990s the approach to TV
sales became more developed, as the collapse of the Channel
4 market necessitated targeting multiple TV companies worldwide.
Both archive research and interview material suggests that
the gallery circuit as an exhibition outlet also became more
developed, although attendance for gallery shows has been
highly variable. This points to the need for a combination
of factors to draw an audience - such as enthusiasm of the
venue, outreach mechanisms and budget. And the make up of
that audience will depend upon - among other things - the
location of the gallery, the nature of the show, the artist(s)
included and its contemporary relevance.
There
have also been various initiatives designed specifically to
widen/build new audiences for the work (eg. Film/Videomakers
on Tour, videotheques, funded/negotiated TV slots such as Midnight Underground and Experimenta, sell-through
labels, and funded/curated shows such as A Perspective
on English Avant-Garde Film and Shoot! Shoot! Shoot!).
There are varying accounts of how successful these were, but
Filmmakers on Tour records suggest that attendance numbers
for that scheme in particular tended to vary with venue commitment
to publicity. Most of these initiatives have been short-lived
and, while a number of factors have usually contributed to
this, interview material suggests that a key factor is due
to the unstable and changing audiences for the work. back
5.
To assess the failures and successes of those models of distribution
in the light of the recent closure or suspension of operations
of some organisations working in the field.
As
we are only half way through our project, our assessment is
preliminary, but the following observations can be made:
a) Attempts
to keep or make independent film/video distribution self-sufficient
have proved unsuccessful.
b) While this area of activity requires subsidising (and
even some of the more commercially orientated independent
distributors have only remained viable through the use of
volunteer labour), dependency on primarily a single funder
or a very small number of large grants - which has tended
to be the norm, as a opposed to a more piecemeal approach
to funding - renders organisations extremely vulnerable.
c) The traditional distributor has allowed a much higher
number of film/video makers to achieve a public profile
by having their work in distribution, but does not have
the resources to effectively promote all the work it distributes.
d) The curatorial model has enjoyed greater success in delivering
work to larger audiences and at high profile venues, but
at the cost of promoting only a small body of work, leading
to accusations of elitism. However, the success of this
model has been in part dependent upon the distributors'
libraries. back
6.
To provide analyses that could productively inform the future
redevelopment of this field of activity.
As
is evident above, we have started to develop analyses based
on the research so far, but are continually testing these
as we continue the research.
(December
2003)
|
