{"id":1286,"date":"2017-11-30T16:53:10","date_gmt":"2017-11-30T16:53:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.elementalfilms.eu\/voyageuse\/?p=1286"},"modified":"2024-07-29T16:52:52","modified_gmt":"2024-07-29T15:52:52","slug":"a-hard-road","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.elementalfilms.eu\/voyageuse\/a-hard-road","title":{"rendered":"A Hard Road"},"content":{"rendered":"

Most of us know the saying, \u2018If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?’ This came to mind recently as I pondered the question: when is a feature film not a feature film? Recently the BFI launched its Filmography<\/a>, a website describing itself as \u2018a complete history of UK feature film.\u2019<\/p>\n

I was first alerted to the BFI Filmography when my fellow filmmaker and writer, Mark Cousins<\/a>, took to social media, noting how he felt the list was incomplete. In a tweet he commented, \u201cAlso missing from the list is May Miles Thomas.\u201d Being human I try \u2013 and often fail \u2013 to have grace. No sooner had I confirmed that my work is missing from this \u2018official\u2019 record than I decided to contact the person responsible: Stephen McConnachie, the BFI\u2019s Head of Data. My query was simple: with four narrative features to my credit why am I – and my films – excluded?<\/p>\n

And if I\u2019m not on the list, how many others are overlooked? Another filmmaker cited by Mark Cousins is the acclaimed producer, Leslie Hills<\/a>. With several feature titles to her name at least she appears in the Filmography albeit as a \u2018consultant\u2019 active only in 2008, an oversight that falls woefully short of her output. I could list many others but that\u2019s to miss the point: why, when every UK feature film is already listed on IMDB and the British Council Film<\/a> database, does the BFI Filmography need to exist at all? Unless, as I believe, there\u2019s an agenda at work.<\/p>\n

I stress here I\u2019m not motivated by a need for acceptance or personal recognition. For years I\u2019ve made films on my own terms and will continue to do so. Rather, my concern is that by declaring itself the arbiter of UK Film the BFI arrogates to itself the right to decide what is and isn\u2019t \u2018legitimate.\u2019 Moreover, for the BFI to describe its Filmography as \u2018a complete history\u2019 is at best misleading because it denies the existence of many filmmakers and films that may lack institutional and industry endorsement but nonetheless have merit. At worst, their claim is a kind of inverse take on Entartente Kunst<\/a> where, rather than flag up unwanted or undesirable works, they seek to bury them.<\/p>\n

By cleaving to an orthodoxy wrapped around cherry-picked criteria the BFI has forged a cinematic canon akin to that of literature, i.e. by adopting a model based on an elitist agenda of \u2018value and validity.\u2019 Thankfully the promotion of works of the dead, pale, male and stale is largely discredited on the grounds of blatant bias so it\u2019s disappointing to find that in the 21st century the BFI has opted for such a regressive paradigm.<\/p>\n

After a couple of \u2018thanks for your interest\u2019 emails in early October I received a 1950-word response from Stephen McConnachie, a slice of cut-and-paste boilerplate that suggests I\u2019m not the only person to challenge the Filmography. While acknowledging the errors and omissions of the list, he reiterates its criteria for inclusion: \u2018Britishness\u2019, \u2018Feature-length\u2019, \u2018Film as work type\u2019 \u2013 i.e. was the film intended as a work of cinema – and, perhaps most disputable, \u2018Cinema Release.\u2019<\/p>\n

For me the definition of \u2018cinema release\u2019 is problematic. First, because today a release can mean anything from a Hollywood blockbuster on serial multiplex screens to an indie showing for two days at a single London arthouse. It can also mean a launch on any online platform, a major cultural shift that the BFI fails to address. Second, to quote Stephen McConnachie again, films are listed \u201cusing robust, complete data sources in order to avoid selectiveness: The British Film Catalogue, vol. 1: The Fiction Film 1895\u20131994, by Denis Gifford, Monthly Film Bulletin, 1934-1991 (BFI), Sight and Sound magazine, 1932- present day (BFI) and The Film Distributors Association website, Launching Films.\u201d<\/p>\n

Again this tricky word \u2018complete\u2019 appears and again I ask \u2013 by whose definition? It seems to me these data sources, in particular the FDA\u2019s website, prioritise commercial films screened theatrically over other feature-length works. I would also assert that the FDA\u2019s website reflects an entirely different imperative. Distributors necessarily exclude films unlikely to attract exhibitors whose MO is to turn a profit. To their credit the BFI readily admits to this commercial bias. According to Stephen McConnachie \u2013<\/p>\n

\u201cWell, we had to use a complete, defensible data source across the timeline, where a \u2018document of record\u2019 function was implicit or explicit in the data capture model. Monthly Film Bulletin<\/em> and Sight and Sound<\/em> aimed to achieve that document of record for films released to UK cinemas, and as the S&S completeness has reduced in recent years, we looked to the FDA database as an equivalent document of record. In combination, it is hoped that these datasets achieve completeness in terms of films released for commercial viewing in cinemas in the UK.\u201d<\/p>\n

In other words, the \u2018completeness\u2019 of these datasets applies only in the context of commercial features. In all other instances completeness cannot be proven.<\/p>\n

For an informed take I turn to Stephen Follows whose blog is an invaluable source. In a post titled, ‘How many British Films secure theatrical distribution?<\/a>‘ he offers a compelling analysis where, he also asserts, theatrical release is a method of identifying ‘proper’ films. In it, I find sobering statistics. 48.9% of sub-\u00a31m UK features don’t achieve a theatrical release. Worse, this figure falls through the floor for films made on budgets of less than \u00a3150K, of which 80.9% never reach cinemas. For those in the middle of that range, the \u00a3150-500K budget films, 52.7% also fail to secure a release. It’s clear then that over 50% of ALL sub \u00a31m budget features made in the UK don’t get released theatrically. Most significantly, of those budgeted at over \u00a31m, 38.1% don’t get a release either. In the context of the BFI Filmography, the majority<\/span> of UK features are ineligible for inclusion.<\/p>\n

So what does this mean? Given the above figures, it seems the BFI Filmography is an unreliable source of information when it comes to identifying UK feature films. Of course, the primary data source of any film rests with its makers and production companies. Personally I can\u2019t afford Derek Gifford\u2019s catalogues<\/a> (\u00a3310 on Amazon) so I\u2019ve no idea whether my four features are listed. What I do<\/u> know is that my films exist. What I also know \u2013 irony of ironies \u2013 is that my (multi award-winning) debut feature, ‘One Life Stand<\/a>‘ is listed on the BFI\u2019s own website. Yet for reasons unknown it \u2013 and I \u2013 are missing from the Filmography.<\/p>\n

In adopting its criteria, the BFI excludes UK films screened at festivals, film societies and on all internet platforms. It\u2019s telling in Stephen McConnachie\u2019s response that, \u201cIt is also clear that by excluding these sets, we potentially exclude important works by women filmmakers, BAME filmmakers, and documentary makers or artists who are arguably underrepresented in mainstream, commercial distribution models.\u201d Coming from a publicly-funded institution that prides itself on inclusiveness this is, if not hypocritical, one hell of an oversight and one I hope they will address in the future.<\/p>\n

At this point any rational person might raise their hands and say, \u201cFair enough, I accept your frame of reference\u201d before bowing to the BFI\u2019s Catalogue Raisonn\u00e9 of UK Feature Films. Not me, and certainly not while I and many filmmakers find themselves edited out of the story of UK film. What\u2019s depressing too is the short trajectory in which filmmakers travel from \u2018emerging\u2019 to \u2018never was\u2019 because the road\u2019s too hard. The BFI’s policy for its Filmography only makes it harder.<\/p>\n

Personally I\u2019ve never felt discriminated against for my gender. My regional working class provenance and \u2013 increasingly \u2013 my age is a different matter. What kind of UK film culture will exist in years to come when the only films deemed worthy of cataloging are those made by young(ish) middle-class males from a corner of southern England? In what universe is, say, \u2018Attack the Block\u2019 more noteworthy than the late Sandra Lahire\u2019s<\/a> Silvia Plath trilogy? Or my own ‘Voyageuse’? Or any of my other films, films that all meet at least three out of four of the BFI\u2019s stated criteria?<\/p>\n

Still, I\u2019m grateful to Stephen McConnachie for taking the time to reply in such detail and for offering to call me to discuss the issue further. I even forgive him for assuming I’m based in London. Responding, I gave him my number and guess what? Two months later I\u2019m still waiting on that call.<\/p>\n

For anyone who has made it this far, thank you for reading. I\u2019ll sign off with a quote from the late English film critic, Leslie Halliwell, whose partial, often tetchy annual film guide once famously described Andrei Tarkovsky as \u2018an obscure Russian filmmaker.\u2019 Best not get above myself then…<\/p>\n

The above image is of me and my kit, on a break from shooting a sequence for “Voyageuse” at Orford Ness, Suffolk in August 2015. After a chance meeting, the site’s photographer-in-residence kindly granted me access to its restricted areas.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Most of us know the saying, \u2018If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?’ This came to mind recently as I pondered the ...more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":2039,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[13,21,43,52,70,77],"class_list":["post-1286","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorised","tag-bfi","tag-cinema","tag-feature-film","tag-filmography","tag-leslie-hills","tag-mark-cousins"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.elementalfilms.eu\/voyageuse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1286","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.elementalfilms.eu\/voyageuse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.elementalfilms.eu\/voyageuse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.elementalfilms.eu\/voyageuse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.elementalfilms.eu\/voyageuse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1286"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.elementalfilms.eu\/voyageuse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1286\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2016,"href":"https:\/\/www.elementalfilms.eu\/voyageuse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1286\/revisions\/2016"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.elementalfilms.eu\/voyageuse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2039"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.elementalfilms.eu\/voyageuse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1286"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.elementalfilms.eu\/voyageuse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1286"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.elementalfilms.eu\/voyageuse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1286"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}