GBCT Spring Newsletter

ANARCHISTS DRESSED AS BANKERS
By NIGEL WALTERS, BSC and PRESIDENT OF IMAGO (The European Federation of Cinematographers)
It is almost four years since the Lodz Declaration of Cinematographers passed a resolution calling on Production Companies to cease exploitative practices in the Film and TV Industries. Working Conditions it stated “have deteriorated to such a critical degree that immediate action is imperative. It called upon representative film organizations including unions, societies, guilds and governments to encourage the secession of exploitative practices and restore acceptable working conditions to our industry. Lazlo and Vilmos were among the signatories.
An identically worded resolution could be passed at Camerimage 2009 and have the same relevance. The long working days and unsafe working environments to which film and television professionals are exposed have hardly changed. Indeed they may have deteriorated further, unemployment has certainly increased. As the Austrian AAC President, Kurt Brazda, wrote in 2005 “at the beginning of the 21st century, human beings and their social rights are in a very low ranking where economic needs and profit become the centre of interest.”
Fodder for cheap wages. The Film Schools in the UK have been renamed Academies, giving questionable improvement to educational standards. The result is the same throughout Europe; providing enthusiastic, hopeful but unemployed fodder for the production companies. Lower wages and conditions for film workers have become normal as the oversupply of trained students is rampant throughout Europe. The strength of European culture is its diversity and if its film industry is to retain its individuality and prosper it is important that European Film Productions are properly subsidized either by National lotteries or levies. The future cannot be trusted to bankers. Governments, States and even regional authorities are now competing to encourage film making by offering tax initiatives and location incentives. This represents the sub-prime of the Film Industry and must be halted before melt-down occurs. Which competing body would not wish their next film to be called “In Berlin” or “In Barcelona” or even “In Bradford” rather than “In Bruges”? The British Government policy of “Managed Migration” is fulfilling a Film Council obsession which believes that the only future for the UK industry is inward investment from the USA. Backs are turned towards Europe despite having an industry as big as Hollywood. Cinematographers are not consulted by governments and it matters not to Pact (employers association in the UK) if the relatively free entry of film technicians from the USA results in even more unemployment for the home film workers. It means cheaper labour. The principle of reciprocity in agreements is for suckers it appears.
New Medicine Required. Not every low budget production can enjoy the international, critical and financial success of “Slumdog Millionaire” shot on a P&S Technik SI 2K with 50% film, the “Man on Wire” on 16mm film, the “March of the Penguins” 16mm or “Vera Drake” also 16mm. However few Directors enjoy the International respect and admiration shown towards Mike Leigh or Ken Loach. Both would hardly know where to start on a “high budget” production. They make relevant and practical films, given their budget restraints. Their work is appreciated by European audiences and deserves to be funded with dignity. The problem is, how?
In the present economic climate, in which anarchists posing as bankers have decimated and upturned the World economic order, low budget films represent, almost certainly, the short term future for the Film Industry. However ten low budgets films in production result in many more cinematographers and crews in employment than one American Blockbuster with its subsequent profits heading westwards across the Atlantic.
The example of the French Industry deserves to be examined. Why are their Cinematographers still enjoying relatively full employment? Perhaps it is because they are funded not by just Government, as is often assumed, but by a system similar to one which once existed in the UK? It was called the Eady Levy and was attributed to the rise in British Cinema in the 1960’s including the Bond movies. Directors of the ocusin of Lumet, Huston and Kubrick moved almost permanently to the UK and a number of distinguished European Directors such as Polanski, Truffaut and Godard were attracted to its shores. The Levy even provided funding for the National Film and Television School.
The money from the French Levy, which is basically bums on seats, has to be returned only to Producers and then only re-invested in French Film Production, made in France by French technicians. It is carefully controlled.. The French do not allow profits to escape to America. These desperate times for film production in many European Countries require decision action. This means a re-evaluation of the old and rethinking where methods of funding are failing, as evidenced by present European film industry unemployment. It will do no harm to examine a system such as provided by the French with its still relatively healthy film industry.
DVD sales are falling in Europe by around 30% a year but they could be included in a European levy and extended when necessary to encompass new audio-visual sales techniques such as Blu-ray (sales up 300% last year) and by taxing Internet Service Providers. The ISP‘s make their money by exploiting the expertise and work of film workers. Surely rather than make the person who downloads feel a criminal the ISP should be made to pay a levy on the work they transmit?
The French government has implemented various measures aimed at assisting local film production and cinemas. These include an instruction to Canal Plus that part of their broadcast licence goes to support the production of films. Taxes are levied on Film and TV Channels for use as subsidies for film production together with tax breaks for investment in films. The sale of DVD’s and other audio visual works shown in cinemas is prohibited for six months to ensure revenue for the cinemas and their workers. Piracy is the product of the system which allows piracy to happen. On a recent visit to a deprived the area of South America, Francis Ford Coppola was delighted that so many poor people were able to see his films. Piracy has different meaning for different people. France has just passed a law whereby detection of illegal piracy in downloading forces the ISP, after giving three warnings, to cut off the offending subscriber for one month. Perhaps the case for such a levy which has to be returned to Producers to make new films in the home country could be introduced on a European basis in the same way as it exists in France?
No Easy Solutions. Tax concessions are here today, but often gone tomorrow. Should any worker have to depend for his livelihood on a weak currency or fluctuations in exchange rate for security of employment? Today we are told that Hungary is the most attractive country in which to invest. On a visit this year to the amazing facilities at the Korda Studios the only workers I witnessed were the gardeners. The madness of production companies chasing cheap labour around the World is a criminal waste of human resources. Tomorrow’s Hungary may well be named Turkey. However at what price do we lose the high skills of the East European film technicians. Political censorship has been replaced by financial censorship? What price in human resources the legacy of trained labour being abandoned on the scrap heap as yet another attractive tax deal comes to shift investment to a new profitable hub, with its often unproven and unskilled labour force?
At a seminar in London recently the distinguished British Producer, Iain Smith, posed the question as to how an industry can be sustained if it cannot nurture and encourage its leadership. In an industry where the best training is often doing the job he questioned whether the expertise and skills of the great British tradition of Cinematographers is being slowly reduced by the unintended consequences of the tax credit, despite its obvious usefulness.
Education and training are key words. The respect for the profession of Cinematography has to begin through understanding what the skills are. There is no hope of changing EU Law in favour of the film industry if the Brussels Eurocrats in charge of legislation have no idea of the function of the cinematographer – or how they get their skills.
It is important for us all that the Producers obtain more money. They need to invest in order to survive. Producers and employees have a common interest, the success of our product and adequate finance security for their families. The common enemy is greed. However before greed has a chance to take over, crews to have to be able to work. Economic necessity caused by the lack of work results in greatly reduced rates. The cynical may be forgiven for contemplating this as a conspiracy to create a cheap European labour force. It hurts the self-employed most, especially in those countries where social benefits are denied.
Hope for the Future?
The Lodz Declaration of 2005 resulted in Imago appointing a Working Committee which under the legal direction of Dr Cristina Busch, in 2007 drew up guidelines for authorship and working conditions for Cinematographers. The Model Contract will be used as a future basis for contracts which provide guidelines for working conditions and “intellectual property rights” across European borders. It is supported by the British Trade Union, BECTU and the text for it can be found on the Imago.Org web site. The Model Contract does not pretend to be a panacea to all the problems of the Cinematographer and his crew. We are no nearer a solution today than we were four years ago. However the debate must continue.
Nigel Walters, BSC and IMAGO President