An investigation into the current state of film
funding policy and practice in post-apartheid South
Africa.
A paper on cultural policy submitted to the History
of Art Department, Faculty of Arts at the University
of Cape Town in partial fulfilment of the requirements
for the degree of Bachelor of Arts (Honours) by Jeanette
Jegger.
This paper concerns cultural policy and practice
as it informs the arena of film making in South Africa.
I shall begin with a brief synopsis of previous apartheid
state film policy which still existed in the early
parts of this decade. The history of state film policy
has been traced and examined by critics like Tomaselli
- The Cinema of Apartheid (1989) - and Blignaut and
Botha - Movies - Moguls - Mavericks (1992). I shall
outline this history, and then move on into policy
(and industry) developments in the later parts of
the 1990's: it is important to be cognizant of this
past, so that we may understand the present state
of film policy and the film arena in general. I shall
then look at current (post-apartheid) film funding
policy - policy that began in 1996 and policy that
is still very much in progress (Interview: L Ndebele
1998). I shall examine the translation and transition
of present policy into film funding practice: looking
at problems, offering solutions, underlining successes.
I shall examine and interrogate current film policy
in light of a number of interviews held with various
players within the film arena, and I shall suggest
where we may glean lessons from foreign film policies
and frameworks, using Australia as a model where possible.
I have chosen Australia as reference point as I think
we share some significant commonalities: the film
industry there is relatively new and still growing,
still finding its way within a broader context that
is both multi-cultural and post-colonial. Finally,
I shall go on to consider the broader local film context
within which funding policy must function. I shall
highlight problems that exist within this broader
film framework, and again offer solutions/ suggestions,
so that national film policy may come to be translatable
in a more effective and meaningful way.
"That our cinema has not realised its undoubted
potential, may be traced to numerous factors, not
least a social system which stunted development in
all sectors of our society, and which isolated us
from international expertise and forums which could
have played a role in advancing our film industry."
(L Mtshali, 1996)
South African film history began around 1910. The
fledgling industry soon became consumed by the multi-national
Schlesinger entertainment giant, whose African Theatres
dominated the local film scene until 20th Century
Fox bought out Schlesinger's interests in 1956 (Shepperson
and Tomaselli, 1998). After 1948 and the introduction
of apartheid policy strategies, the film industry
became fractured and fragmented along racial and linguistic
lines (Shepperson and Tomaselli, 1998, p7). The state
film subsidy scheme began in 1956: ostensibly to protect
the local industry from foreign control, and in reality,
to reinforce an Afrikaner cultural and political hegemony
through tight control of the industry (the strategies
of American 20th Century Fox fell completely in line
with state policy anyway) (ibid.). A South African
film could qualify for subsidy only once it had earned
a certain box office profit at certain state-approved
cinema venues - the subsidy scheme thus worked to
curtail the production of non- commercial (independent
type) films (Blignaut and Botha, 1992, p105). The
latter type - variously named independent, oppositional
or radical cinema - was produced in the face of/ in
reaction against state politics and ideology: producers
of independent film had to seek alternative (mainly
foreign) sources of funding (Tomaselli, 1989, p199).
The scheme was amended in the late 1960s to accommodate
demands from Afrikaans filmmakers and members of parliament
for greater support of Afrikaans language films: subsidy
for Afikaans films was increased from 44 to 55 percent
(English language films received 10 percent less)
(Tomaselli, 1989, p35). At the same moment, a huge
shift occured in the distribution arena: the Afrikaans
insurance company SANLAM buys out 20th Century Fox
and forms SATBEL (S A Theatre Interests Ltd.). Despite
the presence of American competitors, SATBEL comes
to monopolize the local industry, dominating the structures
of production, distribution and exhibition (Shepperson
and Tomaselli, 1998, p7). (SATBEL is the parent company
of the Ster-Kinekor/ Primedia group that exists today.)
In 1973 the state introduced a separate funding scheme
for African language/ ethnic films. As with white
film funding, subsidy for so-called ethnic film was
directly related to distribution practices. The black
film industry had no conventional distribution network:
instead, audiences (mostly school children) were made
to view bad quality films which were distributed and
exhibited through a mobile film unit system (Blignaut
and Botha, 1992, p257). This distribution subsidy
enriched the white producers of ethnic film: the subsidy
covered the value of sold tickets per screening (ticket
prices ranged between 10c and R1.00), with maximum
values that are incomparable with unlimited white
film subsidies (the principal or owner of the exhibition
venue received a share per screening). There were
no checks or controls in place, so the return forms
system was open to corruption (Blignaut and Botha,
1992, p258). The black film industry could not be
sustained by this subsidy system. Producers relied
entirely on subsidy money which was used to cover
both production and overhead costs - by the late 1980s
this was no longer possible (Blignaut and Botha, 1992,
p265). The ethnic film subsidy scheme was cancelled
in 1989 because the system had become so corrupt -
at the same moment that saw the broader film industry
on the verge of collapse.
The demise of the South African (white) film industry
began in 1976, with the introduction of broadcast
television (the production of African language films
continued as before); the collapse happened some years
later. From 1985, film producers began to take advantage
of a double deduction (export) tax incentive. It became
very easy to make a film because investors were now
interested (because of high returns made possible
through this tax scheme) and easy to find (Blignaut
and Botha, 1992, p121-2). This film boom saw the production
of over 600 films from 1985 to 1989: the overwhelming
majority of which was pseudo- American B-Grade product
(ibid.). Film was being made for the wrong reasons:
their production was motivated by the benefits of
tax incentive or the subsidy scheme; most of them
were never released, some went straight to drive-in
or video circuit. This over-production of course could
not last. The industry began to stagnate: the combination
of cultural boycott, the chaotic state of film financing
and the lack of export incentives, effected the virtual
collapse of the local film industry. The tax scheme
was adjusted, and by 1990 a restructured and entirely
ineffectual old subsidy scheme was back in place.
"With recent changes in our country, and the
opportunity to restructure government's support for
the industry, the possibilities for local cinema to
both reflect and shape our emerging democracy, to
boost our international image, to create jobs and
to generate foreign income, are enormous." (L
Mtshali, 1996)
From 1994 the new Department of Arts, Culture, Science
and Technology (DACST) had to take over from the disastrous
film scene described above. The old subsidy scheme
was cancelled and in 1995 a new film function is created
to encourage and promote the local industry (Interview:
L Ndebele 1998). In November 1996 the Film Development
Strategy - the White Paper on Film - is announced,
and the Interim Film Fund (IFF) is established to
assist with the allocation of R10 million made available
for film funding for that financial year (96 out of
more than 300 projects receive funding). The most
significant need identified by the Film Development
Strategy paper is that of a film Foundation: in October
1997 the National Film and Video Foundation Bill is
adopted by the portfolio committee of Arts and Culture,
the Bill is passed by the National Assembly and becomes
Act No. 73 two months later (ibid.). The Interim Film
Fund continues to function as government funding body
until the Foundation and its administrative Council
is finally in place. IFF members are all film industry
people. Objectives behind the IFF are: to develop
new scriptwriters, filmmakers and local film audience,
to facilitate training schemes, to develop and build
the film industry in general (van Graan and du Plessis,
1998, p246). Film funding policy was thus given a
new lease on life - in the form of the Interim Film
Fund - rather recently. This is the state funding
structure presently in place, the funding policy of
which I shall go on to examine. Film funding policy
is still in its nascent form. It is important that
the much anticipated National Film and Video Foundation
learn and grow from the formative experiences of the
IFF.
I shall go on to examine the translation and transition
of present film funding policy into recent film funding
practice and experience. In light of several interviews
conducted with people who are part of the film funding
process, I shall discuss problems with present policy,
offer suggestions to these - using the model of Australian
policy and practice where applicable - and highlight
successful elements of present funding policy. Most
of the people I interviewed are recipients of the
first round of IFF funding awarded in 1997. I must
concede the fact of a western Cape bias where these
interviews are concerned, yet this regional bias should
not detract from the value and usefulness of these
personal insights - insights and opinions which are
crucial for a critical examination of both funding
policy and a broader film industry framework.
"I think the role of government is to fund projects
which have shown initiative and have got potential,
and are assisting people who have not had opportunities
in the past, and are assisting people who have got
talent but do not necessarily have the relevant resources."
(S Markovitz, 1998)
An unavoidable problem of funding allocation is the
necessary exclusion of certain application proposals
- in 1997 close on a third of applications was succesful
(van Graan and du Plessis, 1998, p246). Many industry
players feel that funding allocation has been handled
in a fair and acceptable way. A local producer notes
that a broad and fairly representative spectrum of
applicants was successful, and that the type of subject
matter involved is certainly not the stuff of rainbow
nationhood (Interview: (anonymous) local producer
1998). Of course not all applications can be successful,
and the selection is fairly representative. Yet, I
would argue that the selection process is not transparent
enough: the DAC does not disclose information on projects
that did not qualify for funding and reasons/ motivations
behind these behind-closed-doors decisions, and the
same applies to other pockets of information not particularly
open to public scrutiny (Interview: L Ndebele 1998).
For example: the DAC does not explain the process
by which funding amounts are arrived at. In 1997 many
successful applicants were awarded development funding
amounts of (and exceeding) R50 000 - and this as a
writer's fee (ibid.). While a screenwriter who applied
for development funding in 1998 managed to complete
his script before funding allocations were announced,
and so without any financial assistance (Interview:
M Taub 1998). In light of this example, are these
excessive development funding amounts really justifiable?
There needs to be greater openness where dissemination
of and access to information is concerned: the majority
of people I interviewed did not know where funding
money was going or who/ what was on the receiving
end. This kind of information should be readily available
to interested parties, so that they may have a deeper
understanding of the selection process, and of the
various unspoken criteria at work.
The budget of the DAC does not allow for provincial
departments - in light of needs and priorites more
pressing than provincial film offices, this is mostly
understandable. Regional film initiatives are thus
non-existent, or at best significantly limited and
so ineffectual. Here is the basic problem of access.
People (who have been informed about the DAC initiative)
wishing to contact the IFF must phone Pretoria, which
can be a considerable expense. Yet, there is a more
basic problem of access: potentially interested members
of the public can only learn of the funding scheme
if they are literate and read national newspapers,
if they have access to the world wide web, or if they
are already a part of the film industry/ network -
application forms are available only at industry-related
centres (Interview: L Ndebele 1998). The DAC must
make a greater attempt at accessability and information
dissemination, so that new players may become involved
in state film funding. They could advertise inexpensively
at provincial state structures (such as public libraries),
through community organisations and ngos, and in community
newspapers.
The importance of local/ regional film funding initiatives
is recognized by the Australian authorities. In addition
to Federal funding assistance, state governments create
local film agencies which encourage and support local
film development and production, which in turn stimulates
the local infrastructure (AFC Resources. 1998 http://www.afc.gov.au/resources/online/general/overview/afto7.html).
It is thus in the state's own interest to invest in
local industry development and production. Moving
closer to home, this is especially true for the western
Cape region. The film industry here generates millions
of rands in revenue each year as many international
producers come to work in the Cape. The local authorities
should thus recognize the importance of putting money
back into the local film industry, investing in areas
of development and training.
Some industry players in the Cape have recognized
this need for local participation and investment.
The Cape Film and Video Foundation (CFVF) has noted
the lack of training and development initiatives in
the Cape, and has entered into partnerships with both
government and the local commercial film industry
in an attempt to remedy this problem. The CFVF plans
to develop new players in all areas of the industry:
screenwriters, directors and technical crew people
(Interview: M McCarthy 1998). The technical training
project is to be financed by industry players and
the Department of Labour (by means of a matching finance
scheme: amounts invested by industry will be matched
by government) (ibid.).
Because of limited resources available to the DAC,
it is important for it to form connections and partnerships
with other Departments and Ministries. Film development
in this country needs to happen on two levels. On
one level, we need to develop the production industry,
foster a local cinema audience and, by extension,
a South African film identity. On a more grass-roots
level, we need to develop basic training and support
mechanisms with a strong television and video focus,
for entry level participants (Interview: local producer
1998). This is an enormous task, and the DAC or NFVF
can not embrace it alone. This should be a co-ordinated
inter-Ministerial initiative, involving other Departments,
such as Labour, Telecommunications and Broadcasting,
Trade and Industry (ibid.). "[T]here needs to
be a far broader strategy than just the R10 million
from the DAC." (ibid.). This more inclusive strategy
should also involve commercial industry players, especially
those with some kind of developmental interest and
agenda. (I shall discuss these kinds of partnerships
further, as I go on to consider funding policy within
a broader industry framework.)
Our own film funding policy makers can learn much
from the example of Australian federal funding policy.
The Australian Film Commission (AFC) - the core funding
body which acts as co-ordinator and facilitator within
the film industry - would be equivalent to our soon-to-be
National Film and Video Foundation, the objectives
and functions of both are similar. The AFC, and film
funding policy in general, falls under the Department
of Communications and the Arts (DCA) - the South African
equivalent would be a combined Department of Arts
and Culture, and Telecommunications and Broadcasting.
The very framework within which the AFC is located
is thus more inclusive: because of the strong alliance
of film and television, available resources and markets
are more extensive (and a strong television industry
works to foster a strong local film culture and identity).
Furthermore, the AFC does not function alone. Film
funding policy is implemented by a number of agencies:
the AFC, the Australian Film Finance Corporation (FFC),
which is the central financing body, and the Commercial
Television Production Fund (TVPF), which supports
the local television production industry (AFC Resources.
1998 http://www.afc.gov.au/resources/online/general/overview/afto6.html).
These government agencies are inextricably connected,
while the government policy structure as a whole is
inter-connected with a greater film and television
industry framework.
In my opinion, the most pressing problem with current
film funding practice, is the lack of, and need for,
a dedicated support framework for new filmmakers -
the majority of people interviewed agreed that this
is a fundamental problem. The IFF application guidelines
are as follows: any interested member of the public
(though this is generally a person with some film
background or experience) can apply for development
funding, a kind of writer's fee, while new filmmakers
requesting production funding need to attach an experienced
producer to their proposal (Interview: L Ndebele 1998).
Because there is no dedicated and continuous support
structure in place, things can go wrong after funding
has been awarded. The new filmmakers who receive film
funding need an infrastructure, a supportive framework
that would facilitate learning, offer advice and assistance
(Interview: J Tindel 1998). It is important for the
DAC/ IFF to recognize that these new filmmakers do
not have the resources that an established independent
or SABC producer may have at their disposal.
To concretize this problem, I refer to a Cape Town
training project that received funding in April 1997.
A group of new filmmakers applied - through a local
producer - to the IFF for funding for a video training
project. The relationship between group and producer
was not clearly defined. Because both parties wanted
different things, they ended the attachment (Interview:
local producer 1998). These kinds of relationships/
attachments need to be co- ordinated within a supportive
framework. Hence the need for a dedicated support
system. These relationships/ partnerships can not
happen alone: the film industry is too insular and
too closed. The framework must come from government/
the DAC.
The major problem identified by a member of this
Cape Town group, is the lack of an effective monitoring
system (Interview: S Gulwa 1998). Thus, I propose
that the new NFVF (with its greater resources) initiates
this kind of supportive framework. The NFVF needs
to employ field officers: mentor figures that would
monitor progress, assist with problems that may arise,
and track funding money (which would solve the problem
of mismanagement of funding monies). There is presently
a tracking system in place, but this does not mean
that funding money is being spent effectively (Interview:
L Ndebele 1998). To illustrate: the same Cape Town
group (now attached to another producer) is working
with professional technical people (who charge professional
daily rates) in the production of their video projects
(Interview: S Gulwa 1998). This clearly should not
be the case. But without a concerned and informed
support body, the resourceless group (completely dependent
on the producer's guidance) does not know about cheaper
alternatives available to them. The suggested support
system would provide this much needed networking structure.
Who would constitute this much needed support structure?
The NFVF needs to employ dedicated film industry people
who know and understand the workings of the industry,
preferably older players who no longer have vested
interests in the industry, and who can transmit skills
and advice to new filmmakers. These support bodies
would be provincial/ regional, so that new filmmakers
would have ready access to support and assistance.
"The intention of the Foundation is... to create
an arms-length body partly funded by the state but
administered by the industry." (Shepperson and
Tomaselli, 1998, p18). Here I would like to point
to the possibility or potentiality of a problem with
pending policy structure. Just as the suggested field
officers need to be disinterested players, so should
conflicts of interest within the future NFVF Council
be precluded. Members of the Coucil need to be as
disinterested from film industry projects as possible,
they need to have a sincere broader interest in the
film industry at heart (Interview: local producer
1998). Because the NFVF will be regulated to a great
extent by industry people, this is a concern that
policy makers will need to keep a close eye on.
"Now that the Film Foundation Bill has become
an Act in parliament, there are mechanisms to set
up structures which look out further than the IFF"
(Interview: local producer 1998).
IFF policy has been a necessary and valuable testing
ground. The most effective government policies take
shape through trial and error, as the example of Australia
demonstrates. Film funding policy can only improve
by learning from problem areas and mistakes - let
us hope this to be the case where our own policy formation
is concerned.
A still developing film funding policy necessarily
has its problem areas, yet IFF policy has been successful
in many ways too, as the many positive funding experiences
of interviewed recipients will illustrate. Firstly,
it is significant that the DAC's arms-length policy
has been well translated into funding practice. The
DAC does not interfere with artistic/ creative licence:
any subject matter is accepted, so long as it is not
contrary to the Constitution (Interview: L Ndebele
1998). Most of the people interviewed agreed that
this sense of openness did inform the IFF's selection
process. A broad spectrum of projects received funding:
from more palatable mainstream content, to controversial
and risque experimental material (Interview: local
producer 1998).
Secondly, for the recipients of IFF support, funding
meant the development or production (or both) of film
projects that otherwise could not have happened. The
funding process also afforded many of the recipients
further filmmaking opportunities and experiences.
Thus, for Zulfah Otto-Sallies (who received development
money for a feature film), funding provided an important
opportunity for script development - a process made
possible only by IFF support (Interview: Z Otto-Sallies
1998).
The same is true for Dermot Judge (who received development
money for a short film), a more experienced industry
player. Judge maintains that the first seed money
(provided by the IFF) is the most important: in financial
terms, it opens up many industry doors, inviting others
to come to the party (a favourite industry expression)
(Interview: D Judge 1998). Funding allowed Judge to
write his script, workshop some scenes with actors,
and film (on video) the latter. The video tape will
be an important tool for further fund-raising (ibid.).
Judge (who represents the South African Scriptwriters'
Association - SASWA), together with the Cape Film
and Video Foundation (CFVF), also initiated the highly
successful Cape Shorts writer's development project.
Through securing funding commitments from other commercial
and industry players, Judge got the DAC to come to
the party on this project too (ibid.). Judge hopes
to run this project on an annual basis. I hope so
too: the initiative is a much needed training programme
for local screenwriters, providing participants with
an inroad into the local industry.
For Ouida Smit (who received production money for
a documentary), funding experience was particularly
positive: it allowed for the production of a project
that otherwise could not have been made, and it afforded
her the opportunity of permanent employment with a
commercial production house (Interview: O Smit 1998).
Because of this opportunity, the burden of film funding
(of Ouida's work anyway) is now assumed by the commercial
sector (ibid.).
Penny Gaines of Youth Network Television (YNTV) (who
received production money for a video project) also
speaks of a positive funding experience (Interview:
P Gaines 1998). The Millennium Youth Television Series
is a three year long multimedia communication programme
which includes a thirteen part television series,
and Internet, radio and print components each year.
The television series takes the form of documentary
talk shows between groups of youth within South Africa,
and around the globe (these are produced as international
co- productions), using satellite technology (ibid.).
The project has some financial backing from the SABC
- the IFF is thus willing to come to the party, if
other funding guests are interested (this is how funding
works successfully in most filmmaking countries).
YNTV produced two of the project's television programmes
with IFF money. Again, these will serve as tools with
which to invite and secure further investment. The
YNTV project also includes a training component: an
intern training programme provides practical experience
specifically for black and female trainees in all
areas of television production (a similar training
programme is planned for radio production), while
television panel participants attend an Internet education
programme (ibid.). Some trainees have secured permanent
employment within the film and television industry.
The funding experience is thus particularly successful
if it has multiple spinoffs, benefitting and empowering
many people in multiple and different ways.
Lastly, the DAC makes - and hopefully will continue
to make - a very good investment in our film and television
industry, in the form of support for the South African
International Film and Television Market: an annual
sales, networking and exhibition event since 1996,
the Market has changed the face of the local film
and broadcast industry (Showdata. 1997 http://www.showdata.org.za/news/archive/970923.htm).
The Market (supported also by M-Net and Ster-Kinekor)
attracts many international industry heavyweights,
before which local filmmaking talent can pitch their
ideas and exhibit their work (ibid.). The Market generates
a much needed boost in morale for local filmmakers,
and signifies the entrance of South Africa onto the
international film scene.
"It is anticipated that the Foundation will
achieve [its developmental goals] by targeting under-developed
potential and emergent entreprenuers in production,
distribution, exhibition and training, and map out
mechanisms whereby these less formal sectors can become
integrated into the formal industry as part of global
networks." (Shepperson and Tomaselli, 1998, p19)
Finally, funding policy does not exist in a vacuum.
I shall go on to consider the much broader film industry
framework within which film funding policy must function.
I shall identify problems within our own industry
framework, offer suggestions where possible, and again
indicate where we may glean lessons from the Australian
industry framework, so that our own state funding
policy may become more effective, better translatable
into the South African film industry framework.
I think the most valuable lesson we can extract from
the Australian film experience, is that of government
and industry closeness, connectedness. Australian
film policy is very much industry based/ rooted, government
funding agencies are intimately involved with industry
structures. I think the South African industry framework
can learn much from the Australian film scene. Perhaps
the answers to our own problem areas can be found
by following their example: by forging links and partnerships
between government structures, private sector bodies,
and a broader film industry framework. I think this
will be the answer, where many of our broader framework
problems are concerned.
The first problem area within the South African film
industry framework, is that of training. In this industry,
expensive formal training is often bypassed, in favour
of direct in-industry training and apprenticeship
- informal training that is often not accredited or
recognized (DeBarros, 1995, p4). There is a real need
for the formalization of film training, so that the
industry may be properly opened up, and democratized.
In terms of existing formal training institutions,
there is the problem of co-ordination/ regulation.
Training initiatives are usually independent and isolated;
there are thus no set or organized standards, or shared
curricula that inform the training arena (ibid.).
Institutions need to work and learn together. There
exists a further fissure within the training field,
as would-be filmmakers are trained along either technical
or academic/ theoretical lines, whereas the unity
of both is essential (DeBarros, 1995, p5). Training
institutions need to offer these and other skills:
filmmakers today need to acquire basic film business/
marketing skills, and increasingly need to be computer
literate (ibid.).
The training arena needs a national (government supported)
film school - a need recognized by most industry players,
as well as the NFVF. Such a school could formalize
and properly open up the training field, and could
regulate training standards and curricula, combining
all aspects of filmmaking. A national film school
would provide the industry with a credible source
of new filmmaking talent, as it does in many a filmmaking
country.
A further problem within the training arena, is that
of discontinuity: there are no links between the training
institutions that do exist, and the broader film industry.
There is thus a need for bridging mechanisms. I would
suggest that it is up to government/ the NFVF to facilitate
here; the bridging move will not come from the industry
- the latter is too busy making money (Interview:
J Tindel 1998). Thus, the NFVF must continue with
its support of training initiatives, and it must do
more. It should form partnerships with film companies
that run training and development programmes, it could
involve industry players in the support framework
that I propose above. There is a dire need for the
local film industry to open up to new players; film
industry culture is very white, inaccessable, and
alienating for newcomers (Interview: local producer
1998). The commercial film companies must do their
bit to help disadvantaged newcomers (ibid.). Thus,
government must initiate and facilitate partnerships
between film industry players and training institutions.
It should encourage and become more involved in training
initiatives such as the one proposed by the Cape Film
and Video Foundation, described above.
Another problem area within our industry framework
is that of production, or, more accurately, producers:
there are none, and there is no production money to
go around (Interview: R Young 1998). To illustrate:
the recently released Fools (1997), directed by R
Suleman, is a first for South African cinema: it is
the first local film to be made by a black director
- it has been billed by many industry figures as South
Africa's great break-through film (Worsdale, 1998,
p3). Yet, for some industry players, the film is also
a cause for embarrassment: not because of its quality,
but because its producer is French, and not South
African; we can't claim the credits (Interview: O
Smit 1998). This fact highlights the current state
of film production in South Africa.
There are no producers as there is no production
money with which to produce. There is no production
money, as investors are not motivated to invest in
the local production industry: there are no tax incentive
schemes or export incentives which would encourage
local investment in local film product. There is thus
a very real need for the active engagement of private
investors. As the Australian film framework demonstrates,
this is possible only through government involvement.
In Australia, the federal Film Finance Corporation
(FFC) plays a crucial role in facilitating increased
levels of industry investment. It offers tax incentives
such as the 10BA scheme, which provides for a 100
per cent tax deduction on investment in film production
costs. More recently (and in response to problems
of transparency within the 10BA scheme), the FFC introduced
a new pilot scheme for private investment, FLIC: Film
Licensed Investment Scheme (Department of Communications
and the Arts (DCA) 1998 http://www.dca.gov.au/mediarel/c14497.html).
This scheme will provide a 100 per cent tax concession
to investors in companies which are licensed to invest
in film or television product - the investment in
the company is thus not taxed (ibid.). The FLIC will
be able to raise concessional capital of up to $20
million a year (ibid.).
Like Australia, our own government structures/ the
NFVF must inititate and facilitate these kinds of
investment schemes. In Australia, industry producers
are not the only group of investors: investment in
local production comes from broadcasters, distributors
and exhibitors, while foreign investment results from
an international reputation (DCA 1998 http://www.dca.gov.au/speeches/spaa.html).
The same needs to follow in our own industry framework.
As is the case in Australia, government must provide
a safety net, a strong and committed support base,
that will offer local and foreign investors assurance,
and generate local and international confidence in
our own film industry.
Following the problem of lack of investment and so
production finance, is the lack of a thriving production
industry, and the insufficiency of production initiatives
within the industry - an isolated example is that
of M-Net's annual New Directions competition, an opportunity
for six new scriptwriters and directors to have their
work produced (Shepperson and Tomaselli, 1998, p12).
There is thus a need for a strong, internal boost
in local production; South Africa needs a solid internal
industry before we can play internationally: we can
only become internationally competitive and a prospective
co-production partner once we start producing better
quality and more product for our local market (Sprintlink
1998 http://www.sprintlink.co.za/~indep/DurbNewm.htm).
One way of providing this boost would be through
local content regulation: by uplifting local content
quotas. In this way, local broadcasters - who should
be the the main source of employment and support for
independent producers anyway - would be forced to
come to the party. Presently, the relationship between
our public broadcaster, the SABC, and independent
producers is less than satisfactory: the Corporation
only commissions a percentage of production budget,
and then there is the question of ownership - generally,
the broadcaster will own the rights (ibid.). A major
problem is that it is cheaper for broadcasters to
buy American product than to finance local production,
while the former do not take local content responsibilities
seriously anyway. "[N]othing would be more in
the interests of the South African independent production
industry than to have a healthy, competitive and strongly
indigenous broadcasting industry." (ibid.). Thus,
local content upliftment should be built into the
agendas of all our television stations, and this includes
private broadcasting.
A further problem area within the broader film industry
framework is that of cinema/ screen culture or audience.
In Australia, the AFC spends $2 million each year
on screen culture (DCA 1998 http://www.dca.gov.au/speeches/spaa.html).
I do not think that in South Africa such a thing exists.
Or, if it does, it is not an issue government needs
to be involved in (this is the popular belief anyway).
How exactly the aforementioned $2 million is spent,
is not made clear. But this is not important. What
is important, is the fact of government involvement
in this area of the film industry. This needs to be
the case, especially where our own industry framework
is concerned.
In South Africa, screen culture and screen taste
is determined and regulataed by what is on at the
cinemas; in other words: by distribution and exhibition
activities. Audience preference or choice - which
should be foremost in this process - is non-existent.
Audiences need to be active participants in this industry.
Their participation needs to extend beyond the act
of buying a movie ticket: they need to be active viewers/
consumers of film texts. Local film audiences need
to develop critical visual literacy skills, they need
to be more discerning and selective movie-goers. Only
in this way - only once they know about other alternatives
to mainstream (Hollywood) material - can local audiences
become active in the exhibition-consumption process.
"The potential for critical viewing is the ground
upon which a more democratic kind of cinema culture
can evolve" (Shepperson and Tomaselli, 1997,
p18). There is a dire need in the film arena for audience
development and education: South African film audiences
need to acquire critical visual literacy skills. These
could be acquired through formal educational programmes:
these would be implemented at primary and secondary
school levels, through the Department of Education,
as part of the new curriculum. In the past, visual
or media literacy programmes were often not available
at black schools, because of limited resources (DeBarros,
1995, p3). Or, these could be acquired through more
informal (and less costly) educational programmes,
like the Storyteller Group initiative: here, comic-book
stories are used as tools for facilitating literacy
promotion and consciousness raising within disadvantaged
communities (Shepperson and Tomaselli, 1997, p22).
Or, critical viewing skills could be developed through
establishing a wider viewing/ exhibition framework:
viewers would have the option of alternative (non-commercial)
film material at these new venues (ibid.). Such ventures
exist in the form of informal township video cinemas
that exhibit alternative material, and develop new
audiences (Shepperson and Tomaselli, 1998, p21). These
are the kinds of literacy programmes and initiatives
that need to be supported and encouraged by government/
the NFVF.
Furthermore, film critics/ reviewers and commentators
must also assist in audience consciousness raising:
they must also play an educative role, assisting film
audiences to actively engage with film material, to
read film texts critically. Ouida Smit, a film director,
underlines the importance of critical journalism:
"just one daily newspaper could help in creating
cinema consciousness" (Interview: O Smit 1998).
"Production is not the solution to the end of
the problem, it's only half-way. Distribution is the
main issue; it is where the control lies." (S
Bulane-Hopa, 1996)
Finally, the enormous problem of distribution. In
the wider South African film framework, distribution
means exhibition as well. I have underlined the direct
relation between distribution/ exhibition patterns,
and the lack of screen culture or discerning cinema
audience above. Here, I am concerned with problems
of distribution where the South African filmmaker
is concerned, as my paper has filmmakers rather than
film consumers as its central concern.
The distribution network in South Africa is an insular
monopoly. It is capital driven, so naturally no risks
are taken by any of the few major players (as many
of the interviewed filmmakers complained). The distribution
framework has always been small and (for want of a
better word) incestuous - just recently, it got even
smaller, even more insular. In August 1997, Primedia,
a leading player in the film and music industries,
bought most of Interleisure, the owner of Ster- Kinekor.
Explaining the motive behind this move, W Kirsch (CEO),
identifies the wide gap between producers and distributors
as a major impediment to the success of the local
industry. It would seem that this gap just got filled
by Primedia Filmed Entertainment, who produce film
products as well (Showdata 1998 http://www.showdata.org.za/news/archive/980122.htm).
Because the big commercial distributors/ exhibitors
- Ster-Kinekor and NU-Metro - will not take risks,
they do not release local film product (although they
would retort that if there was good quality local
product, they would in fact release it), as audiences
will not flock to see it - a problem which distribution/
exhibition patterns helped to create in the first
place. The big distributors prefer to buy and release
pre-packaged Hollywood films; they do not ivest in
the expensive marketing of films, and they are clearly
not rushing to do so where local product is concerned.
This is where the problem lies for South African filmmakers:
distributors will not spend money on packaging local
film product (Interview: local producer 1998). Many
local filmmakers thus look to distributing their films
abroad (Interview: Z Otto-Sallies 1998). The local
alternative is film festival exhibition: good for
exposure and networking, but certainly not money-generating
(DeBarros, 1995, p16).
What needs to be done? Many industry players underline
the need for a serious committment from the distribution
companies. Dermot Judge feels that, in addition to
this, it is up to the film practitioners and film
critics and commentators to get word of mouth going,
to start drumming up an audience (Interview: D Judge
1998).
And (more realistically) what can be done? Many experienced
industry people point to overseas distribution practice:
distributors must get involved in pre- financing local
feature film product, must gaurantee distribution
of the finished product; in other words, must have
a financial interest in local feature films (as is
the case in Australia, as mentioned above) (Interview:
local producer 1998). Basically, distributors must
start taking risks on local product. Mike McCarthy
advises local filmmakers to secure pre-sale agreements
with international distributors; after this, the rest
of the (budget) money is relatively easy to raise
(Interview: M McCarthy 1998). If local distributors
continue to resist invitations to come to the industry
party, Judge suggests that it is possible to actively
force them to come. He points to the possibility of
government slapping a levy onto cinema ticket sales
(which many successful filmmaking countries - such
as England and Ireland - do anyway, to develop the
local industry) - "this will force them to play
ball" (Interview: D Judge 1998).
Distributors must begin to encourage both industry
and audience: the former, in an investment sense,
the latter, in providing a taste of local material.
As Judge maintains: South Africans want to see themselves
on screen, and television ratings will verify this
fact (Interview: D Judge 1998). Cinemas could thus
screen local experimental shorts alongside the commercials
that play before main shows, with no question of payment
to begin with. Many industy people respond very favourably
to this suggestion. I was unable to track down a response
from the distribution arena.
As detailed above, there is much room for improvement
within our film industry framework. I think that government/
the soon-to-be National Film and Video Foundation
participation and support can go a long way to assist
in the improvement of industry problem areas, so that
film funding policy can be more easily and effectively
translated into filmmaking practice. Government support
needs to be felt. Returning to the Australian experience
again, the benefits of government involvement and
support are clear: increased domestic investment,
and more foreign investment resulting from confidence
in the local film industry (DCA 1998 http://www.dca.gov.au/mediarel/c14497.html).
Our own government structures need to provide the
South African film industry with a similar kind of
safety net and support base.
In 1997, the Department of Arts, Culture, Science
and Technology invited the Australian Film Commission
to South Africa, to consult on local policy formation.
As our own NFVF comes into being, it will be interesting
to see whether the DAC learned some important lessons
from the Australian experience. Because of the changeable,
flexible nature of funding policy, I do hope that
our own policy makers will be open to my own criticisms
and suggestions, and, perhaps more significantly,
those of the film people I interviewed. Because the
NFVF is as yet unborn, it is necessary for a similar
investigation into South African film funding policy
and practice to take place in the near future, as
our own film policy is written, reshaped, and translated
into filmmaking practice.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Blignaut, J and Botha, M, 1992. Movies - Moguls -
Mavericks, Showdata, Cape Town
Mtshali, L, 1996. in GNU White Paper on Film policy/
Film Development Strategy
Shepperson, A and Tomaselli, K, 1997. South African
Cinema Beyond Apartheid: Affirmative action in distribution
and storytelling, Chapter submitted for J G Akudinobi
and A Zegeye
Shepperson, A and Tomaselli, K, 1998. South African
Cinema: Before and Beyond Apartheid, chapter in The
International Movie Industry edited by G Kindem, Southern
Illinois University Press, Illinois
Thorne, K, and Sorensen, S, 1996. Voices and Visions:
Audio-Visual Media in the New South Africa, Zebra
Information Office, South Africa
Tomaselli, K, 1989. The Cinema of Apartheid: Race
and Class in South African Film, Radix, South Africa
van Graan, M, and du Plessis, N, 1998. The South
African Handbook on Arts and Culture 1998, Copyright
Publishers, Cape Town
Worsdale, A, 1998. Tales of township life, in the
Mail & Guardian, 22-28 May, p3
Internet World Wide Web addresses:
Australian Film Commission Resources: Industry Overview,
1998, http://www.afc.gov.au/resources/online/general/overview/afto6.html
Australian Film Commission Resources: Industry Overview,
1998, http://www.afc.gov.au/resources/online/general/overview/afto7.html
Department of Communications and the Arts: Screen
Producers Association of Australia, 1998, http://www.dca.gov.au/speeches/spaa.html
Department of Communications and the Arts: Media
Release, 1998, http://www.dca.gov.au/mediarel/c14497.html
Showdata: South African Government Support for South
African Film Market, 1997, http://www.showdata.org.za/news/archive/970923.htm
Showdata: Primedia forms major film group, 1998,
http://www.showdata.org.za/news/archive/980122.htm
South African Indie Film Site, 1998 : DeBarros, L,
1995. An assessment of emerging independent filmmaking
in the Gauteng region: relating to difficulties in
training, funding and distribution, http://www.safilm.org.za/thesis.html
Sprintlink: Local Contempt, by M Newman, 1998, http://www.sprintlink.co.za/~indepen/DurbNewm.htm
Interviews:
Anonymous, 1998, film producer
Gaines, P, 1998, worker at Youth Network Television
Gulwa, S, 1998, filmmaker
Judge, D, 1998, filmmaker
Markovitz, S, 1998, film producer
Mc Carthy, M, 1998, film producer and chairman of
the CFVF
Ndebele, L, 1998, DACST spokesperson
Otto-Sallies, Z, 1998, filmmaker and director of Community
Video Education Trust
Smit, O, 1998, film director
Taub, M, 1998, writer
Tindel, J, 1998, project manager at CVET
Young, R, 1998, filmmaker
