INTRODUCTION
South African filmmakers are beset by an astounding
array of barriers in trying to make films in this
country. There are almost no sources of information
or assistance to be found through business, government
or other arts funding. This long essay seeks to investigate
the difficulties of independent filmmakers, principally
in the Gauteng area, in making film, with the aim
of exploring film industry lobbying groups, funding
agents, distribution and exhibition and what is being
done to transform the status quo.
By assessing both the specific structural issues
such as Training, Funding and Education, Distribution
and Exhibition as well as the more nebulous perspectives
of South African Independent Filmmakers themselves,
I hope to come to a critical conclusion which will
assist in defining problem areas and possible solutions.
The concept of an Independent Filmmaker is a somewhat
indistinct one. The concept can however be adequately
defined by a number of criteria (which will be used
throughout this essay) while still not being a strictly
fixed definition:
The independent filmmaker usually seeks to work outside
of the mainstream structures such as large studios
and conglomerates. This is usually sought because
of the increased artistic creative freedom that comes
with some independence. 1
The independent filmmaker is usually concerned more
with a creative concept that he or she wishes to communicate
rather than the amount of "bums on seats".2
The independent Filmmaker usually sees him or herself
as a creative person much as a writer might, not simply
as a technician, in film or video.
The independent filmmaker thus usually prefers to
work on a project for which he or she feel some passion
for, rather than just being a hired crew-member.
The independent filmmaker usually embodies an authorial
voice. This may be why there appears to be more directors
that write their own scripts in the independent genre,
than is the case in more mainstream productions where
a director is usually hired after the concept has
been conceived.
The independent Filmmaker usually directs, writes
or produces his or her work.
The independent Filmmaker often (but certainly not
always) emerges from a subculture or oppressed group
which has not had the opportunity to produce its own
images through the mainstream. 3
-The independent filmmaker is usually more willing
and able to experiment and subvert cinematic conventions
than in the mainstream. -The independent filmmaker
is usually also interested in dealing with topics
in a very honest and at times controversial and/or
subversive nature. 4
The independent genre or style is perhaps most developed
in the United States with a history of a highly mature
film industry largely controlled by a few large Hollywood
studios. These studios have historically dictated
to a large extent the style and content of film-work,
often very concerned with generating profits rather
than creative expression. This system has helped to
place the Classic Hollywood style as the conventional
style of filmmaking around the world.
Dissatisfaction among some filmmakers, as well as
strong government and private arts funding, led to
a growing movement of independent productions, that
since "Easy Rider" in the 1970's have become
increasingly successful among audiences. Today the
independent movement in the United States as well
as in other countries such as Australia produces a
great deal of challenging film-work. Independent festivals
have sprung up around the world and a healthy distribution
network supplies films to a large independent art
circuit, hungry for more products. The growth of the
independent industry here has helped the production
of much work by previously silenced groups such as
Gay and Lesbian, Feminist and African American filmmakers.
South Africa too has traditionally been held in the
grip of the Hollywood system. Rarely have we seen
our own unique variations of lifestyles and context
been exhibited in either cinemas or television screens.
Historically conservative structures have produced
films unwilling to debate or depict many of the more
politically, ideologically or socially sensitive issues.
A healthy Independent film industry would assist in
South Africa finally making films about itself from
all perspectives, without the constraints of solely
financial considerations. While in a way advocating
the self gratifying spending of millions of dollars
to make films that do not relate to any audiences,
it is important to take risks and experiment in order
to make films that are creatively and artistically
satisfying. It is important that this sphere of filmmaking
be allowed to exist alongside the mainstream industry,
for surely in many ways they are intrinsically linked.
These issues will be dealt with through a number
of techniques. Selected independent filmmakers were
interviewed in an attempt to directly discover the
issues that affect this group on a daily basis, without
the mediation of other sources of information. It
is important to not only analyze policy development
and formulation but to also contextualise it in terms
of whether it fulfills the needs of those that it
seeks to address. Often policy recommendations are
produced by people that are not in touch with the
reality of what they propose. As the country re-constitutes
itself and re-asses past policies, now is the opportunity
to address the needs of independent filmmakers.
This project is not meant to be a statistical survey
of young filmmakers. Rather these filmmakers chosen
are meant to be our guide to the issues that this
project will attempt to deal with. The individuals
were picked on the following basis: I decided that
a number of eight individuals would be a feasible
group to research. More than this would be too unwieldy
for the purposes of the project.
Four of the filmmakers chosen were acquaintances
that I had met through trying to make my own films.
The rest were filmmakers suggested to me by various
sources such the independent production company Free
Filmmakers and the Newtown Film and Television School.
They are all between the ages of twenty and twenty
six years of age. Their backgrounds are all unique
and varied. The one common denominator is that they
all aim to independently create their own films, not
simply work within the industry. For them filmmaking
is part of their life, not only a business but most
importantly an art. While acknowledging that the selection
process is somewhat arbitrary (it could never represent
all of the multiple perspectives that exist in this
field) it is useful once again to remember that this
group is but a guide to plunging into the wider issues.
The group was interviewed by myself over a space
of approximately two months. My aim was to discover
how they survived and succeeded in trying to do what
they felt they did best, what they felt they needed
to do - make films. The background information (detailed
in the annexure) will help to put the issues that
face independent young filmmakers into a more practical
and perhaps a more useful context.
Interviews were also conducted with a number of relevant
people in the more institutionalised structures in
the mainstream such as relevant industry organisations,
distributors, government policy makers and funding
structures and training institutions.
Research was undertaken into past and present government
funding policies for film as well as future proposed
policies, specifically looking at the Arts and Culture
TAsk Group (ACTAG) proposals. 5
Film and video are an expensive business. A twenty
minute film shot on broadcast quality video with a
minimum crew and the most basic equipment and resources
for editing and post production, and including no
payment to the crew or cast, costs approximately R20
000 to produce.6 If the product were shot on film
(e.g. 18mm or 35mm) the cost would most certainly
triple.
This is the field that a few South Africans have
chosen to work in - to make it their life and their
profession. To fulfill their goals they deprive themselves
of a great deal, but through them and their work we
could finally begin to see a more challenging view
of our society through all its dark history to its
future, visualised from our cinema to our television
screens.
This essay will over three chapters look at numerous
issues facing the independent filmmaker in South Africa:
Chapter one will concern itself with a basic underlying
problem facing the film industry, the lack of education
and training, both in the industry and the population
in general. Chapter two will asses the issues involved
in raising funds for independent filmmaking as well
as government subsidy policies of the past, present
and future. Finally, chapter three will consider the
current status of film distribution and exhibition,
both locally and internationally with regard to the
independent filmmaker, from the cinema networks to
the burgeoning festival circuit.
Through an assessment of independent film in the
Gauteng Area, both structurally and also in terms
of filmmakers strategies and techniques, this essay
seeks to provide a more open perspective through which
to debate these issues. It will also seek to offer
and consider a number of possible solutions to the
problems described..
CHAPTER ONE
EDUCATION AND TRAINING
When re-searching the sources of the problem areas
in the independent film community, education and training
are vital issues to address. They take us to the very
root of the problems which branch out not only directly
to those in this industry but also South African culture
at large. Before tackling these issues, one needs
to define the terms Training and Education in this
essay. Education would relate to primary and secondary
education in film and visual literacy for school students.
Training generally takes place at the tertiary stage
and involves those students that have chosen the field
as a career and is more technically based.
The lack of a local culture that views film as a
valid art form, not only as entertainment, and the
unequal levels of education among different racial
groups in the population is generally directly or
indirectly related to the results of the Apartheid
policies of the past. The resulting levels of poverty
as well as the unequal quality of education has left
a huge gap in the film and media literacy skills and
sophistication between black and white South Africans.
The lack of access to video and film technology in
most rural areas has left a large part of the population
unskilled in the most basic tenets of the field. The
lack of cinema viewing facilities in traditionally
black areas and the previous racial segregation of
cinemas has also played its part in creating a largely
visually unsophisticated population, uncomfortable
with much technology.
Education of school level students in Film and Media
literacy generally does not involve a deep technical
understanding or training in film or video, but would
generally consist of basic visual literacy studies
be aimed at all students. In some schools this is
offered as part of a language subject such as English.
This has generally been a luxury shared by previously
white schools, costs being too high for most previously
black schools. (ACTAG. 1995: pg 161). Historically,
Black schools have not been able to finance television
and video recorders to enable them to educate students
in film literacy. It was suggested by Marc Schwinges
that the filmmaking industry needs to be discussed
in career counseling classes as a viable career, which
is rarely done (Interview: Marc Schwinges 1/5/1995).
The result has not only been a culture at large with
few visual literacy skills and little frame of reference
when it comes to film, but has also resulted in usually
black students having more trouble grasping technological
concepts than their white counterparts.(Interview:
Christopher Qwasha. 22/05/1995)
Most middle class white students have generally had
video machines and relatively hi-tech cameras as part
of their developmental background. A common video
term to many white students such as "tracking"
on a video machine, is often an alien concept to an
underprivileged black one. This places the black student
at immediate disadvantage when it comes to training.
(Interview: Thomas Eksteen. 14/11/1995) Training and
education are still burdened with the continuing echoes
of the past. Social and economic issues are a direct
issue in a technologically complex field. Training
institutions need to address these disadvantages of
an un-equal background, perhaps with extra classes
in basic training, and most importantly, schools need
to start from the ground up educating students, in
visual and technological skills, who have little or
no access to this technology in their immediate environment.
Training in the context of this essay is related
to tertiary or supplementary school training. aimed
at students that have made a conscious decision to
make a career in the field of film and television.
This sort of training is usually offered at institutions
such Universities, Technicons or private film and
or television schools.
Many students in the film and video field often bypass
formal training (usually due to financial constraints)
or supplement their training, with direct in-industry
training. By entering the industry at a lower level
than their ultimate ambitions, such as a runner, they
may successfully learn and train themselves and reach
their particular goal. They may also be taken on in
an apprentice role such as an assistant to a cameraman
in order to learn their skills and then move on to
becoming a fully fledged cameraman. The SABC also
offers a number of training courses to those entering
the corporation.
This climbing up the proverbial ladder, or what is
commonly referred to in the industry as "paying
one's dues" can lead to great deal of time wasted
in a profession only marginally related to one's interests.
There is of course no guarantee that the opportunity
to move into one's goal will materialise (Interview:
Lindi Ngobese. 13/06/1995). The industry also has
a tendency to typecast one's talents and abilities
into the field or position that one is known in. This
often makes it difficult to be taken seriously in
a role different from that which has been established.
(Interview: Marc Schwinges.1/05/1995)
It is however, mainly at the training institutions,
their accessibility, and the applicability of their
education to the needs of society and students that
this chapter will be looking at. Perhaps the arguably
largest training institutions in film and video field
are the Pretoria Technicon, Natal Technicon, The SABC,
Wits University and the Cape Town Film and TV School.
(Showdata. 1995. Http://www.showdata.org.za/index.htm)
7
The Pretoria Technicon is the only complete Film
School in the country (Interview: Gerghard Uys. 11/10/1995)
. Its students work consistently in the film medium
as well as receiving a strong theoretical training.
Past problems with the school have been cited that
it promoted a highly conservative status quo which
made it inaccessible to many students. (Interview:
Marc Schwinges. 1/05/1995) It has also had severe
budgetary constraints resulting in a limited intake
of students. It is the only institution in the country
to offer offers a National, Higher and Masters diploma
in Film and Video Technology. (Interview: Gerhard
Uys. 11/10/1995)
The Natal Technicon and Wits University only offer
courses in video technology (Showdata. 1995. Http://www.showdata.org.za/index.htm)
Due to the high cost of film, the relatively small
size of a the film industry and the larger Television
Broadcasting industry, these institutions have chosen
to discard with film training in the film medium.
Some theoretical film training is offered at Wits
University, although this is more accurately a film
criticism course (Interview: Thomas Eksteen. 14/11/1995).
The lack of practical film training is an important
issue to note. This is a near crippling disability
affecting studying filmmakers. While video is a considerably
cheaper format to work and train in, they are quite
different mediums. Video does not achieve the quality
of film in terms of depth of field, colour saturation
and sharpness. (Interview: Trevor Brown. 27/8/1995)
As a result, almost all feature films, most television
serials and commercials are produced on film, using
the 16mm or 35mm formats. While commercials and television
serials are then finalised on video by transferring
the film footage to a video format, feature films
are completed and edited directly on the film formats.
All cinemas exhibit film prints, usually the 35mm
format. 8
Especially in the field of feature films, one finds
a distinct ignorance of and confusion about film as
a medium amongst most of the filmmakers interviewed.
Almost all those filmmakers interviewed had difficulties
coming to grips with the media. Marc Schwinges had
worked with film previously in his studies , while
the rest had not. All expressed the need to work in
the medium. To create a viable Feature Film industry,
of international exportable quality, film as a medium
sorely needs to be re-instated in South African training
facilities. While the financial costs are high, they
will later become higher in terms of the development
of the feature film industry as a whole.
Training institutions generally work independently
of each other with no external input. There are therefore
no set standards or shared curricula in the film and
video training institutions (ACTAG.1995:160). Each
department operates at its own level with no overseeing
of the quality of the courses offered. This has over
the years led to a proliferation of second rate, highly
expensive courses offered by questionable institutions
that inadequately train students desperate to enter
the field and ignorant of the possibilities (or lack
thereof) on offer, such as the now defunct Television
Learning Academy. (Interview: Marc.1/5/1995). The
institutions themselves may therefore find it difficult
to assess the quality of the education being offered
in their film and video departments because of the
highly technical nature of the field, as there is
little external assessment available.
The unequal standards and levels of training result
in a number of institutions that train students mainly
in the technical aspects of the fields (generally
the Technicon syllabuses) and others that mainly train
in the theoretical and critical skills (generally
the Universities). This has lead to an unequal balance
of skills in filmmakers, some either technically competent
but with little aesthetic and creative understanding,
and others with a theoretical and aesthetic understanding
with no skills to turn the theory into practice. This
was re-iterated by those filmmakers interviewed. A
common wisdom of the film industry is that those working
within the industry are technicians, not filmmakers.
For example, many Directors of Photography are highly
competent technical cameraman, but are often unable
to creatively or aesthetically work with a director.
(Interview: Karen Coetzee. 18/7/1995). This becomes
a vicious circle in which many lecturers and training
personnel are from within the lacking spheres of the
industry, thereby perpetuating the weaknesses of the
industry onto their students.
It is apparent that these institutions need to combine
theory and practice more creatively and effectively.
It may also be useful to import some lectures from
overseas to upgrade and hone the lecturing skills
and course composition of many of these institutions
which may have become stagnant in their isolation.
The range of subjects that offered at these institutions
are somewhat limited. For example, Scriptwriting is
rarely offered as a distinct course. This is an important
skill in filmmaking in that it is generally agreed
that a good film or project begins with the quality
of writing. Scriptwriting is not merely a creative
writing skill, but also a highly technical skill,
very different and distinct from standard prose writing,
involving specific formats and techniques that are
internationally accepted. Without these skills both
of presentation and technique, local writers will
not be accepted by international producers, thereby
leading to difficulty, if not the impossibility, of
receiving international finance. In an environment
in which international co-productions are becoming
increasingly common and necessary, this issue becomes
one of some importance.
According to those interviewed filmmakers that received
formal training (and re-iterated by Gerhard Uys (Questionnaire:
Pretoria Technicon. 11/10/1995 ) training is often
given in an insular fashion, in that students are
trained to operate equipment, and other similar skills,
but rarely offered film business skills. Most institutions,
surveyed through questionnaires, do not offer courses
in distribution, funding techniques nor how the industry
is structured nor functions as a whole. How film festivals
operate, nor how distributors function. Students often
find themselves ignorant of the most important information
necessary to function within their industry or even
on their own. Students are not taught where information
can be accessed regarding their industry, nor for
example how production companies work with advertising
agencies, nor how broadcasters usually commission
products. Students are rarely taught how to write
industry accepted proposals. Without these basic skills,
young filmmakers find it exceptionally difficult to
pierce the thick hide of the conventions of the film
and television industry.
Filmmaking is also not simply an artistic endeavor
but requires honed business skills. Films are high
cost products and filmmakers need to understand how
to work out budgets, manage their finance and how
issues of payment, contract law and labour relations
and marketing affect their craft. Training in these
skills is rarely offered at the institutions surveyed.
In an interview with Gerhard Uys of the Pretoria Technicon,
it was suggested that these skills do not have to
be "taught because they are all such complex
fields that it would be impossible to learn everything
about them in a course anyway" (Interview: Gerhard
Uys. 11/10/1995).
This is of course not the point. The Filmmaker needs
to be grounded in all aspects of his field. He does
need to take a degree in law, but perhaps needs to
understand the basics of how a contract works as well
as how to draw up a budget. Most independent filmmakers
need to know these skills as they generally work within
a low budget environment and cannot afford to, as
many big budget productions can, hire legal advisors,
media liaisons, assistant producers, accountants and
the like. In most cases the independent filmmaker
often needs to fulfill all these functions and many
more. This again leads one to the conclusion that
these institutions are training technicians, not well
rounded filmmakers.
The cost of maintaining a video or film training
department is high, not only are there specialised
staff and technicians to pay, but also the maintenance
of equipment takes up a great deal of departmental
budget. Often the purchase of new equipment is not
possible. This leads to overused and outdated equipment
being used to train students. In a highly competitive
and technologically based industry, the technology
evolves at a very rapid pace. The computerisation
of filmmaking is booming at an astounding pace, increasingly
a great deal of effects, both visual and audio, are
being produced via computers. Disadvantaged students
with little background in computer literacy are hindranced
from the outset. While this is a skill that is increasingly
very necessary, it usually cannot be accommodated
by the film and video departments because of budgetary
constraints.
A topical example is the computerisation of the editing
environment. Increasingly editing is being undertaken
on non-linear computerised editing systems as opposed
to the older linear, mechanical system. Two very different
forms of editing, the computerised version much more
efficient. To be competitive an editor increasingly
needs to be able to operate a computerised non-linear
system. Most institutions do not have the funds to
upgrade their editing systems to these modern hi-tech
environments.
The pace of the computerisation of the film and video
fields is radically changing the industry. All the
previously accepted techniques and equipment are being
challenged by digital technology, from cameras to
new standards of exhibition. The changes are creating
an industry that may well be unrecognizable to all
its past and present structures by the turn of the
century. Training in the film and video field needs
to urgently to address this veritable revolution or
face releasing un-competetive and incompetent filmmakers
into the industry.
Finally, the high cost of studying at these institutions
are usually prohibitive. While the universities and
government subsidised institutions are relatively
reasonable, their fees ranging from R2000 to R6000,
the private institutions may charge up to R12 000
(the now defunct Television Learning Academy) per
year for tuition that is usually inadequate. The reality
is that film and video training is a highly expensive
endeavor, and little besides government assistance
of one kind or another can relieve these costs.
During the Apartheid era, there have been a number
of attempts to set up accessible community based training
facilities for those that were disadvantaged and oppressed.
One such, relatively successful project has been the
Newtown Film and Television School. The School was
founded in the late 80s in association with FAWO (Film
and Allied Workers Organisation) at the Alexandra
Community Center "to re-dress the imbalance of
a predominantly white industry" (Interview: Masepeke
Sekukhuni. 4/5/1995) and thereby give young black
students some form of training in film and video..
When Channel Four, an independent broadcaster and
producer in the United kingdom began to fund the project
it became a formal school. Part of the school's function
was to get students to in turn train others in the
community in their skills, but this has not been very
successful, because of practical costs and lack of
equipment resources. It seeks to produce "well
rounded critical filmmakers, not simply technicians".
(Interview: Masepeke Sekukhuni. 4/5/1995)
While the school has managed to produce some projects
on film formats, it has been forced, due to financial
constraints to focus on the medium of video for training
purposes. Among the School's other problems has been
a lack of acceptance of the school in some parts of
the industry, which has made it difficult to place
their approximately twelve students per year in internships,
which it actively tries to do. Funding has always
been difficult to find, but in the last year, Channel
Four has pulled out its funding, due to its own restructuring.
The school has been left in a precarious financial
position. The School has subsequently changed it's
name to the Community Video School, to re-emphasize
its goal of educating the black disadvantaged community.
(Interview: Masepeke Sekhkhuni. 4/5/1995) This example
emphasizes the difficulty of trying to privately train
the disadvantaged community in Film and Television.
Without government support or sponsorship of some
kind, this sort of project is simply not financially
viable.
Increasing the amount of Apprenticeships available
in the film industry may become extremely useful in
training, because these programs train students directly
in their field. Apprenticeships allow more direct
training in the specialized fields that the student
is interested in, but may not be available at training
institutions because of its specificity such as Sound
Engineering. It also teaches apprentices how their
industry and all its small parts work together, giving
them a context to work within. Apprenticeships are
also useful in training disadvantaged groups, such
as black filmmakers because these schemes are not
financially costly. However while some production
companies are actively pursuing affirmative action
policies by bringing in black trainee staff in many
of their productions, most companies appear to remain
relatively insular. There are also claims of outright
racism and exploitation of black students by Masepeke
of the Newtown Film School. (Interview: Masepeke Sekukhuni.
4/5/1995)
Furthermore there is no formal recognition or accreditation
for apprenticeship roles in the industry and no overseeing
body to regulate these issues. This may lead to the
exploitation of some apprentices as well as not being
adequately trained.
The broadcasters are attempting to undertake some
apprenticeship projects, although on a limited scale.
An example is M-Net's New Directions project, in which
three short scripts are chosen as well as three first
time directors who are then allowed to direct the
projects with guidance from a production company.
Assistant director roles are also filled with aspiring
new talents. 9 The SABC has also undertaken a similar
project specifically aimed at black young directors,
entitled Young Vision, as well as Scriptwriting workshops
for disadvantaged writers. (Interview: Clive Rodell.
1/6/1995). While the projects are useful, they are
problematic in their selection process as well as
their relatively small effect on the industry due
to their limited scale. These contributions to training
seem to be a media marketing strategy rather than
making a real discernible impact on the problem. The
broadcasters need to be more active in implementing
on-going internship or apprenticeship programs, perhaps
making available a number of trainee positions in
each new production, both those produced in-house
as well as imposing these criteria on outside production
houses in a reasonable manner..
With the coming to power of a new government, it
has been hoped by the filmmaking community, that new
dispensation in the funding and support of filmmaking
would emerge. In 1994, the government set up the Arts
and Culture TAsk Group (ACTAG), which was to re-asses
the state of art and culture in the country and suggest
new policies to address these issues. It has been
hoped by those interviewed that a more progressive
and positive attitude towards filmmaking would arise.
For many the proposals that ACTAG would present would
either be the saviours of the film industry or signal
its death knell. The ACTAG proposals have, among other
topics, numerous recommendations on the issue of training
in the field of Film and Television.
- It recommends that a Statuary body, the South
African Film Foundation (SAFF) be set up, and undertake
to facilitate the co-ordination of all film-related
training schemes and education in training institutions
, including universities and technicons.
- The proposals recognize that there are no standard
curricula being taught at these institutions. It
recommends that curricula should be compiled and
overseen by the SAFF and the Education Department.
- The SAFF should also undertake the proper regulation,
accreditation and recognition of apprenticeships
- or on the job training, in the industry.
- It also stresses improved education in issues
such as distribution, exhibition, finance , and
administration, lacking in most current curricula.
- The proposals suggests that more education in
media and visual literacy be undertaken at both
secondary and tertiary level and also recognizes
that other auxiliary skills such as language, literacy
and computer skills are important and urgently need
to be addressed.
- It recommends that the government assist the funding
of projects such as the Newtown Film and Television
School (The Community Video School).
- And the report finally proposes that research
be undertaken on the possibility that a National
Film and Television School be established.
Another solution that I would suggest would be for
a government funded, yet independent industry structure
such as the proposed SAFF, together with the department
of Education, to recognize and allocate funds to a
limited number of existing institutions countrywide.
The focusing of staff and funds on these institutions
may make the purchase and maintenance of equipment
more viable rather than splitting these funds to minimal
use throughout a number of institutions and perhaps
allowing for film medium training. By giving these
institutions official recognition, leading to higher
student interest, these selected institutions may
themselves invest more funds into these departments.
Currently all departments of film and television tend
to be very small, there clearly being a waste of resources
and funds. The departments or institutions should
be selected on the basis of centrality, and their
already existing efficiency of infrastructure. This
body may also assist in maintaining a reasonable standard
of training in theses institutions. The centralization
of training will allow better and more efficient use
of funds as well as allowing for these selected institutions
to actually begin to upgrade as expand to serve the
needs of the increasingly technology hungry students.
But perhaps the biggest challenge remains the basic
education of school students. Without the seed of
visual literacy and media sophistication, local quality
films will remain deprived of a vibrant local market,
two facets that have a symbiotic relationship. Without
educating scholars in the basics of computer technology,
students will be hampered in producing uniquely South
African film and television at an internationally
competitive world standard, both creatively and financially.
Future filmmakers and audiences need to be capably
educated to face this world of the future.
CHAPTER TWO
FUNDING
To most filmmakers in the film industry, (sixty six
percent), funding appears to be the biggest and most
frustrating stumbling block to making films in South
Africa. (Showdata Survey. 1992. Http://www.aztec.co.za/biz/showdata/docs/stats-92.htm)
This was echoed by the group of filmmakers that were
interviewed 10 as well as almost every other person
interviewed in the course of researching this project.
The high cost of filmmaking makes the filmmaker completely
reliant on raising finance to make his or her film.
He or she is not able to paint when he or she feels
the need to express him or herself, or write his or
her novel when he or she feels like it. While these
endeavors do require an initial outlay, their cost
is minimal compared to the equipment, cast and crew
and post-production costs that a film incurs. The
filmmaker needs to not only regiment his or her creativity,
but also structure it according to the production's
high financial constraints and often make compromises
accordingly. As we will see later, these filmmakers
have to find unique and sometimes desperate ways of
financing their films.
The major source of feature film funding in South
Africa in the past has been through the government.
The Nationalist Party began supporting Afrikaner film,
from when it came to power in 1948, on a had-hoc basis.
A structured subsidy system was first created in 1956.
(Blignaut.J. Botha.M. 1992: 105-106) The main reason-d'être
of this funding was to promote Afrikaner culture.
In these early days, a number of Afrikaans films were
produced in the country. Between 1956 and 1962, seventy
one percent of local films produced were Afrikaans.
(Blignaut.J. Botha.M. 1992: 106) They were aimed at
the white Afrikaner market and existed in a kind of
fictional, ideal Afrikaner world separate from the
reality of the rest of the population.
In 1974, the Government instituted a scheme that
would create funding for "African" films
in a black language. This was called the Subsidy B
scheme, (as opposed to the Subsidy A scheme for white,
Afrikaner films). (Blignaut.J. Botha.M. 1992: 106)
Based on the principles of "separate, but equal
development", a number of "black" films
were produced under this scheme. They tended to promote
a "feel good" attitude that had little or
no political comment on the state of black people
in the country. The subsidies given to both English
and so called "Bantu" films were considerably
lower than that given to Afrikaans films.
These schemes were based on the idea of post funding
or post-subsidising a film.. A film was not awarded
funding on its possible artistic or creative merits,
(as a script or concept), rather it was rewarded on
the basis that if it was financially successful, the
government would award the film a certain financial
equivalency in subsidy returns. The subsidy given
was at the discretion of the department of home affairs
and was generally higher for Afrikaans films. The
subsidy of films was mainly organised through the
department of Home Affairs. Film was seen as a business,
not as an art form and was dealt by people with little
or no understanding of film and the filmmaking process,
but rather through bureaucratic structures (Blignaut.J.
Botha.M. 1992: 114 & 124).
The subsidy schemes stipulated specific cinemas as
being the only basis by which box office receipts
could be established. If a film were to be successful
on tour throughout the country, only being screened
in community halls for example (as was almost a necessity
for "black" films, as there were no cinemas
in the townships), it would be awarded little or no
subsidy, because it was not screened at prescribed
cinemas, (usually Ster-Kinekor, then later, Nu Metro
cinemas too). It has been rumoroured that the Department
of Defense also had a small budget allocated to assisting
films that depicted the country's defense force in
positive light. However this rumour was not substantiated
nor confirmed through this project's research process.
In the 1980's a boom in feature filmmaking in South
Africa took place, funded by international film studios
and backers. The South African film industry came
to be known as "Hollyveld" ( Honeyman. R.
1995: 11) However these were not South African films
per se, neither in funding nor content. Rather, American,
European or Israeli filmmakers hired South African
crews and partially South African casts to make films
that had little relevance to South Africa and instead
produced low quality "action films". These
backers made use of the low value of the Rand in international
currency markets as well as several tax incentive
schemes created by the government (an attempt to stimulate
film production). These tax schemes were subject to
a great deal of misuse. (Blignaut.J. Botha.M. 1992:
126-128) These "action" films were therefore
extremely cheap to produce in South Africa. The large
majority of films were of a low quality, mass appeal
nature, which usually found themselves in the "straight-to-video"
market around the world. In certain cases films were
made simply as an excuse to profit off the tax incentives
and were never released for distribution after being
shot .
Usually South African locations "doubled up"
for other countries, Johannesburg often "playing"
Los Angeles and other more rural areas "standing
in" for the forests of obscure banana republics.
The tax incentive system was shut down by the government,
leaving in its place the old subsidy system. This
subsidy scheme continued to exist into the first few
months of 1995 and has subsequently been terminated
in lieu of new government policies.
All the selected filmmakers that were spoken to admitted
almost complete ignorance of the government subsidy
schemes. As Gustav Geldenhuys articulated, "I
knew that it existed, but I have no idea how it worked."
(Interview: Gustav Geldenhuys. 10/5/1995) . It appears
that it was almost taken as a given by the filmmakers
(especially those from a disadvantaged background
such as Christopher Qwasha) that any possible government
scheme would not address their needs. While this reflects
on the inaccessibly of the schemes as well as the
general lack of dissemination of information in the
field, it also, I believe, reflects on the naiveté
of these filmmakers. Although the schemes were useless
to aspiring or experimental independent filmmakers
needing funding before the fact, it could be argued
that these filmmakers should have attempted to educate
themselves more fully in this matter. To fix a problem
it is may be useful to know what exactly the problem
is.
Perhaps the most common way of financing the films
that these filmmakers produce is by reducing the initial
cost of the film by making use of friends and contacts
in the mainstream industry. The filmmaker may then
have to finance the rest of the costs themselves.
For example, by requesting assistance from contacts
in the production side of television and video facilities,
Marc Schwinges was able to produce a short film originally
budgeted at R180 000 for R6000. The remainder was
financed on his credit card and loans from his family.
(Interview: Marc Schwinges. 1/05/1995)
This seems to be a common approach to making these
independent films. Rather than attempting to raise
conventional funding, most of the projects made by
these filmmakers tended to be self financed, low budget
films with a great deal of help from friends and contacts
they have made either through their studies or related
employment. While this approach has been partly successful,
there are obvious limitations. Films are produced
very rarely and then they tend be short films. The
filmmaker is often in debt for a long period of time.
And in the end, a technical (and often stylistic and
aesthetic) quality loss is almost inevitable.
Only one of the selected filmmakers that were interviewed,
succeeded in raising finance through an outside source.
Paul Lindsay, when still somewhat inexperienced, approached
the German embassy for funding for a documentary.
He was granted a considerable amount. However, due
to some inexperience and mismanagement, the film was
never completed. His lack of business skills made
it difficult to manage and estimate his budget.(Interview:
Paul Lindsay. 31/7/1995)
This reflects a common problem with almost all the
selected filmmakers that were interviewed. They usually
have little or no understanding of business practices,
management or raising finance. It was expressed by
some that they were working in a creative field and
should not have to know these details. Those with
more experience such as Marc Schwinges and Karen Coetzee
expressed regret at having no business training (Interview:
Marc Schwinges. 1/5/1995 & Karen Coetzee. 18/7/1995)
There appears here to be a large gap, in understanding
one another, between the worlds of business and art,
although often the two are and by necessity need to
be very close. The filmmakers have almost no training
in running a business or a business venture. Business
in turn often seems to have little understanding how
the risks of creative ventures, such as film financing,
work.
While created to support small business, the Small
Business Development Corporation (SBDC) seems to have
a lack of knowledge and understanding of film as a
creative business. The criteria on which the SBDC
funds (through granting of loans) a business venture
is largely based on its financial viability (although
it is often more flexible in this regard than the
standard financial loan institutions such as bank).
Often the criteria that are used to finance a small
business are very different to funding a film. The
risks are inherently higher and judgment of financial
viability of a film needs a close understanding of
the filmmaking process and a grasp of the film aesthetic
and industry. The SBDC is inflexible in this regard,
prepared to consider film finance, but only on the
basis of standard business practice which is unrealistic.
(Interview: Nick Miller. 10/5/1995) Furthermore a
film project is usually a one-off venture, rarely
an on-going business which the SBDC favours.
Many sectors of the arts are financed or supported
by private institutions. The most well known for example
is Standard Bank's support of the Grahamstown Arts
Festival. While of course not entirely philanthropic,
(Standard Bank receives a great deal of publicity
and corporate image building out of the arrangement),
this is a model of a largely successful co-operation
between big business and the arts. There are other
examples of arts funding by private companies or business
whether it be support of a particular underprivileged
fine artist or a season of Opera. There is however
a distinct lack of this sort of funding when it comes
to film. There are, I believe, a number of reasons
for this:
- Big business is, (in the scope of my research),
rarely approached to finance films. None of the
filmmakers that were interviewed had ever approached
a private business institution to fund any of their
projects. There is little pro-active attempts by
many filmmakers to address the situation.
- The high cost of filmmaking is often a deterrent
to big business financing. Instead of financing
a single film for R200 000, a company could instead
subsidise a painter for two years and perhaps receive
more exposure over a longer period.
- The high risk of filmmaking as a financially rewarding
venture is problematic if a company or business
is approached to take on the role of investor. An
investor usually invests in the hope of receiving
financial returns on the venture, therefore there
needs to be the strong possibility that the project
will be commercially successful. Filmmaking is however
a highly risky business, especially in terms of
independent film. A filmmaker can become trapped
in a vicious circle. Either he or she attempts to
make a low budget film, in which there is little
interest in investing because of lack of potential
profits, or then he or she make a higher budget
film, which may be more financially promising, but
requires more backers to invest considerably more
money. Local businesses rarely have the experience
or knowledge in how film financing works.
- Many filmmakers seem to show a lack of skill in
selling themselves on a business level. Almost no
private companies or businesses fund the arts for
totally philanthropic reasons. In return for their
funding and support, they receive publicity and
image building. If a young filmmaker cannot show
a company the benefits of their funding, he or she
will be unlikely to receive it.
- There is a distinct lack of faith in the South
African film industry, not only in business and
industry, but surprisingly enough among many in
the group of interviewed filmmakers. The previous,
and often weak films made in the country have created
an image of a hopeless industry with no future.
- Finally, there appears to be a distinct lack of
understanding between filmmakers and big business.
There are few or no attempts at communication between
the two fields. This perhaps is the easiest problem
to remedy and could positively impact on other problems.
Independent filmmakers need to begin to work in
a business-like manner in their field so as to make
their work and industry more attractive to business.
There are however other ways of involving business
in filmmaking that are rarely undertaken in the South
African film industry, although occasionally put to
use on television.11 The technique of product placement
is one that can be creatively employed to the benefit
of the independent filmmaker. The issue of product
placement is often controversial although widely utilised
in big budget Hollywood films. Product placement occurs
when a company is approached by a filmmaker and its
product offered a visible place (In other words advertising)
in a film, in return for some financing, in any number
of forms. This can become problematic when the film
and its content or style is changed to accommodate
the product. But if used wisely, this could be a boon
for filmmakers in this country as long as the product
does not dictate the film's content. This is, granted,
a very slippery and precarious road to follow. However,
as Marc Schwinges explained, "If one of my characters
drinks a cool-drink in a film, it usually makes little
difference to me if it's a Pepsi or a Coke. If Pepsi
wishes to pay me to have him drink a Pepsi, rather
than a Coke, then I have no problem doing that"
(Interview: Marc Schwinges. 1/5/11995). Perhaps a
mercenary attitude, but one that often reflects the
necessary strategies that may be employed by independent
filmmakers to finance their work.
While in many countries, television broadcasters,
such as Channel 4, the British broadcaster, have become
financiers of independent film and video productions,
South African broadcasters have not followed the trend.
However the quota system recommended by the Independent
Broadcast Authority's report to government regarding
television broadcasting, may see more financing of
projects by the South African Broadcasting Corporation
(SABC). It is also recommended by the IBA that forty
percent of this quota consist of projects commissioned
to independent production companies. (IBA.1995.14)
This may well provide a boon to the independent filmmaker,
depending of course on what sort of material the SABC
will be looked to broadcast. This quota issue is closely
linked to issues of distribution and is looked at
more closely in chapter three of this research project.
During the Apartheid years, (especially the 1980's),
a politically volatile time, there was some interest
in international funding and co-productions of certain
socio-politically related projects. These tended to
be, more often than not, documentaries that dealt
with the social and political landscape of the country.
Due to repressive government policies, local funding
for these projects was minimal. International broadcasters
such as Channel Four and others played a vital role
in creating some seminal independent work that was
at the time rarely screened in the country. (Interview:
Masepeke Sekukhuni. 4/5/1995) Many documentaries were
funded by various international governments and anti-apartheid
organisations, because of their informative and educational
nature. International funding of local fiction film
was limited however, both because, of its usually
higher cost in relation to documentary, but also because
of the cultural boycott.
What role can these international backers and broadcasters
play in funding independent film in post-apartheid
South Africa? What seems to be clear is that international
backing is moving away from philanthropic and "charity"
funding to a more financially viable type of funding.
(Interview: Jane Giles. 31/7/1995) Channel Four for
example, the independent British broadcaster, has
ceased its funding of the Newtown Film and Television
school. (Interview: Masepeke Sekukhuni. 4/5/1995)
The general attitude from interviews with Channel
Four and The Newtown Film School, appears to be that
it is up to the new democratic government to support
these structures. This same reasoning is seen in the
wider sphere of film funding. Unless there is some
commercial viability in a project, there is often
little interest in funding it. In terms of funding
projects on their merit rather then their financial
viability, it appears that South Africa has to very
much compete with the rest of the world. South Africa's
preferred "charity" status has to some degree
been lost.
However, with increasing acceptance of South Africa
back into the world community, many new opportunities
for international funding and co-productions are coming
to the fore. What is problematic is that, as is evidenced
by the filmmakers interviewed, there is a general
lack of skill and knowledge as to where to find international
funding, and how to access it. There is also little
understanding of how international financing and co-productions
function. The cultural isolation of the country has
led to most young South African filmmakers having
less resources, both in terms of information and experience
to compete with their international counterparts.
From the interviews conducted with the filmmakers,
they appear to know little about "the art of
the deal".
There have very recently been some attempts at linking
international producers with independent young filmmakers.
The Movie Camera Company sponsored a number of conferences
in Johannesburg and Cape Town, in which international
producers were brought in to help bridge the gap between
South Africa and the rest of the world. While highly
informative and useful, it was claimed by Karen Coetzee
who attended the workshops that many producers showed
little understanding of the South African reality,
assuming that young South African filmmakers have
the resources to go overseas to "pitch"
their ideas for finance. (Interview: Karen Coetzee.
18/7/1995) Furthermore the conferences were poorly
advertised. As the world mushrooms into a global inter-linked
community, South African filmmakers need to learn
the resources to operate within this context, while
at the same time creating film that still retains
a South African identity.
The possibility of international links with South
African filmmakers appears to be continuing to grow.
Channel Four, while moving into the realms of financing
international feature films such as Four Weddings
and a Funeral, has over a number of years supported
the making of short films in the United Kingdom. It
now, however has plans to open an office in Johannesburg
in 1995, to assist in the making of local short films.
(Interview: Jane Giles, July 31 1995)
In September 1995, the French Government, through
its cultural representative, the French Institute,
hosted a workshop to introduce South African producers
to French producers and filmmakers interested in funding
and co-producing South African feature films. The
French stressed their commitment to assisting South
African filmmakers, although, insisting on a quota
of French input through cast and crew in any project
produced this way. The funding would be dependent
on the post-production taking place in France. The
keenness of the French reflects the new opportunities
in international co-productions that are opening up
for local independent filmmakers. (Van Schalkwyk,
1995 6:16)
Toron, a production company, part of the Interlesisure
group (which in turn own Ster Kinekor) is also according
to reports attempting to find international funding
partners, in attempt to establish a film funding bank.
This bank would fund films targeted at the international
market, produced in South Africa as well as England
and Germany. (Van Schalkwyk.1995. 5.7) The relevance
or accessibility of this bank to the independent filmmaker
has not yet been established.
Furthermore the government has acknowledged the importance
of the signing of co-production treaties with a number
of countries. Basetsana Thoakane, film consultant
to the Ministry of arts, culture and technology has
stated that a number of countries including France
and Canada have shown interest in such treaties. (Van
Schalkwyk. A. (ed). 1995.6.13)
The ACTAG proposals dedicate some time to the issue
of funding film in a post-apartheid South Africa.
It must be questioned how the ACTAG proposals relate
to the funding needs of the relatively unknown and
independent filmmakers generally working outside of
the mainstream industry?
The ACTAG proposals recognize film as an integral
part of a country's cultural landscape - the importance
it serves in communication, entertainment and education
and the role it can play in social change. (ACTAG.1995.
146) It recommends a number of solutions to the funding
crisis, taking its point of departure that the government
should be involved in film funding and organising.
(ACTAG. 1995: 153-161)
It proposes that a national statutory body be instituted
through which funding will be channeled, the South
African Film Foundation (SAFF). This will receive
direct funding from the Department of Arts, Culture,
Science and Technology (DACST). The body will be independent
and will also regulate and support issues of exhibition
and distribution. It will also seek to assist in creating
and maintaining relations with international filmmakers
and producers. The SAFF should create a number of
structures for funding. One is the Film Bank.
The Film Bank will assist funding of film in the
informal sector as well as creating an environment
for high risk funding for local and international
investors. It would also provide low cost loans and
grants to filmmakers. And finally it would act as
a financing mechanism for all spheres of filmmaking,
from experimental to commercial projects.
What is most divergent from previous policies is
that the Film Bank would provide or assist in arranging
funding prior to the production of a film - an integral
part of film production for those that do not have
the possibility for a massive capital outlay.
Secondly, it is recommended that the bank move away
from the emphasis on box office performance and rather
assess other criteria such as quality of scripts and
talent. The Film Bank would also recommend incentives
for local and foreign investors in film that would
make investment that much more attractive to business.
Broadcasters would also be given incentives for having
high local content.
While there is debate as to what point the Film Bank
would fund a film project, for example completely
or together with other funding, the emphasis is on
stimulating funding as well as providing opportunities
to access this funding. It is rather impractical to
expect the film bank to completely fund a project,
perhaps needing the filmmaker or producer to match
its funding with equal private funding. It is important
that independent filmmakers be part of the business
side of their industry to have the skill to compete
with the rest of the world. It cannot be expected
that the taxpayer completely support a film project
without some effort on the filmmaker's part to try
to raise as much funding, independently, as possible.
Government funding should be a last option or facilitator
for the independent filmmaker, not a cure-all for
the difficulties of the career.
To finance the Film Bank it is suggested that a tax
on cinema tickets and TV licenses be levied. The bank
would therefore act as the name implies, as a bank,
and would generally invest, loan and arrange for investment
for films that appear to have some commercial value
by relatively known filmmakers . Both Ster Kinekor
and Nu metro insist that this would be impractical
as they claim that their exhibition wings run at a
very fine profit level. (Interviews: Jonathon Fox,
17/8/1995 & Debbie Du Toit, 24/4/1995). If exhibition
is taxed, they believe that there would few incentives
for exhibitors to continue in that field.
ACTAG also suggests that the Film Bank should concern
itself with and be involved in "...script and
development grants: talent grants for local director
and actors; stock processing grants and reduced distribution
fees..." (ACTAG. 1995: 157)
ACTAG has also suggested that a Film Trust be constituted.
The function of the trust would appear to be to target
those that are first time filmmakers and film students,
but this is not completely clear. It will provide
finance for the development of scripts and the production
of more experimental film projects. It is with the
Film Trust that most of the interviewed filmmakers
found the most favour. There seemed to be a general
consensus that before one would move up to creating
more commercially viable film work, it is important
to fund more experimental work.. The Film Trust is
almost seen as a sort of stepping stone in which to
build up skills and resources to then approach the
Film Bank.
There however seems to be a lack of clear thought
in the report on the exact functions of the Film Bank
and Film Trust. Their roles often appear to overlap
and they do not appear to completely function as individual
structures, for example both will be involved in the
granting of funds to script and project development.
It may not be necessary to create two structures that
may very well be involved in doing almost the same
thing. This overlap in objectives and functions may
lead to increased bureaucracy as well as higher costs
to the government and therefore the taxpayer. The
roles of these two bodies need to be clearly identified
and defined or then perhaps amalgamated as one structure.
The manner and criteria in which projects will be
selected for funding has also not been completely
detailed in the ACTAG report. It only suggests that
films be selected on the criteria of quality, presumably
of the script or concept and " should shift away
from box office performance" (ACTAG. 1995:157).
Presumably it will be left to the SAFF to decide on
the exact selection process. This selection process
may however become problematic, in terms of the subjectivity
in the aesthetic and personal appreciation of each
individual. Personal social-political viewpoints of
the possible selection committees or person may also
interfere in the fair judging of projects.
The fear that issues of political correctness may
interfere in the selection process of projects was
voiced by most of the selected filmmakers interviewed.
The country's past of oppressive political and social
censorship has also led to some concern that this
not be repeated in the selection process. While an
issue such as this can never be completely satisfactorily
resolved, since one is dealing with a relatively subjective
human factor, there are in my opinion a number of
guiding principles that should perhaps be considered.
- Those chosen should be actively involved in the
film and television spheres, either as critics,
journalists or themselves filmmakers.
- Those chosen to select the films should represent
as wide a range of the population as possible.
- Those chosen should be as non-political as possible,
in other words, not actively participating within
the workings of a political party structure.
- Those chosen should have a strong belief in the
inappropriateness of censorship.
While never a completely satisfactory solution, it
is important to note that this system, (of a selection
committee of some kind) is an inherently imperfect
one, but a system that has generally successfully
functioned in other countries. While it may be rightly
argued that South African society is very fragmented,
it should be possible to select a group of people
that will be acceptable to most people in the field.
It is also important that independent filmmakers take
an active part in the selection of these trustees
and remain aware of the functioning of these structures
to in a sense, police their activities.
The overall reaction of the selected group of independent
filmmakers to the ACTAG recommendations seemed to
be exceptionally positive. It was felt that the ACTAG
suggestions were largely providing solutions to their
overall needs. It was however generally felt that
the recommendations were just that, too vague.
There is of course an inherent danger that these
recommendations are seen as the solution to all filmmaking
problems. This would, I feel be most unhealthy for
the industry.
In an interview with the Gauteng MEC for arts, culture
and heritage, Mr Victor Modise, he remarked on the
difficulty he experienced in attempting to get the
input of independent filmmakers in the policy and
decisions making process. Insisting that information
on policy meetings and debates open to the public
and especially the filmmaking community was widely
disseminated, he further claimed that participation
by filmmakers, especially the independent was very
lax. He suggested that the independent filmmaking
community, not part of other organsations, set up
a representative body that would assist in distributing
information and resources to its members as well as
lobbying the relevant government and other bodies
in its needs. (Interview: Victor Modise, 23/08/1995)
This representative body would be extremely useful
in serving the needs of its members, but it is difficult
to see how it would arise. Most filmmakers struggle
very hard to simply make ends meet, work long and
unusual hours and many would find it difficult to
have the opportunity to organise action, although
most of those interviewed felt it imperative that
this action be taken.12
Young Independent filmmakers need to make themselves
competitive, hone their business and communication
skills and be more pro-active in promoting and financing
their films. The government has a responsibility to
help, but not to do all the work. There is far too
much of a basic need to rebuild the country, for filmmakers
to become complacent and expect the government to
provide all the solutions. Filmmaking cannot be expected
to be prioritised over such basic needs as poverty
resolution and housing. The process of creating funding
and funding opportunities must be a co-operative effort
for all concerned, with independent filmmakers especially
taking the lead.
The solution to the funding crises in Independent
Filmmaking appears to a large degree be based on government
support and industry re-structuring, but filmmakers
need to relentlessly access the entire range of funding
opportunities, from private company funding, international
co-productions to other unique and creative methods
of raising money. Hopefully greater structural support
in the industry will make this search that much more
successful and fruitful, but will not necessarily
be easier. Filmmaking will always be a competitive,
expensive and demanding field of art.
CHAPTER FOUR
DISTRIBUTION AND EXHIBITION
Little will cripple the will of a filmmaker more
than the inability to have his or her film viewed
by an audience . Without a viable distribution system
and the inaccessibility of the existing system this
almost a certain scenario. As Marc Schwinges, explains,
"What's the point of making a film, if no-one
gets to see it?" (Interview: Marc Schwinges.
1/5/1995). After spending months struggling, both
financially and creatively, to produce a final product,
it is disheartening to have little or no outlet for
its exposure.
The ACTAG report states that "the history of
Film Distribution in South Africa has been one of
racism" (ACTAG. 1995: 151). The racism has been
inherent in the censorship system of the past which
dictated the financial viability of films and therefore
in consequence if they were made in the first place.
In other words if a film was unlikely to be approved
for release because of censorship by the Publications
Board, it was unlikely that anyone would invest in
it. The censorship was also evident in segregated
audiences in cinemas. As with many other facets of
South African life, distribution was inaccessible
to black filmmakers. They would often have to create
their own distribution networks, such as screening
of films in community halls and the like. (Which would
immediately exclude these films from becoming eligible
for the previous subsidy system as explained in Chapter
two.)
The chief feature film distributors, monopolistically
co-operated in the status quo. It served their financial
interests to do so. Ster Kinekor was founded. in 1976,
an amalgamation of two companies, the Afrikaans Ster
Group, previously Inry Belange (founded in 1957) and
the Kinekor Group (founded in 1956), at one stage
owned by 20th Century Fox. For many years these two
companies and then the subsequent Ster Kinekor were
the only mainstream film distributor. (Interview:
Aubrey Colby. 10/11/1995) Nu Metro was founded by
Avi Lerner in 1987, an Israeli film producer who bought
out UIP's13 Metro cinemas, then a small chain of cinemas.
(Interview: John Ferreira. 14/11/1995) These two are
now large companies that are part of even larger conglomerates,
Ster Kinekor, controlled by the massive entertainment
group Interlesure and Nu Metro, controlled by CNA
Gallo. Ster Kinekor is divided into two distinct entities,
one is a distribution arm, which acts as a distributor
for both local and international films and then "sells"
these films to other exhibitors, including Ster Kinekor's
own exhibition wing that runs their cinemas. Ster
Kinekor claims that these two arms are distinct entities,
although the concept of a distribution company being
the same as an exhibitor appears to most of the interviewed
independent filmmakers14 as a rather incestuous monopolistic
practice. (Interview: Jonathon Fox. 17/8/1995). These
two entities are in turn a part of the massive Interlesure
conglomerate. Ster Kinekor owns the vast majority
of the approximately 600 cinemas in South Africa.
(Honeyman. R (ed), 1995:16)
Nu Metro while also undertaking (on a much more limited
scale than Ster Kinekor) film distribution, also retains
a close relations with the distributor UIP (which
only represents international product locally). Ster
Kinekor and Nu Metro's chief function is to create
profit for their shareholders, as such they are not
prone to experimentation. The largest portion of their
profits is created by distributing and exhibiting
international, mainly American, popular blockbuster
films. (Honeyman. R.(ed). 1985:16) These are the films
that are commercially successful throughout the world..
There is no denying that they provide for a large
market that thrives on their easily accessible genres
and styles. Local films tend to generally do poorly,
unless they are slapstick farces. When studying South
African film grosses of 1994, it is surprising to
note that among the top ten grossing films there are
a number of South African films listed. (e.g. A Zulu
Op My Stoep).15 These films have tended to be of a
low quality (both technically and artistically), in
a slapstick humour genre and generally appealing to
white Afrikaans audiences.
In the final tally, distributors and exhibitors see
themselves as businesses - their primary goal, as
quaintly referred to in the film industry is "bums
on seats" - to make a profit. The average annual
combined South African cinema box office gross usually
exceeds US$50 million (R175 000 000) (Honeyman. R.
(ed). 1995:16)
When confronted as to why local distributors do not
more actively distribute local independent films,
the answer from Jonathon Fox, Film Buyer at Ster Kinekor
is that "there simply are very few local films
made" in the first place, and of those few that
are made, "the quality is generally not of a
high standard" (Interview: Jonathon Fox. 17/8/1995)
They see themselves in terms of being distributors,
not filmmakers and suggest that it is the responsibility
of filmmakers to produce product that audiences want
to see. (Interview: Jonathon Fox. 17/8/1995) This
is partly correct but problematic. As argued by this
essay, South African independent filmmakers have generally
been too complacent and inactive in taking responsibility
for their industry and films, but Ster Kinekor's complete
shirking of any responsibility for their co-operation
with the racist and discriminatory system of the past
and the resultant retardation of the local film industry
is unacceptable. They too need to take responsibility
for their part in the way that the film industry has
been structured and currently exists today.
Furthermore, both companies then change their argument
by con-currently admitting that they need to more
actively assist the local industry and claim that
they are committed to support local film. These apparently
contradictory stances are misleading and may lead
to the perception that both companies are attempting
to whitewash the issue by claiming insincerely that
they have some responsibility to the industry, while
not actually pursuing it's consequence.
This appears to be further confirmed by numerous
plans that both companies suggest will be implemented,
yet appear to only remain plans. Nu Metro's Debbie
Du Toit (operations and promotional manager) claims
that Nu Metro is trying to "put something back"
into the independent film industry by planning to
dedicate one of their screens in a large cinema complex
to screenings of short local films, both on video
and film. (Interview: Debbie Du Toit. 24/4/1995) It
is has also been reported that Nu Metro will install
a 16mm projector at one of these cinemas. Since 16
mm film is more financially accessible than the standard
35mm format, this would be very advantageous to low
budget filmmakers. ( Witthaus. M. 1995: 46 ) However,
these plans still remain in the planning stages and
no dates, or concrete plans have been forthcoming.
Ster Kinekor on the other hand seeks to create a
chain of independent cinemas, named the "Eight
and a Half" group. The first branch has opened
in Johannesburg almost a year ago, but there is yet
to be a set date for further branches put forward
by Ster Kinekor. While the planned Eight and a Half
cinemas will concentrate on mainly international "cult
and independent films", the few independent South
African films that are made would also be exhibited
and short local films would also be tagged onto more
popular feature films. This would give a much needed
boost to short filmmakers, the training ground of
feature filmmakers. These plans are however also still
in the planning stages, apparently due to political
and personal in-fighting within the organsisation.
and no dates or details have currently been announced.
(Interview: Jan Du Plessis. 10/8/1995)
Ster Kinekor has more recently been co-operating
with local film festivals, such as the South African
Film Festival and the Gay and Lesbian Film Festival.
Ster Kinekor has allowed the use of their cinemas
such as the premiere Rosebank Mall cinemas as exhibition
venues for these festivals, including the showing
of short local films. The distributor/ exhibitor has
also thrown some weight behind the festival in terms
of publicity and support. When one moves away from
mainstream distributors and exhibitors, independent
exhibitors show little promise for the independent
filmmaker.16
The few independent exhibitors that exist in Gauteng
struggle to survive by exhibiting international cult
films or action films. There seems little practical
desire to experiment by including local product on
their screens. The vast majority of films shown are
generally older, established films, films that have
a proven market or fan base appeal. Often these exhibitors
are also at the mercy of the mainstream distributors
which control the vast majority of films exhibited.
There are also a few independent local distribution
companies in the country that distribute local work
internationally only, not wishing to tread on the
toes of the larger Ster Kinekor. These generally came
to being in the eighties during the proliferation
of action films produced in the country for the international
and video market or simply for the tax shelter opportunities.
While they tend to have links to larger international
distributors, local independent distributors continue
to be mainly interested in the americanised, action
genre of film. These companies find themselves with
a lack of understanding of independent film and therefore
unable and unwilling to market and distribute films
of this nature.
Local filmmakers willing to access international
independent distributors such as Miramax17 and New
Line, who may be more sympathetic to their work, directly,
are beset by an array of problems. Firstly there are
at this stage no local offices of these companies
which would be able to take on local films to distribute
internationally. This means that contact with these
distributors requires expensive international faxes
and phone-calls which are not practical if no personal
communication at all takes place. The results of attempting
to "sell" a film to a distributor through
electronic means solely, in an industry that revolves
around personal rapport can be quite simply disastrous
and inappropriate. The only solution to this problem
is to travel overseas, a venture usually beyond the
resources of most independent filmmakers.
Secondly, sourcing information regarding international
distribution is extremely difficult in South Africa.
The lack of information resources in the country,
mainly due to years of isolation, are a huge stumbling
block. Thirdly, these years of international isolation,
lack of training and resources have resulted in a
lack of understanding of how distribution structures
work locally and internationally. This is an area
often left untouched by training syllabuses. While
these structural problems are real and valid, they
are only part of the problem.
Once again it also appears that these filmmakers
have not been very pro-active, nor taken the initiative
to try to understand the distribution and exhibition
business. They have not understood that their work
cannot work within a void. To a large degree, the
ignorance appears to be self induced. A lack of confidence
in this area appears endemic among independent filmmakers.
All the people interviewed showed a lack of, or a
very patchy understanding of the processes and intricacies
of distribution and exhibition. The lack of exposure
to the "rules" and conventions of the business
aspect of filmmaking, including distribution and exhibition
have led to filmmakers inadequately equipped to function
in the business side of filmmaking. Structural reforming
cannot compensate for filmmakers not willing to work
at being successful, nor will they realistically make
the industry a completely accessible one.
For the independent filmmaker in South Africa, film
festivals are increasingly becoming a sympathetic
and enthusiastic exhibitor. Internationally and locally,
film festivals have been entrusted with screening
creatively challenging or groundbreaking films and
especially the work of new filmmakers, they also are
not bound by the usual commercial or censorship constraints
that regular exhibitors are. Perhaps the most respected
and groundbreaking festival is the Weekly Mail and
Guardian Film Festival (recently re-structured and
re-named, the South African International Film Festival).
This festival, the largest in South Africa, has for
some years supported a short film competition that
has buttressed many first time filmmakers. Up to 1994,
the competition was the only regular venue for the
exhibition of short local films. Run by Liza Key and
Trevor Steele Taylor, the festival has also actively
sought out local feature films for the main festival
as well as providing information and advice for many
new filmmakers. Hampered by lack of funds (the festival
has been funded by private sponsors, never by government
) , the festival organisers have often worked without
pay. (Interview: Lyle Briton. 20/4/1995)
Previously, the festival would screen all short films
submitted. In 1995, the amount of entrants have reached
such a high number, that it has been decided to pre-select
the films that will be screened. This selection will
