HSRC proposals for restructuring the film industry have received the stamp of approval of the main players. William Pretorius asks, why aren’t they being
THE local film industry could be in for stormy weather — despite the fact that recent proposals for its restructuring were accepted by virtually the entire
In December last year, the Film and Television Federation — a body comprising the 13 main industry players, including the South African Film and Television Institute, the Film and Allied Workers’ Organisation, the African Film and Television Collective and the Black Film and Television Foundation — accepted a document from the Human Sciences Research Council titled Proposals for the Restructuring of the South African Film Industry.
“It was twice cheered at the meeting,” said Dr Martin Botha, who, along with his team of researchers, was responsible for drawing up the very thick document. The proposals were also accepted by the Cape Film Foundation and the 10 organisations which are its
But acceptance isn’t always as straightforward as it sounds. The next step — undertaken a week later by Tsepho Rantho, chair of the Film and Television Federation — was to submit the document to Andries Oliphant’s Arts and Culture Task Group (Actag), appointed by the Department of Arts, Science, Culture and Technology to investigate the arts. Representing film on the task group are Rantho and producer Anant
The document, it was envisaged, would be used as the basis for a White Paper, to be drawn up by Actag and then forwarded for approval to Wally Serote, head of parliament’s standing committee on the arts. (This is ironic: the proposals do not recognise the National Film Trust of South Africa which Serote started with Elmo de Witt’s film company. The establishment of the trust was never discussed with representatives of the film industry, who felt that no one film company should be favoured by the government.)
Actag requested further research. “Surprisingly,” said Botha, “at this stage a member of the Centre for Media and Cultural Studies at the University of Natal has been contracted to work on further input by contacting embassies about their industries. This duplicates work already done by the HRSC — it’s like reinventing the
This wouldn’t be so bad, but the industry has run out of time. If the White Paper isn’t accepted before the new financial year in May, the industry will be forced to limp along for another year on the old subsidy system. And everyone knows what that means: more junk films earning subsidies paid on box office profits.
Botha has reason to be surprised at the request for extra input. His document is the culmination of intense work that takes into account 15 years of problems, inadequacies and woes in the industry, including research on film industries worldwide and comments by film organisations, film-makers, journalists and
In the past, proposals for change in the industry have largely been divided between the French system — an ongoing combination of private enterprise and government funding — and the Australian system, where government subsidy ceased once the industry had established its financial feet (in this case, after five years).
In the HSRC’s proposals, the French system won. Botha said: “The Australian industry worked when it combined government incentives and the private sector — there were all those wonderful films of the Seventies. But the government withdrew and tax incentives came into play. The industry then produced very bad quasi- American films.
“The French system has a holistic approach to film, supporting everything from training to marketing with incentives to distributors to show local product. It was established in 1946 and still supports veteran film-makers while encouraging lots of new film-makers. It’s also the only system that has worked in Africa.”
Among the HRSC document’s proposals are a statutory film body, financed by a 10 percent levy on cinema tickets (“an idea from Argentina”, says Botha), on video distribution and on advertisements for non- domestic films. This, though, would not be the main source of finance; other proposals include involving the private sector, and subsidies from the national
Botha said distributors reacted negatively to the ticket levy proposal, suggesting it would kill the system of enterpreneurship. Botha disagreed: “It’s R1 more on every R10 and would provide the statutory film body with about R34-million that wouldn’t come out of the distributors’ pockets. If they argue that it’s a free market, it isn’t — it’s geared to American dominance. One has a cultural responsibility to look at the market and the money going out of the country.”
The American majors, who supply films to South Africa, could also object to levies on tickets. They did when Canada tried a similar system. And when certain African countries stated their intention to nationalise the film industry, they threatened to boycott them. In fact, they felt so strongly about keeping countries “American” that, at that time, then-president Ronald Reagan himself became involved in the Canadian dispute.
The Film and Television Federation requested minor alterations to the proposals, mostly incentives for distributors — that they should keep levies on domestic films and be encouraged to screen local films “through incentives from the French system like money for the upgrading of theatres, especially in the townships, and so on. But these are debating points.”
Time is of the essence, stressed Botha. “Structures and a statutory board must be set up this year. The Newtown Film School, for example, needs funding urgently, and training in the disadvantaged communties needs to be addressed as soon as possible. Film development also needs to be started.” Hopefully Actag will get its White Paper written and approved in time — before another year passes the industry by.