Across the world, experience has shown that film can only survive with state support. A raft of public sector initiatives to increase the volumes and quality of South African film, television programming and audio-visual material created for new media is on the cards. A major stumbling block in the way of growth has been the finalisation of a customised sector programme (CSP) for the film industry by the department of trade and industry. The department of arts and culture is still involved in a major policy review that will include a review of institutions such as the National Film and Video Foundation (NFVF). The SABC has appointed consultants to develop a policy for the SABC’s investment in film.
Many questions are being asked about the state of state support for the film sector. Key among these is the definition of the sector. Who is included and who isn’t? Who decides? Have representatives of the sector been adequately consulted and have their views, interests and concerns been formally considered? What is film in the digital era? What is the structure of the industry and how is it changing in response to convergence in technologies and market segments? How is state support and industry regulation in South Africa contributing to the development of the film sector? These and other questions continue to tax the minds of government officials and industry stakeholders.
The finalisation of the CSP is a necessary first step towards identifying where state funding or other forms of institutional support are best targeted to achieve specific outcomes. Some outcomes are immediate and short-lived, others bear fruit in the long term.
The NFVF, for example, has leveraged film production opportunities to the value of R120million since its inception, mostly documentaries by independent filmmakers. In the past five years, it has funded 31 feature films, 114 documentaries and 229 bursaries.
What CEO of the NFVF Eddie Mbalo says about the South African government’s support of film is good news for local filmmakers. “The best thing that has happened in the past five years was the South African government showing commitment to the development of South Africa’s film industry,” says Mbalo.
There is now a shift in approach at the NFVF, what one could call a focus on development that supports funding for projects, from concept to consumer. No longer will the NFVF fund one small aspect of a project without full consideration of all aspects of the value chain.
The development of a CSP is one way for multiple stakeÂÂholders to contribute to a government policy and programme. It avoids costly duplication (often at the expense of quality) in critical service delivery areas.
At the 2005 NFVF Indaba, representatives of government and the film and television industry called for the NFVF to address industry fragmentation, the pace of transformation, poor inter-sectoral coordination and the lack of funding mechanisms, with a clear mandate to remain the coordinating body for the “moving image”.
However, trouble seems to be brewing. Last year’s NFVF annual report makes it clear that much time and valuable resources have been wasted at the expense of the development of the industry. This at a time when the South African film industry has never had it better, in the year after Minister of Arts and Culture Pallo Jordan announced in his budget speech that South African film had “come of age”.
This year, Minister of Trade and Industry Mandisi Mpahlwa announced a further R300million allocation for the film and television production incentive to encourage local and international filmmakers to film in South Africa. The Cabinet has also announced support for a multibillion-rand Content Industries Growth Strategy (jointly developed by the departments of arts and culture, communications and trade and industry).
South Africa has signed film co-production treaties with four major film producing countries in the wake of wins at the Oscars and other top awards at the premier film festivals. And the list of the film world’s major industry awards garnered by South African filmmakers goes on and on.
Yet, the lamentations about the poor financial performance of South African film and low audience attendance continue.
The hundreds of international awards local filmmakers have won in recent years bear testimony to the fact that South African stories have struck a chord among audiences and critics, and the technical, artistic and commercial abilities of South African filmmakers are celebrated by their peers abroad.
With an increasing number of filmmakers producing in all South Africa’s indigenous languages, more quality content is becoming available for domestic and international markets.
The volumes, however, are not yet sufficient to sustain the large capital investments involved in production and post-production. Compared to other developing nations, South Africa should be producing a film a month. India produces almost 1 000 films a year, Nigeria about 800, although these are direct to video.
So why all the disquiet about the state of state funding for the sector, when all seemed to be going so well? With vocal and tangible support from the president, the ministers of finance, trade and industry, communications and arts and culture, it seems the main cause of uncertainty among stakeholders is not the lack of government funding, but territorial squabbles between the government institutions responsible.
As the number of government departments becoming involved in the direct support of film increases, so does the confusion surrounding service delivery. National government and at least four provinces are pumping resources into the establishment of film commissions and film offices with local municipalities to service film production.
But this is established practice around the world, with regional governments introducing incentives to attract filmmakers. Even in Hollywood, states offer incentives for indigenous filmmakers to remain and produce in their home territory, and to encourage foreign filmmakers to film there.
The four-year delay in the development of a CSP has affected investor confidence and the sustainability of the production companies — 80% of which are small, medium and micro enterprises — that supply goods and services to the industry. The reasons for the delay (which are known only to a few people close to the process) are less important, perhaps, than the clarity it has brought regarding institutional arrangements necessary for continued support of the sector.
Last year’s NFVF annual report provides some insight into the on-going saga of developing the CSP: a crucial component of government’s “package” of support measures. The NFVF accuses department of trade and industry officials of refusing to acknowledge the NFVF as the lead institution established by Parliament to spearhead the development of the industry.
The report says there was no consultation with the NFVF on the CSP until senior department officials intervened and rejected the programme, sending officials back to the drawing board and further delaying the finalisation of policy for the film sector.
Industry stakeholders need to build on the gains in forming industry associations. It may be a myth that such associations can speak with one voice but, when effective, at least they serve as a lobby to influence policy and hopefully mitigate the negative consequences of ill-conceived policy and ineffective bureaucracy.
Mbalo says “the strength and the influence of these groups on policy and strategic matters is growing by leaps and bounds”. The responsibility now rests with the NFVF to carry through its mandate, with the support of the stakeholders who gave the mandate at the last industry Indaba. The challenge is to avoid confrontation, and for the various stakeholders in government to focus on service delivery.