It is a time of considerable change for the British Film Institute (BFI)’s Filmmaking Fund – while it ushers in an updated fund for UK filmmakers, it is also saying goodbye to a trio of senior executives, who will step down later this year.
The revamped Filmmaking Fund plans include four new funds to support the production and development of fiction feature films (read here for more details on the funds).
BFI Filmmaking Fund director Mia Bays talks to Screen about achieving cultural impact through public funding, boosting support for second-time filmmakers and helping producers through the cost of living crisis.
Following consultation with producers and the wider industry, what was the key change you wanted to implement in the revamped Filmmaking Fund?
Mia Bays: We’re more directional now on what we’re offering and why. Before, the mandate was quite broad. Also, transparency and accountability – I think you’ll see the shift loud and clear.
The outline of the new fund talks about backing features “that develop the reach of UK writers and/or directors and have significant UK cultural and audience impact” – how do you define this reach and impact?
I don’t think it’s anything that different to what we’ve been doing already. I guess it’s restating the commitment to that. Rye Lane is a perfect example – new talented writers and directors with strong ambition to reboot a genre, the romcom, and doing so in a way that the rest of the sector has confidence in too. That’s one version.
Another version is a film like Girl and Scrapper – films that have landed in a big way at an international festival and have strong localised support too. Girl opening Glasgow Film Festival was a big deal. I don’t feel like I’ve seen a film like that before, and I’ve certainly not seen a film like that open a festival before.
Will a key driver in successful fund applications be projects with potential to replicate the awards and box office success of Aftersun?
Cultural impact still [is the key driver]. Aftersun had an unbelievable result – the public sector has always found films with that kind of extensive reach, but they don’t come around very often.
I don’t think you can construct that – it’s about how you make the decisions, who’s around the table making these decisions, that they’re representative, not just of the population, but also the sector. And then how we help support filmmakers tell those stories – BBC Film and Screen Scotland both being involved in Aftersun made for a strong collaboration. It’s attention to detail and support across the whole life of the film, not just production and development, but into the other parts of the sector too.
Feeding into that, the new fund makes a point of offering support and guidance with sales and distribution. Will you hire an exec to be responsible for this support, following Katie Ellen leaving as head of distribution and commercial strategy for HanWay?
Yes, 100%. It’s our role as champions of the work. It’s not just the fiscal levers we pull, it’s beyond that. It’s the partners, it’s the people we can get films in front of, and having a dedicated person in the team that’s looking at the finance plans.
How will you be restructuring the fund in light of the impending departure of editor-at-large Lizzie Francke, head of production Fiona Morham, and head of editorial Natascha Wharton later this year?
We are reviewing the structure of the team to deliver and support the Filmmaking Fund we have announced today, so we can have the right people and expertise in place to provide filmmaking teams with the support to develop their careers and make fantastic work. We will publish details in the coming weeks and anticipate having the new-look team in place by the end of the summer.
There’s a new target being set for applications from production companies that have not received BFI funding before, and debuts can access both the Discovery and Impact (when at a higher budget level than £3.5m) funds. What support is being earmarked for second-time filmmakers?
The Impact Fund is designed specifically for second-time features and beyond, and that’s approximately half the production fund. We have supported a couple of debuts that are higher [than £3.5m], recognising they are cast driven. There aren’t many of them, and they are mainly from people who are either incredibly accomplished in another sector and can bring high-level talent with them, or another example is an incredibly experienced high-end TV director who is commanding a bigger budget. We don’t imagine there are many debuts at that level. It’s recognising there is an important gap [for second-time filmmakers] – the fund has been very wide open, we’ve backed a lot of debuts, and this is demarcating that.
What changes have been made regarding transparency and streaming of the level of bureaucracy that goes into fund applications?
It’s lottery funding, it’s not possible to make it easier. The more information we have, the fairer it is for us to make decisions. We’re not a commissioner – that’s where I feel there is a piece of work to make it clearer what lottery money is. It’s public access. We’re not looking for anything other than a reasonable spread of films that represent stories that feel cutting edge and represent the zeitgeist, that have a chance at public impact or are about advancing careers. We serve everyone – audiences and industry.
It’s tricky, we can’t communicate what we’re looking for, other than whatever you apply with, it’s an even playing field. We make it as transparent as possible at every stage how we are assessing and who is assessing. We have to balance an enormous amount of criteria around protected characteristics and around keeping it UK wide, and the slate is representative in terms of an even spread. We don’t want films that are replicating each other.
The BFI Development Fund now offers enhanced overhead support to emerging producers – can you explain more about that?
It’s particularly for production companies and producers. Early in your career, you are often struggling to earn. It’s adjusting the overhead that is part of the development award so that it is enhanced and producers can earn more out of it. With development awards, the lion’s share goes to the writer and director. In a cost of living crisis, it’s about recognising these awards aren’t very much and aren’t going very far.
Projects can now request additional funding support from wellbeing facilitators. How is the effectiveness of having wellbeing facilitators on set being monitored?
We’re still in a trial period [trials have taken place on BFI Network shorts and high-budget short scheme, Future Takes, in production and in some cases late stages of post-production]. We will evaluate once we’ve got a certain number of cases. It’s not a one-size-fits-all approach, and when the Independent Standards Authority [an organisation led by Creative UK and Time’s Up UK which aims to tackle bullying and harassment] comes into play, that will intersect in this area as well. There’s definitely place for evaluation, but we haven’t seen enough activity yet to do that.
It appears that there has been a reduction in number of films that will be backed for production
Working within the funding envelope we have, and together with increased pressures on the sector and rising costs across the board, has meant we’ve had to make tough decisions about where we prioritise funding to get the maximum impact and to deliver for the priorities we identified in the National Lottery strategy through the consultation with industry. However, supporting UK independent filmmakers remains central to our activity and a major priority, and as such, almost 40% of our overall National Lottery funding has been allocated to support UK filmmakers. Through the Funds set out this week, we aim to support approximately 11 features per year with production funding. As an open fund, we are always reliant on the applications we receive and with rolling funds it is impossible to dictate an annual number, but for comparison, over the last three years of BFI2022, we made an average of 15-16 films a year.
Has there been an increase or decrease in number of films that will be backed in development?
Our Development Fund remains flexible and broad in terms of activity it will support – and importantly we award funding to support and progress talent as well as specific projects. As an open access fund, and due to the flexibility offered to applicants, there is huge demand on this funding and we also already have a considerable development slate. As noted in the guidelines we hope to support approx. 60 projects per year through the development fund, so funding will support many more projects and filmmakers than we will award production funding to. Again, as an open, rolling fund, we can’t dictate an annual number, but for comparison, over the last three years of BFI2022, we made an average of 70 development awards a year. In recognition of having such a large slate, and seeking to decentralise how we support development, we are introducing the BFI National Lottery Creative Challenge Fund, opening later this year, to work with partners across the UK to deliver labs to help filmmakers develop their projects in a dynamic way.
What are the response times according to the new fund for applications? Am I right in saying these have been updated too?
For development awards, response times will be within eight weeks which is the same as previously; for production awards (Discovery and Impact), response times will be within 12 weeks, whereas it was eight weeks previously. An increased timeframe, but more realistic. However, we have also said that the timeframe during exceptionally busy periods, or where we ask for more information from an applicant and that takes some time to come through to us.
No comments yet