In the Line of Fire

Irish Film policy to date is the target. Seamas McSwiney is the marksman. [Extract]

Comfortable? Then, I'll begin...
Once upon a time, not so long ago, in a small northern European country (one of the Baltic States, if I remember) they were seeking new industries to underpin their economic development and, if possible, after years of cultural and economic domination by their oppressive neighbour, to project their re-found national identity. In the brainstorming that ensued, the obvious directions examined were the 'grey-matter' industries such as information technology and pharmaceuticals, for they (correctly) perceived themselves to be an educated and resourceful people having the short-term comparative advantage of low labour costs, inexpensive real estate and the political will to implement a clement fiscal climate for foreign investment. Things looked good on paper. The flow charts made sense. Even the negative hypotheses looked positive.

Then, a troublesome minister with a literary background enquired about the national identity coefficient of a computer chip, the personality of a pill and, while a line of software may be perceived as brilliant, who cares where it came from? With an indulgence fuelled by the perspective of bright economic horizons, the others (who had already decided to perceive their administration as a free market corporate structure focusing strictly on the ubiquitous bottom line) cleverly designated this as PR, a worthy and necessary area of activity for an Enterprise State. This prerequisite satisfied, the question became a valid subject for debate. Well, at least to be discussed over lunch. So at lunch, exercising their trained capacity for lateral thinking and problem solving, they playfully began to examine their food, the layout of the table and the behaviour of the serving staff. They wondered how these things might describe their identity and, inevitably, they also explored notions of loss of identity. Those who had taken philosophy with their politics in university began to reflect, out loud, on the frontier between the real, the artificial and the abstract and some, silently, remembered poems they had written, but never sent, to the dark-haired bright-eyed beauty on an exchange year abroad from somewhere sunnier. The regal history of their proud people was evoked, as was their more recent past as the persecuted province of a colonial power. The metaphors Cold War and Iron Curtain had a particular resonance for them, it was agreed. Still, unlike their morning session, they were coming up with more questions than answers and this was getting them down.

Now we're talking
Then, to the relief of everyone, an economist proposed putting this identity projection problem in the framework of a comparative sector analysis. With this technocratic lunge, they were back on home ground. Very quickly it was realised that while they made very few films - only one or two a year - these were quite successful in their own small way. It was mentioned that an actor who had been recognised as talented was being offered work in international productions. Some people knew where he came from and that was judged to be useful. Artists are ambassadors. A number of film writers were also getting attention in Hollywood. And so on. When it was realised what a financial pittance this industry represented, how so little generated so much more, in global terms and in goodwill, it seemed obvious that investments should be made. After all, the amount of capital engineered by the fiscal and subsidy intervention for one medium sized chemical factory in a remote area would be enough to multiply by ten the resources available for film production. 'Multiply by ten' became the informal working slogan by the time coffee was served. This deliberate drive to create an economy of scale, a more efficient micro-economic infrastructure, would draw new people into the film industry, people that would not otherwise have considered it as a viable career option. But, said the minister who launched this improvised think tank in the first place, would these new people have the same creative ambition and artistic drive as those who were already toiling in such an under-resourced segment? How would money be distributed? To whom? Is there any guarantee that those successfully engaged in cinema today and who have been pleading for more recognition and help, will not be squeezed out by new blood with different priorities? They left the table realising that it was not as cut and dried as they thought and that in spite of the small amount of money required, a consultant would need to be sent in to look at it in greater detail, but that they would make a decision on how to intervene by the next budget.
But by the time that came around, the government had fallen due to unexplained KGB links on the part of the ruling party chairman and the promising actor was implicated in a cocaine investigation in America. The popular press had a field day and people said that they should make movies out of these stories... which was one of the reasons why the new government discreetly sidelined the whole issue and concentrated on more important things.

Meanwhile....
At around the same time, in Ireland, no such in-depth analysis and hand-wringing took place. In one fell swoop it was decided that we had the talent and the 'unsolicited gift' of the English language. Our films would travel, project our identity and make money. Let's just do it. So, almost out of the blue, when most had given up on the re-instatement of the Film Board after its untimely demise six or seven years earlier, lo and behold, it was back in business with a sixfold increase in budget. For good and bad reasons it was decided that it would live in Galway. An objective distance from Dublin, said some. A divorce from reality, groaned others. But, after years of relying on small stipends from the Media programme and the indulgence of lefty commissioning editors in London, there was such relief in the community that this (and other!) details seemed unimportant. Nor, in spite of the fact that most of the money financing IFB 2 came from an EU structural funding allocation, did there seem to be any need to reflect on our debt to Europe in all of this. Or, indeed, to further capitalise on this largesse for the experience available or the sheer size of their markets. The fact that many of our neighbours had more or less (usually less) successfully instigated national film policies didn't seem to be of interest when designing the mechanisms that would implement our own. We could study and consult and learn from their experiences maybe? Why bother. Let's just re-invent the wheel. In any case Hollywood is our touchstone, London our launch pad. But, what criteria should be used to determine we're succeeding or not? No time for that now, we'll make it up as we go along.

The full text of this article is printed in Film Ireland 90