|
|
Letters
Brian Guckian comments on the editorial from Film Ireland 102
Dear Editor
With reference to your Editorial in the last issue [102],
is it wise that the Irish Taxpayer be asked to further subsidise
what is effectively a minority interest?
Surely non-mainstream cinema in Ireland is already more than
adequately catered for by local Film Societies, the two mobile
cinemas, film festivals, occasional screenings of arthouse
titles in multiplexes, commercial video libraries and TV film
channels? The fact that this is regularly claimed to be "not
enough" - in a country with a population of just 4 million
- is extremely difficult to credit.
As mentioned, the Arts Council is also engaged in the "Cultural
Cinema Consortium" with the Film Board, and if the recommendations
in the recent Inglis / Todd report are followed through, the
Taxpayer will be exposed to even greater costs, particularly
if the UK Film Council D-Cinema agenda is introduced here.
Does it not make sense now to completely re-evaluate state
support for cinema exhibition in the light of the recent "setting
aside" of the Arts Plan? That commendable action steered
arts policy away from an unhelpful "top down" developmental
approach, and will restore meaningful involvement by both
practitioners and the wider public.
A disturbing trend has been the uncritical adoption of a series
of reports into non-mainstream cinema exhibition, coupled
with a marked lack of public consultation and debate.
We need to ask serious questions about exactly why the Taxpayer
must subsidise film in Ireland so heavily. The thinking appears
to be that if companies and distributors are not "supporting"
the production and exhibition of particular films, then the
taxpayer should "pick up the tab". One of the interesting
things about this approach is that it masks difficult and
uncomfortable issues around exactly why certain films from
Ireland, the UK or other countries are not connecting with
audiences and hence not attracting production finance, commercial
distribution nor regular cinema screenings.
Throwing Taxpayers' money at the problem, and even changing
the technology, is not going to solve anything. I firmly believe
for instance that the D-Cinema agenda being promoted in the
UK is being done in the misguided belief that reducing distribution
costs (i.e. by eliminating the cost of making prints) will
somehow solve what is in fact a creative and cultural issue,
not a technical or financial one.
Distributors and exhibitors are more than prepared to take
non-Hollywood films if they connect with audiences. A hit
is a hit in any language or culture and will be quickly picked
up for distribution; indeed there are many distributors of
non-Hollywood titles in the UK.
Rather than lavishing valuable resources on treating the symptoms
of what in my view is a creative "illness" in certain
filmmaking cultures, we need to examine its cause. My own
theory is that our secular, materialistic, globalised lifestyles
have disconnected us from our hearts and souls, and it is
from the heart and soul that great art is produced. Assuredly,
films made in this way, irrespective of language or country
of production, will always connect with audiences and find
distribution without help from the Taxpayer. Conversely, films
made from the ego ("my film"), are empty and exploitative
and will always wither on the vine.
Should we not also accept that arthouse cinema is very much
a minority interest in Ireland? It is ethically dubious that
we should be compelled to invest huge resources in this area.
Cultures evolve from the "bottom down"; imposing
what seems to be the ideology of a relatively small group
of people from above is hardly the best expression of democracy.
I believe less is more here. We should improve what we already
have, see the wider perspective, combat elitism and in fact
reduce state dependency, not increase it.
Sincerely Brian Guckian, Stillorgan, Blackrock, Co. Dublin
If you would like to voice an opinion about
any aspect of Irish film culture, please e-mail letters@filmireland.net
|
