FILM LONDON - Diversity, Accessibility and Institutionalised Mediocrity

An open letter to
REBEKAH POLDING
AUDIENCE DEVELOPMENT MANAGER
FILM LONDON

This letter was penned on the occasion that it became clear that The Black Audience Development Fund initiative by Film London was having to canvass for applicants for a second time and postpone the deadlines for application, as insufficient numbers had bothered to apply for the grants.

Ever fearful that being found out to be supporting entirely irrelevant Creative Initiatives might impact on their ability to continue to swan around expensive and graciously appointed offices in the City of London at tax-payers expense, Film London unilaterally decided to postpone their applications deadline.


Some of these tax-payers have been trying to raise funds to make important and culturally relevant films, but have been rejected on the basis that their work is already "more than adequately supported by the mainstream funding sector".

This is patently erroneous as there still exists a large and voracious appetite for cinematic explorations concerning important creative legacies and cultural concerns outside both the mainstream or the ethnically diverse and "plitically crect".

Films which explore subjects such as great artists or by artists who do not have sufficiently "stellar" faces for The Money to be interested. Nor are they devoted to unnecessarily gratuitous grandstanding or graphic and simplistic "insights" into the tabloid-centric areas of their private lives.

Films which might be regarded as elitist or "difficult" simply because they demand and expect more of the intellect of their audiences and presuppose given levels of education or breadth of cultural references in order to glean sufficient meaning from them.
Films which are clearly set in specific and definite cultural contexts.
Work for which no-one would ever dream of demanding any compromises in its ethnic, cultural or creative integrity, in return for support and funding .

Into this tiny but culturally crucial area of creative activity, I assign "serious" dancefilm.

To clarify in terms of the particular area of film-making under discussion:

This is dance presented cinematographically, created by experienced, highly regarded and skilled choreographic designers.
More specifically, making meaning in a cinematic form, imbued with the intellectual, philosophical, emotional and technical struggle to wrest shards of genuine universal truth from the dross of everyday existence.

As opposed to the jejune output from graduate students from Laban, Dartington, Bretton Hall et al with identikit pubescent issues. These are follies de jeunesse, distinguished by a complete lack of style, voice, historical perspective or the humility to acknowledge that only the slow, painful and difficult processes inherent in developing cinematic vision are the sine-qua-non of making moving images.

My acknowledgedly limited and personal definition of Dancefilm is one which features performances by highly trained and experienced professional dancers - rather than "performers" for whom choreographic training and a working knowledge of diverse dance forms is understood as merely tedious, archaic, elitist and unnecessary.

Filmed using the highest quality of cinematographic means, rather than somewhat wobbly outings on video (hi-def or not)located in cliche-ridden graffitti-strewn urban wastelands.

Film which insists on utilising a traditional agglomeration of cinematic skillsets as a pre-requisite for the production of relevant and meaningful content and high production values.

The audience for the quality dancefilm I describe and other outings which are likely to focus on the glories of high-culture is in the main, caucasian, middle-class, usually educated up to or beyond Higher ED level, professionally employed and tax-paying. An audience with sufficient aesthetic standards to be affronted at being continually required to watch people grow up on their time.


Here I am afraid I part company with the recieved policy of most of the government backed quangos in charge of doling out finacial support to "The Arts".

This audience for artfilm and particularly dancefilm, represents a HUGE market gap. It is absolutely the elephant in the room, being neither commercial mainstream white, nor particularly relevant to the immigrant and ethnically diverse populations.

Thus it is simply ignored as an inconvenient reality which can be satisfied neither by commercial interests nor nor the artificially enlightened wisdom which creates convenient politically correct reverse-apartheid-based creative funding systems and the organisations with engraved, wall-mounted positive-action policies feeding them.

The Indie Circuit is dominated by film makers who are predominantly making shorts as calling cards as their 'Look at Me" entree in the mainstream which anyway, we will agree is the not the place for artfilm of any description.

If one refers to "the usual suspects" for funding in the "dance" or "moving image" sectors, such as The Arts Council, or the impenetrable and alarmingly mysterious Portland Green Cultural Projectsof that ilk, well-defined and high-quality ideas inevitably get knocked back.

This is precisely because these are "seen" to feature erroneously and pejoratively described "elitist" dance forms which are not easily defined within the catch-all labels of "Moving Image" , "Video Dance". Or they fail to conform to being part of the fantastically well-funded self-promoting academically oriented experimental genres. Or the projects simply fail to push the ethnic/sexual/handicap diversity buttons with sufficient fervour.

The commercial film sector is now run almost exclusively by star-struck corporate raiders, gamblers and bankers who know the cost of everything, have a very sketchy interest, regard or even grasp on the value of anything and are entirely disinterested unless the return on their investment can be exactly measured and preferrably copper-bottomed.

What remains of "culture" on television has been completely marginalised, has no money and where commissioning editors can envisage the merest whiff of public interest or advertising colateral claw-back, without exception is immediately assigned to the nearest safe pair of hands to bring it on home.

This inevitably means Alan Yentob, Melvyn Bragg (both of whom coincidentally own their own commercial production companies who then get the commission to both produce AND present) or some well heeled Comedian whose powerful agent has decided to fluff-up (usually) his Cultural street-cred.

In genuine creative terms, all of them Non-Combatants who at best mock and point-score and at worst, simply skate straight across the surface and back into the bar at Soho House without even touching the sides.

You will perhaps get a small measure of mine and countless others' unutterable frustration when we encounter missives from yours and other august Government-funded organisations in which it is patently clear that despite your offer of free fivers, clearly no-one has bothered to get up early enough in the morning to fill out your forms, send them back to you or come and collect the loot.
You must forgive a sense that the process of cutting the slack for the lame and the lazy merely amplifies a sense that deadlines and other creative disciplines are irrelevant because the gravy train will always call again tomorrow.

It really does matter that we should require clearer definitions of the various degrees and shades of cultural activity.

It is esential as film makers, that we hold you accountable for complete transparency over the ways and means chosen to define shades of nuance and criteria for interest in specific areas of the culture over which organisations such as Film London have fiscal jurisdiction.

Is is crucial that you are seen to exist to help develop culture by, with and for every part of our society.

Particularly and despite being a rabid anti-racist, I am free to argue, the vast majority of the society in the United Kingdom consists predominantly of white tax-payers, without whom the funding and creative support organisations such as yours simply would not exist.

For myself, as one of many UK Creative Industry citizens, who cannot beg or borrow the money or support to make good films which inevitably fall slap bang down the middle of all of the various categories or funding criteria currently defined as being within the remit of the government funded Arts Administrations, I must express and reiterate my requirement as a tax-payer with a professional interest in this area, that my tithes be demonstrably apportioned with far greater discernment, finesse and effectiveness.

Further, that we must have a much more open, albeit less comfortable relationship and clearly defined opportunities to debate with those who have assumed the right to make these decisions, on the qualitative criteria they might use to make their judgements.
If not, why not?

I look forward to an opportunity to continue and widen this debate.

Kind Regards


Sandy Strallen

editors note:
Neither Rebekah Polding nor Film London have to date, been available for comment.