Among the many aspects of Irish film, surely one of the more pertinent is relevance – does it have any and to who? Irish audiences have shown their willingness to see Irish films if they can see something of themselves and their unique experience of the world in those films. Take for instance “The Commitments”, domestic audiences loved this film and why – because it reflected our view of ourselves that we are immensely talented, very witty in a self deprecating way and prone to demolish our own aspirations before anyone else gets a chance. In fact it is these very qualities that have been done to death by much lesser films since then, in the belief that a script like Roddy Doyle’s story is easy to write – not the case.

Another Irish film that demonstrated relevance of a different kind was Ken Loach’s “The Wind That Shakes the Barley”. Our history has always proven to be a draw at the home box office, however in addition to this, Loach also cited his desire to comment on America’s tendency to cast itself as the world’s police force, in particular their invasion of Iraq. In making his film, he wished to demonstrate the folly of the imperialistic view of the world saying look, this has happened before and it always ends in a civil war bloodbath. More recent examples of relevance are “Hunger” and “Fifty Dead Men Walking”, both admittedly dealing with the troubles – nothing wrong with that.

The only unique selling point that Irish films can offer a home audience is relevance. While some very good foreign and hollywood films come our way, they can only achieve relevance in a universal fashion. Nothing wrong with that either, but as filmmakers we need to be saying something that is rooted in our Irishness and in that sense, yes we should not simply imitate , but rather fashion our films in whatever genre fits the telling of our stories to comment on and reflect ourselves. Not in a long time has our country been so convulsed by a crisis afflicting tens of thousands of families. Do we not as filmmakers have some comment to make on that?

Irish audiences have told us, albeit in a silent, empty cinema seat kind of way that we are saying nothing they want to hear. Whenever criticism is raised of the tax euros spent to support our domestic industry, our attention is redirected to Europe where we are told that pretty much all EU states support their domestic industry as it would not survive the hollywood juggernaut without it. That is most likely very true, but let’s get back to the question of relevance.

The latest figures I can find for cinema market share of national or domestic films is for 2006 and here are a few examples.

France  - 45%.    Lithuania – 4.1%.     Czech Republic – 29.5%.    Germany – 25.8%.    Spain – 15.4%.    UK – 19%.    Italy – 26.2%    Sweden – 20%.    Ireland 2006 – 1.5%     Ireland 2009 – .3%

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Irish filmmakers are fast becoming irrelevant to the home audience. When not stated it is always a given that the most essential ingredient in any film, domestic, hollywood or foreign language is story, story and story.

This post continues the discussion begun in the previous post and again draws on the same article by Ted Sheehy.

“The IFB’s other scheme is focused on films getting a much smaller release. Just finished in its pilot phase, this scheme involves the IFB and the Irish Film Institute combining resources to release a film in the marketplace. It allows for a film to be screened in a context that includes a Q&A with the director and screenings of their earlier work.”

“The first film through this scheme – which has the title ‘direct distribution’ – was Eamon , and it is envisaged for smaller art-house titles that struggle to find a traditional distributor but have proven themselves as either festival or critical successes,” says the IFB spokesman. “We will be publishing details of this scheme on our website shortly.”

“The producer of Eamon , Seamus Byrne, says the scheme and the IFB’s support was invaluable for the release of the film. This support is ongoing as the film makes its way around the country, with occasional screenings at conventional cinemas and through the Access Cinema film club network.”

Distribution support at this level is a very good idea. Eamon is one of the films that came from the Catalyst initiative a few years ago. What a pity this scheme has not grown and multiplied as it leveraged funding not just from IFB, but also RTE (and one other I think) and financed films at a level of €250K. And it makes sense to support these films in distribution in the art house specialist circuit.

“Paul Ward, of the IMC cinema chain, makes a similar point, saying that while there are always potential audiences for Irish films, they generally fall into the niche end of the market, which is undergoing a particularly difficult time at present. “It’s always tough. There are five or six pictures going out every week, so the competition is fierce and there are economies of scale with the size of the release.”

The cinema has evolved over the past two decades or more into something more akin to a seaside funhouse, that’s not a complaint it’s just stating fact. Today the vast majority of cinema releases are big budget, special effects driven spectacles and the target market for both Hollywood producers and the cinema chains alike is 12yrs to 25yrs. That being the case, the question has to be asked is the cinema the natural home for Irish films. Even award winning films like Lenny Abrahamson’s Garage and John Carney’s Once would find it difficult to draw an Irish audience of any significance, given the demographic of cinema goers.

“It might be argued that commercial distributors are the gatekeepers, ensuring that only those Irish films with a market, however small, will get a release. But, given that the IFB is subsidising the release of films the agency has funded, it might be argued that films may be released that distributors would not otherwise take on.”

“THERE IS ANOTHER DEBATE OVER the IFB’s policy of supporting only the films it has funded itself. If the logic behind it is the cultural necessity of assisting Irish films to reach their home audience, then should that apply to all Irish films, not just those which received production finance from the agency?”

A very good point and would I believe be hard to justify.

“Irish film-makers and producers will often successfully push to get their films into cinemas when distributors have turned them down. The box office results of this activity are hard to track, because the amounts involved are very small. There is a view in the business that likens this practice to vanity publishing, saying that it damages the market for Irish films. Others applaud the drive of the film-makers, usually people who have made their films without any official funding and whose energy and conviction get their films on to a few cinema screens without any subsidy. There is a view in the business that likens this practice to vanity publishing, saying that it damages the market for Irish films.”

If the film industry has any chance of becoming a force to be reckoned with in world cinema then it lies with people such as these. Proven beyond doubt, they possess the drive and commitment to their craft to struggle for years to see their creations on the screen. Sure, the quality of these films in terms of script and execution lack experience and knowledge of the craft, but then so do state subvented films. If “the business” wish to find reasons as to why the market for Irish films is damaged, in many cases they need look no further than their own tax payer funded productions. To lay the blame exclusively at the door of the driven and committed – now that’s glib.

I attended the “Give Me Direction” seminar last year at which the most insightful contribution was the “Don’t get Weird on Me” section in terms of what the IFB are looking for. Plainly “mainstream or commercial” is shunned in favour of “arthouse” or at minimum genre stories which seek to subvert or surprise. Subversion for the sake of subversion is no different than slavishly following commercial or mainstream imperatives. Subverting audience expectations does not equate to originality. And the only surprise an Irish audience is looking for is a good story well told, no tricks just solid craft, it really isn’t any more complex than that.

Whatever the plan is, (and that’s not easy to discern) it’s plainly not working and needs to be taken back to the drawing board, this time with the audience clearly in focus.

A good jumping off point for this post is an article which appeared in the Irish Times by Ted Sheehy on Thursday 3rd June 2010 and can be viewed here. Ted followed up with more facts and figures on his blog. However, I found myself a little frustrated by the article because it seems to allude to and hint at conclusions with pretty much no one in the industry going on the record. So I thought it might be a worthwhile exercise to parse and tease out exactly what is being said and what is left to be found between the lines. As I go I will quote from the article and comment.

“THE PERFORMANCE of Irish films in their home market is a sensitive area for Irish producers and distributors. Against the backdrop of falling returns, the Irish Film Board, the co-financier of most films released in Ireland, has been discussing the issue with representatives from the distribution trade and others last month.”

Why is this a sensitive area? The fact that Irish people are fast losing interest in Irish films should be of huge concern to Irish producers. This needs to be addressed in a robust fashion for many reasons, not least of which is, it makes the case for state subvention to support the activity harder to justify and rightly so. As I write, our government are planning cuts of 3 billion for the December 2010 budget. With such things as pensions, dole and and hospital beds in the firing line, very few would shed a tear at the demise of the film board.

But are they to blame, perhaps, perhaps not. But that will make little difference if the axe needs to fall and the imminent demise of the UK Film Council is not an encouraging sign. Irish producers are not incentivized to fight for quality in their films and this is down to how they make their living. Irish films rarely make money for their producer at the cinema.  A producer is paid approx 10% of the production budget and that’s most likely the last money he sees from the film. Time to move onto the next project. So it’s not about quality but rather quantity. The more films you make, no matter what their box office performance, the more money you make.

“There are many ways to run a slide rule over the box office results of Irish films, and interpretations will differ greatly depending on the analyst’s perspective. There is also the valid argument that the box office is not the only measure of a film’s success.”

This is all true, but there’s no running away from box office numbers, no one in the business has the luxury of ignoring them. Box office is not a measure of filthy lucre, it simply tells you how many people went to see your film. Art films and “films not good enough” have one thing in common, they both draw small audiences. The term “art film” is not a protective mantle to be drawn over a mediocre film seeking to hide from the harsh realities of the box office. To do so is disingenuous and contaminates true art films.

“The criticism that many of the films aren’t good enough to perform in the marketplace is the elephant in the auditorium which many people in the trade will not address on the record. “It’s too glib to say the films aren’t good enough; it’s a lot more complex than that,” is how one experienced producer puts it.”

What is that about, people in the trade not willing to go on record to comment on the assertion that Irish films are simply not good. What kind of business is that? Ah but that’s it of course, it’s not a business, but a state subvented activity.

“The complexity he is referring to includes the muscle of multinational distributors, the heavy throughput of “product” in Irish cinemas and, as he terms it, the “stranglehold” that the UK distribution trade maintains over box office earnings from Ireland.”

What is the point of making a product for market and then complain about market forces. A truism about kitchens and heat comes to mind. Distributors and exhibitors are a business, they’ll book a film if they feel there’s an audience for that film, otherwise they won’t. And if it’s not bringing in the punters, it’ll be given the boot and something else shown in it’s place. Nothing complex about that.

“That said, one of the major multinational distributors, Disney, has distributed 25 Irish titles over the last 15 years, and had considerable success with some of them. But Disney’s general manager in Ireland, Trish Long, suggests that the thinking behind the release of many Irish films does need to be examined. Whether the number of films and the kind of films that are getting a release are the right number and the right kind is something I believe should be interrogated,” she says.”

That still sounds like diplomatic speak for “films not good enough”. Here’s the thing, 42in flat screen LCD TV’s with surround sound are now very common possessions. When people go to the cinema, they are looking for something more than what they can get for free (well kinda) at home. Worthiness and laurel leaves are not going to do it. Solid good stories with engaging characters has a shot.

“Each year a total of about 300 individual film titles from around the world are released in Ireland, earning box office income that has grown from €140 million in 2007 to nearly €150m in 2009. However, an annual box office review of Irish cinema returns shows a clear decline in the fortunes of Irish-made films over that three-year period.”

“Ten Irish films were released in 2007, earning a total of €1,967,506. Twelve Irish films were released in 2008, earning a total of €1,362,397. And 10 Irish films were released in 2009, earning a total of €588,661. If you get into the tricky area of defining the “Irishness” of these films, the picture is complicated further.”

There’s no arguing with numbers.

“So far this year, while the number of films has increased (by the end of June, 13 new titles will have been launched), box office returns have been mixed, and undoubtedly disappointing for those films which were given a substantial push by their distributors and backed with marketing funds from the Irish Film Board (IFB).”

“The IFB now offers two types of distribution support for Irish releases, but only for those films it has backed with production finance. The main mechanism is its marketing support scheme, designed, according to an IFB spokesman, “in response to current market conditions and to incentivise distributors to release films in a much more targeted way”. This scheme, adopted as of March 1st, has been utilised by the distributors of Perrier’s Bounty, Ondine and Zonad , who received funding, respectively, of €75,000, €50,000 and €75,000, which in this, the first year of the scheme’s operation, came in the form of non-repayable grants.”

It’s important to understand how distribution works in the real world. When a distributor decides to push a film into the cinema chain, he takes on the expense of marketing and prints. When that film takes money at the box office, the funds are split between the cinema and distributor. It is then the responsibility of the distributor to pay the producer the portion agreed. But the first money out from the distributors share from the exhibitor is the money he spent on marketing and prints. So this new initiative from the film board means that the distributor has no faith that he will recoup his marketing and print spend. It’s a little depressing to realise that left to their own devices, many home grown films would never see the light of day (so to speak) in Irish cinemas. And worse still, this new funding initiative is a tacit acceptance of this. How is it possible that a film starring Cillian Murphy and Brendan Gleeson and a Neill Jordan film would need this support?

This discussion is continued in the following post.