The UK Film Council: A Case Study of Film Policy in Transition

电影很重要。它之所以重要，是因为它既是创意经济的强大引擎，也是一种文化表达形式，可以接触到大量观众并影响人们的生活。然而，如果政府没有一套结构良好的干预措施，英国电影业就无法开始发挥其潜力。英国电影理事会的成立是为了提供一个框架[为这种]干预[s]约翰伍德沃德，英国肯德基的首席执行官（UKFC，2004：4）.成立于2000年4月，但在2011年3月底结束，英国肯德基是一个关键的战略机构，负责支持电影业和电影文化在英国超过十年。该理事会由工党政府（1997-2010年）设立，其职责是建立一个“可持续”的电影业，其议程在其一生中不断变化和扩大，反映了公众对电影支持的根本目的的不同期望。虽然它提供的支持模式确保了对各种电影的资助，并被一些人认为是有效的，但英国电影基金会最初负责的更雄心勃勃的目标--使英国电影制作部门可持续发展，并确保在发行方面的全球地位--没有实现。新的联合政府在2010年5月上台仅几个月后，就宣布了一项总体削减成本战略，其中一部分是废除联合王国金融危机管理局，并将其职责重新分配，主要是重新分配给联邦金融机构。UKFC作为电影的主要支持机构的短暂经验提出了关于如何在21世纪制定和实施电影战略干预的基本问题。虽然早期的研究已经解决了电影和电影政策在英国的历史（迪金森和街1985年;希尔2004年;墨菲2009年;理查兹2009年：萨金特2005年;街2009年），没有开发具体的案例研究，审查政策是如何理解和执行的制度和组织的公共支持机构的电影。拟议的研究，重点是从成立到消亡的历史上的英国肯德基，提供了一个特殊的和及时的机会，这样一个案例研究，并在21世纪世纪的公众支持电影的模式不断变化的压力进行深入调查。该项目旨在调查英国电影院的历史，研究其作为公众支持电影的典范的有效性，并分析其在数字时代关闭对电影的政策影响。该研究将探讨如何以及为什么由英国肯德基追求的目标随着时间的推移而改变;如何竞争的经济和文化目标进行谈判;英国肯德基在实现其目标的表现;理事会在帮助英国电影业适应数字环境中的作用;并询问从其整体经验中可以得出哪些战略教训。主要的数据收集技术包括评估文件和文本，分析二手统计数据，档案研究，以及与项目小组有信心能够很好地接触到的关键行为者进行访谈。PI（Doyle），Co-Is（Schlesinger和波义耳）和PDRA（Kelly）共同带来了媒体，创意和文化产业以及政策分析方面的多学科专业知识。调查委员会的投入将主要集中在访谈、调查结果分析和传播方面，而PI和PDRA将在研究方案的所有阶段开展工作。参考文献：Dickinson & Street（1985）Cinema and State：The Film Industry and the Government，1927-1984，BFI.Hill（2004）'UK Film Policy，Cultural Capital and Social Exclusion'，Cultural Trends，13（2）.墨菲（2009），英国电影图书，BFI。理查兹（2009），英国最佳：电影和社会从1930年到现在，I. B。Tauris. Sardine（2005），British Cinema：A Critical and Interpretive History，BFI.Street（2009），British National Cinema 2，Schoolledge.UKFC（2004），Our Second Three Year Plan：Funding and Policy Priorities 2004-2007.

'Film matters. It matters because it is both a powerful engine of the creative economy, and a form of cultural expression which reaches huge audiences and influences lives. Yet without a well-structured set of interventions by Government, the UK film sector cannot begin to realise its potential. The UK Film Council was set up to provide a framework [for such] intervention[s]' John Woodward, CEO of UKFC (UKFC, 2004:4).Established in April 2000 but wound up at the end of March 2011, the UKFC was the key strategic body responsible for supporting the film industry and film culture in Britain for over a decade. Set up by the Labour Government (1997-2010) with a remit to build a 'sustainable' film industry, the Council's agenda shifted and broadened over its lifetime reflecting differing expectations in relation to the underlying purposes of public support for film. While the model of support it offered ensured the funding of a wide range of films and was viewed by some as effective, the more ambitious aims with which the UKFC was originally charged - of making the UK film production sector sustainable and of securing a global position in distribution - were not achieved. After only a few months of coming to power in May 2010, the new coalition Government announced a general cost-cutting strategy, part of which was the abolition of the UKFC and a reassignment of its responsibilities, mainly to the BFI. The UKFC's short-lived experience as lead support body for film raises fundamental questions about how strategic interventions for film in the 21st century may be framed and put into operation. While earlier research has addressed the history of film and film policy in the UK (Dickinson & Street 1985; Hill 2004; Murphy 2009; Richards 2009: Sargeant 2005; Street 2009), none has developed specific case studies that scrutinise how policy is understood and implemented institutionally and organisationally by public support bodies for film. The proposed research, focusing on the history of the UKFC from inception to demise, provides an exceptional and timely opportunity for such a case study and for in-depth investigation of the changing pressures on models of public support for film in the 21st century. The project sets out to investigate the history of the UKFC, to examine its effectiveness as a model of public support for film and also to analyse the policy implications of its closure for film in the digital era. The research will examine how and why the objectives pursued by the UKFC changed over time; how competing economic and cultural objectives were negotiated; the performance of the UKFC in fulfilling its objectives; the role of the Council in helping the UK film industry adjust to a digital environment; and ask what strategic lessons may be drawn from its overall experience. The principal data-gathering techniques include the assessment of documents and texts, analyses of secondary statistical data, archival research, and interviews with key actors to whom the project team are confident of achieving excellent access. The PI (Doyle), Co-Is (Schlesinger and Boyle) and PDRA (Kelly) collectively bring multi-disciplinary expertise in media, creative and cultural industries and policy analysis. Whereas the Co-Is' input will be focused mainly on interviews, analysis of findings and dissemination, the PI and PDRA will work on all phases of the research programme. Refs:Dickinson & Street (1985) Cinema and State: The Film Industry and the Government, 1927-1984, BFI.Hill (2004) 'UK Film Policy, Cultural Capital and Social Exclusion', Cultural Trends, 13(2). Murphy (2009), The British Cinema Book, BFI.Richards (2009), Best of British: Cinema and Society from 1930 to the Present, I.B. Tauris.Sargeant (2005), British Cinema: A Critical and Interpretive History, BFI.Street (2009), British National Cinema 2, Routledge.UKFC (2004), Our Second Three Year Plan: Funding and Policy Priorities 2004-2007.