Cast your minds back, people, if you will, and you may recall I wrote a piece on female directors. Well, today, as somewhat of a prequel, I am going to be sticking my opinionated nose into the itchy scratchy world of film funding to see where it all began. And so, folks, I give you Living In A Box: The Legacy Of Film Funding…

For anybody who hasn’t read/can’t be bothered to read/can’t remember the women directors piece, a quick recap says I was having a peep at the problems with female direction and why these talents end up on the shelf. Now, before you scream “feminist bullshit,” I was taking the view that part of the problem could lie within the women themselves doing their own disservice, that, whilst often the only option open to them is the romantic comedy genre, many will edge towards the dreaded ‘Woman’s Film’ (i.e. women’s ‘issues’, periods etc.) But, how much of this is the fault of the women themselves and how much blame can be laid on the grass roots issue of film funding and the legacy it carries?

Working in the film industry and having aspirations towards filmmaking myself, I am well aware of the constraints in gaining funding and, further to that, the route you take post-production. Unless very lucky, most filmmakers will need to apply for some form of funding, and here in Britain, we have the Film Council and its various offshoots. It is upon application that you will find yourself neatly boxed according to your own personal ‘minority’ or ‘marginalised’ status, and thus begins your journey of churning out predictable guff in accordance with such restraints.

This kind of ‘boxercise’ (the exercise of putting people into boxes) doesn’t only pertain to women, of course. Anybody considered in a minority or marginalised group will be doled the cash according to this. So, we have women making women’s films, ethnics making ethno-focused films and homosexuals making gay-centric films. Of course, if you happen to not fit these categories, do not fear, there is still a box for you – the straight, white, British male making regional films (sigh.) Whatever happened to prizing talent, imagination and diversity? The problem here is twofold: (a) money is thrown to people with no talent but just a box to crawl into when they feel like having a pop at making a film and (b) people who do have talent and ideas are being forced to work within these strict parameters, thus culling the creative market. Subsequently, the British film industry is dying a death swamped by its own faeces. Yes, I know it’s fuck hard being an Asian woman in Britain. Yes, I know it’s fuck hard being taken seriously as a female footballer. And yes, I know it’s fuck hard living in the North where it’s super grim.

This is not to say that everybody is being forced into making films they don’t want to make, and nor is it to say that people shouldn’t make films according to their effecting issues, or even that there is no audience interest. What I am saying is that the tendency towards boxing is causing a dangerously generalised effect, that maybe as a woman you might want to make a woman’s film, but equally you might want to make balls-to-the-walls horror or such like. Yes, of course, being a woman or gay or ethnic or regional is going to effect your filmmaking as it is a big part of your life and governs to an extent your outlook and experiences. But, that is not all you are and to be treated as such is causing the very problem it’s meant to eradicate: marginalisation, ignorance and stigma.

So, you’ve got your funding, you’ve made your film and you’re going to show it at festivals. Let’s just say you’re a woman, like me, and you’ve been cajoled into making a ‘woman’s film.’ You screen at the Women In Film season and nobody comes because everybody knows already what it’s all about. I myself have attended festivals and watched with dismay at the utterly predictable gynaecological diatribe that pours from the screen. You know what you’re gonna get and you get it. But whose fault is that? How do we know these women didn’t want to make a crime film, or a sci-fi film? How do we know the gay, black immigrant didn’t want to make a family comedy or some obscure animated short? Sadly, though, accepting the opportunity means, to a degree, silencing your creativity.

And so, what does this mean for Britain as well as the individual? Well, for the individual filmmaker it means living in a box unless a lucky break means a bid for freedom and the chance to unfurl those creative wings. Still, though, you run the risk of being picked up for precisely the type of films you’ve already been making. Of course, there are exceptions such as Simon Pegg and Neil Marshall whose stars have really been in the ascendance. Wasn’t it so glorious when Marshall brought Dog Soldiers and The Descent into our samey, kitchen-sink drama-drenched world? And Pegg, fresh from his sitcom success with Spaced (and subsequently secured funding) brought us his Edgar Wright collaboration, Shaun of the Dead. No, not on of my favourite films but oh my was it good to see something different, something that didn’t make me groan and bury my head in shame at being British. And, coming on the tail of Spaced, Shaun of the Dead was doing its own service of representing a culture increasingly evident in our society – the 20-something/early 30’s post-grads with nothing to do, no real job prospects, still grasping the wastefulness of youth. This is a burgeoning culture and hadn’t before had such representation because Britain was too tied up with its factory of grim. Yes, it’s lighthearted, but it is representation, and, moreover, the Pegg/Wright productions, with Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz brought back something that’s missing in cinema in general – the idea of the chance of adventure (more on this in my next piece.)

Sadly, however, it’s largely a case of R.I.P British film. Some projects do exist to break the mould, such as Marshall’s school for female directors in horror film making, but on the whole this country is pumping out nothing but its own effluence, utterly bogged down in its culture of grim. Looking to other countries (not including America because America is stuck in a rut of indoctrination – and yes, more on this in my next piece) they seem to have a perfectly thriving industry, making money with films they and the rest of the world want to watch. France and Korea, for example, are seeing actual talents surface, funding given to ideas, the talents thriving and money being brought into the industry. In Britain, money is dished out and not more than a handful of people, probably friends and family, are watching this bilge. We are failing ourselves in so many ways. Very rarely will I watch a British film because I already know what it’s about, and it’s going to be depressing. Yes, film should represent real life to a degree, but is it not also about entertainment, art, imagination, vision and escapism? I don’t believe the talent’s not out there, I just think it’s being railroaded into boxes by the supposed ‘super-helpfulness’ of film council funding, with the result of further separating marginalised groups and simultaneously killing the British film industry