Sobre el empleo

also   mentions   the   BIS   and   the   importance   of   research   yet   does   not   aim   to   investigate  how  higher  education,  under  the  remit  of  the  BIS,  can  support  this   drive   for   increased   and   maintained   skills   excellence   in   the   sector.   Indeed   the   strategy  shows  little  awareness  of  the  2011  BIS  white  paper  outlining  plans  for   UK  higher  education.  Further,  there  is  no  clear  and  coherent  picture  of  the  skills   that   the   film   industry   requires   and   expects.     The   BFI   state   they   will   develop   a   new  skills  strategy  but  so  far  none  of  the  reviews  or  strategies  have  examined   the   role   that   the   higher   education   sector   with   its   plethora   of   media   and   film   courses   can   play.   The   focus,   understandably,   but   frustratingly,   remains   on   the   industrial  and  the  commercial  elements  of  film  production.    

2.5  The  film  industry  and  academia  in  the  UK    

2.5.1  Historical  context:  The  early  days  of  the  BFI  and  UK  film  education    

The  focus  on  industrial  concerns  as  something  separate  to  cultural  activity  can  be   traced   back   to   the   beginnings   of   the   BFI   as   an   institution.   In  actuality,   it   could   probably   be   traced   even   further   back,   but   in   the   UK   context,   this   is   an   appropriate   point   for   this   discussion.   The   precursor   to   the   BFI   was   the   Commission   on   Educational   and   Cultural   Films,   which   was   born   out   of   a   1929   conference   organised   by   the   British   Institute   for   Adult   Education   and   the   Association  of  Scientific  Workers.  From  early  on  education  played  a  vital  role  in   the  vision  of  the  commission  and  it  was  educators  that  were  largely  responsible   for  the  creation  of  the  body  that  would  become  the  BFI.    

Originally  the  terms  of  reference  were  as  follows:  

1)  To  consider  suggestions  for  improving  and  extending  the  use  of  films   (motion  pictures  and  similar  visual  and  auditory  devices)  for  educational   and  cultural  purposes,  including  use  as  documentary  records;  

2)  To  consider  methods  for  raising  the  standard  of  public  appreciation  of   films,   by   criticism   and   advice   addressed   to   the   general   public,   by   discussion   among   persons   engaged   in   educational   or   cultural   pursuits,   and   by   experimental   production   of   films   in   collaboration   with   professional  producers;  

3)   To   consider   the   desirability   of   establishing   a   central   permanent   organisation  with  general  objects  as  above.              

It  is  item  two  that  is  most  intriguing.  No  one  would  argue  that  the  BFI  does  not   have  a  strong  reputation  and  track  record  for  the  first  term  of  reference  indeed   the   2012   Film   Forever   strategy   states   the   organisation’s   heritage,   impact   and   vision  in  this  very  regard.  However  term  of  reference  two  showcases  that  almost   utopian  ideal  of  an  approach  to  film  education  that  merges  the  theoretical  and   the  practical,  hand-­‐in-­‐hand.  As  has  been  discussed,  this  seems  to  only  be  an  ideal   within   a   UK   context   up   to   a   certain   point,  after   which   the   emphasis   is   placed   almost  entirely  on  the  practical  aspects  of  making  films.  

Following  the  statement  of  intent  the  commission  evolved  into  the  BFI  and  the   now  mostly  accepted  form  of  film  education,  the  binary  form  discussed  at  length   in  this  thesis,  emerged  quickly  due  to  one  main  factor,  the  film  industry.  Geoffrey   Nowell-­‐Smith  (2012)  discusses  the  formation  of  the  BFI  noting  that,  ‘most  of  the   members   of   the   commission   were   educationists   of   one   kind   or   another   –   teachers,  lecturers,  local  education  authority  officers,  etc.’  (2012:  15).    

Following  receipt  of  government  funding  in  June  1930  and  in  preparation  for  its   initial   report,   the   commission   held   another   conference.   Trades   (the   industry)   were  consulted  and  as  Nowell-­‐Smith  explains  ‘[Sir  Benjamin]  Gott  took  charge  of   relations  with  the  film  trade,  which  at  this  stage  was  guarded  but  not  unfriendly   in  its  approach  to  the  Commission  and  its  activities’  (2012:  16).  The  commission   published  its  first  full  report  in  June  1932  with  the  title  The  Film  in  National  Life.    

Immediately  it  caused  concern  within  the  film  industry.  They  did  not  like  the  idea   of  an  institute.  Their  response  clearly  set  out  their  strong  belief  that:  

As  far  as  the  majority  of  legislators  were  concerned,  cinema  was  first  and   foremost  an  industry  and  the  role  of  the  film  in  national  cultural  life  was   no  concern  of  theirs  (Nowell-­‐Smith:  17).  

In  return  for  accepting  the  formation  of  an  institution  the  film  trade  lobbied  that   one  third  of  the  governing  body  should  be  representatives  from  trade.  From  a   contemporary  perspective  it  is  apparent  that  this  was  the  first  and  most  serious   move  to  ensure  that  cultural  appreciation  and  professional  production  interests   were  kept  separate.  There  is  evidence  of  this  concern  about  the  impact  of  theory   on  practice  within  the  work  of  the  BFI  in  key  regards  throughout  its  existence.  

Following  a  merger  of  sorts  with  the  Society  for  Education  in  Film  and  Television   (SEFT)  in  1966  the  BFI  education  department  commissioned,  in  partnership  with   Sight  &  Sound,  a  series  of  monographs  which  clearly  delineated  between  theory   and   practice.   The   titles   of   the   monographs   were   Talking   about   the   Cinema,   Talking  about  Television  and  Film-­‐making  in  Schools  and  Colleges.  This  reinforced   the   idea   and   mindset   brought   about   by   the   involvement   of   trade/industry   in   education  that  cultural  appreciation  jeopardises  commercial  interests.    

It  dates  back  to  the  early  days  of  the  commission  where  the  film  trade  responded   to  the  first  report  mentioned  above  with  the  view  that:  

So   long   as   the   new   institute   confined   itself   to   educational   and   instructional  films,  all  was  well.  But  if,  under  the  banner  of  raising  cultural   levels,  the  institute  began  to  interfere  in  matters  such  as  censorship,  or   simply   engage   in   denigrating   standard   movie-­‐house   fare,   and   if   furthermore   it   were   to   do   so   with   funds   raised   by   taxing   popular   entertainment,  then  the  trade  saw  an  unwarranted  threat  to  its  interests   (Nowell-­‐Smith:  16).  

This  exemplifies  the  insecurity  felt  by  the  British  film  industry  towards  academic   facing  areas  of  film  culture,  and  further  exemplifies  the  tension  between  theory   and  practice  in  British  film  history.  In  the  1960s,  its  most  significant  years,  the  BFI   Education   department   was   headed   by   Paddy   Whannel.   Whannel   envisaged   a   deep  relationship  between  his  department  and  universities.  He  saw  universities   as   key   partners   in   the   establishment   of   a   serious   educational   film   culture   and   also  as  possessing  the  direction  and  structure  he  wanted  to  emulate.  His  vision   found  few  supporters:  

Whannel  readily  compared  the  work  with  which  some  of  his  staff  were   engaged  to  that  found  within  a  university  department.  He  consequently   wanted   to   debate   the   notion   of   a   film   culture   and   how   exploring   this   might   connect   with   other   BFI   departments.   [A   senior   colleague   of   Whannel’s]   had   seen   the   department   as   delivering   to   schools   and   colleges,  thereby  supporting  innovation  at  arm’s  length,  whereas  it  was   always  fundamental  to  Whannel’s  strategy  that  only  by  having  research   within   the   academy   would   a   structure   take   shape   around   film   study   which   would   enable   it   to   become   properly   established   at   earlier   levels   within  the  education  system  (Bolas,  2012:  144).  

To  add  clarity,  Bolas  includes  Whannel’s  words:  

Unlike  other  subjects  the  study  of  film  as  art  and  entertainment  has  been   developed   at   the   lower   levels   of   education   rather   than   within   the   university.  Its  emergence  as  a  school  subject  before  it  has  become  clearly   established   as   an   academic   discipline   accounts   for   many   of   the   peculiarities   of   film   study.   Most   of   the   problems,   both   practical   and   theoretical,  are  traceable  to  this  basic  fact  (Whannel,  1968).  

Unfortunately  universities  are  still  very  much  at  arm’s  length  in  this  regard  and   according  to  the  latest  review  and  strategy  document  shall  remain  so.  

2.5.2  Contemporary  relationships  between  film  industry  and  higher  education   in  the  UK  

Both  the  2012  policy  review  and  Film  Forever  strategy  pay  token  gestures  to  the   higher  education  sector  but  only  in  regard  to  research  capabilities.  It  is  evident   that   there   is   still   insecurity,   or   possibly   ignorance,   when   it   comes   to   the   role   higher   education   and   academia   can   play   in   the   development   and   delivery   of   British   film   industry   requirements.   The   Film   Forever   strategy   reveals   the   commercial   impact   of   the   film   industry   and   makes   a   convincing   case   for   maintenance  as  opposed  to  redevelopment  of  film  education:  

According   to   a   recent   study   on   the   Economic   Impact   of   the   UK   Film   Industry,    the   total   economic   impact   of   the   UK   film   industry   is   outperforming  the  economy  as  a  whole  and  contributed  over  £4.6  billion   to   UK   GDP   and   over   £1.3   billion   to   the   Exchequer   in   2011.   It   also   supported  a  total  of  117,400  Full  Time  Equivalent  (FTE)  jobs  (BFI,  2012).  

It   is   very   difficult   with   these   figures   in   mind   to   suggest   a   more   analytical,   theoretical   and   cultural   approach   to   film   education   or   a   more   holistic,   collaborative  and  experimental  approach  to  practical  training.  However  given  the   economic   impact   of   film   it   is   strange   that   the   industry   does   not   present   a   coherent  vision  of  educational  content.    

University  of  Bedfordshire  Vice  Chancellor  Bill  Rammell  supports  the  relationship   between   academia   and   industry   but   has   already   noted   (section   1.5.2)   that   industry  needs  to  be  ‘more  coherent  in  its  ask’  (Rammell,  2012  Interview).  The   Head   of   Film   at   Middlesex   University   Patrick   Phillips   also   contextualised   discussions   he   has   held   with   industry   practitioners   regarding   graduate   requirements  in  the  interview  at  the  opening  of  this  thesis.  

At   present,   the   UK   film   policy   document   and   BFI   Film   Forever   strategy   do   not   suggest   an   education   that   provides   a   full   understanding   of   filmmaking.  

Professionals  whose  films  are  the  subjects  of  study  on  academic  and  production   courses   do   have   views   about   filmmaking,   they   have   clear   opinions   about   their   education  and  they  also  have  clear  positions  concerning  film  education  and  what   it   should   be.   Interestingly   their   views   are   rarely   sought   nor   are   they   used   to   develop  policy  or  curricula.  These  ideas  are  discussed  in  the  next  section.  

2.6  Film  education  from  the  perspective  of  filmmakers    

2.6.1  Challenging  the  Auteur:  filmmaking  as  collaboration    

This  section  addresses  film  education  from  the  perspective  of  those  who  make   films  at  different  levels  across  different  forms:  narrative  and  documentary.  The   aim   of   this   section   is   to   introduce   the   voice   of   the   filmmaker   into   the   debate   about  what  film  education  is,  could  and  should  be.