Film funding = would it help if im a wheel bound,

[Chance1234]

ok, read this carefully i dont want to come across as a neo nazi or anything, a strong title i agree and i hopeing on the intelligance of the people on this board to realise the point i want to make.

Been looking into a lot of film funding recently. now in all of these guideline when it come to applications most of them have guidelines such as

"Applicants must live in the borough etc etc "

or

"Applicants must be able to provide a showreel along with ..."

ok fair enough so far, later on down the page tehy normally say something

"Funding will be given to represent film making across the board..."

or

"Is part of the equal oppotunitys program etc , discrimination will not be made etc etc"

so through reading through all this it seems they have some criteria for accepting applications which is pretty straight forward after all they want to know who they are giving there money to.

later on down the page there saying no discrimination, representation across the board etc

so why is there are specific funding body;s aimed at

Gay/Lesbian
Women
Minor
HIV
etc etc

if the funding in the first place shouldnt be discrimintive why is there this need to have seperate funding groups ? especially the goverment/lottery run schemes. surely it would be better for all the money to be pooled into one funding body.

surely a film maker is a film maker no matter what ?

Does your sex/colour/sexuality make any difference to what you do at the end of the day ? i thought we were all in the same boat to make films.

and our we getting fair representation of the indy british film scene if we are specificly targetting one group or another ?

Chance



[This message has been edited by Chance1234 (edited October 17, 2000).]

[Ruthie]

I agree...It reminds me of getting funding for college. I had part of my school paid for because of my Finnish heritage. When you have the money to fund something, you can give it to whoever and put any criteria you want. It feels unfair, but when the time comes when your eligible, go for it.

[Movie Junkie]

Can't argue with you there, Chance. It's a paradox: in order for them not to disriminate they have to discriminate.
It's not only the majority who can discriminate..everyone can. By giving special funding to a minority group such as homosexuals (i am using them purely as an example), is discrimination against non-homosexuals. I hate this positive discrimination shite anyway.
Funding should only take talent into consideration.

[FranMc]

Well, the funding groups for minority projects presumably exist because of a perceived inequality with the mainstream majority groups. Quite what the point of this is however, has me stumped.

[Littlerich]

I can see the funding people wanting to know if you are a drug user, so they will know if you want to make a film or inject/snort/smoke/etc. the funds and not make a film...

The rest of it is just P.R., trying to show they are not discriminating by over compensating.

It's as if they are trying to prove too hard.

Well, that's my 2C worth... (All it's probably worth).




------------------
KEEP FOCUSED!
Little Rich.
http://go.to/littlerich
www.rmsgraffix.freeserve.co.uk
[email protected]

[RedRaven]

I used to think the same as you guys, there is definately a perceived "positive discrimination" in the world of government film funding, but now I actually work for a regional arts board and the truth is that does not really go on (not where I work, anyway). Arts Boards do tend to have various schemes aimed purely at the ethnic minorities, but this is not the case for film funding. All our applicants for film funding receive an equal opportunities form to fill in, which asks their age, ethnic background, sexuality and whether they are disabled. However, this form is then REMOVED from their application (by ME!!) and filed seperately, so when the application is judged, nobody knows the details of the applicant, so the application is judged purely on its own merit.

Of course, other arts boards might do things differently.

[eddie]

Well obviously the reason these people are prefered by some funding bodies is because they are under-represented and dont have as many opportunities as other people.

I think you are probably looking at the wrong list.

[miker]

Under represented in which medium exactly?

Why is there no fund for 'Straight over twenty male' then?

In this industry, surely straights are in the minority?

;-)

[RedRaven]

What's interesting is that, in my opinion anyway, this assumption that people from minority groups have less opportunities than other people is actually racism in the traditional sense - it's an assumption that, for example, black people must come from poor, underpriveliged backgrounds, so they need more help than the rest of us.

To me, that seems an insulting assumption.

[Ravenhill]

Mostly everything has been covered on this topic, but I'm afraid I have a little bad news...
I work for a government department (I'm not allowed to say which one - yawn) and I can verify that, yes, equal opportunities forms are removed from applications prior to 'sifting'.
However, this does NOT stop the process of positive discrimination from taking place. There are various loopholes - at least in our system - which allow certain candidates to receive a 'second chance'. Most of these candidates are of non-white ethnic origin.
This is a ploy deliberately executed by higher management to make the figures look more attractive and to increase the numbers of non-white workers to meet expected percentages.
I find it to be insulting to absolutely everyone concerned.
I'm sure that many people would be annoyed to learn that they hadn't secured a place as a result of their own merits, but because of the colour of their skin.
Sadly, this is the story in many government departments, including local councils.
The only people that benefit in the long run are the higher managers who receive kudos and pats on the back.
I foresee that the situation will only get worse.