09/12/2002 - British Film Council report says reducing budgets and costs is the only way forward for low-budget Brit films

Worried by the decline of the earning potential in the domestic and international markets of British films in the £2m to £4 m (Euros 3m - 6m) bracket, the British Film Council, commissioned veteran producer Simon Relph to investigate ways in which to bring these budget costs down and thus create better opportunities for filmmakers and UK crews.
The Relph report investigated the financing and production costs and practices of 26 lower-budget British films made over the last five years, as well as those of five films made outside the UK. The report claims that the costs of those films rose sharply partly because lottery money, tax breaks, bank finance and insurance deals made it easier to fund films and, as a consequence, made new and higher production rates acceptable.
The risk of this increase is that it makes it harder for those films to recoup their investment both domestically and internationally. Also many British producers have had to dispose of all value in their films just to get them made; putting the long-term value of their companies into jeopardy.
In order to bring costs down to a more sustainable level and create better opportunities for filmmakers and more work for crews and suppliers in general, the Relph report suggests the introduction of a ‘code of practice’ for those films willing to reduce their budgets to between the £1.5m and £2.5m (Euros 2.25m and Euros 3.75 m) level.
The report compared the working practices of the US and some European territories (France and Denmark in particular), and suggested that UK crews working on lower budget films should be reduced in number, and also be willing to accept lower pay -or basic fees- in return for a potential share of the revenue.
The Relph report also proposed a change to the entire remuneration system in operation in the UK. At present producers’ and sales agents’ fees are linked to the percentage of the budget of the film; a situation that hardly encourages them to keep budget costs down. Simon Relph suggests that British producers should be rewarded – and not penalised - for cutting budgets, and, to all intents and purposes, they should be considered equity investors.
Aside from offering interesting solutions to try to create new opportunities for smaller budgeted British films, the Relph report gives non-UK film professionals valuable information on below-the-line and above-the-line costs and working practices in the UK, comparing them to the US and some European countries.