Film servicing industry’s storyboard

For the past three decades, the film facilities industry in Malta has been ticking over rather quietly with moments of intense activity and others when its activities were less evident.

Competition from neighbouring Mediterranean countries, like Morocco and Tunisia, as well as lack of local investment meant that what was being offered here was no longer as attractive to foreign film-makers as they were in the early 1970s. To survive, the industry had to reinvent itself.

In the past four years, the Government encouraged the renewal of the film servicing industry through grants amounting to €940,000 for the development and production of films.

Culture Minister Mario de Marco summarised the Government’s new strategy for the industry in the following way: “We’re trying to gradually move towards having a stable indigenous film industry that doesn’t rely heavily on foreign productions”.

Malta Film Commission chairman Anthony Sammut commented that there was resistance to change on the part of some of those involved in the industry. He said that “those used to receiving cash rebates argue that more money automatically equals more productions. But that is old thinking”.

But a group promoting the interests of film service providers note that “most film hosting countries are constantly increasing the competitiveness of their industry incentive schemes”.

The group has also complained to the Prime Minister that the Film Commissioner, Peter Busuttil, lacks “manner, knowledge and ability”. They added that “Malta cannot afford precious time in the hope he will be a fast learner”.

Finance and Economy Minister Tonio Fenech, under whose wing the Film Commission falls, disagrees with this assessment and believes that Mr Busuttil is doing a good job.

The matter took another twist when Labour MP Owen Bonnici said in Parliament that the person tasked with designing and implementing an audio-visual training course sponsored by the Film Commission and the Finance Ministry described the commission as “an amateur, unprofessional and disorganised organisation – a liability to all those who work locally in the industry”.

Quite an indictment by any account. Change – especially in a sensitive industry – inevitably causes tensions in any business and resistance to change can come in many ways and guises.

Of course, those spearheading change in organisations need to have both the technical competence associated with their industry and also the soft skills to command the respect and support of the people they lead in the bumpy road of reform.

Mr Fenech has said the Government wants to ensure that everyone is on board. However, team cohesion cannot be achieved by tame appeals for unity but demand a painstaking collective analysis of the options available and the selection of the option/s that make/s most sense in the circumstances. All the major players need to be involved in the process as, otherwise the adopted solutions may not be owned by those who have to implement them.

The controversy should have never reached flashpoint. The fact that it has does not say much about those who should have known better and, rather than sweeping problems under the carpet, addressed the issue head-on and made bold decisions.

It is imperative now that the industry fosters peace within its ranks.