Martin Bonnici

Director,
Shadeena Movie Studio

My hope was that the first National Film Policy would finally establish a realistic vision for the film industry, something that we have never had in Malta. A better understanding of the different facets of the industry, their synergies and their differences and plans on how to develop them.

It’s great that the document acknowledges the struggles of the sector but as far as policy goes it doesn’t do much. It hasn’t done anything at all to achieve this vision and, more than a policy I would describe this document as a very light review of the situation. It doesn’t even provide an in-depth analysis of the sector.

As a policy, it is lacking on a number of points. First of all, the document is dangerously short on numbers.

We cannot have a policy and a direction without truly understanding what has been accomplished so far. And, so far, the Malta Film Commission has refused to publish a thorough analysis of the Maltese film industry in the past 20 to30 years. Without such an exercise, we are working blind and, unfortunately, they are the only people with the data.

There is a lack of vision when it comes to Maltese film-making

There is also a lack of vision when it comes to Maltese film-making. For example, the document refers to giving more support to film-makers working outside the State subsidy system, but fails to define them – for the obvious reason that they do not exist in Malta and most of the EU.

This policy was an opportunity to create a clear line between the film industry and the film servicing industry. They are two very distinct sectors that, unfortunately, were forced together by the previous leadership of the commission. Over the years, the economic benefits of the film servicing industry have unfortunately eroded the support that was being built for the film industry before this merger.

This document simply makes it clear that the Malta Film Commission has little interest or attention to give to the development of the industry. As regard emulating any foreign model, no there is no one model for the industry. However, it has to be made clear that no other country boasts of a booming film industry when it is simply hosting foreign productions and is being used as an extended set.

Do not get me wrong, it’s great that we have a strong film servicing industry, as it pumps money into the economy and employs a lot of people. But this is not the same as having a film industry.

If we were to look at models employed in other countries, their policies are built on years of study, as opposed to eight months as happened in Malta’s case. They set out clear targets and visions.

For example, the British Film Policy starts off with the idea that “it’s all about the audience” and everything is built on the needs and wants of their audience.

Other countries focus on employment and generating opportunities for their film-makers, by making the industry more interesting for financiers and generating investment.

I’m also not that surprised that the policy failed to address the need for a sound educational framework in any depth. Education in the creative spheres has always been lacking in Malta and it’s a problem that needs to be tackled from many different angles and ministries.

I think that it’s an issue that needs to be tackled more within the educational structures than the Malta Film Commission. For example – what has Mcast delivered to the film and television sector so far?

The inclusion of tourism in the National Film Policy is, perhaps, the greatest sign of disorganisation and lack of focus at the commission.

I think that film/screen tourism is a very important topic and needs to be studied and included in our tourism policy – but the Malta Film Commission is not a tourism office.

That should have been a subject that is led by the Malta Tourism Authority, not the Malta Film Commission.

Rebecca Cremona

Writer and director at Kukumajsa Productions

Like all policies, I believe this should be an instance for thorough analysis of the current scenario – in this specific case the servicing and indigenous sectors; the establishing of clear goals for both and a detailed blue-print of how to improve and build upon what is in place; as well as a guideline of how to achieve the set goals which would invariably include legal, fiscal and financial infrastructures, as well as training and education plans, among others.

The sector of film is a highly complex one – the policy is a step in the right direction, however, there is a long way to go. The inclusion of a section on film heritage is positive, as well as the clearly-stated benefits of screen tourism. Some have commented that the latter works against the indigenous aspect, however, the fact is that what film can bring and do to the country is multifaceted and, if all aspects are acknowledged and prized, it is precisely the more commercial aspects which could financially sustain the more niche cultural ones.

However, if we want to stand a chance at building an indigenous industry we need to have informed, connected and specifically-dedicated agents with the appropriate resources working towards building a framework within which the indigenous industry can be built. Do I feel that there should have been more focus on supporting local film makers, as opposed to attracting foreign productions? I actually do not think that these two sectors should be kept entirely separate, despite being very different. The fact is that economies of scale are what they are in a country of Malta’s size, resources and heritage and we must be realistic.

There are plenty of good models which we can glean from and adapt aspects of to suit our particular profile. To mention two basic examples: Iceland, in terms of its proximity in scale and approach to local narratives and France with the various fiscal and legal measures it implements to ascertain that the indigenous industry is fostered, financed, and protected. The cultural and educational side should feed off of the financial and tourism aspects, and vice versa.

However, for this to be done, both the commercial and cultural aspects must be truly valued by the governing body for the two to work hand in hand and not override one other.

Kenneth Scicluna

Film-maker

I would have liked to see the same thing declared in the Minister’s introduction: the setting, and subsequent implementation, of “a robust, long-term vision and strategy”. The creation of a document that would have set a clear plan for the road ahead. As it is, the policy has indeed enumerated most (but not all) of the issues facing the various aspects of film in Malta, hinting at what needs to be done. The balance, however, is very much lopsided towards servicing at the expense of local film-making and education.

The document describes the status quo – and it is the first of its kind to do so, in a fairly comprehensive manner. If someone had to gain a working knowledge of the current situation, the document as released would be a reasonably good place to start.

Quite a few good points are also made, on the need for normalisation and regulation of those who earn their keep from film servicing. The published document also goes a step further from the draft in discussing the need to preserve film heritage.

Moreover, the good thing about the policy document is that it exists. It is the first of its kind and will hopefully serve as a base from which a more detailed strategy could be launched.

Despite the name, the document is not a policy. What we have is a series of observations, with little detail on the actions that need to be taken, and by whom

However, it lacks on a number of points. Despite the name, the document is not a policy. I expected to read a document that would have used, to begin with, an affirmative tone of language. What we have at the moment is a series of observations followed by hopes and indications of what should be, with little detail on the actions that need to be taken, and by whom.

As mentioned, the section on servicing is rather detailed. It could, however, have been more specific with solutions.

The section also expresses the wish for more above-the-line jobs in productions that come to Malta. Considering that such roles are limited to directors, screenwriters, producers and actors, the effort in this regard should be shifted towards building a good cohort of local practitioners, through local film-making, and then ensuring such level of international participation through co-productions rather than servicing.

The major lacunae, however, are in the sections that deal with local filmmaking, film education and heritage.

Endemic to all three aspects is the lack of a clear vision of where Malta is to be by 2020 – the extent of the four-year period addressed by the policy.

I would have expected to read about which markets are going to be targeted, and how? Whether a holistic approach is going to be taken? Are Maltese films going to be pushed in an umbrella manner and, if so, what needs to be done in the earlier stages to ensure a stronger outcome in the end?

The emphasis on servicing is evident in the concluding paragraphs on education: “Ultimately, training and education will not be effective in the long term, unless backed up by a real possibility of employment in this industry. Therefore, the role of the Film Commission remains crucial in attracting a consistent number of productions to Malta”.

True, one should be able to find work that one has studied and trained for, and yes, the commission has to strive hard to keep the servicing industry going, but, with film being such a vast agglomeration of skills – artistic, intellectual and academic, administrative, and technical – why should servicing be seen as the sole outlet of employment opportunities?

Again, in this case a film policy would need to clearly state the ultimate vision, and lay down a series of identifiable and achievable milestones that unify educational institutions.

In terms of heritage, although very good points are made, and although we have a good description of what is missing, we are not told (other than by announcing the launch of the Grand Salon for Costume, Fashion and Film) how the preservation of heritage is to come about.

One last comment. No mention is made of novel methods of film-making and distribution. The digital aspect of contemporary filmmaking, including, but not only, virtual and interactive modes of narrative, are not referred to in any manner.

As in other fields, Malta can gain an even break with emerging approaches to film that can put the country on a near equal footing to others – from all the aspects one chooses to study the issue from: educational inquiry and research, development and production, and marketing.

The formulation of a film policy is a hefty task that requires a cohesive understanding of all the areas it needs to bring under its fold. And, although public consultations are valuable, and many of us did provide feedback, the comments gathered in such a manner are unlikely to have the kind of detail, depth and overarching insight that such a strategy would need.

The good thing in this respect, is that the Malta Film Commission already has the networks to bring on board those who have done it before us. It has become somewhat of a cliché to mention Iceland, but the fact remains that with a smaller population than ours, it still manages to keep on making and selling award-winning films, retaining a prominent place on the cultural map – and therefore, could be a useful model to study. The BFI and Creative Skillset in the UK, and the Centre national du cinéma et de l’image animée in France, could be excellent partners to enrol in the creation of such a policy – even under the direction of locals who have studied the matter in a holistic aspect.

And, for preservation and heritage, the Fédération Internationale des Archives du Film could help devise a long-term strategy flexible enough to consider ongoing developments.

Caldon Mercieca

Manager, Culture Directorate

The new film policy brings together a number of issues facing the local film industry and provides a compendium of incentives that have been introduced over the years, including all the new / modified incentives brought on stream in the last three years.

It adds an important dimension relating to film archives, and rides on the accidental ministerial link with tourism to make a point for screen tourism, which in normal circumstances would have its proper place within a tourism policy (as I believe it already does).

The issues it addresses are the same mentioned in a report on film servicing commissioned by government almost a decade ago, but applied for the coming five years: the need to upgrade infrastructure, the need to upgrade skills sets, the sensitivity of international competition, the importance of synergies with all stakeholders.

These are all important elements for a dynamic industry. However, a real structural impetus for the sector would require a much more radical approach, taking cognisance of the market and technological advancements and trends, and proposing concrete shifts in the overall approach for the wider audiovisual sector. I think the real issue is not one of balance between the attention given to the film servicing sector as against that given to indigenous film productions.

The crux of current and future developments in the sector is, in my view, the need to synergise regulatory and industry promotion efforts between what currently falls under three separate ministerial responsibilities, namely: communication, broadcasting and film.

If, what we’re interested in is business development in the film sector, then an appropriate policy would integrate funding for audiovisual content creation for whatever medium (online, traditional broadcast and cinema) with a robust regulatory framework for industry operators coupled with the necessary promotional tools to succeed internationally. It would oblige the broadcasters, especially the national broadcaster, to see its role as key strategic contributor towards the development of local audio-visual producers, and adapt itself to channelling new talent and successful businesses towards international co-productions and/or higher value-added film servicing.

It would ensure that the value of digital audiovisual content is maximised, protected, and distributed, providing support for the most innovative companies – ranging from legal assistance to export incentives – and use Malta’s integration into the global market to attract investors and co-developers in digital audio visual technology.

And it would demand a total shake-up of government’s investment in audiovisual-related higher education and inject it with focus and direction.