THE DEV-IL YOU KNOW

I'm surprised the staff at Scottish Screen can afford to spend so much time looking at this blog - around 25 visits yesterday alone. So I'll do my best today to offer some constructive advice to the beleaguered body.

First, I'm glad to see on the SS website that someone decided to remove the words 'latest product' from the Red Road banner. I know a lot of folk thought it was a weird way to plug a movie, like some kind of obscure machine tooling system.

Second, I saw the ad for 'development executives' - the telltale s meaning that not one, but two jobs are on offer. What's worrying though is the emphasis on television. The very first line of the first post speaks volumes about the status of film in West George Street -

This post will support the television sector in Scotland.

Please note - not film, but television. In the light of the open letter to Ken Hay and Jack McConnell, the consequences of which will, I predict, come home to roost in the very near future, you'd think the drafting of this advert might have been a tad more sensitive.

Still, it raises a very pertinent question - why should even more public money be spent on television? How much profit did SMG make last year? (46% rise in 2005 from £13.7 million to £20 million, according to The Scotsman) Have they suddenly abolished the licence fee? (up by 4.2% to £131 this April, with £13 billion revenue from 2000-05 - source - BBC) Does IWC, Endemol, Wall to Wall or Lion really need handouts from a cash-starved public sector agency?

It's hard enough for filmmakers, forced into handing over rights and working with broadcasters as a condition of funding, only to be beaten up by telly executives demanding that 'films' should be squeezed to fit TV agendas - that scripts be heavy on 'dramatic irony', appealing only to the lowest common denominator, made as stylistically adventurous as say, Weir's World, on half the budget. Oh, and they must be shot 14:9 and last no longer than 90 minutes. Or, if you're lucky enough to make one of those 300K 'feature-length' TV dramas, make sure the director hands over the deeds to their flat for the privilege of the 'opportunity', closer to the truth than we know.

The second development post is no better -

This post will support the television, games and interactive sector in Scotland.

Still no support for film. I've already done TV, but what about games? Why do they need support when they make megabucks? The margin for retail games is three times that of DVD and the sector and, like the music business, has survived very nicely without subsidy so far. As for interactive - can anyone tell me what this is? Ebay is interactive. My telly is interactive. Porn chatrooms are interactive. Again, these are private enterprises, supported elsewhere. Let Scottish Enterprise do the subsidising.

What saddens me is Scottish Screen's tacit hostility towards film while it hypocritically hijacks the kudos for Red Road. You can't do that on a cheapo opt-out shorts scheme. Looking at it objectively, it appears the agency has long had a clear agenda to remove film from its portfolio. By allowing broadcasters to dictate what a Scottish film is (not that they care, they just want cheap fodder) Scottish Screen is following, not leading and is not, as it claims, acting as an advocate for the screen industries of this country. Well, maybe only the small screens.