The choice of the Shaw Room of the National Gallery in Dublin as the venue for yesterday's unveiling of the Film Industry Strategic Review Group's report served as a reminder that the room's subject, George Bernard Shaw, was one of Ireland's first Oscar winners - in 1938 for his Pygmalion screenplay. That was all a long time ago, before Ireland had a film industry and long before those heady days of the late 1980s and early 1990s when Oscar nominations became what we expected, and got, from our films.
Over the past five years, however, securing Oscar nominations has become as difficult as securing international commercial success for Irish films. Despite the upsurge in production here over that period, the reality is that many of the resultant films have failed to attract audiences even on their home turf and more than a few have failed to achieve a commercial cinema release in Ireland.
This bleak picture has been compounded by the slump in film production in Ireland this summer. This ought to be the busiest time of the year for production, given such crucial logistics as the extended daylight hours available to film-makers in summer. But, apart from another series of Ballykissangel, nothing is happening. And the prospects for autumn are not good either.
Perhaps it is because of this lack of activity that so many Irish producers turned yesterday to hear the long-awaited report of the think tank set up by the Minister for Arts, Sile de Valera, in June of last year. That, and the anxiety which has permeated the industry in recent months and has producers desperately seeking remedies.
The conclusions reached by the Strategic Review Group in its 116-page report span all areas of the film industry, cultural and economic, indigenous and international. Dealing with the uncertainty hanging over production investment, the group urges the extension of the Section 481 tax incentive "for a minimum of seven years".
Expiring next March, that incentive's most recent extension was for just one year, which hardly inspires confidence in an international industry which plans at least a year in advance. This is particularly so in the case of non-indigenous productions, which, the group notes, "help to build and utilise capacity and infrastructure, create employment and develop the skills base".
The report recommends a co-ordinated programme of promotion through the Screen Commission of Ireland, which "should aim to quadruple non-indigenous activity in the next decade". This may well prove much easier said than done, given the competition Ireland as a location now faces from the tax schemes available in Britain and the Isle of Man, and given the groundswell of resistance among the film unions in California against the movement of so many Hollywood productions outside the US, chiefly to Canada and, to a lesser extent, Australia and Europe.
Although the report has been published six months later than the Minister envisaged, its timing allows ample space for these recommendations to be explored by the Government and the Department of Finance between now and Budget Day in December. However, it has to be emphasised that what the report offers are recommendations and the implementation of these may well be resisted by the Department of Finance, in particular. Even if these recommendations are implemented before the end of this year, there could well be a period of 18-24 months before they begin to attract non-indigenous productions to Ireland.
In its response to the report, Bord Scannan na hEireann (BSE) welcomes "its endorsement of the board's proposals for expansion" and that it "confirms the film board's role as the engine of the Irish film industry". Emphasising the distinction between indigenous production and what he terms "servicing incoming foreign films", the board's chief executive, Mr Rod Stoneman, claims that "the Irish film industry has its roots in the soil and is performing well".
The board notes that it has given "approximately £11 million in `loans' to 58 feature films and so far it has received £1.3 million back, with a further £700,000 promised". Mr Stoneman says that "we must be realistic and we cannot hope to outperform the Hollywood studios, as we must compare like with like."
The report places particular emphasis on an area where BSE ought to have exercised more stringent criteria in the past. Calling for "a radical increase in funding of script and project development", the report pinpoints a critical priority often underestimated by Irish film-makers. This will be clear to anyone who has seen some of the Irish films which have been bypassed by, or failed at, Irish cinemas. The report notes how the Hollywood studios routinely spend as much as 1015 per cent of a film's budget on development, and how their films are rarely put into production without being subjected to skilful editing, a series of rewrites and development team inputs. Typically, the figure for Irish film projects is about three per cent.
In its recommendations for the responsibilities of a strengthened and restructured BSE, the report commendably prioritises "the provision, either directly or by access, of expertise in high-quality script development that is strong on both artistic and commercial criteria."
To supplement exchequer funding of the increased budget BSE will need in its enhanced role, the report recommends that "a small levy of 5 per cent on cinema tickets and video rentals and sales must be introduced".
This may prove to be one of the most contentious aspects of the report, judging by the response of one Irish film distributor contacted by The Irish Times last night. Describing the recommendation as "ill-judged and unfortunate", he said the issue could be "a unifying prospect for the warring factions of distributors and exhibitors" and he believes they will "campaign aggressively against it".