Investors
Another good question and I think it outlines the fundamental problem with traditional film funding. It isnt film bodies, committees or institutes that generally fund films. Its investors. And investors invest so that they can do two things firstly, spend money that they can claim back via tax credits and exemptions and then secondly to see a return on their investment. What does this mean? Basically, they arent necessarily film fans or trying to help anyone except themselves. And if they make a big return they dont have to re-invest that money back into film and could run off into the sun cradling their cheque in their arms. It is as capitalist as it gets and an investor who decided to throw their financial clout behind a cheap and cheerful little film in order to get some tax credits and decided to back "Slumdog Millionaire" could now probably afford to build their own Death Star and run their business from outer space. Dont get me wrong the film was backed by Celador and Film 4, two production companies who will continue to pump money and efforts in the British film industry, but it is almost always the case that the majority of backing for a film comes from investors. If the BFI or someone else for that matter wholly funded films the rewards could then be recycled into more films, but the risk of a big flop could stop that plan dead in the water in seconds. As a filmmaker myself Ive read plenty of quality scripts and worked with a boatload of stunningly talented filmmakers in South Wales alone. However, getting a break isnt easy and getting your hands on a slice of that £285 million isnt easy Im sure. The money will probably go towards initial funding for film projects and getting scripts into development, but they rarely ever wholly finance a film and its very, very unlikely for a filmmaker without a feature film already behind them to get their slice of the money. The murky world of film funding is tricky, complicated and full of questionable activity.