The Yorkshire Arts Association – Foundations – Part 3 – New Focus

Alongside early film production, the years 1974/5 were significant in many other respects and are marked by a number of watershed events in the development of the YAA on an internal, local, and national level: the YAA introduced both a new Film Officer and a new policy framework, and the Film & TV operation also moved into new premises. Nationally, the Independent Filmmakers Association (IFA) was forged as means to advocate for the burgeoning sector, and a pivotal administrative moment in politics led to a changed dynamic between regional politics and arts funding.

Lead paragraph from LGA Act, 1974 (c/o - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/7/pdfs/ukpga_19740007_en.pdf)

In 1974, The Local Government Act was first conceived ostensibly as a structural change, designed to redraw new council boundaries constitutionally, but the impact it had on the grant-aid funding landscape (and the people who were at the centre of the activity) is noteworthy. As Michael Dawson suggested in his 1975 report, once the first shocks of local government re-organisation were overcome, one of the by-products was that ‘Regional Arts Assocations [RAA] have all become much more actively involved in partnerships with their constituent authorities for planning and funding.’[1] An example of this is Keighley MP, Bob Cryer who was a constant on the 1970s Film & TV Panel. A University of Hull graduate, Cryer was first elected to Keighley in 1974 where he remained until 1983 before coming Bradford South MP in 1983. Cryer had the unique claim to being the first Member of Parliament, other than the Speaker, to be seen on a television broadcast from the House of Commons in 1989. It is rather fitting for the narrative of this research, then, that this lifelong socialist and YAA advocate has a place in national television history.[2] He was a committed amateur filmmaker himself, passionate about the moving image, and Pearse remembers his position on the Film & TV Panel as vocal and enthusiastic. Cryer was a regular chair of the group, and to that role he ‘leant a certain type of gravitas’[3] stemming from his long experience sitting on committees in parliament. The filmmaker Richard Woolley takes a more cynical view however: ‘Bob Cryer, like most politicians, was a lot of hot air, and it was also about getting his image right … to us on the left we were very suspicious of him.’[4] In this sense, Pearse acted as the astute mediator between establishment politicians like Cryer and the Leftist film-makers and creatives who sat on the YAA Panel. Regardless, Woolley does agree that Cryer was a ‘supportive and serious person’ and as key member of the Panel he could help facilitate access to council owned spaces, locations and production resources. 

Jim Pearse also contends that the introduction of local politics to the main YAA table created some uncomfortable questions among its membership. From his position as Film Officer, Pearse was invited to Executive meetings at Glyde House where senior members of staff would host local politicians seeking a platform to interrogate how local authority money was being spent. However, trying to appease the potentially explosive mixture of hyper-regional politics and personalities at these meetings was not always an easy task. As one-time YAA Director Robin Guthrie put it: ‘on the one hand, there were sturdy left-wingers of West and South Yorkshire and, on the other, the high Tories of North Yorkshire’.[5] The challenge was to mediate these voices, and make people listen to each other in the face of diametrically opposed views. Once again, a picture reveals itself of multiple ‘Yorkshire’ identities at play. Nonetheless, Pearse recalls that despite the occasionally fractious atmosphere, the YAA Executive meetings gave councillors the opportunity to ‘sound off’ and return to their constituencies with the promise that they ‘got a good deal’ for the region. The meetings were the ideal platform to marry diverse local funds centrally, and align cultural priorities for the wider Yorkshire region, and with Pearse a forthright debater, the Film & TV panel had a prominent spokesperson.

The financial contribution of Local Authorities to the YAA was important in establishing a foundation for ancillary sources of income, adding a legitimacy to the arts project. This was in opposition to the original central strategy of the ACGB who sought regional branches of their organisation, controlled from London. The Local Authority network enabled a political and financial autonomy, which in turn provided the RAAs with a vehicle for national funders (BFI, Craft Council, private investment) to join the project. Therefore, a platform for a sustainable and devolved arts culture emerged. Theoretically at least. This is particularly important in the case of the moving image. Here, Local Authority funds (and logistical support) were important, but the sector was still largely reliant on a significant injection from the BFI. The Redcliffe-Maud Gulbenkian Report of 1975/6 says that the RAAs had provided a ‘vital means by which local authorities were able to concert their actions across a wide area, assisted by central funds: independent, voluntary organisations, uniting representatives of local government with those of artists, arts organisations, universities, commerce and industry’.[6] Despite this, the report neglects the unique circumstances of Regional arts funding for film, where the primary external influence, and impetus, was still driven by the BFI.

Also in 1974, the Independent Film-makers Association (IFA) was formed by a group of filmmakers, radical activists, and academics. At an early conference, attempting to define the organisation’s stance, they declared that ‘Independence’ was not to be understood in economic terms; rather, ‘it was a cultural, aesthetic and political conception…’[7] It said that state patronage was a necessary evil, and the real ‘struggle’ was based on pushing the agenda toward inclusivity; challenging all aspects of mainstream, ‘dominant’ film practice and widening access to areas of production and distribution. While it feels that the goals and motivations for the IFA were some distance removed from the early YAA, the IFA’s lasting influence on film and video in the regional project can be felt through their longstanding agitation for a ‘Fourth Channel’, a campaign that first began to stir in 1970 and culminated in 1982.[8] The direct impact of Channel 4 on the YAA will be discussed elsewhere in this research. Moreover, there is some ambiguity with regards the IFA’s stance on the ‘regions’ especially in the 1970s. It was very much a localised London group with token regional IFA branches at various times in the following areas: East Midlands, West Midlands, Merseyside Northwest; North East, South Wales, South West, and Yorkshire. It wasn’t until 1980 that the executive committee was also made up of elected representatives from the regions rather than being elected at the AGM.[9] Nonetheless, one of the key advocates of the early IFA doctrine was Yorkshire based scholar Sylvia Harvey. In the late 1970s and early 80s Harvey wrote and delivered several texts which promoted the IFA position of developing an ‘oppositional’ space in tandem with the battle to engage mainstream audiences. She expounded theories to transform the independent sector across all areas of exhibition, distribution and production; in Harvey’s words, ‘central to the distinctive methods of working is the organisation of tasks of production in collective and less conventionally hierarchical ways.’[10] Harvey also wrote of the need to work in alliance with a ‘variety of existing movements: with the Trade Union movement, the women’s movement, and with community centres.’[11] This assured rhetoric would quietly resonate in the policy papers and funding documents which she would steer into YAA Panel discourse (Harvey sat on the group multiple times). That Yorkshire had a well-connected individual such as Sylvia Harvey to champion the ‘cultural right of expression’[12] in the regions, to connect with sympathetic London-based film and broadcast voices (Alan Fountain, Simon Blanchard, Peter Sainsbury et.al) and be respected by a number of central institutions (C4, IFA, BFI, Higher Education), was pivotal to the maturation of Yorkshire film policy, theory, and production in the 1970s and 80s.  Her name will be one this research returns to, time and again.

Yorkshire Arts Association Annual Report 1975-76 (excerpt)

In 1974 Nina Hibbin was still part of the YAA, but in 1975 she left to become programme director of the Tyneside Cinema, and her husband Eric also left his post as the YAA administrator. In his Annual Report of that year, Michael Dawson lamented Hibbin’s departure, ‘she proved a dynamic influence on film-life in the region and her presence is missed.’[13] Hibbin stayed in Newcastle before retiring to the village of Boulby, formerly of the North Riding of Yorkshire (now Cleveland), to run a café for walkers. She passed away in 2004 and her legacy as a powerhouse voice and activist of the Left cultural scene is secure - if undervalued.[14] Her successor in the Film Officer role at the YAA was Alex Grant who arrived from the Archives department of the BFI, prior to which he was Director of Canada’s National Film Theatre and Film-Expo Festival in Ottawa. Regrettably Alex Grant fell ill and only lasted a year into the job. He was swiftly replaced by Jim Pearse, technical manager at the nascent Yorkshire Communications Centre (YCC), who would become one of the most important individuals to guide the future direction of YAA film and television activity over the next few years and into a new decade.

After graduation (History) at Newcastle University, Jim Pearse stayed in the city and landed a job for BBC Television working on regional documentaries under a producer called John Mapplebeck. It was a formative learning experience. During this time Newcastle-based Amber films were starting, and Pearse was becoming attuned to the new discourse of regional independent film-making.[15] With his BBC professional training behind him, Pearse migrated south to Bradford to work at Glyde House. Following his stint as Yorkshire Communication Centre (YCC) manager, Pearse was appointed as Film Officer in early 1976 and wasted little time in suggesting a path forward for the panel. He first introduced a provisional set of guidelines to inform YAA film-makers which evolved into the ‘Film Policy’ document manifesto in Spring 1977. Because of the expansion in filmmaking during the mid-decade, the process of managing applications was becoming increasingly unwieldy and heavy with paperwork. There was little in the way of budget prioritisation, and Pearse found himself asking: ‘okay we get x amount of money per year, how much do we want to spend on film exhibition support, production, distribution? All these fundamental questions needed to be answered!’[16] Pearse’s solution to this was to introduce a more rigorous application form, and a policy brief that emphasised film funding along two modes: major and minor productions. The latter policy was more in the traditions of grant-aid and the productions by Sidi et al. described earlier: a few hundred pounds towards script development, completion costs, local film society screenings, training and education initiatives. While the former was firmly pitched in the climate of the nascent ‘independent’ film-making culture.

The major production policy was introduced to fund applicants that were seeking finance for more ambitious work. Crucially, Pearse knew this type of activity was favoured by the BFI, so he was able to lobby for an increase in BFI provision. Under his stewardship, typically, the Panel met once every two months to discuss general matters, and Pearse established a deadline twice a year for the Panel to also consider major production applications. In general terms, this funding pattern was followed for the next decade. In subsequent years, the minor awards also evolved into a support mechanism for the growing number of small, community based, film-making groups which emerged in the region. Money here went to collectives in Leeds and Bradford and North Yorkshire enabling them to instigate technical workshops, screenings, and group productions. It was important to the YAA Panel that these umbrella groups were given continuing aid; they acted as a supportive framework for individuals throughout the region and gave those less experienced individuals a platform to develop a skill base.

YAA Application Guidelines (c.1977)

The underlying structure behind these guidelines was the new Application Form and Film Budget documentation - another key initiative of the mid 1970s Pearse regime. The first stage required filmmakers to draw out a broad synopsis or description of the project. This sometimes ran to multiple pages detailing plot points and proposed production processes. Also requested were the details of previous relevant experience, an estimated production schedule with completion date, facilities required, and total anticipated expenditure. The demand for this level of financial detail was another new aspect of the YAA application procedure. All films needed to adhere to this and were asked to note film stock to be used, equipment hire costs, wages and expenses, travel and subsistence, transport, and post-production fees (lab processing, sound recording, dubbing, editing, negative cutting, printing and so on.). As Pearse told me, this aspect filtered out all those applicants that weren’t willing to adopt a more professional approach, and in turn the quality level of output became higher, ‘I thought this fundamental, and everyone started to up their game … A LOT’, he suggested.[17]

Certain aspects of the terms and conditions attached to the main application are also worth noting. The first, and potentially most contentious, stated: ‘Applicants must be born, educated, resident or employed in the Yorkshire Arts Association region. In addition, films are also eligible for support where the subject matter has a strong regional content.’ This language which nods to general climate of mid-70s regionalism is the tone by which the YAA literature (across the organisation) was now marked and spoke to a new discourse in promoting local production. In only choosing applicants with at least a broad connection to Yorkshire, the Panel were dictating the background of a person that could be funded, and by emphasising the ‘strong regional content’ the panel was now making decisions driven by aesthetics and subject. This is further evidence of Pearse’s commitment to shaping the YAA films as an alternative voice, attempting to build a film culture in opposition to the London film industry, a ‘regional’ space whereby at the very least a different aesthetic becomes possible. The major productions discussed in the next part are largely reflective of this regional focus, at least in Yorkshire.

Another condition applied to co-funding: ‘In cases where additional financial support is provided from other sources, the grant holder must notify the Yorkshire Arts Association of any conditions attached to that support as soon as possible after the grant of that additional support.’[18] Major production was not always financed solely by the YAA. In some cases, productions were co-sponsored with other RAAs, while others were made in alliance with higher education, and some required supplementary funding from charitable organisations, private companies, or even aided by self-finance. [19] The 1980s, in particular, saw a dramatic increase in co-production, and this simple condition in the YAA application process, established in the 1970s, enabled transparency and accountability to be established at an early stage of production, and also expanded the ambitions and possibilities for scale and scope.

At clause 15 there is a note on ownership: ‘The copyright for the completed film is to be vested in the grant holder.’ This is another important distinction. The filmmakers always retained copyright and in this sense the money awarded was still a grant in the conventional sense. However, as the financing itself was processed through the YAA (equipment hire, location costs, marketing etc.) little money went to the actual person who made the film and so the YAA would request that the credits of a film would read ‘Sponsored’ or ‘Produced’ or ‘Thanks To’ the Yorkshire Arts Association. This was different from The BFI Production funded films which stressed that the BFI moniker was placed front and centre of a film’s opening titles.

Despite all this new administrative approach to the film application process, the criteria were not always closely followed. For instance, experimental film-maker Tony Hill, in his film Too See, followed the introductory guidelines but did not have to complete a full budget form.[20] Earlier, Paul Binns, a Yorkshire-born film editor, made the short Facts Of Life (1978) as part of his diploma course at the London International Film School. In seeking completion money for the film, he applied to the YAA production fund, and although he was born in the region and set the film in East Ardsley near Leeds, he didn’t adhere to any of the other strict processes in the application form. Like Tony Hill, he did not complete a budget form. He was awarded £400 in 1978 to finish his fiction film about a teenage rite of passage. Speaking in 2018, Binns viewed the YAA in the same pragmatic terms of many major production fund beneficiaries: ‘I knew very little about the organisation … I’d had nothing to do with it previously as I’d had to move to London … it was simply a means to an end.’[21] The opportunity to chase precious finance was seized by those with only the most tenuous link to the region and suggests that regardless of the new policies applied by Pearse, if a project showed enough promise the panel would support it. It is worth noting that by 2020s contemporary arts funding standards the rigours of the YAA application back then were slight. Furthermore, Binns’ anecdote also suggests that at this time there simply wasn’t the pool of talent in the region available to the Panel to fulfil the funding criteria, hence what appeared strict was quite flexible in practice. Nonetheless, the ‘Film Policy’ document was a progressive piece of work set to match the increasing administrative demands of this growing sector. However, it was initially met with resistance from within the YAA itself. AGM minutes detail a series of disagreements during this period, and Pearse concurs: ‘… people were concerned that they didn’t want to have anything that was restrictive or exclusive. Locking people out’.[22] In essence the policy document indicates that the YAA had now moved on from the humble amateur origins of the Hibbin era (with its core support of film societies, exhibition and small awards) toward the focus on larger budgets, an ambition of professionalism and production which define the YAA under Pearse. As he told me: ‘that loose kind of anarchic grant-aid model didn’t work anymore. It didn’t actually enable realistic support to the emerging independent film culture’.[23] Nowhere embodied this shift to production focus than the developments at the Yorkshire Communications Centre (YCC).

Still taken from Yorkshire Projector showreel (1974)

Arguably the biggest tangible achievement of 1974/5 was the opening of the YCC in Chapel Street, Bradford. Under the initial management of Pearse, the facility was opened with funding from the YAA, a small equipment loan from Yorkshire Television (YTV)[24] and financial assistance from the Gulbenkian Foundation to support the hiring of 8mm, 16mm and early portable video equipment.[25] This was the articulation of an increasing need in the region for a base where filmmakers could borrow equipment, meet like-minded artists and learn necessary skills. Its beginnings were modest enough, however. The caretaker of early video equipment, originally based at Bradford College of Art, was Ken Sparne who oversaw its use in educational workshops. Sparne had spent time working closely with Albert Hunt and guided the Bradford Playhouse in the technical aspects of their recorded performances. Pearse soon began to receive requests from YAA applicants to use the video resources available in Bradford, to the point that it soon became more urgent to move the equipment to the nearby YCC. After a period of negotiation, ‘the college slowly understood that this wasn’t their space anymore …’ and so the portable video technology became a formal part of the YCC equipment pool alongside the donated film equipment. The annual reports of the period suggest Pearse introduced a series of policies intended to broaden the reach of the YCC remit. The new YCC sought to engage in media production ‘for people who would not otherwise be able to afford to pay commercial equipment hire and facility charges.’[26] This was a radical move for the region. Before this, outside of the art schools (i.e., Sheffield Polytechnic), the sole access to commercial film-making and sound equipment was at YTV in Leeds, a place restricted for industry professionals only. To help manage this open-access policy Pearse introduced small fees for facility use (mainly for insurance purposes) and a sliding scale operated ‘where charges can be varied according to the financial status of the user’.[27] In addition, if successful with application for funding, YAA grant holders had free access to use the equipment. This open-ended, integrated model was broadly based on the co-operative access system adopted by the arts labs of the late 1960s and would serve the region soundly for the coming years.

Still taken from Yorkshire Projector showreel (1974)

While building a growing pool of film and video cameras, the YCC also acquired set-ready lighting rigs, and began to specialise in their film-sound infrastructure. Given his audio engineering background at the BBC, Pearse used part of the first funding injection from the YAA of £8871 to develop the sound studio at the YCC. This was the largest capital expense devoted to film and TV in 1974/5.[1] From these strong foundations, the YCC became one of the region’s foremost professional sound studios. This not only manifested itself in recording local bands, and dubbing film production, but also facilitated a Regional Radio Play Competition (alongside the YAA Drama panel and BBC Radio Leeds) and a collaboration with the Bradford Playhouse Theatre to record a regular film review program for the BBC. As Jim Pearse took over the Film Officer role, Barnsley-born National Film School graduate Alf Bower became the YCC Manager in 1975, and for the next decade under his management, and technical expertise, the provision for aspiring film and video makers increased dramatically. Bower’s salary as Technical Manager was paid for by the YAA, though he was supported by administrator Joy Godfrey, engineers Marcus Topham, Kris Szajdzicki, and film editors and sound technicians such as SIF members Moya Burns and David Rea. The wages of these part-time employees were subsidised by third party organisations like the Manpower Services Commission, and the Gulbenkian. This is testament to both the interconnected nature of SIF with YAA, and the important contribution of external funding resources to enabling continuation. The opening of the YCC at Bradford was a key moment for film and video growth in the region, and its collective workshop sharing ethos of equipment, skills and knowledge was mirrored in places like Sheffield in 1976 (Sheffield Independent Film - SIF) and latterly York (York Film Workshop).  Alf Bower and his role there, and elsewhere, is discussed at length at another point in this research.

Still taken from Yorkshire Projector showreel (1974)

Footnotes

[1] YAA Directors Introduction 74/75

[2] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/obituary-bob-cryer-1369763.html accessed 17.04.18

[3] Jim Pearse Interview 2018

[4] Richard Woolley interview 2018

[5] There's a Lot More Where That Came from: The Arts in Yorkshire 1969-1990…. (p.81)

[6] The Redcliffe-Maud Gulbenkian Report (p.39) 

[7] IFA Archive, Sheffield Hallam Special Collections. ‘Independent Film-making in the 70s: An introduction discussion paper from the Organising Committee of the IFA Conference’ (Anon. May 1977).

[8] Ibid.

[9] . Margaret Dickinson, ‘Part 1: A Short History’, in Margaret Dickinson (ed), Rogue Reels: Oppositional Film in Britain, 1945-1990 (London: BFI, 1999), pp. 1-89, here p. 73.

[10] S. Harvey, Independent Cinema?, 1978.

[11] Ibid.

[12] S. Harvey, ‘Cinema: Dead or Alive?’. Paper from the Independent Cinema and Regional Film Culture Conference, University of Warwick, 19 – 21 September, 1980.

[13] 1975 / 76 - report

[14] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2004/jun/05/guardianobituaries.artsobituaries1

[15] Jim Pearse interview

[16] Ibid.

[17] Jim Pearse Interview.

[18] Application form citation.

[19] See: Peter Bell’s The Castleton Film (co-financed by Northern Arts), or Tony Trafford and Stainsby Folk Festival (co-financed by East Midlands Arts), the SFC’s That’s No Lady (1977) in alliance with the Women’s Aid Federation.

[20] Email Correspondence, Tony Hill 2017

[21] Questionnaire, Email Correspondence,  Binns 2017

[22] Jim Pearse Interview.

[23] Jim Pearse Interview.

[24] Jim Pearse Interview.

[25] Yorkshire Arts Association, Arts Council of Great Britain Records (1927-199), Victoria and Albert Museum. Archive Boxes - ACGB/111/5, Minutes of the meeting of the Film and TV panel held at YTV, Leeds on Monday 3rd May 1976 at 4.30 PM.

[26] Yorkshire Arts report 75/6

[27] Yorkshire Arts report 75/6

[28] Yorkshire YCC AGM Report