The Differences and Similarities Between the Scottish and New Zealand Film Industries

Although Scotland and New Zealand's film industries share many of the same characteristics, such as the formation of industry bodies to help finance the making of films in reaction to a growing sense of distance to England, the Scottish Film Industry has always, and continues to be in a healthier state when compared to that of New Zealand. Not only has Scotland been able to produce a greater quantity of feature films before and after the introduction of an industry body, but it also has more than one major source for financing films than New Zealand's seemingly lone New Zealand Film Commission.

During the 1980's “many Scots came to feel a profound sense of isolation from the British political process,” (Petrie 155) and this in turn lead to the “election of the first separate Scottish Parliament in 300 years,” (Petrie 155) on May 6, 1999. This sense of isolation, felt by the people of Scotland, has many similarities to those felt in New Zealand in 1973, when Britain decided to join the Common Market, leaving New Zealand to find new markets for its meat and dairy products that for years had been shipped off to the UK without a second thought given. New Zealanders saw Britain's move to join the Common Market as a “betrayal of breathtaking indifference … we felt abandoned and incredibly stupid … it was time to grow up. We needed a sense of ourselves, a culture of our own.” (Cinema of Unease 1995).

These feelings of dissatisfaction and isolation became the catalyst for a surge in activity in both countries respective film industries, especially the setting up of new public bodies involved in providing finance for the film industry. In Scotland this was “the Scottish Film Production Fund (SFPF), initially set up in 1982 by the Scottish Film Council and the Scottish Arts Council.” (Petrie 158) In New Zealand's case this was the New Zealand Film Commission (NZFC), “established in 1978 as a response to industry lobbying,” (Horrocks 137) which first sat in 1977 as “the Interim Film Commission.” (Martin & Edwards 13).

To understand the full impact the SFPF and the NZFC had on the film industry in their respective countries, it is important to look at what was happening concerning film production prior to their formation. Before the arrival of the SFPF, Scotland's film industry was a healthier one when compared to New Zealand. In the twenty-eight years following 1954 and leading up to the founding of the SFPF, “more than 150 films sponsored by private business and public bodies,” (Petrie 155) were produced in Scotland. However, according to Helen Martin and Sam Edwards' book, New Zealand Film 1912-1996, in the twenty-eight years leading up to the formation of the NZFC, only 15 feature films could be attributed to New Zealand.

Although the number of feature films produced in Scotland outnumbers those produced in New Zealand, one thing that can't be argued though, is that film production in both countries soared after the Film Production Fund and Film Commission were set up. Scottish films averaged “more than ten a year from 1994 onwards” (Petrie 154) and there were “sixty-one films made in Scotland between 1991 and 1997.” (Petrie 154) In New Zealand the increase in films compared to the previous twenty-eight years before the NZFC was monumental. New Zealand Film 1912-1996 lists no fewer than 116 feature films attributed to New Zealand from 1978-1996.

Although the increase in feature films after the set up of the two film bodies are similar, Scotland leads the way in pure quantity of films produced, as they do in the quantity of sources of film funding compared to New Zealand. The main source of public film funding in New Zealand was and is still provided by the New Zealand Film Commission.

However in 1989 "NZ on Air" was set up and in 1995-1996 “58 percent of NZ on Air's funding($84.7 million) went to independent filmmakers.” (Churchman 67) This was also soon followed up with the “Film Production Fund, set up in June 2000 to administer an extra $22 million of government financing.” (Shelton 183) Unfortunately for local filmmakers, private funding for films in New Zealand continues to be hard to come by. Even though there “was a tax shelter system that allowed substantial, immediate write-offs for investment in the production of "New Zealand" films” (Waller 250) in the 1980's, the systems degenerated under the National government, and public funding remains New Zealand filmmakers' first port of call for funding.

Compared to New Zealand's small source of public funding, Scotland would appear to be in a more enviable position, for although Scotland is a country in its own right, it is still part of Great Britain. This means that Scottish filmmakers still have access to funds from the British Film Institute, BBC Scotland (part of the BBC group who's funding decisions have to go through London before approval) and more recently Britain's Channel 4, as well as access to those public bodies set up specifically for films produced in Scotland.

These local bodies not only include the Scottish Film Production Fund and Scottish Screen, but also Scottish Television (STV), the Gelic Television Committee, Comataidh Telebhisien Gaidhlig (CTG) “established in 1990 … to administer a new fund to promote minority language production” (Petrie 158) and “the Glasgow Film Fund set up in 1993.” (Petrie 159) If that was not enough, the “Scottish lottery panel was established in 1995 and in the first two year of operations some £12 million were awarded … to features.” (Petrie 160).