FVDD: Simple Event Search

(Anonymous)
Login


[Jump to bibliography]

Events 1 to 677 of 677
Prev Next

1966

July 1966: London. The London Film-Makers' Co-op (LFMC) submit a draft By Laws and Constitution for the fledging organisation to its members. The draft document states that the LFMC is "a non-profitmaking organisation whose aim is to encourage the making of independent non-commercial films in Great Britain and to facilitate their wider distribution". It will also undertake screenings, maintain a library of its members' films and those made by other independent film-makers, and publish both a periodical newsletter and a quarterly magazine called CINIM. There will be 3 levels of membership: full filmmaker (for those already engaged in filmmaking, and will entitle the member to "use of whatever film-making facilities the Co-operative is able to provide at that time"), associate filmmaker (for those interested but not yet engaged in filmmaking), and viewing member (for anyone interested in furthering the aims of the organisation). Arrangements for an Executive Committee and Annual General Meetings are also detailed. Full members are expected to "provide a print of their film or films for the Distribution Library" but all prints will remain the property of the filmmakers "available for his own use or recall subject only to prior booking commitments". Royalties are to be split 75% to the filmmaker, "with 25% retained to help defray operating expenses", and rental prices are to be set by the filmmaker (LFMC, 1966).

13 October 1966: London. A meeting at Better Books bookshop formally sets up the London Film-Makers' Co-operative (LFMC) (International Times, 1966: 7). The founders announce its formation and intention to 'shoot, shoot, shoot, shoot' in a telegram addressed to US filmmaker Jonas Mekas (Curtis, 1975). The newly founded organisation declares its intention to assist filmmakers by "making available equipment and technical advice" and finding audiences for their films by putting on shows. Filmmakers are invited to "loan copies of their films to the Co-op and these will be hired out to those wishing to see them".

The Co-op's eventual aim is programmes seven nights a week in its own cinema. … An important feature of the Co-op's programme will be Open Screenings, when anything from rubbish to a master piece may turn up in the same evening's programme (International Times, 1966: 7)

31 October–12 November 1966: London. The newly formed London Film-makers' Co-operative (LFMC) stages a six day Festival of Underground Movies at the Jeanetta Cochrane Theatre, followed by a further six days of open screenings at Better Books in the Charing Cross Road. The festival screens films by several American filmmakers including Willard Maas, Stan Brakhage, Andrew Meyer, Kenneth Anger, Jack Smith and Hilary Harris, as well as work by UK filmmaker Jeff Keen and Australian filmmaker Don Levy (International Times, 1966: 8-9).

23 November 1966: London. Harvey Matusow (Chairman, LFMC) writes to Jonas Mekas in the USA updating him on the recent activities of the newly founded London Film-makers' Co-operative (LFMC). The LFMC have just staged an "opening festival" of films and screened over 70 new films. The organisation has a rent free office at 94 Charing Cross Road, undertakes weekly screenings at Better Books, and currently has "over one hundred requests for film programs from all over England" (Matusow, 1966).

1968

13 March 1968: London. A letter is sent to members of the LFMC and the Arts Lab, giving notice of a General Meeting to be held on Saturday 16 March to discuss the amalgamation of the Co-op and Arts Lab facilities. Since the demise of Better Books, the Co-op has been without premises. In the meantime, the Arts Lab has opened and a group of filmmakers have been using it as a base, and a system for the co-operative use of equipment has developed. Rather than duplicate services, it seems "sensible for the two groups to amalgamate". Nevertheless, it is felt that the Co-op "must not be dependent upon any other organisation" and suitable premises are still being sought (LFMC, 1968b: 1). Two agendas are tabled for the meeting. Four elected LFMC members (Steve Dwoskin, Simon Hartog, Bob Cobbing and John Collins) of the present Co-op Committee propose discussing a constitution and the election of directors, while representatives of the Arts Lab filmmakers (including Dave Curtis, John Collins, Ben Yahya and Malcolm Le Grice) suggest an alternative agenda which will include discussing the proposal:

That the Co-op should be a service run by film-makers (and film-makers only.) That there should be NO COMMITTEE – all decisions should be rejected or endorsed by reference to the film-makers, as (a) there are no policy decisions to make – the Co-op is a service, (b) there are no 'taste' decisions – ALL films submitted will be accepted, so … there should be no work for a committee to do (LFMC, 1968b: 2)

March 1968: London. The London Film-makers' Co-op draws up a revised draft Constitution. The stated aim of the organisation has changed from the 1966 draft constitution to now read that the LFMC has been created "to promote the use of the film as a medium of artistic expression and to elevate the medium as one of cultural and educational importance". Membership has changed to Full Members and Production Members, but filmmakers retain ownership of and control over any film prints that they place in the distribution library and are able to set their own hire charges. It is proposed that the royalty split is changed from 75/25% in favour of the filmmaker to a 60/40 split, but this is amended to 70/30 split. The business of the Co-op is to be administered by a Committee (LFMC, 1968a).

September(?) 1968: London. The Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) sets up an Art Film Committee to "make films on the visual arts and related subjects, primarily intended for an informed audience and which would not otherwise be made" (Wilson, 1982a: 10).

29 October 1968: New York/London. Carla Liss (LFMC) writes to David Curtis (LFMC) confirming that US filmmaker Jonas Mekas has agreed to persuade all the filmmakers involved in P. Adam Sitney's travelling New American Cinema Exposition to donate prints of their films to the LFMC. The filmmakers in Sitney's Exposition, which toured the UK in April, include Mekas, Bruce Baillie, Stan Brakhage, Robert Breer, Ken Jacobs, Peter Kulbelka, Gregor Markopoulos, Ron Rice, Harry Smith, Jack Smith, Warren Sonbert and Andy Warhol. The films are to form a permanent library at the LFMC that "can also be used for packages/tours of the Continent, universities etc." She adds that Mekas is "very excited about having a strong Coop in London and get interchange between NY there and Continent" (Liss, 1968: 1).

1969

February 1969: London. The LFMC publishes a newsletter which explains that "[t]he distribution library accepts all non-commercial films submitted and the major percentage of proceeds from film bookings go to the film-maker with a small percentage to the Co-op for running expenses". It stresses that the film prints remain "the sole property of the film-makers with which they can do whatever they like". The organisation is still looking for premises and is currently operating out of Dave Curtis' flat. Carla Liss from the Film-makers' Cinematheque in New York has joined the Co-op and is "now managing the Co-op affairs". Distribution bookings are coming in steadily, but "there is still a great potential audience that doesn't yet know of the Co-op who we hope to reach within the next two months through publicity and a greater amount of Co-op screenings" (LFMC, 1969).

December 1969: London. The Other Cinema (TOC) negotiate to present regular film screenings at The Place, WC1, commencing February 1970. The venue is home to London's centre for contemporary dance and has recently installed good 35mm and 16mm projectors. TOC are keen for their screenings to become an integral feature of The Place, and the venue's director, Robin Howard, is enthusiastic as long as the arrangement proves viable. However, TOC report to their Council of Management that "Ultimately, though, it is not ideal for us. We will eventually need a truly full-time cinema." (TOC, 1970: 1-2).

1970

January 1970: London. The Other Cinema (TOC) are due to commence presenting film screenings 5 nights a week at The Place, WC1, in February. However, it has become obvious that they do not have sufficient money and organisational resources "to open properly in a big way – with 2-3 of our own films, big publicity etc." It is too late to postpone the opening without losing the venue's confidence. They decide to open with Bill Brodie's Terry Whitemore, For Example (Sweden 1969). (TOC, 1970: 2).

15 February 1970: London. The Other Cinema hold a Council of Management meeting, attended by Leslie Elliot, Michael Henshaw (accountant to TOC), David Mercer, Tom Maschler, Otto Plaschkes, Michael White, Peter Sainsbury and Nick Hart-Williams. Apologies are received from Albert Finney and Harold Pinter. Discussion centres on the setting up of the company, accessing screening space and and funding film acquisition costs.

They identify the need to recruit more trustees, especially active filmmakers to strengthen TOC's credibility in the industry. They are considering approaching Tony Garnett, Ken Loach, Lindsay Anderson and Karel Reisz, as well as Richard Hoggart, Raymond Williams, Pete Townsend and Richard Branson (editor of Student). A report is given about TOC developments to date, including ICA withdrawal as a London exhibition venue for TOC films and the negotiation of a contract with The Place, in London WC1, to show films 5 nights a week. Film screenings are due to start at The Place on 18 February. They identify the need to release a film soon "which would make a big noise" and note that "unless we get a film which is commercially strong, TOC will sink" (TOC, 1970: 2). Discussion follows about how to raise money to buy films and it is generally agreed they need about £10,000 "which would enable us to buy several films and have money in the kitty" (TOC, 1970: 2). They agree to write to as many individuals as possible, asking for £50 unit contributions, with the offer of a return on the investment once TOC recoups its costs.

It is agreed that first call on any income generated should be paying the "long overdue salaries" of employees Peter Sainsbury and Nick Hart-Williams, as well reimbursing the latter for bills he has paid from his own pocket. (TOC, 1970)

18 February-3 May 1970: London. The Other Cinema (TOC) commence presenting regular film screenings at The Place, opening with Bill Brodie's Terry Whitemore, For Example (Sweden 1969). TOC is renting the main 260 seat theatre one week in four plus late nights at the weekend. During the intervening weeks they use a smaller 90 seat theatre for 16mm films in the early evening. Thus they are "showing films every Wed-Sun at 7 & 9, plus 11 pm Fri-Sun." Until they have the resources to release their own films, film programming consists of films available from other distributors. Their contract runs to 3 May, after which terms will be renegotiated. (TOC, 1970: 1-2).

1972

May(?) 1972: London. The Artists' Films Sub-Committee (AFSC) is formed at the Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) – later renamed to explicitly include video – as a sub-committee of the Council's Arts Films Committee. The new sub-committee is to "provide subsidy for avant-garde/experimental film with a fine-art/modernist context" (Wilson, 1982a: 10). It has resulted due to "pressure from avant-garde film-makers" and "particularly conceptual artists" who have been looking for support. A meeting between the ACGB and the British Film Institute (BFI) has decided that "as a rough guideline films likely to be shown in cinemas (in intention if not in fact), were likely to come within the terms of reference of the BFI whereas films for galleries and exhibitions would be eligible for Arts Council Support" (ACGB, 1977a: 2).

May(?) 1972: London. The Council Committee of Enquiry into Film, chaired by Richard Attenborough, is set up to "investigate the Arts Council's role in film and to make recommendations for the future" (Wilson, 1982a: 10).

6 December 1972: London. LFMC member William Raban sends a letter to regional Arts Councils to try and persuade them to organise/facilitate film shows of English experimental film in their regions. While attention in recent years has been focused on the US filmmaking scene, he argues that a rich body of work has developed in the UK, with around 15 filmmakers "who have sufficient film to make a seventy five minute programme each". These include Peter Gidal, Malcolm Le Grice, Sally Potter, Annabel Nicolson, Mike Leggett, Stuart Pound, Roger Hammond, David Crosswate, Mike Dunford, John du Cane, Steve Dwoskin and Raban himself. Raban suggests arranging the film shows consecutively, involving all the filmmakers at the same time, so the events could be staged as either a one week festival (for £250) or a two week festival (for £450) (Raban, 1972).

1974

January(?) 1974: London. The Council Committee of Enquiry into Film's report – the Attenborough Report – is accepted by the Arts Council. The report endorsed the activities of the Art Film Committee and recommended an extension of its terms of reference to include urgent consideration of (1) distribution, and (2) staffing and the position of film activities within the Arts Council structure (Wilson, 1982a: 10).

May 1974: London. John Hopkins and Sue Hall set up Fantasy Factory, the first video editing resource set up to facilitate access for community groups, community arts projects and artists.

Most video was following an Academy tradition, and its forms and concerns echoed those that were important in the British tradition from 1600 on. One of the most notable exceptions to this was John and Sue of Fantasy Factory. (Terry Flaxton) (Knight, 1996a: 354)

Partly funded by the British Film Institute (BFI) (Knight, 1996a: 355)

1975

11-18 February 1975: Bristol, Arnolfini. The First Festival of Independent British Cinema, organised by Independent Cinema West (ICW), presents the work of individual filmmakers, the work of groups that see themselves as having a collective identity, and expanded cinema using multi-screen format, no screens or with an unconventional relationship between the projector and the screen. The selection committee comprises Tony Rayns (critic and filmmaker), Laura Mulvey, William Raban (filmmakers), Peter Sainsbury (BFI Production Board), Jane Jackson, David Hopkins and David Lascelles (ICW). Supported by the Arnolfini, South West Arts, the Arts Council and the BFI, the festival aims to "show the widest possible range of material". (Hopkins, 1975).

March 1975: London. The London Film-makers' Co-operative (LFMC) submit an application to the British Film Institute (BFI) Group Support Fund for various forms of assistance across its distribution, cinema and workshop areas (LFMC, 1975a). The application notes that the Distribution library now holds over 500 films, making it the largest collection of "Underground, Experimental, and Avant-Garde film outside of the USA", and it has become "the most internationally representational collection anywhere" (LFMC, 1975a: 1). The support requested for Distribution includes subsidy to improve the royalty split (increasing the share to the filmmaker from 70% to 75%), to employ a part-time person to enable more time to be spent on promotional work, and to aid the organisation of film tours in both the UK and mainland Europe (LFMC, 1975a: 2-3).

17 April 1975: London. Peter Sainsbury (BFI Production Board) writes to William Raban (LFMC) confirming that the LFMC's application to the BFI Group Support Fund has been turned down. Not only does the Group Support Fund have insufficient funds to cover the needs detailed in the LFMC's application, but "the installation of equipment such as you had budgeted for could not be efficiently utilised without there also being a paid operator/instructor" (p. 1). Thus the proposed expansion of the LFMC is deemed to be more expensive than the Co-op has budgeted for in its application. Since submitting the application, Raban has also notified the BFI that the Co-op will also need to find new premises in the near future and Sainsbury envisages that the cost of moving, combined with possibly increased overheads, will increase the Co-op's financial needs still further. As a result, the BFI is exploring possible options for supporting the LFMC. (Sainsbury, 1975).

23 April 1975: London/New York. Mary Pat Leece (London Filmmakers' Co-operative/LFMC Distribution) replies to Bob Cowan's request for his prints back and outstanding royalties. He is owed £4.20 for 1 booking: “Rather depressing – for us as well as for you. And I’m sorry that you want your films back. I always hope that things will get better.” His films will be sent as soon as someone can carry them to NYC. (Leece, 1975a: 1).

1-26 May 1975: London, Serpentine Gallery. Breakthrough exhibition for Video Art and Community Video at The Video Show, at the Serpentine Gallery (Dickinson, 1999: 50). This is the first major international independent video show in Britain, organised by Peter Block, Sue Grayson, David Hall, Stuart Hood and Clive Scollay. It features installations, performances and single screen works, and showcases both artists' and community video (Grayson, 1975) (Hall, 1975). British selection includes Roger Barnard, Ian Breakwell, David Critchley, Peter Donebauer, Mike Dunford, Cliff Evans, David Hall, Susan Hiller, Brian Hoey, Sue Hall and John Hopkins, Steve James, Tamara Krikorian, Mike Leggett, Peter Livingstone, Stuart Marshall, Alex Meigh, Will Milne, Paul Neagu, Stephen Partridge, Lis Rhodes, Clive Richardson, Tony Sinden, Reindeer Werk. A selection of the British work then tours several UK galleries.

This was a breakthrough for British video art. But there were still no video installations at the Tate! (Tamara Krikorian)

For the Serpentine exhibition I produced a tape with a long text for the exhibition (audio only, recorded on video and screened on a monitor). I said that video was now becoming a cheap substitute for film, instead of a device that could function as an interface in group situations, and it had therefore lost most of its radical transformative potential. (Susan Hiller) (Knight, 1996a: 355)

The catalyst for this group of people getting together [to found London Video Arts (LVA)] was the 1975 Video Show at the Serpentine which is where we all met for the first time. We talked about how to proceed, what we were going to do, there wasn’t anywhere to promote this work in an organised way. (David Critchley) (Knight, 1996a: 357)

Dates from poster. (ACGB, 1975)

28 May 1975: London. The British Film Institute (BFI) Production Board meets and considers the replacement of the Group Support Fund by an equipment loan scheme. Board member Malcolm Le Grice argues that the Board should consider applications for forms of funding other than film production grants. It is agreed that the Board:

accept, in principle, financial responsibility for any facility and/or activity that related directly to film and/or video production that lay outside the commercial sector.

A subcommittee will be set up to investigate "the appropriate areas, the proper extent and most suitable forms for such funding" (BFI, 1975a).

June 1975: London. After a funding application made to the British Film Institute (BFI) in March was turned down, the London Film-makers' Co-operative (LFMC) submit a revised application, outlining the history, aims and constitution of the LFMC. The application also explains the organisation's mode of operation across distribution, the workshop and the cinema, and details their achievements. The achievements include building a distribution library of around 500 titles, thereby becoming "the largest independent distributor outside the US" (LFMC, 1975b: 2), and contributing to over 60 shows around the world which have included LFMC filmmakers' work (LFMC, 1975b: 7-8). The application itemises and costs their immediate financial needs and ongoing annual overheads, which combined total £25,680 for the coming year (LFMC, 1975b: 9-10), and concludes by outlining plans for future expansion.

2 June 1975: London. Stephen Partridge, Anna Ridley and David Hall send a letter to interested parties asking for feedback on ideas concerning the needs of video art in Britain. Suggested needs are: “1) dialogue between interested parties 2) tape distribution 3) the setting up of workshop facilities independent of the present institutions; 4) the regular organising and setting up of public showings of tapes, performances, and installations.”

Suggested first step is the setting up of a newssheet or a journal. Asks for publishable material for first issue. Concludes: “In particular, your support is essential in approaching financing bodies.” (Partridge, 1975: 1)

8 July 1975: London. Representatives from the LFMC (Malcolm Le Grice), the local Council (Neil McIntosh), the Libraries and Arts Department (Colin Bloxham), Greater London Arts Association (Keith Griffiths), Gulbenkian Foundation (Fiona Duncan), British Film Institute (Peter Sainsbury) and Space (Martin Argules) meet at Camden Town Hall to discuss possible future premises for the LFMC after their move to temporary premises at a disused factory in Fitzroy Road. Councillor McIntosh expresses a commitment to finding the Co-op long term accommodation in the borough (LFMC, 1975c).

9 July 1975: London. The British Film Institute (BFI) Production Board meet and consider an application for funding from the LFMC, submitted in June. This is a revised application, after an application made by the LFMC in March to the Institute's Group Support Fund was turned down. Board member Peter Sainsbury explains that "it was not suggested that the committee should support the entirety of the Film Makers Co-operative's needs but only in those areas which the committee itself believed to be within its brief". After some discussion, the Co-op's impressive record in facilitating production, distribution and exhibition in the UK of experimental film is noted, and the board vote unanimously "to support the application in principle". The Board officers are instructed to consult with the LFMC to agree the level of BFI funding to be awarded. (BFI, 1975b).

25 July 1975: New York/London. Bob Cowan replies to Mary Pat Leece's (London Filmmakers' Co-operative/LFMC Distribution) letter of 23 April, complaining of damage to a print he's had returned. He asks for his outstanding royalties. (Cowan, 1975: 1).

20 August 1975: London. At a meeting of the British Film Institute (BFI) Production Board, the officers of the Board report on a discussion held with the LFMC to determine the precise level of funding required by the Co-op that falls within the Board's remit. The figure of £16,020 has been agreed and the award is confirmed, having already been agreed in principle at the Board's previous meeting in July. (BFI, 1975c).

September 1975: London. London Filmmakers' Co-operative (LFMC) receives its first major state grant from the British Film Institute (BFI) Production Board, to help outfit their temporary premises at 44a Fitzroy Rd. (Curtis, 1975: 182) (Leggett, 1975: 4)

The Co-op draws up a revised draft constitution, which specifies the Co-op is "a voluntary organisation of film-makers dedicated to the production, distribution, and screening of independent, non-commercial films" and states that "The co-op shall encourage the growth of a dynamic independent film culture in Great Britain". Details of membership, administration and regulations are included, and royalties are confirmed as a 70% split to the filmmaker, with 30% retained by the Co-op to cover distribution costs (LFMC, 1975d).

29 September 1975: London. Representatives of the Greater London Council, British Film Institute, Greater London Arts Association, Arts Council of Great Britain, and Inner London Education Authority meet to convene a Working Party which will meet 3 or 4 times a year. The Assistant Director-General of the GLC explains that the aim is to "discuss various suggestions for the promotion of film and video in London both for educational and recreational purposes" and to "consider the development of a strategic film and video policy for London" (GLC, 1975: 1). Among the items discussed is a concern to ensure that there are opportunities for supporting new developments in video (GLC, 1975: 2). In reporting back to the Arts Council, Rodney Wilson (Film Officer, ACGB) explains that it should serve a useful purpose "in avoiding duplication of effort and conflict between the institutions" (Wilson, 1975a).

19 November 1975: London. Mary Pat Leece (Distribution Organiser, LFMC) writes to filmmaker Charles Lyman confirming that the Co-op does not hold copies of his two films, Leila and Castaway. She adds: "Otherwise, news of the Co-op is quite encouraging these days. We've received our first grant from the British Film Institute and the relative financial stability has made a lot of difference" (Leece, 1975b).

9 December 1975: London. Rodney Wilson (Film Officer, Arts Council of Great Britain/ACGB) writes to Malcolm Le Grice, William Raban, David Dye and Jeff Keen on behalf of the Artists’ Films Committee, inviting them to take part in a “pilot experiment” for a plan “to subsidise or part-subsidise individual artist-film-makers’ shows/lectures/performances on a touring basis.” (Wilson, 1975b: 1).

13 December 1975: Venice, California/London. Filmmaker Andrew Meyer writes to Mary Pat Leece (Distribution Office, LFMC) complaining about improper print care at the Co-op. He has received his film prints back from the LFMC, having asked for them to be returned "after three years of total inactivity". On running the returned print of Sky Pirate he has discovered it is damaged, but speculates that the damage "may have occurred before the Co-op ever got the film 3 years ago, since as far as I know it never rented out". He is less bothered about the actual damage than the Co-op's apparent disregard for proper print care (Meyer, 1975).

1976

March (?) 1976: London. The London Film-makers' Co-operative (LFMC) publishes its revised constitution. It is "dedicated to the production, distribution, and screening of independent, non-commercial films" and aims to encourage "the growth of a dynamic independent film culture in Great Britain". Filmmakers continue to retain ownership of any prints they deposit with the Distribution library and to be able to set their own hire rates. The royalty split is reconfirmed as 70/30% in favour of the filmmaker (LFMC, 1976a).

March 1976: London. Sue Hall and John 'Hoppy' Hopkins (Fantasy Factory) draw up a proposal for "Video Distribution Research" to submit to the Research Department of the Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) for funding. Hall and Hopkins observe that "There is, as yet, no organised videotape distribution in the UK, serving independent video producers in the arts and community field". They go on to argue that "there is a gap between present audiences and videotape makers. We think that audiences for video have to be created from the potential audiences in arts centres, galleries, community centres, colleges, festivals, exhibitions and broadcast TV" (Hall, 1976: 1). The research will investigate the potential for video distribution among such audiences and the findings will be published as a handbook available to potential users (Hall, 1976: 2).

22 March 1976: London. LFMC members Deke Dusinberre, Mary Pat Leece, William Raban, Lis Rhodes and Guy Sherwin submit an application on behalf of the Co-op's Executive Committee for financial assistance to the British Film Institute (BFI). The application outlines the Co-op's integrated practice across production, distribution and exhibition, and stresses that it has "survived its first nine years without assistance precisely because it is based on personal involvement and commitment" (LFMC, 1976b: 2). However, as a result the scope of its operation was severely limited. The 1975 grant from the BFI's Production Board has greatly enhanced its production facilities and stimulated much new activity. The Cinema and Distribution have attempted to keep pace with the production Workshop by similarly expanding their activities. The application details the Co-op's recent activities across its three divisions and assesses, itemises and costs its future needs to sustain the increased level of activity that has resulted from the previous year's grant. For Distribution this includes the production of a new catalogue and the salary for a second worker. The total amount applied for is £32,027, of which £4965 relates directly to Distribution's needs (LFMC, 1976b).

7 April 1976: London. The Artists' Film Sub-Committee (AFSC) of the Arts Council of Great Britain reviews its current terms of reference in light of (1) recent applications for film in theatre work and experimental community video, and (2) the fact that the BFI Production Board has awarded grants to some filmmakers who have also been supported by the AFSC. With regard to support for video, committee member Tony Rayns reports that two papers on video have been discussed by the BFI Production Board, but the emphasis was entirely on community video, while none of the video applications received by the Board were for artists' video.

It was agreed that the Committee's implementation of its terms of reference in regard to video was adequate and there should not be an extension to include community orientated work. With at least three other Committees supporting this work (BFI Production Board, GLAA Film & Video Panel, Arts Council's Community Arts Centre), the Artists' Films Committee would be most effective in pursuing its present course of action (ACGB, 1976a: 2)

10 May 1976: London. The Other Cinema (TOC) hold a Council of Management Meeting. Among those present are Nick Hart-Williams, Tony Kirkhope, Marc Karlin, Paul Marris and Peter Sylveire, with legal adviser Geoffrey Lander from Nabarro Nathanson in attendance. The main item under discussion is the signing of the lease for the proposed cinema in Charlotte Street, to be rented from National Car Parks (NCP). NCP have extended the rent-free period to 24 June; fitting out the building is estimated to required 10–14 weeks and could start in 7–14 days. TOC Distribution is to act as guarantor and Lander explains the implications in the event of bankruptcy. A total of £37,521.64 has been raised, assuming full payment of the £15,000 grant committed by the BFI. However, the fundraising activity has cost £8,000, reducing the overall amount to just under £31,000. Concern is expressed over the costs that will become immediately payable on signing the lease, how this will affect royalty payments and available money for new prints, and the need for further fundraising. (TOC, 1976a).

7 June 1976: London. The Other Cinema (TOC) hold Council of Management meeting. Among those attending are Paul Marris, Nick Hart-Williams, Peter Sainsbury, Peter Sylveire, Marc Karlin, Laura Mulvey and Tony Kirkhope. A statement of financial affairs is circulated, which reveals that the cost of fundraising has risen to £12,205.85 which has been funded by Distribution, only £4000 of which has been repaid. Distribution, however, urgently owes £3500 to creditors, with a further £3,054.16 spent on or committed to new prints, leaving insufficient funds to pay royalties due. Despite the fundraising, there are also insufficient funds to properly open the cinema. Among other things, Kirkhope proposes a reduction in staff costs and operating costs ("no advertising, publicity, publications etc") to help Distribution and borrowing an additional £5000 to assist with the cinema opening costs. Discussion follows about the implications of continuing with opening the cinema when the project is substantially under-financed, the lack of a clear policy on film acquisition, and the specific nature of their problems. There is concern that "there was no-one on the council with financial expertise" and they are therefore unable to make "informed decisions". Discussion turns to how to programme the cinema to make it work, while also remaining true to their original concept and giving a home to British independent film. Lack of money to buy prints remains a problem. (TOC, 1976b).

18 June 1976: London. Peter Sainsbury, Laura Mulvey, Marc Karlin and Steve Dwoskin draw up an agenda for the meeting of The Other Cinema's Council of Management scheduled for 22 June. It includes: having an independent assessment of finance; clarifying the financial/legal relationship between TOC Distribution and TOC Exhibition, and between landlord of the proposed Charlotte Street cinema, National Car Parks (NCP), and TOC; whether or not to go ahead with the cinema; and reviewing TOC's constitution. (TOC, 1976c) .

22 June 1976: London. The Council of Management meeting of The Other Cinema (TOC), attended by Peter Sylveire, Charles Rubenstein, Tony Kirkhope, Susan Feldman, Paul Marris, Nick Hart Williams, Patsy Nightingale, Lynda Myles, Steve Dwoskin, Nigel Algar, Peter Sainsbury, Marc Karlin and Laura Mulvey. Meeting accepts agenda drawn up by Sainsbury, Mulvey, Karlin and Dwoskin on 18 June.

The meeting discusses the need for an independent financial assessment, which stems from the fact there is no money for guaranteed wages, films etc to support the new Charlotte Street cinema. They discuss possible options, including borrowing more money, withdrawing from the Charlotte Street cinema lease (although they don't know the cost of this), and amalgamating Distribution and Exhibition, but are unsure of the best way forward. There is agreement that royalties to filmmakers should not be put in jeopardy, but they are currently operating with a deficit which stems partly from historical debt and partly from the fundraising activity. Final working drawings for fitting out the new cinema are not yet complete, so costs have not been finalised and work cannot commence. Discussion moves on to itemise where building costs are beginning to rise, leaving no money for furnishing the 'club room'. Much debate continues during the meeting about the situation they are in and possible ways forward. They are aware that they lack financial management skills and haven't analysed their past financial problems properly. Discussion moves on to how to programme the cinema in light of their financial difficulties. They reflect on the premises crisis experienced by the London Filmmakers' Co-operative (LFMC), Camden Council's assistance with finding them temporary premises and whether TOC could share premises with the LFMC. Meeting concludes with a decision to see if TOC can get out of the Charlotte Street lease, and if not agreement to review what other strategies are available to them. No final decision about programming. (TOC, 1976d)

2 August 1976: London. The Other Cinema (TOC) hold a Council of Management meeting. Among those attending are Nick Hart Williams, Susan Feldman, Paul Marris, Tony Kirkhope, Peter Sylveire, Marc Karlin and Steve Dwoskin. The financial situation is bleak as £11,000 in loans have not come through yet, the number of creditors is mounting and staff may have to take a temporary wage cut. There are reports given on fundraising and the building work for the new cinema. The latter has problems in that asbestos insulation in part of the building is inadequate and will need re-doing and electrical work has come in at £2000 over budget. A possible season of Chilean films is discussed together with applying for funding for a catalogue supplement and for financial assistance via the BFI's Film Availability Service to acquire prints of Numero Deux and History Book as well as replacing worn prints of Jean-Luc Goddard films. One Council member offers a video tape for distribution "as a trial run for a possible tape distribution network" (TOC, 1976e).

14 August 1976: American filmmaker Jonas Mekas writes to the London Filmmakers' Co-op (LFMC) to advise that Andi Engel, founder of the distributor Artificial Eye, has agreed to distribute all of Mekas' Diaries and has undertaken to pay for a new print of the complete works. However, Engel has insisted that "I withdrew all my DIARIES from the London Film-makers' Co-op, in order to assist him in getting back at least some of the money he'll be investing in making the prints" (Mekas, 1976).

December 1976: London. London Video Arts (LVA) sends out a letter to around 40 British artists working with video inviting them to submit their work for inclusion in LVA's planned distribution operation and catalogue. They stress that "There are at present a number of institutions, organisations and galleries throughout Britain which have a potential interest in showing artists' tapes. Until now there has been no viable source in Britain from which to hire these works". Artists are requested to submit tapes on either half inch EAIJ/CCIR European standard High Density (reel to reel) or three-quarter inch Sony U-matic cassette PAL/NTSC, supply full information about their tapes and state the "fee required per single showing" together with a sale price for the work if desired. Only copies should be sent, not masters as liability for tapes will only be accepted to raw stock value. LVA will retain 15% or £1 of the hire fees, whichever is the greater, "to cover handling, registered post, correspondence etc", with the balance paid to the artists quarterly. Ownership of the hire copies and copyright of them will remain with the artists (LVA, 1976a).

4 December 1976: London. An LVA organising committee – comprising David Hall, Steve Partridge, David Critchley, Pete Livingstone, Roger Barnard, Tamara Krikorian and Jon Turpie – write to Rodney Wilson (Film Officer, ACGB) to request funding for their nascent organisation. They stress that "we are the only organisation in Britain concerned for the execution, promotion and distribution of video works essentially of an independent experimental/aesthetic nature (as is the case for film at the London Film-makers Cooperative" (LVA, 1976b: 1). The organisation is to be administered by "practising video artists" (LVA, 1976b: 2) and aims to set up a tape library, an exhibition venue and a production workshop. They submit a total budget of £33,565 but realise they are unlikely to receive the full amount in this first application. (LVA, 1976b).

17 December 1976: London. The Artists' Films Sub-Committee (AFSC) of the Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) meet. Among the items discussed is a letter from the Association of Video Workers (AVW) which suggests setting up a Video Committee. The AFSC is informed that community arts projects involving video are funded by the Community Arts Committee. It is agreed that it is "not possible to consider the notion of a video committee". The Film Officer is to inform the AVW accordingly (ACGB, 1976b: 3).

21 December 1976: London. A working party of the British Film Institute (BFI), Greater London Arts Association (GLAA), Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB), Greater London Council (GLC), London Boroughs Association and the Inner London Education Authority (ILEA) meet at GLAA. Among the items discussed are the financial figures presented by Nick Hart-Williams from The Other Cinema's new cinema in Charlotte Street, which opened on 15 October 1976. Both Alan Knowles (Head of Regional Development, BFI) and Maureen McCue (Film Video Officer, GLAA) express concern and McCue suggests that "an assessment of the Other Cinema exploring the financial situation in relationship to its management structure be carried out" (BFI, 1976: 4).

The BFI Video Reports are not ready yet, as meetings between the BFI and the newly formed Association of Video Workers (AVW) have been inconclusive' (BFI, 1976: 2). GLAA have commissioned a study into the feasibility of setting up a half inch video resource centre. It is suggested the study highlight the distinction between video as an art form and its use in social/community work. ILEA representative Chris Mottershead argues that any resource would need to be available to the public and set up within an institutional context (BFI, 1976: 4-5).

1977

17 January 1977: London. Artists’ Films Sub-Committee (AFSC) of the Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) considers applications for capital funding for Video Resource Centres from London Video Arts (LVA) (LVA, 1976b) and Aidanvision. The Film Officer (FO) has warned the applicants that there is no money for revenue, but perhaps for exhibitions and catalogues. David Curtis asks if the applications should be directed to the Housing the Arts committee. Peter Sainsbury (Head of BFI Production Board) notes that the British Film Institute also have an application from LVA, but are unlikely to fund it.

Simon Field and Curtis support LVA's application, but the FO worries that it will create a precedent and an ongoing commitment. Stuart Hood and Curtis are concerned that the centre be open rather than exclusive, and Curtis suggests that LVA share the London Filmmakers' Co-operative’s (LFMC) new premises.

It was agreed that LVA be informed that an application consisting of only the tape distribution centre and catalogue aspects would be considered (ACGB, 1977a: 3-4).

There is also extensive discussion of the relationship between the Arts Council and the British Film Institute with regard to their differing criteria for funding production work (ACGB, 1977a: 1-3).

26 January 1977: London. David Hall (LVA) writes to Rodney Wilson (ACGB, Film Officer) in response to Wilson's request for further information in relation to LVA's application of 4 December 1976. Hall confirms that the artists who are currently involved in the organisation and administration of LVA are: Pete Livingstone, Jon Turpie, David Critchley, Tamara Krikorian, Steve Partridge, Roger Barnard and himself; with Stuart Marshall, Brian Hoey, Clive Richardson, Tony Sinden and Harlan Cockburn providing support whenever possible. They have sent out a letter (LVA, 1976a) to around 40 British artists "inviting inclusion in the proposed catalogue" (Hall, 1977a: 1), with more letters due to be sent out. Hall adds:

It should be noted that the organisers have attempted to be as unbiased as possible in considering the artists approached at this initial stage. Anyone working experimentally with the medium and anyone documenting artwork on the medium is eligible for inclusion. However, the emphasis is essentially directed towards artists tapes and/or video as art rather than independent community/social/political work which, it is agreed, demands alternative considerations in promotion, distribution and potential audience. (Hall, 1977a: 1)

The proposed catalogue will, however, be available to anyone – including individuals, educational institutions, organisations and galleries. A membership scheme is envisaged for audiences wishing to attend LVA tape shows. The distribution operation is currently based in temporary accommodation at a member's flat, but LVA is considering the feasibility of sharing premises with another similar organisation on the understanding that it would "demand complete autonomy for LVA" (Hall, 1977a: 2). A further breakdown of costings is also included (Hall, 1977a: 2-3).

February 1977: London. A working party of the British Film Institute (BFI), Greater London Arts Association (GLAA), Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB), Greater London Council (GLC), London Boroughs Association and the Inner London Education Authority (ILEA) begins an assessment of The Other Cinema (TOC). The brief is "to examine the management structure of The Other Cinema (Exhibition) Limited in relation to the financial situation and programming policy and to make confidential recommendations on the possible need for further public funding". The assessment panel comprises Maureen McCue (Film Video Officer), Phyllis Hemingway (Finance Officer) and David Pratley (Director) from GLAA and Barrie Ellis-Jones (Regional Officer) from the BFI. (BFI, 1977: 1) .

February 1977: London. The Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) announce a new scheme, Film-makers on Tour (FMOT), which is designed "to encourage the screening of artists' films and to off-set some of the costs that are incurred in showing experimental film"(ACGB, 1977b). Eight filmmakers who have been supported by the Artists' Films Committee have been selected for inclusion in the scheme: David Dye, Marilyn Halford, Ron Haselden, Tony Hill, Derek Jarman, Jeff Keen, Malcolm Le Grice and William Raban. Each filmmaker can be booked to present a 90 minute programme of their work and be available to answer questions from the audience for a cost of £10 (ACGB, 1977c).

25 February 1977: London. The Artists’ Films Committee (AFC) of the Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) considers a redrafted application from London Video Arts (LVA) to set up a “video tape library and exhibition venue” (Hall, 1977a)(LVA, 1976a), but feels that the new information requested is not there. Discussion ensues as to whether access to the facility suggested would be “completely open”, as requested, or by invitation as it seems, whether video workers would be better served by exhibitions to stimulate demand for new tapes rather than founding a distribution collection of existing ones, whether a centre equivalent to the London Filmmakers' Co-operative (LFMC) is needed, or if the videos ought not to be distributed through LFMC while LVA concentrates on promotion. One certainty is that continued revenue funding cannot be given as future support cannot be guaranteed. Further discussion of the proposal is postponed until LVA members can be present.

The Film Officer reminds the committee that John Hopkins of Fantasy Factory is conducting research for the ACGB’s Research and Information Department on video tape distribution and assessing public response to existing material with shows. The ACGB’s new video equipment is housed permanently at Fantasy Factory as it might be damaged if moved from one hirer to another. (ACGB, 1977d: 2-3)

Discussion takes place on the newly launched Film-makers on Tour (FMOT) scheme, which has been widely advertised. Participant in the scheme and LFMC member Malcolm Le Grice has suggested the fee to filmmakers is too low for long distance bookings, given the amount of travelling time involved. The Film Officer stresses it is in the filmmakers' own interests to publicise their work as widely as possible and the scheme enables them to do that. Any decision about expanding the scheme to include more filmmakers is postponed until the end of the next financial year when "it would have been possible to see how the scheme had worked out" (ACGB, 1977d: 3).

The Greater London Council (GLC) has given unofficial clearance for the Perspectives on British Avant-Garde Film show to go ahead at the Hayward. Details of the show's budget are discussed, and the Film Officer confirms that LFMC member and cinema organiser Deke Dusinberre has been employed on a fee basis to organise and run the Perspectives show. Dusinberre has also arranged for "weekly programme listings to appear in Time Out and Tony Rayns would be writing a long piece on the show in the Artefact section" (ACGB, 1977d: 4).

2 March–24 April 1977: London. The Arts Council of Great Britain stage a major show, Perspectives on British Avant-Garde Film, to "survey the films funded by the Arts Council through its Artists' Films Committee and to place them in an historical and critical context of avant-garde film practice". The programme notes point out that the film work funded by the committee is not synonymous with the avant-garde in Britain today, "but that most film-makers working in this area have been or are currently in receipt of financial support from the committee". While most of the filmmakers represented in the show have also made their films using the LFMC's facilities, the Co-op is not mentioned in the programme (ACGB, 1977e). Co-op member Deke Dusinberre has been employed by the Arts Council on a fee basis to organise and run the show (ACGB, 1977d).

14 March 1977: London. A working party of the British Film Institute (BFI), Greater London Arts Association (GLAA), Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB), Greater London Council (GLC), London Boroughs Association and the Inner London Education Authority (ILEA) meets formally for the first time with a member of staff and a director of The Other Cinema (TOC) in order to carry out an assessment of TOC. The brief is "to examine the management structure of The Other Cinema (Exhibition) Limited in relation to the financial situation and programming policy and to make confidential recommendations on the possible need for further public funding". The assessment panel comprises Maureen McCue (Film/Video Officer), Phyllis Hemingway (Finance Officer) and David Pratley (Director) from GLAA and Barrie Ellis-Jones (Regional Officer) from the BFI. (BFI, 1977).

21 March 1977: London. The London Film-makers' Co-op (LFMC) draws up a list of projected running costs covering the period from 1 April 1977 to 31 March 1978 in order to apply to the British Film Institute (BFI) for deficit funding. Total running costs for the next 12 months are anticipated to be £15,450, with nearly half the amount (£7020) required to cover salary costs for 2 workshop staff and 1 cinema staffer at £45 per week (LFMC, 1977a).

24 March 1977: London. Barrie Ellis-Jones (Regional Officer, BFI) writes to Guy Sherwin (LFMC) to thank him for the LFMC's application for a deficit grant for 1977–78 and confirms they are considering the application (Ellis-Jones, 1977a).

20 April 1977: London. Barrie Ellis-Jones (Regional Officer, BFI) circulates a list of key points emerging from the Greater London Arts Association's (GLAA) Video Resources Report to members of the funders' working party, ahead of its meeting on 27 April. The report recommends that a centrally situated colour-capable video resource should be established, but costs for such a facility are estimated to be anything from £12,000 to £49,000. The report's author, John Graves, seriously doubts whether "genuine freedom of access would be possible if the resource were placed with any existing independent video body" since he has discovered "considerable internecine strife". As the working life of the necessary equipment would be relatively short – between 3 and 5 years – an alternative suggestion is that "initially support might be given to suitable production projects, hiring existing commercial equipment" (Ellis-Jones, 1977b).

22 April 1977: London. Rodney Wilson (Film Officer, ACGB) writes to David Hall (LVA) informing him that at its meeting on 4 March 1977, the Artists' Films Committee felt unable to arrive at a decision with regard to the application that had been submitted by LVA. Wilson confirms the committee's interest in LVA and suggests that the most productive way forward is to hold a meeting with LVA members so that a number of issues can be discussed directly. The committee's concerns include "the constitution of London Video Arts, access to and use of facilities, and in general how the library/exhibition centre would be run". In addition the committee also wants to discuss "whether or not this kind of proposal is likely to be the most useful way of promoting video in this country" (Wilson, 1977a).

27 April 1977: London. Representatives from the British Film Institute (BFI), Greater London Arts Association (GLAA), Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB), Greater London Council (GLC) and Inner London Education Authority (ILEA) convene a funders' Working Party meeting. Among the items discussed is GLAA's Video Report, and GLAA has set a deadline of 3 months hence for arriving at a policy decision. Rodney Wilson (Film Officer, ACGB) informs the meeting that the Arts Council have commissioned Fantasy Factory to prepare a report on video distribution and expects to be able to circulate the report in early May. After further discussion it is agreed that the organisations represented on the Working Party "would reach definite decisions on their respective funding policies by September 1977 at the latest". They also agree to defer decisions on any outstanding applications for video equipment funding until they they have arrived at their video funding policies (BFI, 1977: 2).

Maureen McCue (Film Video Officer, GLAA) notes that although the assessment of the operation of The Other Cinema (TOC) had not yet been completed, nevertheless "a disturbing financial situation had been revealed" (BFI, 1977: 2). The LFMC is expected to have an operating deficit of £2450 for the current year, but "the Co-op would be encouraged to cover [this] by increasing revenue and reducing costs". The Co-op has agreed to to a BFI assessor attending its policy and executive meetings and it is agreed that an assessment of the LFMC's operation will be undertaken later in the year (BFI, 1977: 3).

30 April 1977: London. David Hall (LVA) replies to Rodney Wilson's (Film Office, ACGB) letter of 22 April 1977 (Wilson, 1977a) which requested a meeting between members of the Arts Council's Artists' Films Committee and LVA to discuss further certain issues in relation to LVA's application for funding. Hall feels the issues raised in Wilson's letter were covered in their application, but concedes he is keen to "promote this venture" and agrees to the proposed meeting (Hall, 1977b).

May 1977: London. Sue Hall and John 'Hoppy' Hopkins of Fantasy Factory complete a Report to the Arts Council on Future Videotape Distribution. Based on a proposal drawn up in March 1976 (Hall, 1976), the research informing the report has been funded by the Research Department of the Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB), on the joint recommendation of the Artists' Films Committee (AFC) and the Community Arts Panel, and was commissioned because "there is currently no satisfactory video distribution and it would be beneficial to initiate some" (Hall, 1977: 8). The report presents findings based on consultation with both audiences and video producers, and proposes a strategy for the development of non-commercial video distribution. The authors make several recommendations, which they argue should "wherever possible … be grafted on to existing activities in order to ease the pressure on funding and to ensure continuity" (Hall, 1977: 2). The key recommendations include (1) establishing a national videotape hire service by mail order (to be undertaken by Concord Films Council), (2) setting up a national dubbing centre (to be based at Fantasy Factory), and (3) establishing a national video reference library (to be housed at The Other Cinema). For the national videotape hire service, half inch open reel and the professional three-quarter inch u-matic cassette system are suggested, rather than the Phillips' domestic video cassette system (Hall, 1977: 3). With regard to the proposed national video reference library, it is suggested this "should be linked with the Public Library Service and therefore financed by local authorities" (Hall, 1977: 7). Based on the research, Hall and Hopkins are also producing a Video Distribution Handbook, to be published in 1978, aimed at those in the independent and community arts sectors who want to put on video shows (Hall, 1977: 7, 9).

2 May 1977: London. The Artists' Films Committee (AFC) of the Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) discusses possible dates for meeting with LVA to continue discussions about possible funding. Film Officer Rodney Wilson reminds the committee that Sue Hall and John Hopkins (Fantasy Factory) are due to present a report on their research into video distribution and that this should be considered in the context of the funding application from LVA, originally made in December 1976 and revised in January 1977.

Wilson also informs the committee that the Filmmakers on Tour scheme is now generating a "regular flow of bookings and the eight participants had given on average two shows" (ACGB, 1977f: 2). However, most bookings are at colleges and polytechnics.

The Film Officer also presents approximate attendance figures from the Perspectives on British Avant-Garde Film show, held at the Hayward Gallery in March–April:

5698 people had seen the shows (plus those who came on two Saturdays when figures were not recorded). This gave an average of 48 people per screening. The Committee thought this was indication of the show's success. … It was interesting to see, from the names and addresses left by people wanting programme notes to be forwarded, that the audience was far wider than had been expected and did not just consist of film-makers who had applied for awards in the past. (ACGB, 1977f: 2)

10 May 1977: London. Rodney Wilson (Film Officer, ACGB) replies to David Hall's (LVA) letter of 30 April 1977 in relation to LVA's application for funding and the request to set up a meeting between the Arts Council's Artists' Films Committee and LVA. Wilson asserts that the information they require from LVA is not in their application.

For example LVA does not have a constitution, and as far as the Committee can tell an individual's request for membership could be accepted or rejected on your (or any other of the group's) personal whim. As you are asking for major funding from public money and other groups have also asked for support, there are rather more serious questions of accountability to be discussed than LVA seems able to acknowledge. (Wilson, 1977b)

18 May 1977: Exeter/London. Filmmaker Mike Leggett writes to Rodney Wilson (ACGB, Film Officer) to provide a list of filmmakers who he wishes to invite to the South West, by taking advantage of the Arts Council's Filmmakers on Tour scheme. The list includes: Peter Gidal, Anthony Scott, Malcolm Legrice, Malcolm Le Grice, Margaret Tait, David Parsons, Marc Karlin, Lis Rhodes, Steve Farrar, Stuart McKinnon, David Dye, William Raban and Roger Wilson. Leggett's initial idea has expanded from screenings in the centre of Exeter, part funded by Exeter College of Art and Design where he works, to enable the visiting filmmakers to tour other venues in the South West. He is approaching other art colleges in the region (Falmouth, Dartington, Somerset, Gloucester and Plymouth) and a number of arts centres and workshops (Arnolfini, Beaford, Salisbury and Bath). However, he stresses "that in order to make the series attractive to film-viewers outside London, the spread of independent film-makers needs to be as broad as possible (Leggett, 1977a).

20 May 1977: London. David Hall, Roger Barnard, Harlan Cockburn, David Critchley, Brian Hoey, Tamara Krikorian, Peter Livingstone, Stuart Marshall, Steve Partridge and Jon Turpie from London Video Arts (LVA) meet with Rodney Wilson, Film Officer at the Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB), and the Arts Council's Artists' Films Committee (represented by members David Curtis, Laura Mulvey and Caroline Tisdall) at the Arts Council's premises in Piccadilly. Rodney Wilson explains that the discussions are taking place in the context of (1) the Arts Council's current policy of not taking on new revenue clients, and (2) the fact that LVA's application for funding will be competing with applications from rival video production groups (ACGB, 1977g: 1-2).

Wilson suggests concentrating on LVA's request for funding "to support a tape library and exhibition venue at a cost of £3000". The Artists' Films Committee (AFC) members are keen to know who would have access to any resource they funded because: "It was important to be sure that when financial support was given it would benefit the maximum number of people". Hall, Barnard and Krikorian explain that "the main bias of LVA was towards artist rather than community video", but confirmed that like the London Film-makers' Co-op (LFMC) they would operate an open acquisitions policy, with "no discrimination against community tapes". AFC member Curtis asserts that as "there was no distribution network at all" for video as yet, he feels "video workers should co-operate initially in trying to get something organised for mutual benefit". Curtis argues against splitting resources between multiple video groups and suggests "it should be possible to organise a central distribution centre for both artist and community video tapes with shared facilities". But Krikorian and Barnard argue that "there was no reason for video to be organised on a different basis to film" (ACGB, 1977g: 2-3).

Further discussion takes place about a possible exhibition space and proposed screening programmes for it. Film Officer Wilson asks LVA to provide in writing, for presentation at the next AFC meeting on 22 June, "a detailed account of their plans in respect of their administrative constitution; the proposed exhibition venue and screenings; and the catalogue of tapes for hire" (ACGB, 1977g: 8).

13 June 1977: London. Roger Barnard (LVA, Chairman) and Stephen Partridge (LVA, Treasurer) write to Rodney Wilson (ACGB, Film Officer) enclosing the additional information requested by the Artists' Films Committee at their meeting on 20 May 1977 (ACGB, 1977g: 8). The additional information includes a catalogue introduction, plus details of the library and exhibition space. This information, together with their letter of 26 January 1977, constitute their application for funding. LVA have formed a steering committee: Stuart Marshall, Tamara Krikorian, Pete Livingstone, David Hall and Jonnie Turpie, plus 3 executive officers, namely Roger Barnard (Chairman), David Critchley (Secretary) and Steve Partridge (Treasurer). The letter confirms that "The steering committee pursues a policy of open accessibility to the catalogue/library, and use of capital equipment and inclusion in the catalogue is open" (Barnard, 1977: 1).

14 June 1977: London. Rodney Wilson (Film Officer, ACGB) writes to all members of the Artists' Films Committee informing them that "It is essential that some decision is reached concerning video funding" at the forthcoming meeting of the committee on 22 June. There are two elements to consider: the revised application from London Video Arts (LVA) (as detailed in LVA's letters to Rodney Wilson dated 26 January (Hall, 1977a) and 13 June 1977 (Barnard, 1977)) and the recommendations made in Sue Hall and John Hopkins' Report to the Arts Council on Future Videotape Distribution (Hall, 1977) completed in May (Wilson, 1977c: 1).

22 June 1977: London. The Artists' Films Committee (AFC) of the Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) meet. Among the items discussed is a proposal received from filmmaker Mike Leggett who is currently a lecturer at Exeter College of Art. Leggett is proposing a tour of the South West by a number of filmmakers, some who are members of the Filmmakers on Tour (FMOT) scheme and other who are not. The AFC are generally in favour of expanding the FMOT scheme, but there are practical difficulties in that some of the filmmakers proposed by Leggett for the South West tour have not been funded by the Arts Council, but by the British Film Institute (BFI). Film Officer Rodney Wilson has discussed the matter informally with Peter Sainsbury at the BFI and there is interest in cooperating to include both ACGB and BFI funded films in such a tour. The proposed list of filmmakers to be included in the tour are discussed and all are considered eligible with the exception of Margaret Tait (as she lives in Scotland and can not be funded by ACGB) and Steve Farrar (as he is currently a student). The Film Officer agrees to continue discussions with the BFI and report back to Leggett on their deliberations (ACGB, 1977h: 1-2).

There is also a lengthy discussion of video funding, centred on a revised application from London Video Arts (LVA) for the funding of an exhibition venue and tape distribution scheme, and Sue Hall and John Hopkins' recently completed Report to the Arts Council on Future Videotape Distribution funded by the Research Department of the ACGB, which makes a number of recommendations for supporting video distribution activity (Hall, 1977). LVA has supplied additional information and also secured premises in Brixton via the Acme Housing Association. The Film Officer feels this demonstrates the seriousness of LVA's intent. The Committee now have to decide whether to support LVA's proposed activities or the recommendations made in Hall and Hopkins' report. While both parties address the need for similar activities, Chairman Professor Stuart Hood explains that "broadly speaking Mr Hopkins' sympathies lay with Community Video and LVA's with Artists' Video". Assistant Film Officer David Curtis reminds the meeting that while initially Hall and Hopkins' proposals had seemed more viable, LVA has moderated its requests considerably. Furthermore, some of the recommendations in the Hall and Hopkins report are really the province of the BFI and the Arts Council's Community Arts Committee, rather than the Council's Artists' Films Committee. Nevertheless, the committee discusses the report in detail, approving of its recommendations for a national dubbing centre and for Concord Films Council to handle the distribution of tapes (while also noting that artists' video would be distributed by LVA) (ACGB, 1977h: 2-4).

Discussion returns to LVA's application and Assistant Film Officer Curtis stresses that the application falls "firmly within the Committee's terms of reference and LVA would promote the interests of artists using video". It is agreed to allocate £3500 for the application, with £750 made available immediately to the organisation. The balance will be used to purchase the requested equipment which will then be "loaned to the group". Loaning the equipment is deemed advantageous because "Firstly it could be insisted that open access to the equipment be provided and secondly the equipment could be withdrawn if the project did not work out satisfactorily". LVA members will "provide staffing on a rota basis until such time as the revenue from tape-hire made it feasible to employ someone on a part-time basis" (ACGB, 1977h: 4)

An exhibition application for a second International Exhibition of Artists' Video in Washington New Town is considered. Film Officer Rodney Wilson reports that "there had been a good response locally to last year's exhibition and that he would be in favour of supporting another show". The Committee agrees and a grant of £400 is recommended (ACGB, 1977h: 6).

5 July 1977: London. Rodney Wilson (Film Officer, ACGB) replies to Mike Leggett's letter of 18 May (Leggett, 1977a) proposing an independent filmmakers tour of the South West. Funding restrictions and copyright issues mean it may not be possible to include two of the filmmakers suggested to take part in the tour. However, Wilson reports that when Leggett's proposal for the tour was discussed at the Artists' Films Committee meeting on 22 June, it met with enthusiasm and will be supported as far as possible (Wilson, 1977d).

7 July 1977: London/Devon. Felicity Sparrow (London Filmmakers' Co-operative/LFMC Distribution Organiser) replies to Chris Garratt's request for a print of Filmusic to be sent to Devon for him to retain. She prefers it remain at LFMC as it’s listed in the catalogue, but it is up to him, and mentions that David Curtis, who “is now working for the Arts Council (ACGB) and possibly buying prints for their Film Tour etc,” has expressed interest in Garratt's film.

Sparrow is about to start surveying LFMC filmmakers' attitudes to a new previewing facility, but pre-empts her general mail out to all filmmakers (and saves postage) by explaining that, while currently previewing is not allowed without a hire fee or permission of the filmmaker,

[a]t a meeting here it was decided that a more flexible arrangement could be made subject to the agreement of all filmmakers concerned. [...] This would mainly apply to foreign bookers but we are also hoping to collaborate with the British Film Institute (BFI) and their programme planning for regional theatres, with a result that hopefully more independent films will be shown in an appropriate critical/sympathetic context.

To tie in with this we are also planning to build up a “resource” centre here at the Co-op with documentation on filmmakers and films other than what is in the catalogue, plus stills etc. This would be useful for people planning festivals etc and stuff could be duplicated and sent out with the films.

She asks for documentation, such as reviews and biographical details. The next LFMC catalogue supplement is due in September, to be mailed October.

The Paris exhibition of LFMC films, including Garratt's, has significantly increased interest in UK work there and impressed the British Council, its sponsor. Sparrow hopes they will put on a bigger show at better rates next year. Garratt is owed £8 from show, which will come in September with regular royalties. (Sparrow, 1977a: 1)

7 July 1977: London. Rodney Wilson (Film Officer, Arts Council of Great Britain/ACGB) circulates to all members of the Artists' Films Committee (AFC) a memo from filmmaker Mike Leggett. Leggett argues that the Arts Council is promoting a particular group of filmmakers – namely those that are funded by the Committee – to the detriment of those who chose not to seek Arts Council funding or do not fall within the AFC's remit. While Leggett believes that the ACGB's Filmmakers on Tour scheme has "managed to preserve the important link between film-maker and film-viewer", he also argues that the AFC should make "some clear declaration on the principle of equal distribution for all film-makers" (Wilson, 1977e: 2) and recommends that the Committee introduce a policy of print purchase to assist filmmakers in making their work available for screenings and tours.

July 1977: London. Felicity Sparrow (Distribution Office, LFMC) writes to all LFMC members informing them that the Distribution Office is about to start work on compiling the first supplement to the new distribution catalogue published earlier in the year. She requests filmmakers to advise her if they want any of their films withdrawing or have any new films they would like included in the supplement. For any new films she requires, in addition to the basic credits, "some form of descriptive notes to accompany film entries: either a statement by yourself concerning working procedures or an extract from a review or commentary on the film/s." She reminds filmmakers that

The Distribution Office cannot be responsible for writing entries for films nor for giving information on films to potential hirers other than what is in the catalogue. (Sparrow, 1977b: 1)

Sparrow also informs filmmakers that the Co-op is planning to set up a resource centre with documentation on films/filmmakers and other publicity material not included in the catalogue. The collected information is to be made available to organisers of festivals and shows, both in the UK and abroad. She advises of a suggestion to introduce free previewing facilities for "potential bookers with definite shows/festivals in mind" and requests feedback on this proposal from the filmmakers. There are also plans to try and collaborate with the BFI's Film Availability Service in order to extend venues for for Co-op films: "This would possibly involve a selection of work to present as a series of programmes with initial reference to Regional Film Theatres and other more theatrical venues" (Sparrow, 1977b: 2).

13 July 1977: London. A working party of the British Film Institute (BFI), Greater London Arts Association (GLAA), Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB), Greater London Council (GLC), London Boroughs Association and the Inner London Education Authority (ILEA) presents a report on its assessment of The Other Cinema (TOC). The brief was "to examine the management structure of The Other Cinema (Exhibition) Limited in relation to the financial situation and programming policy and to make confidential recommendations on the possible need for further public funding". The assessment panel comprised Maureen McCue (Film/Video Officer), Phyllis Hemingway (Finance Officer) and David Pratley (Director) from GLAA and Barrie Ellis-Jones (Regional Officer) from the BFI.

The assessment began in February 1977. The panel reports that:

The Other Cinema plays a valuable cultural role in screening in the West End of London independent productions of social significance which would otherwise be unlikely to receive such exposure.

However, the Charlotte Street cinema's programme "has not been able to attract a sufficiently large audience to provide the revenue needed to cover the cinema's operating costs". TOC (Exhibition) is carrying a capital and operating deficit of approximately £38,500. The assessors identify three reasons for the cinema opening with debts: an escalation in building costs, a failure to reach their fundraising target (due to fundraising costs escalating to over £15000), and a failure to include professional fees in the estimated costs. In addition, TOC have underestimated the weekly break-even figure. Estimated in September 1975 at £1429, the actual figure is £1700. The main areas of over-expenditure are salaries and publicity.

The Other Cinema (Exhibition) Ltd, the cinema company, is wholly owned by The Other Cinema Ltd. Legally the exhibition company only requires a three person board of directors, but both companies are governed by a Council of Management, which members of staff also attend, is responsible for financial and cultural policy, and operates on a collective basis. In practice, the assessors note there has been poor administration and poor management, complicated further by an excessive number of meetings. However, they also note that since the cinema project received £17,500 from the BFI and £2500 from GLAA, the funding bodies did not undertake sufficient monitoring prior to the cinema's opening.

The assessors make several recommendations, including: distribution and exhibition should remain separate, a change in membership of the Council of Management, staff levels could be reduced, and "Without evidence of a high measure of private financial support, the Panel believes that no further public funds should be injected into the company". They conclude that TOC is not taking sufficient measures to address the current situation and predict that "Unless The Other Cinema can raise funds rapidly … it will be compelled to cease trading in a matter of months". (BFI, 1977)

14 July 1977: London. At its General Meeting, LFMC members endorse the organisation becoming registered as a Company Limited by Guarantee. This is mostly a legal formality designed to protect individual members from liability when the Co-op takes on the lease for their new premises at 42 Gloucester Avenue later in the year. The new premises are in an ex-British Rail concert room and canteen and will give the organisation twice the space of its existing temporary premises at Fitzroy Road (LFMC, 1977b: 2).

24 September 1977: London. The London Film-makers' Co-op (LFMC) moves to its new premises at 42 Gloucester Avenue. A complication with the lease has prevented them from moving in June as had been originally planned. Some structural alterations still need doing, but the cinema is scheduled to open on 28 September. They anticipate it will be a couple of months before the workshop can reopen, but hope to have it operational again before Christmas. The new catalogue, published in May, "has brought in a lot more bookings" (Sparrow, 1977c).

October–December 1977: South West. LFMC member Mike Leggett organises the first Independent Filmmakers Tour of the South West, funded by the Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB), the British Film Institute (BFI) and South West Arts (SWA). Each week throughout October, November and early December a filmmaker tours Bristol, Exeter, Plymouth, Falmouth, St Ives, Penzance, Dartington and Exmouth. Included in the tour are Laura Mulvey, Lis Rhodes, William Raban, Humphrey Trevelyan (Berwick Street Collective), Peter Gidal, Steve Farrar, Tony Sinden, Roger Wilson, James Scott (Berwick St Collective) and Margaret Tait (Leggett, 1977b).

The idea for the tour comes from and draws on the Arts Council's Filmmakers on Tour (FMOT) scheme, which provides exhibition subsidy to allow filmmakers to present and discuss their work at venues around the country at minimal cost to the venues. Leggett argues that if "many of the film-makers are travelling a great distance and occupying two days of their time to present just one show of work, it seemed appropriate for them as well as 'a potential audience' that their presence in the area should be extended to include further screenings" (Leggett, 1979c: 2)(IFA South West, 1977). Publicity for the tours is variable and audiences vary from 70–100 in Dartington, at the regional film theatre (RFT) "with its 'captive' resident student population" (Leggett, 1979c: 6), to smaller audiences of 12–40 at less experienced venues. Thus the tour demonstrates the importance of advance publicity and providing venues with programming advice (IFA South West, 1977)

The primary purpose of making the work available to a larger number of people who would not otherwise, by virtue of being in one of the traditional cultural centres, have a geographical access to it, obviously succeeded – some 1500 attendances were recorded for all of the venues and film-makers, a number usually only recorded at festivals of independent work

9 October 1977: London/Colorado. Simon Field writes to Stan Brakhage, as he has been invited to assemble a series of programmes of Brakhage's work with a booklet by David Curtis, who is "now working for the Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB).” The programmes will be targeted at “film societies, colleges, museums, art galleries throughout England” and Brakhage's will be “the first of a series of such projects that David is initiating to encourage interest and enthusiasm for independent film.”

Brakhage films held by LFMC will be booked from there by the ACGB for the 2 or 3 months that the programmes are offered, and it is hoped that this will also generate future bookings for LFMC (Field, 1977?: 1). Field asks if the guaranteed bookings would allow Brakhage to provide LFMC with any new prints of new work and old – Mothlight is very worn – and if he will be in Europe at the time of the shows. (Field, 1977?: 2)

10 October 1977: Devon/London. Chris Garratt writes to Felicity Sparrow (London Filmmakers' Co-operative/LFMC Distribution Organiser) asking that his film Filmusic part 1 be sent for a Plymouth Arts Centre performance as part of the South West Independent Film Tour on 3 November. Because this has been organised under the Arts Council of Great Britain's (ACGB) Filmmakers on Tour Scheme (FMOT), Garratt has been paid a flat fee by the ACGB in lieu of rentals or royalties, but he suggests that LFMC is entitled to a percentage of this as the film's distributor. Lis Rhodes will be in Exeter that evening on the South West Independent Tour, also covered by the FMOT. (Garratt, 1977: 1-2).

14 October 1977: London/Devon. Felicity Sparrow (London Filmmakers' Co-operative/LFMC Distribution Organiser) writes to Chris Garratt asking that his Filmusic, which is being returned to him to be kept at home with the letter, be back a week prior to a booking made for 14 November at a show organised by Peter Gidal at the Royal College of Art. Also, LFMC Cinema Organiser Deke Dusinberre wants to show the film, either in a programme of Garratt's work or as an extension of RCA show.

Regarding the Filmmakers on Tour scheme, no, we don’t take a percentage. The Co-op only charges 10% on shows where the Distribution Office sets them up and does all the paperwork. As the AC [Arts Council of Great Britain/ACGB] has done this we can’t really take a cut as it makes it a disadvantage to distribute through the Co-op if members gave 10% and others didn’t. The AC has undermined the Co-op in this activity as we don’t arrange shows anymore as people can get them in this package deal through the AC. Still, the main thing is that the films get shown …

The move to 42 Gloucester Avenue over previous weeks has been difficult, but okay now. “The cinema opened to a fantastically large audience (yes, even for Gidal’s films) despite nearly gassing them to death (we had a leak!) and general heath-robinson effects.” (Sparrow, 1977d: 1)

14 October 1977: London. Hilary Thompson (Film Promotions Officer, BFI) writes to exhibitors announcing two new pilot schemes "intended to promote the exhibition of BFI films in your cinema" (Thompson, 1977: 1). The first scheme is "designed to encourage and facilitate the exhibition practice that places the filmmaker and audience in an active relationship to a film and to each other and is considered by many independent film-makers to be an essential extension of the production process" (Thompson, 1977: 2). The filmmaker has to arrange their own visit to a venue and the exhibitor will pay the normal film hire fee, but the expenses incurred by the filmmaker plus a fee will be paid by the BFI Production Dept. The second scheme is designed to assist exhibitors with the costs of advertising BFI films locally prior to their exhibition (Thompson, 1977: 3). However, Thompson stresses that she has limited funds available and the schemes may have to be modified or discontinued at any time, depending on the take up (Thompson, 1977: 1).

November-December 1977: London. The LFMC sends out a newsletter, notifying members of a forthcoming General Meeting on 10 December and stressing "It's your Co-op, your decisions, please come". The Co-op is still negotiating its lease on its new premises at 42 Gloucester Avenue, but has moved in ahead of completion of the lease agreement, in October, due to Camden Council issuing a court order on their previous temporary premises in Fitzroy Road. The new premises are in an ex-British Rail concert room and canteen situated above an industrial laundry. Conversion plans are underway, with funding raised from Manpower Services (£12,000 to cover labour costs), and the British Film Institute (BFI), Greater London Council (GLC) and Gulbenkian Foundation, totalling £5000. In the meantime Co-op workers have set up a makeshift cinema, which Deke Dusinberre is operating two nights a week. Distribution worker Felicity Sparrow is bringing out the first supplement to the Co-op catalogue. The LFMC has become registered as a Company Limited by Guarantee: "This is for the most part a legal formality designed to protect individual members from liability with the Co-op talking a lease for the new building". The constitution remains practically unaltered but the Co-op is in the process of being a registered charity and its accounts are now being audited annually (LFMC, 1977b).

10 December 1977: London. The London Filmmakers' Co-op (LFMC) holds a General Meeting. The Distribution Report triggers discussion of "the Co-op's role vis a vis the Arts Council's schemes for subsidised screenings of films". Felicity Sparrow (Distribution, LFMC) expresses concern at the perceived competition from the Arts Council's Filmmakers on Tour (FMOT) scheme which launched in February, its support of the recent South West film tour and its planned touring version of the 'Perspectives on British Avant Garde Film' show that was held at the Hayward Gallery in March–April. The touring Perspectives show will be shown in major arts centres in Europe. From the Distribution Office's point of view, such initiatives are undermining the Co-op financially and mean that "the role of the Co-op as distributing its members' films was being overtaken by the establishment".

For the past 11 years considerable time and effort had gone into making contacts in Europe, both by the distribution office and individuals touring with films which would go by the board when the AC stepped in with a cheaper more attractive package deal (LFMC, 1977c: 1)

Filmmaker member Annabel Nicolson, as an invited participant of the tour, raises the issue of the Arts Council's selective approach, arguing that the works included would come to be viewed as constituting a neat, coherent history, at the cost of marginalising any filmmakers excluded. Felicity Sparrow explains that "when the Co-op sent out a package of 'non-selected' work it was a far broader representation of filmmakers and dominance wasn't given to better known filmmakers as in this instance" (LFMC, 1977c: 2).

Member and LFMC Cinema Organiser Deke Dusinberre informs the meeting that the selection has been done by himself and the Arts Council's Assistant Film Officer David Curtis following the success of the Hayward show earlier in the year. He feels that the proposed European touring version of the show will be "favourable to filmmakers as the AC would be used to promote British filmmaking in an area where up to now very little attention has been paid as to what was going on in Britain. The Co-op wasn't capable of making that intervention as it can't make that administrative thrust".

The discussion concludes with Felicity Sparrow reminding the meeting that the planned Perspectives tour is part of the wider issue of the Arts Council's subsidised screenings. She stresses that the LFMC "couldn't compete, should it sit back and merely become distributors of American films in London, which it seemed would be the case if the [Perspectives] package toured Britain, together with the Film Tour and Filmmakers on Tour". It is agreed to convene a meeting with David Curtis and Deke Dusinberre later in the month (LFMC, 1977c).

12 December 1977: London. A group of LFMC members meet to discuss further the issues raised at the Co-op's General Meeting on 10 December regarding the Arts Council's planned Perspectives package tour to Europe. Among those present are Distribution worker Felicity Sparrow and filmmaker members Annabel Nicolson, Chris Welsby, Lis Rhodes, Guy Sherwin, John Smith and Peter Gidal. Discussion covers fees to filmmakers included in the tour, as well as the title of the show and the selection of work included. It is felt that since the show constitutes "the British export of underground movies with the official seal of approval of the Art Council it should be stressed as being a subjective selection by Deke Dusinberre and David Curtis and not sold as the official, and therefore THE, historical selection". Those present also argue that the Co-op's Distribution should be acknowledged and that the Co-op should "be credited in the programme notes as being the only place in Britain where people can make, show and distribute their films (under one roof). They agree to meet the Arts Council's Assistant Film Officer David Curtis and LFMC member Deke Dusinberre on Tuesday 20 December to discuss their concerns (LFMC, 1977d).

1978

7 January 1978: Devon/London. Chris Garratt writes to Felicity Sparrow (London Filmmakers' Co-operative/LFMC Distribution Organiser) asking that a number of his films be sent to him for a show in Somerset, the hire fees and transport to be invoiced to South West Arts (SWA). Regarding the meeting on 9 January to address perceived competion from Arts Council of Great Britian (ACGB) subsidised screenings:

My feeling about the ACGB/Co-op problem are mixed. I feel the ACGB should recognise the important past and present function of the Co-op in all its offices 1. by increased subsidy towards workshop operations, without which many ACGB funded films wouldn’t get made, certainly not in the way they are, and 2. By allowing the Co-op catalogue to continue as the primary distribution source, and not duplicating function. This wouldn’t stop them doing their “Greatest Hits” tours. These should be compiled in close consultation with Co-op distribution staff to ensure a democratic choice of the widest possible range of available films. (Garratt, 1978: 1-2)

February 1978: London. Sue Hall and John Hopkins publish a Video Distribution Handbook. It is based on research they undertook in 1976–77, funded by the Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB), to investigate the potential for video distribution in the independent and community arts sectors (Hall, 1977). The handbook is aimed at anyone who wants to put on video shows, giving detailed technical information as well as a complete guide on "How to do showings" and listings of distributors and venues (Hall, 1978).

8 March 1978: London. David Hall and Stuart Marshall (LVA Steering Committee) write to Rodney Wilson (Film Officer, ACGB) in connection with their planned catalogue which is now reading for printing. It lists tapes for rental and sale, as well as descriptions of installations and performances. The response to their call for artists to submit work for inclusion has been greater than anticipated, resulting in over 250 works from 80 artists. LVA had originally budgeted (and received from the Arts Council) £300 to cover typesetting and printing, but the cost has now risen to £800 and they are therefore requesting an additional £500 of funding to meet the shortfall (Hall, 1978).

24 April 1978: Exeter/London. Chris Rodrigues (Film Officer, South West Arts) writes to David Curtis (Assistant Film Officer, Arts Council of Great Britain/ACGB) in connection with the first independent filmmakers tour in the South West which took place October to December the previous year. Modelled principally on the Arts Council's Filmmakers on Tour scheme, Rodrigues reports that the 1977 tour was considered "quite a successful venture and one worth developing and improving upon in the coming year". An ad hoc committee has been set up to review the operation of last year's tour and plan for a second one in the autumn. The committee consists of Archie Tait (Film Coordinator, Arnolfini), Chris Rodley (Film Coordinator, Bristol Arts Centre), Mike Leggett, John Gridley, David Hopkins (Independent Cinema West) and Rodrigues. Based on the disparate audiences for the 1977 tour, for the 1978 tour they are proposing "a two-tier system":

one, similar in conception to the original tour, would place film-makers in 'sympathetic' contexts (mostly art schools) e.g. Exeter, Dartington, Falmouth; the other would be more explicitly geared to relatively untutored audiences (such as they exist for example in film societies). The tour according to this formulation would extend to include not only film-makers but theorists and critics as well so that a variety of introductory perspectives or a range of independent work would be provided.

Rodrigues anticipates utilising funding support from various sources for the tour, including the BFI's Film Availability Service. (Rodrigues, 1978a).

6–21 May 1978: Coventry. The Video Art 78 international festival of video art is held at the Herbert Art Gallery and Museum, organised jointly with the Media Centre at Lanchester Polytechnic in Coventry. The festival includes single screen tapes, installations and performances. Among the artists included are Ulay/Marina Abramovic, Ken Atherton, Roger Barnard, David Critchley, Keith Frake, Dieter Froese, David Hall, Brian Hoey, Nan Hoover, Joan Jonas, Tamara Krikorian, Stuart Marshall, Alex Meigh, Marceline Mori, Steve Partridge, Friederike Pezold, Ulrike Rosenbach, Bill Viola, Peter Weibel. David Curtis (Assistant Film Officer, Arts Council of Great Britain) and Simon Wilson (Tate Gallery) assist with the selection. Steve Partridge is the Festival Director, while the catalogue includes an introductory essay by David Hall entitled "Using video and Video Art: some notes" (Broadhead, 1978).

12 May 1978: Exeter/London. Chris Rodrigues (Film Officer, South West Arts) writes to David Curtis (Assistant Film Officer, ACGB) with rough costings for the second Independent Filmmakers Tour in the South West, scheduled for autumn. He provides provisional costings for the tour, which total £900, and it seems likely that Rod Stoneman will undertake responsibility for organising the tour (Rodrigues, 1978b).

17 May 1978: London. David Curtis (Assistant Film Officer, Arts Council of Great Britain/ACGB) writes to all filmmakers participating in the Filmmakers on Tour scheme to advise the outcome of discussions that have been taking place over the past six months. A condition of the scheme has been that hiring venues have to make the shows free of charge to audiences. However, the Artists' Films Committee (AFC) has decided to introduce a second tier to the scheme which will allow for admission charges to be made by the organising venue, on condition they pay rentals on the films shown. While acknowledging the scheme has been well-used since its launch in February 1977, Curtis hints that it has been open to abuse:

The scheme is not intended, for example, to insulate venues against the financial loss that would otherwise result from their inadequate advertising; neither is it intended to be an infinite source of cheap lecturers for colleges; nor, on the other hand, is it an invitation to film-makers to make non-speaking 'star' appearances with their films. Film-makers must advise and assist venues with publicity; they should evaluate each venue's needs; and above all else, they must be prepared to talk, discuss and otherwise engage with audiences when using the scheme. (Curtis, 1978a: 1)

2 June 1978: London/Exeter. Rodney Wilson (Film Officer, Arts Council of Great Britain/ACGB) replies to a letter sent by Chris Rodrigues (Film Officer, South West Arts) in May to the ACGB's Assistant Film Officer, David Curtis. Wilson confirms that the Artists' Films Committee (AFC) are in principle "enthusiastic" about a second Independent Filmmakers Tour in the South West, scheduled for the autumn and requests a more concrete proposal and budget to submit to the next AFC meeting on 30 June. He agrees Rod Stoneman seems a good choice for organiser of the second tour (Wilson, 1978).

August 1978: Europe/Australia/Hong Kong. The Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) launches its touring exhibition A Perspective on English Avant-Garde Film, jointly organised with the British Council, at the Edinburgh Film Festival. Over the next two years, the exhibition tours France, Germany, Norway, Poland, Yugoslavia, Italy, UK, Australia and Hong Kong (Curtis, 1984: 12).

October–December 1978: South West. Following on from the successful Independent Film-makers Tour of the South West organised by Mike Leggett in autumn 1977, Rod Stoneman organises a further film tour for the region. Eleven film programmes are scheduled across a variety of venues at the rate of one per week from the beginning of October. The packages include work by Ken McMullen, members of the East Midland Independent Filmmakers Association (IFA), the Berwick Street Collective, Cinema Action, Lis Rhodes Steve Farrer, Guy Sherwin, Stan Brakhage and others. The tours are jointly funded by the Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB), the British Film Institute (BFI) and South West Arts (SWA). In a report written the following year, Stoneman argues that "one can argue for Film Tours as a basis for the consistent and coherent programming of independent work and as a strategy for increasing and extending its audience in the regions outside London" and makes a set of proposals for simplifying the organisation of such tours. (Stoneman, 1979c).

13 October 1978: London/New York. Ian Christie (Regional Programme Adviser, British Film Institute/BFI) writes to Anthology Film Archives regarding their apparent reservations about assisting the London Filmmakers' Co-operative (LFMC) to distribute Joseph Cornell’s Rose Hobart in the UK. He laments that, despite obvious demand, there are no prints of any Cornell work in distribution in the UK. While the BFI would distribute the work if need be, “Rose Hobart would be rather lost in the BFI catalogue, whereas in the Co-op there is every chance of its being widely noticed and shown.” Christie further praises LFMC, pointing out that the BFI has assisted them to restore European avant-garde films and recently to move premises. (Christie, 1978: 1).

28 October 1978: London. The London Film-makers Co-operative (LFMC) hold a General Meeting, at which reports are presented from distribution, the workshop and and cinema (LFMC, 1978b). Distribution reports on income and expenditure figures from July 1977–March 1978, a new catalogue supplement, acquisitions being facilitated by the British Film Institute (BFI), festivals/overseas bookings, a proposed previewing service and rental fee increases, a new resource centre and print maintenance (LFMC, 1978a)

In the afternoon member Mike Leggett tables a discussion paper "to Raise, on a Pragmatic Level, the Problems of Screenings, Venues and Contexts; and on a Theoretical Level, the Issues of Functions, Ideologies and Institutionalisation". The paper recounts the historical successes of the LFMC in establishing and gaining recognition for independent film which resulted in the first revenue funding from the BFI in 1975. However, Leggett argues that the price of that achievement has been "a drift by many film-makers toward being simply producers, whose responsibilities end by placing the film can in the Co-op cupboard or some notes in an Arts Council catalogue", with filmmakers becoming distanced from their audiences. The paper raises such issues as the LFMC's non-promotional 'passive' distribution practice vs the highly selective promotional activities of the Arts Council – such as the Filmmakers on Tour scheme and the 1977 Perspectives on British Avant-Garde Film exhibition held at the Hayward – and where LFMC filmmakers will find audiences for their work in future (Leggett, 1978a). As a result a group of nine LFMC members – Andrew Dunlop, Malcolm Le Grice, Jeanette Iljon, James McKay, Andrew Nicolson, Stuart Pound, Al Rees, Rod Stoneman and Leggett – agree to form an LFMC Distribution and Exhibition Working Party and to hold three meetings before the next AGM to review the Co-op's current distribution and exhibition practices on behalf of the membership.

November 1978: London. The LFMC reports on their participation in the this year's Edinburgh Film Festival, which was disappointing. There was no platform/space for public discussion and those LFMC members who attended felt Co-op/experimental work was ghettoised by being shown on the other side of the city to where the main preview theatre was and by all films being programmed together at the end of the second week of the festival. Publicity was also poor, which impacted on the size of audiences. Suggestions are included in the report for future festival participation, including resisting the packaging of experimental work together and that the Co-op should "negotiate/press for commitment to support individuals", as well as seeking more space for debate and less isolation. Some of these suggestions were pursued at a meeting with the festival's director, Lynda Myles, in October. The report concurs with some of the points raised by Mike Leggett at the Co-op's General Meeting on 28 October (Leggett, 1978a), in particular that "there's definitely a need for more consolidated participation by filmmakers in the screening/viewing/general presentation of their work" (LFMC, 1978c).

3 November 1978: London. Curtis, David (Assistant Film Officer, ACGB), Geoffrey Nowell-Smith (Head, Educational Advisory Service, BFI), Hilary Thompson (Film Promotions Officer, Production Dept, BFI) and Paul Willemen (Publicity and Documentation Officer, Film Availability Services, BFI) send a joint letter to Regional Arts Associations offering funding and administrative assistance in organising regional film tours. This follows the success of the first South West Arts, organised by Mike Leggett, in autumn 1977. The letter argues that "the South West tour seems to offer a useful model for the efficient deployment of subsidy, time and effort – a model which other RAAs may be interest to develop in ways appropriate to their regions" (Curtis, 1978b).

13 November 1978: London. LFMC Distribution workers Felicity Sparrow and Mary Pat Leece write to all Co-op filmmakers, enclosing a copy of the Distribution report presented at the General Meeting on 28 October (LFMC, 1978a) and a questionnaire about offering a free previewing service and film rental fee increases – these proposals met with a mixed response at the October meeting. Sparrow and Leece stress that the need to offer reduced cost or free previewing is rare, but would be helpful to secure bookings in the case of individuals organising exhibitions and festivals that can't afford the rentals. They propose "that the discretion of the distribution staff is used to determine when there should be free previewing facilities, as outlined in paragraph 5 of the Distribution report. The proposed price increases are directed primarily at foreign filmmakers. Co-op policy is that "rental fees re to be determined by the filmmaker", but the workers suggest 50p per minute for films up to 45 minutes, and 35p per minute for longer films (Sparrow, 1978: 1). Filmmakers are asked to complete the enclosed questionnaire indicating if and when they agree to their films being previewed and what rental fee they would like to charge for their films (Sparrow, 1978: 2).

November 1978: London. Roger Barnard (LVA, Chairman) writes to Rodney Wilson (ACGB, Film Officer) enclosing an application for funding to cover the distribution costs of their new catalogue, some publicity material and stationery, as well as some office furniture. The funding request totals £4055 (Barnard, 1978a).

28 November 1978: London. Roger Barnard (LVA, Chairman) writes to Rodney Wilson (ACGB, Film Officer) to make an application for funding to present 45 video shows in 1979. He notes that "LVA's Tape Showings at the AIR Gallery have been very successful; over 280 people came to the first three showings, which presented the work of twenty artists. … LVA's shows are the only regular opportunity for the public to see artists' work in video" (Barnard, 1978b: 1). Funding is needed for equipment hire, publicity (posters and adverts in appropriate publications), programme notes, and various expenses. The budget for 45 shows totals £6469 – an average of £144 per show – and Barnard reminds Wilson that "most of the work put in to make these shows a success is done on a voluntary basis without wages" (Barnard, 1978b: 2).

29 November 1978: Birmingham/London. Tony Bloor (Birmingham Filmmakers Co-operative) writes to David Curtis (Assistant Film Officer, Arts Council of Great Britain/ACGB) to give Curtis some background information on a series of film screenings being run by the Birmingham Filmmakers Co-operative. The screenings have been staged fortnightly since January, with a range of expanded cinema, video shows, historically significant films, films by local groups and visiting filmmakers programmed. The screening series was set up partly as "a response to the lack of any regular and coherent exhibition of independent work in the West Midlands", and partly as an intellectual stimulus to local filmmakers with a view to encouraging greater use of the Co-op's facilities. However, "[t]he wide-ranging nature of the screenings has tended to attract an eclectic audience, with continuity difficult to sustain over long periods" (Bloor, 1978: 1). The Co-op is based at Birmingham's Arts Lab and shows have been screened either in the Arts Lab's cinema, its coffee bar for more informal shows, or the Holt Street Gallery owned by Aston University's Centre for the Arts. However, dependence on other venues for screening spaces, rather than having access to their own autonomous space, has proved problematic – the spaces are not always available when wanted, and there is noise spillage when using the Arts Lab's coffee bar. Bloor concludes that:

In terms of consolidating an audience for the screenings, we have had only limited success. There is a small hard-core audience and a periphery that turn up for specialist interests. For example, a politically oriented audience that will turn up for 'Juvenile Liaison' and 'Cinetracts from May '68' but not for anything else … with shows once only every two weeks and an eclectic audience, continuity is difficult to maintain. The average audience is around 20–25. This fluctuates dramatically (Bloor, 1978: 2)

December 1978: Devon/London. LFMC member Mike Leggett sends a document to nine Co-op members who have volunteered to join an LFMC Distribution and Exhibition Working Party to discuss "various areas of concern" raised at the LFMC's General Meeting held on 28 October 1978. Along with Leggett, the members are Andrew Dunlop, Malcolm Legrice, Jeanette Iljon, James McKay, Andrew Nicolson, Stuart Pound, Al Rees and Rod Stoneman. The areas of concern include the state of the current LFMC archive, filmmaker involvement with venues, keeping track of current avant-garde film discourse, and developing a distribution strategy via marketing and the "creation of specific contexts". The group are to meet three times before the next AGM. Of particular concern is that public discourse around LFMC members' film practice is 'patchy' and that "the actual contact film-makers have with film-veiwers and the venues is increasingly becoming more remote" (Leggett, 1978b: 2). Leggett proposes that the first meeting takes please on 27 January 1979 (Leggett, 1978b).

18 December 1978: London. The Artists' Films Committee (AFC) of the Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) consider, among other things, the issues of video funding and film distribution. Under the former, Ian Christie (BFI) reports on a further meeting with London Video Artists (LVA) which covered two main points. Firstly, LVA has found a home in The Other Cinema's (TOC) space at Little Newport Street; and secondly, it was agreed in principle that additional production equipment should be made available to LVA, via an extension to the existing loan scheme. However, the Assistant Film Officer raised the issue of staffing and maintenance should more equipment be loaned to LVA. LVA's two funding applications made in November for catalogue distribution costs, office furniture (Barnard, 1978a) and an exhibition programme (Barnard, 1978b) are not considered. A Video Makers on Tour scheme is also discussed, to be run on similar lines to the Filmmakers on Tour scheme. The AFC endorse this proposal and it is envisaged the new video scheme might start in the middle of 1979 (ACGB, 1978: 2-3). Under film distribution, the committee considers an application from the London Film-Makers' Co-op (LFMC) to cover restoration costs of some prints which are at risk of being lost from circulation. The committee request evidence that the filmmakers support the application being made on their behalf and that the LFMC is unable to meet the restoration costs from its share of the royalty split. (ACGB, 1978: 5).

1979

26 January 1979: London. Rodney Wilson (Film Officer, ACGB) writes to Roger Barnard (Chairman, LVA) requesting additional information in relation to two applications made by LVA in November 1978. These were due for discussion at the last meeting of the Arts Council's Artists' Films Committee on 18 December 1978 (ACGB, 1978: 5), but were held over and are now due to be considered at a policy meeting scheduled for 5 February. With regard to the application of 28 November (Barnard, 1978b) for exhibition funding, Wilson requires more details about the 45 shows planned for the AIR Gallery this year. In particular, he queries the absence of an income figure and their budgeting for renting a u-matic playback deck rather than specifying the use of their existing u-matic deck, on loan from the Arts Council, for staging the shows. With regard to the other application covering catalogue distribution costs (Barnard, 1978a), Wilson notes the omission of any income generated by catalogue sales and the tapes themselves (Wilson, 1979).

27 January 1979: London. Mike Leggett, James Mackay, Andrew Nicolson, Andrew Dunlop and Rod Stoneman convene the first meeting of the LFMC Distribution and Exhibition Working Party at the Co-op's premises. After much debate they agree to draw up detailed minutes of their discussion of 3–4 areas, identifying particular tasks, with a view to drawing up specific proposals for presentation at the next AGM. The tasks identified include looking "into the requirements of/for an (anthology) Catalogue", drawing up a set of guidelines for use by filmmakers and venues, and examining the requirements for someone to deal with foreign bookers and festival organisers, as well as generating events. The second meeting of the Working Party is scheduled for 2 March (Leggett, 1979a).

February 1979: Devon/London. Members of the LFMC Distribution and Exhibition Working Party start to draft guidelines and proposals, as agreed at their meeting on 27 January. James Mackay produces a Festivals Programming Report, looking at the different types of festivals and how best to present independent work at such events. He suggests setting up a group to monitor festival bookings and assist with facilitating bookings/programming, as well as ensure that the Co-op only engages with festivals that pay film rentals and that adequate provision for after-screening discussions is provided at such events (Mackay, 1979). Rod Stoneman drafts proposals for two publications, a catalogue and a magazine. For the catalogue, he suggests it should include "general articles (both previously written and specially commissioned) from pieces on background … to articles on specific areas of work" (Stoneman, 1979a: 1). This overall contextualisation and promotion is designed to counter the selectivity of recent Arts Council's schemes and shows. He also argues that "Some stress should be laid in the catalogue on the the Co-op's practices of accompanied screenings" and offers some very tentative thoughts on a possible magazine (Stoneman, 1979a). Andrew Dunlop draws up more detailed notes concerning the proposal for a magazine: what would its objectives be, what readership would it target, how would it be financed and run (Dunlop, 1979). Andrew Nicolson adds some further comments in response to Dunlop's ideas (Nicolson, 1979).

2 February 1979: London. Roger Barnard (LVA, Chairman) replies to a letter from Rodney Wilson (ACGB, Film Officer) dated 26 January 1977 (Wilson, 1979) which requested additional information in relation to two funding applications made by LVA in November 1978 (Barnard, 1978b)(Barnard, 1978a). With regard to the omission of any income from the exhibition programme, catalogue sales and tape hires listed in the budgets, Barnard explains that those monies are used to cover rent and other recurring costs that the Arts Council are unable to provide funding for. The renting of a u-matic playback deck has been included in the budget for the exhibition programme because, while they have been using their existing u-matic deck, currently on loan from the Arts Council, to stage their video shows at the AIR gallery, they require a second deck because "it has been very difficult to play tapes to an average of 50 people" (Barnard, 1979).

March 1979: Devon/London. Members of the LFMC Distribution and Exhibition Working Party draw up revised, more detailed proposals for Festival programming/monitoring (Mackay, James, 1979) and a new catalogue (Stoneman, 1979b). Stoneman estimates that producing the proposed new catalogue will take 6–9 months of editorial work, provides some costings and suggests they should seek funding from the BFI Editorial Department, GLAA and the Arts Council. Mike Leggett draws up detailed guidelines for Filmmakers and Renters who wish organise screenings. Emphasis is given to the fact that "the films available from the LFMC have rarely sought simply to entertain" and usually require the viewer to reassess their expectations of film as a representational system. Leggett notes that "the way the films are publicised and then introduced to and discussed with the audience have come to be recognised by many film-makers as essential elements involved in the move away from the notion of 'film for consumption'." His proposed guidelines cover things such as initial contact, presentation format, booking, pre-publicity, equipment, programme information, travel/accommodation, and payment/fees (Leggett, 1979b).

April 1979: London. The LFMC Distribution and Exhibition Working Party draws up a final proposal for a Co-op magazine, detailing the need for it, its objectives, the potential readership and format, together with its financing, structure and content (LFMC, 1979a).

11 April 1979: London/New York. Mary Pat Leece (Distribution, LFMC) writes to filmmaker Robert Breer enclosing a royalty cheque and explaining they will in future be making royalty payments to foreign filmmakers via banker's draft, but due to high bank changes will pay out only once a year. She mentions the forthcoming LFMC General Meeting on 28 April, saying:

the agenda looks very full with lots of discussion topics which could change the Co-op dramatically … high hopes for starting a Co-op magazine/journal; fraught arguments about the non-selective, non-promotional policy of distribution; general aims to increase the number of performances each week.

She concludes that "Things are finally beginning to come together in the new building and I think the staff are much happier about the general atmosphere" (Leece, 1979).

28 April 1979: London. The LFMC hold and Extraordinary General Meeting. The proposals made by the LFMC Distribution and Exhibition Working Party are on the agenda, but are not discussed due to lack of time (LFMC, 1979b).

1979: London. Feminist film distribution collective Cinema of Women (COW) form from the feminist discussion group Cinesisters, which is concerned with the treatment of women’s films by non-feminist distributors. (Cairncross, 1983: 17).

26 July 1979: London. Mandy Rose, Fern Presant, Audrey Summerhill, Caroline Spry, Melanie Chail and Maggie Sellers meet to draw up the aims and a description of Cinema of Women (COW). They confirm that COW is a collective and agree that:

The purpose of the collective is to provide distribution of feminist films so that the collective and the film-maker has control over how, where and to whom films are shown; and also to ensure that any money made through distribution goes back into buying/supporting/distributing feminist film. ... Decisions about which films are bought/distributed will be made collectively on the basis that feminist films are those which speak from an understanding of the position of women and/or seek to disrupt the assumptions of the political economic and social system which upholds the domination of women by men (COW, 1979a)

.

August 1979: Edinburgh. Audrey Summerhill (Cinema of Women/COW) meets Michelle Citron at the Edinburgh Film Festival, arranging for COW to distribute a print of the latter's Daughter Rite (1979). The festival's feminist conference ends in a split. (COW, 1979b) (Citron, 1980a).

14 September 1979: London. The LFMC send their membership a letter announcing an Extraordinary General Meeting will be held on 6 October "to discuss the important proposals" drawn up by the LFMC Distribution and Exhibition Working Party. The proposals had been scheduled for the April EGM, but were not discussed due to lack of time (LFMC, 1979c).

18 September 1979: London/Illinios. Cinema of Women (COW) writes to Michelle Citron, sending an international money order of US$188/£85 to pay for COW's print of Daughter Rite (1979), along with two copies of the distribution contract. Any desired changes should be made, both copies returned signed, after which Citron's copy will be returned counter signed by COW.

Of the recent feminst film conference at the Edinburgh festival, “[w]e all came back from Edinburgh with ideas of work that needed to be done around feminist film theory and hopefully will be writing some articles in the future”. (COW, 1979b)

1 October 1979: Illinois/London. Michelle Citron writes to Audrey Summerhill (Cinema of Women/COW) regarding apparent inconsistancies in the distribution contract for Daughter Rite, particularly whether she is expected to grant exclusive rights. She has already granted The Other Cinema (TOC) non-exclusive distribution rights, and they are planning to open it at the Little Bit Ritzy festival with Sally Potter's Thriller. Citron thinks this will also be good publicity for COW, and that COW and TOC will tend to find different audiences. COW's print is being made and, as Daughter Rite has been invited to the London Film Festival (LFF, 15-30 November), COW's print will be sent to the UK for that showing, at LFF's expense. (Citron, 1979a).

3 October 1979: Illinois/London. Michelle Citron advises Audrey Summerhill (Cinema of Women/COW) that Daughter Rite will not be showing at London Film Festival (LFF), as she has refused to cancel the Little Bit Ritzy show to give LFF the UK premiere. COW's print of Daughter Rite is ready, and Citron is looking for another way to send it. (Citron, 1979b).

6 October 1979: London. The LFMC hold an Extraordinary General Meeting to discuss the proposals made by the LFMC Distribution and Exhibition Working Party. Working Party member Mike Leggett presents his 'Guidelines for filmmakers and screening organisers' and after some discussion the guidelines are accepted in principle. A leaflet is to be produced and circulated through the LFMC mailing list and next catalogue supplement. The proposal for a magazine is discussed and results in an interim committee – comprising Malcolm Le Grice, Peter Milner, Nicky Hamlyn, Rod Stoneman, Ann Rees-Mogg and Peter Gidal – being constituted to convene an open meeting on 13 November to carry the proposal forward. Rod Stoneman presents the proposal for a new Catalogue, which meets with mixed response and the project is postponed until after the proposed magazine has been launched. The Festivals Programming report, presented by James Mackay, results in the decision to elect an committee at the AGM on 24 November to oversee festival programming (LFMC, 1979d).

9 October 1979: Illinois/London. Michelle Citron writes to Cinema Of Women (COW) that their print of Daughter Rite is with The Other Cinema (TOC). Because TOC’s print was not sent air freight, COW’s had to be in order to make the Little Bit Ritzy screening. Citron suggests that COW pick up the first print, paying transport if necessary, which is also TOC’s suggestion. (Citron, 1979c).

12 October 1979: Illinois/London. Michelle Citron returns distribution contracts for Daughter Rite to Cinema of Women (COW). She is not prepared to release the film's inter-negatives, but hopes that COW has now received the print via The Other Cinema (TOC) and two publicity stills. (Citron, 1979d).

25 October 1979: London. Ian Christie (BFI Regional Programme Adviser) writes to Cinema of Women (COW), in response to an enquiry regarding possible financial assistance to distribute Cristina Perincioli's The Power of Men is the Patience of Women (West Germany 1978). Christie explains the BFI's Film Availability Service (FAS) offers two ways of subsidising the distribution of films. "One method is by offering the distributor an advance against Regional Film Theatre revenues; and the other is by offering (normally a smaller) advance towards a 16mm print, which is then recovered by taking a percentage of the return from each booking." The schemes are administered by Christie and Nigel Algar, but funds are limited (Christie, 1979).

11 November 1979: London/Illinois. Audrey Summerhill (Cinema of Women) sends the completed distribution contract to Michelle Citron for her Daughter Rite. There has been some delay in this as there was some difficulty getting their print from The Other Cinema (TOC). Citron's two publicity stills have been received, and a Time Out review of Daughter Rite is enclosed. Summerhill writes that “[t]hree of the six of us at COW FILMS, Caroline, another woman you haven't met, Fern, and myself are at the Royal College of Art Film Dept., making a film together – narrative fiction. As you know from Edinburgh, there is nobody here in Britain who is close to our theoretical and practical position on films. So we are left without an objective bystander to talk to.” She asks Citron to suggest suitable names in case she can persuade the department head to bring some people in for part time lecturing. (Summerhill, 1979).

28 November 1979: Illinois/London. Michelle Citron writes to Audrey Summerhill (Cinema of Women/COW), thanking her for the distribution contract for Daughter Rite. Citron commiserates with Summerhill's sense of isolation, but does not know anyone to suggest to lecture at the Royal College of Art Film Department, but will pass the word around. Citron has heard that Daughter Rite's Little Bit Ritzy screening has gone well, and hopes that it will bring COW many bookings. (Citron, 1979e).

1980

February 1980: London. Circles, a women's film and video distributor, publishes its first catalogue, titled Women's Work in Distribution, a four page broadsheet listing films and videos by nine women. Circles is financed by Annabel Nicholson, Felicity Sparrow, Jane Clark, Jeanette Iljon, Joanna Davis, Lis Rhodes, Mary Pat Leece, Pat Murphy, Rachel Finkelstein, Susan Stein and Tina Keane. Circles returns a 70% royalty on hire fees to its filmmakers, with the remaining 30% retained by Circles to cover its operating costs. (Circles, 1980).

February 1980: London. The Artists' Film and Video Committee at the Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) launch a new Video Artists on Tour scheme, to accompany the existing Filmmakers on Tour scheme. The aim of the scheme is "to encourage the showing of artist's video and to offset some of the costs that are incurred in the successful presentation of video" (ACGB, 1980a: 1). Artists participating in the scheme are expected to "introduce a programme of their work and be available to discuss it or answer questions afterwards".

Informing the scheme is the belief that a personal presentation by the Artist helps make the work accessible, opening up a dialogue between the artist and the audience. This is particularly important with video-art as the medium is new and the range of ideas and the ways in which they are presented vary considerably and require particular forms of presentation. The newness of the medium and its radical difference from broadcast television can make the work appear difficult and even alien. The presence of the artist, will it is hoped, contribute to understanding and enjoyment. (ACGB, 1980a: 2)

Included in the promotional material for the scheme during the course of the year are Chris Andrews, Roger Barnard, Ian Bourn, Philippa Brown, David Critchley, Peter Donebauer, Dov Eylath, David Hall, Mick Hartney, Brian Hoey, Tina Keane, Tamara Krikorian, Richard Layzell, Stuart Marshall, Alex Meigh, Marceline Mori, Huw Parsons, Stephen Partridge, Peter Savage, Elsa Stansfield and Mike Stubbs. However, the scheme can be extended to other video artists if their work is eligible for support from the Artists' Film and Video Committee and they agree to the terms of the scheme.

June-September 1980: London. Filmmaker and LFMC member Guy Sherwin submits a proposal to the Artists' Film & Video Committee (AFVC) of the Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) for a new 'modular' exhibition scheme. The proposal stems from "the need for a much smaller-scale and flexible exhibition programme". Sherwin argues that the Arts Council's existing schemes and packages are too big and unwieldy for the smaller venues, such as independent cinemas and galleries. He proposes an open modular format, whereby programmes (or 'modules') of 50–90 minutes are compiled by one or more individuals (filmmakers and/or critics) accompanied by programme notes which would develop a thematic link between the films programmed and offer a new perspective on avant-garde film. The initiative is designed to encourage initiatives from outside the Arts Council. (Sherwin, 1980).

7 June 1980: Illinois/London. Michelle Citron writes to Cinema of Women (COW) approvingly of her recent royalty cheque for Daughter Rite. Northwestern University's film department, where Citron works, has a strong women’s group who are organising a Feminist Film Theory conference in the fall, which will be the first such conference in the US. “I only hope it doesn’t turn into a split like at Edinburgh.” (Citron, 1980).

30 June–1 July 1980: London, Acme Gallery. LVA offer open access to their videotape library during a two day show, whereby members of the public can request to view individual tapes. On the first day 45 people requested to see work by 22 artists, while on the second day 75 people viewed work by 18 artists. The response exceeded LVA's expectations, with "a large and varied selection of tapes" viewed. The show is deemed a success and LVA hopes to stage a similar event in the near future (Gillan, 1980).

6 October 1980: London. Felicity Sparrow (Circles) makes a funding application to the Artists' Films Sub Committee (AFSC) of the Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) towards the cost of the next 4 Circles 'broadsheets' (catalogues) and film checking equipment. Sparrow reports that Circles has been in operation for just over 7 months and although doing 'moderately well' is not yet generating sufficient income to cover this urgently needed capital expenditure. She also explains that she currently subsidises the organisation's overheads and her own work as a 'distributor'. (Sparrow, 1980).

27 October 1980: London. The Artists' Film and Video Sub-Committee (AFVSC) of the Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) meets and considers, among other things, Guy Sherwin's proposal for a Modular Film Exhibition Programme (ACGB, 1980b: 2-3), to provide more flexible programming for smaller exhibition venues. It is suggested that a print of each film included in a programme is bought specifically for the scheme, while programme notes should be "very clear and easily assimilated". It is agreed that Sherwin and Assistant Film Office David Curtis will draft an advert inviting proposals for film programmes. It is envisioned that the advert will be placed by Easter 1981 and that the scheme will commence operation in 1981–82.

The committee is also informed that the Institute of Contemporary Arts (ICA) in London is moving ahead with plans to set up a Video Access Library which will include artists' film and video. One of the organisers, Archie Tait, is anxious for Arts Council involvement, but no funding application has as yet been received. Video artist Tamara Krikorian voices the potential problem of loss of hire fees to distributors. David Curtis explains this issue was discussed at a policy meeting held by the London Film-makers' Co-op (LFMC) and they did not feel it was a serious problem since "the potential audience would be entirely different" (ACGB, 1980b: 3-4).

An application from London Video Arts (LVA), totalling £14,000, for show equipment, a portable facility and exhibition support is discussed. The organisation is also making an application to the Gulbenkian Foundation "for revenue funding for a manager as too much demand was being made on 'voluntary' time to run LVA which had now moved to a new office at 79 Wardour Street". The committee express some concern about offering capital funding for equipment without full-time paid staff to manage it. It is eventually agreed to sent a "very positive letter or intent" to the Gulbenkian indicating that the committee would offer up to £9297 to cover the cost of the portable facility "if revenue funding was provided by the Gulbenkian Foundation". In addition it is agreed to provide £2709 for the show equipment ((ACGB, 1980b: 4-5). An applications from Circles for catalogue supplements and film checking equipment is also supported (ACGB, 1980b: 5)

November 1980: London. Mick Kidd and Anna Thew (LFMC Distribution Workers) report that bookings of films "haven't dropped alarmingly" over the past 3 years. Although figures vary considerably from month to month, overall there were 292 bookings in 1978, 288 in 1979, and have been 290 so far in 1980. However, the months of July, August and September always experience an extremely low level of bookings and the figures for 1979 were buoyed up due to the Arts Council of Great Britain's Film as Film exhibition. Kidd and Thew also note that at the time of reporting "there are signs that many of the regular educational hirers are not so far programming via the Co-op Distribution", while bookings from arts centres and BFI/regional arts courses seem to be on the increase. They also report that "[the] vast number of films/filmmakers listed in the catalogue and supplements receive very few bookings" (Kidd, 1980).

5 November 1980: Illinios/London. Michelle Citron thanks Cinema of Women (COW) for her recent royalty cheque, and asks if they will distribute Leontine Sayan's Mädchen in Uniform. The Feminist Film/Criticism conference she is involved with will be in Chicago in two weeks, and “[w]e are trying very hard not to repeat the mistakes of Edinburgh. For instance, we are insisting women present their papers in language that is accessible to all women.” There will be about 35 people giving papers, 8 hours of films and videos, and many of the papers will be published in Film Reader. (Citron, 1980b).

1981

January 1981: London. Circles publish their second catalogue, which includes historical work by Alice Guy and Lois Weber, as well as work by Maria Klonaris and Katerina Thomadaki, Judith Higginbottom, Gabrielle Brown, Lynne Conroy, Robina Rose, Jeni Thornley, and Babette Mangolte. (Circles, 1981).

January 1981: London. The Institute of Contemporary Arts (ICA) announces its plans to set up a video library: "The aim is to make available to the general public a wide range of video-tapes concerned with the arts which at present receive little or no exposure". According to the press release, this initiative is "a unique development, the first of its kind in Britain". Due to open in April, the collection will be stored on the new Philips 2000 system, "a high quality domestic format capable of storing up to 8 hours on one tape, thus providing the potential for a substantial collection to be built up at a relatively low cost". All work will be viewed on the premises, at a proposed fee of 50p per 30 minutes. Selection of material will be undertaken by the ICA and will include artists' video, film transferred to video, documentary, educational and broadcast material. The library will not purchase tapes outright but will reimburse contributing producers of work via a royalties scheme based on the viewing fees earned by each tape. The research for and development of the Video Library is being undertaken by Alex Graham and the ICA's Cinema Director Archie Tait. They are seeking "the support of artists, producers and others with an interest in the development of video, both in the UK and abroad, to help the Video Library fulfil its potential". The initiative, along with the ICA's new cinema, is being funded by the British Film Institute (BFI), the Arts Council of Great Britian (ACGB), the Greater London Council (GLC), the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, the Baring Foundation, Philips Industries Ltd, and ICA appeal funds (Graham, 1981).

22–24 January 1981: London. The 1st National Independent Video Festival is held at the London Filmmakers' Co-op (LFMC), funded by the Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) and the Greater London Arts Association (GLAA). It is designed to bring together "video-workers from across the field – community video, video arts, video documentaries, education in video and those working in the political and trade union field – to see each others' work and exchange information and opinions on production, funding, and distribution, both broadcast and non-broadcast". There are evening screenings on the first two days, with the third day "devoted to open workshops on funding, production and distribution and the many problems confronting workers in the field". The rapidly growing VHS market and the promise of Channel 4 are also identified as potential challenges, along with the need to "develop strategies for future distribution markets" (IVF, 1981).

Carlos Ordonez and Tony Nicholls table a proposal for a distribution agency for independently produced video, which argues such an agency is now essential to get work out to community groups, trade unions, educational establishments, government agencies, charities, exhibitions, festivals and libraries. It is envisaged that such an agency could provide a video cafe, an information service, viewing facilities, a duplication service and help with organising exhibitions. The authors of the proposal envisage the agency becoming self-sustaining after 3 years (Ordonez, 1981). A working party is also formed during the festival to set up "a representative and supportive organisation for people working or interested in independent video" and draw up a constitution for it (IVA, 1981: 1)

26 January 1981: London. The Artists' Film and Video Committee of the ACGB meet to discuss the question of how the ICA and Arnolfini Video Access Library schemes will be funded and whether any of the Artists' Film and Video allocation should be used for this purpose. As yet no specific application has been received from either organisation. The ACGB's Director of Art, Joanna Drew, says that assistance to set up the ICA library "might be by way of a one-off grant which would thereafter be built into the annual revenue grant" (ACGB, 1981a: 3). Film Officer Rodney Wilson argues that the libraries should serve "a wider area than just artists' films" (ACGB, 1981a: 3)

The Committee also discuss a draft circular for the Modular film exhibition scheme. LFMC filmmaker Guy Sherwin suggests that "the phrase 'small scale exhibition programme' should be added and that it needed to be made clearer that the reader should consider himself a potential selector" (ACGB, 1981a: 3). Sherwin proposed the scheme several months ago to provide an alternative means of supplying smaller packages of artists' film and video than the Arts Council's existing large scale ones which were too unwieldy for smaller venues.

18 February 1981: Bristol/London. Rod Stoneman (Arnolfini) submits an application to the Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) for a grant to develop a Video Access Library. The aim of the resource is "to provide permanent and public access to audio-visual material not generally or easily available" (Stoneman, 1981: 1). A committee drawn from the Arts Council's Artists' Film and Video Committee, the Arnolfini, LVA, the LFMC and IFA will be set up to make the initial selection of tapes and films for transfer to video to be included in the library. It is envisaged that the Library will make a nominal charge to the public for each person viewing. "While the presence of a token charge should encourage 'serious' viewing we feel that tape viewing costs should be kept considerably lower than Arnolfini cinema ticket prices as there is no existing tradition for the paid viewing of video" (Stoneman, 1981: 1). The plan is to purchase tapes direct from the film or video maker, with rights limited "to playback within the building and to the physical life of the tape" (Stoneman, 1981: 2).

The Library will be launched with a well-publicised Video Show and to avoid the Library becoming a static resource, regular screenings will be organised by utilising the Video Makers on Tour scheme. The Library's initial selected collection will also be supplemented by (1) allowing local producers to deposit their work via an open access scheme, (2) seeking financial help from South West Arts to acquire additional locally produced work, (3) including some of the Arts Council's Art Film Committee's funded documentaries, and (4) including overseas work at a later stage. Income generated from the viewing fees would be used to cover equipment maintenance costs, with any surplus invested in further tape acquisitions (Stoneman, 1981).

5 March 1981: London. David Critchley (LVA) writes to LVA members informing them that the ICA is opening a Video Access Library and that its organisers, Alex Graham and Archie Tait, would like to include a copy of every tape in the LVA Library. The LVA Steering Committee have had discussions with the ICA, after which the ICA has produced a contract (ICA, 1981a).

The basis of the ICA library will not compete with LVA as distribution outlet for your work. It could be seen more as a showcase for work, or as a viewing theatre for prospective hirers of the LVA copy of your tape. (Critchley, 1981: 1)

Tapes are to be deposited by artists, with no fee involved for doing so. The ICA have suggested that artists make compilations of their work to last as close to multiples of half an hour as possible, as each half hour will be charged at 50p to a viewer and 50% of that will go to the artist. How artists wish to receive royalties has yet to be agreed. Tapes will not be shown outside the ICA and it is assumed the Video Access Library "will not adversely affect future hirings of your work through LVA" (Critchley, 1981: 2). There is to be an open meeting at the ICA on 23 March where artists can ask further questions and air their views. (Critchley, 1981)

9 March 1981: London. The Artists' Film and Video Committee (AFVC) of the ACGB meet and discuss how the LFMC's current deficit can be cleared. It is reported that the Arts Council have agreed to provide additional project funding in the coming year, and on that basis the BFI will make a grant pre-payment of £2000. The ACGB and the BFI agree to set up an informal working partly to examine the Co-op's problems. The funding situation of LVA is also discussed. LVA is currently waiting on the outcome of an application to the Gulbenkian Foundation. The Gulbenkian has indicated it would consider funding for one year on the basis that the Arts Council continued to revenue fund LVA thereafter, which the AFVC feels unable to guarantee. However, the Gulbenkian will not be formally considering LVA's application until June at the earliest and no funds would be available until at least September/October. Panel member and video artist Tamara Krikorian points out that "LVA was at make or break point", and it is agreed to explore ways of funding a temporary full-time administrator post until the outcome of the Gulbenkian application is known, even though this carries the risk of raising LVA support to a level which the AFVC cannot sustain in the longer term (ACGB, 1981b: 2-3).

The meeting also considers the proposed Video Access Libraries for the ICA in London and the Arnolfini in Bristol. No formal proposal has been forthcoming from the ICA. Film Officer Rodney Wilson explains that within the ICA's annual revenue application £15,000 had been requested for a video access library and the Arts Council's regional department has asked the AFVC to provide £5000 towards that for 1981–82. Krikorian raises the issue that both the ICA and the Arnolfini have made their own decisions about how artists should be paid, "without any consultation with LVA" or reference to its policy on fees. Assistant Film Office David Curtis explains that the Video Access Libraries initiative is "an attempt to form a different kind of initiative" and that buying all the tapes at LVA rates would would necessitate higher levels of funding or a reduced selection of tapes (ACGB, 1981b: 4). The ICA's intentions are noted and it is agreed to await an application. An application has been received from the Arnolfini for £7409 to set up its Video Access Library and, after some discussion, it is agreed to offer a capital grant of £5909 (ACGB, 1981b: 5).

Other items discussed are two proposed South West Film Tours and fees for the Filmmakers/Video Artists on Tour schemes. With regard to the latter, there is concern to increase the level of payment to the participating artists, while maintaining the £15 booking fee for organisations using the scheme (ACGB, 1981b: 8).

23 March 1981: London. An open meeting is held at the ICA to publicise its planned Video Access Library and seek "the support of artists, producers and others with an interest in the development of video".

The Video Library at the Institute of Contemporary Arts is a unique development, the first of its kind in Britain. The aim is to make available to the general public and to professionals a wide range of video-tapes concerned with the arts which at present receive little or no exposure.

The Library is due to open in April, for day time viewing of tapes. The meeting offers a chance to preview the operation of the library and discuss the implications of the project (ICA, 1981b). However, "the audience, comprised mostly if not all, of independent film/video makers showed a very negative response to the project both in relation to the contract and to the sort of system to be utilised" (Gillan, 1981: 1).

23 March-3 April 1981: London, AIR Gallery. LVA hold a two week show of video art. During the first week LVA's library of videotapes is installed in the Gallery for public access – that is, "members of the public may choose to view any tape in the library". The second week comprises a mix of slide/tape, performance, video installations and daily open screenings. The open screenings are intended to be a platform for video makers to show and discuss their work. All video makers presenting work at the open screenings are invited "to deposit their works in the Gallery for the duration of the week, where they would be accessible to the public under the same system as the LVA Library in the previous week" (LVA, 1981).

10 April 1981: London. Ian Christie (BFI Regional Planning Unit/Distribution Division) tables an internal paper mapping out the BFI's distribution assistance and how it has evolved. The need for intervention has arisen due to the reluctance or inability of distributors to distribute films they perceive as having little commercial potential. After some early successes, "Subsidy for prints and for the 'strategic' introduction of new (or forgotten) work have become the cornerstones of the assistance policy" (p. 2). The BFI regional film theatres help provide exhibition outlets and a partial return on the investment. The policy has supported the distribution of a range of films, including silents, European art cinema, American cult titles and independent films. Where the BFI have found distributors to be excessively cautious it has acted as a distributor itself. The Other Cinema has been among the beneficiaries of the scheme, which enabled TOC to bring four feature films by Chantal Akerman into distribution. The BFI are also introducing some touring packages for regional venues to introduce other areas of world cinema to UK audiences, as well as acquiring shorts on a non-exclusive basis for screening at BFI cinemas. Christie concludes "Distribution may be all but invisible to the public, but it plays a vital part in determining what we see, and what we don't see" (p. 4). (Christie, 1981).

13 April 1981: London. Margaret Gillan (LVA) writes to LVA members concerning the ICA's new Video Access Library. Members are asked not to enter into any contractual agreement with the ICA until LVA has presented contract amendments to the Independent Video Association's first AGM on 25 April for discussion and to the ICA. In addition to the ICA library, a further two are planned in Bristol (at the Arnolfini) and Edinburgh. Gillan maps out the negative responses to the proposed Video Access Libraries from the artists/independent film and video community and itemises some of the key issues to consider. (Gillan, 1981).

25 April 1981: London. The first public meeting of the newly formed Independent Video Association (IVA) is held at the London Filmmaker's Co-op (LFMC). A draft constitution which has been drawn up by a working party that convened at the 1st National Independent Video Festival, held in January, is formally accepted and a working committee is elected. The committee consists of Penny Dedman, John Dovey, Terry Flaxton, Viv Hurley, Alex Meigh, Tony Nicholls, Tim Norris, Jini Hawlings, Jessica Skippon, Nick Smart and Ann Wolff (IVA, 1981).

May 1981: London. The working committee of the newly formed Independent Video Association (IVA) circulates a letter explaining the origins of the organisations and its aims. The latter include building membership, producing a regular newsletter, campaigning for better video production funding, establishing "an efficient independent video distribution system" and setting up a permanent office (IVA, 1981: 1). The letter includes a copy of the organisation's constitution and an application for membership form (IVA, 1981).

11 May 1981: London. The Artists' Film and Video Committee (AFVC) of the ACGB meets. A working party has been set up to review the LFMC's administration, resulting in an urgent suggestion that the Co-op should have a part- or full-time administrator. An application for a bursary to cover this post is tabled and agreed (ACGB, 1981c: 2). Assistant Film Officer David Curtis tables a job description for an 'animateur', a programming adviser with programming experience and a network of contacts. It is agreed to advertise the job, with a start date of August/September, as a two year appointment with assessment after one year (ACGB, 1981c: 3). Film Officer Rodney Wilson reports that the Arts Council's Finance Director has recommended that £7000 is offered to the ICA to set up a Video Access Library, but no formal application has been made to the AFVC. Committee member and video artist Tamara Krikorian informs the meeting that LVA has urged its members to only place work in the proposed library on the same terms as the LVA standard contract, but the ICA has not changed its policy. The meeting welcomes proposals to set up video access libraries, but minutes support for the ICA to engage in "full consultation with the organisations representing film and video makers" (ACGB, 1981c: 3-4).

30–31 May 1981: Birmingham. The West Midlands branch of the Independent Film-makers Association (IFA) hosts the association's Annual General Meeting and 5th National Conference. Among those attending are Paul Marris, Paul Willeman, Jan Worth, Simon Blanchard, Fizzy Oppe, Alan Fountain, John Ellis, Sue Clayton, Jo Davies, Mary-Pat Leece, Frank Abbott, Roger Shannon, Mike Leggett, Rod Stoneman, Schlacke, Steve Neale, Simon Hartog and Mandy Rose. Paul Marris delivers a report from the IFA's National Executive which covers management, finance and communication within the association, as well as external issues (IFA, 1981: 1-6). Among the latter is the acceptance on to the BFI Production Board of the IFA's new representative, Fizzy Oppe. However, concerns are also raised about "disturbing shifts in policy" at the Production Board, particularly the role of the new Fourth Channel, a tendency towards bigger budgets, and the "strong TV representation on the new board" which is to be chaired by Verity Lambert (IFA, 1981: 5). The ACTT and unionisation are also discussed, as is the new Fourth Channel which has been preoccupying the IFA over the last year. Among issues that will need to be taken on board in the coming year is "the video-cassette revolution" (IFA, 1981: 6).

A more extensive report on the IFA's negotiations with the new Fourth Channel and its possible role in independent film and video takes place at the AGM, followed by an open discussion. The report and discussion cover funding, the application process, its relationship with the BFI, and the ACTT (IFA, 1981: 7-11). Other panels at the AGM cover 'Workshops, Production Groups and Exhibition Strategies' (IFA, 1981: 12-18), a report from the IFA/ACTT liaison committee (IFA, 1981: 19-23), and legal status (IFA, 1981: 24).

A motion is also put that "at this stage in its development the IFA needs a full-time organiser who will reflect and develop the activist nature of the organisation". The motion is carried and an Employment Committee is set up to progress recruitment (IFA, 1981: 25).

3 August 1981: London. The Artists' Film and Video Committee (AFVC) of the ACGB meets. Assistant Film Officer David Curtis reports that Tim Norris has started work as LFMC's administrator, although the Co-op has not yet had a decision from Gulbenkian Foundation on its application for funds for this post. The post of Animateur has not been filled and it is agreed to offer it to Simon Field at a fee of £3000 for 120 working days. The animateur's remit is to cover the regions, promoting video as well as film (ACGB, 1981d: 2).

Rod Stoneman, organiser of the Arnolfini's Video Access Library, has set up an advisory committee to choose 30 titles for the library's first year's acquisitions. A fee of £5 per minute has been agreed for both film and video work. A meeting between the ICA, LFMC and LVA has taken place and discovered that the ICA "was unaware of the objections of the constituency to its library plans". The alternatives agreed "were payment for rights to the tapes at LVA rates, or right of deposit". The ICA have agreed there will be no selections, and u-matic would be used for work originated on video, while films would be put on to Phillips 2000. Catalogue text is to be by mutual consent and there will be no free use of tapes. The AFVC expresses concern that this could result in "deposits of little interest or value" and that the ICA is not really interested in making artists' film and video available. Although £7000 has been passed to the Regional Department for this project, the committee feels there has been insufficient consultation (ACGB, 1981d: 3). Packages proposed for the new modular scheme are also considered, along with the increasing usage of the Filmmakers and Video Artists on Tour schemes (ACGB, 1981d: 4).

28 August 1981: Illinois/London. Michelle Citron confirms that Cinema Of Women (COW) should proceed with selling the new Fourth Channel the rights to broadcast her Daughter Rite three times over seven years . COW will receive 25% for negotiating the sale. (Citron, 1981).

4 September 1981: London/Bristol. David Hall, founding member of LVA, writes to Rod Stoneman (Arnolfini) regarding the Arnolfini's wish to purchase two of his videotapes for its Video Access Library. He discusses the terms and pricing structure that has been developed at LVA for the sale of artists' videotapes and explains that under those terms the tapes would cost at least £250, whereas the Arnolfini is offering only £95 and expects the artist to cover the cost of transfers. Hall suggests a revised pricing structure and that the cost of transfer is covered by the Arnolfini. The letter is copied to Rodney Wilson (Film Officer, ACGB) (Hall, 1981).

October 1981: London. Felicity Sparrow submits an application to the Artists' Film and Video Committee (AFVC) of the ACGB for a personal grant to set up and administrate a Circles distribution office for one year. Sparrow has been running the organisation from her own flat for the past 19 months and plans to move into an office at Four Corners in Bethnal Green, London. The move will mark a shift from "voluntary labour to paid labour" and enable her to devote time to expanding the level of business, particularly "doing a lot more work with programming and getting the films and video tapes more widely seen (outside the 'art house' slot)" (Sparrow, 1981a: 1). Sparrow stresses her intention is:

that Circles should be self-sufficient and not rely on grants for revenue funding – my role in the forthcoming year would be to ensure that this is so and to work on expanding the library and its outlets in order to generate more income from which a worker's wage could be paid as well as the existing overheads which Circles pays already. (Sparrow, 1981)

The application details income and expenditure for her first year of operation, 1980–81, and the first six months of 1981–82. She predicts total income for 1981–82 will be around £4000 (Sparrow, 1981a).

20 October 1981: Bristol. The new Video Access Library opens at the Arnolfini. The library will be open 4–8pm Tuesdays to Saturdays. Visitors can watch a range of artists' work on video tape in the library for a nominal fee of 25p for tapes under 30 minutes and 50p for longer tapes. One monitor, with headphones, will be permanently available for library use, while a second monitor will sometimes be used for screening contextual material relating to the Arnolfini's programme (Arnolfini, 1981).

26 October 1981: Newcastle/London. Neil Armstrong writes to Rodney Wilson (Film Officer, Arts Council of Great Britain/ACGB) expressing concern at the possibility of the Video Artists on Tour scheme being axed. He argues the scheme is often the only way of persuading colleges to show video work, and that for those artists who live in the North "there is no other way of covering the horrendous cost of travelling for a one day show in London for example". He continues: "It would mean that the places I could show would be whittled down to about two, that is unless I was prepared to make a substantial loss, which I would be prepared to do if not for the sad fact that even unemployable artists have to eat, and printing money is illegal" (Armstrong, 1981).

30 October 1981: London. David Curtis (Assistant Film Office, Arts Council of Great Britain/ACGB) writes to filmmakers and video artists who are included in the ACGB's Film-Makers/Video Makers on Tour schemes to inform them of "the near certainty of cuts" in the Arts Council's overall budget for the following year. It is unclear how these cuts will affect the film/video department's activities, thus all filmmakers and video artists are requested not to undertake bookings for the FMOT and VMOT schemes after 31 March 1982. The Artists Film and Video Committee (AFVC) wants to use this 'enforced halt' to consider how the schemes are working. Curtis asks the filmmakers and video artists to provide written responses to the following questions: "should we continue to broaden our definition of 'artist' (our 'terms of reference'), or should we be more rigorously selective? Is it right that the schemes should be used in the majority by colleges? How are they affecting existing patterns of film/video hire? Are the schemes attracting the 'new' audiences we had hoped for? etc etc." (Curtis, 1981a)(ACGB, 1981e: 4).

10 November 1981: London. Felicity Sparrow (Circles) writes to David Curtis (Film Office, ACGB), enclosing an application to the Arts Council's Modular Scheme for "two programme length packages of films", devised by herself and filmmaker Lis Rhodes under the overall title of Her Image Fades as Her Voice Rises. The first package, entitled 'Objection Please: How we got out of pictures', consists of Alice Guy's A House Divided (1913), Germaine Dulac's The Smiling Madame Beudet (1922), Joanna Davis' Often During the Day (1979) and Lis Rhodes' Light Reading (1979), films with "a narrative/historical link in terms of form, content and subject matter". The second, entitled 'Another Story to Tell', consists of Esther Ronay's Women of Rhonda (1973), Tina Keane's Shadow of a Journey ( (1980) and Pat Murphy's Rituals of Memory (1977), films which use different narrative structures to deal "with 'events' in public and personal history, told this time by women". Felicity Sparrow explains to David Curtis that she wants to work closely with the contemporary women filmmakers represented in the packages to compile the programme notes, in order to ensure other women could accompany the packages and talk about the films. She mentions that although all the films included are available from Circles, it will probably be necessary to strike additional prints so that the films can be kept spooled up in their programme packages. She also feels the packages have "a very wide audience potential". (Sparrow, 1981b).

17 November 1981: London. Chris Welsby replies to a letter sent by David Curtis (Assistant Film Officer, Arts Council of Great Britain/ACGB) on 30 October requesting written feedback on artists' experiences of participating in the Film-Makers/Video Makers on Tour schemes. Welsby states that the Film-Makers on Tour scheme "is by far the most successful means I have of distributing my films". It has enabled him to show his work "to crofters in Scotland, merchant seamen, farmers, fishermen, elderly people, young children and what can't have been far short of half the population of Milton Keynes" (p. 2). But he argues that art college audiences are also important since ex-students have moved into arts administration jobs, and he asserts that "Finding new venues, outside the educational system … takes a long time and a great deal of work and patience." (Welsby, 1981).

22 November 1981: Leek, Staffordshire/London. Artist Tony Hill replies to a letter sent by David Curtis (Assistant Film Officer, Arts Council of Great Britain/ACGB) on 30 October requesting written feedback on artists' experiences of participating in the Film-Makers/Video Makers on Tour schemes. He commends the fact that organisations with very limited budgets have been able to access his work through the schemes. In particular he notes that his Floor Film has "been enjoyed by many children in schools around the country, it has been specifically used as environment for drama students and often as the subject of children's writings and drawings. The response to it with all types of audiences from infants to groups of professors, from Glaswegians to Parisians has been amazing." (Hill, 1981).

29 November 1981: London. Peter Savage replies to a letter sent by David Curtis (Assistant Film Officer, Arts Council of Great Britain/ACGB) on 30 October requesting written feedback on artists' experiences of participating in the Film-Makers/Video Makers on Tour schemes. Savage argues that on the whole when production work is funded there is "little (in some cases no) provision for the exhibition of that work. Exhibition is seen to be something separate from production". He feels the Film-Makers/Video Makers on Tour schemes has gone some way to reducing that separation but is concerned that the current review of the schemes will result in them becoming more selective in terms of the artists included, since: "Production is useless without exhibition" (Savage, 1981: 2). To expand exhibition opportunities for film, video and related media work he proposes that the Arts Council holds a twice yearly show "over a two to four week period at one of the Council's London galleries, selected from the work funded in the previous two years" and suggests that such shows could then be offered as touring exhibitions to regional galleries (Savage, 1981: 3).

30 November 1981: London. The Artists' Film and Video Committee (AFVC) of the ACGB meets. Among the items discussed is the progress of the new animateur/programme adviser role. Simon Field, who was appointed to the post in September, has now met the Film Officers at most of the Regional Arts Associations (RAA) (ACGB, 1981e: 2). However, financial cuts at the Arts Council will impact on the number of modular scheme packages the Committee can support in the coming year. Assistant Film Officer David Curtis confirms that contracts have been signed with the Arnolfini and its new Video Access Library is now open. Film Officer Rodney Wilson reports that sufficient assurances have been received from the ICA to enable the promised AFVC funds for its Video Access Library to be processed, but according to artists and committee members Tamara Krikorian and Joanna Davis no agreement has been reached with the ICA for the purchase of tapes.

Other items under discussion include the review of the Filmmakers and Video Artists on Tour schemes. Felicity Sparrow and Guy Sherwin are to be invited to join discussions of possible changes to the schemes. A one-off application from Felicity Sparrow (Circles) (Sparrow, 1981a) for £3900 to fund her to run the women's film and video distributor Circles for one year is also discussed and approved. The committee is impressed by the organisation's current turnover (ACGB, 1981e).

2 December 1981: London. David Curtis (Assistant Film Officer, Arts Council of Great Britain/ACGB) writes to Guy Sherwin, Al Rees, Felicity Sparrow, Dave Critchley and Simon Field asking them to join a small group of people to help review and "draw up a new set of terms of reference" for the Film-Makers/Video Makers on Tour schemes. Their first meeting is scheduled for 14 December. The new terms of reference for the schemes will be put to the Artists Film and Video Committee (AFVC) for discussion on 25 January 1982. (Curtis, 1981b).

7 December 1981: Scotland. Filmmaker Margaret Tait replies to a letter sent by David Curtis (Assistant Film Officer, Arts Council of Great Britain/ACGB) on 30 October requesting written feedback on artists' experiences of participating in the Film-Makers/Video Makers on Tour schemes. Tait observes that one-off bookings are not advantageous for her and argues that "in general a tour that really is a tour of several places in succession would be the kind to encourage – at least, if the venue is a considerable distance from the starting point." She would be happy to undertake such tours if they could be arranged. However, she also asserts that her presence is not really necessary for the presentation of her films and has suggested in response to some invitations from colleges that they could simply hire four of her films from the London Film-Makers Co-op (LFMC). But, as she notes, "paradoxically, this may cost … the venue more than having the film-maker there through the Arts Council scheme." (Tait, 1981: 1-3).

10 December 1981: Washington, Tyne & Wear. Brian Hoey (Biddick Farm Arts Centre) replies to a letter sent by David Curtis (Assistant Film Officer, Arts Council of Great Britain/ACGB) on 30 October requesting written feedback on artists' experiences of participating in the Film-Makers/Video Makers on Tour schemes. Hoey confirms the Video Artists on Tour scheme has been worthwhile, enabling him to "show work to audiences who would never have been exposed to this type of creative activity otherwise." He asserts that "memorable occasions have been showing tapes to nearly all the population of a Hebridean island, 6th formers in South Sheilds and Day Tech students in Hartlepool." Hoey argues these are all examples of venues being willing to "risk" the small fee involved in using the scheme "where they wouldn't have paid the full cost." (Hoey, 1981).

14 December 1981: London. David Curtis (Assistant Film Officer, Arts Council of Great Britain/ACGB) meets with Guy Sherwin, Felicity Sparrow, Dave Critchley and Simon Field to review the Film-Makers/Video Makers on Tour schemes and develop a new set of terms of reference. Among the points agreed are: the impossibility of a watertight definition of "artists' film/video"; persistent reports of an artist's reluctance to discuss their work should result in his/her removal from the scheme; a questionnaire should be drawn up to find out how prepared artists are to introduce their work; a guide for use by venues should be produced which describes the range of work available; a range of rental/fee payment options should be available; and artists should be allowed to include works by other artists provided those works constitute less than half the programme. The new revised schemes are expected to commence in April 1982. (Curtis, 1981c).

1982

February 1982: London. LVA buys a batch of ex-demonstration u-matic players, which will play both PAL and NTSC tapes. A new machine currently retails at around £1100 plus VAT, while these are heavily discounted to £175 plus VAT. LVA retains a small number for its own use and sells the rest on to exhibition venues and other potential hirers (Critchley, 1982).

23 February 1982: London/Illinois. Jane Root (Cinema of Women/COW) replies to Michelle Citron's letter of 29 December 1981, advising that COW's accountant will respond to whether Citron will be taxed in both UK and US on the Channel 4 (C4) sale of Daughter Rite, and whether anything can be done about this. (Root, 1982a).

23 February 1982: London. An internal report at the BFI, 'Publicising and Distribution Film and Television', outlines a range of issues facing the Institute with regard to distributing its films. Among the issues noted are the increasing availability of VCRs, enabling people to record films off-air and the possibility of launching their own home video label. The mounting of a pilot project to test the demand for BFI material is proposed, but it is noted that a home video label "if mounted with flair, could bring the Institute into contact with a wider audience than it can currently engage either through non-theatrical distribution or its existing cinemas" (BFI, 1982: 3).

2 March 1982: London. Felicity Sparrow (Circles) writes to David Curtis (Film Dept, ACGB) about the two Modular Scheme programmes proposed by her and Lis Rhodes in November 1981. She has changed the title of the first programme to Her Image Fades as Her Voice Rises and it will consist of Joanna Davis' Often During the Day (1979), Germaine Dulac's The Smiling Madame Beudet (1922), Lis Rhodes' Light Reading (1979), and possibly Alice Guy's The House Divided (1913). Guy's film is to be excluded if Curtis feels four films would make the programme "too long/expensive". Sparrow argues that "I think it'd be a shame to drop Alice Guy as obviously, being the first woman filmmaker, she's the 'popularising' element of the programme as well as being relevant to the theme we'd write about."

Sparrow also mentions that the four films were shown at Four Corners, the film workshop above which Circles has its office, the previous week and the programme "went down extremely well with a lot of exciting discussion afterwards from the women present". However, she confirms that she does not want either of her proposed modular exhibition scheme programmes to go out as women-only shows (Sparrow, 1982: 1-2):

It's not Circles' policy to specify the gender of our audience although we did set up Circles in order that more women would see the films. I think this is also the thinking behind the two programmes – that they will appeal to a wider audience than some more esoteric programmes and in particular to women who don't necessarily have a film/theory background. (Sparrow, 1982: 2)

Sparrow is continuing her plans for the second programme, Another Story to Tell, but does not want to write the programme notes for it until she has also shown the films at Four Corners, "with the filmmakers present and with discussion on the programme and the ideas behind it" (Sparrow, 1982: 1).

8 March 1982: London. The Artists' Film and Video Committee (AFVC) of the ACGB meets. The Committee is informed that the LFMC's application to the Gulbenkian Foundation to fund an administrator post has been rejected. Ian Christie (BFI) advises that the BFI cannot continue its present level of funding to the Co-op without an administrator in post to exercise financial control. The Working Party convened to review the Co-op's position has concluded that there are two options: (1) that the LFMC expands to become a truly national organisation with adequate administrative systems, or (2) that it scales back its activities and becomes a local north London workshop (ACGB, 1982a: 2). The AFVC are considering agreeing an administrative bursary for the Co-op. It is also recognised that LVA suffers from similar administrative problems.

Other matters discussed are the role of the new programme adviser, Simon Field, the Modular Scheme and the Arnolfini Video Access Library. Field has been heavily committed elsewhere, but is expected to be more active in the coming quarter. Circles' application to the Modular Scheme for the first of two packages of women's films, Her Image Fades as Her Voice Rises, is considered and it is agreed that the package should include all four films proposed. The Arnolfini has increased the viewing charges for its Video Access Library (to 50p per half hour and 75p per hour), to be shared between artists and gallery, in order to encourage artists to deposit their tapes in the library's open access section. The Committee expresses concern that "the prices might slowly rise to cinema levels and defeat the policy for free access" (ACGB, 1982a: 3). There is also support for "a video magazine as it was felt that current magazines were inadequate and none dealt with video art" (ACGB, 1982a: 2).

30 March 1982: Bristol. The Arnofini hold a press lunch to launch the acquisition of 33 documentary films on the arts, on loan from the ACGB, for its Video Access Library.

Taken with the existing sections of the video library – independently produced video, independent film on video, and the Open Access section – the library offers an unrivalled resource for study. Rather than attempting to be comprehensive, the library is selective and dynamic in its approach, arranging talks and discussions around planned programmes and encouraging viewers to select their own programmes with help of the assistant (Arnolfini, 1982a).

3 April 1982: Bristol. Lewis Biggs (Gallery Coordinator, Arnolfini) writes to Rodney Wilson (Film Officer, ACGB) requesting £2500 to cover new acquisitions for the Arnolfini's Video Access Library during 1982–83. The Library is looking to acquire some original video work which makes use of new technology and some longer films for the 'Independent Film' section – in its first year they had prioritised acquiring a wider selection of shorter films to create a broad base for the Library's collection. Launched in October 1981, the Library has "attracted 1.4 viewing units per hour it was open" and this is expected to increase with the addition of two more "accessible" sections: the recently opened 'Documentaries on the Arts' (on loan from the ACGB) and 'Open Access' (Biggs, 1982a).

April 1982: Bristol. The Arnolfini publishes a supplement to its Video Access Library catalogue. The supplement notes that "The first six months of the Arnolfini Video Library has seen considerable interest in the independently made videotapes and films on tape available in this innovative resource" and announces the addition of a new section of Arts Council documentaries on the arts (Arnolfini, 1982b).

29 April–3 June 1982: Cheltenham, Exeter, Guildford, Colchester. The BFI Planning Unit undertake an experiment with Rank Leisure Services, programming a selection of "relatively popular current 'art cinema'," plus two recent BFI 35mm productions (Radio On and Brothers and Sisters) in Odeon cinemas in towns with no BFI-sponsored exhibition venues. Three other distributors are involved and all parties relax their normal financial requirements. The experiment runs from 29 April on six consecutive Thursdays, under the title "Six of the Best". Sir Richard Attenborough contributes a promotional radio interview and the scheme attracts local press coverage. Box office figures vary, but are sufficient for Rank to deem the experiment a success and express willingness to repeat the venture in the autumn. (Christie, 1982).

May 1982: London. Rodney Wilson (Film Officer, ACGB) draws up a paper for discussion at the Arts Council in the light of cuts to the Arts Films Committee announced the previous year. Among other things, the paper urges consideration be given to the challenges of new technology and developments in broadcast television, as well as to the needs of artists' film and video and the future terms of reference of the Artists' Film and Video Sub-Committee. Although the paper outlines the support for production work, it also stresses the need to support distribution and exhibition, observing that "It can be said that films do not exist until they are seen" (Wilson, 1982a: 2). In particular, the paper argues that "Video is poised to become a major element in existing distribution" and that the Film Section of the Arts Council is well placed to take advantage of new technologies (Wilson, 1982a: 5).

Video disc: a completely new audience is possible, the home market. … Video Access Libraries: two access libraries have been funded at the Arnolfini and the ICA containing both arts films and artists films and video. The tapes are viewed on the premises and form a resource for researchers, potential bookers and the public. In the long term a network of libraries would create a completely new system of distribution. (Wilson, 1982a: 6)

Several appendices detail the funding activities of the Arts Films and the Artists' Film and Video Committees, including television sales and bookings for the Filmmakers and Video Artists on Tour schemes for the year April 1981–April 1982 (Wilson, 1982a).

11 May 1982: London. A meeting is held at the offices of the Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) to discuss the contractual relationship between Video Access Libraries and artists/distributors. Among those invited are representatives from the BFI, the LFMC, The Other Cinema, Circles, LVA and the Arnolfini (Curtis, 1982). Tony Kirkhope (TOC) tables a draft independent video contract for discussion (Kirkhope, 1982). It covers rental for private domestic use by members of the public, as well as "free access to view" video tapes at libraries, both "on and off the licencees premises with or without payment of fee" (Kirkhope, 1982: 1).

10 June 1982: London/Bristol. In response to an application made in April by Lewis Biggs (Gallery Coordinator, Arnolfini), Joanna Drew (Director of Art, ACGB) writes to Jeremy Rees (Director, Arnolfini) offering £2500 towards the cost of new acquisitions for the Arnolfini's Video Access Library (Drew, 1982).

5 August 1982: London/Northants. David Finch (LFMC, Distribution Organiser) writes to filmmaker Tim Cawkwell asking if he has four of his films, Six Short Pieces, The Art of Prophecy, Inside the Museum and Ring of Endless Fire. According to the Co-op's records the films have been at the Arnolfini since September 1981 for transfer to video. Finch wonders if they have been returned to Cawkwell in error as the films have not been withdrawn from the Co-op's catalogue and they have a booking for The Art of Prophecy for a tour of Japan beginning 23 August (Finch, 1982b).

7 August 1982: Illinois/London. Michelle Citron asks Cinema of Women (COW) for details of the problems that have emerged regarding the sale of Daughter Rite to Channel 4 (C4). “Was the print actually damaged or was it a misunderstanding of the film images?” B. Ruby Rich will be in London in the first week of September to visit Sally Potter, and will contact COW on Citron's behalf. (Citron, 1982a).

16 August 1982: Northants/London. Tim Cawkwell replies to David Finch’s (London Filmmakers’ Co-operative/LFMC Distribution Organiser) letter of 5 August 1982 (Finch, 1982b), confirming that he has the prints in question and has sent Art of Prophecy to the Co-op on 7 August.

“My reason for holding the prints is that it makes it much easier for me to assemble programmes for the ‘Film-makers on Tour’ showings, and also to show them to other people who might be interested in putting on my films.” Only one print of his films exists, and he lives outside of London, but he will try to get Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) to help make new prints. He would still like these films listed in the LFMC catalogue, but laments that “I have had virtually no bookings of Art of Prophecy or Six Short Pieces except through Film-makers On Tour.” Cawkwell suggests there should be an ‘associated’ status where, for £15, films not held at LFMC would be included in Catalogue, and prints would be sent if booked. (Cawkwell, 1982a: 1-2)

25 August 1982: London/Northants. David Finch (London Filmmakers’ Co-operative/LFMC Distribution Organiser) replies to Tim Cawkwell’s letter of 16 August 1982 (Cawkwell, 1982a). Cawkwell's film Art of Prophesy has been received by LFMC and sent to Japan, and Finch confirms a print of Six Short Pieces is held (Finch, 1982a: 1). He writes that

Quite a few of our film-makers keep their films at home because of Film-makers on Tour. This is OK, but we usually ask them to tell the booker (is it the Arts Council or the venue?) to make the booking through the Co-op. If this cuts into the money you earn from the FMOT you should put up your hire fees on the films. If film-makers prove unco-operative on this we may have to institute a charge for including films in the catalogue, as you suggest. But at the moment we would prefer it if you would ask people to book through the Co-op. Please let us know what you think about this arrangement. (Finch, 1982a: 1)

6 September 1982: Illinois/London. Michelle Citron replies to Jane Root’s (Cinema of Women/COW) letter of 4 August, still anxious for resolution of Channel 4 (C4)/Daughter Rite situation. She has also spotted a still from Daughter Rite on the cover of Annette Kuhn’s book on feminist film, Women's Pictures: Feminism and Cinema. Citron is thrilled, but wants to confirm that permission was sought from COW or The Other Cinema (TOC). (Citron, 1982b).

20 September 1982: Northants/London. Tim Cawkwell replies to David Finch's (LFMC Distribution Organiser) letter of 25 August 1982 (Finch, 1982a). He acknowledges he could ask hirers of his film through the Arts Council's Filmmakers on Tour scheme to book the films through the LFMC, but suggests this may create a problem where the booking is for non-paying audiences and there is a straight subsidy direct to the event organisers. He reconfirms that "Ideally for me I would like to have all my films … in the catalogue, but I am trying to undertake some promotion of new works as they are produced and this is much easier if I have the film with me". In this situation Cawkwell thinks a system whereby filmmakers pay a charge per film for the right to be included in the catalogue would be simple to operate (Cawkwell, 1982b).

24 September 1982: London/Illinois. Jane Root (Cinema of Women/COW) clarifies situation regarding Daughter Rite to Michelle Citron. COW gave permission for a still to be used for the cover of Annette Kuhn’s recent book on feminist film, Women's Pictures: Feminism and Cinema, and the £20 paid will be split 50/50 as per ordinary royalties. In future she will advise prior to publication. On Channel 4 (C4):

Alan Fountain, who is in charge of independent film is very keen to sort it out as he wants to programme the film, but there is going to have to be a proper discussion about Daughter Rite and all the other films which have been rejected. (There are many more, including Thriller which we distribute as well). I’m sure that it will be sorted out eventually, but it might take a bit of time. (Root, 1982b)

27 September 1982: London. The Artists' Films and Video Committee of the Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) meets. Based on information submitted for the first 6 months of LVA's exhibition programme (Welsh, 1982: 3-4), the committee agree support for the second half of the year's programme. The funding of the Film-makers and Video Artists on Tour schemes is also discussed, and the schemes are generally supported (ACGB, 1982b: 3). LVA have arranged to take over the basement of the AIR Gallery as a permanent exhibition and workshop space (Welsh, 1982: 2), and on that basis the committee agrees to support an application for video equipment for use in the space (ACGB, 1982b: 8).

There is a report on the 12 months of the Animateur/programme adviser post, held by Simon Field, which includes the tabling of a series of Programming Advice Sheets (Field, 1982). Field acknowledges video is not well represented in the programming suggestions and informs the committee that further video programmes are in preparation. He intends to use the sheets as "a calling card in order to reach new organisations" and reports that there is "a wide spread lack of experience and knowledge of the films and how to programme them and little awareness of the Artists Film & Video Committee's exhibition policy". After further discussion of the programme selections, it is "emphasised that the important point was to build audiences and to develop interest in a variety of ways (ACGB, 1982b: 3-4).

The meeting also approves the release of funds to the Arnolfini video access library for the acquisition of new work. The level of subsidy and new programmes for the Modular scheme are also reviewed, followed by a lengthy discussion of a proposal from women's distributor Circles for exhibition funding. The discussion hinges on the issue of subsidising screenings for a paying audiences "where admission was restricted to women only". While the committee would be sympathetic to a workshop based proposal from Circles, the majority of members feel that "it was not acceptable to fund film exhibition with public money when it was exclusively for one section of the general public" (ACGB, 1982b: 5-6).

19 October 1982: London. Rodney Wilson (Film Officer, ACGB) sends a memo to Joanna Drew (Director of Art, ACGB) confirming support for the Video Access Libraries at the Arnolfini in Bristol and the ICA in London, with £3000 offered to the Arnolfini this year for the purchase of new acquisitions.

Our support was considered and agreed on the basis that the Libraries were a new way of making artists film and video available to the public. Indeed, they represent the only direct public access to the work. (Wilson, 1982b)

2 November 1982: London. Channel 4 launches, broadcasting its first programme Countdown hosted by Richard Whiteley and Carol Vorderman, at 4.45pm (Channel 4, 2016). Chief Executive Jeremy Isaacs announces

Channel 4 is determined to fulfil its brief to bring new voices, new forms and new areas of subject matter to British television. We look to the independent film-makers' movement to help us to do that, and we welcome their work to the screen … Up to now they have been denied a national audience. Now they have that opportunity. The challenge to us is to be an open, alert interested audience. (Channel 4, 1982: 2)

This commitment will be realised via the Independent Film and Video department, headed up by Commissioning Editor Alan Fountain, through programme series such as The Eleventh Hour and Ireland: The Silent Voices, as well as a programme of artists' films (including work by Jeff Keen, Margaret Tait and Malcolm Le Grice) and funding for film workshops. Several workshops have been funded to work under the Workshop Declaration, including Amber Films, Birmingham Film Workshop, Cinema Action, Four Corners, Front Room, Newsreel, Northeast Films and Trade Films (Channel 4, 1982).

17 November 1982: Bristol/London. Lewis Biggs (Gallery Co-ordinator, Arnolfini) writes to Rodney Wilson (Film Officer, ACGB) informing him of the viewing figures for the Arts Council documentaries on the arts that are on permanent loan to the Video Access Library. Over a 7 month period, 33 tapes have been watched an average of 10 times each, with Ubu (Geoff Dunbar, 1978) attracting the highest number of viewings at 63.

Apart from evidently fulfilling a need … we are also very glad to have this section of the Library by way of introduction to the more 'difficult' areas of independent film and original video. (Biggs, 1982b: 3)

Wilson forwards the viewing figures to Joanna Drew (Director of Art, ACGB) and argues that:

I think the results are extremely good and vindicate the experiment completely. It also reinforces my view that the Council should provide the funds to enable us to develop the concept further. … It is going to be one of the distribution formats of the future. (Wilson, Rodney, 1982)

26 November 1982: Berlin/London. Cristina Perincioli (Sphinx Film Productions Ltd) writes to Cinema of Women (COW) asking why she has not received her royalty share on the broadcast sale of The Power of Men is the Patience of Women (West Germany 1978) to Channel 4. (Perincioli, 1982).

1983

7 January 1983: London/Northants. David Finch (London Filmmakers’ Co-operative/LFMC Distribution Organiser) replies to Tim Cawkwell’s letter of 20 September 1982 (Cawkwell, 1982b), and forwards a letter from David Curtis (Assistant Film Officer, Arts Council of Great Britain/ACGB) about the Filmmakers on Tour Scheme, regarding a

new ‘option’ for film-makers on tour whereby the film-maker effectively programmes a screening which doesn’t have to be all his/her own work, and turns up to give a talk. So the film-maker gets the hire fees plus the fee for the talk, and the distributor gets a percentage of the hire fee, as usual. All the same, it seems that there’s still more money in it for the f-m who leaves out the distributor. Anyway, for the moment we will carry on letting distribution film-makers keep their films at home, which means ta [sic?] the f-m’s have the option of leaving us out of film-makers OT or not […]

There will be no new LFMC catalogue, only more catalogue supplements. Standard hire fees are 50p/min or £5 minimum. “I also enclose some information to help you with publicising your films, and an entry form for supplement 6.”(Finch, 1983: 1)

21 February 1983: London. The Artists' Film and Video Sub-Committee (AFVSC) of the Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) meets and discusses, among other things, its support for Video Access Libraries. The Film Officer has requested funding to set up two further Libraries – one in Newcastle and one in Nottingham – to provide access for both the Arts Council's own documentary films and artists' film/video. Having visited Newcastle, however, the Film Officer has decided it would be best to house the former at the Tyneside Cinema and the latter at Spectro Arts Workshop. Capital awards are being processed. The Assistant Film Officer has visited the Midland Group in Nottingham which offers the possibility of housing a Video Access Library in its new gallery space, currently under construction. The plan would be to set up a Library which offered arts documentaries, artists' film and video, and local material. Discussion of funding for further acquisitions at the Arnolfini's Video Access Library is deferred, until further information is received, but the Film Officer confirms usage figures for the first six months of the scheme are encouraging (ACGB, 1983a: 3-4).

March 1983: Liverpool. A workshop on distribution is held at the Community-based Video Conference. Participants share information on the current situation and propose that a group be set up to fundraise for a Distribution Feasibility Study. The group comprises: Cardiff Video Workshop, Jubilee Community Arts (West Midlands), Nottingham Video Project, Birmingham Trades Union Resource Centre, Ipswich Film and Video Workshop, Film Workshop Trust (Edinburgh), Annares Cooperative, Action Space, Gay Video Project, Albany Video, Oval Video, Tower Hamlets Arts Project and West London Media Workshop. (Dowmunt, 1984: 3).

16 March 1983: Bristol/London. In response to a request from Rodney Wilson (Film Officer, ACGB), Lewis Biggs (Gallery Coordinator, Arnolfini) sends viewing figures for artists' film and video at the Arnolfini's Video Access Library. During the reporting period (not specified) a total of 36 tapes have been watched an average of 12 times each, with The News (Ian Breakwell, 1980) proving the most popular with 47 views. Biggs reports that the library's busiest days are Thursday, Friday and Saturday and "the indications are that the Library would be fully used if it were open longer hours" (Biggs, 1983: 1). They also received many enquiries as to the availability of similar libraries elsewhere in the country, which suggests many users are from outside Bristol.

Lastly, we have evidence that the production of 'supplements' on the Library is useful, since users often approach the Library supplement in hand, with their preferred titles ringed. (Biggs, 1983: 2)

11 April 1983: London. The Arts Council of Great Britain’s (ACGB) Artists’ Film and Video Sub-Committee meets to consider future policy. The figures for the past three years of Filmmakers and Video Artists on Tour Scheme will be examined to find the relative balance of film versus video bookings, and if the scheme is expanding or contracting (ACGB, 1983b: 1). The committee agree to consider a financially detailed proposal for a new ‘umbrella’ scheme to replace the outgoing Modular Scheme. The committee further agree to extend the Animateur post for another year, and consider the reappointment of Simon Field to it at a later date, with reference to the possibility of an ‘umbrella’ scheme. In addition, the committee agree to continue to support the expansion of a network of video access libraries. (ACGB, 1983b: 6).

18 April 1983: London. The Arts Council of Great Britain’s (ACGB) Artists’ Film and Video Sub-Committee meet and discuss the new ‘Umbrella Scheme’, which will replace the “prohibitively expensive” Modular Scheme. Some Modular Scheme programmes have required work to be purchased overseas, and except where these had progressed too far to cancel, such programmes would be dropped. Further, the ‘Umbrella Scheme’ will “overcome the basic problems that had arisen with the Modular Scheme; lack of coherence, lack of objectivity and no real sense of targeting towards particular audiences” (ACGB, 1983c: 2). £1,180 is set aside for remaining Modular programmes, and £720 to bring Chris Garratt’s Image and Sound Modular programme to completion. £4,000 is reserved for the ‘Umbrella Scheme’, and £4,500 for the cost of the Animateur. (ACGB, 1983c: 3)

The committee also discuss the London Film-makers' Co-op's (LFMC) application for £962 for their Summer Preview Show. While they express support for the event, they also request sight of last year's attendance figures. (ACGB, 1983c: 4).

May 1983: Bristol, London, Harrow, Hull, Bracknell, Sheffield. The package Her Image Fades as Her Voice Rises, a selection of films compiled by Felicity Sparrow (Circles) and filmmaker Lis Rhodes, starts touring the UK. Funded by the Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) via its Modular Scheme, the programme screens at nine venues in the next 10 months (ACGB, 1984c: 1). The package comprises 4 films: Often During the Day by Joanna Davis (GB 1979), A House Divided by Alice Guy (USA 1913), The Smiling Madame Beudet by Germaine Dulac (France 1922) and Light Reading by Lis Rhodes (GB 1978). (Sparrow, 1983).

17 May 1983: London/Bristol. Joanna Drew (Director of Art, ACGB) sends a contractual letter to Jeremy Rees (Director, Arnolfini) agreeing the terms under which a selection of Arts Council documentaries on the arts are being supplied to the Arnolfini's Video Access Library. The tapes are supplied free of charge, on permanent loan, on the understanding that they are for use by the Video Access Library only and will be returned should the Library close. The Arts Council will receive 50% of the net income from viewing charges, with the first payment due on 30 September (Drew, 1983)

In addition to the Arnolfini's library in Bristol, there are now Video Access Libraries opened or planned at the ICA in London, the Midland Group in Nottingham and the Tyneside Film Theatre in Newcastle (Wilson, 1983).

June 1983: Bristol, Falmouth, Plymouth, Newent, Exeter. Judith Higginbottom (Exeter Film Workshop) undertakes a one week tour of venues in the South West of England with a programme of films by Maya Deren. The tour is subsidised by the Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) and the British Film Institute (BFI), with Higginbottom's speaker fees and travelling expenses covered by South West Arts (Higginbottom, 1984: 1). The programme comprises Meshes of the Afternoon (1943), At Land (1944), Meditation on Violence (1948) and Ritual in Transfigured Time (1946). The intention was to include A Study in Choreography for Camera (1945) as well, but the BFI has had to withdraw their print of this film. Tour venues are offered the programme at a subsidised cost of £25 and a booklet has been printed to accompany the tour, with text by Higginbottom and an extract from an article by P. Adams Sitney (Higginbottom, 1983).

Five hundred copies [of the booklet] were printed. Those which were not distributed during the tour have since been sold by S.W. Arts in response to requests from individuals and institutions. There are now no copies left but S.W. Arts are still receiving requests … The tour attracted audiences interested in various aspects of Deren's work: those interested in avant-garde, artists and independent film; women interested in Deren's film in the light of subsequent feminist work; artists interested in Deren as an artist and also in her circle of acquaintances in New York in the 1940s; dancers interested in her use of dance and her concept of 'choreographing' films; people who had read her anthropological writings and Jungian theorists interested in the Symbolism she used. There were also martial arts devotees interested in 'Meditation on Violence. (Higginbottom, 1984: 1-2)

All screenings were followed by a discussion, with audiences ranging from 11 in Newent, where "The audience were completely unfamiliar with anything other than mainstream commercial cinema", through 35–40 in Bristol, Falmouth and Plymouth, up to 50 in Exeter (Higginbottom, 1984: 3).

20 June 1983: London. The Arts Council of Great Britain’s (ACGB) Artists’ Film and Video Sub-Committee meet and discuss the impact of the loss of Animateur Simon Field, who has accepted an invitation to programme for a year at the Living Cinema Collective in New York. This leaves the committee without an Animateur to organise and promote events and tours (Field, 1983), and to supervise the new ‘Umbrella Scheme’ of touring “‘short-life’ film/video exhibition packages” (ACGB, 1983d: 8). The committee determine to offer a part-time bursary, with a more limited brief than the Animateur, to launch and promote the ‘Umbrella Scheme’ (ACGB, 1983d: 8). The scheme will now run for a year rather than only autumn due to organisational delays. Unlike the Modular Scheme, the distributors servicing the packages will not promote them, and unlike the Animateur role the Umbrella organiser will not offer programming advice to venues, only organise and promote packages (ACGB, 1983d: 8). £5,000 was reserved for the Animateur, but the “reduced role” of the Umbrella organiser will be supported by a £3,000 bursary plus £500 expenses (Curtis, 1983a: 2) (ACGB, 1983d: 8-9). The position will be offered to Mike O’Pray.

July 1983: London/Cardiff/Nottingham/Birmingham/Ipswich/Edinburgh. A group formed at the Community-based Video Conference, held in Liverpool in March, draw up a proposal – coordinated by Albany Video – for a study of Community Video Distribution, which aims to understand the existing situation and the future potential. In addition to Albany Video, the group comprises: Cardiff Video Workshop, Jubilee Community Arts (West Midlands), Nottingham Video, Project, Birmingham Trades Union Resource Centre, Ipswich Film and Video Workshop, Film Workshop Trust (Edinburgh), Annares Cooperative, Action Space, Gay Video Project, Oval Video, Tower Hamlets Arts Project and West London Media Workshop. The proposed study will require the employment of two researchers and is budgeted at £15,000. (Dowmunt, 1984: 3-6).

24 July 1983: USA/London. Lizzie Borden writes to Tony Kirkhope (The Other Cinema/COW) reconfirming her decision to place her film Born in Flames with COW, stating that 'Because of the content of BORN IN FLAMES I feel that it must be allied to a specifically feminist network'. She expresses appreciation for the work Kirkhope has already done and for his understanding of her position. (Borden, 1983).

August 1983: London. Michael O’Pray takes up a nine-month bursary for the Arts Council of Great Britain as organiser of the “Film and Video ‘umbrella’” (ACGB, 1983e).

The ‘umbrella’ scheme is intended to provide venues with a balanced series of events throughout the year, by co-ordinating the touring of programmes devised by the Arts Council and by other film/video exhibitors and distributors. (ACGB, 1983e)

Three short-life programmes of work are planned for autumn, with further series in Spring and Summer, while an additional selection of programmes will be available throughout 1983-84 (ACGB, 1983e)

8 August 1983: London. Playpont Films, the UK sales agent for Marleen Gorris' A Question of Silence (Netherlands 1982), writes to Cinema of Women (COW) requesting an overdue advance on the film of £750 and an activity report for the producer. The latter is part of the contract and Playpont threaten to serve notice of breach if the report is not received by 15 July. (Playpont Films, 1983).

Autumn 1983: London. Cinema of Women (COW) is featured in the cover story of the first issue of Equality Now!, the Equal Opportunities Commission’s new magazine. The profile details COW’s efforts to bring women’s film to a wider audience and prevent its misappropriation by non-feminist distributors and exhibitors. The six-woman collective works from a room in Clerkenwell and distributes more than 40 films and videos to a variety of user groups, such as education, women’s groups, trade unions, community centres and independent cinemas. COW has recently theatrically released their first feature film, A Question of Silence (Marleen Gorris, 1982). COW sees its films functioning as a useful starting point for discussions questioning the role of women in society, and have further focused on specific areas of neglect, such as black and third world women. They also place an emphasis on skill sharing and demystifying the film production process. Penny Ashbrook (COW) comments that “you can’t approach film in separate categories; it’s a complete process, production, distribution and viewing. (Cairncross, 1983: 17).

September 1983: London. David Curtis (Assistant Film Officer/ACGB) draws up a paper requesting urgent consideration of the financial needs of the Artist' Film and Video Sub-Committee by its parent body, the Advisory Committee for arts film. The paper outlines some of the Sub-Committee's activities to argue for an increased allocation of funding for 1984–85. Among other matters, the Sub-Committee has identified 'exhibition' as a major area of need, which it currently supports directly via its Filmmakers and Video Artists on Tour schemes and its 'distribution' awards, and indirectly via its exhibitions, its small-scale touring programmes and the programme planning advice of its 'animateur'. The paper notes that although use of the Filmmakers and Video Artists on Tour schemes by colleges has dropped slightly, 'there has been a noticeable increase in the number of bookings by arts centres in 83, probably as a result of the animateur's activities. If this growth is to be sustained, further funds will be necessary' (Curtis, 1983b: 1-2). Curtis also notes the Sub-Committee's continuing commitment to supporting and expanding the network of video access libraries, stressing that:

Uniquely these libraries make artists' work available to the public on demand, and their purchase of work is a valuable devolved source of patronage for artists. ... Additional funds must be found for this purpose. (Curtis, 1983b: 3)

September 1983: London. COW draft a press release for Lizzie Borden's Born in Flames, due to open at Screen on the Green Islington, London, in February 1984, and then transferring to other cinemas in London and other parts of the country. They outline the challenges of releasing feminist films, including persuading cinemas that the films are commercial enough, contending with negative reviews, and borrowing large amounts of money.

To anyone who has seen Born in Flames or Question of Silence it might seem obvious that they can be watched in warm comfortable cinemas by large audiences. To us, at Cinema of Women it is a major achievement. (COW, 1983b)

September–December 1983: Penzance, Bath, Cardiff, Newport. Following on from a film tour in June, Judith Higginbottom (Exeter Film Workshop) undertakes additional screenings of a programme of Maya Deren films. The programme usually comprises Meshes of the Afternoon (1943), At Land (1944), Meditation on Violence (1948) and Ritual in Transfigured Time (1946). Audience sizes range between 25 and 95 (Higginbottom, 1984: 3-4).

20 September 1983: London. The Arts Council of Great Britain’s (ACGB) ‘Umbrella Scheme’ appointee Mike O’Pray reports on and claims for his first 20 days work on the scheme. He has been working since August to complete arrangements on the inherited Robert Breer tour, Cubism and Cinema programme and Recent British Video package. This has involved creating or completing promotional materials, negotiations with originators and stakeholders, and arranging transport. (O'Pray, 1983a).

25 September 1983: London. Mike O’Pray, bursary holder for the Arts Council of Great Britain’s (ACGB) ‘umbrella’ scheme, writes to David Curtis (Assistant Film Officer, ACGB) with proposals for developing the new scheme (O'Pray, 1983b). The proposals suggest an expanded agency role for a “more independent/autonomous” looking “Film Umbrella”, including a formal title with address and logo. A regular newssheet would supply information on new films, visiting filmmakers and exhibitions to venues, colleges and publications, which could allow the Umbrella “to play a middle role”, accepting commissions from the institutions which originally hosted programmes, and on bookings for represented filmmakers. For the latter, the Umbrella would deal directly with filmmakers rather than with their distributors, but would seek an expanded role in, for instance, selling to national and international television (O'Pray, 1983b). Thus the Umbrella could become a self-financing booking and promotion agency. (O'Pray, 1983b).

26 September 1983: London. The Arts Council of Great Britain’s (ACGB) Artists’ Film and Video Sub-Committee meet and the Assistant Film Officer reports on the progress of the Video Access Libraries. A new one has been established at the Midland Group in Nottingham and it is considering, in conjunction with two other Video Access Libraries, a proposal whereby 20–24 tapes would be toured for one year between the three libraries at the Arnolfini in Bristol, Spectro in Newcastle and the Midland Group, spending 4 months in each library prior to purchase to test interest. Concern is, however, expressed over the future of the library at Arnolfini – the recently appointed video library administrator has resigned and the centre is experiencing revenue funding problems. The Arts Council's Director of Art, Joanna Drew, confirms that the Council "is very much aware of the value of the video access library at the Arnolfini" and the Committee also expresses its support (ACGB, 1983f: 3).

The committee also discuss the progress of the ‘umbrella’ scheme. The tour of Robert Breer’s work, which began at the Cambridge Animation Festival, has travelled to four cities and will travel to four more. As the audience has averaged 2/3 of venue capacity, it is considered successful (ACGB, 1983f: 4). The programme of Cubist Cinema that originated at the Tate is operational, with more than four bookings. The Recent British Video package, programmed by Stuart Marshall for the Great Britain Salutes New York festivities, is in process and has received three bookings (ACGB, 1983f: 4).

The committee views the now ready promotional broadsheets for the Her Image Fades as Her Voice Rises and Working Frame by Frame Modular programmes (ACGB, 1983f: 4). When the committee asks for comparative data on the Modular versus ‘umbrella’ schemes, so as to evaluate the decision to replace one with the other, it is pointed out that such data would be skewed as the ‘umbrella’ scheme has had national press coverage (ACGB, 1983f: 4).

The committee considers the London Film-makers' Co-operative's proposal for a preview facility, enabling film to be transferred to video, but feel the professional standard equipment is too expensive. The proposal also raises problems with regard to medium specific work originated on celluloid and the question of the wider needs of the whole independent sector. There is general support for awarding a small research bursary to examine these issues, which will be discussed in the next financial year. (ACGB, 1983f: 9).

October 1983: London. Cinema of Women (COW) issue a press release for their third cinema feature film release, Lizzie Borden's Born in Flames (USA 19830). The film has won prizes at the Berlin and Sceaux festivals, and is due to open at the first run London cinema, Screen on the Green, in February. (COW, 1983a).

27 October 1983: London. Penny Ashbrook (Cinema of Women/COW) writes to Ian Christie (BFI) explaining Mainline have agreed to release Lizzie Borden's film Born in Flames (USA 1983) and to open it at Screen on the Green, a first run London cinema, on a 16mm print. COW are negotiating with the Greater London Council (GLC) to get the necessary financing to undertake the installation of 16mm projection equipment at the cinema. In light of the planned London opening, COW ask Christie for an advance of £5046 against box office receipts at regional theatres to help cover print costs and an extensive publicity campaign. (Ashbrook, 1983).

6 November 1983: London. The Arts Council of Great Britain’s (ACGB) Umbrella Scheme appointee Mike O’Pray reports on and claims for his second 20 days working on the scheme. Since late September the Umbrella has organised a Robert Breer night at the Institute of Contemporary Arts (ICA), completed the informational/promotional broadsheet for the Cubism and Cinema touring package, which has had a press preview through the ACGB. It has received bookings, the Breer package is still touring, and Recent British Video has started touring. Further tours have been planned, including one themed on eroticism, a package of new German film supported by the Arsenal in Berlin and the Goethe Institute in London, and preliminary enquiries about a touring package of installations. (O'Pray, 1983c).

7 November 1983: London. The Arts Council of Great Britain’s (ACGB) Artists’ Film and Video Sub-Committee meet. The committee views the new promotional broadsheet for the Film/Video Umbrella’s Cubism and Cinema package, which has now been to four venues. The Umbrella’s Robert Breer tour will run until Christmas, by which time it will have been to between eight and ten venues. The Recent British Video package has been held up by conflict between Umbrella appointee Mike O’Pray and the distributor servicing the package, London Video Arts (LVA), but this is now resolved.

A report from LVA is also tabled, noting that their screenings have been disappointing recently and income was very low. LVA have not budgeted sufficiently for the full rent of the Air Gallery basement, but both the ACGB's Assistant Film Officer and Assistant Subsidy Officer feel LVA's grant should not be used to pay the rent deficit. LVA have requested to use the Arts Council's Video Artists on Tour scheme to subsidise shows they have planned for spring 1984. This suggestion meets with resistance. The decision is taken to have a fuller discussion of the LVA's finances and how the Sub-Committee funds the organisation at the January policy meeting. (ACGB, 1983g: 2).

12 November 1983: London. The London Filmmakers' Co-operative (LFMC) holds its Annual General Meeting. The distribution report reiterates the LFMC's traditional passive distribution strategy – that is, "Constitutionally no one film in distribution can be promoted above the rest". However, the Arts Council of Great Britain's (ACGB) Umbrella scheme organiser, Mike O'Pray, is seeking films for packages, and has received a list of new LFMC films and films currently in production at the LFMC workshop. As it is still the case that programmers cannot view material prior to hiring, the meeting carries distribution's proposal to ask all filmmakers to allow a single previewing annually on a Steenbeck editor for programming purposes. Distribution workers also report that the ACGB have indicated that a small bursary would be available to research into telecine (LFMC, 1983: 2).

Distribution staff also propose that the LFMC's open access distribution policy be altered for the purposes of ejecting films currently in distribution and rejecting new films that are offensive and pornographic. One suggestion is a reactive, complaints based system which took cases to the Executive. The proposals are opposed by members who suggest they are censorship, a denial of choice to the audience, and something that would open up the collection to "other sorts of judgements on films" (LFMC, 1983: 5).

December 1983: London. The Industry and Employment and the Arts and Recreation committees of the Greater London Council (GLC) hold a Cultural Industries Conference at Riverside Studios. As part of the conference a report is prepared and published on 'Film and Video Exhibition and Distribution in London' which contains a number of recommendations for strategic intervention by the Council (GLC, 1984b: 6)(Blanchard, 1983). These recommendations include the GLC to (1) make an explicit commitment to policy and funding designed to develop the structure of independent film and video distribution and exhibition in London; (2) consider setting up a distribution investment fund; (3) make a policy and funding commitment to the London based aspects of the research project on video distribution being organised by Albany Video; (4) fund a feasibility study into setting up a new central London exhibition venue for film and video; (5) fund a research programme on the implications for the independent sector of technical change in the audio-visual industry, including such issues as the future of 16mm and video projection; (6) examine the scope for computerisation investment in the work processes and promotional activities of distribution and exhibition; and (7) appoint a full-time film and video officer to assist with the implementation of the report's recommendations, coordinate policy making across the GLC's various committees and to act as a focus for information and advice in the Council's relations with the independent film and video sector (Blanchard, 1983: 22-23)(GLC, 1984b: 18-19).

1984

18 January 1984: London. Mike O’Pray (Umbrella Scheme organiser) writes to David Curtis (Assistant Film Officer, Arts Council of Great Britain/ACGB) concerning arrangements to tour Cordelia Swann’s (London Filmmakers’ Co-operative/LFMC) upcoming Institute of Contemporary Arts (ICA) salon as 'Dreams, Myths and Symbols'. There is also the possibility of British Film Institute (BFI) support, as Ian Christie (Head of Distribution, BFI) has already agreed to finance an LFMC tour of this kind. O’Pray also notes that this “would be more in the umbrella line of picking up other work done by others” (O'Pray, 1984a: 1). The programme would need to run over two days, and requires a gallery-type space, which restricts which venues would handle it, but these difficulties are offset by cost and labour contributions from Swann and the BFI, and “a thorough and event-like package of this area of work would be seen”, all the more so for being launched at the ICA (O'Pray, 1984a: 1).

25 January 1984: London. Tony Dowmunt (Albany Video) writes to John Buston (Grants Officer, Greater London Council), requesting £3500 towards funding a proposed Community Video Distribution study. The study aims to undertake 6 months intensive research into the distribution of independent video work in the UK. The proposal has been drawn up by a group comprising: Cardiff Video Workshop, Jubilee Community Arts (West Midlands), Nottingham Video Project, Birmingham Trades Union Resource Centre, Ipswich Film and Video Workshop, Film Workshop Trust (Edinburgh), Annares Cooperative, Action Space, Gay Video Project, Albany Video, Oval Video, Tower Hamlets Arts Project and West London Media Workshop. The group have already raised £11,500 (from the Gulbenkian Foundation, the BFI, Channel 4 and the Greater London Arts Association) towards the cost of employing two researchers to identify the number and types of tapes available for distribution, existing community distribution schemes, how existing audiences use tapes and could be better serviced, and potential new audiences for video. The researchers will also look at the feasibility of a range of possible distribution schemes. The total cost of the research project has been budgeted at £15,000. (Dowmunt, 1984).

February 1984: London. Building on Judith Higginbottom's tour of Maya Deren films in the South West of England in June 1983, Felicity Sparrow (Circles) and Higginbottom submit an application to the Artists' Film and Video Committee at the Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) for a subsidy towards the cost of packaging, promoting and touring a programme of films by Maya Deren more widely in the UK. The programme will be in two parts: Meshes of the Afternoon (1943), At Land (1944) and Ritual in Transfigured Time (1946) will form a self-contained 'trilogy', with an option for hirers to add Meditation on Violence (1948) and A Study in Choreography for Camera (1945) if they wish. The application is to cover the cost of compiling and printing booklets and publicity material, subsidising hire costs to venues, and promotional activity. (Sparrow, 1984: 1-4).

February 1984: London. Organiser of the Arts Council of Great Britain’s (ACGB) Umbrella Scheme Mike O’Pray proposes three touring packages for Summer/early Autumn: contemporary German experimental work in 'German Tales and Forms' (O'Pray, 1984b: 1-2); 'Three Installations', featuring Chris Welsby’s Rainfall (1983), Holly Warburton’s The Reflected Portrait: The Petrification of Transience (1984) and a video installation yet to be confirmed (O'Pray, 1984b: 3); and 'Dreams, Myths and Symbols', which sets recent English artists’ film in context via older American and European avant-garde work (O'Pray, 1984b: 4).

2 March 1984: London. David Critchley (London Video Arts/LVA) invoices the Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) for LVA’s handling of the Umbrella-promoted 'Recent British Video' and 'American Video' packages. Each of the four programmes in a package has been hired to venues for £25. As LVA is the original distributor of the work in 'Recent British Video', the £16 subsidy per programme underlying the £25 rate goes to LVA (Critchley, 1984: 2). LVA simply dispatches the 'American Video' package at a handling charge of £10 per programme (Critchley, 1984: 3).

5 March 1984: London. The Arts Council of Great Britain's (ACGB) Artists' Film and Video Sub-Committee meet, having agreed previously that its priorities include distribution awards, support for the Film-Makers/Video Artists on Tour scheme, support for the Umbrella scheme, support for LVA and other major exhibition outlets, and purchase funds for Video Access Libraries.

While the Umbrella Scheme in fact only enjoys mixed support, the committee is agreed on the need to “increase promotion of work” (ACGB, 1984a: 2). Funds reserved for the Umbrella Scheme are increased to £9,000, though the cessation of the Modular Scheme makes this an overall decrease in investment in creating and touring packages (ACGB, 1984a: 2). This is expected, as the cost of the Modular Scheme was why the “Committee had decided to curtail these activities in favour of the lower cost Umbrella Scheme” (ACGB, 1984a: 4). Nonetheless, continued applications under the Modular Scheme, such as Circles application for a touring package of Maya Deren films, are greeted enthusiastically where a distributor is also supportive. The committee reserves £1000 to continue to circulate modular packages, and offer Circles £1,250 for the Deren package (ACGB, 1984a: 5)

Umbrella appointee Mike O’Pray reports to the committee on the scheme’s success, and justifies various aspects of the scheme to the assembled. The tours are ‘short-life’ because the prints are drawn from distributor’s collections, and so have commitments elsewhere. The suggestion that new prints be bought for tours is rejected as that was why the Modular Scheme was so expensive and has been discontinued (ACGB, 1984a: 4). O’Pray considers that the Umbrella could probably handle 10 tours a year (ACGB, 1984a: 5), noting that "audience figures had been very good" and that programmes with accompanying speakers attract higher audiences (ACGB, 1984a: 4). There is discussion of the proposed Umbrella packages for the Summer/Autumn period (O'Pray, 1984b), and it is agreed to fund the Umbrella scheme for a further term, allocating £5500 for its exhibition programme (ACGB, 1984a: 6).

There is a discussion of video access libraries, with a report tabled on the Arnolfini's library. Continued Arts Council support for the Arnolfini is in question and others sources of support are uncertain. However, tape viewing figures at the Arnolfini have been very good, and although all the video access libraries have had problems, it is agreed to reserve £9000 as a block sum for division between the libraries (ACGB, 1984a: 7).

Other decisions taken at the meeting include offering LVA £10,000 to fund an exhibition worker and an exhibition programme, as well as support for the LFMC's Distribution Show, Summer Show and Salon, but rejection of LFMC's application for funding for telecine research (ACGB, 1984a: 8-9).

March 1984: London. The Industry and Employment department at the Greater London Council (GLC) convenes a meeting to collect views from other GLC departments and from independent video groups funded by the GLC's Arts and Recreation department on an application made by Hampden Gurney Studios Ltd for investment/mortgage financing from the Greater London Enterprise Board (GLEB). Hampden Gurney are seeking the investment for a TV production facility they want to open near Marble Arch for commercial use, with the possibility of community access during minority 'downtime'. The meeting concludes that there is a greater need to investigate "the possibility of establishing a non-profit distributing video production facility for use in community access and by the 'independent' sector" (Marris, 1984).

April 1984: London. David Curtis (Assistant Film Officer, ACGB) draws up a report detailing the support provided by the Artists' Film and Video Sub-Commitee (AFVSC) at the Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) for the exhibition of artists' film and video work. It covers the technical, financial and curatorial challenges of staging exhibitions and screening of such work. He notes the "absence of curators/programmers with knowledge of artists' film/video" and that "Any British presence at the major experimental/avant-garde/artists festival[s] abroad … is likely to have happened as a result of the film-makers' own initiatives or through happy accident" (Curtis, 1984: 2). The majority of users of the Filmmakers on Tour/Video Artists on Tour schemes are still colleges, but "the proportion of public venues continues to increase" (Curtis, 1984: 2). The aim of the Modular and Umbrella schemes is to provide arts centres/cinemas with "ready packaged work" – viewed as a "convenience package" strategy – and were set up due to "the improbability of any other body providing this" (Curtis, 1984: 3). The AFVSC has been keen to support Video Access Library initiatives – four to date – since:

Uniquely these libraries make artists' work available on demand, thus overcoming the restriction of 'performance scheuldes' – which demand a high level of committed interest from the audience and set up a 'theatrical' expectation not always appropriate to the scale of the work. (Curtis, 1984: 3)

While the AFVSC would like to see the network expand, its standstill budget does not currently permit this (Curtis, 1984). However, it is clear from the number of institutional hire bookings of the Arts Council's arts documentaries through Concord Film and the viewing figures for the documentaries at the Arnolfini's Video Access Library that Video Access Libraries, which make the tapes available for viewing at a very nominal charge, generate a very modest level of income. For the period 1 January to 31 December 1983, Concord processed 2001 institutional bookings, generating a net income of £14,386.03, while the tapes had 924 views at the Arnolfini, generating a net income of £174.88 (ACGB, 1984b).

April 1984: London. The Artists’ Film and Video Sub-Committee at the Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) produces a list of all touring programmes over the previous year, including the defunct Modular Scheme and the new Film and Video Umbrella Scheme (ACGB, 1984d). These include 'Films by American Artists', 'American Video', 'Her Image Fades as Her Voice Rises', 'Working Frame by Frame', 'Image and Sound', 'Robert Breer', 'Cubism and the Cinema', and 'Recent British Video'. This list includes details of the venues that have booked the programmes.

May 1984: London. Workers Jo Dungey and Jon Dovey are appointed to work part-time conducting research into "the current state of [video] distribution practice, to establish how many, and what kind of programmes [are] available and to investigate ways of reaching new audiences" (section 1.1) (Dovey, 1985). The research project has been set up by Albany Video, Cardiff Video Workshop, Jubilee Community Arts (West Midlands) Nottingham Video Project, Birmingham Trades Union Resource Centre, Ipswich Film and Video Workshop, Film Workshop Trust, Annares Cooperative, Action Space, Gay Video Project, Oval Video, Tower Hamlets Arts Project and West London Media Workshop. They have raised £15,000 to fund the research from the Gulbenkian Foundation, the BFI, Channel 4, the Greater London Arts Association (GLAA) and the Greater London Council (GLC) (Dowmunt, 1984)(GLC, 1984b: 7, 18).

May 1984: London. Based on recommendations made in a 'Film and Video Exhibition and Distribution in London' report, prepared for the December 1983 Cultural Industries Conference organised by the Industry and Employment and the Arts and Recreation committees at the Greater London Council (GLC) and held at Riverside Studios, Paul Marris is appointed as a Film & Video Officer, based within the Council's Department of Recreation and Arts (GLC, 1984b: 19).

June-October 1984: London. The Cinema of Women (COW) collective view Heiny Srour's Leila and the Wolves (UK/Lebanon 1984) at the British Film Institute (BFI) and after several weeks of deliberations decide to take the film on. (COW, 1984a).

June 1984: London. Following a meeting in March between various Greater London Council (GLC) departments and independent video groups funded by the GLC's Arts and Recreation department, Paul Marris – the Council's newly appointed Film & Video Officer – draws up a 'note' outlining the criteria for a feasibility study to investigate "the possibility of establishing a non-profit distributing video production facility for use in community access and by the 'independent' sector" (Marris, 1984: 1). The note covers facilities, premises and management, as well as allied operations , such as:

a distribution operation: to service and promote the non-transmitted use of independent, community, experimental and educational videotape material. Aimed solely at group and institutional use, or at individual domestic use as well? Selective library (TOC– and COW–style), or open deposit (London Film-Makers' Co-op style)? With or without a 'shop-front' facility? (p. 2)

Exhibition possibilities could also be considered, whether "in the form of a videotheque (pay-to-view booths for individual use), or in 'cinema' form (a small auditorium for collective viewing)?" (Marris, 1984: 3)

18 June 1984: London. The Arts Council of Great Britain’s (ACGB) Artists’ Film and Video Sub-Committee meet. The committee agree to increase to the rental fee on Modular Scheme programmes from £25 to £30 (ACGB, 1984e: 2). A series of recent exhibition initiatives are discussed, the well attended International Super 8 Festival, London Filmmaker’s Co-operative (LFMC) annual Preview Show and Institute of Contemporary Arts-hosted LFMC Salon, and the poorly attended American Underground Weekend and “33” Guildford Street event (ACGB, 1984e: 2-3). The Umbrella Scheme’s 'P. Adams Sitney Lecture Tour' has enjoyed “high” audiences (“c40” at the Derby Metro) (ACGB, 1984e: 3), but response to the 'German Tales and Forms' tour has been more mixed, the Watershed screenings suffering from poor promotion, while the Tate and Derby Metro shows has been far more successful (ACGB, 1984e: 3)(FVU, 1984).

Discussion turns to regional policy, and the recent failure of Regional Arts Association (RAA) Film Officers to agree to a part in extending the Filmmakers and Video Artists on Tour scheme (FMVAOT) to the regions. Malcolm Allen (Secretary of the Council of Regional Arts Associations (CORAA) Film Officers Group) explains the various constraints on RAAs, and suggests that the Animateur scheme was a more suitable model for regional exhibition than the FMVAOT, and would suit the independent cinema network far better. This would work far better if the Animateur or Umbrella organiser designed programmes to appeal to the cinemas. It is not considered appropriate that the ACGB be the sole funder of such an initiative, and in any case the committee has to encourage the exhibition of artists’ film and video in galleries. A suggested programme to package shorts to show with features is thought to appeal to the cinemas, and Allen thinks could draw support from CORAA and possibly co-funding from the British Film Institute (BFI) (ACGB, 1984e: 6-7).

6 July 1984: London. An event discussing Channel 4's The Eleventh House is held at the Institute of Contemporary Arts (ICA). Alan Fountain (Commissioning Editor, Channel 4, Independent Film & Video Department) gives a brief financial report, confirming that between November 1982, when the Channel was launched, and September 1984, £3.5 million will have been spent, giving an average cost of £30,000–£35,000 per programme. He anticipates that between £0.75–£1 million will be allocated annually to workshops. Fountain states that he was initially against the idea of a specific slot, such as The Eleventh Hour, and had "wanted to see independent material across the whole scope of CH4 programming and scheduling, however the Channel has not been as progressive as was hoped for" (Cayford, 1984: 2). Further, Fountain explains:

Most 11th Hour commissions have not appeared on TV – but will start being transmitted this Autumn. … [I]deas developed by the sector over the late 70's have been blocked by the Channel to an unanticipated extent, and [Fountain] referred to the thorny notion of contextualisation. (Cayford, 1984: 2)

The Eleventh Hour slot is characterised as offering programmes which the Left would find supportive and challenging, being concerned with third world cinema, offering a fair deal and support for feminist producers, and marked by formal difference from dominant forms and enabling experiment in film and video (Cayford, 1984: 2). Yet a panel of viewers are sceptical of the ability of its programmes to communicate effectively with audiences:

John Wyver assumed the main reason for the sector to embrace TV was to broaden its audience. He … felt that often the programmes did not make sense. Claire Johnston felt that the 11th Hour address was self-reflexive, and closed rather than open – that those who made the programmes were so close to the arguments, they could not appreciate how their programmes might (or might not) be received. Lynn Lloyd … welcomes the opportunities given to the sector through the 11th Hour, but was of the opinion that many programmes were incomprehensible, and that contextualisation does not make good Telly. (Cayford, 1984: 3)

Other speakers include Murray Martin of Amber Film & Photography Collective in Newcastle who talks about the sector's involvement with the ACTT and the development of the Workshop Declaration, Peter Wollen who argues for the future importance of cable television, Sally Hibben and Tony Kirkhope (TOC) who speak about the "problems of independent film & video distribution now that CH4 broadcasts it all", and Roy Lockett (ACTT) who gives "an impassioned defence of the Workshop Declaration". In reporting the event, J.K. Cayford poses the question "How can the sector use other media to increase the public awareness of the sector's work, and to build an audience?" (Cayford, 1984: 4).

29 September 1984: London/Berlin. Eileen McNulty (Cinema of Women/COW) writes to Cristina Perincioli apologising for the delay in sending her royalty share from the sale of her film The Power of Men to Channel 4. The Channel is very behind with transmitting royalty payments and COW promise to let Perincioli know as soon as they receive it. (McNulty, 1984a) .

October 1984: London. A report, 'Funding for Cultural Industries Projects', is drawn up for the Industry and Employment, the Finance and General Purposes, and the Arts and Recreation committees at the Greater London Council (GLC) (GLC, 1984a). It outlines the joint work undertaken by the Arts and Recreation and the Industry and Employment committees to devise strategies for supporting the cultural industries in London. The key conclusion, according to the report, of this work is that "distribution of cultural products, rather than their production should be a priority for the GLC and GLEB in this area". Video – along with newspapers, magazines, books and records – is identified as one of the areas to be supported. The aim is to help "reverse the trend, exemplified in the high street chains like W.H. Smiths, Boots and Woolworths, towards narrowing the range of what is available to the consumer" (GLC, 1984a: 1):

In the past public policies have tended to be geared towards supporting producers in the 'arts' and culture. This often ignores the reality of cultural consumption, and the cultural and economic importance of having a wider diversity in distribution and a sector in which producers can be viable without being entirely tied to the mass market or the demands of a wealthy elite. Technological changes in areas like video, cassette duplication and printing are creating the conditions for much greater variety in culture and for the development of much more specialised markets in popular culture, in ethnic cultures as well as in more overtly 'minority' areas. … The key problem, however, is that distribution of all forms of cultural product remains firmly in the control of a handful of companies which are geared to providing a narrow range of high turnover products. (GLC, 1984a: 2)

The Arts and Recreation and the Industry and Employment committees at the GLC have therefore decided to concentrate resources on "building up effective distribution and other infrastructures for independent and alternative culture" (GLC, 1984a: 2). A key strand to the strategy for video is to develop new outlets for independently produced product, "particularly in bookshops and libraries where there are already a number of pilot projects underway for hiring out a much wider range of videos than is available in the high street shops" (GLC, 1984a: 3).

19 October 1984: London. The Arts and Recreation Committee of the Greater London Council (GLC) draws up a report, GLC Film and Video Practice and Policy, detailing their approach to film and video practice and policy in London. The report outlines GLC support for the independent film and video sector in the previous year, 1983–84, covering production, distribution, exhibition, training and access. The Community Arts Sub-Committee awarded grants to "the three main London-based distributors operating in the non-commercial sectors": The Other Cinema (TOC), £13,475; Cinema of Women (COW), £13,597; and Circles, £18,800. The report notes that "The completed work of many of the 'workshop' groups funded by Community Arts Sub-Committee is handled by these distributors" (GLC, 1984b: 3). TOC was also awarded £12,000 towards its cinema project.

In the current year, 1984–85, the London-based TOC, COW and Circles have again applied for grant-aid. The Everyman, the Phoenix and the Electric Screen independent cinemas have all applied for funds to carry out building repairs or improvements (GLC, 1984b: 5). In addition TOC has been awarded just over £200,00 by the main Arts and Recreation committee "to install, decorate and equip a new two-screen cinema in the Trocadero entertainment complex near Piccadilly Circus" (GLC, 1984b: 5). The funding for TOC's Trocadero project has been awarded in order to provide a highly visible, central London showcase for the screening and discussion of "progressive" work. One 200-seat auditorium will be equipped with 35mm projection for "open-ended first-release runs of new foreign and domestic features", while the second 80-seater will be equipped with 16mm and video projection and devoted to repertory programming (GLC, 1984b: 7)

The report also notes that "The field of distribution and exhibition is undergoing a rapid technological switchover", with an increasing shift on the part of production groups funded by the GLC to videotape, "if for no other reason than it is cheaper" (GLC, 1984b: 6). However, this is creating exhibition problems since video projection "is still so poor", while screening on monitors can only accommodate small audiences – "So tape distribution has been burgeoning first for domestic use, but the economy scales have not permitted 'independent' product to get a look in" (GLC, 1984b: 6). However, the report notes that:

there are tentative ventures into the video-cassette field being mooted by GLEB, and undertaken by GLC-funded groups such as Other Cinema distribution, Cinema [of] Women, Tower Hamlets Arts Project, plus research into the topic, part-funded by the GLC, under the aegis of Albany Video Deptford. GLEB particularly, is seeking ways to promote the acquisition and loan of video-cassette material by the public library system, on similar terms to the present arrangements for records. (GLC, 1984b: 7)

In addition, GLEB has established "the beginnings of a Cultural Industries Investment Fund, and appointed an officer to head it up" (GLC, 1984b: 11). This has resulted from the discussions held at the GLC's Cultural Industries Conference, held at Riverside Studios in December 1983. GLEB is looking to support the development of distribution in the independent film and video sector with a view to improving its economic base.

The report also includes a number of appendices, including a progress summary on the recommendations made in a 'Film and Video Exhibition in London' report (Blanchard, 1983) which was prepared as part of the Cultural Industries Conference held by the GLC's Industry and Employment/Arts and Recreation committees at London's Riverside Studios in December 1983 (GLC, 1984b)

25 October 1984: Chelmsford/London. Christine Pointer (Principal Assistant Librarian, Leisure, Essex County Library) writes to Rodney Wilson (Film Officer, ACGB) about possible ways of pursuing the setting up of a Video Access Library at Southend Central Library. Due to limited funding, Essex Council Council is unable to fund an operation along the lines of the Video Access Library at the Arnolfini in Bristol. Therefore, Pointer asks if the Arts Council would consider transferring their films onto VHS cassette for sale to library authorities at a commercial rate. "This would bring your material to a wider audience, and provided that copyright clearance could be arranged, has much to commend it." (Pointer, 1984).

2 November 1984: Bristol/London. Tony Broad (Video Assistant, Arnolfini) writes to Rodney Wilson (Film Officer, ACGB) enclosing viewing figures for artists' film and video at the Arnolfini's Video Access Library. The figures are listed as number of views per individual tape, and cover the periods 1 October 1983 to 31 March 1984 (with a total of 295 views) and 1 April 1984 to 30 September 1984 (with a total of 193 views). The Fitzgerald and Sanborn compilation has proved most popular in both reporting periods with over 60 views (Broad, 1984).

6 November 1984: London/Chelmsford. Rodney Wilson (Film Officer, ACGB) replies to a letter from Christine Pointer (Principal Assistant Librarian, Leisure, Essex County Council) of 25 October. He confirms doubts about the sale of Arts Council's films to public libraries for home-loan purposes. While he appreciates home loan would increase public access, he explains the problem of getting rights clearance, especially in relation to the media unions. Wilson also mentions the uncertainty around the effect that the Video Recordings Act will have. Thus "we are not getting involved in home distribution on video at all for the time being" and prefer to pursue the Video Access Library module (Wilson, 1984).

20 November 1984: London. Ian Christie (Head of Distribution, BFI) writes to David Curtis (Film Officer, ACGB) confirming that the British Film Institute is willing to offer £3000 funding to support the film and video umbrella (FVU) scheme for a trial year in 1985–86. In return Christie suggests that the FVU commit to touring one or two packages per year based on the BFI Film & Video Library holdings which include "a vast, largely inert, collection of early (independent) avant-garde film which is in urgent need of animation" (Christie, 1984).

12 December 1984: London. Cinema of Women (COW) discuss by phone with director Heiny Srour the release of her film Leila and the Wolves (UK/Lebanon 1984). They disagree on when it was agreed the film would open, but so far no cinemas have expressed interest in opening the film. Srour suggests COW could rent a cinema themselves to open the film. The issue is complicated by the fact the film is on 16mm and costs of blowing it up to 35mm are prohibitively expensive. Srour is unhappy with COW's efforts on her behalf. (COW, 1984b).

14 December 1984: London. Eileen McNulty (Cinema of Women/COW) writes to Heiny Srour, director of Leila and the Wolves (UK/Lebanon 1984) to confirm the main points raised in their telephone conversation of 12 December. Among other things, McNulty agrees she will clarify with Roger Austen of Mainline why he is not interested in opening the film and will approach other West End and independent cinemas that have 16mm projection facilities. (McNulty, 1984b).

16 December 1984: London. COW discuss by phone with Heiny Srour progress on distributing her film Leila and the Wolves. Srour is unhappy with the effort COW are investing in the film and threatens to take the film away from them if she feels they are not doing enough. They discuss both the educational and theatrical markets for the film, and COW reassure Srour that cinema openings take time to set up. (COW, 1984c).

17 December 1984: London. Cinema of Women (COW) workers meet with the IBT organisation to discuss the distribution of Heiny Srour's Leila and the Wolves (UK/Lebanon 1984) and targeting an educational market. COW express concern that there is insufficient historical background to Lebanon in the film to be clear to a British audience. (COW, 1984d).

18 December 1984: COW discuss with Andi Engels of Artificial Eye the possibilities of renting a cinema themselves in order to release Heiny Srour's Leila and the Wolves (UK/Lebanon 1984). Engels also explains the option of 'four-walling' which covers the house cost plus 10% of box office, but says 'A cinema would only be interested if there is nothing available for them to open'. (COW, 1984e).

1985

January 1985: London. Organiser for the Arts Council of Great Britain’s (ACGB) Film and Video Umbrella, Mike O’Pray, submits a report covering April to December 1984. Success in cooperation with the British Film Institute (BFI) and placing programmes with certain Regional Film Theatres (RFTs) – the Bristol Watershed, Derby Metro, Edinburgh Filmhouse, and New Cinema, Nottingham – is balanced by the difficulties placing work in regional art galleries. There is no central body to facilitate access to the galleries, as the BFI has done with the RFTs, and even where galleries are enthusiastic for film and video work, they are often small and financially and technically unable to mount the shows. Nonetheless the success of the Umbrella programmes at RFTs has helped to “demarginalise avant-garde film and video” by placing it within a cinema’s overall programming. The documentation accompanying the tours has been particularly popular with RFT programmers, and the “importance of the RFTs as outlets for much of the Umbrella’s programming cannot be stressed too much” (O'Pray, 1985a: 1).

BFI Distribution has offered £3000 funding to the Umbrella for 1985–86, to cover some administrative costs and programming fees, in return for the Umbrella touring at least two programmes using BFI-held work (Christie, 1984). A package of early Soviet films is planned. Umbrella finances are inadequate to cover the costs of touring installation work, which requires equipment, invigilation, transport, and perhaps £2000 or more per tour (O'Pray, 1985a: 1-2). O’Pray observes that the success of the London Filmmaker’s Co-operative’s (LFMC) contribution to the 1984 London Film Festival (LFF) shows that a festival audience exists for the work, and suggests taking Cordelia Swann into the Umbrella to assist her developing programmes for festivals such as the LFF, Edinburgh Film Festival, Berlin, Oberhausen and Rotterdam (O'Pray, 1985a: 2).

Full bookings and audience figures are provided for the Umbrella tours German Forms and Tales, P. Adams Sitney’s Guardian Lecture Tour, Surrealist Traces, British Super 8, Themersons Tour and the installations at the Cambridge Darkroom organised by Chris Welsby. Packages of Scratch Video and Derek Jarman work are currently planned (O'Pray, 1985a: 3-6).

January 1985: London. The Arts Council of Great Britain’s (ACGB) Artists’ Film and Video Sub-Committee meet. The committee accept and approve of the Umbrella organiser (O'Pray, 1985a), agreeing that visibility of the work had improved as a result, and that the categories of Umbrella and Modular be retained. It is noted that the Umbrella organiser's job was in effect full-time even though the committee provided only part-time wages. British Film Institute (BFI) co-funding and Cordelia Swann’s proposed involvement are welcomed (ACGB, 1985a: 7).

The committee also discuss the Filmmakers on Tour scheme, including a recommendation for simplifying the payment procedures, that public admittance to FMOT screenings be encouraged rather than a requirement, and that artists are added to the scheme at their own request rather than invited (ACGB, 1985a: 5).

The Assistant Film Officer proposes a change to how LVA is funded, suggesting their exhibition activity is funded on a project basis, with money released in instalments linked to specific exhibition proposals, and a requirement for the use of guest programmers and the inclusion of touring packages in the UK (ACGB, 1985a: 6). Video Access Libraries are also discussed, especially remuneration for artists from the purchase of their work. While it is acknowledged that the problems associated with the libraries are complex, there is agreement that they are "an important vehicle by which to promote artists' work and their development was important" (ACGB, 1985a: 6).

31 January 1985: London. Eileen McNulty (COW) writes to David Stone of Cinegate to confirm the details of the London opening of Heiny Srour's Leila and the Wolves (UK/Lebanon 1984) at The Gate Notting Hill on 11 April. Leila is to run for 4 weeks provided that "it does not fall below your minimum running costs which need a weekly attendance of 1,200." After 4 weeks, assuming the film does well, it will transfer to The Gate Bloomsbury where "it will run for an unspecified period provide your costs are being covered." (McNulty, 1985a).

14 February 1985: London. In response to numerous enquiries from institutions and individuals, Paul Marris (Film & Video Officer, GLC) sends a report to Simon Blanchard (Editors, Views) which was drawn up by the Director of the GLC's Arts and Recreation Committee in October 1984 (Marris, 1985). The report, GLC Film and Video Practice and Policy, details the Council's approach to film and video policy and funding in London in the recent past and currently (GLC, 1984b).

13 March 1985: London. The Arts Council of Great Britain’s (ACGB) Artists’ Film and Video Sub-Committee meet. Umbrella Scheme organiser Mike O’Pray joins the meeting, is thanked for his good work and report (O'Pray, 1985a). O’Pray emphasises that the scheme “attempted to respond immediately to initiatives within the constituency” (ACGB, 1985b: 5), and that his aim to carry 2–3 packages at one time allowed the Umbrella to remain open to other things that become available. The Surrealist Traces package has been very successful in terms of audience numbers, and in extending uptake beyond the usual venues. He reiterates the possibilities of involving film festivals and the contribution that Cordelia Swann could make to this (ACGB, 1985b: 5).

O’Pray’s proposal for 1985–86 foresees the Umbrella Scheme doubling in turnover in the coming year (O'Pray, 1985a: 6), and even after the British Film Institute’s (BFI) contribution and Cordelia Swann’s raising of funds from festivals is taken into account (FVU, 1985: 4-5), the request is for more money than the committee had planned. Discussion is deferred (ACGB, 1985b: 5).

There is also discussion about the Video Access Libraries and the Assistant Film Officer reports he has had consulted the 5 existing libraries who are generally sympathetic to the proposed change in the funding of 'artists' collections. He will now consult with the artists and suggests it is therefore possible "to discuss the future of the libraries within an annual commitment of £3500" (ACGB, 1985b: 1). The committee also agrees to reserve £4500 funding for Undercut and £1500 for Afterimage (ACGB, 1985b: 5)

The London Filmmakers Co-op (LFMC) have submitted an application for their Preview Show. The committee agree an award of £532 but feel a fresh approach is now needed and decide this will be the last time this event will be funded in this form. The committee are more supportive of the LFMC's application for its Summer Show and agree an award of £2010 (ACGB, 1985b: 7). Discussion follows about a £5000 application from LVA for its exhibitition programme. Concern is expressed that the exhibition proposal is uninspired and that LVA's programming activities have been unsatisfactory for some time. Funds are earmarked for LVA, but further discussions with the organisation are needed (ACGB, 1985b: 8).

30 April 1985: London. Ian Christie (Head of Distribution, British Film Institute/BFI) writes to Mike O’Pray (Film and Video Umbrella/FVU), formalising the BFI’s offer of £3000 to the Arts Council of Great Britain’s (ACGB) Umbrella Scheme. For this, FVU will continue to “offer programme packages to venues throughout the UK which the BFI supports in other ways”, create at least one programme based on the BFI’s Film and Video Library holdings of “early, avant-garde or otherwise ‘unorthodox’ stock”, continue to liaise with BFI Distribution Programme advisers and Publicity Services Manager “on ideas for such packages and their suitability for BFI-supported venues”, and report in March 1986 (Christie, 1985: 1).

9 May 1985: London. London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) executive meet. A new distribution catalogue will cost £6,000, twice as much as supplements. There are still 500 copies of the now very old last catalogue. The British Film Institute (BFI) and Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) may help with catalogue costs, but not enough to make it affordable. LFMC could put money aside from old catalogue sales to contribute to the new catalogue except that the terms of the BFI’s core revenue grant do not allow the Co-op to save (LFMC, 1985a: 1).

17–19 May 1985: London. The London Film-makers' Co-op (LFMC) holds its preview show (LFMC, 1985b). 72 pieces of work are shown, incorporating at least one film by each filmmaker who has deposited work with LFMC Distribution during the last year. Much of the work has not been screened in the UK before. 30% of the cinema seats are reserved for the public and the remainder are held for invited guests, including programmers, workshops, critics, press contacts and filmmakers. Among the attendees are hirers and filmmakers from Belgium, Germany, Switzerland and Canada (Carter, 1985: 1). There is ongoing discussion throughout the show "about the importance and the disadvantages of operating an 'open access' policy in Co-op distribution" – in particular, the way this can affect bookings for work and how filmmakers can publicise their own work (Carter, 1985: 2)(LFMC, 1985a: 2).

20 May 1985: London. Geoff Mulgan and Ken Worpole of the Greater London Enterprise Board (GLEB) write to the Cinema of Women (COW), Circles, The Other Cinema (TOC), Exchange Value Video Club, Turnaround Distribution, the ICA Video-into-Library Scheme, VideoActive, the Independent Film and Video Association (IFVA), Paul Marris (GLC) and Alan Tomkins (GLC). The letter explains that the Cultural Industries Unit at GLEB "has decided to make video promotion and distribution the main part of its 'sector strategy'" for this current financial year. Recipients of the letter are invited to a meeting at GLEB's office on 31 May – the first in a series – to help develop a coherent strategy for this area. The focus for the first meeting will be UK distribution "through bookshops, libraries, mail order catalogues and other hiring agencies (Mulgan, 1985a).

May(?) 1985: London. Tony Kirkhope (TOC) and Ben Gibson (TOC) draw up a paper, 'The Other Cinema and Video Distribution', in the context of the stated priorities of the Cultural Industries Unit at the Greater London Enterprise Board (GLEB) – namely, to develop a sector strategy for developing video promotion and distribution. The paper summarises TOC's income from grant aid, non-theatric video hire, 16mm and video sales, theatrical rentals, and TV sales. Based on the figures, the authors make two conclusions: "Without television sales we could be in trouble. Video is not yet a major area of revenue" (Kirkhope, 1985: 1).

Over the past two years, TOC have invested a great deal of time to develop video use among their traditional customers and newer areas such as schools, libraries and teachers centres. Based on their experience, the authors argue that any agency seeking to develop revenue from video distribution in the independent sector will need to be subsidised, because: "If there is a need for subsidy, the principal reason lies not in the inefficiency of the left but the very fact that they are the left" (Kirkhope, 1985: 1). Although the paper discusses a number of possible markets and approaches, they do not see these as providing substantial levels of income. More negatively, TOC has already run a 'video in bookshops' scheme, targeted at radical bookshops, which failed due to "high unit cost of videos; narrow range; lack of interest from target group" (Kirkhope, 1985: 2). And although libraries are considered an "expanding market", they argue it is still a relatively small one (Kirkhope, 1985: 2)

31 May 1985: London. Representatives from the independent film and video sector meet with Geoff Mulgan and Ken Worpole of the Greater London Enterprise Board (GLEB) to discuss how best to develop an overall distribution strategy for video. Those present are Simon Blanchard and John Floyd of the Independent Film & Video Association (IFVA), Penny Ashbrook from Cinema of Women (COW), Paul Collard and Fenella Greenfield of the Institute of Contemporary Arts (ICA), Jenny Boyce from Comedia, Gari Crawford and Patricia Bird of Circles, Film and Video Officer Paul Marris from the Greater London Council (GLC), GLC Broadcasting Policy Analyst Justin Lewis, Ben Gibson and Tony Kirkhope from The Other Cinema (TOC), and from Rough Trade, Will Keen, Simon Edwards and Richard Powell. The Videoactive Report authors Jon Dovey and Jo Dungey were invited but failed to receive the letter from GLEB. The next meeting is scheduled for 5 July to discuss "independent video marketing and promotion" and it is anticipated they will start by discussing the findings of The Videoactive Report which is due for publication in September (Mulgan, 1985b).

4 June 1985: London. A one-day conference is held at the Greater London Council (GLC) which features a workshop on the cultural industries and the possibilities for expanding cultural diversity presented by recent technological developments:

For the new technologies now make it possible – for all those who wish – to make their own cassette tapes, publish their own small books and magazines, produce their own video television programmes, outside of the market-place which is currently dominated by the multi-national companies. (Mulgan, 1985c: 1)

While the GLC and the Greater London Enterprise Board (GLEB) have already supported or invested in, among other things, "video distribution schemes" in order to create infrastructures of distribution and promotion, the workshop is intended to facilitate a wider discussion of their policies. The overall aim is to enable "many smaller projects to get their cultural products to a wider range of people and therefore to become more commercially viable" (Mulgan, 1985c: 2).

June 1985: London. The London Film-makers' Co-op (LFMC) holds it Summer show across 3 weeks. Films included have been required not to "discriminate against people on grounds of race, sex, sexuality, age, disability, class" and must not exceed 40 minutes in length (LFMC, 1985a: 2).

18 June 1985: London/Washington DC. Jenny Wallace writes to filmmaker Michelle Parkerson, apologising for the delay in answering her letter of 25 January about distributing Gotta Make This Journey: Sweet Honey in the Rock. She reports the film was well received when screened at the Greater London Council's (GLC) Anti-Racist Film Festival and that COW have, in the last two years, sold the following titles to television: Bitter Wages, Veronica 4 Rose, Long Shadows of the Plantation, Judy Punches Back, Heiny Srour's Leila and the Wolves, Leeds Animation's Pretend You'll Survive and Breaking the Silence. COW also report they are currently negotiating a further four TV sales, explain their royalty split, and state they usually require exclusive distribution rights due to the publicity and other costs they incur. (Wallace, 1985).

26 June 1985: London. Kate Messent and Ken Worpole of the Greater London Enterprise Board (GLEB) write to Simon Blanchard and John Floyd of the Independent Film & Video Association (IFVA), Penny Ashbrook from Cinema of Women (COW), Paul Collard and Fenella Greenfield of the Institute of Contemporary Arts (ICA), Jenny Boyce from Comedia, Gari Crawford and Patricia Bird of Circles, Film and Video Officer Paul Marris from the Greater London Council (GLC), GLC Broadcasting Policy Analyst Justin Lewis, Ben Gibson and Tony Kirkhope from The Other Cinema (TOC), and from Rough Trade, Will Keen, Simon Edwards and Richard Powell. Recipients are reminded that the next 'Video Distribution Strategy Meeting' will take place on 5 July and that the main item for discussion is The Videoactive Report – which will be published in September – and its proposals. They are also informed that a report has gone to both the Industry and Employment and the Arts and Recreation committees at the Greater London Council (GLC) making a bid for "a substantial amount of money to invest in video distribution in the current financial year". Messent and Worpole express concern that co-operation and planning at the forthcoming July meeting are vital if "a genuine strategic network of distribution" is to established before the proposed abolition of the GLC the following year (Messent, 1985).

11 July 1985: Bristol/London. Tony Broad (Video Assistant, Arnolfini) writes to Rodney Wilson (Film Officer, ACGB) enclosing returns for viewings of artists' film and video at the Arnolfini's Video Access Library. The returns cover the period 1 October 1984 to 31 March 1985, during which 49 tapes have been watched an average of approximately four times each (Broad, 1985).

19 July 1985: Bristol. The Arnolfini launches its new purpose built Video Access Library, which now offers three private viewing areas, each seating up to four people and divided by soundproofed screens, and a counter-service catalogue to enable users to select from over 250 titles (Arnolfini, 1985).

24 July 1985: London. The Arts Council of Great Britain’s (ACGB) Artists’ Film and Video Sub-Committee meet. The committee are impressed by Mike O’Pray’s (Film and Video Umbrella/FVU organiser) report on touring activity from April to July (O'Pray, 1985b: 1), though some worry that, while “the use of familiar historical terms attracted audiences, there was a danger of resorting to clichés” (ACGB, 1985c: 2). Committee ask for audience figures. Nonetheless interest is shown for Cordelia Swann’s programme of women’s films, which is aimed at the Edinburgh Film Festival (ACGB, 1985c: 2)(O'Pray, 1985b: 2). Concern is expressed that O’Pray tends to programme the most recent work, rather than that from the past two or three years, though Swann is thought very able to take this on (ACGB, 1985c: 2).

The Arnolfini has expressed interest in the FVU, whose programmes have to date only been shown at the neighbouring Watershed, “detracting from their own film/video activities. They thought the Umbrella Scheme would help attract a different audience to the Arnolfini […] and expressed a need for documentation on the artists’ work they held” (ACGB, 1985c: 3). The committee also considers returns from the Arnolfini's Video Access Library which show that some work has not been viewed at all in the preceding year.

The Assistant Film Officer reports on a forum held at the Co-op for artists who have contributed work to Video Access Libraries. Although few artists attended, it was agreed a special fund would be set up to facilitate film-to-tape transfers and tape duplication for library use, and there was some discussion about supplying libraries with packages as a cheaper and more effective option (ACGB, 1985c: 3). It is also reported that MOMA, Wolverhampton Arts Centre, the National Museum of Film and Photography and TV in Bradford, the Public Libraries System in Essex (site in Southend), York Film Workshop and Manchester Media Centre have all expressed interest in setting up VALs (ACGB, 1985c: 4).

Other matters discussed included the London Film-makers' Co-op (LFMC) preview show in May (Carter, 1985). The committee discusses the Co-op's "non-selective policy" for the show, which means that programmers are "forced to sit through poor quality work" in order to identify work that might be of interest. They decide that "next year the Co-op be required to submit a proposal which confronted the issues of 'promotion'" (ACGB, 1985c: 2). An exhibition proposal from LVA is considered "acceptable". It includes a London Video Show and a European Network Tour, and the committee agree in principle to release £2500 of the £5000 earmarked for LVA exhibition activities upon receipt of a detailed budget (ACGB, 1985c: 4).

12 August 1985: Dublin/London. Pat Murphy writes to the Cinema of Women collective, expressing concern at yet another postponement of the release date for Anne Devlin (Eire 1984) and requesting more information about the distribution of the film. She explains she had wanted the film's release to follow on from its London Film Festival screening in November 1984, but accepted this was too close to Christmas. April 1985 was proposed and dropped due to COW releasing Leila and the Wolves and Committed at that time. Release was rescheduled for September 1985, but this has also not materialised. Murphy details the problems continual postponement are posing for her and is finding working with a collective rather than a single individual difficult. (Murphy, 1985a).

21 August 1985: London/Dublin. Eileen McNulty (COW) writes to Pat Murphy, director of Anne Devlin (Eire 1984), in response to a letter (12 August?) sent by Murphy, complaining of a lack of communication about the release plans for her film. McNulty apologises, explaining how they divide up work within the COW collective and informing Murphy they have been negotiating with Roger Austin of Mainline for an opening at one of his Screen cinemas. However, Mainline need convincing that the film is sufficiently commercial and have not yet fully committed to an opening date, venue or run. The offer currently on the table is a two-week run, starting in February 1986, at Screen on the Green. McNulty thinks this will be agreed, with a follow on run at the Screen on Baker Street if the film does well. She agrees to contact Murphy as soon as the opening with Mainline is finalised. (McNulty, 1985b).

September 1985: London. The findings of a Community Video Distribution study examining the current state of video distribution are published in The Videoactive Report. Undertaken by Jon Dovey and Jo Dungey, the study has been initiated by a group comprising: Cardiff Video Workshop, Jubilee Community Arts (West Midlands), Nottingham Video Project, Birmingham Trades Union Resource Centre, Ipswich Film and Video Workshop, Film Workshop Trust (Edinburgh), Annares Cooperative, Action Space, Gay Video Project, Albany Video, Oval Video, Tower Hamlets Arts Project and West London Media Workshop. Funded by the Gulbenkian Foundaton, the BFI, Channel 4, the Greater London Arts Association (GLAA) and the Greater London Council (GLC), the study reports on the growing market for programmes on videocassette, the number and kinds of programmes available, and ways of reaching new audiences (Dowmunt, 1984: 1-4). The report's primary concern is with programmes "which are either produced through a process of community involvement or which challenge mainstream media representations" and "which are intended to have some social use, be it education, agitation, solidarity, or political and personal consciousness raising."

Its findings include that: distribution should be part of the production process from the outset; hire and sales figures of independent/community video work are low (due either to inadequate promotion or to being produced without a target audience in mind); the quality of the audience response is as significant to producers as audience numbers; there is potential to expand audiences; producers need to target their potential audiences and audiences need to be educated in the use of video in education and campaigning work; more resources need to be invested in promotion; distribution income contributes very little towards covering production costs; and existing distributors are only slowly adapting to the needs of video cassette distribution.

Due to the disparate interests that make up the independent/community video sector, the report concludes that "it is impossible for us to propose setting up a single national distributor." Instead it recommends establishing a national network of distribution workers organised on a region by region basis. (Dovey, 1985)

September 1985: London. Mike O’Pray, organiser of the Arts Council of Great Britain’s (ACGB) Film and Video Umbrella (FVU), submits an interim touring report, play dates and bookings from March to November for Recent British Super 8, Subverting Television (Scratch Video) and … Of Angels and Apocalypse (Derek Jarman), plus details of future tours of Oskar Fischinger work, Soviet material from the British Film Institute (BFI), and a women’s film tour based on Cordelia Swann and Tina Keane’s London Film Festival programme (O'Pray, 1985c).

4 September 1985: Dublin/London. Pat Murphy writes to Cinema of Women (COW), enclosing the Irish returns on her film Anne Devlin (Eire 1984). She hopes they can use this information to negotiate the release of the film in the UK through Mainline at one of their London Screen cinemas. (Murphy, 1985b).

5–30 September 1985: London. 'Channel 5 – A Showcase for Video' is held at multiple venues across London to showcase independent video. Organised by London Video Arts (LVA), in association with the Institute of Contemporary Arts (ICA) and DER TV & Video Ltd, the project is supported by DER, Greater London Arts (GLA), the Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB), City Limits magazine, and Channel 4. Throughout the month, screening events are presented at the Video Cafe in the West End, the Cafe Gallery in Southwark Park, The Albany in Deptford, The Fridge in Brixton, and the ICA on The Mall, alongside 5 shop window installations by Tina Keane, Jeremy Welsh, Clive Gillman, George Barber, and Marty St James and Anne Wilson at branches of DER TV & Video in Notting Hill Gate, Marble Arch, Stratford, East Ham and Islington (LVA, 1985). The 'Channel 5' programme, published by the IFVA, includes an essay by Fenella Greenfield on 'ICA Video: Video into Libraries' (LVA, 1985: 11-15), as well as other essays by Catherine Elwes, Tony Dowmunt and Michael O'Pray on various aspects of video practice. In the introduction to the programme, LVA member and video artist Jeremy Welsh notes that the 'Channel 5' showcase "provides an opportunity for those involved to step back and make an assessment of the current situation, as well as allowing a wider public largely unaware of this work to encounter it for the first time" (LVA, 1985: 4).

As part of the 'showcase', a symposium is also held on 21 September at the ICA which includes a panel on 'Getting It About: Distribution', with contributions from Fenella Greenfield (ICA Video), Jane Parish (LVA Distribution), Paul Smith (Double vision/Cartel) and Ken Worpole (Cultural Industries Unit, Greater London Enterprise Board/GLEB)(LVA, 1985: 20-21). Worpole discusses 'radical distribution' and GLEB's Cultural Industries strategy, with a view to disseminating lessons learned from 'independent' book distribution and discussing how they can be applied to independent video distribution (Worpole, 1985).

13 September 1985: London. Iwona Blazwick (AIR Gallery, Director) writes to Sarah Watson (Arts Council of Great Britain) following a meeting about the video Window Box exhibition project to be curated by Blazwick and Jez Welsh (LVA). The correspondence outlines the project, gives some budget details and a list of proposed artists. The aim is to target venues with a "shop front" – or collaborate with public facing venues, such as sports centres, information centres or shopping malls – and thus provide "an opportunity for video artists to address a new venue – the street". Six artists will be commissioned from a shortlist – which includes Kevin Atherton, the Duvet Brothers, John Scarlett Davis, Cate Elwes, Rose Finn Kelcey, Gorilla Tapes, Judith Goddard, Steve Littman, Brett Turnbull and Graham Young – to produce work for nine monitors, with no sound (Blazwick, 1985).

October 1985: London. Rodney Wilson writes a short paper in support of setting up a new Video Access Library at Southend Public Library, which outlines the rationale for such Libraries:

Video Access Libraries are the answer to a fundamental public service need, that of making film/video available to the public on demand. The development of the new communications technology of video, flexible and user-friendly in its applications, has opened up new venues for arts documentaries and original work on film and video by artists.

There are currently four Video Access Libraries already in existence, at the ICA in London, the Midland Group in Nottingham, the Tyneside Cinema in Newcastle and the Arnolfini in Bristol. Wilson argues that the addition of a fifth at Southend is particularly important because:

[I]t provides the opportunity for a pilot scheme within a local authority library. This will both be a different type of venue and provide access to a different section of the public.

He also notes that once installed, "the catalogue of contents of a Video Access Library is infinitely extendable" (Wilson, 1985).

30 October 1985: Chelmsford. Ms C Pointer (Prinicipal Assistant Librarian/Leisure, Essex County Council) writes to Rodney Wilson (Film Officer, ACGB) to make a formal application for funding to set up a Video Access Library at Southend Central Library. She envisages the Video Access Library would have a very high community profile and would benefit from the local population of 225,000. The application proposes that the Arts Council supplies 140 video tapes from their own collection, free of charge, and requests £7500, to be matched by Essex Libraries, to cover the set up costs (Pointer, 1985).

November 1985: London. Mike O’Pray, organiser of the Arts Council of Great Britain’s (ACGB) Film and Video Umbrella (FVU), completes a report of FVU touring activity and events covering April to late October, and providing audience numbers for most (O'Pray, 1985d). This covers Recent British Super 8 (1), Subverting Television (Scratch Video) (2), … Of Angels and Apocalypse (Derek Jarman) (3), and Klaus Wyborny tour (4). A monthly breakdown of bookings for FVU programmes in 1985 shows clear peaks in April–June and October–November. It also shows that cross a total of 6 touring programmes there will have been 97 screenings of FVU packages over the 12 month period (O'Pray, 1985d: 5).

O’Pray is negotiating for the London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) to take over the Super 8 package, with FVU broadsheets and the high ACGB subsidy to keep prices to venue down (1), and for London Video Arts (LVA) to take over the Scratch Video package, much of which has now been broadcast in Channel Four’s video series, generating substantial hype around the material (2). The Derek Jarman tour has been financed by the British Film Institute (BFI), and has benefited from publicity around Jarman’s Caravaggio (1986) (4). The Klaus Wyborny tour was part financed by the BFI and Leicester International Super 8 Festival, and the annual touring of a European filmmaker could be similarly supported with external travel funds plus the tourer keeping all rentals and speakers fees (O'Pray, 1985d: 4).

7 November 1985: London. Penny Ashbrook (Cinema of Women/COW) writes to Poonam Sharma (Programme Acquisitions, Channel 4) to explain that the producers of Anne Devlin have accepted that their original asking price of £50,000 for the broadcast rights to the film is too high. However, the producers feel Channel 4's offer of £15,000 is too low, given the cultural importance of the film, and have instructed COW that the lowest they will accept is £20,000. (Ashbrook, 1985a).

13 November 1985: London. Penny Ashbrook (Cinema of Women/COW) writes to Elizabeth Atkinson of Living magazine, enclosing some background information on Pat Murphy, the director of Anne Devlin (Eire, 1984), and Brid Brennan who plays the lead role. Ashbrook informs Atkinson that Anne Devlin should be opening at the Screen on Baker Street at the end of January 1986, "hopefully staying there for several weeks before then playing at independent cinemas around the country, as well as at other cinemas in London". (Ashbrook, 1985b).

28 November 1985: London. Poonam Sharma (Programme Acquisitions, Channel 4) writes to Penny Ashbrook (Cinema of Women/COW) advising that the Channel can increase its offer for the broadcast rights for Pat Murphy's film Anne Devlin from £15,000 to £17,500. They would like to schedule the film for transmission in April 1986. (Sharma, 1985).

1986

January 1986: Scotland. Robin MacPherson is funded part-time by Project Video Scotland to undertake research into the current state and future development of distribution via videocassette material produced for and/or by groups concerned with local communities, communities of interest, social and related issues (such as health, housing, and environmental) in Scotland. The study is to examine the market for independent video in Scotland, what kinds of programmes are available and who produced them, and how the work is currently distributed, levels of demand and strategies for development. MacPherson is to report to Project Video Scotland, the Scottish Association of Workshops, Radical Scotland magazine and Edinburgh Books Collective (MacPherson, 1987: 2).

7 January 1986: New York/London. Filmmaker Lynne Tillman writes to Eileen McNulty (COW) to ask where her film Committed (USA 1984), co-directed with Sheila McLaughlin, has been shown. She also asks what royalties are still outstanding, as 'We still have an $1,100 debt to be paid off, and monies from you would help'. (Tillman, 1986).

21 January 1986: London. David Curtis (Film Officer, ACGB) sends a memo to the Arts Council's Training Committee alerting them to the urgent need for staff training at the growing network of Video Access Libraries. These now exist at the Arnolfini in Bristol, the Midland Group in Nottingham, the ICA in London, the Newcastle Media Workshop and Newcastle's Tyneside Cinema. Another may be set up in Wolverhampton in the near future. However, "a major and persistent problem … has been the conspicuous lack of administrators with experience of Video Access Library work (with its particular organisational and technological problems) and the necessary knowledge of the extensive area of film/video work". Curtis suggests a possible way forward would be to arrange staff 'attachments' with the more established Libraries at the ICA or the Arnolfini, or with experienced programmers such as Mike O'Pray at the Film and Video Umbrella (FVU) or Jez Welsh at LVA (Curtis, 1986).

February 1986: London. The Greater London Enterprise Board (GLEB) publishes its report Altered Images: Towards a Strategy for London's Cultural Industries which lays out the plans it has been implementing for developing the industrial infrastructure of London to secure the future employment of its workers. The Board has worked with a number of key London industries to develop proposals "for development strategies ... which benefit both the workers with the industries and Londoners as a whole" (GLEB, 1986: 4). Although limited resources mean it can only play an "exemplary role" in this, it has adopted a "sector strategy", focusing on the cultural industries. The Board's recently established Cultural Industries Unit has decided to concentrate on three areas of cultural activity – publishing, music and video (GLEB, 1986: 5). Meetings with a number of small independent companies and groups have identified several issues, including "the weakness of existing distribution services for the independent sectors in books, records and videos" (GLEB, 1986: 5). With regard to video, the report summarises some of the findings of The Videoactive Report, published in September 1985, and meetings with independent video producers and distributors have identified three major priorities:

to expand and extend existing distribution outlets such as book shops, record stores and public libraries; to develop marketing and promotion skills; and to establish a network of common services to help coordinate and expand the various existing video projects into a coherent sector with its own distinctive collective practice. (GLEB, 1986: 16)

The report includes a case study on 'Video into Libraries', which outlines an initiative to expand the role of public libraries as "media resource centres". On GLEB's recommendation, the GLC has provided a £35,000 grant to a project based at London's Institute of Contemporary Arts (ICA) to establish "a video distribution service for the public library system" (GLEB, 1986: 17).

6 February 1986: London/Dublin. Penny Ashbrook (Cinema of Women/COW) writes to Pat Murphy to confirm that her film Anne Devlin (Eire 1984) will be opening at The Everyman cinema in Hampstead, London, on 14 March. Ashbrook also says COW are in danger of losing their revenue funding for the current year due to administrative problems their funder, the Greater London Council (GLC), are experiencing. (Ashbrook, 1986a).

12 February 1986: London. The Artists' Film and Video Sub-Committee (AFVSC) of the Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) meet. A review at the Arts Council is underway and the Film Officer summarises the implications for the Film Section. The section will become a department, expanding its responsibilities to cover film, video and broadcasting (ACGB, 1986a: 1-2). There is considerable discussion of the role of the two Film and Video Umbrella organisers, Mike O'Pray and Cordelia Swann, and it is noted that no mention is made of Swann in the recent Umbrella report (O'Pray, 1985d). The Assistant Film Officer explains that the two organisers work in parallel not as a single unit and that Swann's work had only recent begun, but her funding award for 1985–86 would be extended to cover 1986–87 (ACGB, 1986a: 3). The original brief for Mike O'Pray had included "getting work into galleries", but he had instead found outlets in the regional film theatres (RFT) "which had been virgin territory". The origins of the Umbrella scheme in the early Animateur scheme run by Simon Field is explained. The £3000 funding contributed by the BFI in 1985–86 is taken as a sign of the Umbrella's success (ACGB, 1986a: 3). It is agreed to award Mike O'Pray £1000 for 32 days extra work during 1985–86 and to earmark a further £1000 for Cordelia Swann's package, A Camera of Her Own (ACGB, 1986a: 4).

LVA, the LFMC, and the magazines Undercut and Afterimage have been identified by the Arts Council's Finance Department as annual clients, but the Umbrella has not (ACGB, 1986a: 4). There is further discussion about the appointment and status of the two FVU programmers. Mike O'Pray is currently employed full-time but Cordelia Swann has been paid to work on specific packages and there is some uncertainty as to whether she will remain part of the Umbrella scheme. Marion Doyen notes that "the Umbrella had been a very valuable resource to the regions" and she hopes it will continue to develop. The committee agrees to reserve £12,000 for the Umbrella for 1986–87 activity (ACGB, 1986a: 5-6).

17 February 1986: London. Penny Ashbrook (Cinema of Women/COW) writes to Lesley Thornton (Observer Magazine) to advise that Pat Murphy's film Anne Devlin (Eire 1984) will now open at the Everyman Cinema in Hampstead on Friday 14 March. The planned opening at the Screen on Baker Street fell through "due to the extraordinary success of Letter to Brezhnev, which looks set to sit on there for months to come". However, the March opening fortuitously coincides with a London wide Festival of Irish Arts. (Ashbrook, 1986b).

18 February 1986: London/Southall. Eileen McNulty (Cinema of Women/COW) writes to Brendan MacLua (The Irish Post) enclosing publicity stills and production information about Pat Murphy's film Anne Devlin (Eire 1984) and advising that the film will open on 14 March at the Everyman Cinema in Hampstead. COW hope the film will then transfer to other cinemas in London (such as the Metro, Ritzy, Rio, Brentford Waterman's Arts), but these are not confirmed. They also hope it will be shown at regional film theatres around the country, but so far the only confirmed booking is at the Tyneside Cinema in Newcastle upon Tyne. (McNulty, 1986a).

19 February 1986: London/Cambridge. Joanna Drew (Director of Art, ACGB) writes to Jeremy Newton (Director, Eastern Arts Association) confirming that a grant for establishing a new Video Access Library in Southend Central Library has been agreed by the Arts Council and that the grant will be routed through Eastern Arts Association (EEA). In return, the ACGB details a number of areas where it expects EEA to assist and support Southend Central Library in developing its Video Access Library. Drew notes the "great potential" for the proposed collaboration and concludes that "We are particularly anxious to establish the library as a model for possible future video access libraries within the public library system (Drew, 1986).

April–October 1986: Cordelia Swann tours cinemas, arts centres, workshops and galleries around the UK for the Film and Video Umbrella (FVU) with two packages of experimental films by women, A Camera of One's Own (Swann, 1986a) and Heroic Times, attracting audiences of between 10 and 60 people. In both her interim report in June (Swann, 1986b) and her final report in November (Swann, 1986c) she reports the frequent need on the tour to both define experimental film and explain women's role in its history:

There were times when I found the realisation that experimental film seemed to have had very little impact on audiences outside London very depressing indeed, but at the same time these same regional audiences often seemed more genuinely interested in the films than ones I had come across in London. (Swann, 1986c: 3)

Thus Swann also reports that "There is no doubt that in terms of attracting new audiences the tour of A Camera of One's Own was a success" (Swann, 1986c: 4). While a small number of venues suffer from low audience figures, she attributes this to the nature of those venues' publicity.

21 May 1986: London. Vincent Porter (BFI Distribution Division) tables in internal paper addressing the issue of building audiences "which will support a richer and more varied range of films than those which would otherwise find their way onto our screens" (p. 1). The policy of the Distribution Division has been to use strategic subsidies to assist independent distributors and regional exhibitors to widen the range of films available, while encouraging active audience engagement with film culture via special seasons, seminars and mini-festivals. Between 1982–85 BFI supported cinemas have seen a steady growth in admissions. However, Porter notes the resource intensive nature of this work and the need to revitalise critical debate, concluding: "A film culture is not built simply by showing films. It also requires a familiarity and an ease with the cultural and critical concepts which enable audiences to evaluate these films as well as enjoy them" (p. 4). (Porter, 1986).

11 June 1986: London. A consultative meeting is held at the Arts Council of Great Britain between its newly established Film, Video and Broadcasting Department and representatives from Video Access Libraries. Attending from the existing Video Access Libraries are Tony Bellekon from the Midland Group (Nottingham), Fred Brookes and Maggi Hurt from the Tyneside Cinema (Newcastle), Shirley Brown and Tony Broad from the Arnolfini (Bristol), Bill McAlister from the ICA (London) and Christine Pointer from Essex County Library (Southend). The ACGB stresses its commitment to the "concept of Video Access Libraries" but the meeting has been called to address "areas of difficulty". Issues on the agenda are: potential and constraints; capital, maintenance and staffing provision; purchase, acquisition and exhibition policy; educational outreach; training of library staff; marketing and promotion; sponsorship; and coordination of information between venues (ACGB, 1986b).

27 June 1986: London/Monkstown, Ireland. Eileen McNulty (Cinema of Women/COW) writes to Pat Murphy, enclosing reviews of Anne Devlin (Eire 1984) from the film's London opening. McNulty reports she is going on leave for three months, and that the office staff will consist of one new full-time worker, one part-timer and a temporary worker. (McNulty, 1986b).

September 1986: The Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) and Regional Arts Associations (RAAs) agree a method and schedule for the development of arts strategies and managerial reviews. They agree to collaborate on the development of arts plans in each of the 12 RAA regions, which will involve extensive consultation with other funding partners, chiefly local authorities, which should guarantee broad support for the plans. (CoRAA, 1989: 4).

1 December 1986: Monkstown, Ireland/London. Pat Murphy (Aeon Films Ltd) writes to Rod Stoneman (Channel 4) to acknowledge that he has raised Channel 4's offer for the broadcast rights to her film Anne Devlin (Eire 1984) from £15,000 to £17,500. However, she feels this is still not enough, given that the Irish Film Board are major investors in the film. If the licensing fee can be agreed, April 1987 is a possible transmission date. (Murphy, 1986).

22 December 1986: London/Monkstown, Ireland. Rod Stoneman (Assistant Commissioning Editor, Independent Film & Video, Channel 4) replies to Pat Murphy's letter of 1 December, explaining that the prices offered for broadcast rights are set by the Programme Acquisitions Department. Stoneman asserts they are able to negotiate the prices "up a notch or two" when there is particular interest in "acquiring an important film", and in this case that has resulted in the original price offered for Anne Devlin being increased from £15,000 to £17,500. The price of £17,500 paid for Murphy's earlier and less prestigious film, Maeve, in 1982 is "indicative of occasional inconsistency and paying over the going rate in the early days of the Channel, rather than meanness in relation to ANNE DEVLIN now." Stoneman wants to include the film in the forthcoming season of The Eleventh Hour, due to commence in February. (Stoneman, 1986).

1987

21 January 1987: London/Monkstown, Ireland. Eileen McNulty (Cinema of Women/COW) writes to Pat Murphy, sending her royalty statements for Anne Devlin (Eire 1984) for 1986. COW are not recouping the cost of the 16mm print (£1898) of the film according to their usual practice, as Murphy has given them use of her 35mm print. McNulty also urges Murphy to make a decision on the sale of the broadcasts rights for the film, since further delay could result in missing the scheduled Channel 4 transmission slot in spring. (McNulty, 1987).

April 1987: Birmingham. Consultants from Comedia complete a report for the Birmingham City Council’s Economic Development Committee on the Birmingham Audio-Visual industry, recommending the formation of a Media Development Agency (MDA), Media Zone, Media Enterprise Centre, and a Design and Media Centre. These are seen as necessary to take full advantage of the jobs and industries emerging from the new information society. The Media Zone will provide a stimulating environment to encourage activity, the Media Enterprise Centre within it will provide space and offer common services and facilities for 60-70 businesses, while the Design and Media Centre will provide a cultural and exhibition facility for the television, film and media industry and provide a design facility. The Birmingham Media Development Agency (BMDA) will be created to undertake the city’s Media Development Strategy. (Birmingham City Council, 1988: 1, 3) (Comedia, 1987).

May(?) 1987: London. Two new film and video publications are published, both jointly produced by the Independent Film, Video and Photography Association (IFVPA) and the Recreation and Arts Group at the London Strategic Policy Unit (LSPU) (LSPU-IFVPA, 1987).

The first, Twenty Years On, is a review of the independent film and video sector in London. Research for the review was carried out in January and February. The publication notes the sector's considerable expansion over the years, with currently 70 projects – "stretching from Channel 4 funded workshops undertaking integrated programmes of training, education and broadcast production to small scale video training projects, with distributors, exhibitors and film and video production groups in between" (Power, 1987: 2) – and notes both the significant contribution to this expansion from the cultural policies of the Greater London Council (GLC) and the impact of the Council's abolition which took effect from 1 April 1986. One of the key findings of the review is that "marketing and promotion is both under-resourced and under-valued within the sector" (Power, 1987: 5). With regard to the growing availability of material on VHS, the review notes that "There is a widespread lack of awareness not only of the videotapes that are available, but of the teaching/training/information uses of those tapes" (Power, 1987: 5). The publication also includes a Directory of the independent film and video projects currently working in London, including the distributors Albany Video, Cinema of Women (COW), Circles, ICA Video, LVA, LFMC and The Other Cinema (TOC) (Power, 1987: 8-18).

The second publication, Off the Shelf, is a video marketing workbook, aimed at community and independent video groups to help them promote and distribute their work on VHS for non-broadcast use (Arora, 1987: 2). The workbook covers such areas as the need to think of distribution as part of production practice, how to target potential audiences and motivate them to engage with a video's content, and methods of promotion (including direct mail, magazine advertising and editorial media coverage). One issue identified is that "people are still not used to the technology" (Arora, 1987: 31) – thus it is suggested that "It may be worth producing a general 'Why Use Video' leaflet" alongside more specific promotional material (Arora, 1987: 32). As sales prices have fallen considerably, and can now be as low as £25, while hire prices have remained fairly constant at £10–15, there has been "a shift from hiring to buying tapes. Indeed, as hiring becomes less economic some distribution agencies have decided to deal only with sales" (Arora, 1987: 36). Although the workbook is mainly designed to enable community and independent video groups to reach specific institutional audiences (such as education, training etc), it also notes that if groups feel they have "a tape that might appeal to either a more general audience (a local audience, perhaps) or a particular specialist audience of individuals, you might want to consider other outlets such as … local video hire shops or bookshops" (Arora, 1987: 36). But it notes that "Tape distribution through retail outlets has often failed in the past because it has not been accompanied by promotional material" and recommends the use of "posters or leaflets strategically placed in the neighbourhood" (Arora, 1987: 36).

18 June 1987: Southend. Arts Council Secretary-General Luke Rittner formally opens the new Video Access Library at Southend Central Library. The library includes 140 Arts Council documentaries and it is envisaged the collection will expand to include locally produced videos ranging from community tapes to video art (ACGB, 1987). Rittner tells local press that "It's the first video centre the Arts Council has helped set up in a public library, and it is the first time the public can view on demand films made by the Arts Council", while Essex county arts librarian Mark Thres notes that "These videos are normally available for groups or schools to hire. This way they are being made more widely available" (Anon, 1987).

August(?) 1987: Bristol. The Arnolfini undergoes refurbishment and the centre's bookshop is moved into what had been the purpose built space for the Video Access Library. The Video Access Library has been reduced to "two monitors, each in a corner with a couple of chairs nearby ... tapes are on shelving stretching along the wall between them" (Wilson, 1987).

30 August 1987: Dublin/London. Pat Murphy writes to Eileen McNulty (Cinema of Women/COW) to ask for the second instalment of the Channel 4 licensing for her film Anne Devlin (Eire 1984). She explains that "the previous payment went to the Film Board. This next sum is to come to me at Aeon films. And it's badly, urgently needed." (Murphy, 1987).

October 1987: Scotland. Project Video Scotland publishes the findings of a study undertaken by Robin MacPherson into the current state and future development of videocassette distribution of independent video material produced for and/or by groups concerned with local communities, communities of interest, social and related issues (such as health, housing and environmental) in Scotland. The report's principal conclusion is that: "there is a large, growing and identifiable demand in Scotland for videotapes produced by the Independent Video sector and that current distribution practices and organisation are inadequate to the task of linking the various audiences for Independent Video with producers and distributors" (MacPherson, 1987: 30). A key recommendation is that "more work needs to be done with individual producers on improving the promotion and distribution of their tapes" – particularly with regard to budgeting for promotion and distribution, and identifying specific audiences for tapes (MacPherson, 1987: 32).

16 October 1987: Southend. Mark Thres (Senior Librarian, Arts, Essex Libraries) reports on the first 4 months (8 June to 8 October) of the Video Access Library at Southend Central Library, noting it has been used 86 times. They are planning a major publicity drive in order to build and widen the current user groups which are predominantly art teachers, lecturers and students. Thres observes that "The response from our users has been enthusiastic, though many of them has expressed a desire for a home loan service (in VHS format)". He also notes that if the concept is to develop there needs to be better marketing of the resource (Thres, 1987).

2 December 1987: Bristol. Rodney Wilson (Director, Film, Video and Broadcasting Dept, ACGB) visits the Arnolfini in Bristol to look at the new location of the Video Access Library, following the centre's recent refurbishment. It is now located in the Arnolfini's book shop and consists of little more than two monitors in a corner and shelving storing the tapes. "There's no indication it exists and I think we can consider it effectively non-operative. We need to discuss what we should do" (Wilson, 1987).

23 December 1987: London/Wolverhampton. Will Bell (Film Education Services Officer, ACGB) writes to Krysia Rozanska at the Lighthouse Media Centre in Wolverhampton, confirming the Arts Council's interest in establishing a Video Access Library at the Lighthouse. However, most of the existing libraries are "experiencing major problems, mainly over staffing". He explains that experience has demonstrated that for a library to be successful it requires a full-time member of staff and cannot be combined with another activities, such as a book shop. "Access libraries must be seen as a public service and educational resource; they simply do not make money".

Access libraries contain all Arts Council-produced documentaries … Most often VALs have a comprehensive collection of independent videos and a growing collection of community tapes … indeed it is one of the main principles of access libraries that they are an enabling mechanism for access to other sources of films on tape and video-originated productions. Therefore extension is not limited and is dependent on individual library development, which is another reason why staffing is crucially important. (Bell, 1987: 1-2)

Bell also stresses that they have learnt that "access as a resource has to be highly visible if it is to be successful … the concept of being able to view on demand is central to the whole area. Consequently, a visual display promoting the resource is very important". He also notes legal and technical aspects limit viewing to groups of between 4 and 6 people per monitor (Bell, 1987: 2).

1988

4 February 1988: London. The Conservative Government accepts an amendment to the Education Reform Act 1988 which will abolish the Inner London Education Authority (ILEA) and devolve its competencies to inner London boroughs.

9 February 1988: Southend. Will Bell (Film Education Services Officer, ACGB) attends a meeting to review the first 6 months' operation of the Video Access Library at Southend Central Library. Also attending are Elizabeth Macgregor, Mark Thres (Senior Librarian, Arts, Essex Libraries), David Ryan, Martin Ayres (Film and Photography Officer, Eastern Arts Association) (Bell, 1988: 1). Disappointingly for the Arts Council, there has not been a huge public response to the new resource (Macgregor, 1988) and the library has only been used 160 times since opening, with students forming the majority of users – although more positively there has been a marked increase of 42% over the past 3 months (Bell, 1988: 1). Nevertheless, it is observed that "Charging is derisory in income terms but it does stop abuse" (Macgregor, 1988). There is agreement that marketing needs to be improved (Macgregor, 1988), and plans are discussed for (1) a touring exhibition of stills and information about the video access library to other libraries in the region, (2) establishing links with Essex schools and colleges in order to develop media studies in the region, and (3) using Southend library's lecture theatre to develop a combined programme and relaunch the Video Access Library (Bell, 1988)(Macgregor, 1988).

1988: London. Cinema of Women (COW) place their distribution collection with Glenbuck Films, formerly Harris Films, now a wholly owned subsidiary of the British Film Institute (BFI). This is to allow COW staff to concentrate on promoting their collection to a wider audience. (COW, 1988d: 3).

4 July 1988: London/Bristol. Rodney Wilson (Director, Dept of Film, Video and Broadcasting, ACGB) writes to Barry Barker, the new Director at the Arnolfini, noting his surprise at the 70% drop in viewing figures for the Video Access Library – a total of 299 for 1987/88 as compared to 1115 for the corresponding period for 1986/87 (Wilson, 1988). The library was relocated from its purpose built space to the Arnolfini's book shop the previous year, as part of a refurbishment (Wilson, 1987), and now "seems most notable for its invisibility". As the service has to all intents and purposes "ceased functioning", Wilson informs Barker that they will be withdrawing the Arts Council's films which were originally loaned to the library in 1982 and seeking to house them elsewhere in the region. He concludes that "It may turn out that the initiative we've launched to make our material available through public libraries will supersede access libraries (Wilson, 1988).

7 July 1988: London. Gail Pattinson (Programme Acquisitions Executive, Channel 4) writes to Jenny Wallace (Cinema of Women/COW) confirming that the licence fees have been paid on a package of six films that Channel 4 has licensed from COW, with the exception of Sally Potter's Thiller (UK 1979). Among the other films in the package are Cristina Perincioli's The Power of Men is the Patience of Women (West Germany 1978) and Michelle Citron's Daughter Rite (USA 1979). Although the television sales were negotiated in 1981, none of the films have so far been broadcast. (Wallace, 1988).

September 1988: London. Greater London Arts (GLA), in association with the British Film Institute (BFI) and the London Boroughs Grant Scheme (LBGS), commission Peter Boyden and Russell Southwood of Comedia to audit film and video provision in the Greater London region and to identify “strategic development options” for funders “in light of diminishing public subsidy”. This involves “mapping” equipment, service and work, and examining film and video provision to commercial, educational and local authority sectors to identify gaps and duplication. The brief focuses on “means of production”, including access, and “support services”, including distribution and marketing. The consultancy will be overseen by Felicity Sparrow (Film Officer, GLA), Irene Whitehead (Funding and Development, BFI) and Colin Wright (LBGS). They in turn will report to a wider group, the Joint Funders Strategy Group (JFSG), including David Curtis (Film Officer, Arts Council of Great Britain/ACGB), Wendy Bradshaw (Inner London Education Authority/ILEA) and Caroline Spry (Channel 4/C4).(Sparrow, 1990: 1) (IFVPA, 1989c: 2).

5 September 1988: London. The British Film Institute’s (BFI) Operations Group meets to share departmental and regional information. Irene Whitehead (Funding and Development) and Philip Simpson (Head of Education) have attended meetings dealing with the abolition of the Inner London Education Authority (ILEA) to try to establish some continuity, particularly with regard to formal education (BFI, 1988: 1). Whitehead reports that the London Boroughs Grant Scheme (LBGS) has demoted film and video to a low priority area, cutting Circles, Women’s Film, Television and Video Network (WFTVN) and other groups. 75% of Circles’ grant was reinstated after Whitehead’s intervention, but the hostility of the LBGS Chair to this has left her considering

that for Cllr Williams [Chair], abolition [of the Greater London Council (GLC)] is pre-history and any partnership deals are off. (BFI, 1988: 6)

Whitehead has also expressed the BFI’s concern to the borough of Camden over their raising of Fantasy Factory’s rent to commercial levels, and the borough of Tower Hamlets have only recently confirmed the second half of Four Corners’ annual grant. Tendering for the consultants to undertake Greater London Arts’ (GLA) survey ‘Developing the Independent Film and Video Sector in London’ is complete, and Comedia have been appointed pending LBGS’s £10,000 contribution. The interim report should be ready in December 1988 and the final in February 1989. Comedia are also producing a 5-year development plan for Southern Arts dealing with exhibition in Portsmouth and Southampton. (BFI, 1988: 6)

Funding and Development are now holding monthly meetings on their budget, and will inform clients of the result before the new year (BFI, 1988: 2). The Regional Production Fund has agreed to continue funding all existing clients at their current level until March 1990, rather than implementing cuts at short notice (BFI, 1988: 5). The Film Society Unit has been making new material available by programming packages and tours (BFI, 1988: 2), the Distribution Division has acquired a programme of Kuchar brothers films which will be launched at the Scala, and Robert Frank and Clermont Ferrand films for regional tour. The Eisenstein Exhibition at Oxford opened 17 July to record crowds and will open at the Hayward Gallery in London on 28 September, where the Division’s first published video, on Eisenstein, will be for sale. The Division is producing a policy paper on the future of Glenbuck Films, which is now “a wholly owned subsidiary of the Institute”. (BFI, 1988: 4)

The Birmingham Media Development Agency (BMDA) has postponed appointing a director until December (BFI, 1988: 8), and the separation of the Edinburgh Filmhouse and the Edinburgh International Film Festival is proceeding (BFI, 1988: 5). Nottingham City Council have given £150,000 for the Nottingham Media Centre (NMC) on condition they are not asked for more, which leaves some costs outstanding. East Midlands Arts might support a fund raiser, and the Fletcher Priest report on the NMC is due shortly (BFI, 1988: 8). The Tyneside Cinema has cut staff to reduce costs and Northern Arts have commissioned a consultant to develop long term development options for the cinema (BFI, 1988: 10). Luton 33 have produced a business plan to operate on a commercial basis which requires £320,000 in upfront capital. (BFI, 1988: 9)

9 September 1988: Birmingham. Vokani publicly launch their feasibility study to examine the creation of a distribution and promotional agency for Black and Third World film and video in the West Midlands. (BFI, 1988: 8).

1 October 1988: London. The British Film Institute’s (BFI) Head of Funding and Development Barry Ellis-Jones is appointed Acting Deputy Director, and Irene Whitehead becomes Acting Head of Funding and Development. (BFI, 1989a: 1).

25-26 October 1988: London. London workshops attend the Training within the Independent Film and Video Sector in London conference at Connaught Hall, sponsored by the London Boroughs Grant Scheme (LBGS) and organised by the British Film Institute (BFI). The conference seeks to pool information on extant training programmes and their objectives, encourage communication and co-ordination between the providers, develop a strategic approach to provision in the region, and identify gaps or overlaps within it. (BFI, 1988: 2-3) (BFI, 1989a: 4).

1 November 1988: London. Eileen McNulty (Cinema of Women/COW) writes to Irene Whitehead (Funding and Development, British Film Institute/BFI) enclosing COW’s overdue revised budget for 1988/89. She informs Whitehead that the Industrial Tribunal has dismissed a former staff member’s accusation of racism against COW, and recovery from this protracted dispute is underway. (McNulty, 1988).

16 November 1988: London. The Directors of Cinema of Women (COW) meet to consider the company’s situation. The audit undertaken by Jeanne Wilding (Business Administrator) has found many accounting errors connected to a previous staff member, and accountants Sayer Vincent have been booked in. This staff member, whose charge of racism against COW was dismissed by the Industrial Tribunal on 1 November, will be paid £1,000 to divest COW of any further financial liability regarding her (COW, 1988a: 1). Considering that COW’s relatively informal collective structure left them vulnerable to such problems, Wilding is undertaking a thorough management restructure. Draft employment contracts and job descriptions are available for perusal, and names are put forward for the new Board of Directors, Advisory Committee and Viewing Sub-Committee. (COW, 1988a: 2-3)

The assembled note that the British Film Institute (BFI) has commissioned Comedia consultants Peter Boyden and Russell Southwood to undertake an audit of the independent film and video sector in London. COW and Circles staff have recently met with the BFI and the consultants, and been informed that the BFI wants the groups to merge within the next 18 months. There is also concern about the BFI subsidiary Glenbuck Films, which is now housing COW’s film and video collection and administering bookings and dispatch. Bookings have fallen, and the assembled determine to monitor the situation and visit Glenbuck. (COW, 1988a: 4)

1989 is COW’s tenth year of operations, and anniversary letterhead and a party are suggested. (COW, 1988a: 4)

29 November 1988: London. The Directors of Cinema of Women (COW) meet to consider the company’s situation and how it can be improved. The recent audit has uncovered a £7,000 deficit in the financial year 1987/88, connected to a more than £25,000 drop in film and video sales (COW, 1988b: 1) (COW, 1988c: 7). This problem is compounded by a further observable fall since COW outsourced their distribution administration to the British Film Institute (BFI) subsidiary Glenbuck Films, in order to concentrate on promotional activities. There has been a particularly marked fall in video sales, possibly due to Glenbuck’s inexperience with them (COW, 1988b: 3). Further, a detailed examination of Glenbuck’s catalogue has found work considered exploitative of women, including pornography, which was not apparent at the time that COW housed its collection there (COW, 1988b: 3). They determine to end their public association with Glenbuck, deciding to remove Glenbuck’s phone number from their answer phone and publicity material, which will also restore COW’s contact with their user groups (COW, 1988b: 3-4). Once detailed financial information is available, a meeting with Glenbuck will be held. The meeting also discusses films seen at the recent London Film Festival (LFF), and European festivals to approach for 1989. (COW, 1988b: 2-3).

8 December 1988: London. The Minister for the Arts Richard Luce announces to Parliament he has invited Richard Wilding, the retiring Head of the Office of Arts and Libraries (OAL), to conduct a review of Arts funding.

The review will be primarily concerned with the structure of support, and the way in which the various parts of the system fit together. It will be conducted on the basis that the arm's-length principle will continue to govern the allocation of money within a given total and the making of artistic judgments, and that a substantial amount of decision-making should continue to take place at the regional level. (Hansard, 1988)

Wilding will report by 31 October 1989. (Hansard, 1988).

9 December 1988: London. Jenny Wallace (Marketing Administrator, Cinema of Women/COW) sends Irene Whitehead (Acting Head of Funding and Development, British Film Institute/BFI) COW’s application for financial assistance in 1989/90. In the past year COW has collaborated with Circles and the Institute for Contemporary Art (ICA) on a contextual article on feminist film in the Good Video Guide; presented a season of films at the Rio Cinema, London, in conjunction with the Women’s Media Resources Project (WMRP); programmed the Out of Control video package dealing with the welfare state and aimed at social services workers; and worked with the British Council (BC) to make COW videos available for overseas distribution (COW, 1988d: 2-4). COW has also acquired a diverse range of films for promotion in 1989/90, and plan to support video packages with industrial sponsorship from sources such as trade unions and the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC); to liase with national and international partners such as Women Make Movies (WMM, US), the State Centre (Melbourne, Australia), Women in Sync, Circles and the WMRP; and continue the promotion of feminist film and video work to the largest possible audience (COW, 1988d: 3-4).

The application also reports that in 1988/89 COW substantially restructured itself, placing its distribution collection with Glenbuck Films, a BFI subsidiary, for dispatch, and replacing collective work practices with an accountable management structure, comprising of a Board of Directors and executive sub-groups, and defined staff roles (COW, 1988d: 3). The application also contains a substantial equal opportunities statement, stating policies, objectives, achievements and staff and executive demographics. (COW, 1988d: 5-7)

14 December 1988: London. Sayer Vincent Accountants send Cinema of Women (COW) their audit of the financial year ending 31 March 1988, with a report on the administrative weaknesses which had obscured COW’s financial position. They recommend an enhanced bookkeeping system. (Sayer Vincent Accountants, 1988: 1-2).

1989

January 1989: London. Cinema of Women (COW) drafts a mailout to members and supporters, announcing their 10th Anniversary, recent changes in the company and the way forward. COW started as a voluntary collective and developed into a workers’ co-operative type structure. But, as available permanent staff declines, they are consolidating into a more formal and accountable structure. This involves an Advisory Committee of 15-20 which will meet quarterly and determine major policies and overall direction. It will be more than half Black and Asian, half lesbian and half heterosexual, and will endeavour to include women from other traditionally underrepresented groups. This will elect a Board of Directors/Council of Management which has a range of skills, will bear responsibility as employers, meet monthly, and its members will have specific roles and responsibilities in the sub-groups. The Screening Sub-Group will have a key role in acquisitions and consist of three to ten women, the Fundraising/Finance Sub-Group will have two to four members and meet quarterly to agree budgets and fundraising strategies, and the Personnel Sub-Group will have two to four members, meet quarterly and have responsibility for recruitment, induction, liaison, support, contracts, salary negotiations and grievances. Each Sub-Group will be serviced by a worker and convened by a Director. (COW, 1989a: 1-2)

The members of the Advisory Committee will play a key role in shaping the future of COW, such as acquisitions – COW currently prioritises films by and about Black and Third World women, but what other underrepresented groups should be promoted? Also:

The whole independent film/video industry is facing new possibilities at present, with ideas being floated of merging women’s organisations. We would like Cinema of Women to be taking the initiative with other groups, coming up with its own plan of action for the future.

Questions around are – Do we see the sector shrinking as funding is gradually cut back? Would we like to be part of a multi-women’s media centre – which combines women’s cinema, video and film studios for women and distribution and promotion projects? Should COW and other women’s media projects campaign together for increased resources instead of just accepting cuts as a fact of economic life? (COW, 1989a: 2-3)

5 January 1989: London. Irene Whitehead (Acting Head, Funding and Development, British Film Institute/BFI) provides Wilf Stevenson (Director, BFI) and Barrie Ellis-Jones (Acting Deputy Director, BFI) with a briefing note on BFI’s relations with Regional Arts Associations (RAAs) as background for meetings with Richard Wilding (Office of Arts and Libraries/OAL) , who is conducting a review of Arts funding. Whitehead outlines the circumstances behind the growth of BFI’s funding of RAAs from its first grant to Northern Arts in 1971/2 to the £1.4 million contributed in 1988/9, including the inheritance of devolved funds at the time of the abolition of the Greater London Council (GLC) and the Metropolitan County Councils (MCCs). She notes the existence of conflict between BFI and Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) policy and priority, and between the BFI wish to coordinate developments on a national level and the autonomist tendencies of some RAAs. She also notes that the historical principle of seeking match funding from local sources for BFI contributions to RAAs has lead to a further £1 million becoming available (Whitehead, 1989a: 1-2). The briefing note includes BFI’s subsidy to RAAs in 1988/9. (Whitehead, 1989a: 4).

9 January 1989: London. Irene Whitehead (Acting Head, Funding and Development, British Film Institute/BFI) submits her calculation of how Funding and Development would disburse its funds from 1989/90 to 1991/2, based on a 3% annual increase in the funding available to it. She notes a series of problems to be expected from this austerity.

In 1989/90 there will be no contingency fund to cover the Regional Arts Associations (RAAs), and the need to support the Nottingham Media Centre (NMC), certain workshops, Regional Film Theatres (RFTs) and representative bodies through Direct Grants has put severe pressure on the Development Budget, even after cutting the Women’s Film, Television and Video Network (WFTVN). This, and Directorate’s commitment of £60,000 from the Development Budget to the Broadway Ltd cinema development, creates substantial problems in meeting the demand on the Development Budget. Only one major new project is likely to be funded out of this budget, probably the Sheffield Media Centre, but applications are expected from Leeds, Leicester, Bradford, Fantasy Factory and a separate upsurge on the completion of the Greater London Arts (GLA) sponsored Comedia consultancy. (Whitehead, 1989b: 1)

In 1990/1 there will also be no contingency fund for the RAAs. The Direct Grants budget will be held at cash standstill to support a substantial increase in the Development Budget needed to keep pace with the Office of Arts and Libraries’ (OAL) incentive funding targets. The results in Direct Grants will be to cut another representative body and to put the Watershed and Cornerhouse on 3-year decreasing ‘sunset’ funding. Despite its increase, the Development Budget will be under substantial strain from forward commitments, other problems stored up in 1989/90, and the need to “bolster existing revenue clients with the means to increase self-generated income to safeguard them against direct grant cuts to come.” (Whitehead, 1989b: 2)

It is unclear what changes may have occurred in the RAA structure by 1991/2, but their grant will have to be lifted by this point to make up for the “dangerous erosion” of the previous few years. The Development Budget will continue to grow at the expense of Direct Grants, resulting in the continuation of ‘sunset’ funding for media centres (including the NMC) and cutting smaller London workshops. Whitehead writes “I still believe that it is a risky process to sacrifice ongoing subsidy to one-off incentive funding, but given the OAL position, I cannot see a viable option.” She concludes by requesting for 1989/90 an increase of 4% rather than 3% for Funding and Development, and £60,000 to restore the Development Budget. (Whitehead, 1989b: 3)

12 January 1989: London. The Directors of Cinema of Women (COW) meet to organise the first meeting of their projected Advisory Committee, scheduled for 1 February. COW is shifting from a collective to a normalised company structure comprising of discrete and defined staff roles and an unpaid executive. Core to this is the Advisory Committee, which will elect Directors from among its members, and also contain a series of sub-groups to oversee acquisitions, policy development, fundraising and staff relations. Membership of the Advisory Committee is also a way of connecting to the wider Women’s media movement at a time of substantial threat and insecurity. (COW, 1989a: 2-3)

The Directors approve the draft mailout to potential Committee members (COW, 1989a) and plan the structure of the meeting. (COW, 1989b)

30 January 1989: London. Irene Whitehead (Acting Head of Funding and Development, British Film Institute/BFI) meets with Wilf Stevenson (Director, BFI) to finalise the Division’s 1989/90 budget allocation. Whitehead’s priorities are to guarantee a 2% increase in the Regional Arts Associations (RAAs) funding and finalise the Direct Grant and Development Budgets, so as to give Direct Grant clients early news of their support and firm up the Development Budget’s commitments. (Whitehead, 1989c: 1).

February 1989: Sheffield. Premises launch for Sheffield Independent Film (SIF). This production and training resource is funded by the British Film Institute (BFI), Channel Four (C4), Yorkshire Arts (YA) and local authorities. (BFI, 1989c: 2).

1 February 1989: London. First meeting of the Cinema of Women (COW) Advisory Committee. Eileen McNulty (Acting Director, COW) informs the assembled of the changes and challenges facing the company, including staff turnover, the placement of their film and video collection with British Film Institute (BFI) subsidiary Glenbuck Films for dispatch, and “the pressure from BFI to merge with Circles” (COW, 1989c: 1). The meeting confirms the need for COW to form its own strategy to deal with this, and agrees in principle to the new proposed staff/executive structure. As the meeting is under-attended, and several matters within the Committee’s competence are urgent, the assembled determine to meet again 2 March. (COW, 1989c: 2-3).

2 February 1989: London. Minster for the Arts Richard Luce explains to Parliament what areas of concern have led to the commissioning of the Wilding Review of Arts funding.

There is no doubt that, since the inception of the Arts Council of Great Britain [ACGB] after the Second World War, and the starting of the regional arts associations, there has, in recent years, been a substantial shift of resources to regional arts [RAAs]. They now handle about £30 million of resources. I am concerned to ensure, with all the changes that have taken place, that there is coherence in the funding system and proper accountability to Parliament and me, through the Arts Council of Great Britain, for the use of taxpayers' money. There is no suggestion that funds are not being properly used now. I also want to ensure proper and improved structures and procedures for channelling the money, the large majority of which should go to the performing arts. (Hansard, 1989)

6 February 1989: London. Delegates from London’s independent film and video groups meet to consider the consultancy brief issued to Peter Boyden and Russell Southwood of Comedia. The assembled wish to challenge the brief and the consultants’ manner of carrying out the work, particularly their lack of sympathy with the sector, manner of consulting with it, and use of ‘the market’ as a touchstone which elides many independent groups’ struggle to create and serve new demands, rather than simply fulfil existing ones. However, as a direct attack is likely to be counter-productive, and the eventual report highly influential, they decide to address Greater London Arts (GLA) directly to try to influence the parameters of the consultancy. Likewise the issue of funding cuts cannot be addressed frontally, as the pressure is ultimately coming from government via the Office of Arts and Libraries (OAL), so the funders must be encouraged to find new monies and alternative sources. The prioritising of Equal Opportunities in the consultancy brief is thought positive, though some fear it will be used to cover cuts made for different reasons. While the brief prioritises links to broadcasting and training therein, the groups worry at the implicit downgrading of non-broadcast activity, and the implications of the sector having already been harnessed as an area of research and development for Channel 4. While this history may help find new funds, it is also seen to have been part of the deregulation of labour in television production.

Though competing ideas for a defensive platform – cultural, technological and nationalist – are not resolved, the assembled agree on an updating of the Independent Filmmakers’ Association’s (IFA)1980 Foundation document. Overall the brief is felt to be too narrow, and the consultants inadequate in their liaison with the sector. To ensure some involvement in the process, the Independent Film, Video and Photography Association (IFVPA) will write to GLA asking to receive a copy of the report at the draft stage, and further time after that to hold a meeting within two weeks and submit a written response within a month of the meeting. There should be a meeting between the funders, consultants, and funded. (IFVPA, 1989a)

14 February 1989: London. Irene Whitehead (Acting Head of Funding and Development, British Film Institute/BFI) submits her report on the Division’s activities October-December 1988. Activity in the current period is against the backdrop of “the most profound changes to affect the arts for many years,” which

are a result of a range of social and political factors and are epitomised by pressures emanating from central government for all organisations to move from the so-called ‘dependency culture’, with its reliance on various mechanisms of subsidy, to the ‘new realism’, of enhanced revenue earning, improved business skills, a greater reliance on sponsorship and the replacement of many forms of grant aid with incentive funding. In the future, funding bodies will be able to deploy budgets in a more interventionist, pro-active manner, but the emphasis on revenue generation and business efficiency demands that we develop policies and implementation strategies that ensure that the cultural imperatives which underlie our work are not lost. (BFI, 1989a: 1)

The Division has emphasised preparing clients for the new climate by supplying training in business planning, marketing and financial management, and using the Development Budget to fund business plans, development studies and capital grants aimed at increasing earning potential. Albany Video and Video Engineering and Training (VET) have been given £2,200 towards market research for a media centre for South London, and VET £6,000 seed funding for a video engineer; Luton 33 Video received £2,000 for business development plan and £5,000 for business plan and structural review; Video Vera in Leeds received £7,000 for a marketing and business consultancy regarding their new premises; Independent Film, Video and Photography Association (IFVPA) Manchester received £1,000 for a media sector survey and strategy report; Media Education Centre in Cardiff received £5,000 for desktop publishing equipment; Leeds Film Theatre received £7,000 for a new cinema feasibility study and Tyneside Film Theatre £5,000 for a financial restructuring package. (BFI, 1989a: 2-3)

A further £20,000 has been given for the restructuring of independent film and video activities in the Merseyside region, matched by £20,000 from Liverpool City Council. BFI have awarded a further £2,500 to Mersey Television for a feasibility study on a new media centre, which is also backed by £37,000 in private sector money. £10,000 has been committed to Sheffield Independent Film Group’s (SIF) development as a strategic regional production resource, matched by £20,000 from Channel 4 and provision of 8mm and 16mm telecine equipment from a private company “on very advantageous terms”, which promises increased earnings. Sheffield City Council has contributed £5,000 to a development study for the Sheffield Media Centre. The report was published in December and recommends a three-screen centre with educational and social facilities be built in the Kennings Building. (BFI, 1989a: 2)

BFI has contributed £5,000 for a production consultancy to South East Arts (SEA), £10,000 to Greater London Arts (GLA) for the Comedia consultancy into the distribution and training needs of London, and participated in organisational reviews for GLA, South West Arts (SWA), Eastern Arts (EA), and North West Arts (NWA). (BFI, 1989a: 2-3)

15 February 1989: London. Alison Butler (Independent Film, Video and Photography Association/IFVPA) writes to Felicity Sparrow (Film Officer, Greater London Arts/GLA) about the 6 February meeting of the London region independent film and video groups, asking that the Boyden Southwood consultancy brief be extended to consider not just how extant grant aid could be deployed, but also new sources of funds. This would necessitate an extension of the consultancy timeframe. She also asks that the affected groups be allowed a larger role, specifically that they be allowed to receive and comment on the draft report, meet with the funders, and table a written response. (Butler, 1989a).

20 February 1989: Bradford. Richard Wilding (Office of Arts and Libraries/OAL) visits Yorkshire Arts (YA) with his consultant, Martin Easteal. They receive a briefing pack from YA in response to a topic list that they previously submitted (see (Lancaster, 1989: 5-6)). The questions revolve around the relationship between regional and national bodies, issues of accountability and policy formation, and internal structures and the impact of further devolution. Richard Lancaster (Director, YA) notes that Wilding appreciates the role of Regional Arts Associations (RAAs) in developing partnerships, particularly with local authorities, and was concerned to remove duplication from the system. In clarifying the distinction between regional and national roles, Wilding is leaning towards further decentralisation. (Lancaster, 1989: 2).

23 February 1989: London. Felicity Sparrow (Film Officer, Greater London Arts/GLA) replies to Alison Butler’s (Independent Film, Video and Photography Association/IFVPA) letter of February 15 (Butler, 1989a), insisting that the location of new sources of funds to support the sector is integral to the Boyden Southwood consultancy brief, but that as “much of the present funding […] was taken over from the GLC [Greater London Council] with little strategic overview,” some rationalisation is necessary before re-investment can take place. The IFVPA will get a copy of the draft report, and are welcome to send a written response to the Joint Funders Strategy Group (JFSG) which will be discussed on the same basis as the report’s recommendations. No representatives of the groups can be present at the funders' meeting, but Sparrow is happy to meet with an IFVPA representative for further discussion. (Sparrow, 1989a).

24 February 1989: The Council of Regional Arts Associations (CoRAA) meets, exchanges details of Richard Wilding’s (Office of Arts and Libraries/OAL) recent visits to them, and attempts to forge common ground in their response to his review of arts funding strategy. They determine that “the basic concern of all RAAs was to develop the quality and accessibility of the arts in the region,” and thus that any changes arising from the review should make this provision more effective. CoRAA’s position is that these aims are best pursued by partnerships at a local level under maximum decentralisation. They recommend a federal system encompassing regional and national bodies, in which the autonomous regions are directly represented in the national body, as the best way to resolve regional/national demarcation and ensure accountability. They agree that RAA boundaries should only be altered to improve provision. (Lancaster, 1989: 2) (CoRAA, 1989: 2).

9 March 1989: London. Irene Whitehead (Acting Head of Funding and Development, British Film Institute/BFI) writes to Wilf Stevenson (Director, BFI) regarding Funding and Development’s allocation from the apparently finalised 1989/90 BFI budget. Apart from being contrary to the impression she had been given at the 30 January meeting, the implications of the current sum are to substantially pressure funds for training, hospitality and the Regional Conference. As Whitehead has been making funding commitments in the interim, the current situation would force a reduction in the Development Budget, which would have significant implications for the Sheffield Media Centre. (Whitehead, 1989c: 3).

10 March 1989: Consultants from Richard Wilding’s (Office for Arts and Libraries/OAL) review of arts funding structures meet with the Council of Regional Arts Associations (CoRAA) and are appraised of CoRAA’s support for further devolution within a federal structure. The consultants believe that the federal structure cannot be created without reducing the number of Regional Arts Associations (RAAs), perhaps by more than half. (Lancaster, 1989: 3-4).

17–22 March 1989: London. Will Bell (Film Education Services Officer, ACGB) reviews progress at the Southend Video Access Library. There has been a "slow but consistent use" of the resource with an average of around 60 single viewings per month. Due to fluctuations in staffing levels there has been little active promotion of the video access library since the beginning of 1988, and Eastern Arts Association has not undertaken previously agreed support work for the resource – namely, developing the library as a regional centre for media education and as a repository for locally produced independent work (Bell, 1989a). Bell writes to Martin Ayres (Film and Photography Officer, Eastern Arts Association) seeking an update on the progress of these initiatives, and notes that "Things are not developing as well as they might, with little increase in use on the first year" (Bell, 1989b).

20 March 1989: Bradford. Roger Lancaster (Director, Yorkshire Arts/YA) presents a discussion paper on the current Wilding review of arts funding, including the deliberation of the Council of Regional Arts Associations (CoRAA) on 24 February. CoRAA’s position is that problems in the relationship between Regional Arts Associations (RAAs) and the Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) should be resolved with a federal structure that guarantees significant representation for the regions within the central body. Broadly they are pleased with Wilding’s devolutionary direction, and in principle support the redrawing of administrative boundaries and amalgamations of some RAAs, but only so long as that improves regional provision (Lancaster, 1989: 2-4)

Lancaster also presents YA’s draft response to the Wilding Review’s questionnaire, which advocates removing duplication of function between national and regional funders by devolving funding responsibility for all but a small number of “arts organisations operating on a truly national basis” and building based programmes (Lancaster, 1989: 9). The ACGB could then concentrate on advocacy for the arts, information and advice services, accounting for arts spending to central government, and a national arts policy formulated in conjunction with regional policies. YA suggests that duplication in function between regional funders and the Crafts Council (CC) and British Film Institute (BFI) should be resolved in the same way. (Lancaster, 1989: 9)

April 1989: London. Irene Whitehead (Acting Head of Funding and Development, British Film Institute/BFI) submits a draft response to the Wilding review of Arts funding to the BFI Board of Governors. She welcomes the review as an opportunity to increase the effectiveness of funding by clarifying “the responsibilities of the BFI vis-à-vis those of the RAAs [Regional Arts Associations] and of the ACGB [Arts Council of Great Britain]” (Whitehead, 1989d: 1). The BFI’s key aim is to develop a UK-wide film and video culture by creating a national infrastructure of exhibition venues, production and training centres. While over 55% of regional funding is handled by the RAAs, Funding and Development also disburses direct grants to organisations essential to this national network, and maintains a Development Fund to support new initiatives to consolidate it. Whitehead argues that a central co-ordinating body is necessary to the success of these infrastructural developments, and that the BFI’s direct funding of regional developments has an important ‘multiplier’ effect on funds available, as it draws co-investment from local authorities and other economic development partners. Further, as well as supplying or co-ordinating initial capitalisation for projects, the BFI can supply the necessary monitoring to see that clients become less grant-reliant. This re-definition of the BFI’s funding, policy and function should help the RAAs “and other relevant agencies” to re-define their own roles. The BFI also fully supports the review of RAA structures, both the streamlining of their Executives and the abolition of any remaining permanent art form panels, which are currently ineffective mechanisms for decision-making, the latter having “too often tried to take to itself the inappropriate trappings of executive action” (Whitehead, 1989d: 7). This more centralist approach is necessary because of the differences between film and video and other art forms. “The BFI […] is concerned with activities on the cusp between culture and a particularly capital intensive and technologically sensitive industry. In that context, economies of scale and scope are essential as well as desirable”. (Whitehead, 1989d: 6).

5 April 1989: London. Wilf Stevenson (Directory, British Film Institute/BFI) receives Channel Four’s (C4) workshop policy discussion document. C4 commenced its support of workshops under the Workshop Declaration as a partner, with substantial workshop subsidy also coming from the British Film Institute (BFI), Regional Arts Associations (RAAs) and the Greater London Council (GLC) (Fountain, 1989: 4-5). Long-term support of particular workshops, and the workshop movement’s ambition to create a parallel regionally-based film and video culture and infrastructure, was a mutually beneficial side-effect of C4’s support, whose main aim was programme development (Fountain, 1989: 2-3). In the current climate of funding scarcity, especially since the abolition of the GLC and Metropolitan County Councils (MCCs), C4 can no longer support the culture with long-term funding contracts, which is too expensive next to the amount of programming produced, and prevents the support of new groups (Fountain, 1989: 5-7). For this reason C4 will only fund by project, though it will strengthen its involvement with regional resource centres such as Sheffield Independent Film (SIF) (Fountain, 1989: 9-10). Project funding and resource centre support will allow the widest variety of productions and producers to be funded. This will contribute to sustainable regional development and promote a model for programme financing which should be attractive to other funders. (Fountain, 1989: 12).

12 April 1989: London. Heads of British Film Institute (BFI) departments meet. The South Hill Park Video Festival and Training for Trainers will not be funded, and the training money re-deployed in courses run by the Funding and Development Training Co-ordinator. Faction Films have been cut by 50% and given six months’ notice of complete withdrawal of funding, as they are solely a production group. The Derby, Dovecot and Tyneside Film Theatres have been given notice of possible grant cuts, and the Women’s Film, Television and Video Network (WFTVN) and the Society for Education in Film and Television (SEFT) have been given winding up costs. (BFI, 1989b: 1)

Discussions are underway with Channel Four (C4) around the idea of a ‘Facilities Network’, which appears to suit the current reformulation of C4’s policy away from the support of workshops to that of ‘product’ (Fountain, 1989). C4 is also involved with the Joint Funders’ Strategy Group (JFSG) and the Greater London Arts (GLA) survey of “equipment pools” in London. (BFI, 1989b: 3)

26 April 1989: London. Irene Whitehead (Acting Head of Funding and Development, British Film Institute/BFI) sends Wilf Stevenson (Director, BFI) the list of expected applications to the Development Fund in 1990/91, which totals £531,000 (Whitehead, 1989e). This is substantially larger than the monies allocated to the budget heading in January. (Whitehead, 1989b: 1).

10 May 1989: London. Wilf Stevenson (Director, British Film Institute/BFI) receives Chapter 8 of the Association of District Council’s (ADC) report Art in the Districts, which addresses the current Wilding review of Arts funding. The ADC views with dismay the complete and ongoing omission of any mention of local authority support for the arts, given that they are the single largest source of funds for them (Association of District Councils, 1989: 71) (CoRAA, 1989: 3). The ADC expresses concern that the review’s interest in accountability not lead to a re-centralisation of power that would effectively undo previous devolution, and defends the relative autonomy of Regional Arts Associations (RAAs) to set their own priorities in terms of local needs (Association of District Councils, 1989: 71). The ADC supports the unifying of the RAAs and Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) within a ‘single system’, and suggests that strengthening RAA representation in the ACGB would protect their independence. The ADC also expresses disquiet that the plan to reduce the number of RAAs, from 12 to perhaps six, would create difficulties for the essential working partnership with district councils. Likewise, while supporting some reduction in the numbers on RAA Executive committees, they dispute that marginalizing local authority involvement by imposing a “‘small board’ mangerialist approach” would benefit regional provision (Association of District Councils, 1989: 72). The ADC also challenges the continued existence of the Crafts Council (CC), and questions that of the British Film Institute (BFI), citing under-performance in regional provision (Association of District Councils, 1989: 73)

Stevenson writes to the Secretary of the ADC regarding their questioning of the need for a BFI. Apart from the report not offering any evidence to support this, it also appears to ignore BFI activities that do not involve RAAs. Stevenson offers to attend any appropriate meetings to provide them with fuller information about the BFI’s activities. (Stevenson, 1989a)

15 May 1989: Closing date for formal submissions to the Wilding review of Arts funding strategy. (Lancaster, 1989: 4).

19 May 1989: London. Irene Whitehead (Funding and Development, British Film Institute/BFI) submits her report on the Division’s activities January-March 1989. In response to the Wilding review of Arts funding, year-end consultative meetings between the BFI and Regional Arts Associations (RAAs) have focussed on the desirability of the current relationship, in which the BFI devolves considerable funding to the substantially autonomous RAAs. BFI favours a strengthening of central administration, policy-making and strategy co-ordination. The aims of its national strategy are to consolidate and expand exhibition infrastructure (Media Centres and Film Theatres) and develop a network of well-resourced production and training centres. (BFI, 1989c: 1)

Each of these projects needs to be approached in terms of the ‘new reality’ of declining public subsidy. Channel Four (C4) is also shifting its workshop sponsorship from longer term to project-based funding (Fountain, 1989). Together, C4 and BFI are pursuing the establishment of a well-resourced network of regional facilities centres and have “acknowledge[d] the high level of initial capital investment necessary in order to equip the proposed facilities centre to an appropriate level” (BFI, 1989c: 1-2). This will ensure better training and production provision, and allow the groups to maximise their revenue earning capacity. The launch of the Sheffield Independent Film (SIF) premises in February was an example of the new policy, and BFI is involved in discussion to formulate a plan to establish comparable centres across the country. (BFI, 1989c: 2).

Likewise plans to develop regional exhibition infrastructure are being formulated in the face of declining subsidy. The Nottingham Media Centre (NMC) project has purchased a building with financial assistance from the City, County and BFI, and plans to open in April 1990. The Sheffield City Council has accepted a feasibility study for the development of a media centre, and building work in the Cultural Industries precinct that would house it have commenced. The Sheffield Media Centre is scheduled to open in April 1991. Feasibility studies for full-time theatres in Leeds and Leicester have started, and as have moves towards a full-time film officer at the Warwick Arts Centre. Discussions in Merseyside with local authorities and Merseyside Arts promise “nothing short of a complete overhaul of the structures and activity of the film and video groups of Liverpool”. Funding and Development is also participating in a study into an education/exhibition Media Centre, which is promoted by Mersey TV. (BFI, 1989c: 2).

Training courses for regional exhibition and workshop staff, focussing on planning and marketing, have continued to equip “the ‘independent’ sector with the relevant business skills to survive and hopefully flourish in the arid environment of the new reality” (BFI, 1989c: 3). The Society for Education in Film and Television (SEFT), after commissioning a study into its organisation, has gone into voluntary liquidation. Funding and Development has assisted in securing the future of SEFT’s work, rehousing Screen Journal at the John Logie Baird Centre at the University of Glasgow, and commissioning a study on the most effective way to meet Media Education Teachers’ needs. The Women’s Film, Television, and Video Network (WFTVN) has closed after the London Boroughs Grant Scheme (LBGS) ceased funding it, and their files have been transferred to Video Vera in Leeds. The Association of Black Workshops (ABW) and Independent Film, Video and Photography Association (IFVPA) are examining their policies and structures ahead of discussions with Funding and Development. (BFI, 1989c: 13).

Early June 1989: London. The draft report ‘Developing the Independent Film and Video Sector in London’, commissioned by Greater London Arts (GLA), British Film Institute (BFI) and London Boroughs Grant Scheme (LBGS), and sponsored also by the Joint Funders Strategy Group (JFSG), is circulated to all London-based independent groups, industry representatives, educational bodies and local authorities. (Sparrow, 1990: 1) (Sparrow, 1989c).

June 1989: London. Rodney Wilson (Director, Film Video and Broadcasting, Arts Council of Great Britain) and David Curtis (Film and Video Officer, ACGB) respond to the Wilding review of Arts funding. They propose that the best way to achieve clarity of objectives and greater accountability in film, video and broadcast funding is for Regional Arts Associations (RAAs) to be funded only by the ACGB. They note that the British Film Institute (BFI) is currently supporting regional media agencies, which seems a way of circumventing the RAA system and threatens to lead to a policy of separate development. Wilson and Curtis propose that the competencies of the BFI’s Funding and Development Division pass to the ACGB Planning Board, which would devolve many individual clients to the RAAs. This would leave the BFI responsible for national distribution, exhibition and feature film production, while the ACGB would be responsible for assessment of RAAs, arts documentary production and the production and exhibition of artists’ films. The RAAs would be responsible for regional production (including workshops and training), media centres and media development corporations, and links between the arts and regional broadcasters. (Wilson, 1989: 6).

7 June 1989: The Council of Regional Arts Associations’ (CoRAA) submission to the Wilding Review of Arts funding recommends that existing friction and duplication in the funding system be resolved within a federal structure that unifies the Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) and the Regional Arts Associations (RAAs), as has been mooted since 1986. In this structure, the ACGB’s functions would be pared down to national advocacy for the Arts, funding the RAAs and “truly national organisations” and major touring, a role in formulating and implementing arts policy in consultation with RAAs, moderating and evaluating the regional structure, and specialist information and advisory services. Funding for all else should be devolved to the regions (CoRAA, 1989: 7). The autonomous regional bodies would be linked to the central ACGB by representation therein of RAA chairs, who would also provide the needed accountability. Additionally, the existing representation of elected local authority members and nominees from national bodies constitutes lines of accountability. The reduction of the number of RAAs needs to be pursued only where it offers administrative improvements, which must be balanced against the disruption of existing local partnership funding arrangements (CoRAA, 1989: 8). CoRAA also suggest that direct central government funding to RAAs would be desirable in the federal system, and that system should also include the Scottish Arts Council (SAC) and Welsh Arts Council (WAC), as equal members with the ACGB and RAAs. This will assist the ACGB in supporting national companies, which at present are funded from the non-devolved English sum, which then strains the ACGB’s ability to support the RAAs. (CoRAA, 1989: 9).

9 June 1989: Irene Whitehead (Acting Head of Funding and Development, British Film Institute/BFI) presents the Regional Consultative Committee (RCC) with the BFI’s response to the Wilding review of Arts funding (Whitehead, 1989f). This is substantially the same document as was presented to the Board of Governors on 19 May, though some sections dealing with the regions have been redrafted (BFI, 1989c). She also produces a statement regarding the Arts Council of Great Britain’s (ACGB) Incentive Fund. The ACGB has ruled that organisations whose only funding comes from either the BFI or the Crafts Council (CC), even if channelled through a Regional Arts Association (RAA), are not eligible. Organisations with mixed funding can apply, but only for projects falling within the ACGB’s remit. Projects falling within the BFI or CC’s remit should be directed to their incentive schemes. (Whitehead, 1989g).

June 1989: London. Jane Caldwell (Independent Film, Video and Photography Association/IFVPA) sends a circular announcing a meeting for all concerned with the Boyden Southwood consultancy ‘Developing the Independent Film and Video Sector in London’. While there will be an open meeting with the funders about the draft report on 7 July, the IFVPA are calling a meeting without funders on 28 June at the University of London Union. There will also be an IFVPA London Region meeting on 29 June, and it is hoped that these discussions will help the groups to make the most of the three hour session on 7 July, and the call for responses to the draft which closes on 17 July. (Caldwell, 1989).

22 June 1989: London. Felicity Sparrow (Film Officer, Greater London Arts/GLA) writes to film and video organisations with the agenda for the Open Forum Meeting to discuss the draft Boyden Southwood report, ‘Developing the Independent Film and Video Sector in London’, taking place 7 July at the Institute of Education. As the room has the capacity for only 80 people, a maximum of two people per group has been set, and RSVP is necessary. (Sparrow, 1989b).

29 June 1989: London. Independent Film, Video and Photography Association (IFVPA) London Region meeting considers the draft Boyden Southwood consultancy report ‘Developing the Independent Film and Video Sector in London’ (Caldwell, 1989). See the agenda here (IFVPA, 1989b).

30 June 1989: London. Alison Butler (Independent Film, Video and Photography Association/IFVPA) writes to Felicity Sparrow (Film Officer, Greater London Arts/GLA) to pass on requests arising from the IFVPA meeting of 29 June. The meeting asks that the deadline for written responses to the draft report be extended from 17 July to 21 July, that the agenda sent for the funders’ open forum on the draft be altered so that the meeting is not tied up with familiar issues and has some time for open discussion. The London Region IFVPA will also be inviting the funders to a meeting on the draft in the near future. (Butler, 1989b).

4 July 1989: London. Felicity Sparrow (Film Officer, Greater London Arts/GLA) replies to Alison Butler’s (Independent Film, Video and Photography Association/IFVPA) letter of 30 June (Butler, 1989b), regretting that it is not possible to postpone the deadline for responses to the Boyden Southwood draft nor to change the agenda for the meeting between funders, groups and consultants on 7 July. While supporting the idea of an IFVPA meeting on the consultancy to which funders are invited, it cannot be before early September. (Sparrow, 1989c).

7 July 1989: London. The Joint Funders’ Strategy Group (JFSG) convene a meeting with their clients over the draft Boyden Southwood Report ‘Developing the Independent Film and Video Sector’. Russell Southwood advocates an independent sector which would produce ‘5–10 films of the quality of Looking for Langston a year’, be better trained in finance and marketing, make more of its own money, and have equipment pools to facilitate training. All groups will have only one funder. Despite manifold criticism from the assembled groups – including the Rio, Circles, Fantasy Factory, Sankofa, LVA, LFMC, Paddington Arts, Four Corners and Cinema Action – and the report still being a draft waiting for feedback, the British Film Institute (BFI) will be actioning the report over the next two years, starting in 1990, and Greater London Arts (GLA) is already implementing it. The final report is due out in September, and all groups will know what is happening to them by December. (IFVPA, 1989c: 1-3).

10 July 1989: London. Richard Wilding (Office of Arts and Libraries/OAL), who is conducting a review of Arts funding, writes to Wilf Stevenson (Director, British Film Institute/BFI), outlining two options for the restructuring of the competencies of the BFI, Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) and the Regional Arts Associations (RAAs) regarding film, video and broadcast. (Stevenson, 1989e: 1). These are that the BFI concentrate on funding infrastructure, while the Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) alone funds Regional Arts Associations (RAAs), or that the ACGB confine itself to promoting the use of film, video and broadcast to enlarge access to the arts, while the BFI takes full responsibility for film as an art form, and co-funds RAAs accordingly. (Wilson, 1989: 1-2).

11 July 1989: London. Sue ?? (Independent Film, Video and Photography Association/IFVPA) reports that the planned walkout on the 7 July meeting with funders over the Boyden-Southwood draft (IFVPA, 1989c: 1-3) was dropped because the independent groups had not been adequately informed of it. The will be another meeting on 15 July at Cinema Action. (??, 1989).

14 July 1989: London. Fantasy Factory submit a seven-page response to the Boyden Southwood Report draft. The report is criticised for being monetarist and market-oriented without having consulted the users of the facilities in question, gaps and lack of detail in the development projections, technological ignorance, and substantial errors of detail and analysis regarding the sector as a whole and Fantasy Factory in particular. The response observes that “If the funders wish to create an infrastructure which gives access to the means of production, the draining effect of ever increasing central London rents should be taken into account and freehold or long leasehold premises should be bought.” (Fantasy Factory, 1989: 1-7, 4).

July 1989: LFMC submit a five-page response to the Boyden Southwood Report draft disputing much of its idea of the sector as it is, might be, and in terms of what it’s for. Such points include that: all production can be classed as ‘programme making’ and thus is broadcast oriented, integrated practice is based on the permutations of activities rather than their integral interrelatedness, replacement funds from the abolition of the GLC have been transparently handled, an emphasis on managerialism and marketing is entirely compatible with all groups’ aims, cooperatives are a fuzzy historical notion, that the consultants are entirely technically competent, Channel 4 is an ally, the sector is useful chiefly as a “stepping stone to the industry”, and that the LFMC workshop is simply an “equipment pool”. Agrees that funders should invest in groups’ premises, suggesting this as an alternative to lifting revenue grants to cover increasing rent. (LFMC, 1989).

July 1989: London. Circles submit an eight-page response to the Boyden Southwood Report draft. The report is criticised for maligning the independent sector's competence and attributing its origins to funding in the 1970s. Circles defends its record of developing educational and local authority clients, and disputes that distribution and marketing should be split apart, as the loss of contact with hirers and control of the material is incompatible with feminist distribution. Circles cautions that substantial defunding will squander the decades of knowledge and experience which have accumulated in the sector. A series of corrections and excisions are requested, including that Circles and Cinema of Women (COW) could benefit from being merged. Circles is surprised and frustrated that the British Film Institute (BFI) declared at the 7 July meeting that it would implement a report so riddled with inaccuracies. (Dunphie, 1989) (IFVPA, 1989c).

16 July 1989: London. Margaret Dickinson responds to the Boyden Southwood Report draft, disputing that independent practice has failed to closely cooperate with education, and that the independent sector came into being around public subsidy (as opposed to “a combination of individual enterprise, collective commitment and private patronage” for which “[p]ublic funding, when at last obtained, was a recognition of the value of what had been achieved without it”). She observes that the earned income of the sector comes largely from public service organisations that are themselves receiving budget cuts, and that the commercial sponsors held by the draft report to be an alternative means of support are far from obvious. Thus the report’s heightened emphasis on management and marketing risks creating a top heavy structure that has less to administer. (Dickinson, 1989).

19 July 1989: London. Wilf Stevenson (Director, British Film Institute/BFI) visits the London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC). He discusses their premises crisis with Moira Sweeney (LFMC Cinema Organiser). (Stevenson, 1989b).

24 July 1989: London. Wilf Stevenson (Director, British Film Institute/BFI) meets with Richard Wilding (Office of Arts and Libraries/OAL), who is conducting a review of Arts funding. Stevenson, responding to Wilding’s letter of 10 July, prefers second of the two options for restructuring funding to film and video described there (Wilson, 1989: 1-2). This would see the Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) confining itself to using film, video and broadcast to promote access to the arts, while the BFI takes overall responsibility for film as an art form, co-funding Regional Arts Associations (RAAs) accordingly. Stevenson confirms that the BFI can re-order its funding of RAAs in light of a reduction in their number, and is committed to moving towards equalising regional spending on a per capita basis. The BFI does, however, wish to retain approximately 50% of its regional funding for national infrastructural work on cinemas and workshops, but will merge its Direct Grants and Development budget, and gear disbursement towards the incentive funding model. (Stevenson, 1989e)

Stevenson writes to Trevor Vibert (Director, Greater London Arts Association/GLA) expressing agreement with Vibert’s estimation of the significance of GLA’s upcoming Regional Arts Plan and the Wilding Report on Arts funding to their future relations. Stevenson regrets that these will not be ready for September, which would have allowed the BFI to give GLA the customary six months warning in case of any major changes. He thanks Vibert for having maintained GLA’s existing film and video strategies throughout the financial year, despite the major changes taking place within the organisation. (Stevenson, 1989c)

27 July 1989: London. Wilf Stevenson (Director, British Film Institute/BFI) writes to Irene Whitehead (Acting Head of Funding and Development, BFI) regarding the 25 July board meeting of the Birmingham Media Development Agency (BMDA) he attended. Malcolm Allen has been appointed Director, and the agency will be launched with funding from the City and several private sources. Stevenson has reservations about the long-term aspects of their business plan, but is confident that the existing feasibility plan will be fleshed out to prioritise an exhibition centre and workshop space “along the Sheffield Independent Film model”. The agency is planning its lauch to coincide with the Birmingham Film and Television Festival. (Stevenson, 1989d: 1-2).

12-14 September 1989: London. British Film Institute (BFI) Regional Conference focuses on the new conditions facing arts funding, particularly the impact on audio-visual culture of the impending single European market. The conference closes with a panel discussion on the future of Independent production involving representatives of Channel Four (C4), BFI Funding and Development and Production, a Regional Arts Association (RAA) Film Officer and Rodney Wilson, Director of Film, Video and Broadcast at the Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB). (BFI, 1989d: 3-4)(Sparrow, 1989c).

10 October 1989: London. Richard Wilding (Office of Arts and Libraries/OAL) delivers to Arts Minister Richard Luce the report and recommendations of his review of arts funding, Supporting the Arts: A review of the Structure of Arts Funding. (Morgan, 2001)

Wilf Stevenson (Director, British Film Institute/BFI) writes to Trevor Vibert (Director, Greater London Arts/GLA), noting that by the end of October the Wilding Report should be available, and that GLA should have its recommendations for its Regional Arts Plan. Stevenson suggests that mid-November would be a good time to meet to discuss any implications in these and agree in principle on the future of their funding partnership. (Stevenson, 1989f)

Irene Whitehead (Deputy Head, Funding and Development, British Film Institute/BFI) writes to all London direct grant clients, informing them of the new arrangements surrounding applications for the financial year 1990/91. The BFI, along with Greater London Arts (GLA) and London Boroughs Grant Scheme (LBGS) have accepted the findings of the Boyden-Southwood report that they commissioned, Developing the Independent Film and Video Sector in London. The London film and video strategy, however, is being developed through a series funder visits to clients. Due to this, grant application deadlines have been extended from mid-December to the end of February, and groups currently funded by the BFI will receive a standstill grant in the first quarter of 1990/91, without prejudice to the final outcome. She notes also that changes in arts funding are resulting in a reduction in revenue grants in favour of incentive funding, and that clients should not apply for more than standstill funding. (Whitehead, 1989h: 1-2)

Mid-October 1989: London. The final version of the Boyden-Southwood consultancy report, ‘Developing the Independent Film and Video Sector in London’, is received by its funders. (Sparrow, 1990: 1).

October 1989: London. Arts Minister Richard Luce releases Richard Wilding’s (Office of Arts and Libraries/OAL) report, Supporting the Arts: A Review of the Structure of Arts Funding, (Morgan, 2001) and initiates a period of wide consultation on its findings. (Hansard, 1990).

1 November 1989: London. Felicity Sparrow (Greater London Arts/GLA), Seona Reid (GLA), Colin Wright (London Borough Grants Scheme/LBGS), Caroline Spry (Channel 4) and David Curtis (Arts Council of Great Britain/ACGB) meet under the aegis of the Joint Funders Strategy Group (JFSG) to consider the final draft of the Boyden Southwood report Developing the Independent Film and Video Sector in London. The JFSG accept the report as an informative and useful framework for developing more detailed strategies in consultation with local authorities, commercial and educations sectors and existing film and video groups. The report cannot be published until endorsed by each funder as part of their strategies, and the development of GLA’s Regional Arts Plan will delay this. The JFSG agree to make photocopies available to their clients, while an eight-page summary will be made available to potential funding partners and sponsors. (JFSG, 1989: 1-2)

As part of this process, meetings have been set up between the JFSG and their clients, to elicit where groups see themselves within the Boyden Southwood framework. BFI and GLA have extended their funding application deadlines for 1990/91 to take account of this, and guaranteed all clients not on formal notice a standstill grant for their first quarter. In the meantime, the JFSG must develop an implementation strategy regarding the funding of annual clients and contract support, capital needs, and “development functions, including where development would be best located (ie. Within one of the funding bodies or a separate media development agency)” (JFSG, 1989: 2). Spry suggests a more radical approach, whereby funders develop their own timetable around areas of support, rather than being client-led. JFSG agree to hold meetings specifically dealing with areas identified in the report: equipment pools, marketing support, training and education, exhibition, production and a Development Agency. (JFSG, 1989: 2) (Sparrow, 1990: 1)

2 November 1989: London. Irene Whitehead (Funding and Development, British Film Institute/BFI) writes to Wilf Stevenson (Director, BFI) regarding the impending restructuring of funding responsibilities within the BFI, specifically which of the competencies currently held by Funding and Development will be inherited by the proposed Planning Unit, and which by Distribution and Production. Whitehead had understood that the Planning Unit would inherit Regional Arts Association (RAA) funding, the Development budget, and would continue to negotiate the uses of Direct Grant money for London workshops through the Joint Funders’ Strategy Group (JFSG). However, the understanding of Distribution Division and Production vary with this, particularly regarding the Development budget and the London workshops. This is particularly worrisome as the meeting to determine the relevant budgets is 3 November, and she asks that Stevenson attend to sort out such confusions. (Whitehead, 1989i).

3 November 1989: London. Representatives of the British Film Institute (BFI) Directorate, Funding and Development Division, Distribution Division and Production meet to plan the reallocation of the Funding and Development budgets in light of the BFI’s impending restructure. Of Funding and Development’s budget headings, Regional Arts Association (RAA) grants, Direct Grants, Development and Training, the new Planning Unit will inherit RAA block grants, Development budget, and, for the moment, Training. Direct Grants (mostly revenue funding) attributable to Production or Exhibition activities will be passed on to those Divisions, including revenue support for Media Centres. The 10% of Direct Grants for “national organisations” and not directly attributable to either Production or Exhibition will be considered case by case. While Irene Whitehead (Funding and Development) will continue negotiating with other London region funders through the Joint Funders Strategy Group (JFSG) on support for London workshops, she must not enter into commitments incompatible with the Production Division’s own policies. (Prescott, 1989a)(Prescott, 1989b).

21 November 1989: London. Joint Funders' Strategy Group (JFSG) meets with Circles to discuss the implications of the recent Boyden Southwood Report Developing the Independent Film and Video Sector in London.

Circles Notes: Gill Henderson and Jenny Holland (Circles) meet with Irene Whitehead (Head of Funding and Development, British Film Institute/BFI) and are told of the BFI's current restructure plans: “there will be no funding and development dept – instead a new Planning Dept will be established”. Whitehead is unsure what will happen to distribution clients such as Circles, Cinema of Women (COW), The Other Cinema (TOC), and the London Filmmakers' Co-operative (LFMC), other than that they are now the responsibility of the new Distribution Department under Ian Christie, but she hopes to keep Circles and COW in the ‘London package’ she’s developing “to secure some kind of strategic funding for the next three years”. Circles report that Whitehead considers the BFI’s Distribution Department being responsible for funding distributors inappropriate, given that they are in competition with each other, but also thinks this situation is more likely to occur.

Odd thing: “There was no mention whatsoever of MERGER with COW. (We decided not to bring it up either) and no mention of IR Debt (ibid.).”

There is a plan to consult with COW over their response to the restructure. If they are both to go to the Distribution Department, Irene suggests “we should act quickly to set up set up a meeting with Ian Christie. She suggested [that] COW and Circles should jointly attend. (I don’t think so).”

Whitehead also suggests that Circles' next grant application should not be phrased as revenue but pitched at the various kinds of project funding available “(ie. educational, resource, equipment, marketing, information (equal opportunities))” as “it’s unlikely any groups will continue to be given revenue funding – she did acknowledge that revenue-type grants had to be given to certain org to continue any equal opportunities policy (ie the Black workshops and hopefully women’s org)”. (Circles, 1989)

Irene Whitehead’s Joint Funders Strategy Group Meeting Notes: “Present: Jenny Holland and Jill [sic] Henderson (Circles M’ment Cttee.)” “Much of the first part of the meeting was taken up with Circles’ concerns around the BFI restructuring: the fact that they feel threatened by being funded by a part of the Institute which they considered to be ‘in competition’ to them as distributors. They also felt that the BFI needed to reaffirm its commitment to equal opportunities.”

However, Whitehead approves of their account of last year’s activities, as “Circles is beginning to be more realistic in terms of its need to generate more earned income.” These include: 42 acquisitions, including international work, pursuit of Media ’92 distribution schemes, organising expenses paid trips to festivals, dialogue with Women Make Movies (WMM) over structural models “for a revamped Circles. This group [WMM] has a contract with a shipping company which deals with the physical dispatch of their material, and to which they pay a flat fee which is then incorporated into their price structure.”

Other points: “BFI gave Circles £2000 towards a business plan in 1989/90, and they are about to finalise a brief and choose a consultant.” A promotional series of early women directors postcards is in progress, to be sold at selected Regional Film Theatres and other places. Low rate video sales in bookshops is being investigated.

Whitehead concludes: “Circles does seem to be making efforts in the right direction, but still nothing on the cards for a possible merger with COW. Assistance with marketing strategies seem to be the most likely area of assistance for the future, but it is to be doubted whether, without revenue funding, this organisation will continue to exist.” (Whitehead, 1989j)

21 November 1989: London. Irene Whitehead (Funding and Development, British Film Institute/BFI) submits her report on the Division’s activities July-October 1989. Though Regional Arts Associations (RAAs) can expect to experience substantial changes in the wake of the Wilding Report Supporting the Arts: A Review of the Structure of Arts Funding, released in October, the BFI has emerged in a positive light and is considered for additional responsibilities. (BFI, 1989d: 1)

Developments in exhibition infrastructure include the launch of the Sheffield Media Centre and the opening of a three-screen cinema in Greenwich in September. Negotiations continue in Leeds and Bradford, a survey in Leicester is due to be delivered in November, and Arian Wootton has been appointed Director of the Nottingham Media Centre (NMC). City Screen has taken over the Phoenix Cinema in Oxford, assisted by a loan from the BFI (BFI, 1989d: 2-3). The Birmingham Film Festival hosted both the launch of the Birmingham Media Development Agency (BMDA) and the announcement by Birmingham City of new funds for film and video production. (BFI, 1989d: 4)

1 December 1989: London. Joint Funders' Strategy Group (JFSG) meeting with London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) and London Video Access (LVA), with Irene Whitehead (Funding and Development, British Film Institute/BFI), Felicity Sparrow (Film Officer, Greater London Arts/GLA), Doug Foot (Administration, LVA) and Moira Sweeney (Cinema Organiser, LFMC) attending. The impact of the upcoming restructure of the BFI, along with the withdrawal of the London Boroughs Grant Scheme (LBGS) from funding other than training, are discussed. GLA is likely to “pick up” LVA’s LBGS grant, and LFMC’s annual BFI revenue grant will not come from the successor to Funding and Development, Planning, but from the Distribution Division. Although neither LFMC nor LVA have fully committed to sharing premises, the funding officers suggest that a merger would produce a stronger group and better suit the emerging regional/national funding split.

At their requests, LFMC receives funding from the BFI to undertake a management consultancy, such as LVA did in 1988, and LVA diverts GLA funding into developing a market assessment and marketing plan, so long as they are completed quickly. The feasibility study for sharing premises needs to commence by mid-February 1990 and be completed by the end of March, and LVA’s lease is up for renegotiation in June 1990. LVA feel they are being held back from relocation planning by LFMC. (Sparrow, 1989d)

December 1989: London. Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) passes a motion to overturn its traditional non-promotional distribution policy, and thus to allow LFMC Distribution Organisers to curate and promote packages of films from the collection. (Heslop, 1991: 4).

1990

19 January 1990: London. Felicity Sparrow (Film Officer, Greater London Arts/GLA) completes her report on the Boyden-Southwood consultancy Developing the Independent Film and Video Sector in London, laying out a timetable for the implementation of its recommendations. (Sparrow, 1990: 5-7).

25 January 1990: London. Independent Film, Video and Photography Association (IFVPA) is informed by the British Film Institute (BFI) that their revenue funding will end as of 31 March. (Power, 1990: 1).

27 January 1990: London. The Independent Film, Video and Photography Association (IFVPA) sends a circular announcing their revenue defunding by the British Film Institute (BFI), effective 31 March. (Power, 1990: 1).

13 February 1990: London. Tim Highsted (Associate Director, Institute of Contemporary Arts/ICA Cinema) writes to all the filmmakers whose works were shown in the Cinema of Women: 10 Glorious Years screening, thanking them and sending documentation of the event. He writes:

I was extremely happy that I could showcase such a diverse and impressive array of work over a two week period in the form of a small festival celebrating the ten years of Cinema of Women’s equally impressive work as a distributor of feminist films and videos. (Highsted, 1990)

28 February 1990: London. Rodney Wilson (Film, Video and Broadcast Department, ACGB) sends an internal memo to Ian Reid (ACGB) concerning the Arts Council's support for the Film and Video Umbrella (FVU). He notes that as a result of increased support from the Arts Council's GB Touring Funding, starting in 1988, the Umbrella has been able to increase its level of activity, undertaking more film/video tours and moving into gallery-based video exhibitions. Unexpected bonuses have resulted from the higher level of funding, including:

The Umbrella has been recognised by the London Funders Group (BFI/GLA/LBGS/C4) as the best model for future investment in independent sector distributor/exhibition initiatives.

Wilson expresses the intention to continue their support for the Umbrella and consolidate its activities. (Wilson, 1990).

6 March 1990: London. Greater London Arts (GLA) releases its Arts Plan, developed by consultants Peat Marwick McLintock to coordinate the next five years of activity. It calls for “agreement and partnership from all local authorities, practitioners, arts bodies and sponsors to ensure the future challenges to and potential of the [subsidised] sector will be faced and satisfied” (GLA, 1990: 1). The plan will go before the Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) for approval on 13 March. (GLA, 1990: 1).

13 March 1990: London. Arts Minister Richard Luce announces his decisions on the future of arts funding in the UK, based on the recommendations of Richard Wilding’s (Office of Arts and Libraries/OAL) review and report Supporting the Arts: A Review of the Structure of Arts Funding. The Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) will devolve responsibility for many clients, except national companies, to the new Regional Arts Boards (RABs). The ACGB will formulate national strategy and monitor its operation, and maintain responsibility for strategic issues such as training, education, research, touring, innovation, broadcasting and international affairs. A system of forward planning and budgeting overseen by the ACGB will improve the accountability of the new RABs. Local authority councillors will not be disbarred from becoming Chairmen of the RABs, nor being otherwise represented on them so long as they do not form a majority. The ACGB itself shall have no more than 20 members, and the number of its regional members will increase from three to five. Merseyside Arts will merge with North West Arts, Humberside with Yorkshire Arts and Lincolnshire with Eastern Arts. There will be other boundary adjustments. The Crafts Council (CC) and the British Film Institute (BFI) will remain independent, the latter with more clearly defined roles. This transformation should be complete by April 1993. (Hansard, 1990).

27 March 1990: London. Ian Christie (Head of Distribution Division, British Film Institute/BFI) writes to Jenny Holland (Circles), giving an update on the BFI's restructure: “responsibility for revenue funding of exhibition and distribution clients of the BFI has passed from former Funding and Development to Distribution Division.” Because budgeting is behind schedule, the situation with available funds has just become apparent:

In the case of Circles I regret that this is unlikely to be anything remotely near the amount you requested, which may or may not come as a great surprise. So great is the discrepancy between your request for £30,479 and our ability to fund in the coming year that I think an early meeting would be advisable to consider the impact of a substantially lower offer. (Christie, 1990a: 1)

1 April 1990: London. The Inner London Education Authority (ILEA) is abolished under the Education Reform Act 1988 by the Conservative government. ILEA’s competencies are devolved to inner London boroughs..

6 April 1990: London. Ian Christie (Head of Distribution Division, British Film Institute/BFI) writes to Jenny Holland (Circles) postponing their meeting on Circles’ future, “but am meanwhile informing you of the availability of the agreed sum of £5583, representing a quarter of last year’s direct grant to Circles.” This is “without prejudice” to the eventual amount which may be available for 1990/91, and written acceptance of “conditions of financial assistance 1990/91” is required prior to funding. “I look forward to seeing you and your colleagues on the 27th to discuss the impact of our severely reduced ability to fund Circles in the future.” (Christie, 1990b: 1).

9 April 1990: London. London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) Executive Committee members and London Video Access (LVA) staff meet to discuss the British Film Institute (BFI) and Greater London Arts (GLA) sponsored project to relocate them to joint premises. LVA need to relocate because their rent is set to rise from £19,000 to £30,000, and the current lease expires in two months. The meeting is unofficial and largely diplomatic due to the absence of Tom Heslop (Distribution Organiser, LFMC), and attempts to arrange a more formal meeting are inconclusive. Both parties wish to make changes to the feasibility study brief which will be the basis on which consultants will investigate if and how LFMC and LVA could share premises. LFMC feels that past surveys have been insensitive to their needs and that they might later be held to one by funders, while LVA feels that there have been too many meetings already and the survey should be started or forgotten. (LFMC, 1990a).

May 1990: London. London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) and London Video Access (LVA) commission Practical Arts Management to study the feasibility of their sharing premises. This constitutes Stage 1 of the British Film Institute (BFI) and Greater London Arts (GLA) sponsored project to rehouse the organisations, and they contribute £8,000 towards the consultancy. (Practical Arts, 1990: 2) (LFMC, 1990b: 7-8).

3 May 1990: London. Jane Pilling (Head of Programming Services, Distribution, British Film Institute/BFI) writes to Jenny Holland (Circles) thanking her for agreeing to extend the booking agreements for Rabbit on the Moon (Monica Pellizzari, 1987), Serious Undertakings (Helen Grace and Erika Addis, 1983) and Nice Coloured Girls (Tracey Moffatt, 1987) as part of the BFI Distribution touring package of Australian short films, Little Wizards from Oz. Since Pilling last wrote there have been three more bookings and six more venue commitments, with more likely. Terms of the agreement are 30% of the box office against a minimum guarantee per booking of £50 (Pilling, 1990). Pilling includes a mock up of the brochure. (BFI, 1990a).

May 1990: London. The British Film Institute (BFI) announces funding cuts to Cinema of Women (COW) and Circles (Circles-COW, 1991: 5). Circles' funding is cut from £23,000 to £9,000. (Harris, 1991b: 1).

4 May 1990: Cardiff/London. Companies House, Cardiff, write to Circles on the subject of their accounts for the period ending 31 March 1989, which were due 23 February. (Companies House, 1990: 1)

15 May 1990: Cologne/London. Astrid Heinrich, of the women’s film festival Feminale, writes to Jenny Holland (Circles), approving of Circles’ proposed programme for their film-market, but asking for a stronger representation of contemporary work. (Heinrich, 1990).

17 May 1990: London. Globe Town Neighbourhood Centre, which gives grants within the Globe Town Neighbourhood area of Tower Hamlets, declines Circles’ application for funding in 1990/91. They are experiencing pressure on their limited resources. (Nowlan, 1990).

19 May 1990: Solihull/London. G.M. Poole writes to Circles, asking for a list and prices of any VHS tapes they have connected to Channel Four’s Women Call the Shots season of April 1990. (Poole, 1990).

8 June 1990: The Regional Consultative Committee (RCC) discusses the current situation regarding Circles and Cinema of Women (COW). Judith Higginbottom (Film Officer, South West Arts/SWA) has been briefed by Sarah Bratby (Circles). Wilf Stevenson (Director, British Film Institute/BFI) assures them that neither group will be cut while enquiries continue. However, in Ian Christie’s (Head of Distribution, British Film Institute/BFI) absence, the level of funding available to the groups cannot be discussed. (Circles-COW, 1990a).

11 June 1990: London. Sarah Bratby (Circles) phones Baker Tilly Management Consultants to discuss the merger proposals that Circles and Cinema of Women (COW) need to develop. Due to the urgency of the situation, Baker Tilly write the same day outlining the approach they would take. (Baker Tilly Management Associates, 1990).

12 June 1990: London. Circles and Cinema of Women (COW) staff meet at COW’s offices update each other and coordinate further action in their campaign to convince the British Film Institute (BFI) to reinstate their funding. Circles has found a consultant who can do a 10-12 day study for £3,500-4,500. Sarah Bratby (Circles) reports on the concern expressed about their situation at the Regional Consultative Committee (RCC) meeting of 8 June, including that Wilf Stevenson (Director, BFI) assured the assembled that the groups would not be cut while enquiries continued. Circles and COW decide to seek written confirmation from Ian Christie of the three-year funding guarantee mentioned by the BFI Press Office, to propose to him that the consultancy examine the options for both merger and autonomy, and that this and next year’s funding be reinstated to its former level while the feasibility study is carried out and its findings implemented. Before the tender is put to the consultants, Circles and COW need to discuss their aims and ideas for the future of women’s distribution, schedule a timetable for discussions with the BFI and gain Judith Higginbottom’s (Film Officer, South West Arts/SWA) support, and make sure that the consultant’s brief includes options for continued autonomy based on other sources of funding.

In the remainder of June they will protest, leaflet and petition the following BFI events: the Toulouse education trip, National Film Theatre (NFT) ‘A’ level course, including its Independents session, and keep the press informed of developments. (Circles-COW, 1990a: 1-2)

20 June 1990: London. Wilf Stevenson (Director, British Film Institute/BFI) visits Circles, and clarifies that the BFI cannot offer more than the £10,000 they already have, that there are no funds for the merger, and the BFI is not a funding agency (Circles-COW, 1990b: 1).

21 June 1990: London. Documentary Video Associates (DVA) respond to Circles’ recent phone call, confirming that they would like to undertake the consultancy to merge Circles and Cinema of Women (COW). DVA also publishes Independent Media and The Good Video Guide. (Stewart, 1990: 1).

22 June 1990: London. Sarah Bratby (Circles) writes to Office of Arts and Libraries (OAL) concerning the uncertainty surrounding Circles and Cinema of Women’s (COW) British Film Institute (BFI) funding. (Mole, 1990).

23 June 1990: London. Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) of the London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) votes on the ‘Membership and Co-operativity’ proposal and hears updates on the LFMC’s situation. The membership ratifies that prospective new members are required to attend introductory tours, which will be monthly rather than weekly, called ‘Open Days’, and managed by a member of staff or experienced person from either the Workshop, Distribution or Cinema. The latter is intended to emphasise the LFMC’s commitment to integrated practice. The situation will be reviewed at the next Annual General Meeting. (LFMC, 1990b: 8)

The LFMC is £2,191 in deficit for the year ended 31 March. While income has risen by 13%, expenditure is 20% up. The former is above estimates, and the latter includes outreach work and advertising that should generate income in the new year. Loss of the London Boroughs Grant Scheme (LBGS) funding for the third workshop staffer, and the British Film Institute’s (BFI) standstill revenue grant have produced a 9% drop in funding against inflation. (LFMC, 1990b: 4)

Distribution income has risen by £2,000 sice, despite an 80% slump in educational bookings, a “new body of hirers is apparent”. 50% of hires are now European. Negotiations continue with the BFI on obtaining desktop publishing facilities to make the Catalogue available in a constantly updateable form on floppy disc. A meeting has been set between LFMC, London Video Access (LVA), Film and Video Umbrella (FVU) and the Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) regarding FVU’s “branching out into the European market in a competitive rather than supportive” way. (LFMC, 1990b: 3-4)

Building Crisis: After meetings between LVA, Greater London Arts (GLA) and the BFI, LFMC have agreed to a feasibility study on sharing premises with LVA. Practical Arts Management have been contracted to undertake Stage 1, a report of each group’s needs, the possibility of shared resources, and a fundraising strategy. GLA and BFI have given £8,000 towards this. If it is successful, a suitable building will be found and relocation managed in Stage 2. BFI have committed £20,000 for this, with £150,000 conditionally promised for development over the next three years. British Rail, the LFMC’s current landlords, have indicated that premises are secure until March 1991. LFMC’s own research into accommodation has found that the Half Moon Theatre (Stepney) is currently for sale for £500,000. Concerns are expressed that LFMC and LVA’s independence, autonomy and separateness not be threatened, that not sharing premises could result in funding cuts, and that independent research on alternatives continue. These are countered by observations that the £150,000 is for LFMC regardless of sharing premises, shared premises could improve funding, and moving without LVA would require more money. (LFMC, 1990b: 7-8)

25 June 1990: Vienna/London. Valie Export writes to Circles, pleased with recent notification from Rod Stoneman (Channel Four/C4) that her Invisible Adversaries/ Unsichtbare Gegner (1976) was broadcast again 7 May. (Export, 1990).

27 June 1990: London. Circles and Cinema of Women (COW) staff meet at COW’s offices to update each other and coordinate further action in their campaign to convince the British Film Institute (BFI) to reinstate their funding. Letters received from supporters are being sent to the BFI. At the recent Regional Consultative Committee (RCC) meeting, the BFI submitted a one-page statement about their funding of Circles and COW. Irene Whitehead (Head of Planning, BFI) stressed that the cuts were the right course of action, and the RCC asked Ian Christie (Head of Distribution, BFI) to commit to discussing all avenues fairly with the groups. Christie has confirmed to COW that he will commit to three years funding on receipt of a reasonable business plan, subject to further discussions between the parties, but level of subsidy has not been mentioned. (Circles-COW, 1990b: 1)

The meeting agrees that COW and Circles should liaise more closely, and that, contrary to Circles’ 20 June meeting with Wilf Stevenson (Director, BFI), they should only meet funders together. Circles report that Stevenson insists that there is no more revenue funding beyond that already offered, and no sums are available for the merger, which Christie has confirmed. Circles has been invited onto the Art Beat television programme, along with Stevenson and others, to discuss production and funding. Information and press coverage about the funding cuts have been distributed outside the BFI building, and a new press release has been issued urging people to contact the Arts Minister. A letter has been drafted to Christie seeking guarantees that the BFI will reinstate their previous funding until 31 March 1991, offer money for a detailed feasibility study of the proposed merger, and a commit to a further two years’ funding thereafter. Circles and COW staff will meet with him on 2 July to pursue these points. (Circles-COW, 1990b: 2)

Staff from both groups will be attending a five-day Feminale film festival in Cologne, where delegates from Cinemein and other feminist distributors will be present. A working group, originating in the BFI, is being formed to look at women’s issues. Circles believes it can survive with current monies until 15 August, COW that it can last until October and possibly December. (Circles-COW, 1990b: 2) (Heinrich, 1990)

2 July 1990: London. Circles and Cinema of Women (COW) staff meet with Ian Christie (Head of Distribution, British Film Institute/BFI) to seek guarantees that the BFI will reinstate their previous funding until 31 March 1991, offer money for a detailed feasibility study of the proposed merger, and a commit to a further two years’ funding. (Circles-COW, 1990b: 2).

4 July 1990: London. Television programme Arts Beat hosts a discussion of production and funding. Guests include Wilf Stevenson (Director, British Film Institute/BFI) and Circles staff. (Circles-COW, 1990b: 2).

4-8 July 1990: Cologne. Circles and Cinema of Women (COW) participate in the women’s film festival Feminale. (Heinrich, 1990) (Circles-COW, 1990b: 2).

13-15 July 1990: London. London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) Distribution hold a preview show at the LFMC Cinema of 100 films taken into the collection over the past year. A press screening of selected work is also held at the British Film Institute’s (BFI) preview theatre “to encourage attendance by those reluctant to visit the LFMC”. (LFMC, 1990b: 3).

13 July 1990: London. Ian Christie (Head of Distribution, British Film Institute) prepares a six-point ‘Draft Brief for COW/Circles Development Consultancy’. The consultancy will “propose an acceptable structure which will combine as much as possible of current distribution and advisory activity within a single organisation in receipt of reduced BFI subsidy.” It should identify economies of scale and operation, new or enhanced areas of revenue generation (such as television sales and retail video), potential sources of new revenue from public subsidy and private sponsorship, and the scope for enlarging market and support in the European Community. (Christie, 1990c).

17 July 1990: London. Jenny Holland (Circles) writes to Circles Management, postponing their meeting until the following week, in order to give them time to respond to Ian Christie’s (Head of Distribution, British Film Institute/BFI) draft merger consultancy brief (Christie, 1990c). Holland asks for any suggested alterations to the brief to be sent by the day before the meeting. Christie has offered £10,000 as holding monies, but requires a budget from Circles before this can be officially confirmed. (Holland, 1990).

22-28 July 1990: London. London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) Distribution and London Video Access (LVA) Distribution hold a week of screenings of historical work from their collections at the Institute of Contemporary Arts (ICA). (LFMC, 1990b: 3).

August 1990: London. Practical Arts Management produce their report on the feasibility of the London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) and London Video Access (LVA) occupying joint premises, deeming the move feasible and “potentially fruitful” (Practical Arts, 1990: 38). The report notes that both organisations prefer to remain autonomous and physically separate (Practical Arts, 1990: 15), and that any new premises will be a substantial financial burden to the groups (Practical Arts, 1990: 29). Purchase is considered the more financially viable option, calculated as cheaper in the short and long term than rental, but funding sources are lacking for either option (Practical Arts, 1990: 29-34, 37). Along with approaching national and regional funding agencies, local boroughs, European cultural funders, trust funds and corporate sponsors, the report suggests engaging a specialist to negotiate a co-investment deal with a property developer (Practical Arts, 1990: 30-4). The report envisages the groups relocating by July 1991. (Practical Arts, 1990: 38).

7 August 1990: London. Staff members from Circles and Cinema of Women (COW) meet at COW’s offices to coordinate their campaign to re-secure British Film Institute (BFI) funding. Circles have prepared an alternative consultation brief to the one Ian Christie (Head of Distribution, BFI) gave them 13 July (Christie, 1990c), which adds that 1) as well as proposing a structure for a single merged company, the consultancy also propose an acceptable structure for the two women’s distributors to continue autonomously; and 2) as well as identifying new sources of public subsidy and private sponsorship, the consultancy develop project applications to access it. COW agree to consider the alterations, but are concerned that it unfeasibly expands the work to be undertaken. They also think that the merged group could be more attractive to sponsors, and should be taken as an opportunity for women’s distribution rather than a BFI diktat. While COW thinks two groups struggling without enough subsidy will offer less choice in women’s distribution, Circles remains concerned that the merged company will offer less choice than the present two. All agree that the consultancy must show the uniqueness of the work undertaken by the groups, and that their areas are intertwined. COW assure Circles that they are not committed to keeping their collection with Glenbuck, a wholly owned subsidiary of the BFI, and note that the US women’s distributor Women Make Movies (WMM) have their collection with a dispatch agency. (Circles-COW, 1990c: 1-2).

9 August 1990: London. Jenny Holland (Circles) and Lis Rhodes (Circles Management Committee) meet with Ian Christie (Head of Distribution, British Film Institute/BFI) to discuss the terms under which he will release up to £10,000 for Circles. They present him with a budget showing how the money would be spent, and made to balance by assuming that Circles is able to recoup all the money it is owed. They also intend to apply separately to BFI Education for a grant to produce a catalogue and thus increase distribution income. Christie will confirm the £10,000 on 13 August, but wants to receive Circles and Cinema of Women’s (COW) revised consultancy brief by 15 August, which should be a ‘three-way agreement’ with clear aims and timescale. Concerning the prospect of a merger between Circles and COW, Christie insists that he does not want to force his ideas on the group, but in April 1991 he will “only issue one cheque.” (Circles-COW, 1990d: 2-3).

13 August 1990: London. Ian Christie (Head of Distribution, British Film Institute/BFI) writes to Jenny Holland (Circles) that Circles will receive £10,000 to maintain it at a basic level until 31 March 1991, subject to two conditions: there will be no more money in that period, and that terms of a consultancy “to determine the future relationship of Circles and COW [Cinema of Women]” are established within the next four weeks, which will present a three-year business plan outline within the next three months. The £2,000 for the consultancy will come from Irene Whitehead’s (Head of Planning, BFI) Development Budget. (Christie, 1990d)

Circles and Cinema of Women (COW) staff meet at Circles’ office to update each other and coordinate their response to the BFI’s conditional offer of further money. Circles reports on their meeting with Ian Christie (Head of Distribution, BFI) on 9 August, particularly that Circles will receive up to £10,000 this year to avoid liquidation so long as a consultancy to examine merging the groups is established within four weeks, and the brief submitted by 15 August. They also report that Christie will only issue one grant cheque in April 1991, and it is up to the groups to deal with that (Circles-COW, 1990e: 1). The £2,000 from the BFI Development Fund for the consultancy is well below the quotes the groups have received from outside parties. The groups have also further altered their initial revised brief (Circles-COW, 1990c: 1), continuing to prefer that the consultancy consider the possibilities for the groups to remain autonomous. (Circles-COW, 1990e: 3-5)

16 August 1990: London. Ian Christie (Head of Distribution, British Film Institute/BFI) writes to Circles and Cinema of Women (COW), highly displeased that their revisions to the consultancy brief he designed have included research on maintaining the groups autonomously. He feels that they simply want to maintain the status quo. (Shabbaz Wallace, 1990).

21 August 1990: London. Circles and Cinema of Women (COW) staff members meet at COW’s office to consider their response to Ian Christie’s (Head of Distribution, British Film Institute/BFI) letter of 16 August, which rejected their amendment that the consultancy on their futures should consider, as well as a merger, the options for the two groups remaining autonomous. The meeting agrees to drop that requirement. Christie has also confirmed the availability of £10,000 ‘holding money’ for Circles, £5,000 payable immediately, the rest in December. (Circles-COW, 1990f)

The structure of the proposed merged groups is discussed, particularly that it should “combine and expand upon the activities currently done by both groups”. Highlighted activities include education, research, information, retail video, exhibition, international profile, acquisitions, dispatch and television. Separate meetings will be held during the consultancy to examine structures for each of these. (Circles-COW, 1990f)

Jenny Shabbaz Wallace (COW) writes to Irene Whitehead (Head of Planning, BFI), confirming that they and representatives of Circles will meet on 30 August, and have dropped the requirement that the consultancy on the groups’ future develop non-merger options. Being “committed to securing the future of women’s distribution”, and “[I]n view of the current funding policies we have agreed to pursue the establishment of a single organisation which we hope will be in operation by 1 April 1991.” (Shabbaz Wallace, 1990)

30 August 1990: London. Jenny Shabbaz Wallace (Cinema of Women/COW) meets with Irene Whitehead (Head of Planning, British Film Institute/BFI) to discuss the consultancy Whitehead is funding into merging Circles and COW. (Shabbaz Wallace, 1990).

4 September 1990: London. J. C. Mole (Office of Arts and Libraries/OAL) writes to Sarah Bratby (Circles) thanking her for letter of 22 June regarding the problems Circles and Cinema of Women (COW) were then facing with their British Film Institute (BFI) funding. Mole reiterates that the BFI have now guaranteed basic financial support for Circles until 31 March 1991, subject to agreement to participate in an merger consultancy “within which the future relationships between Circles and COW are established” (Mole, 1990: 1). This consultancy is to report in three months with a business plan showing the minimum support needed for the new, combined operation for the three years starting 1 April. Mole concludes “I hope that this will lead to a satisfactory resolution and that your excellent promotion of women’s films in Britain will continue for many years.” (Mole, 1990: 1)

Circles and COW staff members meet at COW’s office to coordinate the their consultancy into the merger of their groups. They re-examine the brief and add research into gaining charitable status. They programme a timetable to gather information in September and draw up a business plan in November, during which time Circles will have to ballot its members on any decisions made. They will examine the liabilities arising from their constitutions and contracts, winding up procedures for their companies, BFI monies available for revenue, development and projects, and prioritise the design of a questionnaire to gauge the opinions of filmmakers and users. (Circles-COW, 1990g: 1)

5 September 1990: London. Sophia Chauchard-Stuart (Circles) writes to Circles filmmakers, informing them that it has entered into a joint consultancy with Cinema of Women (COW)

on the positive expansion of Women’s Distribution in the UK and have designated September to collate material, proposals and feedback from Users and Film-makers in order to develop a new working body which will see us into the future.

In this Consultancy we are seeking to update, expand and improve all existing services and resources, to look at alternative sources of funding, discuss Catalogue emphasis and the acquisition of much new material. We hope to forge stronger links with the Education and Commercial sectors and to incorporate our users more fully into the operations of the newly-emerging company. (Chauchard-Stuart, 1990)

A questionnaire is on current services and future proposals is being prepared, to be sent to a cross-section of users and filmmakers. (Chauchard-Stuart, 1990)

11 September 1990: London. Circles and Cinema of Women (COW) staff meet at Circles’ office to co-ordinate their British Film Institute (BFI) funded merger consultancy and consider funding opportunities for the next year. Grant application deadlines for Greater London Arts (GLA) and the London Boroughs Grant Scheme (LBGS) are at the end of September, and the meeting agrees to approach them, explain the situation and ask for advice. The questionnaire for filmmakers and users is in development and should be ready for the next meeting. The meeting determines to approach their respective management committees to take over some of the extensive work needed to complete the consultancy. (Circles-COW, 1990h: 1)

Sarah Bratby (Circles) sends Irene Whitehead (Head of Planning, BFI) a budget of how Circles and COW will spend the £3,000 consultancy money she is granting them. COW will manage the consultancy and have already invoiced Planning. (Bratby, 1990a: 1)

18 September 1990: London. The British Film Institute's video sell-through label, Connoisseur Video, is launched at Sothby's. BFI Chairman Sir Richard Attenborough delivers the welcome address. While the emergence of home-video was thought by some to threaten British cinema-going, both cinema attendances and video sales and hires have in fact been increasing. Attenborough therefore states that "we would be failing in our duty if we did not take note of the great opportunities that home-video offers to bring a greater range of films than any other delivery system can to the discerning viewer – who may also be a collector, a student, a critic or historian, or indeed a film-maker". Further, he suggests that "the increased availability of films on video, especially films that were until very recently considered rare and hard to see, can in fact enhance our national awareness of, and appetite for, cinema" (BFI, 1990b: 2). Part of the rationale for setting up Connoisseur Video is to expand the range of what is currently available on the British market. The new video label is a joint venture with French production company Argos Films, and its catalogue includes films by Orson Welles, Jean Cocteau, Marcel Ophuls, Jacques Tati, Pier Paolo Pasolini, Mike Leigh, Peter Greenaway and Philip Saville. Future releases will include animation, short films and documentaries (BFI, 1990b: 3).

25 September 1990: London. Circles and Cinema of Women (COW) staff members meet at COW’s office to co-ordinate their British Film Institute (BFI) funded merger consultancy and consider funding opportunities for the next year. The London Boroughs Grant Scheme (LBGS) has sent grant application forms, but they are due by the end of the week, and Greater London Arts (GLA) will not allow them to apply for funds for the new merged organisation in advance of its existing. The questionnaire for filmmakers and users is still being developed, and will be submitted to Circles management when complete. Sarah Bratby (Circles) will co-ordinate the consultancy from 1 October with student placement Sophia Chauchard-Stuart, while Circles management will co-ordinate any further office cover needed. (Circles-COW, 1990i: 1)

Abina Manning (COW) met with Interchange on 20 September, and was advised that it might only be necessary to wind down one company to organise the merger, and that they should look into registering as a charity. Circles will need an audit up to 31 March before the consultancy is finished, and each of the groups will try to secure an accountant for this. Legal information regarding the merger will be compiled for October, as will a document detailing the advantages, disadvantages and recommendations about the groups internal workings. Liane Harris (Circles) will contact Women Make Movies (WMM) while she is in New York. (Circles-COW, 1990i: 1)

24 October 1990: London. Circles and Cinema of Women (COW) staff members meet to co-ordinate their British Film Institute (BFI) funded merger consultancy. Sarah Bratby (Circles) has developed a financial outline of the new merged company in order to locate its bottom line, and the Action Resource Centre has agreed to supply secondments who might work in marketing or educational projects. This would leave the new organisation’s workers to free to raise its profile, investigate new projects and establish operations. The layout of the budget leads to discussion of publicity for the launch, which should be budgeted as one-off promotional amounts but, where possible, produce material which is reusable. Discussion focuses on whether staff wages should be based on Circles’ rate or COW’s higher Association of Cinematograph and Television Technicians (ACTT) level, with COW staff arguing that it will be hard to attract skilled staff at the lower rate, and that women should be properly recompensed for their work. Two staff structures are considered, a three full-time workers model with roles for marketing, dispatch and acquisition, and administration; and a four-worker model with full-time roles for theatrical acquisition/television sales and administration/co-ordination, while one part-time worker handles education outreach and project work and another handles marketing. Both models assume supplementary secondment workers, and the second model the outsourcing of dispatch. The meeting determines to leave royalty splits as they are. (Circles-COW, 1990j).

Early November 1990: London. London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) staff, Executive Committee members and past members of staff participate in a Retreat to the basement of the Museum of the Moving Image (MOMI) to address LFMC’s needs and formulate policy. They propose to split membership into two classes, ‘access’ and ‘full’ or ‘core’ membership, the former lacking voting rights and the latter restricted to those who visibly donate their labour, and past members who have served with distinction. Staff would grant core membership, with the new Management Committee hearing appeals from the unsuccessful. The Management Committee would be elected by core members and staff, and staff selected by the Management Committee. Staff would not have voting rights on the Management Committee, but will inherit the full decision-making power of the existing Executive Committee. The Management Committee would be responsible chiefly for formulating the broad policy and guidelines within which the staff work. These propositions will be put to the Annual General Meeting (AGM) of 12 January 1991. (LFMC, 1990c: 4, 8-12).

12 November 1990: London. Circles and Cinema of Women (COW) staff members meet to co-ordinate their British Film Institute (BFI) funded merger consultancy. Abina Manning (COW) submits a dossier of material about the legal implications of the merger, Liane Harris (Circles) and Jenny Shabbaz Wallace (COW) report on Circles and COW’s internal structures, and Sarah Bratby (Circles) reports potential projects she is developing. The meeting is happy with the current filmmaker and user questionnaire developed, though now it is so late as to be of little use. The meeting considers whether both groups' current 50/50 royalty split will give the new organisation enough distribution income to survive, and consider the possibility of coming to a more favourable arrangement with newly acquired films. The issue of pay scales is raised again, the argument revolving around fair recompense versus a salary bill that could not be supported when BFI funding ends. They determine to consult BFI’s pay scales as a guide. (Circles-COW, 1990k).

20 November 1990: London. Sarah Bratby (Circles) writes to Denise Kirkham (Nat West) seeking a secondment for the new, merged organisation to be created from Circles and Cinema of Women (COW). She describes this organisation as an “Educational Distributor specialising in the area of films directed by women” (Bratby, 1990b), the only one in the UK and one of only three in Europe. The secondment would work next to the Administrator to develop new projects addressing the European Media ’92 funding scheme, help the group strike a balance between industry and the voluntary sector, and would have enormous scope to develop practical experience in the mechanics of the film industry. (Bratby, 1990b).

28 November 1990: London. Steven Brookes (British Film Institute/BFI Production) and Ben Gibson (Head of Production, BFI) meet with Trevor Vibert (Director, Greater London Arts/GLA), Brian Mitchell (Assistant Director, GLA) and Felicity Sparrow (Lead Officer for Film and Video, GLA) to discuss production funding in London. Brookes and Gibson agree to attribute to London that part of the new Production Projects fund that originated in the abolition of the Greater London Council, and to offer a second earmarking for infrastructure, being the amount currently going to the Four Corners and Ceddo workshops. They also agree to continue liaising with GLA over other London-region production clients inherited from the restructuring of the BFI’s former Funding and Development Division. (Brookes, 1990).

December 1990: London. London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) Newsletter, posted ahead of the Annual General Meeting (AGM) of 12 January 1990 (LFMC, 1991), updates members on the current situation and includes the proposals to substantially alter membership, its relation to staff selection, and the relation of both to the Executive Committee formulated at the staff and executive retreat at the Museum of the Moving Image (MOMI) in early November. (LFMC, 1990c: 4, 8-12)

Three grant applications to the Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) have been rejected, and the one to the London Boroughs Grant Scheme (LBGS) for the third workshop staffer will be decided in January. LFMC finished the financial year 1989/90 in deficit. (LFMC, 1990c: 4)

Plans to relocate to shared premises with London Video Access (LVA) under British Film Institute (BFI) sponsorship have progressed to Stage 2, finding and occupying a building, after Practical Arts Management’s consultancy favoured this option (Practical Arts, 1990). LFMC or LVA can withdraw if they find suitable premises, but Relocation Project Management (RPM) have been retained by BFI and are investigating the Half Moon Theatre (Stepney), which is for sale at £500,000. RPM are seeking commercial partners for the development, as the BFI only have £150,000 to commit over the next three years, and other funders are not optimistic about their ability to contribute. They will also investigate the Diorama Project and other sites “to rent or buy”. (LFMC, 1990c: 5)

LFMC Cinema supplied a series of avant-garde film screenings and three installations to the London Film Festival (LFF), and used increased ACGB funding to produce a glossy catalogue. Many sessions sold out and one will be repeated in December. Plans are being made to celebrate LFMC’s 25th year in 1991. (LFMC, 1990c: 6)

LFMC Distribution has exceeded targets, collaborating with the Institute of Contemporary Art (ICA) and The Scala Cinema, representing the LFMC at European festivals such as Osnabrück and Lucerne, and touring film programmes in Holland and Belgium in conjunction with Melkweg (Amsterdam). Negotiations are under way to send touring packages to cinemas in Germany and Switzerland, releasing films on video with Jettisoundz Video and increasing broadcast sales are being investigated, and highlights from LFMC’s programmes at the LFF will be toured in 1991. The Catalogue is ready but funds are lacking to print it. An application has been sent to LBGS, selling advertising in the catalogue is being investigated, and money may be available from the BFI in the next year. (LFMC, 1990c: 5)

12 December 1990: London. London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) Distribution hold the Avant-Garde Erotic Film Festival at the Scala Cinema. (LFMC, 1990c: 7).

14 December 1990: London. Securicor, the parcel transport service, write to Circles regretting that their prices will rise by 11.5% as of 1 January. Securicor transport Circles’ films and videos. (Prior, 1990).

1991

2 January 1991: Sydney/London. Jennifer Stott (Marketing Co-ordinator, Australian Film Commission/AFC) writes to Sophia Chauchard-Stuart (Circles) regarding the consultancy Circles and Cinema of Women (COW) have entered on “the expansion of women’s film distribution in the UK” (Stott, 1991). She requests the current user questionnaire and eventual report, as both Circles and COW distribute Australian films. (Stott, 1991).

12 January 1991: London. Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) votes on the proposals to split membership into ‘Access’ and ‘Core’ tiers, restructure the relations of membership, staff and executive, and hears updates on the LFMC’s situation. Despite qualms about the LFMC’s “democratic base”, proposals to allow staff to regulate Core (voting) membership, the Executive to select staff, staff to inherit the Executive’s past powers, and the Core members to elect the Executive, are passed. The proposals address concerns about inefficiencies in administration and decision-making, and a lack of volunteer labour (LFMC, 1991: 7-10), which emerged at the LFMC Retreat in November 1990. (LFMC, 1990c: 4, 8-12)

The Distribution report largely reiterates that of the December Newsletter (LFMC, 1990c: 5), except that this year’s success in increasing rentals and income is credited to the “new ‘active’ distribution policy”, the self-financed Summer Festival has generated increased bookings; and £10,000 is needed to print the Catalogue. The Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) has declined to contribute, and the British Film Institute (BFI) “doubt[s] the catalogue’s effectiveness in marketing terms,” though money may be available next year. Members are asked for any fundraising ideas (LFMC, 1991: 2). The new £10 distribution membership fee will go towards the printing costs. (LFMC, 1991: 5) (Heslop, 1991: 5)

The relocation project to house LFMC and London Video Access (LVA) in joint premises has proceeded to Stage 2, the securing of a building and relocation. The Half Moon Theatre (Stepney), which was investigated by the BFI’s consultants, Relocation Project Management (RPM), has been sold to a video company. The Diorama building does not allow LFMC enough space and is too expensive. Buildings have been identified in Hoxton Square and Islington, and the BFI have accepted that LFMC’s revenue grant will have to increase to meet rent in any new building. (LFMC, 1991: 6)

Due to illness, Cinema Organiser Kathleen Maitland-Carter’s written report is read in her absence. The Cinema Programme has been redesigned and the printers changed, which should lead to a more readable programme available on time. The largest ever ACGB grant to LFMC for London Film Festival (LFF) screenings allowed an expansion of activity to 12 events and the largest ever space ever attained in the LFF Catalogue. Screenings were well attended and many sold out. In response to questions from the floor, the Chair informs the meeting that the Executive Committee passed a no confidence vote against the Cinema Organiser in December, and an urgent Executive meeting will be held at which she can defend herself. A Cinema Committee forms to keep the cinema running in Maitland-Carter’s absence. (LFMC, 1991: 3-4) (Weiland, 1991a)

16 January 1991: London. In the continuing absence of and uncertainty surrounding London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) Cinema Organiser Kathleen Maitland-Carter, the new Cinema Committee meets to organise six programmes. The committee are displeased that they are not given detailed financial information, and that they are expected to work unpaid. Their counter-proposal, to be presented to the Executive Committee, is that the money from two of the post’s four days a week go to the programmer, and the rest to needed things, be that clearing the administrative backlog or equipment maintenance. (LFMC Cinema Committee, 1991a).

21 January 1991: London. London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) Executive Committee meet to consider arrangements for the Cinema in the absence of the Cinema Organiser, Kathleen Maitland-Carter, including a vote of no confidence in her. Maitland-Carter resigns ahead of the vote by phone from Canada.

Considering the minutes of the Cinema Committee meeting of 16 January (LFMC Cinema Committee, 1991a) and a list of points from them for urgent consideration (LFMC Cinema Committee, 1991b), the Executive rejects their proposal that some of the post’s pay go to programmers, moving that this would produce an “uncoordinated situation”, and that tending to the Cinema’s administrational backlog was beyond the Cinema Committee’s competence. The Executive vote that the Distribution Organisers, Tom Heslop and Tony Warcus, split the cinema post’s pay between them to coordinate the volunteer Cinema Committee and clear the cinema’s administrative backlog. The Executive also vote to advertise the vacant post immediately. (LFMC, 1991a) (LFMC, 1991b)

23 January 1991: London. Sandy Weiland (Administrator, London Filmmakers’ Co-operative/LFMC) writes to the LFMC Cinema Committee regarding the LFMC Executive Committee’s decisions of 21 January (LFMC, 1991a). Until the new Cinema Organiser is appointed, Distribution Organisers Tom Heslop and Tony Warcus will receive the post’s pay to clear its administrative backlog and undertake all bookings and publicity arrangements. The volunteer Cinema Committee will undertake programming within budget and contribute to the post’s job description. (Weiland, 1991a).

28 January 1991: London. Anna Thew (Cinema Committee, London Filmmakers’ Co-operative/LFMC), replies to Sandy Weiland’s (Administrator, LFMC) letter of 23 January (Weiland, 1991a), displeased that the Cinema Committee’s recommendations for the running of the cinema have been overridden by the Executive Committee. Thew reiterates that the Cinema Committee will not work unpaid, should be supplied with full financial information, and should handle the administrative backlog, rather than the Distribution Organisers. Thew further objects to the Executive Committee’s privileging cinema administration over its programming, staff from one section of the LFMC gaining influence in another, and casts aspersions on Weiland’s performance as administrator and commitment to co-operativity. She also expresses suspicion of the concept and practice of separating membership into ‘Core’ and ‘Access’ tiers, especially in the case of Distribution members. (Thew, 1991a).

28 January 1991: London. June I. Givanni (Programme Advisor, British Film Institute/BFI) writes to Circles concerning the BFI’s current updating of its Black and Asian Film and Video List, last compiled in 1987. She asks that they confirm the availability of works listed in 1987, and supply details of more recent acquisitions. (Givanni, 1991).

February 1991: London. London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) Distribution applies to the Artists’ Film and Video Committee of the Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) for £6,816.99 from the Regional Development Fund for a desktop publishing pack. They have also applied to the London Boroughs Grant Scheme (LBGS). The package would be used to improve the marketing of experimental film by reducing the cost of publicity materials, the LFMC catalogue, and produce promotional material aimed at broadcast sales. Since adopting a promotional distribution policy in December 1989, LFMC Distribution has been curating touring packages and special screenings, and the package would reduce the costs and extend the scope of publicising them. The package would also facilitate the constant updating of the ever-growing catalogue as a database. It would further reduce the costs of producing Cinema programmes and Workshop brochures. (Heslop, 1991: 4-6).

8 February 1991: London. Shorelle Cole (Publicity Consultant, Women’s Training Network/WTN) writes to Ian Christie (Head of Distribution, British Film Institute/BFI) regarding the significance of Circles and Cinema of Women (COW). WTN promotes women’s access to areas of work and training normally closed to them, and argues that

[c]inema, I’m sure you will agree, with its limited amount of places in film schools and virtual ban on women’s apprenticeships, is unfortunately guilty of this prejudice. The existence of the Cinema of Women and Circles is a testament of the reaction against this prejudice by the involvement in the making and distribution of films by women that would otherwise go unnoticed. (Cole, 1990: 2)

As some centres within WTN are now offering video and filmmaking courses, it would be “shameful” if the students could not be referred to distributors “because of the BFI’s threat of jeopardy.” (Cole, 1990: 2)

12 February 1991: London. The London Rape Crisis Campaign Group writes to Circles regarding the London Boroughs Grant Unit’s (LBGU) withdrawal of funding from the London Rape Crisis Centre. They ask that Circles write to LBGU to protest this. (London Rape Crisis Campaign Group, 1990).

18 February 1991: London. Ian Christie (Head of Distribution, British Film Institute/BFI) writes to Abina Manning (Cinema of Women/COW) and Sarah Bratby (Circles), noting the continued delay in developing their Business Plan for a single merged company from Bratby’s feasibility study. This suggests that it is highly unlikely that such a plan will be ready for 1 April, as intended, but as it is less than two weeks until Direct Grants are announced, he needs an idea of how much money to reserve in the hope that a viable business plan emerges. It is still the case that a sum equal to Circles and COW’s combined grants will be available to the new group as the first of three reducing grants, but Christie suggests that, as both groups have likely been weakened by the previous year, they should develop an emergency plan to radically cut costs and re-group. He suggests they contact Tony Kirkhope (Metro Pictures, The Other Cinema/TOC) for advice due to his extensive experience of adversity, and BFI will pay him as a consultant to talk to them. (Christie, 1991a: 1-2).

February 1991: Circles and Cinema of Women (COW) jointly publish Take Two Business Plan: Proposed Merger Between Cinema of Women and Circles. The plan is the result of a British Film Institute (BFI) funded consultancy, undertaken by employees of Circles and COW, following the BFI's announcement in May 1990 that the Institute would be making substantial cuts in the future funding it could offer both organisations. The consultancy includes a proposed new structure for merging Circles and COW into 'one single body', potential markets for the new organisation and financial forecasts. (Circles-COW, 1991).

19 February 1991: London. Abina Manning (Cinema of Women/COW) writes to Irene Whitehead (Head of Planning, British Film Institute/BFI), apologising that the COW and Circles’ executives were unable to meet on 18 February to approve the Business Plan due to public transport disruption. The meeting is now scheduled for 25 February (Manning, 1990a). She writes to Ian Christie (Head of Distribution, BFI) that, though the plan itself has been much altered, the budget projections for the coming four years are substantially unchanged. (Manning, 1990b).

March 1991: British Film Institute (BFI) Governors decide to investigate the possibility of setting up a new, independent Film and Video Development Agency in London as an alternative to transferring their current funding of Greater London Arts (GLA) to the new London Arts Board (LAB). (BFI, 1991: 1).

9 March 1991: London. Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) of the London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) elects a new Executive Committee (LFMC Building Committee, 1991: 3). The meeting also revisits the controversy surrounding ‘Core’ and ‘Access’ membership, the function and competencies of the Executive Committee, and staff selection procedures (LFMC, 1991c). Procedures are altered to invest the Executive with responsibility for staff selection, which, under Charity Law, effectively prevents staff from participating in the Executive Committee. (Lugg, 1991a: 1, 4).

10 March 1991: London. Circles staff meet with Tony Kirkhope (Metro Pictures, The Other Cinema/TOC) at the suggestion of Ian Christie (Head of Distribution, British Film Institute/BFI), for advice on their merger with Cinema of Women (COW) and dealing with the austerity the new organisation will face. Kirkhope had been sounded out by Christie and Wilf Stevenson (Director, BFI), though their only specific suggestions were consultancy advice and that he offer them space for the new organisation in his Wardour Street building. Kirkhope suggests that he may be able to negotiate between the parties, though the situation is difficult. He believes that some within the BFI do not want Christie to continue supporting Circles and COW, and would be happy to see the merger fail. Although the Wardour Street office space would be £8,000 more than Circles’ current Roman Road office, which will house the merged organisation, Kirkhope argues that this could be balanced by increased trade from a higher profile and that the BFI might be persuaded to fund the initial costs. Kirkhope also guarantees that he does not intend to take the new group over. The new group will only have two staff members, and will outsource dispatch to Glenbuck for the time being, though the prohibitive expense of this makes finding an alternative a priority. Kirkhope’s general offer of help will be taken to the executive. (Circles, 1991: 1-2).

14 March 1991: London. Circles and Cinema of Women (COW) staff meet with British Film Institute (BFI) staff to consider their current business plan for a merged single women’s distributor, Take Two. BFI staff insist that Take Two inherit no debts, and that it must run on minimum costs in its first year. (COW, 1991a: 2).

17 March 1991: London. Ian Christie (Head of Distribution, British Film Institute/BFI) suggests to Circles and Cinema of Women (COW) staff that, if their new merged company Take Two can survive its first year of austerity, the BFI will enter into a three-year funding plan, but the amounts will be much less than are in Take Two’s current business plan. (COW, 1991a: 2).

18 March 1991: London. Cinema of Women (COW) staff revise the budget for the first year of the new company Take Two, a merger of themselves and Circles. In response to British Film institute (BFI) feedback, this is based on lower sums than their previous business plan, but:

It would seem desirable to continue distributing our titles in some form in the hopeful knowledge that the financial, funding and political situation will not remain as at present, and that Take Two will be able to win itself a secure footing. (COW, 1991a: 2)

This budget gives £67,288 as the year’s income, £38,189 as Circles and COW’s wind up cost, £4000 as the cost of Take Two’s launch, and £16,200 as its first year’s running expenses, minus salaries. It leaves only £8,899 for salaries, which is not enough to pay staff in either the one and half or two workers plans. This problem could be covered with a television sale, convincing filmmakers to delay royalty claims, or additional fundraising. The year’s income is based on £45,000 from the BFI, and Circles and COW’s previous distribution incomes, minus the 35% payable to the BFI subsidiary Glenbuck for dispatch services. (COW, 1991a: 2-6)

22 March 1991: London. Circles prepare another budget for the first year of Take Two, to be formed out of their merger with Cinema of Women (COW). While similar to COW’s 18 March budget, income is up from Glenbuck reducing its cut of their distribution income to 30%, while wind up costs are down by only winding COW up and continuing to “float Circles’ debts”. This finds the extra money needed to set salaries at £25,000, covering a full time marketing coordinator, and part time fundraiser and bookkeeper. (Circles-COW, 1991a: 1, 7, 9).

25 March 1991: London. Circles and Cinema of Women (COW) submit their revised budget for their planned successor company, Take Two, to Ian Christie (Head of Distribution, British Film Institute/BFI) and Irene Whitehead (Head of Planning, BFI). This is a slightly revised version of Circles’ budget of 22 March that builds the paying of Circles’ debts into the merger, leaving an £8,570 deficit for the year. The groups do not see this as preventative, as some of these debts may be written off (such as the £346 owed the BFI for “un-licensed distribution of Maya Deren films”, and the £1,900 National Insurance debt), while Inland Revenue might agree to negotiate repayment over several years, royalties might be delayed, and extra income might emerge from a television sale or further fundraising (Circles-COW, 1991a: 2-3) (Circles-COW, 1991b: 1, 7). The budget also foresees COW staff remaining in their posts until 17 May to organise the wind up and transfer (Circles-COW, 1991b: 2). Staff roles are a marketing officer (3 days a week), business administrator (including fundraising, 4 days a week), and a bookkeeper (2 days a month). (Circles-COW, 1991b: 3-5)

Christie and Whitehead confirm in writing their support for the budget and willingness to contribute the £45,000 assumed in the model – £30,000 from Direct Grants (from Distribution) and £15,000 from the Development Fund (from Planning), so long as the budget is balanced to eliminate the deficit, COW redundancy payments are brought down from £10,950 to £8,356 and the payments to COW staff up to 17 May are scrapped, independent advice on Circles’ debts is received, and the re-launch costs are brought down from £3,700 to £2,000. They conversely urge the groups to forego the economy of Circles’ Tower Hamlets office space for The Other Cinema’s (TOC) offer of Soho accommodation. While this would costs the company £8,000 a year more, Christie and Whitehead “consider this the best location and strongly urge you to budget accordingly.” (Christie, 1991b: 1-2)

28 March 1991: London. Abina Manning and Jenny Shabbaz Wallace (Cinema of Women/COW) meet with the British Film Institute (BFI) staff, and later with Liane Harris, Sarah Bratby and Gill Henderson (Circles). They agree on the strategy to be adopted in addressing the BFI’s continuing objections to the proposed budget, the revisions to which Harris and Bratby will undertake. (Manning, 1991b: 1).

3 April 1991: London. Abina Manning (Cinema of Women/COW) sends Liane Harris and Sarah Bratby (Circles) a further strategy to meet the British Film Institute’s (BFI) budgetary requirements for funding the companies’ merger to form Take Two. She has reduced the rent to £2,000, as the company will now occupy only one of Circles’ rooms, suggests deferring half of the royalty payments until the following year, negotiate spreading the National Insurance and Inland Revenue debts over three years, and reducing the launch costs to £2,000. Without reducing the cost of COW’s wind up, this budget puts the company £1,334 in surplus. (Manning, 1991a: 1-2).

9 April 1991: London. Cinema of Women (COW) receives Liane Harris and Sarah Bratby’s (Circles) revised budget for their merger to form Take Two. (Manning, 1991b).

19 April 1991: London. Ian Christie (Head of Distribution, British Film Institute/BFI) and Irene Whitehead (Head of Planning, BFI) write to Sarah Bratby and Lianne Harris (Circles), accepting their revised budget and awarding them £30,000 to found “the new distribution organisation (working title “Take Two”)” (Christie, 1991c: 1). This is subject to their providing quarterly accounts and urgently pursuing charity status, including purging their Management Committee of possible conflicts of interest. Further, there will be a full assessment of the new organisation in December 1991, after which any continuation of funding and its level will be determined (Christie, 1991c: 1). Under pressure from Christie and Whitehead, Circles has dropped their projection of a 20% rise in distribution income from Circles and Cinema of Women’s (COW) combined collections. However, the projected distribution income is still based on Take Two’s inheriting both distributors’ collections. (Circles, 1991: 1) (Circles-COW, 1991a: 6) (Henderson, 1991a: 1).

22 April 1991: London. Irene Whitehead (Head of Planning, British Film Institute/BFI) writes to Cinema of Women (COW), offering them £15,000 to liquidate solvently. This is substantially less than COW’s estimates of the cost, but in line with Whitehead and Ian Christie’s (Head of Distribution, BFI) stated preference on 25 March (Christie, 1991b: 1) (Circles-COW, 1991b: 2) (Manning, 1991b: 2). One of the costs not covered is wages for COW staff until 17 May, which had been intended by COW to facilitate the orderly wind up of the company and transfer of its assets to Take Two, including “setting up workable office systems alongside future workers and giving those workers training and induction if necessary.” (COW, 1991a: 4) (Circles-COW, 1991b: 2)

Whitehead’s letter also indicates that Circles have been awarded £30,000 to form the new women’s distributor Take Two, which until 9 April was to have been formed out of a merger of Circles and COW. COW staff ring Circles and are able to talk to staff for the first time since 9 April. They learn from Liane Harris that, at the BFI’s request, Circles revised the Take Two budget after 9 April. (Manning, 1991b)

23 April 1991: London. Liane Harris and Sarah Bratby (Circles) write to Irene Whitehead (Planning, British Film Institute/BFI) and Ian Christie (Head of Distribution, BFI), accepting their grant offer of £30,000 for the new Women’s distributor, Take Two (Christie, 1991c: 1). They thank Whitehead and Christie for “all the goodwill the BFI has extended towards us during 1990”, and “look forward to your continued support during this very crucial year.” (Harris, 1991a)

Abina Manning and Jenny Shabbaz Wallace (Cinema of Women/COW) write to the Circles Management Committee, querying why Circles, their erstwhile ally, has refused to take their calls or pass on information about developments since 9 April. COW have had no new information from anyone since then, when the plan had been to form joint merged successor company, Take Two, including six-week period in which COW staff would transfer their assets and skills to the new company based at Circles’ offices. The situation now is that Circles has received the £30,000 BFI grant to found a new Women’s distributor, and COW has received £15,000 to wind up solvently (Manning, 1991b).

Joy Wong (Planning, BFI) writes to COW, asking that their files be ready for collection and transfer to Circles on 3 May. (Wong, 1991)

April 1991: London. Liane Harris and Sarah Bratby (Circles) write to Circles filmmakers, announcing that “after a year of crisis,” the British Film Institute (BFI) “formally announced it would continue to support Circles as a new organisation” (Harris, 1991b: 1). This crisis was precipitated by the BFI cutting Circles’ grant from £23,000 to £9,000 in May 1990, putting Circles on the point of collapse and forcing them to embark on a campaign to save themselves and the principles of women’s distribution. The BFI then commissioned a consultancy to merge Circles with Cinema of Women (COW), which developed projects such as retail video sales, but was turned down by the BFI as too expensive. After more negotiations, the BFI determined to support Circles’ survival as a new organisation, and to close COW. The new organisation, working title ‘Olivia Pictures’, is negotiating the acquisition of COW’s catalogue to “ensure a solid and combined basis from which the company can emerge,” and to work towards fulfilling the BFI grant condition that the new company become financially independent. (Harris, 1991b: 1)

The new company will concentrate on “marketing and promotion,” and will outsource dispatch to a dispatch agency to concentrate on this. An Annual General Meeting (AGM) has been called for 25 May, where the name change can be ratified and management committee membership adjusted to facilitate the application for charitable status. Royalties for 1989/90 will soon be calculated and disbursed, and those for 1990/91 soon thereafter. (Harris, 1991b)

30 April 1991: London. Gill Henderson (Circles) responds to Abina Manning and Jenny Shabbaz Wallace’s (Cinema of Women/COW) letter of 23 April (Manning, 1991b), explaining the events that took place without COW’s knowledge 9-22 April. After 9 April the British Film Institute (BFI) contacted Circles staff and asked them to produce another budget containing more realistic income figures and excluding windup costs for COW. Circles staff were further directed not to communicate with COW, or the entire funding package would be jeopardised. The BFI were to communicate with COW directly regarding their continuing dissatisfaction with COW redundancy entitlements. When Circles staff determined to write to COW anyway, “further phone calls from women involved in the negotiations at the BFI stressed their anxiety about the delicacy of the situation and we were again asked not to contact you” (Henderson, 1991a: 1). Henderson now considers that the BFI had made its decision, and would not have changed it had Circles contacted COW, but that this has now “damaged the partnership between Circles and Cinema of Women, at the very time when we can actually start doing something about our primary objective of keeping women’s work in distribution” (Henderson, 1991a: 1-2). She hopes that, despite the “Machiavellian dealings of the last few weeks” COW will continue to support the new company at this crucial time. (Henderson, 1991a: 2).

1 May 1991: London. Liane Harris and Sarah Bratby (Circles) reply to Abina Manning and Jenny Shabbaz Wallace’s (Cinema of Women/COW) letter of 23 April (Manning, 1991b), following up Gill Henderson’s of 30 April (Henderson, 1991a). They include the cash flow for the new company as requested, and note that the only changes to the last one seen by COW are that distribution income has been reduced and repayments to creditors increased. She reiterates Henderson’s account, adding that “it appeared that the BFI had suddenly reviewed its policy […and] that if we acted outside the BFI’s ‘new’ policy, we would be jeopardising the possibility of funding for both COW and Circles” (Harris, 1991c). Circles are busy moving into a single office, and their films have been sent to Glenbuck for dispatch. The launch of the new company is scheduled for July, and it will focus on marketing and promotion, working on retail video sales and reviewing other ideas from the business plan developed by Circles and COW (Circles-COW, 1991). They will wait for COW's advice regarding the future of COW’s films. (Harris, 1991c).

3 May 1991: London. Abina Manning (Cinema of Women/COW) replies to Gill Henderson’s (Circles) letter of 30 April (Henderson, 1991a), regarding the failed merger between Circles and COW. Manning expresses disappointment that, when pressured by the British Film Institute (BFI), Circles failed to maintain the united front with COW that the two had developed over the previous year’s campaign. Manning reiterates her request for the final budget for the new company that Circles submitted to the BFI, and asks what this company will now be called. COW’s Annual General Meeting (AGM) has been called for 9 May, and this information is needed for consideration there. (Manning, 1991c).

8 May 1991: London. London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) staff call an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) of the membership for 2 June, seeking to overturn the decisions of the EGM of 9 March, which has subjected them to “line management” by preventing their participation in the Executive Committee. They seek a return to the proposals submitted to the Annual General Meeting (AGM) of 12 January (LFMC, 1990c: 4, 8-12), which would substantially diminish the powers of the Executive and limit them to four meetings a year, or the restoration of the old system where staff were elected by the membership and allowed to participate in the Executive. They further charge the Executive elected at the 9 March EGM with intimidation, incompetence, and undermining the ability of the staff to negotiate with outside bodies, such as funders. They propose disciplinary procedures be designed to punish harassment, penalties to include removal from office and rescinding of membership. (LFMC (Staff), 1991).

9 May 1991: London. London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) Executive Committee meeting receives a report from Administrator Sandy Weiland on the search for premises to relocate LFMC and London Video Access (LVA), and house the British Film Institute’s (BFI) proposed Film and Video Development Agency. Four sites are under consideration by the BFI’s property consultants, Relocation Project Management (RPM): Dagmar Terrace, Portobello Road and two in Camden. There are other parties interested in the first two, but Weiland reports that the property developer and BFI now wish to move fast, especially the latter, which needs to house its new agency. (LFMC, 1991d: 4).

9 May 1991: London. Annual General Meeting (AGM) of Cinema of Women (COW) considers their situation in light of the failed British Film Institute (BFI) initiative to merge it with Circles to form a single women’s distributor. In the absence of funding to continue, they decide to close down, using funding supplied by the BFI for that purpose. (Manning, 1991c) (COW, 1991b: 1).

May 1991: London. Martin Lugg (Executive Committee, London Filmmakers’ Co-operative/LFMC) writes to the membership regarding the upcoming Extraordinary General Meeting called by staff for 2 June (LFMC (Staff), 1991). Lugg explicates the past and present internal structure of the LFMC, and that staff cannot now participate in the Executive as the Executive now selects staff. He also asserts that the increase in staff numbers over the previous decade has had a negative impact on the Executive’s functioning, leading to a decrease in non-staff participation and a skewing of LFMC's policy direction. Lugg attributes the drop in volunteerism, regulation of ‘Core’ membership by staff, and the abolition of staff election by membership to this. (Lugg, 1991a).

16 May 1991: London. London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) staff members view the Dunn and Co. building, Camden, which has been identified by the British Film Institute’s (BFI) property consultants Relocation Project Management (RPM) as suitable for co-habitation with London Video Access (LVA). (LFMC Building Committee, 1991: 3).

17 May 1991: London. Irene Whitehead (Head of Planning, British Film Institute/BFI) sends a discussion document to London region clients regarding the BFI’s future options for delivering funding in the region (BFI, 1991). The BFI’s Governors are considering not transferring their current endowment of Greater London Arts (GLA) to the new London Arts Board (LAB), but instead creating a new Development Agency to fund the region. This idea is now at the consultation stage, and comments and suggestions are invited until 26 July. (Whitehead, 1991a) (BFI, 1991: 4)

Anthony Everitt (Secretary General, Arts Council of Great Britain/ACGB) writes to Wilf Stevenson (Director, BFI) to enquire about the current BFI consultation on the desirability of a Film and Video Agency for London. Everitt is curious as to whether creating Media Development Agencies is the BFI’s preferred approach to regional provision as a whole. (Stevenson, 1991)

17 May 1991: London. Cinema of Women (COW) writes to its filmmakers to announce that it will close its office that day. Their dispatch agency Glenbuck will continue to take bookings until 30 June, after which distribution rights will revert to the makers. COW had been working with Circles and the British Film Institute (BFI) to found a new women’s distributor by merging the two companies, and had agreed that COW's

catalogue of work would be assigned to the new Company, thus safeguarding [its] availability […]. However, in late April, without prior warning, merger proceedings were regrettably halted by the BFI and Circles, very much to our surprise and dismay.

To date, despite repeated requests from us, Circles have not reached any firm decision regarding acquisition of the Cinema of Women catalogue of work. (COW, 1991b: 1)

While noting that Circles may wish to acquire work after 30 June, COW sends filmmakers a list of alternative distribution outlets, including Albany Video Distribution, Artificial Eye, Concord, Glenbuck Films, London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) and London Video Access (LVA). COW apologises for the short notice, and thanks filmmakers for their work and support. Royalties to 31 March 1991 are enclosed. (COW, 1991b: 2)

23 May 1991: London. Executive Committee meeting of the London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC), at which staff do not inform the Executive about the Dunn and Co. building, Camden, which has been identified by the British Film Institute’s (BFI) property consultants Relocation Project Management (RPM) as suitable for co-habitation with London Video Access (LVA). (LFMC Building Committee, 1991: 3).

31 May 1991: London Wilf Stevenson (Director, British Film Institute/BFI) replies to Anthony Everitt’s (Secretary General, Arts Council of Great Britain/ACGB) letter of 17 May, confirming that the BFI will consult widely on the desirability of founding a Film and Video Agency in London, as an alternative to transferring its funding of Greater London Arts (GLA) to the new London Arts Board (LAB). The consultation will end in August, ahead of the BFI Governors meeting of September, where a decision will be made. He confirms also that the Agency would be happy to work with the LAB to develop broadcast opportunities. Stevenson denies that he thinks the Media Development Agency (MDA), already pursued in Birmingham, Sheffield and Newcastle, provides a model for the entire country and insists he has an open mind and is willing to work with Regional Arts Boards so long as they can deliver on BFI’s aims and objectives in the regions. (Stevenson, 1991).

2 June 1991: London. Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) of the London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC), called by staff to address their relative marginalisation since the 9 March EGM (LFMC (Staff), 1991). Membership votes to restore staff voting rights in the Executive Committee, but not to transfer existing Executive powers to staff, or to restrict the Executive to general policy formation and four meetings a year.

Staff do not inform the membership about the Dunn and Co. building, Camden, which has been identified by the British Film Institute’s (BFI) property consultants Relocation Project Management (RPM) as suitable for co-habitation with London Video Access (LVA). (LFMC Building Committee, 1991: 3)

12 June 1991: London. David Curtis (Film and Video Officer, Arts Council of Great Britain/ACGB) writes to Rodney Wilson (Director, Film, Video and Broadcasting, ACGB) responding to Wilf Stevenson’s (Director, British Film Institute/BFI) letter of 31 May regarding the possibility of a Media Development Agency in London (Stevenson, 1991). Curtis disputes Stevenson’s apparent idea that the BFI’s founding of a separate regional funder for London would allow the ACGB and BFI, through their regional bodies, to concentrate on Arts broadcasting initiatives and everything else, respectively. The Media Development Agency (MDA) model, as developed in Birmingham, Sheffield and Newcastle, involves partnership with the local Regional Arts Board (RAB), which continues to disburse workshop and production funding while the MDA promotes wider audio-visual industry development. Stevenson’s plan to pass the BFI’s funding of Greater London Arts (GLA) to a London Media Development Agency would create a different situation, one where the possibility of the ACGB and BFI jointly ‘owning’ and assessing clients through their co-funding of an RAB is disrupted. (Curtis, 1991).

13 June 1991: London. Executive Committee meeting of the London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC), at which Administrator Sandy Weiland informs the Executive that the British Film Institute’s (BFI) property consultants, Relocation Project Management (RPM), have identified the Dunn and Co. building, Camden, as suitable for co-habitation with London Video Access (LVA). Weiland further informs the Executive that LFMC must sign up to the building by the end of the month. (LFMC Building Committee, 1991: 3).

3 July 1991: London. Executive Committee of the London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) views the Dunn and Co. building, Camden, identified by the British Film Institute’s (BFI) property consultants, Relocation Project Management (RPM) as suitable for co-habitation with London Video Access (LVA). The Executive express strong reservations to RPM about the suitability of the prospective cinema space, disabled access, and the amount of conversion the building requires. (LFMC Building Committee, 1991: 3).

10 July 1991: London. Emergency Executive Committee meeting of the London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) views plans of the Dunn and Co. building, Camden, which has been identified by the British Film Institute’s (BFI) property consultants Relocation Project Management (RPM) as suitable for co-habitation with London Video Access (LVA). Controversy arises over the size and inflexibility of the cinema space, leading to curiosity regarding the BFI’s possible reaction to LFMC rejecting the building, and its commitment to funding both the extensive building alterations necessary and the tenfold increase in LFMC’s rent over the 25 year lease term. A Building Committee is formed, and the Executive’s concerns will be relayed to Irene Whitehead (Head of Planning, BFI). (LFMC, 1991: 1) (LFMC Building Committee, 1991: 3).

18 July 1991: London. Executive Committee meeting of the London Filmmakers’ Co-operative, attended by Irene Whitehead (Head of Planning, British Film Institute/BFI), Ian Christie (Head of Exhibition and Distribution, BFI), Jim Pines (Planning, BFI), David Curtis (Arts Council of Great Britain/ACGB) and the BFI’s property consultants Relocation Project Management (RPM). In response to the Executive’s concerns regarding the Dunn and Co. Building, Camden, identified by RPM as suitable for co-habitation with London Video Access (LVA), Christie notes the size of the BFI’s current revenue commitment to LFMC, calls for better communication between staff and executive, and stresses that “the new building should not stretch the financial state of the Co-op, nor change the Co-op itself.” Whitehead details that the BFI will pay LFMC and LVA’s new rent, that the building will house the proposed Media Development Agency for London, and that the owners have committed £375,000 for refurbishment. She also notes that BFI has spent £20,000 on the already long property search, and will not pay any more to consider any other building. (LFMC, 1991: 1)

The Executive reiterate their concerns of 10 July: how would rejection effect BFI’s funding commitment? Whitehead: it would decline (LFMC, 1991: 2); Christie: current relocation money is connected to the more general deal, and so would be lost to LFMC, while an adjustment to LFMC revenue funding is overdue in any case (LFMC, 1991: 4). Has the building conversion been costed and would more money be available from the BFI? No and no. (LFMC, 1991: 2)

Noting that they had only been informed of the building two weeks ago, and still lacked substantive information about it, the Executive seeks to delay taking a decision for a week. BFI representatives stress that the Dunn and Co. project will proceed with or without LFMC, that the lease must be signed soon lest the building be lost, and that negotiations have been ongoing with staff for months (LFMC, 1991: 3). The Executive votes (1) not to delay a decision; (2) that the cinema space is unsuited to LFMC practice; and (3) to proceed to Stage 2 of the relocation project with the Dunn and Co. building, with the majority appending that “The above decision, taken by the executive, concerning the Dunn&Co building, was taken under great pressure, and the BFI should be aware of that.” (LFMC, 1991: 5)

19 July 1991: London. Martin Lugg (London Filmmakers’ Co-operative/LFMC Building Committee) receives details of a building in Saffron Hill, Clerkenwell, from the British Film Institute’s (BFI) property consultants, Relocation Project Management (RPM). (LFMC Building Committee, 1991: 4).

23 July 1991: London. Emergency Executive Committee meeting of the London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) composes a response to the 18 July meeting with British Film Institute (BFI) representatives (LFMC, 1991), relaying both the vote in favour of progressing with the Dunn and Co. building and a much longer list of reservations and requirements regarding the prospective cinema space there. The Executive is anxious that the conversion of the building will outstrip the funds presently committed, and “strongly urge the BFI to insist upon clear and accurate costing.” (Lugg, 1991b) (LFMC Building Committee, 1991: 4)

The meeting votes to put Administrator Sandy Weiland under review. Either: the meeting was initially called as a Building Committee meeting, without staff being informed it would become a Emergency Executive meeting (Weiland, 1991c) (Weiland not attending as she had been asked to stand down from the Building Committee) (Weiland, 1991d), or the calling of the meeting was discussed at the 18 July meeting, at which staff were present. (Lugg, 1991f)

26 July 1991: London. Deadline for responses to the British Film Institute’s (BFI) proposal to create a Film and Video Development Agency for the London region, as an alternative to transferring their existing funding from Greater London Arts (GLA) to the new London Arts Board (LAB). (BFI, 1991: 4).

30 July 1991: London. London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) Building Committee views an alternative building, Saffron Hill, Clerkenwell. They contact Jim Pines (Planning, British Film Institute/BFI). (LFMC Building Committee, 1991: 4).

31 July 1991: London. 23 members of the London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) and London Video Access (LVA), along with Jim Pines (Planning, British Film Institute/BFI) and David Curtis (Arts Council of Great Britain/ACGB) visit the Saffron Hill building. The assembled express a preference for the building over that currently chosen for LFMC and LVA’s relocation. (LFMC Building Committee, 1991: 4).

1 August 1991: London. London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) Building Committee writes a comparative analysis of the Dunn and Co. building, Camden, favoured by the British Film Institute (BFI) for the relocation of LFMC and London Video Access (LVA) and the creation of a London Media Development Agency, and the Saffron Hill building which they favour. Saffron Hill’s annual rent is more than £30,000 less than Dunn and Co.’s, and it does not need major conversion. The Building Committee estimate that this will save the BFI £284,090 over the first five years of occupancy (LFMC Building Committee, 1991b). They send an urgent fax to Jim Pines (Planning, BFI), advising this and stressing that the building itself is already more suitable for its planned use than Dunn and Co. is likely to be after conversion. The cinema space is well suited to LFMC practice, there is a rooftop terrace for open air screenings, good disabled access, and a basement suitable for darkroom and film storage. (LFMC Building Committee, 1991a).

6 August 1991: London. Doug Foot (London Video Access/LVA) faxes Irene Whitehead (Head of Planning, British Film Institute/BFI), advising that, unless the BFI’s property consultants Relocation Project Management (LVA) supply an alternative scenario quickly, he will begin negotiations for short-term accommodation at Saffron Hill. LVA must leave their current premises by 14 October. (Foot, 1991)

Anna Thew (London Filmmakers’ Co-operative/LFMC Executive Committee) faxes the agent for the Saffron Hill building checking particulars. (Thew, 1991b)

Sandy Weiland (LFMC Administrator) writes to Irene Whitehead, reporting that LFMC Executive Committee, Building Committee, staff and members have viewed and strongly prefer the Saffron Hill building. She further reports that LVA staff are interested and David Curtis (Arts Council of Great Britain/ACGB) is supportive. She asks for a meeting with the BFI as soon as possible. (Weiland, 1991b)

Whitehead writes to Martin Lugg (LFMC Building Committee), expressing confusion and concern over the pursuit of the Saffron Hill option given that the LFMC Executive Committee already voted to occupy Dunn and Co. on 18 July (LFMC, 1991: 5). BFI have acted on that vote, committing money to further negotiations and new plans for the cinema space there. She disputes the LFMC Building Committee’s estimation of the Saffron Hill building, and encloses property consultants Relocation Project Management’s (RPM) negative report on the subject (Harrison, 1991). Consequently, Saffron Hill will not be further considered. Whitehead questions Lugg’s actions and how representative the Building Committee is of LFMC interests. (Whitehead, 1991b)

One of RPM’s numerous criticisms of the Saffron Hill option is that, unlike Dunn and Co., there is no rent capping arrangement, so occupancy costs may rise substantially after the first rent review. (Harrison, 1991: 4)

8 August 1991: London. Anna Thew (London Filmmakers’ Co-operative/LFMC Executive Committee) writes to Irene Whitehead (Head of Planning, British Film Institute/BFI), reporting improvements in the Saffron Hill offer. The head leaseholders are now willing to allow the BFI to replace the secondary leaseholder, make that lease as long as desired, shift the first rent review back to seven years, and cap the allowable rent increases. (Thew, 1991c)

LFMC and London Video Access (LVA) building committees and administration meet to discuss the BFI’s property consultants Relocation Project Management’s (RPM) negative report on the Saffron Hill building. They are surprised with the depth of financial information presented, which is far more than they have been told about the BFI’s preferred building, Dunn and Co. (Lugg, 1991c)

LFMC Executive Committee meets and reads Sandy Weiland’s (LFMC Administrator) letter of 8 August, and the resignation letter of Executive Committee member Christian Anstice. (Lugg, 1991f)

9 August 1991: London. Martin Lugg (London Filmmakers’ Co-operative/LFMC Building Committee) writes to Irene Whitehead (Head of Planning, British Film Institute/BFI) requesting details of the financial estimates used by the BFI’s property consultants Relocation Project Management (RPM) in formulating their preference for the Dunn and Co. building over Saffron Hill. In particular he asks for estimated building conversion costs, rent at occupation and after the first review, rates, service charges, timescale to occupation and planned contingency measures in the event of cost overruns. (Lugg, 1991c)

Anna Thew (LFMC Executive Committee) sends Whitehead a revised comparison between the Dunn and Co. and Saffron Hill buildings which uses (under protest) the cost estimates for Saffron Hill supplied by RPM. In this analysis Saffron Hill still emerges with cheaper rent over the first 10 years, substantially cheaper conversion costs, and more suitable as a location. Camden Council has also informed that no new planning permissions are needed for Saffron Hill, unlike Dunn and Co. (Thew, 1991d)

12 August 1991: London. Anna Thew (London Filmmakers’ Co-operative/LFMC Executive Committee) writes to Irene Whitehead (Head of Planning, British Film Institute/BFI) reiterating that Camden Council have advised both that the Saffron Hill building requires no change in planning permission, and that they have yet to receive an application for such for the Dunn and Co. building, the last point directly contradicting the BFI’s property consultants Relocation Project Management’s (RPM) claims that planning permission is “well advanced”. Thew further criticises RPM’s position as biased and based on unsubstantiated information, reiterates that Saffron Hill will be simpler and cheaper to convert, and questions the wisdom of placing the largest collection of experimental film in Europe above restaurants and caterers in a wooden floored building, as would be the case at Dunn and Co. (Thew, 1991e)

Whitehead writes to Martin Lugg (LFMC Building Committee) thanking him for his recent correspondence and trouble taken, advising that, having reviewed the information available, the BFI will continue to negotiate the Dunn and Co. building. She asks that LFMC nominate a contact person to liase on the project, and stresses that further discussion must only be about the Dunn and Co. option. London Video Access (LVA) will also be asked to nominate a contact, and the BFI will represent the London Film and Video Development Agency (LFVDA), “the success of which is central to the whole project.” (Whitehead, 1991c)

14 August 1991: London. Martin Lugg (London Filmmakers’ Co-operative/LFMC Building Committee) writes to Irene Whitehead (Head of Planning, British Film Institute/BFI) conveying the Building Committee’s concern that, despite the information they have sent her in favour of the Saffron Hill building, and without her having supplied equivalents in support of the Dunn and Co. building, she has decided that LFMC must relocate to the latter despite their stated preference for the former. He also relays the Building Committee’s surprise that the needs of the London Film and Video Development Agency (LFVDA) are now stated as central to the choice of building, and requests clarification of its remit and relation to LFMC and London Video Access (LVA). He questions whether the BFI’s property consultants Relocation Project Management (RPM) ever actively investigated the Saffron Hill option, as their report used out of date information, seemed skewed against the building, and contained unsubstantiated assumptions since refuted by the Building Committee’s research. Lugg further argues that RPM’s current position contradicts the advice they gave at the outset of the joint relocation project, and cites sections of their letter of 14 January 1990 which describe a building, location and lease arrangement more like Saffron Hill than Dunn and Co. He asks for a response from the BFI to the Building Committee’s several letters of the last month, and a proper hearing for the Saffron Hill option. (Lugg, 1991d)

Lugg, Annabel Nicholson, Steve Farrer, Anna Thew and Ilias Pantos inform the LFMC Executive Committee in writing that the Building Committee recommends that the choice of building be brought before the membership at a General Meeting, citing the pressure under which the Executive vote of 18 July was taken (LFMC, 1991: 5), the information which has since emerged, that which has not, and the interests of the LFMC. (LFMC Building Committee, 1991c)

19 August 1991: London. Irene Whitehead (Head of Planning, British Film Institute/BFI) writes to Martin Lugg (London Filmmakers’ Co-operative/LFMC Building Committee) that the BFI gave due consideration to the Saffron Hill site before rejecting it. Given the impasse that has emerged, the BFI will continue with the Dunn and Co. development even without LFMC participation. However, Whitehead suggests a meeting on 23 August at which the BFI can explain their position to LFMC and London Video Access (LVA), and also the function of the London Film and Video Development Agency (LFVDA) in the development. (Whitehead, 1991d)

Lugg replies to LFMC Administrator Sandy Weiland’s letter of 6 August, advising that the Executive Committee may terminate her position after the review with or without notice. This is based on advice from the BFI Personnel Department and the National Council for Voluntary Organisations that Weiland has a right to know any material which comes up at her review. A copy of the letter is sent to Ian Christie (Head of Exhibition and Distribution, BFI). (Lugg, 1991f)

22 August 1991: London. Executive Committee meeting of the London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) votes to bring the decision to either move ahead with the Dunn and Co. building, preferred by the BFI, or not to the membership at a General Meeting. They also propose to raise the issue of returning to direct elections of staff at the meeting. (Thew, 1991f: 1).

23 August 1991: London. Irene Whitehead (Head of Planning, British Film Institute/BFI) writes to the London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) Executive Committee, expressing surprise at the tone of their 16 August letter and misreading of her letter of 6 August (Whitehead, 1991b). She reiterates that the LFMC Executive voted to move ahead with the Dunn and Co. building (LFMC, 1991: 5), and that reservations expressed about the cinema space are being acted on. She hopes that the 27 August meeting between themselves and London Video Access (LVA) will allow the project to progress. (Whitehead, 1991e).

24 August 1991: London. Martin Lugg (London Filmmakers’ Co-operative/LFMC Building Committee) compiles a detailed rejoinder to the British Film Institute’s (BFI) property consultants Relocation Project Management’s (RPM) negative report on the Saffron Hill building (Harrison, 1991). He charges that RPM have inflated the costs and overstated the complexity of the Saffron Hill option, whilst programmatically minimising those of the Dunn and Co. building. Criticism is based both on internal contradictions in the report and on information from the Saffron Hill agents and Camden Council. (Lugg, 1991e)

Anna Thew (LFMC Executive Committee) approaches Malcolm Le Grice and Peter Gidal to mediate with the BFI. (Thew, 1991f: 1)

27 August 1991: London. Delegations from London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) and London Video Access (LVA) meet with British Film Institute (BFI) staff to hear the BFI’s position on the joint relocation project and explanation of the proposed London Film and Video Development Agency’s (LFVDA) role therein (Whitehead, 1991e) (LFMC Building Committee, 1991: 5). The meeting does not dispel the controversy that has arisen over preferred sites, who chooses and why (Christie, 1991d). The LFMC Executive inform the BFI that the choice of building will be taken to the membership (Thew, 1991f: 1), and the BFI state that they will not proceed with the Dunn and Co. project without LFMC. (LFMC Building Committee, 1991: 5).

29 August 1991: London. Ian Christie (Head of Exhibition and Distribution, British Film Institute/BFI) writes to Martin Lugg (London Filmmakers’ Co-operative/LFMC Building Committee) to express his disappointment with their 27 August meeting. Christie suggests that the LFMC Executive’s push against the BFI’s preferred site for their relocation, the Dunn and Co. building, stems from constitutional problems within the LFMC. He complains of lack of stability in Executive membership, lack of an identifiable Chair, and ambiguity surrounding the relationship between the Executive, its sub-committees and staff. He objects to the number of Executive meetings held and lack of notice to the BFI of them, the latter violating the conditions of LFMC’s BFI funding. He questions whether the current Executive can “adequately represent the broad coalition of interests which the Co-op represents (and is funded to serve),” in particular the Cinema members, who have no vote. He insists that the Executive meet as soon as possible, giving adequate notice, elect a Chair to serve for a minimum of three months, and supply meeting minutes for the last six months. These are the “‘minimum requirements’ for the Co-op to continue as a major revenue client,” otherwise “the Co-op may be in no position to receive assistance for its eventual relocation.” (Christie, 1991d).

September 1991: London. Irene Whitehead (Planning, British Film Institute/BFI) submits a paper to the Board of Governors on the desirability of founding a Film and Video Agency for London, which is the outcome of a feasibility study carried out at the Governors’ request. The paper argues that London is the pre-eminent UK film and media city, that its needs and opportunities require that it be treated differently from other regions, and that it would benefit from being dealt with by a dedicated body, rather that along side other art forms in a Regional Arts Board (RAB). The demise of Greater London Arts (GLA) and its replacement by the London Arts Board (LAB) provides the opportunity to pursue this course. (Whitehead, 1991f: 1)

The London Film and Video Development Agency (LFVDA) would provide revenue and project development funding, but also develop links with other London regional sponsors and local authorities, persuading the latter to reinstate their support for film and video (Whitehead, 1991f: 2-3). The proposal includes the job description for the LFVDA’s Chief Officer, and a draft budget covering the next three years (Whitehead, 1991f: 6-7, 8-9). Figures for rent, rates and service in the budget are based on the assumption that the LFVDA will share premises with the London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) and London Video Access (LVA) and pay no rent. However, a rental figure has been included in contingency should that project fail to occur. (Whitehead, 1991f: 9)

10 September 1991: London. London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) Administrator Sandy Weiland writes to LFMC Executive Committee member Martin Lugg, questioning whether his suggestion that her position may be terminated without notice by the Executive is legal. She also challenges the constitutionality of the Executive meeting of 23 July, which put her under review, stating that she will not recognise the review until a constitutional meeting votes for it. (Weiland, 1991c).

11 September 1991: London. Martin Lugg (London Filmmakers’ Co-operative/LFMC Executive Committee) replies to Sandy Weiland’s (LFMC Administrator) letter of 10 September (Weiland, 1991c) explaining the progress of events since her position was put under review on 23 July and apologising for the delay. He argues his advice that the Executive may terminate her position without notice after the review comes from the BFI Personnel Department and the National Council for Voluntary Organisations. He disputes that LFMC staff were not informed of the 23 July meeting which voted for her review. (Lugg, 1991f).

12 September 1991: London. The London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) Executive Committee follows up its decision of 22 August to call an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) of the membership for 12 October to vote on how to proceed with the British Film Institute (BFI) lead relocation project. Members of the Executive and its Building Committee table an agenda proposing discussion of the LFMC’s needs, the nature of the proposed London Film and Video Development Agency (LFVDA) and its relation to London workshops, a framework allowing consultation between the affected groups, the LFMC’s future autonomy and the buildings proposed for relocation (LFMC, 1991). A Building Committee report on the rival buildings and developments to date will also be sent (LFMC Building Committee, 1991). Member Malcolm Le Grice tables an alternative motion that the EGM vote instead on the dissolution of the Executive. Either: the large minority supporting Le Grice’s motion lose the Executive vote (Thew, 1991f: 1), or there was “no consensus” on the Executive Committee (Gidal, 1991: 1). However, the mail-out to the membership does not contain the motion to dissolve the Executive.

14 September-12 October 1991: London, Tate Britain: 25 Years of British Avant-Garde Filmmaking. To celebrate the 25th Anniversary of the founding of the London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC), LFMC Distribution Organisers Tony Warcus and Tom Heslop programme 6 screenings of LFMC work at the Tate Britain Auditorium. Programmes are: Landscape Film; Individuals, Eccentrics and Dissenters; Structural Film and its Aftermath; Identities, Pluralities; Women Filmmakers; and Experimental Animation. (Warcus, 1991).

16 September 1991: London. Martin Lugg (London Filmmakers’ Co-operative/LFMC Building Committee) replies to Ian Christie’s (Head of Exhibition and Distribution, British Film Institute/BFI) letter of 29 August (Christie, 1991d), echoing his disappointment with their 27 August meeting and contesting his assertions that the LFMC Executive is incoherent in its structure and relations to membership, staff and subcommittees, and that it has rejected the Dunn and Co. building as the site for LFMC’s relocation. Lugg contends that the Executive has not rejected the Dunn and Co. building chosen by the BFI to rehouse them, but, due to reservations concerning “location, design of cinema space, time-scale, accessibility, lease information, conversion costs, rent etc.” and their preference for the Saffron Hill building, the decision is being put to the membership. Thus the Executive’s ‘reserved vote’ of 18 July to proceed with Dunn and Co. still stands. (LFMC, 1991: 5)

Lugg argues that membership of the Executive has been exceptionally stable since the new committee was elected on 9 March (LFMC, 1991c), it does have a notional chair who serves on a three month rolling basis (currently Mark Sheehan), sub-committees undertake research and make recommendations to the Executive, and staff are responsible to the Executive, have basic autonomy within their roles, but no authority to take decisions which affect the membership as a whole. Further, as a filmmakers’ co-operative, filmmakers can become members either by submitting a film for distribution or subscribing to the workshop, both of which confer voting rights, while membership of the Cinema confers no voting rights. Lugg nonetheless agrees with Christie that things could be better organised, but that the current Executive has been working towards this themselves. (Lugg, 1991g).

26 September 1991: London. The non-staff section of the London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) Executive Committee meets to discuss the review of Administrator Sandy Weiland. LFMC member and member of the Building Committee Ilias Pantos is asked to leave the meeting despite his wish, and right as a member, to discuss the review and its relation to the building crisis. (Pantos, 1991).

October 1991: London. Women’s film and video Distributor Circles re-launches itself as Cinenova at the Institute for Contemporary Arts (ICA) with the Celluloid Bodies screening series, and three-week engagement for Privilege (Yvonne Rainer, 1990, USA) (Cinenova, 1992d: 1). It also releases an interim catalogue. (Cinenova, 1992m: 5).

3 October 1991: London. London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) Administrator Sandy Weiland writes to the Executive Committee challenging the legitimacy of her review. She charges that both Executive meetings to vote on the subject, 23 July and 26 September, were called on short notice or under false pretences, excluding her and denying her the opportunity to state her case. She will not accept the review until it is voted by a full committee meeting. (Weiland, 1991d).

4 October 1991: London. A group of London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) members and Executive Committee members send a privately financed supplementary mail-out to the membership ahead of the 12 October Emergency General Meeting (EGM). The listed sponsors are: members Peter Gidal, Malcolm Le Grice, Mary Pat Leece, Alia Syed, Ilias Pantos, Philip Sanderson, and Philip Baker; staff Sandy Weiland, Tony Warcus, Tom Heslop, and Sarah Turner; and Executive Committee members Tanya Syed and Karen Smith. The sponsors contend that the 12 September mail-out (LFMC, 1991) (LFMC Building Committee, 1991) was made without the full knowledge or approval of the entire Executive and did not contain a proposal to dissolve the Executive (Gidal, 1991: 1). The supplementary mail-out also contains a letter from Malcolm Le Grice charging that the current Executive has brought the LFMC into disrepute and jeopardised its annual British Film Institute (BFI) grant (Gidal, 1991: 2), and a letter from Irene Whitehead (Head of Planning, BFI) detailing the BFI position. She reiterates that the BFI is offering LFMC only the Dunn and Co. building for its relocation, and will simply find another occupant if LFMC refuse. However, LFMC and London Video Access (LVA) would be given proper consultation in the design work, and offered five-year rolling subleases underneath the lease on the building taken by the new London Film and Video Development Agency (LFVDA). In particular, Whitehead assures that

The rental for the first three years for both the Co-op and LVA will be current rent + 5%. Subsequent years rental increases will take account of each organisations’ revenue generation. It does not make sense for the BFI to price either organisation out of existence. (Gidal, 1991: 3)

The sponsors’ rival agenda for the EGM proposes the dissolution of the Executive, ratification of its 18 July vote to occupy Dunn and Co., and the election of a new Executive. (Gidal, 1991: 2)

In a separate letter to the Executive Committee, Pantos complains of his unconstitutional ejection from the non-staff Executive Committee meeting of 26 September. He asks that the Executive affirm the rights of members to attend their meetings, and presents the points he would have made: the review of Weiland should not occur before the EGM, as both are related to the building crisis, which he charges is the political trigger for Weiland’s review. (Pantos, 1991)

10 October 1991: London. Executive Committee of the London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) meets to consider financial reports, chairing of the upcoming Extraordinary General Meeting, the 29 August letter from Ian Christie (Head of Exhibition and Distribution, British Film Institute/BFI) challenging the constitutional order and administrative functioning of the LFMC (Christie, 1991d), and further correspondence received on the review of Administrator Sandy Weiland. (LFMC, 1991a).

12 October 1991: London. Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) of the London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC). In view of the rival mail-outs to the membership and rival agendas therein (LFMC, 1991) (Gidal, 1991) and an open letter submitted on the day by Executive Committee member Anna Thew (Thew, 1991f), Chair Cordelia Swann proposes a new agenda combining the concerns of each by appending the motion for dissolution of the Executive to the end of a full consideration of the buildings available for relocation (Swann, 1991). After much rancour, the new agenda is accepted with the proviso that the dissolution of the Executive be voted on before the discussion of relocation. Following more acrimony and character assassination, the Executive is dissolved by 47 votes to 1, with 7 abstentions. (LFMC, 1991b: 2)

On behalf of the dissolved Building Committee, Steve Farrer explains the building comparisons and reports it generated. Questioned as to why these were written after the Executive had voted to occupy Dunn and Co. on 18 July (LFMC, 1991: 5), Farrer argues that it was “to give the LFMC a better bargaining position with its funders” (LFMC, 1991b: 3). Discussion from the floor reveals rival feelings from the membership that “the LFMC is being forced, by its funders, into an unsuitable building” and that the building has some possibilities. Because the membership vote “To ratify the LFMC vote to move to the Dunn and Co. building ‘subject to satisfactory negotiations’”, no vote is taken on the Saffron Hill building. (LFMC, 1991b: 4)

The membership elect, for a three-month period, an Executive comprising of the staff, Sandy Weiland (Adminstrator), Tony Warcus (Distribution), Sarah Turner (Distribution), Vicky Smith (Workshop), John Tappenden (Workshop) and Emina Kurtagic (Cinema), and all others nominated: Philip Sanderson, Alia Syed, Sophia Phoca, Nick Collins, James Bendall, Annabel Nicholson, G M Morgan, Pier Wilkie and Noskie Deville. (LFMC, 1991b: 4)

22 October 1991: London. The British Film Institute (BFI) announces the establishment of the London Film and Video Development Agency (LFVDA), and the appointment of Andrea Wonfor (BFI Governor; Controller of Arts and Entertainment, Channel 4) as its Chair. Wilf Stevenson (Director, BFI) explains that LFVDA will

bridge the gap between London’s grant-aided film and video sector and the mainstream film and broadcasting industries. It will be both a provider of grant aid and a means by which those with innovative ideas can reach a wider audience. (BFI, 1991)

4 November 1991: London. Executive Committee meeting of the London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) hears from its new Building Committee about meeting with Irene Whitehead (Head of Planning, British Film Institute/BFI) and the selection of an architect for the design of their prospective new premises, the Dunn and Co. building, Camden, also to house London Video Access (LVA) and the new London Film and Video Development Agency (LFVDA). Administrator Sandy Weiland reports on the financial position and possibilities for extra income or funding. The problem of staff-Executive relations – should staff selection be returned to the membership, are staff reviews worthwhile – are considered. (LFMC, 1991c).

26 November 1991: London. Special Cinenova Management Committee meeting to welcome prospective new committee members. The recently re-launched women’s distributor is seeking to create a more active Management Committee with a broader skills pool. (Henderson, 1991b).

26 November 1991: London. The Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) run a small invite-only seminar to discuss 'A New Idea for Innovation?' as part of the consultation process for the National Arts and Media Strategy (Wilson, 1991: 1). Central to the discussion is the relationship between innovative work and television, and the seminar poses the question "how can the surprising and challenging images of tomorrow best be nurtured?" Part of the discussion is concerned with "What part can and should television play in this process, and what place is there for other forms of distribution including cassettes, laserdiscs and related interactive systems?" (Wilson, 1991: 2).

18 December 1991: London. Meeting of the Cinenova Management Committee. Staff report on initiatives and budget being developed for the British Film Institute (BFI) funding application, and that their review meeting with the BFI will be 15 January. The projected deficit for 1991/92 has increased by a further £4,000, due to decreased distribution income from “lack of film promotion/marketing during the Circles/COW campaign and insufficient hand-over of Cinema of Women’s titles.” £16,000 of creditors from previous years have now been paid. 1992/93 has been budgeted on a 10-day working week (currently staff work a seven day week: Liane Harris doing four days, Gill Henderson two, and Sue George one). Applications are being prepared to the Foundation for Sport and the Arts (FSA) for a capital grant towards a computer and catalogue, and the Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) for a regional tour of experimental women’s films. Screening initiatives being developed are: three programmes at the Riverside Studios during International Women’s Week (7-14 March), in conjunction with the London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC); a bi-monthly annual slot offered by the Institute of Contemporary Arts (ICA), who will cover its costs; and a summer festival at the Metro Cinema focusing on European women filmmakers, for which commercial sponsorship will be sought. The marketing strategy now includes mail slots to all targeted groups, including courses at over 100 universities and polytechnics. The solicitor advising on Cinenova’s bid for Charitable status has quoted £450 and six months. (Cinenova, 1991).

1992

15 January 1992: London. Cinenova representatives Hinchee Hung, Gill Henderson and Liane Harris meet with Irene Whitehead (Head of Planning, British Film Institute/BFI), Ian Christie (Head of Exhibition and Distribution, BFI) and Tony Kirkhope (Metro Pictures). BFI representatives consider Cinenova’s business plan for 1992/93 to be good overall, except for the projected 300% rise in self-generated income, which they consider unrealistic. BFI representatives refrain from any funding commitment. (Cinenova, 1992a: 1).

24 January 1992: London. Cinenova staff Gill Henderson and Liane Harris meet with Ian Christie (Head of Exhibition and Distribution, British Film Institute/BFI). Christie suggests that Exhibition and Distribution might be able to find £30,000 and BFI Planning £10,000 for Cinenova in 1992/93, but emphasises the necessity of Cinenova locating other sources of funding within the year, while continuing to work closely with the BFI. He further suggests that Cinenova put out a lesbian/women’s package through the BFI’s Connoisseur Video to raise their profile, and develop a “cult” strand in their distribution to complement their educational one. He will also attempt to get Glenbuck to unfreeze Cinema of Women’s (COW) account. Glenbuck had stored and dispatched COW’s films and are now also dispatching Cinenova’s films. Christie is on the Glenbuck board. (Cinenova, 1992a: 1-2).

29 January 1992: London. Meeting of the Cinenova Management Committee. Hinchee Hung, Gill Henderson and Liane Harris report on the two recent meetings with British Film Institute (BFI) funding staff. Though no firm funding commitment emerged from them, Henderson has since had an oral offer of £8,000 from Irene Whitehead (Head of Planning, BFI). Henderson supports Ian Christie’s (Head of Exhibition and Distribution, BFI) suggestion that Cinenova release a package of women’s/lesbian films through the BFI Video label Connoisseur, as Cinenova lacks the funds for such a sell-through venture but would benefit from the publicity. Henderson enquires about the rights to Olivia (Jacqueline Audrey, 1951, France), and there is a possibility that two films currently in negotiation, Domestic Bliss (Joy Chaimberlain, 1984, UK) and Reservaat (Clara Van Gool, 1988, Holland), could go on the lesbian label Virgin Vision. (Cinenova, 1992a: 1-2)

Staff remain optimistic about receiving one-off project funding or sponsorship from non-BFI sources. Applications are currently being prepared to Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) for a touring package and to the Foundation for Sport and the Arts (FSA) for a computer and catalogue. While the BFI are unlikely to help directly with fundraising, individuals within it may have information and advice (Cinenova, 1992a: 2). Five students from UEL’s Women’s Media Studies course, working with Cinenova staff, have developed a video package, so far including of Sari Red (Pratibha Parmar, 1988, UK), Nice Coloured Girls (Tracey Moffatt, 1987, Australia) and Rabbit on the Moon (Monica Pellizzari, 1987, Australia), a culturally diverse set which reflects the experience and interests of the students creating it. It will be launched in April in conjunction with Sheba Press, possibly at the British Academy of Film and Television Arts (BAFTA) awards. As much of the costs as possible will be covered by East London Polytechnic/University of East London, (UEL) and the government’s Enterprise Development Scheme (Cinenova, 1992a) (Cinenova, 1992m: 16).

Staff stress the need for management committee members to be active in running Cinenova, and assist in finding volunteers to help out with events and projects. The assembled discuss the upcoming need to hire staff. Liane Harris (staff) suggests, given the current focus on income generation, that the staff role be defined as a fundraiser. In spite of the lowness of the wage, a skilled staffer might still be attracted to a percentage participation in funds raised. Board members worry that such investment of energy would distract from Cinenova’s cultural aims, and create difficulties if another worker raised project sponsorship. (Cinenova, 1992a: 3-4)

Specialist solicitors are about to be contacted to negotiate Cinenova’s charitable status. (Cinenova, 1992a: 4)

3 February 1992: London. Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) Artists’ Film and Video Committee (AFVC) receives Cinenova’s application to the Regional Project Development Fund (ACGB, 1992) for £6,000 to support programming, assembling and touring women artist film and video packages. (Cinenova, 1992b).

6 February 1992: London. Liane Harris (Cinenova staff) writes to the Cinenova Management Committee, informing them that, while there is still no written confirmation of their British Film Institute (BFI) funding for 1992/93, they are about to receive an advance on it to cover their deficit. (Harris, 1992a) (Cinenova, 1992a).

8 February 1992: London. Annual General Meeting (AGM) of the London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC). The LFMC’s successive annual deficits have continued to accumulate to approximately £18,000, and the revenue grant application to the British Film Institute (BFI) for 1992/3 is for £62,962. Relocation to shared premises with London Video Access (LVA) and the London Film and Video Development Agency (LFVDA) is expected by the end of the year (LFMC, 1992: 4). The Building Committee has liaised with the parties to the project, including the BFI and their property consultants Relocation Project Management (RPM), who have identified the Dunn and Co. building, Camden, as suitable. Florian Beigel has been appointed architect with LFMC support. Usage plans for the building have altered, with the ground floor now being considered for a Gallery and Cinema, with Workshops above. LFMC is now going to be in ultimate control of the Cinema. (LFMC, 1992: 3)

Distribution has met its financial targets, with European hires continuing to grow. Screenings organised by Distribution, such as the International Avant-Garde Film Festival at the National Film Theatre in April and the 25th Anniversary screenings Tate Britain (Warcus, 1991), have encouraged other venues to book a wider range of material. The new Catalogue has been compiled on disc, with costs covered from the annual £10 distribution fee, but £8,000 needs to be found for final production. New Prints of Kurt Kren films have been arranged by Martin Arnold. (LFMC, 1992: 7)

The meeting consider proposals to ratify the annual £10 distribution fee and the post of Education Officer (Course Administrator). (LFMC, 1992: 9-10)

28 February 1992: London. Artists’ Film and Video Committee (AFVC) of the Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) meets. The committee supports Cinenova’s application for funding to tour women artists' film and video packages (Cinenova, 1992b), but requires more details before committing. (Curtis, 1992a).

10 March 1992: London. David Curtis (Film and Video Officer/FVO, Artists’ Film and Video Committee/AFVC, Arts Council of Great Britain/ACGB) writes to Cinenova staff Liane Harris and Gill Henderson, reporting the AFVC’s strong in-principle support for their women artists’ film and video packages project proposal (Cinenova, 1992b). However, the AFVC will need confirmation of the British Film Institute’s funding for Cinenova, an outline of the packages envisaged, and a budget showing costs versus anticipated income. The deficit between them is what the AFVC would fund. These details are required by 12 June to be considered at the 10 July meeting. (Curtis, 1992a).

24 March 1992: London. Gill Henderson (Cinenova) responds to David Curtis’s (Film and Video Officer/FVO, Artists’ Film and Video Committee/AFVC, Arts Council of Great Britain/ACGB) letter of 10 March, which requested further details in support of their application for funds to support women artist film and video packages (Curtis, 1992a). The British Film Institute (BFI) have yet to confirm in writing oral suggestions of £38,000 funding for Cinenova in 1992/93, and Henderson and Liane Harris (Cinenova) will meet with the programmer soon, and supply the AFVC with the details it requires by 12 June. (Henderson, 1992a).

1 April 1992: London. Gill Henderson leaves the Cinenova staff and is replaced by Sonja Armstrong. (Cinenova, 1992a: 4) (Harris, 1992b).

14 April 1992: 14 April 1992: London. Cinenova staffer Liane Harris writes to the Management Committee, informing them that their 22 April meeting will seek to “clarify the immediate and long term aims of the organisation and setting out clear guidelines to help formulate the best possible strategy for Cinenova’s future.” (Harris, 1992b).

22 April 1992: London. Meeting of the Cinenova Management Committee. Written confirmation of British Film Institute (BFI) revenue funding for 1992/93 has yet to be received, though there has been a verbal commitment and an advance (Cinenova, 1992c: 1). The committee determines to precipitate this by drawing up an agreement letter, outlining funding level and detailing cashflow for the year, for the BFI to countersign. It has been discovered that, due to “video rights loopholes”, titles released via sell-through labels are not automatically restricted to personal use but have been turning up in libraries. This needs to be taken into account in pursuing releases with the Dangerous to Know (DtK) label. Staff seek programming suggestions and a name for the planned Institute of Contemporary Arts (ICA) slot. Suggestions include inviting a European festival to curate a “best of” package, seeking sponsorship for a major season involving Women Make Movies (WMM), and launching a touring package such as the one submitted to the Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB). (Cinenova, 1992c: 1)

The assembled discuss Cinenova’s overall direction in the short, medium and long term, and defining that in terms of concrete goals. This is structured by identifying markets to be targeted, formulating an acquisition policy to serve that, which then clarifies the basis on which sponsorship can be sought. To date education, Cinenova’s key market, has been approached by compiling mini-packages and promoting them to various courses. The assembled determine to further research their mailing lists, focussing on education, social services and libraries, which will supply feedback to inform packaging. The existing mini-packages are considered too unfocused to justify the expense of significant marketing, and new ones will be more “issue based”. Trinh T. Minh-ha and mental health packages are suggested as they would interest a wide potential audience and can be easily assembled. A well-structured package that had longevity might also attract sponsorship, and the suggested packages could be used to develop a costing model. Time and money invested in packages with obvious but smaller market could be scaled in relation to this model. (Cinenova, 1992c: 2)

Art and cult aspects of Cinenova’s catalogue can be used to target areas outside of education. This is important for Cinenova’s image, revenue, and demonstrating to filmmakers that works receive the widest possible distribution. The question of Cinenova’s image raises the place of Feminism therein, and the committee determines that, while Cinenova is a vehicle for women filmmakers to pursue their own directions which need not be specifically feminist, feminism is inherent within this and should remain part of Cinenova’s image and promotional material. Further to targeting areas outside of education, London independent cinemas absolutely require a reasonable box office, so Cinenova would require sponsorship for releases to afford acquisition and advertising costs. Although one-off sales of features to television is currently possible, Cinenova can supply other kinds of programming material and should cultivate relations with programme editors such as Caroline Spry at Channel Four (C4) and Jane Thorburn, producer of Dazzling Image (C4, 1990, 1992). (Cinenova, 1992c: 3)

29 April 1992: London. Ian Christie (Head of Exhibition and Distribution, British Film Institute/BFI) writes to Liane Harris (Cinenova), confirming offers of £30,000 from Distribution and Exhibition (less the £2,965 advanced in February) and £8,000 from the Planning development budget in 1992/93, “so that your plans can be tested in practice” (Christie, 1992). This requires modifications to Cinenova’s submitted budget, proving that they can remain solvent during the year while reducing their need for BFI funding – either through increased earning or other sources of subsidy. Christie warns that while some BFI help in acquiring films may be possible, BFI budgets are currently “frozen”, so such help will be limited. The funding for the first quarter (less the advance) will be released immediately. (Christie, 1992).

14 May 1992: London. Cinenova staffer Liane Harris writes to Management Committee members, informing them that staffer Sonja Armstrong has left to take a job paying twice Cinenova’s salary. Management Committee members who were at the Viewing Committee meeting have elected to offer the job to their second choice from the interviews, Kate Norrish, who has accepted. (Harris, 1992c).

9 June 1992: London. Liane Harris writes to David Curtis (Film and Video Officer/FVO, Artists’ Film and Video Committee/AFVC, Arts Council of Great Britain/ACGB), supplying the details requested by him on 10 March (Curtis, 1992a) in support of their package of women artists’ film and video programmes. This includes confirmation of British Film Institute (BFI) funding for 1992/93 (Christie, 1992), details of the kind of women’s film and video programmes to be developed by Beverley Zalcock (Cinenova, 1992d), and a budget showing the project’s expected income and expenditure, and the deficit the grant applied for is to cover. (Harris, 1992d) (Cinenova, 1992e).

17 June 1992: London. Meeting of the Cinenova Management Committee. Staffer Liane Harris has attended the Feminale film festival in Cologne, and reached agreement with one of the directors of Flaming Ears (Hans Schierl, Dietmar Schipek and Ursula Pumer, 1992, Austria) to donate a print. The agreement of other directors is pending. Harris has also discussed doing joint publicity for Trinh T. Minh-ha films with Women Make Movies (WMM) Executive Director Debra Zimmerman. Cinenova would meet a quarter of the costs for a UK/USA leaflet, but negotiations to acquire Shoot for the Contents (Trinh Minh-ha, 1991, USA) need to be completed. This delay may prevent Cinenova participating in this project, but a joint package for touring the US, UK and Europe was also discussed, along with Cinenova sub-distributing WMM titles and WMM coming to London for one of Cinenova’s Institute of Contemporary Arts (ICA) slots. (Cinenova, 1992f: 1)

Management Committee member Julia Knight has been creating thematic marketing leaflets and compiling a mailing list for educational marketing, due for mailout in the coming academic year. Microsysters have quoted £15/hour to set up a database on Cardbox and train staff. Staff are also pursuing a series of short term projects, such as a package targeted at the health sector over the summer, possibly promoted with the help of Sylvia Hines at the Mental Health Media Council, which has a journal and mailing list, an A5 mailout of new releases with tear-off order form, an A4 flyer promoting Cinenova to women’s groups nationally, an extensive mailing list including all audiovisual libraries in the country, and a proposed marketing pack of high quality A5 cards aimed at television, European satellite broadcasters and independent cinemas. These new cards would be issued as new films are released, and this would provide ongoing publicity to the more commercial sector internationally. Television should also be approached with showreels and a preview show for commissioning editors, perhaps starting with Channel Four’s (C4) Dazzling Image (1990, 1992). Someone with a lot of television experience should be sought out to help. (Cinenova, 1992f: 1-2)

Solicitors have started on Cinenova’s application for charitable status, and are currently quoting £1,000 for their fee. Legislation has recently changed, and the solicitors have supplied a model for altering Cinenova’s Memorandum and Articles of Association. This also raises questions about splitting the organisation into a charitable trust with a non-charitable arm and possible changes to membership. The assembled affirm the need for publicity-generating campaign focussed on women’s situation in the industry and the need for Cinenova, involving letter-writing, MP lobbying, and getting on television. This could be run by the prospective secondment from the Action Resource Centre (ARC). Though the secondee is only available one day a week for 13 weeks, another might be secured or the time extended. (Cinenova, 1992f: 3)

Staffer Kate Norrish suggests that video hire rates be lifted by £5, and a consistent price policy be introduced for all hire and sales. The assembled consider issues surrounding the placement of their collection with the distributor Glenbuck Films (a wholly owned subsidiary of the British Film Institute (BFI)) for dispatch, including the 30% that the company charges for this service. This is to be costed against what it would take for Cinenova to take that back in house. (Cinenova, 1992f: 3)

15 July 1992: London. Meeting of the Cinenova Management Committee. The Arts Council of Great Britain’s (ACGB) Artists’ Film and Video Committee (AFVC) has confirmed funding for Cinenova’s proposed package of women artists’ film and video programmes. They will advance £2,000 of the requested £5,600 to support research, and the balance will be given when the programming is finalised and the venues have agreed to book the tour. Cinenova now has a database for which the staffers Liane Harris and Kate Norrish have received training. The AudioVisual Librarian magazine has agreed to include a Cinenova catalogue order form in their next issue for free. They have a subscriber base of 3,000, and in the future could carry another A4 marketing leaflet for as little as £150. Cinenova now have a draft of their new Memorandum of Association from the solicitors, which would make them a Charity Limited by Guarantee. This allows Cinenova to continue with its current activities and keep its current structure. (Cinenova, 1992g: 1)

Management Committee members Carla Mitchell, Joanna Peberdy and Azza Rahman have formed a Working Group, which will form the basis of a fundraising working party and then start the Cinenova Campaign, possibly involving the Action Resource Centre (ARC) secondment, organising benefits and raising Cinenova’s profile. A staffing schedule has been developed to determine how many days freelance work Cinenova can offer. Consequently there are 13 more days at present for Management Committee member Julia Knight to complete the themed marketing leaflets aimed at the education sector. Management Committee member Hinchee Hung has trained staff Liane Harris and Kate Norrish in the financial computer package Supercalc, which has allowed the updating of the 1992/93 cashflow and the forecasts for the rest of the year. It has also revealed that Cinenova’s self generated income was only £1,400 for the previous quarter, but a rise is still forecast on the basis of the new marketing initiatives. (Cinenova, 1992g: 2)

Cinenova staff will meet with Tim Highstead (Institute of Contemporary Arts/ICA) on 21 July to discuss their bi-monthly slot Broads’ Perspective, programmed by Highstead and Harris. The ICA can contribute £300 for the curator, and the season can be from two days to three weeks. Harris and Norrish will also meet with Ian Christie (Head of Exhibition and Distribution, British Film Institute/BFI) on 24 July. The committee recommends that they approach the meeting optimistically, and concentrate on the new aspects of Cinenova’s operation – computer, the upcoming launch of packages in October, new income generating and marketing strategies – while keeping a clear idea of events since last October. They determine to seek Christie’s advice over various issues concerning their dispatch agency Glenbuck Films, a BFI subsidiary on whose board Christie sits. Acquiring the Cinema of Women (COW) titles held there has proved difficult, and only 20 have so far entered Cinenova distribution. Glenbuck also hold a frozen account of money from COW films, which could be passed on to Cinenova. (Cinenova, 1992g: 3)

24 July 1992: London. Rodney Wilson (Director of Film, Video and Broadcasting/FVB, Arts Council of Great Britain/ACGB) writes to Cinenova, confirming the offer of £5,620 from the Great Britain Touring Fund in 1992/93 to support the package of women artist film and video programmes. The grant will be delivered in three stages: £2,000 on acceptance, £3,120 on approval of the final programme, programme notes and securing of eight booking commitments, and £500 on receipt of a statement of income and expenditure. (Wilson, 1992: 1-2).

29 July 1992: London. Cinenova staff meet with Ian Christie (Head of Exhibition and Distribution, British Film Institute/BFI). (Cinenova, 1992g: 3).

2 September 1992: London. Liane Harris (Cinenova staff) writes to the Cinenova Management Committee, calling an Emergency Meeting for 9 September. Staff feel that the issues they have raised about Cinenova’s purpose and focus, and their workload, have reached a critical point and radical changes need to be made. Specifically:

We feel that ‘women’s films’ has lost meaning as our markets are so broad and we have lost sight of what our objectives are. This makes most of the projects we’re working on and any promotion we do about the company itself a nebulous task. (Harris, 1992e: 1)

An impromptu meeting of staff and some Management Committee members on 26 August raised the suggestion of ceasing trying to be what Circles and Cinema of Women (COW) were and, while valuing this history, narrowing focus to the promotion of women’s film. This would amount to the sidelining of distribution in favour of raising funds to organise screenings and events, drawing on films from other distributors. Staff will draw up a detailed list of the problems confronting the organisation, and hope that some firm decisions can be made (Harris, 1992e: 1-2). Staff ask that the committee members consider:

1) ways YOU think Cinenova can ‘transform’ itself to make it a viable company given the actual resources we have 2) at what stage we should implement this change and 3) where the cutting off point should be with regard to projects already underway. (Harris, 1992e: 2)

September 1992: London. The Camerawork Gallery holds a photographic exhibition on lesbian representation, and collaborates with Cinenova and the Four Corners workshop on the one-day Lesbian Gaze conference. Lesbian Gaze is held at Four Corners’ cinema, and features a screening of Cinenova films dealing with sexuality, gender and representation, followed by a panel discussion. (Cinenova, 1992m: 17).

9 September 1992: London. Emergency meeting of the Cinenova Management Committee. Staffers Liane Harris and Kate Norrish present a list of problems their work presents, specifically confusion in the workers roles and priorities in an overloaded situation. They also raise conceptual issues around what Cinenova is for, other issues of inheritance from Circles and Cinema of Women (COW) (especially attempts to inherit COW titles held by dispatch agency Glenbuck Films), and the Management Committee’s role in shaping the company. The Committee determines that the staff are in the best position to set priorities and determine which work and projects can be realistically taken on. They will henceforth take over selection for acquisition from the Viewing Committee, and acquire only work that can be marketed to the education, training and health sectors, or used in touring packages or screening events (Cinenova, 1992h: 3). Educational distribution and promotional event work are the two main strands of Cinenova’s work. Committee member Julia Knight, who has been working on the marketing leaflets, argues that they cannot currently be promoted as ‘work by women’, but must be pushed on the issues explored. While the promotional work is extremely important, it infrequently raises any income. It may be possible to get funding from the London Film and Video Development Agency (LFVDA) on the basis that Cinenova promotes work by women, which would include work held by other distributors but increase the pool of work available to Cinenova for programming. (Cinenova, 1992h: 3)

Staff are currently working on four main projects: the Broads’ Perspective screenings at the Institute for Contemporary Arts (ICA), the current aim being to start in January with Women Make Movies’ (WMM); the Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) funded touring retrospective of women’s experimental work; the theatrical premiere of Flaming Ears (Hans Schierl, Dietmar Schipek and Ursula Pumer, 1992, Austria) at Screen on the Green on 4 October; and 10 educational packages, whose leaflets need to be printed and posted. The committee determine that, of these four projects, only the educational packages and ACGB-sponsored tour are likely to raise revenue directly. Thus the WMM’s Broads’ Perspective will be deferred until September or October 1993 (Cinenova, 1992h: 2), while staff priorities are to explain the rescheduling to WMM, find a programmer to assemble the first Broads’ Perspective programme, and to draft a short mission statement taking into account the two strands of Cinenova’s work. (Cinenova, 1992h: 3)

4 October 1992: London. Cinenova premieres its first theatrical release, Flaming Ears (Hans Schierl, Dietmar Schipek and Ursula Pumer, 1992, Austria), at the Screen on the Green, selling out the cinema. This is part of the Queer film and video festival, sponsored by Islington Council and City Limits. A reception for the film is held at the Angel Café and also sponsored by the council. (Cinenova, 1992m: 17-18).

21 October 1992: London. David Curtis (Film and Video Officer/FVO, Artists’ Film and Video Committee/AFVC, Arts Council of Great Britain/ACGB) writes to Cinenova, asking after any progress on the touring proposal approved by the committee in July. He is not worried, but would be interested in a schedule for completion and launch, and asks if the ACGB can assist in any way. (Curtis, 1992b).

22 October 1992: London. Liane Harris (Cinenova) writes to Gary Thomas (Artists’ Film and Video Committee/AFVC, Arts Council of Great Britain/ACGB), sending information on Cinenova’s ACGB-funded touring package. This information has been sent to independent cinemas in London, Regional Arts Board (RAB) officers and Regional Film Theatres (RFTs). Jayne Pilling (Head of Programming Services, British Film Institute/BFI) is helping to promote the package to RFTs. The ACGB will be informed when the bookings come in, and in the mean time are working on the publicity material and negotiating a deal on prints with the London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC). (Harris, 1992f) (Cinenova, 1992i) (BFI Planning Unit, 1992).

28 October 1992: London. Fanny Adams, the anonymous women’s organisation fighting a guerrilla campaign against sexism in the British art world, holds the Fanny’s Big Ball benefit in a London nightclub. Invitees include playwright Rose English, performance artist Bobby Baker and women’s film distributor Cinenova. More than 2000 people attend, and two hours of Cinenova films are screened in a large room in the club. (Cinenova, 1992m).

2 November 1992: London. Anthony Everitt (Secretary General, Arts Council of Great Britian/ACGB) writes to Maureen McCue (Chief Executive, London Film and Video Development Agency/LFVDA), turning down her request for membership of the Chief Officers Group. This is partly necessary to keep the Group at a manageable size, and because it largely focuses on technical issues regarding planning and accountability in the integrated arts funding system, of which LFVDA is not a constituent part. Everitt thanks McCue for her interest, and suggests she liaise with the London Arts Board (LAB) and the British Film Institute (BFI), which is her main funder. To pursue her idea for a meeting between the LFVDA and ACGB, she should discuss this with Rodney Wilson (Director, Film, Video and Broadcast, ACGB). (Everitt, 1992).

18 November 1992: London. Cinenova Management Committee meeting. Cinenova’s first theatrical release, Flaming Ears (Hans Schierl, Dietmar Schipek and Ursula Pumer, 1992, Austria), has been launched at the Screen on the Green and has now started its run at the Scala, where it is doing well at the box office. It has received attention in the mainstream press as well as Time Out and What’s On and, though reviews have not been enthusiastic, they are still publicity and an audience is coming. The leaflets for the educational packages are ready to go out and have come in at a third of the estimated cost. The Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) sponsored touring package of women’s experimental film, New Wave Women, is complete and, after a meeting with Jayne Pilling (Head of Programming Services, British Film Institute/BFI), details have been sent to all Regional Film Theatres (RFTs) and Regional Arts Boards (RABs). Promotional material is being prepared. Video sell-through label Dangerous to Know (DtK) will be releasing the Lycra Shorts package 7 December, which includes the Cinenova titles Domestic Bliss (Joy Chamberlain, 1984, UK) and Reservaat (Clara Van Gool, 1988, Holland), and Can’t You Take a Joke? (Viki Dunn, 1989, Australia). DtK are projecting 1,000 sales in the first year and have paid an advance of £1,500. Trinh T. Minh-ha’s recent Institute of Contemporary Arts (ICA) visit and two-week retrospective generated (Cinenova, 1992m: 12) a large number of bookings for Cinenova, including those for the retrospective. Cinenova has acquired Tempted (Anne Marie Booresboom, 1991, Netherlands), Khush (Pratibha Parmar, 1991, UK), Now Pretend (Leah Gilliam, 1991, USA), and The Haircut (Veronica Martel, 1987, UK), which has been sold to Australia’s SBS Television. There were a few interesting films at the London Film Festival (LFF), but Forbidden Love: The Unashamed Stories of Lesbian Lives (Lynne Fernie and Aerlyn Weissman, 1992, Canada) had been acquired by Out on a Limb (Cinenova, 1992j: 1-2). There will be a meeting on 1 December with the Institute for ICA to formalise the structures for the Broads’ Perspective slot. Funding is still needed to pay programmers, arrange filmmaker attendance etc. (Cinenova, 1992j: 3)

Staffer Liane Harris will be reducing her days a week from four to three in December, Gill Henderson will work two days a week in November and then Harris’s day in December. She will concentrate on marketing, acquisitions and programming ideas. The new office computers purchased with the Foundation for Sport and the Arts (FSA) grant will be two IBMs with a laserjet printer and upgraded software (Cinenova, 1992m: 5-6). Staffer Kate Norrish reports on the work ahead to complete the new catalogue, and it is suggested that a student placement be sought to help with the compilation. The compilation process could also be used to archive some work, while separating the theatrical and artistic titles from the educational, using cross-referencing to deal with those suitable for both markets. Suggested topics for catalogue essays are: “Foreword: on women’s filmmaking and its distribution, Article on theatrical releasing of women’s films, Article on the educational strand” (Cinenova, 1992j: 2).

Cinenova is due to meet with Ian Christie (Head of Exhibition and Distribution, BFI) and his replacement Steven Bell on 25 November. The latest cashflow, based on actuals to November, shows that self-generated income will have to increase dramatically over the next two quarters to reach the set target. Income is already up in November, and three income-generating strategies – the New Wave Women touring package, the educational leaflets and the new catalogue – will start in the next few months. Institutional spending should be up in February and March at the end of the tax year. It is noted that if the 30% of distribution income Cinenova pays Glenbuck Films were included in figures, they would easily make their income target. Further, Glenbuck have been inefficient in the dispatch of tapes and have failed to provide full activity reports. The minutes state that all of these issues “need to be expressed coherently to the BFI”. (Cinenova, 1992j: 2)

At least two more women with skills or knowledge and experience of finance and film and video distribution are needed on the Management Committee. To give Management Committee members a better financial perspective, copies of a formal financial report will be circulated at future meetings. Thought will also be given to grievance and disciplinary proceedings, and workers’ reviews, and Four Corners’ procedure. Once the charitable status is through, the role of management will be formally circumscribed, including that no member can do paid work for the company. No changes to the constitution can be made without an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) of the membership ratifying them. (Cinenova, 1992j: 2-3)

20 November 1992: London. Cinenova staffer Gill Henderson writes to Management Committee members, sending minutes of the 18 November meeting (Cinenova, 1992j) and updating on Four Corners’ workers’ review procedures. Two Management Committee members interview each staffer, concentrating on

A. What are the workers main responsibilities? Which of these roles is their strongest area? In which areas of work do they feel the need for support or a redefinition of roles? B. What are the shared responsibilities?? Which of these is the strongest area. Which areas need support or redefinition. What other information or needs are there to make the roles more effective. (Henderson, 1992b)

Circles invested considerable time on workers’ reviews and grievance procedures, and Henderson will do her best to find this information. This should be discussed and the timetable for reviews set at the next management meeting, which will also incorporate the next Annual General Meeting (AGM). (Henderson, 1992b)

25 November 1992: London. Cinenova staff meet with Ian Christie (Head of Exhibition and Distribution, British Film Institute/BFI) and his upcoming replacement Steven Bell. (Cinenova, 1992j: 2).

4 December 1992: London and regions. Gill Henderson (Cinenova staff) sends information about Cinenova’s Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) sponsored New Wave Women regional touring package to British Film Institute (BFI) programme advisors. (Henderson, 1992c) (Cinenova, 1992i).

7 December 1992: London, Edinburgh and national. Gay and lesbian video label Dangerous to Know (DtK) release the Lycra Shorts sell-through compilation tape at all UK Virgin mega-stores, Silvermoon Bookshop, Gays the Word and West and Wilde. It includes the Cinenova titles Domestic Bliss (Joy Chaimberlain, 1984, UK) and Reservaat (Clara Van Gool, 1988, Holland), and Can’t You Take a Joke? (Viki Dunn, 1989, Australia). (Cinenova, 1992j: 1) (Cinenova, 1992m: 14).

8 December 1992: London and regions. Gill Henderson (Cinenova staff) mails out information about Cinenova’s Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) sponsored New Wave Women regional touring package. (Henderson, 1992d) (Cinenova, 1992i).

18 December 1992: London. Cinenova staff Liane Harris, Kate Norrish and Gill Henderson send Cinenova’s activity report and funding application (Cinenova, 1992m) to Ian Christie (Head of Exhibition and Distribution, British Film Institute/BFI). As he is leaving the post at the end of January, they enquire as to who will be dealing with their application and on what timescale (Cinenova, 1992k). They also send it to Irene Whitehead (Head of Planning, BFI), so that she can be kept informed in case her comments are requested in the BFI, and in case Cinenova is devolved to the London Film and Video Development Agency (LFVDA), a process that may or may not involve her. (Cinenova, 1992l)

The Introduction to Cinenova’s BFI funding application raises a number of vexations facing the organisation, specifically that the current self-exploitation of staff contradicts the group’s foundational equal opportunities mandate to improve women’s working conditions, and that Cinenova seems to be treated differently to the BFI’s other clients, who received application and report guidelines two months earlier and were thus able to undertake the preparation of extensive documentation over a longer period. In justifying women’s distribution – a requirement of their report – staff point out that their longstanding specialisation has positioned them to benefit from the contemporary rise in interest in both gay and lesbian film, and Trinh T. Minh-ha, validating their long term strategies without making them dependent on any given passing trend. They note also that other groups promoting gay and lesbian film and video and black filmmakers have adopted strategies pioneered by Circles and Cinema of Women (COW) in the early 1980s. (Cinenova, 1992m: 1-2)

The consolidation in 1992/93 has included a new computer system handling finance and the mailing list database. Financial systems were analysed and redesigned by a secondment organised by the Action Resource Centre (ARC) (Cinenova, 1992m: 3). Cinenova also analysed its distribution activity, and the delineation of an educational and exhibition market therein has allowed the focussing of promotional energies. A series of 10 themed leaflets have been aimed at the educational market this year, including both Higher and Further Education and public sector bodies dealing with health, probation and race relations. The results of the mailouts are being monitored with the new database to produce a profile of user groups and the work which interests them, which will then be used to develop further marketing strategies (Cinenova, 1992m: 4). These targeted mailouts have also included an order form for the new Foundation for Sport and the Arts (FSA) funded catalogue to women’s organisations nationally, the press kit for Flaming Ears (Hans Schierl, Dietmar Schipek and Ursula Pumer, 1992, Austria) sent to all UK press, and invitations to its premiere and reception (Cinenova, 1992m: 5, 12). Exhibition has been addressed through Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) funded New Wave Women touring package (Cinenova, 1992i) and the Broad’s Perspective season at the Institute of Contemporary Arts (ICA). These are a way of attracting new audiences to Cinenova’s collection and women’s work generally. (Cinenova, 1992m: 4, 12-4, 24)

The catalogue is to be launched in late February, and a new format of four cross-referenced sections is being developed. This consists of a section on films for exhibition, those for education, a list of programmes of work, and an archive listing of less active but historically relevant work. There will also be three contextual essays, one exploring the issues of feminist film distribution, another dealing with films for exhibition, and another examining educational work (Cinenova, 1992m: 5). Extra revenue will be raised by selling advertising space in the catalogue to other women’s distributors, resource centres, bookshops and video sell-through labels (Cinenova, 1992m: 5).

Financial management has been improved with FSA-funded computers and staff training, allowing activity reports and royalty statements to be automated for the first time. The computers also make it possible to produce publicity material in-house (Cinenova, 1992m: 6). An analysis of Cinenova’s distribution shows that VHS hire predominates over 16mm 50% to 33%, with VHS sales making up 17% of transactions (Cinenova, 1992m: 7). This is considered unsurprising as VHS hire is cheaper, and Cinenova’s main client group, the educational sector, is itself under budgetary pressure (Cinenova, 1992m: 7, 10).

23 December 1992: London. David Curtis (Film and Video Officer, Arts Council of Great Britain/ACGB) writes to Irene Whitehead (Head of Planning, British Film Institute/BFI) and Ian Christie (Head of Exhibition and Distribution, BFI), concerning possible impact of the current BFI restructure on the funding of the London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) and London Video Access (LVA). Curtis suggests that, because of the similarities between the two organisations, they ought to be funded in a similar way, which might help them achieve economies of scale through integration of some functions in their new building – such as combining Distribution services and jointly curating their exhibition programmes. Thus he suggests that the LFMC’s workshop funding be devolved to the London Film and Video Development Agency (LFVDA), where LVA’s workshop funding currently is, while the BFI reclaim LVA’s exhibition/distribution activities and retain those of the LFMC, each of which are of national and international significance. If there are substantial problems with the BFI in keeping the distribution/exhibition functions, Curtis suggests that the ACGB could take them over. (Curtis, 1992c: 1-2).

1993

11 January 1993: London. Cinenova staffer Gill Henderson updates David Curtis (Film and Video Officer/FVO, Artists Film and Video Committee/AFVC, Arts Council of Great Britain/ACGB) on the progress of New Wave Women, the ACGB-sponsored touring package of experimental women’s film. Preliminary publicity material has been sent Regional Film Theatres (RFTs) and education officers, and other venues suggested by Regional Arts Board (RAB) Film Officers. The start date has been pushed back to February/March, as several new prints had to be organised. She encloses the preliminary publicity material (Cinenova, 1992i), and a flyer with detailed programme notes will be ready by the end of the month. Henderson would like to meet and consult over the venues targeted, and is interested in “any advice gleaned from the Umbrella [Film and Video Umbrella (FVU)] experience, now Moira [Sweeney] isn’t around it’s difficult to gain access to information on the film touring front”. (Henderson, 1993a).

13 January 1993: London. Cinenova Annual General Meeting (AGM ). After the acceptance of the minutes of the previous AGM, the meeting closes and a Management Committee meeting follows. Cinenova’s business plan for 1993/94, is presented to the meeting, has been sent to the British Film Institute (BFI) in support of their funding application (Cinenova, 1992m). Due to BFI restructuring, it is unclear who there will be responsible for funding. Cinenova’s application for Charitable status has been turned down by the Charity Commission, and an appeal will now be lodged. Cinenova’s accommodation situation is being urgently reviewed, with research into council-owned properties like Camden’s Carol Street workshops, and properties owned by the Church Commissioners. Charitable status would allow for rate rebates. (Cinenova, 1993a: 1-2)

Cinenova will be involved with or attending a number of initiatives in the coming year, including the National Association of Women’s Organisations (NAWO) and Arts Council of Great Britain’s (ACGB) Women in the Arts project, Women’s Broadcasting Day in March, and the Pandora Initiative, set up by a number of European organisations including the Créteil Festival International de Films de Femmes in France, Cinemien in Holland and the University of Women in Belgium. Staffer Gill Henderson will attend their conference for organising funding for women’s distribution in Europe. A meeting with Cinenova’s dispatch agency, the wholly owned BFI subsidiary Glenbuck Films, is due to take place shortly. Issues with Glenbuck range from their video dispatch, incomplete activity reporting, 30% share of Cinenova’s distribution income, and the difficulty in transferring Cinema of Women’s (COW) collection, still held by Glenbuck, to Cinenova. (Cinenova, 1993a: 2)

14 January 1993: London. David Curtis (Film and Video Officer/FVO, Artists Film and Video Committee/AFVC, Arts Council of Great Britain/ACGB) responds to Cinenova staffer Gill Henderson’s letter of 11 January (Henderson, 1993a) concerning New Wave Women, the ACGB-sponsored touring package experimental women’s film. He writes that Gary Thomas (Assistant Film and Video Officer/AFVO, AFVC, ACGB) would have venue suggestions, the Film and Video Umbrella (FVU) is completing a database of venues, and Simon Field, Tim Highstead and Tim Brown of the Institute for Contemporary Arts (ICA) are preparing film tours and might also have suggestions. Though the publicity material Henderson has sent reads well, Curtis is concerned that the tour is taking so long to start. (Curtis, 1992b).

15 January 1993: London. Irene Whitehead (Head of Planning, British Film Institute/BFI) writes to David Powell (Acting Chief Executive, London Film and Video Development Agency/LFVDA), detailing the proposed arrangements for housing LFVDA, London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) and London Video Access (LVA) in Grand Union House, owned by Sainsbury’s Plc. The LFVDA would hold the Head Lease on the building, “guaranteed by the BFI”, in order that a responsible body stand between the BFI and the sub-lessees, LFMC and LVA. Alternatives to this are being explored, but if this happens

The BFI would expect to cover not only the full rental of the LFVDA for undertaking such services, but also to subsidise the rental of the sub-lessees. We have agreed with both groups that they will pay no more than an additional 5% per annum for the next three years of their current rental. This means that, on a rental of £80,000 per annum, the BFI will be expecting to subsidise the three groups by some 50%. (Whitehead, 1993a: 2)

The LFVDA would pay only a contribution to the service charge, some £2,000 per annum. The BFI “sees itself as responsible for shouldering any financial responsibilities which might accrue” to the LFVDA in taking on this responsibility, and “are perfectly happy to express this responsibility to you in writing”. (Whitehead, 1993a: 2)

20 January 1993: London. Irene Whitehead (Head of Planning, British Film Institute/BFI), sends notes to the London Film and Video Development Agency (LFVDA) Board on their suggested role in the Grand Union House development. Negotiations with the owners, Sainsbury’s Plc, are on the basis of a 20-year lease, with initial rent of £80,000 per annum plus £10,000 service charge. The BFI Development budget will contribute £100,000 and Sainsbury’s £350,000 to fitting the building to house the London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) and London Video Access (LVA), and the BFI would like LFVDA to take the Head Lease. The LFVDA would act as ““honest broker”” between the groups, licensee for the building, and reside there rent-free in return. As Head Lessee, LFVDA relies on its sub-lessees, LFMC and LVA, to pay their rent, but the BFI “will guarantee the performance of the LFVDA’s covenants” and “would subsidise the rental of the LFMC and LVA in the form of additional grants from the BFI Development Budget” (Whitehead, 1993b: 1). The LFVDA will be liable only for its share of the service charge (about £2000 per annum), though it will soon be the direct funder of both groups. (Whitehead, 1993b: 1).

23 January 1993: London. Local paper Ham & High report that the London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) and London Video Access (LVA) have been awarded £200,000 by the Foundation for Sport and the Arts (FSA) toward the establishment of new joint premises at Grand Union House on Kentish Town Rd. This site, owned by Sainsbury’s Plc, has superseded the Dunn & Co. building as the planned location of the LFMC and LVA media centre, and negotiations are on going. (H&H, 1993: 14).

5 February 1993: London. Cinenova staffer Gill Henderson writes to Sarah Turner (Distribution Organiser, London Filmmakers’ Co-operative/LFMC) to co-ordinate access to the several LFMC prints programmed in the Cinenova’s Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) sponsored New Wave Women touring package. Though progress has been made on the bookings, the start date has been put back to April. (Henderson, 1993b).

8 February 1993: London. Sarah Turner (Distribution Organiser, London Filmmakers’ Co-operative/LFMC) faxes Cinenova staffer Gill Henderson, confirming her booking of several LFMC distributed prints for Cinenova’s Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) sponsored New Wave Women touring package. Booking is from April to November, except that Neon Diver (Tina Keane, 1990) will not be available until 22 April due to another booking. (Turner, 1993a).

8 February 1993: London. David Powell (Acting Chief Executive, London Film and Video Development Agency/LFVDA) notes the arrangements envisaged by the British Film Institute (BFI) for housing LFVDA, London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) and London Video Access (LVA) in the Sainsbury’s Plc owned Grand Union House. “The BFI [British Film Institute] will enter into an agreement with LFMC and LVA that it makes up “the difference between what LFMC and LVA can afford and the full cost of the rent, in the form of a grant”” (Powell, 1993a: 1). This would be a separate sum on top of the group’s existing grants. (Powell, 1993a).

16 February 1993: London. Cinenova staffer Gill Henderson writes to Gary Thomas (Assistant Film and Video Officer/AFVO, Artists Film and Video Committee/AFVC, Arts Council of Great Britain/ACGB) asking after the venue list for the 1986 Film and Video Umbrella (FVU) women’s artists’ film tour A Camera of One’s Own, and European venue contacts from his Film and Video database. Cinenova’s ACGB-sponsored New Wave Women touring package now has five provisional bookings with Regional Film Theatres (RFTs), with dates still to be firmed up, “but, given that their programming is becoming somewhat conservative (and that initiatives like WEAVE have demised) I am relatively pleased with the response.” (Henderson, 1993c).

17 & 24 February 1993: London. The Board of Sainsbury’s Plc reject the British Film Institute’s (BFI) bid to negotiate a lease on Grand Union House as joint premises the for London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC), London Video Access (LVA) and the London Film and Video Development Agency. This is not conveyed to the BFI until 15 March. (Whitehead, 1993c: 1).

Spring 1993: Cardiff. Anthony Howell launches Grey Suit: Video for Art & Literature, a magazine distributed on VHS which features writers, filmmakers and performers, as well as work by artists and composers. Published quarterly, Issue 1 includes a video by German artists Kai Zimmer, a video of a 16mm film by American sculptor/performer Stuart Sherman, and British filmmaker Tony Hill's film Water Work. It is offered for purchase via mail order subscription to both individuals and institutions, and "Back issues will build into a valuable video library of literature and art in the nineties" (Howell, 1993).

2 March 1993: London. Steven Bell (Acting Head of Exhibition and Distribution, British Film Institute/BFI), writes to Cinenova offering them a revenue grant for 1993/94 of £17,500. This is substantially less than the £30,000 Cinenova applied for, but Bell argues that the current level of subsidy – calculated at £100 per film – is too high, long term viability is dependent of subsisting at a lower level of subsidy, and that “the high levels of funding” given to Cinenova in “recent years” have allowed them to become “established” in terms of making contacts, computerising the office and publishing a catalogue. He also expresses disappointment at “your seeming lack of determination in sorting out your distribution problems with Glenbuck”, the wholly owned BFI subsidiary that dispatches and stores Cinenova’s collection, as “the onus is squarely on you to resolve the problems affecting your customers” (Bell, 1993: 1). He expresses sympathy as the BFI has recently experienced staff and budget cuts, and asks for a revised budget tailored to the grant offered by 16 March. (Bell, 1993: 1-2).

2 March 1993: London. David Powell (Acting Chief Executive, London Film and Video Development Agency/LFVDA) seeks legal advice from Gouldens on setting up a subsidiary company to hold the Head Lease on Grand Union House. The British Film Institute (BFI) wishes LFVDA to take this lease in order that the London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) and London Video Access (LVA) can be housed in the building, along with the LFVDA, which would reside rent-free in return for taking the lease and acting as licensee. As the rent and re-fit costs of the building are substantial, and the lease long, the BFI will issue a guarantee to provide sufficient extra subsidy to maintain the three groups. The LFVDA Board is seeking legal advice on setting up a subsidiary to effectively protect it from liability to the lease, and also on the BFI’s guarantee. (Powell, 1993b).

5 March 1993: London. Cinenova staffer Liane Harris writes to members of the Management Committee, informing them of the British Film Institute’s (BFI) £17,500 funding offer for 1993/94 – half of what had been applied for. An Emergency meeting will be held 10 March to “discuss strategies and the way forward”. (Harris, 1993a).

9 March 1993: London. Cinenova staff members Gill Henderson, Kate Norrish and Liane Harris reply to Steven Bell’s (Acting Head of Exhibition and Distribution, British Film Institute/BFI) offer of grant letter of 2 March (Bell, 1993). They raise practical difficulties in responding to his request to draw up a new budget based on 50% less BFI funding:

Given the immensity of the cut […], where exactly are we supposed to find savings? The inescapable conclusion is that we are expected to cut staff days. We can maybe lose the “consultancy” days which would make life difficult, but reducing staffing any further would completely undermine our efficiency, our pro-active marketing, the production of the catalogue, the establishment of the database, all of the activities we are undertaking to raise revenue. If we don’t have (barely) adequate staffing we won’t increase our revenue. Which in the crudest terms means that we are being condemned to death by slow starvation, as opposed to being beheaded. (Henderson, 1993d: 1)

They also query the model used to establish the offered funding level and whether that relates to any staffing model or level of activity, the size of cut being made to the BFI’s other distribution client, the London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC), whether this alters the relationship with the BFI’s wholly-owned subsidiary Glenbuck and the 30% of earned income Cinenova is currently obliged to give them for dispatch, and whether any other funds might be available from the London Film and Video Development Agency (LFVDA). They ask for a meeting in the next week to avoid ongoing uncertainty, especially as Cinenova’s bookings are currently very high. (Henderson, 1993d: 1-2)

10 March 1993: London. Cinenova Emergency Management Committee Meeting to consider survival strategies in the face of the British Film Institute’s (BFI) cut to Cinenova’s revenue funding. (Harris, 1993a).

11 March 1993: London. Wilf Stevenson writes to Andrea Wonfor (Channel Four/C4, London Film and Video Development Agency/LFVDA Board), querying the LFVDA Board’s recent decision to found a wholly-owned subsidiary to hold the Head Lease on the Grand Union House building in which the BFI wishes to house the London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) and London Video Access (LVA). He questions the economy and utility of the measure, and especially the Board’s apparent reservations about the BFI long term support of the joint premises. (Stevenson, 1993: 1)

The reason for the Board’s decision appears to be based on a lack of trust in the BFI’s continued funding and, therefore, in its guarantee of the LFVDA’s performance. I fail to understand the reasoning behind this. The BFI has made the LFVDA a good offer of a rent-free life in well-appointed premises animated by proximity to creative film and video activity; that offer will be enshrined in guarantees between our two bodies. (Stevenson, 1993: 1)

Stevenson stresses that a signature will soon be required for the head lease, and asks for the Board to meet with himself and Irene Whitehead (Head of Planning, BFI). (Stevenson, 1993: 2)

15 March 1993: London. David Powell (Acting Executive, London Film and Video Development Agency/LFVDA) writes to LFVDA Board member Tony Kirkhope (Metro Pictures) informing him that the LFVDA has taken separate legal counsel to provide advice on the Head Lease on Grand Union House that the British Film Institute (BFI) wishes them to sign. They will also assist with arrangements to form a separate company to take on that lease. He is also formulating a draft of the guarantees that LFVDA requires from the BFI, and addressing the “funding gap” that may remain between money available to develop the site (£100,000 from the BFI, £350,000 from Sainsbury’s, the owners, some of the £200,000 Foundation for Sport and the Arts (FSA) grant recently awarded to the building’s other tenants, the London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) and London Video Access (LVA)) and that required to complete the job. (Powell, 1993c).

16 March 1993: London. Sarah Turner (Distribution Organiser, London Filmmakers’ Co-operative/LFMC) writes to Cinenova staffer Liane Harris, seeking confirmation of the terms, discussed November 19932, under which Cinenova will book LFMC prints for their Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) sponsored New Wave Women touring package. Prints of LFMC distributed films purchased by Cinenova will be returned to LFMC at the tour’s end, and other prints are available to the tour for a flat fee, with a negotiable 10% discount depending on booking numbers. (Turner, 1993b).

16 March 1993: London. Irene Whitehead (Head of Planning, British Film Institute/BFI) writes to Trevor Baker, Property Manager of Sainsburys, concerning the Sainsburys Board’s rejection of the BFI’s bid to negotiate a lease on Grand Union House for London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) and London Video Access (LVA), belated news of which reached her the previous day. She objects to the manner in which BFI has been treated by Sainsbury’s’s agents, especially that further costs have been incurred between Sainsbury’s rejection and the BFI being informed. She appeals for their bid to be reconsidered. (Whitehead, 1993c).

19 March 1993: London. Cinenova staffer Gill Henderson responds to Sarah Turner’s (Distribution Organiser, London Filmmakers’ Co-operative/LFMC) letter of 16 March (Turner, 1993b), recounting the terms under which Cinenova is hiring LFMC prints for its Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) sponsored New Wave Women touring package. Cinenova is purchasing new prints for Chameleon (Tanya Syed, 1990) and Fatima’s Letter (Alia Syed, 1992), which will become the LFMC’s after the tour. No rental is to be paid on those, and other LFMC titles will be hired at a 10% discount, per booking rather than as a flat fee. Henderson also asks after stills from the films for the tour’s publicity. (Henderson, 1993e)

Henderson also writes to Jayne Pilling (Head of Programming Services, Exhibition and Distribution, British Film Institute/BFI), seeking her assistance with RFT bookings for New Wave Women. Every BFI-supported cinema has received the tour’s publicity, some more than once, and most have been phoned, but only three definite bookings have been made, none with confirmed dates. Henderson has heard that Pilling has sent a circular to the RFTs, and asks after any response. Conversely, educational institutions have been asking to book the tour, but Henderson is reluctant to let it be screened in a college before the local RFT has had a chance to show it to a wider audience. An indication of possible demand from RFTs would help gauge the print run on the programme notes. Henderson will be leaving Cinenova soon to be the Director of the Birmingham Film and Television Festival, and would like to leave her colleagues with a clear picture of the touring situation (Henderson, 1993f). The situation as Henderson leaves it is here (Henderson, 1993g), including three confirmed bookings: Bristol Watershed, Tyneside Cinema and the Birmingham Film and Television Festival.

19 March 1993: David Powell (Acting Executive, London Film and Video Development Agency/LFVDA) writes to Peter Westley (Gouldens), updating him on the Grand Union House Head Lease issue. The owner Sainsbury’s has rejected the British Film Institute’s bid to negotiate a lease for the LFVDA, and sub-leases for the London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) and London Video Access (LVA), the BFI have not appreciated the LFVDA’s reservations about taking this proposed long-term lease, and Powell will be replaced by a permanent Chief Executive, Steve McIntyre, in June. (Powell, 1993d).

23 March 1993: London. Peter Westley (Gouldens) writes to David Powell (Acting Executive, London Film and Video Development Agency/LFVDA) regretting the news that Sainsbury’s Plc has rejected the British Film Institute’s (BFI) offer on their Grand Union House, and that the LFVDA’s reluctance to sign the Head Lease on this building has disrupted relations with the BFI. The LFVDA Board had determined to found a subsidiary to take on the lease. While agreeing that easing of these tensions requires tact, Westley suggests

that it would not be impertinent to point out that one of the reasons why LFVDA want to set up a separate company to take on the Head Lease is exactly the same as the reason why BFI do not wish to take on the Head Lease themselves, i.e. the potential financial liabilities. (Westley, 1993: 1)

April(?) 1993: Cardiff/London. Anthony Howell writes to Steve Bode at Film and Video Umbrella (FVU) to introduce the launch of Grey Suit: Video for Art & Literature, a magazine on VHS featuring the work of filmmakers, video artists, performers and writers from around the world. Published 4 times a year "Grey Suit offers those who appreciate innovation an exceptional opportunity to build their own library of contemporary film, video, slide-dissolve pieces, performances and creative experiments". Howell stresses that "The cassette will only contain entire works, untouched by editing or comment, allowing access to each piece without any interpretive colouring" (Howell, Anthony, 1993).

21 April 1993: London. Meeting of the Cinenova Management Committee considers a video sell-through package deal with the gay and lesbian label Dangerous to Know (DtK), present and future marketing strategies, the need for new Committee members, and Cinenova’s budget, revised in response to the British Film Institute’s (BFI) revised revenue grant offer of £24,900. (Harris, 1993b).

22 April 1993: Trevor Baker (Property Manager, Sainsbury’s) writes to Irene Whitehead (Head of Planning, British Film Institute/BFI), confirming that he has reviewed documentation relating the BFI’s unsuccessful bid to arrange a lease on Grand Union House for the London Film and Video Development Agency/LFVDA, London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) and London Video Access (LVA). He is satisfied that Sainsbury’s agents conducted negotiations properly, and the decision to reject the BFI’s bid stands, which he stresses was for financial reasons. (Baker, 1993: 1-2).

28 April 1993: London and Bristol. Cinenova staffer Liane Harris writes to John Mount (Watershed, Bristol) recapping their phone conversation. Judith Higginbottom (Film and Television Officer, South West Arts Board/SWAB) has said that SWAB could subsidise the hire cost of Cinenova’s Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) sponsored New Wave Women touring package to venues in the region. The application needs to be made by a key South West venue, such as the Watershed, which is already screening the package in June. Higginbottom has sent a list of South West venues, and Harris is holding back the printing of programme notes until the situation becomes clearer. (Harris, 1993c).

12 May 1993: Bristol and London. Judith Higginbottom (Film and Television Officer, South West Arts Board/SWAB) writes to Cinenova staffer Liane Harris, regretting that she cannot subsidise a regional tour of Cinenova’s package New Wave Women as “we are not allowed to fund projects which are already supported by the Arts Council [of Great Britain/ACGB].” She had not realised the tour was already ACGB funded, but will continue to encourage venues in the region to book the package. (Higginbottom, 1993).

7 June 1993: London. Chris Chandler (Regional Planning Officer, British Film Institute/BFI) writes to Florian Beigel, the architect attached to the BFI’s project to relocate the London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) and London Video Access (LVA) to joint premises occupied also by their direct funder, the London Film and Video Development Agency (LFVDA). Since Sainsbury’s Plc rejected the BFI’s bid on the Grand Union House, the BFI are currently considering properties in Stratford, Brixton, the ongoing Diorama development, and the LFMC have suggested the Decca building near Oval tube. (Chandler, 1993).

17-20 June 1993: London. London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC), London Video Access (LVA) and Cinenova hold showcase screenings at the LFMC Cinema for programmers, curators, festival directors and the general public. Despite a number of programmers attending, the event is not considered successful, and the groups determine to more closely target programmers and potential hirers if they repeat the screenings next year. (Cinenova, 1993e: 10).

July 1993: London. Cinenova staffer Kate Norrish writes to members of the Management Committee setting schedule for future committee meetings. She also notes that the British Film Institute (BFI) has now handed Cinenova over to its regional body, the London Film and Video Development Agency (LFVDA). The LFVDA require notification of, observer status on, and all papers from committee meetings. (Norrish, 1993a).

7 July 1993: London. David Curtis (Film and Video Officer/FVO, Arts Council of Great Britain/ACGB) writes to Cinenova staffer Liane Harris, asking if the New Wave Women touring package is any closer meeting the minimum of eight bookings, six to public venues, which is a condition of the tour’s ACGB funding (Wilson, 1992). He sets the beginning of September as the deadline for the tour to achieve these bookings. (Curtis, 1993).

August 1993: London. Helen de Witt replaces Liane Harris on Cinenova’s staff. (Norrish, 1993a).

11 August 1993: London. The Cinenova Management Committee meets, introducing prospective new member Harriet Willis (Publicity, Twentieth Century Fox), who may be able to help with promotional and marketing initiatives. Current discussions with Tim Highsted (Institute of Contemporary Arts/ICA) about a Women Make Movies (WMM) programme in Cinenova’s Broad’s Perspective slot are revolving around a two-week season and a one day conference in March 1994 coinciding with Debra Zimmerman’s (Executive Director, WMM) visit. This would involve ICA Talks, who require a more detailed proposal. The December 1993 Broad’s Perspective slot could centre around Cinenova’s recent acquisition of Guerrillas in Our Midst (Amy Harrison, 1992, US), about the campaigns of New York feminist artist group the Guerrilla Girls. Fanny Adams, the UK’s equivalent group, will be approached, as will ICA Theatre to have performance artists choose films for the season. The new Cinenova catalogue is well under way, and design and production have been contracted to Frantic Design, who will deliver 1000 for £5,600 in six weeks. This could be launched at a special event coinciding with the Broad’s Perspective Guerrillas in Our Midst season. (Cinenova, 1993b: 1-2)

To fulfil obligations under Charity law, Cinenova will hold its Annual General Meeting (AGM) 8 September to ratify the new memorandum and articles of association. The Foundation for Sport and the Arts (FSA), who have funded Cinenova’s new catalogue, have advised that their funds are fully committed and Cinenova’s recent application will be held over until the next funding session. Cinenova’s revenue funding has been devolved from the British Film Institute (BFI) to the London Film and Video Development Agency (LFVDA), who require observer status on Management Committee meetings. Given that the observer was likely to be a man, the committee will place things to be discussed in an women-only context at the bottom of the agenda, when the observer would leave. (Cinenova, 1993b: 1-2)

Staffer Kate Norrish reports that the previous student placement, having been set two weeks work, left after two days. Two more students have asked for placements, and one will log videos and the other develop a package of women’s experimental work to be included in the catalogue. (Cinenova, 1993b: 2)

12 August 1993: London. Cinenova staff Kate Norrish and Helen de Witt write to Cinenova members, informing them that their application for charitable status has been approved, and that the Annual General Meeting (AGM) to pass the new memorandum and articles of association will be held on the 8 September. (Norrish, 1993b).

18 August 1993: London. Tony Warcus (Distribution Organiser, London Filmmakers’ Co-operative/LFMC) writes to Cinenova, asking after their Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) funded New Wave Women touring package. Warcus is interested in whether the tour is still scheduled to end in October, when the LFMC prints in the package will be returned, how may screenings there have been and how much LFMC is owed. Warcus has returned to LFMC for a six-month stint, working with Imke Janiesch. (Warcus, 1993).

19 August 1993: London. Cinenova staffer Helen de Witt writes to Tony Warcus (Distribution Organiser, London Filmmakers’ Co-operative/LFMC), confirming that Cinenova’s Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) funded New Wave Women touring package, which includes several LFMC prints, will finish at the end of October. There have not been many bookings, however, and she asks if he has any further ideas of venues that might hire the tour. (de Witt, 1993a).

31 August 1993: London and regions. Cinenova staffer Helen de Witt writes to Paul Taylor (Distribution, British Film Institute/BFI), updating him on the situation with Cinenova’s Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) sponsored New Wave Women touring package. The tour is still short of its minimum number of bookings to receive further ACGB subsidy, and she asks for his advice on placing the package with Regional Film Theatres (RFTs) and any feedback on the packages themselves that might help them expose their catalogue in the regions. (de Witt, 1993c)

De Witt also writes to a number of venues whose programmers may be interested in experimental work (de Witt, 1993c) (de Witt, 1993d). She points out that:

we desperately need to receive bookings in the next two weeks or this promised [Arts Council of Great Britain/ACGB] funding will be withdrawn. Even if you are not in a position to confirm a booking, a provisional booking will help us secure this much needed money in these times of cut-backs! (de Witt, 1993b)

6 September 1993: London. Irene Whitehead (Head of Planning, British Film Institute/BFI) writes to Florian Beigel, the architect attached to the BFI’s project to relocate the London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) and London Video Access (LVA) to joint premises occupied also by their direct funder, the London Film and Video Development Agency (LFVDA), advising him on the state of negotiations with Glasshouse Investments on the Hoxton Square site, and reassuring him that he is the BFI’s architectural adviser on the project. Glasshouse Investments has received £5,000 from Hackney City Challenge for a feasibility study of the Hoxton Square site, seemingly due to the City Callenge’s interest in Glasshouse and BFI collaborating on the development. It will not be possible to settle areas of responsibility in the project between the BFI and Glasshouse until this study is complete. (Whitehead, 1993d: 1-2).

8 September 1993: London. Cinenova holds its Annual General Meeting (AGM), and adopts a new memorandum and articles of association, in line with the Charity Commission’s required model. (Norrish, 1993b).

14 September 1993: London. Cinenova staffer Kate Norrish updates David Curtis (Film and Video Officer/FVO, Arts Council of Great Britain/ACGB) on the bookings received for their New Wave Women touring package. There were screenings at the Bristol Watershed (June), Electric Cinema in Notting Hill (August), and a confirmed booking for the Watermans Art Centre in Brentford (November), and expressions of interest from the Rio Cinema in Hackney, Nottingham Media Centre and a Birmingham venue. There will be one more mail shot to regional Film Theatre (RFT) Education Officers, who may be more interested than programmers, but this will be the last attempt to secure further bookings. (Norrish, 1993c) (Cinenova, 1993d)

In the main programmers that we’ve spoken to have expressed an interest in the package, however, BFI’s [British Film Institute] new initiatives to make the RFTs largely self financing and the general trend for even Art Cinemas to book more mainstream products has made our task that much harder. (Norrish, 1993c)

The tour has missed its 1 September deadline for getting eight bookings to release its second tranche of funding (Curtis, 1993) (Wilson, 1992), but Norrish inquires as to whether a portion of that money can be released. (Norrish, 1993c)

22 September 1993: London. The Cinenova Management Committee meets. Debra Zimmerman (Executive Director, Women Make Movies/WMM) is happy with Cinenova and the Institute for Contemporary Art’s (ICA) plans for a WMM screening series and one day conference, but would prefer it in May 1994 rather than March, which is very busy already with International Women’s Day and the London Lesbian and Gay Film Festival. This will work for Cinenova so long as all plans are in place by 1 April at the end of the financial year. Zimmerman will provide programmes of films not previously seen in the UK from WMM and other sources. The ICA will fund the event, but sponsorship will be sought from the British Council (BC) and LFVDA, as well as commercial sponsorship to cover film freight and Zimmerman’s flight. If work from other European distributors is included, this might bring some European funding. (Cinenova, 1993c: 1)

In December Cinenova’s bi-monthly ICA slot Broad’s Perspective will be programmed by the Fanny Adams group on Women’s Resistance in the Arts, centring on Guerrillas in Our Midst (Amy Harrison, 1992, US), recently acquired by Cinenova. The next Broad’s Perspective will be about women performance artists and organised with ICA Live Arts. The one after will be about Northern Irish women’s film and video production, dealing with Catholic women of West Belfast. (Cinenova, 1993c: 1)

Although another booking for Cinenova’s Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB) sponsored New Wave Women tour has been made by the Watermans Art Centre in Brentford, this is still only three of the eight bookings needed to release the next tranche of ACGB money. Staffer Kate Norrish has written to David Curtis (Film and Video Officer/FVO, ACGB) to see if some money can be released, and there has been a mail out to Regional Film Theatre (RFT) Education Officers. If there is no response, then the tour will end when the current bookings are fulfilled. (Cinenova, 1993c: 2)

Catalogue preparation has progressed with a good meeting with the designer, the commissioning of Vicky Cleaver to sell advertising space, and Trinh T. Minh-ha giving permission for an essay of hers to be included, along with essays by Beverley Zalcock and Julia Knight. A working party is dividing the catalogue into subject headings. A six-monthly newsletter to filmmakers about developments at Cinenova is proposed. (Cinenova, 1993c: 2)

The British Film Institute (BFI) has demanded the handover of Cinenova’s Maya Deren prints, which were inherited from Circles, who purchased them in the early 1980s. Although BFI have acquired the rights to Deren’s work, Norrish found that Cinenova’s educational distribution rights have not expired, and informed Heather Stewart (BFI) of this. There has been no reply, but Norrish also found that the BFI has been after the prints for some time. BFI’s wholly-owned subsidiary Glenbuck Films has not made any significant errors in dispatching Cinenova’s collection since Cinenova took video dispatch back in house. However, a written contract with them is suggested so they are clear about their responsibilities. (Cinenova, 1993c: 2)

Further suggestions include a mail shot for all Lesbian and Gay Festivals about Cinenova’s new films, and investigation of Home Office funding for screenings in Women’s prisons. (Cinenova, 1993c: 2-3)

2 November 1993: London. Cinenova staffer Kate Norrish sends David Curtis (Film and Video Officer/FVO, Arts Council of Great Britain/ACGB) the final budget (Cinenova, 1993d) and programme notes (Cinenova, 1992i) for the New Wave Women touring package, supporting her claim for £500 from the funding initially offered for the tour in July 1992 (Wilson, 1992). The bulk of the outstanding funding, £3,120, has been withdrawn as the tour did not meet its minimum number of bookings. (Norrish, 1993d).

19 November 1993: London. Jill Stokes (Assistant Grants Officer, Arts Council of Great Britain/ACGB) writes to Kate Norrish (Cinenova), turning down her claim for £500 from the funding originally offered to the New Wave Women touring package. Norrish’s submitted budget does not show a substantial loss beyond unspecified sums for print hire from the London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) and “hidden administrative costs,” but they cannot be taken into account unless itemised. All outstanding funding for the tour is hereby withdrawn. (Stokes, 1993).

22 November 1993: London. Steve McIntyre (Chief Executive, London Film and Video Development Agency/LFVDA) writes to Cinenova, detailing their up coming assessment exercise. He envisages about two meetings between Cinenova and his team. (Cinenova Management Board, 1994: 3).

2 December 1993: London. Cinenova staffer Kate Norrish writes to Tony Warcus (Distribution Organiser, London Filmmakers’ Co-operative/LFMC), informing him that LFMC prints included in Cinenova’s touring package New Wave Women are being returned, and asking for an invoice for the three screenings that the package received. (Norrish, 1993e).

Summer 1993: Cardiff. Anthony Howell publicises issue number 2 of Grey Suit: Video for Art & Literature, a magazine distributed on VHS, featuring writers, performers, filmmakers, artists and composers. This issue includes two videos form Marseilles based Z Productions, a performance by Stelarc, and a piece by Lyons based video group Frigo. The magazine is published quarterly and available via mail-order subscription to both individuals and institutions (Howell, 1993).

1994

28 January 1994: London. The London Film and Video Development Agency (LFVDA) writes to Cinenova, outlining their upcoming assessment and review.

The purpose of this review is for the LFVDA (in association with the BFI [British Film Institute]) to work with Cinenova in a detailed and systematic way to look at its policies, operations and plans for the future. It should be seen as a partnership process hopefully leading to an agreed way forward. The overall trajectory of the review will be to move from an examination and understanding of Cinenova’s current activities through to some kind of agreement on shared policy/priorities plus mechanisms for delivery. (LFVDA, 1994a: 1)

LFVDA envisage two meetings with Cinenova, between which Steve McIntyre (Chief Executive, LFVDA) will draft an outline report. The first meeting between the parties will be 21 February. (LFVDA, 1994a: 2)

9 February 1994: London. Cinenova holds its Annual General Meeting (AGM) and a Management Committee meeting. The Management meeting views Cinenova’s business plan (Cinenova, 1993f) and funding application (Cinenova, 1993e), and hears that the London Film and Video Development Agency (LFVDA) has offered standstill funding for six months. Procedures for the LFVDA assessment are discussed and Julia Knight appointed to represent management. In financial matters, Cinenova has yet to receive its charity number, its VAT deregistration takes effect 1 April, and is investigating a pay rise for workers. (Cinenova, 1994a)

Cinenova’s new catalogue will be out in March, with a launch party to take place either at the Institute for Contemporary Arts (ICA) or Four Corners. Cinenova has met with several interested groups at the ICA to work on the programme for Women Makes Movies (WMM) visit. Cinenova’s programme for the Despite TV screening at Four Corners was moderately successful, though Despite TV damaged a monitor. Showreels are being sent to film festivals, and Cinenova’s mailout for International Women’s Day will centre on the Crossing the Divide package, which was developed by University of East London (UEL) Women’s Media students. (Cinenova, 1994a) (Cinenova, 1992a) (Cinenova, 1992m: 16) (Cinenova, 1993f: 8)

21 February 1994: London. Cinenova representatives Helen de Witt, Kate Norrish and Julia Knight meet with the London Film and Video Development Agency (LFVDA) review group, consisting of Sid Brooks (LFVDA Director), Steve McIntryre (Chief Executive, LFVDA), Abina Manning (London Video Access/LVA), and Marion Doyen (Exhibition, British Film Institute/BFI). Judith Higginbottom (South West Arts Board/SWAB) is absent. Disputed minutes of the meeting are here: (McIntyre, 1994a). (de Witt, 1994a) (Cinenova Management Board, 1994: 3).

9 March 1994: London. Steve McIntyre (Chief Executive, London Film and Video Development Agency/LFVDA) sends Cinenova the ‘Interim Report’ on their funding assessment. Designed as the mid-point of the assessment (LFVDA, 1994a: 2), it is an annotated set of minutes for their meeting of 21 February. (McIntyre, 1994a).

6 April 1994: London. Cinenova Management Committee meets. The new catalogue has been well received and orders are coming in. A further mail out will soon take place, with specially designed order forms. The new database has been installed and will soon be used to process bookings. A pay rise for staff has been included in the budget, and may be backdated if the audit shows Cinenova is not running at a loss. However, end of year figures show a deficit although the bank is not overdrawn. Staff express dissatisfaction with the London Film and Video Development Agency’s (LFVDA) Interim Report on them, and detailed objections are discussed to inform Cinenova’s response. Three women have expressed interest in joining the Management Committee, and will be invited to the next meeting. (Cinenova, 1994b)

Cinenova attended the Lesbian and Gay Film Festival and is interested in acquiring about twenty films seen there. European Women’s film festival Feminale has lost its funding and been cancelled. Cinenova may attend New Visions in Glasgow or Femme Totale in Dortmund. LFVDA have agreed to fund the Women Make Movies (WMM) event up to £1000, and the Institute of Contemporary Arts (ICA) is confident of raising the rest of the funds needed. Debra Zimmerman (Executive Director, WMM) cannot now visit until October, so the event is postponed until then. The next Broad’s Perspective programme at the ICA will be in August and on Women and Safer Sex. (Cinenova, 1994b)

7 April 1994: London. Cinenova staffer Helen de Witt responds to Steve McIntyre’s (Chief Executive, London Film and Video Development Agency/LFVDA) letter of 9 March, and the Interim Report (McIntyre, 1994a) on Cinenova included as part of their assessment. Although the report is only provisional, de Witt wishes to raise a few points directly in order to make the upcoming assessment meeting on 20 April “more productive” (de Witt, 1994a: 1).

We were under the impression that [the] Assessment procedure was to be a partnership in which Cinenova and LFVDA would discuss Cinenova’s operations and decide on an appropriate level of funding for those operations. By contrast the report reads like an instructional document that merely reiterates discussions that have already taken place within Cinenova’s internal organisation. (de Witt, 1994a: 1)

In particular, what appear in the report to be suggestions or instructions from McIntyre, such as the need to consult with Regional Film Theatres (RFTs) and Consortium of Media Exhibitors (COMEX) when planning regional touring packages, and the possibility that Cinenova works released on Dangerous to Know (DtK) sell-through video compilations are undercutting regular hires and sales, were points raised in the meeting by the Cinenova delegates themselves. De Witt suggests a neutral minute taker for the next meeting. (de Witt, 1994a: 1-2)

Other LFVDA suggestions are criticised as obvious, such as the importance of the upcoming visit by Women Make Movies (WMM), or contradictory, such as the need for Cinenova to focus energy on activities affordable within current funding versus suggestions of extraneous activities. Likewise de Witt agrees that it would be good to access European funding and attend more film festivals, but these paths are blocked by the requirement for match funding and lack of resources for travel and accommodation respectively.

De Witt expresses disappointment that the report’s suggestions seem relatively pedestrian and do not offer ideas for dealing with Cinenova’s most pressing problems and contradictions. She suggests that Cinenova prepare a paper on its needs and the effect of the recent British Film Institute (BFI) funding cut, to focus discussion on how far these needs can be met and the deficiency redressed. She notes also that the assessment seems to be taking a lot of time. (de Witt, 1994a: 2-3)

13 April 1994: London. Wilf Stevenson (Director, British Film Institute/BFI) signs a Letter of Indemnity to Glasshouse Investments, owner of the Hoxton Square site where the BFI Hopes to relocate the London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC), London Video Access (LVA) and London Film and Video Development Agency (LFVDA). Stevenson’s letter undertakes to reimburse Glasshouse up to £30,000 if, after Glasshouse has borne the cost of commissioning plans for the development, LFVDA unreasonably declines to take the Head Lease. In this way the BFI is acting as guarantor for the LFVDA. (Stevenson, 1994a).

19 April 1994: Wilf Stevenson (Director, British Film Institute/BFI) writes to Larry Chrisfield (London Film and Video Development Agency/LFVDA Board Member) a letter “which, while not legally binding, would give your Board members the maximum degree of reassurance about the Institute’s intentions for the future funding of the LFVDA” and the implications of the LFVDA taking the Head Lease on the Hoxton Square development, where the BFI proposes the LFVDA reside with the London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC), London Video Access (LVA). Taking the lease implies a commitment by the LFVDA to continue revenue funding the LFMC and LVA, and, though the BFI’s Financial Regulations prevent it from “making contractually binding forward commitments”, Stevenson does not intend that the burdens of the Hoxton Development imbalance or destabilise the LFVDA. The LFVDA’s place in the Hoxton development will be “of prime importance” when BFI calculates its annual grant offer to the LFVDA. (Stevenson, 1994b).

20 April 1994: London. Second assessment meeting between Cinenova representatives and the London Film and Video Development Agency (LFVDA) review group. The meeting agrees that, in the absence of any possibility of a substantial increase in revenue funding, Cinenova should prepare a development prospectus of income-generating activities that would require short term funding but become self-sustaining. (Cinenova Management Board, 1994: 3).

27 April 1994: London. Steve McIntyre (Chief Executive, London Film and Video Development Agency/LFVDA) meets with Cinenova representatives to discuss the structure of their development prospectus. This is to be a business plan showing income-generating strategies that Cinenova cannot at present afford to undertake, but which would become self-financing after short term funding. Within in the context of the LFVDA’s assessment and review of Cinenova’s funding, the prospectus is a bid for subsidy in addition to their revenue grant. (Cinenova Management Board, 1994: 3).

29 April 1994: London. Steve McIntyre (Chief Executive, London Film and Video Development Agency/LFVDA) writes to Wilf Stevenson (Director, British Film Institute/BFI) regarding the necessity for the LFVDA to be kept fully informed about the BFI’s negotiations with Glasshouse Investments on the Hoxton Square development. Although the BFI is meeting the cost of legal negotiations, the LFVDA will soon be offered the Head Lease being negotiated. Given that time is short, it is important that any LFVDA Board concerns be registered as early as possible. McIntyre also asks to see Stevenson’s Letter of Indemnity to Glasshouse. (McIntyre, 1994b) (Stevenson, 1994a).

11 May 1994: London. Meeting of the Cinenova Board hears that Cinenova staff will now prepare a Development Prospectus as part of their funding review by the London Film and Video Development Agency. Staff will design and cost income-generating strategies, including an analysis of staff workload and non-LFVDA fundraising possibilities, and also the possibility of hiring a temporary worker until the schemes are running. Last year’s preview screening collaboration with London Video Access (LVA) and London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) at the LFMC cinema will not be repeated this year as both groups are internally restructuring at present. Cinenova will approach the British Film Institute (BFI) about using their preview theatres, otherwise the Four Corners’ cinema will be used. Cinenova’s audit has shown a small operating deficit. (Cinenova, 1994c).

19 May 1994: London. Mark Phillips of Nicholson, Graham and Jones, the British Film Institute’s (BFI) solicitors advising on the Hoxton Square development, writes to Steve McIntyre (Chief Executive, London Film and Video Development Agency/LFVDA). He assures McIntyre that the LFVDA Directors will attract no personal liabilities or obligations if the LFVDA takes on the Hoxton Square Head Lease as part of the BFI’s relocation of the London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) and London Video Access (LVA) into shared premises. (Phillips, 1994a).

7 June 1994: London. Solicitor Oonagh Alen-Buckley writes to Michael Maziere (London Video Access/LVA) on the lease currently being negotiated on the Hoxton Square site. He cautions that this is not the sub-lease that LVA would have to sign, though they will resemble each other. He raises three queries: whether restrictions against visible aerials is a problem, that the rent review provisions to not allow the rent to go down if the market value has sunk, but only rise or stay the same, and whether the surety the lease calls for will be the British Film Institute (BFI). (Alen-Buckley, 1994).

14 June 1994: London. Mark Phillips of Nicholson, Graham and Jones, the British Film Institute’s (BFI) solicitors advising on the Hoxton Square development to re-house the London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) and London Video Access (LVA), writes to Chris Chandler (Regional Planning Officer, BFI) on negotiations with Glasshouse Investments on the terms of the Hoxton Square lease. Phillips advises that, as lending institutions are becoming more flexible, Glasshouse’s insistence on both a 25-year lease and that the BFI not be able to reassign liability is unreasonable. He suggests that the lease term be reduced to 10 years. (Phillips, 1994b).

15 June 1994: London. Meeting of the Cinenova Board views the draft Development Prospectus (Cinenova, 1994d), to be submitted to the London Film and Video Development Agency (LFVDA) as part of the current funding review. Within the context of the review, the Prospectus is an application for short term project funding to initiate new income-generation schemes (Cinenova, 1994e) to boost revenues enough to afford to expand staff numbers in order to manage increased fundraising and distribution activities. (Cinenova, 1994d: 19)

Staffer Kate Norrish will attend the Pandora Network’s annual conference, a pan-European meeting point for women’s media groups and site for information swapping regarding strategies for accessing European funding, in Brussels 1-3 June (Cinenova, 1993f: 29). Norrish reports that a meeting of the South West Arts (SWA) Regional Exhibitors expressed interest in a regional tour of Cinenova films, and has offered a slot in the Bristol Black Film Festival for Cinenova to programme. Staffer Helen de Witt reports on the success of Cinenova’s seminar at the Cinewomen Film Festival in Norwich, and Board member Deborah Wearn recommends some films shown for acquisition. Vera Productions has offered a page in their Networking magazine that could cover similar areas to Cinenova’s proposed newsletter, and have also offered to hold Cinenova showreels for programmers and lecturers. (Cinenova, 1994e)

Staff will draft a document detailing the legal responsibilities of Board members for the next meeting, including the need for management to form policy on the structure and management of Cinenova (Cinenova, 1994f), and new Board member Corinna Merriman is elected. (Cinenova, 1994e)

15 June 1994: London. Chris Chandler (Regional Planning Officer, BFI) updates the London Film and Video Development Agency (LFVDA) on the state of negotiations with Glasshouse Investments over the terms of a lease on the Hoxton Square site, planned location for re-housing the LFVDA and their funding clients London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) and London Video Access (LVA). Negotiations hinge around Glasshouse’s insistence of Privity of Contract for the full 25-year lease, depriving LFVDA as Head Lease holder and BFI as Guarantor of the right to assign the lease elsewhere. Glasshouse argues that they will not be able to raise enough private investment for their share of the costs without this provision. Otherwise the development is most attractive, with Hackney Borough Council enthusiastic enough to support a £400,000 application to the European Regional Development Fund and to support other film and video projects. There is also reasonable expectation of further support from the City Challenge, the Foundation for Sport and the Arts (FSA) grant raised by LFMC and LVA raised in 1992, the possibility of funds from the National Lottery, plus the BFI’s own contributions. Alternative locations are scarce, with the Media Works development in Brixton the only obvious candidate, though it may not proceed if the Brixton City Challenge collapses. (Chandler, 1994a: 1-2)

The Hoxton Square development seems to have exceeded being only a relocation project for the LFMC and LVA, and become the founding of a “national centre for avant garde moving image culture in London” (Chandler, 1994a: 2). The possible compromise with Glasshouse is for Privity of Contract to extend only over a part of the lease, BFI suggesting 10 years, Glasshouse 15. (Chandler, 1994a: 2)

22 June 1994: London. The London Film and Video Development Agency (LFVDA) Hoxton Building sub-committee meets to review and assess developments in negotiations between the British Film Institute (BFI) and Glasshouse Investments to relocate the London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) and London Video Access (LVA) to Glasshouse’s Hoxton Square site. LFVDA is expected to take the Head Lease on the building, relocate there themselves, and sub-let to its funding clients LFMC and LVA. The sub-committee is pleased with LVA’s robust and apparently realistic financial projections for the move and relaunch, but concerned that the LFMC’s appear over-optimistic. They are especially concerned about the consequences of “massive underperforming” in year one (LFVDA, 1994b: 1). They express interest in the BFI providing a written estimation of the plausibility of both groups’ figures. (LFVDA, 1994b: 2)

The sub-committee feels that the draft lease is “weighted in the landlord’s favour” (2), and will be closely examined by a solicitor. For the most part the sub-committee are prepared to leave details such as Privity of Contract to the BFI, so long as it receives an “indemnification from the BFI directly” (LFVDA, 1994b: 2), in addition to the indirect guarantee of the BFI’s Letter of Indemnification to Glasshouse (Stevenson, 1994a). The sub-committee recommends that this be addressed and brought back to the sub-committee prior to the full LFVDA Board making a final decision. (LFVDA, 1994b: 3)

29 June 1994: London. Cinenova representatives meet with Steve McIntyre (Chief Executive, London Film and Video Development Agency/LFVDA) to discuss the interim Development Prospectus (Cinenova, 1994d) they have sent him. Feedback is positive, and McIntyre suggests a budget of £20,000 over two years. (Cinenova Management Board, 1994: 3).

1-3 July 1994: Brussels. Cinenova staffer Kate Norrish attends the Pandora Network annual conference, a pan-European meeting point for women’s media groups and site for information swapping regarding strategies for accessing European funding. (Cinenova, 1994e) (Cinenova, 1993f: 29).

12 July 1994: Amsterdam/London. Leonie Greefkens and Diana Wind write to a number of organisations including the Film and Video Umbrella (FVU) (Greefkens, 1994) and the London Filmmakers Co-op (LFMC) (Abbott, 1994) with information about a magazine they are launching on VHS devoted to (mostly European) short films and video art, INSERT/the go between. Due to the limited nature of exhibition outlets for such work, the intention is to "bring top quality short films/video art right to your home" and they argue that "people are acquiring a taste for 'owning' classics & quality pictures" (Greefkens, 1994: 1). The magazine will appear quarterly, with the first issue is due for release in September.

Compile your very own collection of short films/video art. By subscribing to this fabulous magazine or by buying it in bookshops or videotheques. Collect material you'll never see on TV or in the cinema. Enjoy it in the privacy of your home! (Greefkens, 1994: 2)

It is planned to distribute 3000 copies of the first four issues (in Holland and Belgium), rising to 15,000 per issue in 1995-96 (in England, Germany, Holland, Belgium, France and Spain), and rising again to 25,000 per issue in 1996-97 (Western Europe).

INSERT/the go between a magazine on video tape, aims at making short films/video art accessible to a large audience. … [It] is not only for the film house and festival in crowd, but strives to reach a much broader public (Greefkens, 1994: 3)

20 July 1994: London. Meeting of the Cinenova Board hears that, although the next funding assessment meeting with the London Film and Video Development Agency (LFVDA) has been postponed until late August, Steve McIntyre (Chief Executive, LFVDA) has been very positive about Cinenova’s Development Prospectus (Cinenova, 1994d), which he has passed on to the full assessment panel. (Cinenova, 1994f)

Staffer Kate Norrish reports on the Carte Blanche scheme that emerged at the Pandora Network pan-European women’s media conference, 1-3 July in Brussels. They have a budget of 40,000 ECU and intend to create a programme of films by women from each member country that had not received the recognition they deserved. The meeting ended on a dispute over the programme’s distribution, and Cinenova determines to be cautious until the details and benefits of the scheme were clearer. Norrish also met with several festival programmers, including from Creteil, Femme Totale and Drac Magic, who were very interested in a package of Cinenova work and may pay for a staff member to accompany and introduce the programme. (Cinenova, 1994f)

Staffer Helen de Witt reports on the Women Make Movies (WMM) visit in October and the events planned in conjunction with Cinenova and the Institute for Contemporary Art (ICA). The events will now be organised in conjunction with the London Film Festival (LFF), who have a women’s filmmaking strand. Debra Zimmerman (Executive Director, WMM) has sent a draft film programme, and the final programme will be in place soon. The seminar on 22 October will be called “Dialogues with Mad Women”, after the key film in the programme (Allie Light, 1993, UK). Zimmerman will present the keynote address, and the panel will consist of Lizzie Franke (chair), Suzanne Moore, Pratibha Parmar, Karen Alexander (Distribution, British Film Institute/BFI), Helen de Witt and possibly Beverley Zalcock. (Cinenova, 1994f)

Staff have made progress on the Responsibilities of Management document, but it cannot be completed without the Board taking some policy decisions. This will be tacked at a meeting in September. (Cinenova, 1994f)

22 July 1994: London. Stacey Abbott (Distribution Organiser, LFMC) replies to a letter from Leonie Greefkens (INSERT/the go between/) sent on 12 July to several organisations including the Film and Video Umbrella (FVU) and the London Filmmakers' Co-op (LFMC). Greefkens is helping launch a new quarterly VHS magazine devoted to short films/video art, aimed at the home market. The first issue is due for release in September (Greefkens, 1994). Abbott is enthusiastic about the venture which she asserts "will be filling the long neglected gap that is the home video market". She is keen to work with Greefkens to supply Co-op films for inclusion in the magazine, requests detailed information on how to go about sending them material, and confirm's the organisation's commitment to the project (Abbott, 1994) .

28 July 1994: London. Nicholas Morgan (London Filmmakers’ Co-operative /LFMC) writes to Chris Chandler (Regional Planning Officer, Cinema Services and Development, British Film Institute/BFI) regarding the LFMC’s lawyers, Hodge, Jones and Allen, comments on the current draft lease being negotiated by the British Film Institute (BFI) and Glasshouse Investments between Glasshouse and the London Film and Video Development Agency/LFVDA for the Hoxton Square site, where LFMC and London Video Access (LVA) are to be re-housed. Morgan is concerned that clauses dealing with “nuisance to other tenants” not effect the LFMC’s normal programmes, and want a written guarantee that there is no objection to having projections on the front windows. (Morgan, 1994: 2).

9 August 1994: London. Larry Chrisfield (London Film and Video Development Agency/LFVDA Board) gives his comments to Steve McIntyre (Chief Executive Officer, LFVDA) on the current draft lease being negotiated by British Film Institute (BFI) and Glasshouse Investments for the LFVDA’s taking the Head Lease on the Hoxton Square site. Most of the serious issues between the negotiating parties seem settled, but Chrisfield asks if the BFI have agreed to give LFVDA a Letter of Indemnity to protect them against any crises that may emerge with the building, and whether a draft of it will be available. (Chrisfield, 1994).

22 August 1994: London. Cinenova delegates meet with their London Film and Video Development Agency (LFVDA) assessment panel for the final meeting of the exercise. The Panel accept Cinenova’s Development Prospectus (Cinenova, 1994d), specifying that the sections covering attendance at MIPTV, staff training and equipment refurbishment be separated and submitted as discrete funding applications. The Prospectus’s figures are to be finalised in consultation with Steve McIntyre (Chief Executive, LFVDA). (Cinenova Management Board, 1994: 4).

31 August 1994: London. Cinenova staffer Kate Norrish meets with Steve McIntyre (Chief Executive, London Film and Video Development Agency/LFVDA) to discus the final figures of Cinenova’s Development Prospectus. McIntyre suggests the possibility of £3000 uplift to Cinenova’s revenue funding, and asks for a budget to be drawn showing the best and worst-case scenarios for the Prospectus’s proposed activities. (Cinenova Management Board, 1994: 4).

7 September 1994: London. Cinenova Board meeting hears that the London Film and Video Development Agency (LFVDA) assessment exercise is proceeding well, and Cinenova’s Development Prospectus was ratified at the Assessment Panel’s final meeting 22 August. A meeting with Steve McIntyre (Chief Executive, LFVDA) on 31 August has clarified that Cinenova are offered £3000 revenue uplift, funding to attend MIP TV with the London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) and London Video Access (LVA), equipment repair and financial training for management. These are to be taken out of the Prospectus, and a revised budget for the rest of the document’s projects submitted. (Cinenova, 1994h: 1)

Cinenova’s Hot and Sticky programme at the Institute of Contemporary Arts (ICA) drew a reasonable audience and good coverage in Time Out and Diva magazines. Diva though gave sole credit to ICA and neglected to mention Cinenova. The Board will write to them regarding the importance of highlighting the achievements of women and women’s organisations. The Board determine to postpone the policy decisions needed to advance the development of a Responsibilities of Management document until October, when copies of Cinenova’s current policies be circulated in addition the current information pack. (Cinenova, 1994g) (Cinenova, 1994h: 1)

The draft audit for 1993/94 shows a small surplus for the year, in spite of the British Film Institute (BFI) cutting Cinenova’s revenue funding by a third. While distribution income is up and admin expenses down, this has largely been cancelled out by increased royalty payments, producing a close balance in the books. The apparent surplus of £10,000 is produced by a £2000 remnant of the Foundation for Sport and the Arts (FSA) grant, and a favourable settlement of the dispute with Inland Revenue that Cinenova inherited from Circles in 1991. The resulting £8000 freed has been used to cushion staff hours in the face of the funding cut. (Cinenova, 1994h: 3)

20 September 1994: London. Steve McIntyre (Chief Executive, London Film and Video Development Agency/LFVDA) writes to Cinenova asking them to rework the figures for the Development Prospectus into income/expenditure accounts. The third column in the income/expenditure table is for the expected deficit from these projects and is marked ‘LFVDA Supplementary’. These will be the third set of figures generated for the exercise. McIntyre indicates that Cinenova’s LFVDA revenue grant in 1994/95 will be £28,000. (Cinenova Management Board, 1994: 4).

10 October 1994: London. London Film and Video Development Agency (LFVDA) Board member Tony Kirkhope (Metro Tartan) writes to LFVDA Chief Executive Steve McIntyre about the proposed lease for the site of the London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) and London Video Access (LVA) new joint premises in Hoxton Square. Kirkhope stresses that it be checked by “an appropriate professional outside the legal profession”, and suggests that

the overall scheme should also be examined to assess the relative value of the deal from our perspective. It could appear that the developer may be in receipt of windfall profits at the expense of state expenditure. (Kirkhope, 1994: 1)

14 October 1994: London. Steve McIntyre (Chief Executive, London Film and Video Development Agency/LFVDA) meets with Cinenova representatives, approves the revised budget for their Development Prospectus, suggesting only a few alterations. (Cinenova Management Board, 1994: 4).

19 October-6 November 1994: London. Institute of Contemporary Arts (ICA) Cinematheque hosts the Visible Difference screening series, consisting of eight programmes of works from US women’s film and video distributor Women Make Movies (WMM). Co-organised by Cinenova, the series is an extension of Cinenova’s regular Broad’s Perspective slot. Highlight of the series is the “Dialogues with Mad Women?” event on 22 October, where Debra Zimmerman (Executive Director, WMM) delivers the keynote address. The panel consists of Lizzie Franke (chair), Suzanne Moore, Pratibha Parmar, Karen Alexander (Distribution, British Film Institute/BFI), Beverley Zalcock and Helen de Witt (Cinenova) (Cinenova, 1994j). The event sells out in advance. (Cinenova, 1994k).

26 October 1994: London. Cinenova Board meeting hears that the Development Prospectus is complete and will be put to the London Film and Video Development Agency (LFVDA) Board for ratification. Six-monthly figures show Cinenova meeting its budgetary targets. The dossier of Cinenova’s policy documents (Cinenova, 1994i) is presented and board members indicate areas of interest for when working parties are set up. (Cinenova, 1994k)

Cinenova’s Women Make Movies (WMM) event at the Institute for Contemporary Art (ICA) was a great success, with Debra Zimmerman (Executive Director, WMM) delivering an inspirational keynote address at the “Dialogues with Mad Women” seminar day, which sold out in advance. The meeting determines to address issues of critical theory and practice in their Broad’s Perspective slot at the ICA. (Cinenova, 1994k)

The Feminale film festival played four two-hour programmes of Cinenova works in their Film market, staffers Kate Norrish and Helen de Witt spoke about Cinenova’s work on two public panels, met filmmakers and festival programmers from all over Europe and viewed a broad range of work. Norrish made useful contacts and acquired Voices from Iraq (Miriam Ryle, 1994, UK) at the Channels for Change conference in Edinburgh. Cinenova has sold The Match that Started my Fire (Cathy Cook, 1991, USA) and The Invisible Hand (Athina Tsoulis, 1992, New Zealand) to Channel 4 (C4). The idea of putting the Cinenova catalogue onto CD-ROM will be investigated. (Cinenova, 1994k)

31 October 1994: London. Mark Phillips (Nicholson Graham & Jones) faxes Macfarlanes, solicitors for Glasshouse Investments, informing that his client the British Film Institute (BFI) refuse to go ahead with the lease unless “provision is made for a release from liability on the assignment of the leasehold to a party of equal standing” (Phillips, 1994c: 1). The BFI will not be Guarantor to the lease without this, and “an option to purchase the property as a whole subsequent to completion, with the sale price subject to a formula to be agreed” (Phillips, 1994c: 1). This option to purchase would remain as long as the BFI is liable under the “terms of Guarantee”. (Phillips, 1994c)

David Nicholson (Glasshouse Investments) faxes Chris Chandler (Regional Planning Officer, Cinema Services and Development, BFI), rejecting the revisions demanded by the BFI. Nicholson argues that they will not be able to attract sufficient investment under this lease, and warns that, due to previous delays and the pressing need to meet with the bank who has agreed in principle to invest, Glasshouse require confirmation before the end of the week that the BFI will proceed under the offered terms or the project will likely end. (Nicholson, 1994)

1 November 1994: London. Chris Chandler (Regional Planning Officer, Cinema Services and Development, BFI) faxes David Nicholson (Glasshouse Investments), thanking him for his clear statement of position on 31 October []. Glasshouse’s rejection of the BFI’s requested revisions has been conveyed to Wilf Stevenson (Director, BFI) and he will meet with Nicholson on 7 November. (Chandler, 1994b).

2 November 1994: London. Andrew Attfield (Economic Development Programme Manager, Dalston City Partnership/DCP) writes to Irene Whitehead (Head of Cinema Services and Development, British Film Institute/BFI) about the possible impact of delays in settling the lease on Hoxton Square. Unless Glasshouse submit their City Grant application to the DCP (Hackney’s City Challenge Agency) within 21 days, it cannot go into the DCP’s Action Plan, which has to be submitted to the Government Office for London (GOL) and for the approval of Hackney Council by the end of November. This will “severely jeopardise” City Challenge funding for the project (Attfield, 1994: 1). This would be a pity, as the DCP consider the development “an outstanding contribution to our urban regeneration strategy. It would help us significantly if a definitive and early date could be set for the signing of a lease and thus set the City Grant process in motion.” (Attfield, 1994: 1).

15 November 1994: London. Steve McIntyre (Chief Executive, London Film and Video Development Agency/LFVDA) writes to Cinenova confirming that the LFVDA Board has accepted their Development Prospectus, offers £1750 supplementary funding in the current year, and a revenue grant of £28,000 in 1995/96. McIntyre notes that the LFVDA Board feels that meeting the targets set out in the Development Prospectus is “critically important to the vitality of your work and perhaps to your existence in the longer term.” (Cinenova Management Board, 1994: 1, 4).

16 November 1994: London. Representatives of the British Film Institute (BFI) and the London Film and Video Development Agency (LFVDA) sign the Head Lease on the Hoxton Square site, to be developed into shared premises for the London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC), London Video Access (LVA) and LFVDA. (McIntyre, 1994c).

23 November 1994: London. Steve McIntyre (Chief Executive, London Film and Video Development Agency/LFVDA) writes to Wilf Stevenson (Director, British Film Institute/BFI) asking if anything can be done by the LFVDA

to expedite this matter – or does the whole development now stand or fall on the BFI’s capacity to act as surety to the LFVDA. I need not tell you how important this project is – indeed, in the case of the London Filmmakers’ Co-op [LFMC], probably of life and death (McIntyre, 1994d: 1).

He also thanks Stevenson for his willingness to accept the LFVDA forming a subsidiary to hold the Head Lease on Hoxton Square, which the LFVDA Board eventually decided was an unnecessary complication. (McIntyre, 1994d)

25 November 1994: London. Cinenova staffer Helen de Witt sends Management Board members notes from the previous meeting’s discussion of policy, and a list of working parties formed for this. (de Witt, 1994b) (Cinenova, 1994l).

30 November 1994: London. Cinenova Management Board meets to consider the London Film and Video Development Agency’s (LFVDA) offer of £1750 supplementary funding in 1994/95, and £28,000 revenue grant in 1995/96. They are especially concerned to detect the relation between this, their year-long assessment by the LFVDA, and the Development Prospectus (Cinenova, 1994d) they spent six months researching and fine-tuning the figures on. The Prospectus’s proposed projects were to be funded separately to revenue, so they are concerned that £1750 is all that they will see of the £20,000 they were encouraged to ask for. Further, LFVDA Chief Officer Steve McIntyre seems to suggest that they must undertake these activities anyway. As even attempting these activities was reliant on funds to hire a part-time office assistant to cover the increased workload, the Board determine to write to the LFVDA Board for clarification. (Cinenova, 1994m)

Staffer Kate Norrish reports on her attendance at the National Arts Fundraising School, which provided a great deal of information on applying to Trusts and researching and producing sponsorship proposals. She will pursue sponsorship for various Cinenova activities. The Arts Council of England’s (ACE) Women in the Arts International Networking Fund has approved a grant of £480 for staffer Helen de Witt to take a package of Cinenova films to the Tampere Film Festival, Helsinki University, Finnish Film Archive and Turku Mediagallery in Finland in 1995. She has also received an invitation from the University of Rome’s Sociology Department to attend the “Youth Culture-Metropolitan Conflict” conference and give a paper titled “Gender Conflict” in May 1995. They will provide accommodation but cannot pay for travel. (Cinenova, 1994m)

Tim Whitworth will provide financial training for Board in the New Year. Cinenova has developed a cash-flow crisis in that some £4000 owed will not be received by Christmas, and funds are not available to cover wages. The LFVDA will be approached to pay the next grant instalment early. (Cinenova, 1994m)

1 December 1994: London. Cinenova staffer Helen de Witt sends Management Board members a draft of the letter from the Board to the London Film and Video Development Agency (LFVDA) Board, querying what their current funding offer represents, and detailing the origins of their expectation that they would receive more than £1750 in return for a one year assessment exercise and six months compiling and costing a Development Prospectus that pitched for an additional £20,000 funding, a figure that originated with the LFVDA. (Cinenova Management Board, 1994) (de Witt, 1994c).

1995

10 January 1995: London. The Cinenova Board of Management writes to the Chair and members of the London Film and Video Development Agency/LFVDA Board, seeking clarification on Steve McIntyre’s (Chief Executive, LFVDA) offer of grant, conditions attached to that, and the apparent mismatch between the small revenue uplift offered and the £20,000 Development Prospectus Cinenova spent much of the last year costing and negotiating. (Cinenova, 1995a: 2) (Cinenova Management Board, 1994).

13 January 1995: Amsterdam/London. Mirjam Coelho (MonteVideo) faxes Steven Bode (FVU) to announce a VHS package they are preparing of the video/performance work by Marina Abramovic & Ulay. However, production will only take place if enough people place an order. "The package will be produced in a limited edition of 240 copies, numbered and signed" (Coelho, 1995).

16 January 1995: London. Steve McIntyre (Chief Executive, London Film and Video Development Agency/LFVDA) responds to the Cinenova Board’s letter of 10 January (Cinenova Management Board, 1994), warning that it turned up too late to be included in materials for the LFVDA Board meeting of 17 January, and it remains unclear how the Chair will deal with it. He accuses Cinenova of holding Board meetings without notifying him, which is a breach of their grant conditions, and suggests that the letter has jeopardised the good will Cinenova’s year-long assessment exercise has generated with the LFVDA and British Film Institute (BFI). (McIntyre, 1995).

19 January 1995: London. Larry Chrisfield (Chair, London Film and Video Development Agency/LFVDA Board), responds to the Cinenova Board of management’s letter of 10 January (Cinenova Management Board, 1994), clarifying the relation between Cinenova’s Development Prospectus and the revenue uplift offered for 1995/96. The revenue uplift of £3,500, and the £1,750 offered within 1994/95 as six-months pro-rata of it, are separate from the project funding applied for in the Prospectus. LFVDA will work with Cinenova to secure the development monies, and the LFVDA Board has asked Steve McIntyre (Chief Officer, LFVDA) to clarify this. The LFVDA Board has decided as a matter of policy not to accept direct communication with clients, and that such missives should be sent to LFVDA staff. (Chrisfield, 1995).

25 January 1995: Cinenova Management Board meets. Cinenova will undertake a special promotion for International Women’s Day, sending leaflets to women’s organisations and 200 colleges and universities offering three VHS packages at the special price of £50 a screening. Cinenova’s meeting with Karen Alexander (Distribution, British Film Institute/BFI) has resulted in their submitting works for consideration for the BFI’s Sapphic Shorts II touring package and the Masculinity in Crisis programme. The acquisition of Dialogues with Mad Women (Allie Light, 1993, UK) means that Cinenova’s mental health package should be updated so that the film reaches the training and health sectors. An application to the BFI’s Regional Exhibition Fund will be made for promotional materials, and Lucy Kimble from Womenkind in Bristol will be invited to research the campaign and paid from the freelancers budget. (Cinenova, 1995a: 1-2)

Cinenova has recently provided programmes for the Whitechapel Art Gallery to accompany its Kiki Smith exhibition, and the new David Lean Cinema in Croyden to accompany its opening feature. Cinenova was invited to speak and present a short programme of new work to the Consortium of Media Exhibitors (COMEX) at their 17 January meeting. The response was favourable and the Edinburgh Filmhouse is interested in screening the Broad’s Perspective programme after they’ve been at the Institute of Contemporary Arts (ICA). Cinenova has been invited to Finland, Germany and Italy. Staffers Kate Norrish and Helen de Witt will visit Finland, arranged by the Turku Mediagallery and supported by the Arts Council of England (ACE) Women in the Arts International Networking Fund. They will present a programme of films as the Tampere Film Festival 7-12 March, meet with the Mediagallery, and screen work for the Finnish Film Archive. Norrish will attend Femme Totale in Dortmund late March, at their expense, presenting new work and speaking at a panel about women’s film distribution. De Witt will present a paper on the role and function of specialist women’s distribution at the Youth Culture and Metropolitan Conflict conference at the University of Rome 18-20 May. The conference is covering accommodation and hiring £280 of work from Cinenova. Cinenova will be providing a programme for the Cinewomen Festival in Norwich in autumn, and possibly organise a discussion similar to that at the ICA Women Make Movies event (Cinenova, 1994j). The Sheffield Documentary Festival has asked for a programme of new work. Cinenova has bought an advertisement in the BFI’s National Viewing Sessions Brochure for Spring 1995. (Cinenova, 1995a: 1-2)

The Board asks the staff to respond to Steve McIntyre’s (Chief Executive, London Film and Video Development Agency/LFVDA) letter of 16 January (McIntyre, 1995) (itself a response to their letter to the LFVDA Board of 10 January (Cinenova Management Board, 1994)), clarifying that he had been informed of all Cinenova Board meetings, and that Cinenova has also found the year-long assessment exercise productive if extremely time-consuming. The Board look forward to its conclusion. McIntyre has invited Cinenova staff to discuss the situation 7 February. They also take exception to Chair of the LFVDA Board Larry Chrisfield’s letter of 19 January, which requests that Cinenova’s Board not contact them directly again, but only communicate through the LFVDA staff (Chrisfield, 1995). This raises clear issues should Cinenova ever lose confidence in an LFVDA officer, and in any case they were attempting to clear up a misunderstanding, both of which were in the interests of Cinenova and thus their duty as its executive. They determine to write back anyway. (Cinenova, 1995a: 1-2)

The nine-month accounts show a surplus of £2,635 from television sales. The Board request staff to record unpaid hours worked in case the resources emerge to pay them. Financial Training for the Board will be on the 8 and 20 February, and the Policy Review will take place after that. The Four Corners Board should be informed that Cinenova is able to pay rent on an extra room in the building (Cinenova, 1995a: 1-2)

2 February 1995: London. Michael Maziere (Director, London Electronic Arts/LEA) writes to Chris Chandler (Regional Planning Officer, Cinema Services and Development, BFI), informing him that the LEA Board has agreed in principle to sign their lease with the London Film and Video Development Agency (LFVDA) on the Hoxton Square development, but are waiting for receive a “right to assign” clause like the LFVDA has. The LEA Board has also “requested that the BFI formalises its offer of £15,000 rent subsidy” with a letter. (Maziere, 1995a: 1).

10 February 1995: London. Michael Maziere (Director, London Electronic Arts/LEA) writes to Chris Chandler (Regional Planning Officer, Cinema Services and Development, BFI), sending him the plans for LEA’s premises in Hoxton Square, as evidence that their rent will increase by £15,000, excluding the also increased service charges. (Maziere, 1995b).

1 March 1995: London. Cinenova’s Annual General Meeting (AGM) is followed by a Management Board meeting(Cinenova, 1995b). Lucy Kimbell has been employed freelance to work on the new Mental Health package centring on Dialogues with Mad Women (Allie Light, 1993, UK), which will be promoted to the charity and self-help sector, and Regional Film Theatres (RFTs). An application is with the British Film Institute (BFI) Regional Exhibition Fund for producing special promotional materials. The International Women’s Day package and promotion has recouped its costs with six bookings, but is down on the previous year. Education cuts and student union processing times may be issues, but promotion will start earlier next year. The tour of Finland now includes providing two programmes for the Museum of Contemporary Art in Helsinki, having a stand and speaking on a panel at the Tampere Film Festival, meeting with Mediagallery distributors, speaking to students at the University of Turku and being interviewed on Finnish television. (Cinenova, 1995c)

The London Film and Video Development Agency (LFVDA) will fund Cinenova to attend the MIP TV with London Electronic Arts (LEA) and the London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) in April. Kate Norrish will attend Femme Totale in Dortmund in late March with a programme of work. The London Women’s Centre (LWC) is arranging monthly screenings of films by women and would like Cinenova’s involvement. While Cinenova can work with the LWC on the programmes and offer a discount, filmmaker contracts prevent screening the films for free. The second financial training session for the Board will be 27 March, and the policy review meeting on 21 May. (Cinenova, 1995c)

2 March 1995: London. Irene Whitehead (Head of Cinema Services and Development, British Film Institute/BFI) writes to Nicholas Morgan (London Filmmakers’ Co-operative/LFMC) concerning additional BFI funding for the increased expenses of relocation to Hoxton Square. I

n line with our original aspiration that the Co-op should not have to pay more than 10% on top of its current rental commitments, it is intended that this additional support will amount to a total for the project of £85,000 in 1996/7, of which £53,000 is anticipated to be for rental support for the two organisations. (Whitehead, 1995a: 1)

This is conditional on an number of factors, including that the BFI’s levels of funding from the Department of National Heritage (DNS) is “in line with those currently foreseen”. (Whitehead, 1995a: 2)

29 March 1995: London/New York. Steven Bode (FVU) faxes Stephen Vitiello (Electronic Arts Intermix) about a 'Video in Performance' season planned for June at London's Institute of Contemporary Arts (ICA), in which he wishes to include EAI programmes of work by Cheryl Donegan and The Wooster Group. Since these two programmes will be funded via the FVU's "new educational money", Bode wants to also make them available on VHS for sell-through to the UK educational and libraries market on the Umbrella's forthcoming VideoFile label. The packages will include a booklet with biographical/education material. This is new territory for the FVU and Bodes seeks Vitiello's views on how to deal with this contractually (Bode, 1995: 1-2).

11 April 1995: London. Irene Whitehead (Head of Cinema Services and Development, British Film Institute/BFI) writes to Nicholas Morgan (London Filmmakers’ Co-operative/LFMC) and Michael Maziere (Director, London Electronic Arts/LEA) and Abina Manning (LEA) concerning additional BFI funding for the increased expenses of relocation to Hoxton Square. Her previous letter contains and error (Whitehead, 1995a: 1), and the correct amount of BFI rent support for the groups in 1996/7 is £63,000 out of an overall budget for the project of £85,000. (Whitehead, 1995b) (Whitehead, 1995c).

19 April 1995: London. Cinenova Management Board notes that it has yet to respond to Larry Chrisfield’s (Chair, London Film and Video Development Agency/LFVDA Board) letter of 19 January, and determines to do so as soon as possible. The trip to Finland was very successful, with two programmes of work playing at the Museum of Contemporary Art in Helsinki as part of the ARS 95 Exhibition, and a stand at the Tampere Film Festival where staff met programmers from the Turku Gay and Lesbian Film Festival, the Nordic Women’s Film Festival, and Iiselamen Kamera Biennale. Staff were interviewed on Finnish radio, presented a programme at the Mediagallery in Turku, and lead discussion afterwards. Staffer Helen de Witt has been invited to present a programme of work at the Iiselamen Kamera Biennale. At Femme Totale staffer Kate Norrish discussed Cinenova-Women Make Movies (WMM) collaborations, including a joint application to the Andy Warhol Foundation for new prints. Seven television channels are interested in Cinenova’s work as a result of their attendance at the MIP TV sales market at Cannes. Norrish stresses the importance of attending in the next year to consolidate contacts. (Cinenova, 1995d)

The Dialogues with Mad Women (Allie Light, 1993, UK) promotion is proceeding, with eight Regional Film Theatres (RFTs) already booking, others showing interest, and several sales after a screening at the MIND (National Association for Mental Health) conference. Several radio shows are interested in covering the film, The Guardian has been approached to do a piece, and the National Film Theatre (NFT) about a special season on women and madness. As the application to the British Film Institute (BFI) Regional Exhibition Fund was unsuccessful, no special publicity material can be made nor the project freelancer employed as long as needed. (Cinenova, 1995d)

The Board’s financial training has gone well, and the policy-making meeting is on 25 June. A new room will be available to Cinenova in the Four Corners building from May. As a large backlog of tape submissions has built up, there will be a monthly screening day that the management can attend. (Cinenova, 1995d)

4 May 1995: London. The London Film and Video Development Agency (LFVDA) applies for European Regional Development Funding (ERDF) for the Hoxton Square development to re-house the London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) and London Electronic Arts (LEA). (DNH, 1996).

31 May 1995: London. Cinenova Management Board meets. Staffer Helen de Witt has delivered a paper on Cinenova at the “Youth Culture and Metropolitan Conflict” conference at the University of Rome, in a seminar on women’s cultural interventions. She and Sarah Bowman (University of East London) have been asked to prepare a resource pack on women’s filmmaking, and a collection of Cinenova tapes are being viewed for purchase by the University of Rome library. Dialogues with Mad Women (Allie Light, 1993, UK) has featured on Radio Four’s “All in the Mind”, including an interview with the director, and orders have come in from regional MIND (National Association for Mental Health) groups. The Institute for Contemporary Arts (ICA) are refurbishing their Cinematheque, site of Cinenova’s regular Broad’s Perspective screening slot. The ICA remain committed to it, but would like it revamped. Cinenova decide on doing only two events a year, but lifting their scale, and ICA has offered to showcase Cinenova’s bigger acquisitions to boost their regional bookings. Sight and Sound magazine are organising a Women and Film event at the National Film Theatre (NFT), to be followed by a regional tour. The event is London Film and Video Development Agency (LFVDA) funded, and Steve McIntyre (Chief Executive, LFVDA) has recommended that Cinenova be involved. Staffer Helen de Witt will meet with organiser Philip Dodd 14 June. (Cinenova, 1995e)

Lucy Kimbell is researching acquiring email and a web page and staffer Kate Norrish is in discussions about making a CD-ROM educational package, which might get funding from the LFVDA and Gulbenkian Foundation. The National Lottery Fund application to refurbish the office and update video equipment is about to be prepared. Four Corners, in whose building Cinenova reside, have been entirely defunded by the British Film Institute (BFI), and Cinenova offers support in their campaign for its re-instatement. Policy-making day will be 25 June. (Cinenova, 1995e)

19 July 1995: London. Chris Chandler (Regional Planning Officer, Cinema Services and Development, British Film Institute/BFI) writes to Steve McIntyre (Chief Executive, London Film and Video Development Agency/LFVDA) confirming that the BFI has committed £166,668 to the development of the Hoxton Square site to re-house the London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) and London Electronic Arts (LEA). This includes neither support of the project prior to the identification of Hoxton Square, help in kind, or any continuing financial support after the current business planning period. (Chandler, 1995).

23 August 1995: London. Cinenova Management Board meets. Freelancer Lucy Kimbell has finished the Dialogues with Mad Women (Allie Light, 1993, UK) promotion. It will play at MIND’s (National Association for Mental Health) Options for Life conference and video orders are still coming in. The National Film Theatre (NFT) has accepted staffer Helen de Witt’s proposal for a season of films on women and madness titled “Representing the Irrational”. (Cinenova, 1995f: 1)

De Witt has attended the Iisalmi Kamera Bienale in Finland, where a programme of Maya Deren films and The Haircut (Veronica Martel, 1987, UK) were well received, and she met with representatives from the European Union Media Programme and Women’s World Wide Web progamme. She has also been invited to Manchester Metropolitan University’s “Shouts from the Street” conference, where she will address changes in experimental filmmaking and recent Cinenova acquisitions. Sight and Sound magazine and Women in Film and Television (WFTV) are organising a Women Making Movies event at the National Film Theatre (NFT), to be followed by a regional tour. The London Film and Video Development Agency (LFVDA) are funding it, and have recommended that Cinenova be involved. De Witt has met with Sight and Sound editor Philip Dodd, and Catherine Townsend (WFTV) has asked for previews of all British Cinenova films from the last two years, but has only asked for Sheller Shares Her Secret (Sarah Turner, 1994, UK). This may be the extent of Cinenova’s involvement in the event. (Cinenova, 1995f: 1-2)

Royalties for 1994/95 have been paid, and overseas filmmakers are now being paid direct to their accounts. Staffer Kate Norrish has set up a new system using the Excel database, following the failure of the previous database. End of year accounts show Cinenova exceeding the targets set in its LFVDA assessment and subsequent Development Prospectus, with 1994/95 earnings up by £8,205, making a net difference of £550. First quarter receipts are up by £4,323. Staff are encountering difficulty getting video sell-through label Dangerous to Know (DtK) to pay their invoices. (Cinenova, 1995f: 1-2)

The National Lottery has sent an Early Warning notice that Cinenova’s application for a viewing suite is due at the end of September. Video Engineering and Training (VET) having provided equipment costings and are setting up a service agreement, while Channel Four (C4) has given £1000 for a promotional leaflet for the facility, which can be used as match funding. Cinenova staff have met with Nicholas Morgan (London Filmmakers’ Co-operative/LFMC) to discuss the new LFMC/ London Electronic Arts (LEA) joint premises, and think a move to the building would be beneficial to Cinenova. Steve McIntyre (Chief Executive, LFVDA) is supportive. (Cinenova, 1995f: 2)

Draft policy documents will be discussed at the next meeting. (Cinenova, 1995f: 1)

4 October 1995: London. Cinenova Management Board meets. Dialogues with Mad Women (Allie Light, 1993, UK) has won the Emmy Award for best interview programme of 1994, and Cinenova have acquired television rights for the UK, and passed a preview tape to Sylvia Hines, Deputy Commissioning Editor for Education at Channel Four (C4), who worked previously for the Mental Health Media Council (MHMC). Video sell-through label Dangerous to Know (DtK) owes Cinenova considerable royalties and advances for films contributed to the Lesbian Lykra Shorts and Leather Shorts compilations. Tom Abel (DtK) has apologised, blaming the insolvency of a distribution agent and competition from a bogus operator. Prints of the classic Cinenova titles Olivia (Jacqueline Audry, 1951, France) and Suspense (Lois Webber, 1913, USA) are now so damaged as to be unplayable. (Cinenova, 1995g: 1-2)

Cinenova is collaborating with Blikpilotin (Berlin) to present a showcase of European women’s films at the Cinewomen Festival in Norwich, 18-21 October. Three Cinenova-distributed films have been shortlisted for the Cinewomen Award: Sheller Shares Her Secret (Sarah Turner, 1994, UK), Night Dances (Sandra Lahire, 1995, UK) and Fierce Detail (Helena Goldwater, 1995, UK), as has Backcomb (1995, UK) by Cinenova-distributed filmmaker Sarah Purcill. Sheller Shares Her Secret will also play at the Sight and Sound magazine/Women in Film and Television (WFT) Women Making Movies event at the National Film Theatre (NFT) 6-7 October. (Cinenova, 1995g: 1)

Cinenova’s income has increased dramatically since implementing its Development Plan, and the meeting determines to make staffer Kate Norrish fulltime from Christmas. This matches staffer Helen de Witt’s hours, achieving parity among workers and improving both service for customers and conditions for workers. Despite Cinenova’s increased earnings, much of its income goes to filmmakers under the 50% royalty split. The Board consider options to remedy this, such as applying for more revenue funding to compensate for increased royalty payments, encouraging makers who do not rely on their royalties to donate them and become Patrons of Cinenova, and changing the royalty payment structure. Discussion of policy making is deferred to the next meeting due to low turnout. (Cinenova, 1995g: 1-2)

Cinenova’s application to the National Lottery for a viewing suite is proceeding, with costings in from Video Engineering and Training (VET) for umatic and VHS decks, edit controller and monitors. These will be connected through an Apple Mac computer, which can capture stills and produce the distribution catalogue on CD-ROM. Cinenova has purchased a modem, and Board member Kavita Hayton can produce a Cinenova homepage hosted free at the University of Luton. (Cinenova, 1995g: 1-2)

London Film and Video Development Agency (LFVDA) has announced details of funding for projects celebrating the Centenary of Cinema. Cinenova is interested in developing video packages for promotion to schools and colleges along with teaching packages. LFVDA is supportive and have suggested other bodies who may contribute to the project, perhaps allowing another worker to be employed to research and compile the packages. Emma Hedditch has started as a volunteer working on a package of films to be promoted to art colleges. (Cinenova, 1995g: 2)

15 November 1995: London. Cinenova Management Board views Cinenova’s near complete application to the National Lottery for a new edit and viewing suite. Will Bell (Education Officer, Film Video and Broadcast Department, Arts Council of England/ACE) has expressed enthusiastic support for Cinenova’s Cinema 100 project. He has offered funding for the development of the educational video packages, and an ACE trainee may be available to assist on the project. Cinenova collaborated with Blickpilotin (Berlin) on a screening and discussion of women’s filmmaking in Europe at the Cinewomen festival in Norwich 19-22 October. The Sight and Sound magazine and Women in Film and Television (WFT) organised Women Making Movies event at the National Film Theatre (NFT) 7-8 October focused most of its energy on mainstream film and television, though Cinenova-distributed Sheller Shares Her Secret (Sarah Turner, 1994, UK) featured in its experimental strand. Cinenova films Night Dances (Sandra Lahire, 1995, UK) and Fierce Detail (Helena Goldwater, 1995, UK) featured in the Cinewomen Award screening. Staffer Kate Norrish has given a presentation of Cinenova works at Women’s Audio Visual Education Scheme (WAVES). (Cinenova, 1995h: 1-2)

Draft audited accounts for 1995/96 are viewed. Though they contain clear errors, they also show a rise in overall income of £6,500 and VHS sales income of £2,100. While distribution expenses and royalties have also increased, the figures show that Cinenova is achieving targets set in its Development Prospectus a year early. Volunteer Carla Mitchell has been checking and updating distribution contracts, and the Board decides to form a working party to review films prior to offering new contracts, de-acquiring work no longer appropriate to Cinenova. This is in line with the British Film Institute’s (BFI’s) policy, and they have also asked Cinenova to remove prints that are no longer rented. The BFI stores and dispatches Cinenova’s 16mm collection. Prints of the classic Cinenova titles Olivia (Jacqueline Audry, 1951, France) and Suspense (Lois Webber, 1913, USA) are now so damaged as to be unplayable. Board member Elaine Burrows confirms that Cinenova still has the rights to the films, and can order prints fairly simply once the money is found. (Cinenova, 1995h: 1-2)

The new Cinenova letterhead is ready, Board member Kavita Hayton invites the assembled to the University of Luton on 19 December to design the Cinenova webpage, and the completion of policy making is deferred to the first meeting of 1996. (Cinenova, 1995h: 1-2)

21 November 1995: London. Wilf Stevenson (Director, British Film Institute/BFI) writes to Larry Chrisfield (London Film and Video Development Agency/LFVDA Board), contesting his argument that the BFI is withdrawing production infrastructural support from the London region in violation long-standing agreements. (Stevenson, 1995).

20 December 1995: London. Cinenova Management Board meets, and informs staff that the plan to make both fulltime must be postponed in the face of an impending £4,000 deficit. Part of the reason for the deficit is traced to continuing staffer Helen de Witt at fulltime to cover the office while staffer Kate Norrish prepared the National Lottery application (Cinenova, 1995i: 3). The failure of Cinenova’s growth in overall and distribution income to cover the staff costs of doing the work is blamed on Cinenova’s royalty split, in which makers receive 50% of rentals and sales and 70% of television sales. Cinenova will meet with the London Film and Video Development Agency (LFVDA) to see if, with other funders such as Arts Council England (ACE), British Film Institute (BFI) and the Borough of Tower Hamlets, it can help cover the extra staff costs of 1995/96 (Cinenova, 1995i: 3). The Board issue the staff with a pay rise, and encourage them to seek additional funding to cover the costs of going fulltime on the basis of Cinenova’s improving performance. (Cinenova, 1995j)

Cinenova has applied to the Arts, Sports and Leisure Committee of the Borough of Tower Hamlets for funding to support their Cinema 100 educational packages project. Though chances of success seem slim, Cinenova will participate in Centenary of Cinema celebrations in Tower Hamlets. (Cinenova, 1995j)

1996

24 January 1996: London. Cinenova Management Board meets and confronts their impending £4,600 deficit for 1995/96. Ideas suggested include following Women Make Movies (WMM) to reduce the filmmakers’ share of royalties from 50% to 40%, to talk to the London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) and London Electronic Arts (LEA) about their royalty share, and perhaps set a standard in the sector. Expenses such as preview tapes and festival entries will be deducted from filmmakers’ royalties, new filmmakers “offered the opportunity to waive their rights to royalties”, and older filmmakers invited to donate theirs. Cinenova will meet with Steve McIntyre (Chief Executive, London Film and Video Development Agency/LFVDA) regarding their deficit and cash-flow problems. (Cinenova, 1996a)

Ideas for the revamped Broad’s Perspective screening slot at the Institute of Contemporary Arts (ICA) Cinematheque are discussed, the Board can attend the University of Luton to design Cinenova’s webpage on 7 February, and the next policy review meeting will be 18 February. (Cinenova, 1996a)

6 March 1996: London. Cinenova Annual General Meeting (AGM) determines to send a letter to their accountants expressing dissatisfaction and the desire for a better working relationship. The meeting views Cinenova’s application to the National Lottery for funds to refurbish their viewing and editing suite. (Cinenova, 1996b)

Cinenova Management Board meets and is informed that the London Film and Video Development Agency (LFVDA) will advance part of Cinenova’s next grant instalment to cover the current deficit and cash-flow problems. Staffer Kate Norrish traces the problems of paying for adequate staff hours to Cinenova’s grant cut from the British Film Institute (BFI) in 1993/94, reducing revenue funding from £35,000 (Cinenova, 1992m: 26) to £24,500 (Cinenova, 1993e: 4). While this was less severe than the BFI’s initial offer of £17,500 (Bell, 1993: 1), it has left Cinenova struggling to bring staff back up to full-time since. The improvement in Cinenova’s distribution has not remedied this as 50% of that income is passed on to filmmakers. This has been explained to Steve McIntyre (Chief Executive, LFVDA), who has promised to try to find a one-off injection of £6-7,000 to allow staff to work full-time and implement the income generation plans projected in their 1994 Development Prospectus. (Cinenova, 1996c)

Staff have met with David Nicholson of Glasshouse Investments, the owner and developer of the Hoxton Square properties being developed to house the London Filmmaker’s Co-operative (LFMC) and London Electronic Arts (LEA). Nicholson has offered Cinenova 1001 square feet for £15,000 per annum, and suggested legal aid help on the move, furnishing and subsidised rent. He has asked for a decision on a nine-year lease within three weeks. As well as being far more expensive than Cinenova’s current premises, it is more space than required, and McIntyre has encouraged Cinenova to negotiate for less rent, space and possible a rent-free period. Cinenova will look into grants from the Dalston City Partnership Challenge. (Cinenova, 1996c)

The new Deputy Commissioning Editor of Independent Film and Video at Channel Four (C4), Jacqui Lawrence, has expressed interest in Cinenova’s catalogue for Dyke TV and a new strand provisionally titled Women at Play. She will keep Cinenova informed about C4’s programming needs so that Cinenova can submit appropriate material. (Cinenova, 1996c)

Cinenova will be visited by their National Lottery assessor on 14 March. Management Board member Kavita Hayton has completed Cinenova’s webpage, which is hosted at the University of Luton. The prospective policymaking meeting set for 18 February was cancelled due to insufficient Board member availability, and will take place in summer. (Cinenova, 1996c)

17 April 1996: London. Cinenova Management Board meets and is informed that the London Film and Video Development Agency (LFVDA) has offered a one off grant of £3,000 to support increased staff hours and pay levels. Cinenova has sourced its current deficit problems to moving its staff toward full time pay in 1995/96, which is necessary to keep pace with the workload from increased distribution activity and fundraising. LFVDA’s grant is not sufficient on its own to raise staff hours to full time. (Cinenova, 1996d)

Cinenova presented seven films at the London Lesbian and Gay Film Festival, and are moving to acquire eight films from it, including a feature. Four filmmakers have agree so far. Cinenova’s assessment for its National Lottery application went well, and staff have agreed to amend the presentation of match funding figures. (Cinenova, 1996d)

29 May 1996: London. Cinenova Management Board meets and hears that their application to the National Lottery for £87,000 to overhaul their viewing and editing facilities has been successful. Staff salaries will be raised to £18,000 pro rata as Lottery Funding has improved the balance sheet, and to ensure parity if an Arts Council of England (ACE) trainee is employed on a bursary. This will be reviewed quarterly. Cinenova accumulated a deficit of £7,426 in 1995/96, sourced to the extra wages needed to cover the Lottery application. Staffer Kate Norrish has been offered the position of Director at Women in Film and Television (WFT), and tenders her notice. She will leave 19 July, but her replacement will be delayed until autumn to save money. A finance worker will come in one day a week in the interim. (Cinenova, 1996e)

No response regarding support for Cinenova’s Centenary of Cinema (Cinema 100) video package project has been received from the ACE, as decisions are on hold due to internal changes. Broad’s Perspective at the Institute of Contemporary Arts (ICA) Cinemateque is also on hold due to changes in their Cinema department. Cinenova will programme a night at the Cinergy No Wave exhibition club on 28 June (Cinenova, 1996f). Cinergy has organised substantial promotion, including radio interviews with filmmakers and press coverage, and Cinenova will do a mailout. Cinenova’s payment for the night is dependent on box office receipts. (Cinenova, 1996e)

The Women’s Audio-Visual Education Scheme’s (WAVES) film festival will be called Cinematrix, the First London International Festival of Women’s Filmmaking, and Cinenova is involved on the programming committee as well as women’s film club FemFraich, which will be launched on February 1997. Cinenova, WAVES and WFT have been consulted by Andy Burnham, researcher for Shadow Minister for Women, Tessa Jowell, to formulate Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for National Heritage about women in the media. Staffer Helen de Witt has been invited to talk to the University of Sussex’s MA in Lesbian and Gay Studies Colloquium about current trends in lesbian filmmaking. Cinenova’s long-delayed policymaking day is set for 14 July. (Cinenova, 1996e)

28 June 1996: London. No Wave film exhibition group Cinergy present Between Pathos and Camp: The London Scene of Women’s Filmmaking, a screening programmed by Cinenova. Films presented include Like Mother Like Son (Annette Kennerley, 1994, UK) Fireworks Revisited (Bev Zalcock, 1994, UK), Ooh Life is Juicy (Helena Goldwater, 1994, UK) and Sheller Shares Her Secret (Sarah Turner, 1994, UK) (Cinenova, 1996f). The Observer congratulate Cinergy for ‘cheekiness’, query why “women still need a ghetto night”, and fail to mention Cinenova. (Observer, 1996).

10 July 1996: Cinenova Management Board meets. Questions to the Secretary of State for National Heritage on women in the media have been postponed. Karen Dowell has been appointed as temporary finance officer to cover the time between Kate Norrish’s departure and the hiring of her successor. Internal changes at the Arts Council of England (ACE) are still in progress, and no response has been received to Cinenova’s Centenary of Cinema (Cinema 100) video package project. The Board determines to proceed with the project in a limited form, and approach Trish Jenkins (Education and Training Officer, London Film and Video Development Agency/LFVDA) for advice. (Cinenova, 1996g)

Cinenova’s programme at the Cinergy No Wave film club on 28 June was enjoyable but smaller than anticipated, and some live cabaret acts were not entirely appropriate to the films. Despite the interesting collaboration and hard work put in by each party, Cinenova do not consider the return large enough to justify a repeat, though Cinergy are welcome to rent films. Video on demand company Centaurus has approached Cinenova to license films. The board determines to examine the company’s other holdings for pornography, and consider the possibility that they are acquiring rights for re-sale rather than for use. If the Board is satisfied, Centaurus will be offered six documentaries for a trial period. (Cinenova, 1996g)

Staffer Helen de Witt attended the British Film Institute’s (BFI) Funding Unit’s meeting on the National Lottery’s consultative document for New Directions Programmes, which concentrated on Access and Participation. The LFVDA have invited responses to the document, which they will submit to the ACE. (Cinenova, 1996g)

Summer 1996: London. Cinenova Filmmakers News 1995-96 sent, updating members on developments and asking for feedback via a questionnaire. While the newsletter foregrounds past and upcoming activity, such as the £87,000 National Lottery grant for the Viewing and Edit Suite, film festival attendance and the new web page, the questionnaire raises pressing issues, such as the appropriate scale of unremunerative festival bookings, the need to make Cinenova’s two staffers fulltime, and gauges support for ideas to improve Cinenova’s finances by reducing filmmaker royalties by 10%, and a Friends of Cinenova scheme where royalties from older work are donated back. Opinions expressed will help the Cinenova working party dealing with the stretched financial situation. (Cinenova, 1996j) (Cinenova, 1996i) (Cinenova, 1996h).

19 July 1996: London. Cinenova staffer Kate Norrish leaves to take up the position of Director at Women in Film and Television (WFT). (Cinenova, 1996e).

6 September 1996: London. Chris Chandler (Regional Planning Officer, Cinema Services and Development, British Film Institute/BFI) writes to Steve McIntyre (Chief Executive, London Film and Video Development Agency/LFVDA), forwarding his recent summation of the impasse between the Department of National Heritage (DNH) and the BFI, which is in turn holding up the agreement of the Government Office for London (GOL) to release European Regional Development Funding (ERDF) to the Hoxton Square development, which then prejudices access to the National Lottery funds.

The GOL has been pushing the LFVDA, and via them, the BFI, too confirm or reinforce the validity of our guarantee to the lease. This reflects a concern within GOL that without our support the project may not be sufficiently robust in the medium to long term. (Chandler, 1996: 1)

As all committed ERDF funds must be used within the year allocated, GOL will be forced to reassign that money to another project or risk losing it for London if this problem is not solved by September, October at the latest. Loss of the ERDF money will mean a substantial loss of Lottery Funds (from £3 million to £1 million), and so the substantial downscaling of the Hoxton Square development. (Chandler, 1996: 2)

18 September 1996: London. Cinenova Management Board meets to progress the recruitment of a new Finance and Marketing Co-ordinator to replace Kate Norrish, who left in July. Helen de Witt (Acquisition and Distribution Co-ordinator) suggests that the post not be offered until six-monthly finance figures are available at the next board meeting, but the Board consider filling the post too urgent to wait. The post will be advertised after 30 September in The Guardian, but funds are too scarce to also advertise in the lesbian and gay, black and local press. De Witt will approach London Film and Video Development Agency (LFVDA) to contribute to the advertising. (Cinenova, 1996l)

The Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for National Heritage about women in the media, about which the Labour Party have approached Cinenova, Women’s Audio-Visual Education Scheme’s (WAVES) and Women in Film and Television (WFT), are set for October. Cinenova’s draft audit shows a deficit, and royalties are due. The LFVDA will be approached to pay their next grant instalment a week early. The National Lottery project to upgrade Cinenova’s Viewing and Editing Suite and commission a new film leader is progressing, with equipment supplier Video Education and Training (VET) about to send their invoice to the Lottery, while arrangements for decoration and security have been made. A brief for the leader commission will then be sent to Cinenova filmmakers. The Board peruse details of the National Lottery’s pilot Stabilisation Fund, but determine not to apply. (Cinenova, 1996k: 1)

De Witt will attend the Feminale festival with three programmes for the film market, present new work, and participate in discussion afterwards. The Cinewomen Film Festival has agreed to waive entry fees for Cinenova filmmakers, and Cinenova has sent application forms for the festival to filmmakers. WAVES’s Cinematrix festival has commissioned a special programme from Cinenova as well as booking some ten works. Concerns are raised regarding its proximity to Cinewomen and lack of publicity. De Witt and Karen Dowell (temporary finance officer) have set up a database to make festival entry more systematic, and have started developing u-matic tape masters of standard entries for particular types of festivals. (Cinenova, 1996k: 1)

The Barbican has commissioned a programme for their Rubies and Rebels: Jewish Female Identity in Contemporary British Art season, and Board member Julia Knight has been in contact with John Mount (Institute of Contemporary Arts/ICA) about the Broad’s Perspective Digital Women season. She has requested that it remain separate from the Diverse Practices season that she is programming to accompany her book on the same name (Knight, 1996b). Cinenova has collaborated with the London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) on the Sugar And Spice And All Things Nice programme, to be screened at the Whitechapel Art Gallery 3 November. Cinenova filmmaker Sarah Turner’s film A Life in the Day With Helena Goldwater (1996, UK) was broadcast on Channel Four (C4) 11 September. The film was funded by C4 and the Arts Council of England (ACE), and broadcast as a part of that scheme. Cinenova will be taking it into distribution and entering it in the Berlin Film Festival. C4 has also bought The Invisible Hand (Athina Tsoulis, 1986, New Zealand) to broadcast in its Shooting Gallery slot. (Cinenova, 1996k: 1-2)

Cinenova’s Century of Cinema (Cinema 100) educational video package project is progressing slowly despite the ACE’s lack of response. Tricia Jenkins (Education and Training Officer, LFVDA) has been very supportive, and de Witt will meet with her and Andrea Corbett (Project Officer, LFVDA) to discuss the best way to proceed. (Cinenova, 1996k: 2)

4 October 1996: Sheffield. The Showroom Cinema is awarded £3.3 million by the National Lottery to complete the conversion of the Kennings Building. The funding will facilitate an increase in the number of screens from two to four, the opening of a café and bar, a suite of new offices at the Workstation, a crèche, and improvements to the building exterior, educational and conference facilities. Profits from the bar, café and office rentals will support the running of the cinema, currently subsidised by the Sheffield City Council, British Film Institute (BFI) and Yorkshire Arts (Soutar, 1996). Development commenced in 1989 (BFI, 1989a: 2) and the cinema opened in 1995..

6 November 1996: London. Cinenova Management Board meets. The advertisement for Kate Norrish’s successor has been placed in The Guardian, and the London Film and Video Development Agency (LFVDA) has contributed £500 to its cost. Six-monthly financial figures are better than expected as the delay in replacing Norrish has saved on wages. While remaining staffer Helen de Witt (Acquisition and Distribution Co-ordinator) though assisted by a volunteer, still requires additional help with the workload. Management Board member Paula agrees to come in temporarily. (Cinenova, 1996m)

The National Lottery funded refurbishment of the Viewing and Editing Suite is proceeding, with the office being redecorated and the equipment ordered by and due to be installed by Christmas by supplier Video Education and Training (VET). The commissioning of the new Cinenova leader will be postponed until the new year due to short staffing. After the Arts Council of England’s (ACE) long-term lack of response to Cinenova’s request for a trainee to assist with the Century of Cinema (Cinema 100) educational video package project, Cinenova will approach the British Film Institute (BFI) for a placement from their MA course. Cinenova has applied to the ACE’s Exhibition and Initiatives scheme to tour the programme commissioned by the Cinematrix Festival. (Cinenova, 1996m)

Cinenova’s collaboration with the London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) on the Sugar And Spice And All Things Nice programme, screened at the Whitechapel Art Gallery 3 November, was a great success with an audience of 70. De Witt attended the Feminale Festival, showing a programme of new work and taking three programmes to the festival market. The programmes were successful and de Witt took part in discussion the next day with critic B. Ruby Rich and Debra Zimmerman (Executive Director, Women Make Movies/WMM). John Mount (Director, Institute of Contemporary Arts/ICA Cinema) has agreed to showing the Digital Women programme, and Cinenova has been commissioned to produce programmes for the Barbican’s Rubies and Rebels: Jewish Female Identity in Contemporary British Art season, and Finland’s Helsinki Media Art Festival, Nordic Glory Festival and a Maya Deren programme for the Tampere International Short Film Festival. De Witt has been invited to the latter two, and will give a lecture at Tampere. (Cinenova, 1996m)

Canal+ has asked Cinenova to submit a showreel of work for screening in 1997, and the BBC 2 Human Rights, Human Wrongs slot have bought Avenge Tampa (Dyke TV, 1993, US). Video Sell-through label Dangerous to Know (DtK) have continued to be troublesome with royalty reports and statements, and set up another label, Women to Know, without informing Cinenova. (Cinenova, 1996m)

17 December 1996: London. The Department of National Heritage (DNH) writes to Steve McIntyre (Chief Executive, London Film and Video Development Agency/LFVDA) confirms the award of a European Regional Development Fund grant of up to £433,586 for the Centre for Independent Film, Television and Electronic Media, which Hoxton Square development re-housing house London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) and London Electronic Arts (LEA). This offer is conditional,

subject to the British Film Institute [BFI] signing the lease agreement for the occupancy of the Hoxton Square premises and sub-letting it to the London Film and Video Development Agency (LFVDA) by 31 December 1996. (DNH, 1996: 1)

18 December 1996: London. Cinenova Management Board meets and welcomes Laura Hudson as the new Finance and Marketing Co-ordinator. The National Lottery funded refurbishment of the Viewing and Editing Suite is proceeding, with equipment due to be installed mid-January 1997, with staff training in February. The British Film Institute (BFI) have agreed to a placement from their MA course working on Cinenova’s current educational video package project. John Mount (Director, Institute of Contemporary Arts/ICA Cinema) has agreed a price structure for renting Cinenova films, indicated the ICA’s continued support for the Broad’s Perspective slot, and agreed to go ahead with the Digital Women programme. He has also commissioned three programmes based on the Cinenova-London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) Sugar and Spice screening at the Whitechapel Art Gallery, and expressed interest in opening Cinenova features such as MURDER and murder (Yvonne Rainer, 1996, USA), for which Cinenova are currently negotiating. Cinenova application to the Arts Council of England’s (ACE) Exhibitions and Initiatives scheme to tour the programme from Cinematrix has been successful, with the official offer expected in January. (Cinenova, 1996n)

Cinenova’s annual revenue application to the London Film and Video Development Agency (LFVDA) is ready, and includes the proposal to commission freelancers to fundraise from trusts, foundations and corporate sources. This will only be possible with a five to ten percent increase in revenue funding, and even then the projects are likely to overload staff at a time when securing funding to make the two staff fulltime remains the priority. This would allow Cinenova to work more efficiently and prevent loss of staff from low salary levels. The Board expresses its appreciation of Helen de Witt’s (Acquisition and Distribution Co-ordinator) work during the gap between Kate Norrish’s resignation and Laura Hudson’s hiring. (Cinenova, 1996n)

1997

29 January 1997: London. Cinenova Management Board meets, and considers quarterly figures indicating a small surplus for the year rather than the predicted £2000 deficit. While sales are down due to a decrease in marketing activity and duplication equipment being out of commission during the installation of the new Viewing and Editing Suite, savings were made by delaying the replacement of the Finance and Marketing Co-ordinator. The National Lottery funded project will now proceed to the commissioning of a new film leader and the purchase of computer equipment. (Cinenova, 1997a).

13 February 1997: London. Chris Chandler (Regional Planning Officer, Cinema Services and Development, British Film Institute/BFI) writes to Michael Maziere (Director, London Electronic Arts/LEA), sending him the breakdowns of BFI expenditure on the Hoxton Square development to re-house LEA and the London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) 1994-7. Chandler notes that “I believe you already have on file a letter restating our commitment to future support for the project.” (Chandler, 1997a: 1).

17 February 1997: London. Chris Chandler (Regional Planning Officer, Cinema Services and Development, British Film Institute/BFI) writes to Michael Maziere (Director, London Electronic Arts/LEA), sending him corrected totals for BFI expenditure on the Hoxton Square development to re-house LEA and the London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC) 1994-7. (Chandler, 1997b).

12 March 1997: London. Cinenova Management Board meets. Cinenova has received a nine percent increase in its London Film and Video Development Agency (LFVDA) revenue funding. This will go into new fundraising and marketing initiatives, and a pay rise for workers. All viewing and editing equipment for the National Lottery funded Viewing and Editing Suite has been installed except the portable viewing unit for people physically unable to reach Cinenova’s office. Board member Kavita Hayton has given advice on computer equipment to be purchased, and Video Engineering and Training (VET) will be approached. A panel has been set up to finalise selection criteria for the leader commission. (Cinenova, 1997b)

Helen de Witt (Acquisition and Distribution Co-ordinator) attended the Nordic Glory Festival in Jyvaskyla, Finland, speaking about distribution in a session chaired by Cinenova’s former Finance and Marketing Co-ordinator Kate Norrish (Director, Women in Film and Television/WFT). At the Tampere International Short Film Festival she presented a programme of Maya Deren films, gave a lecture at the Tampere Media School and was interviewed for the festival newspaper. The International Prize went to Cinenova filmmaker Marjut Rimminen’s Many Happy Returns (1996, UK) and the National Prize to Today (Eija-Liisa Ahtila, 1996-7, Finland). Cinenova will attempt to acquire both films. (Cinenova, 1997b)

The five Once Upon a Time… programmes will screen at the Institute of Contemporary Arts (ICA) Cinematheque in Cinenova’s Broad’s Perspective slot from 5-15 June. John Mount (Director, ICA Cinema) has yet to contact Board member Julia Knight about her Digital Women programme. (Cinenova, 1997b)

3 June 1997: London. Cinenova Management Board meets. Helen de Witt (Acquisition and Distribution Co-ordinator) gives notice that she is leaving to take up the position of Curator at the London Filmmakers’ Co-operative (LFMC). Cinenova will advertise the job in The Guardian and the world wide web. The job descriptions for Cinenova’s two posts will be reconsidered in light of Laura Hudson’s (Finance and Marketing Co-ordinator) particular skills. (Cinenova, 1997c)

Cinenova’s books are almost ready for audit, and its Companies House returns have been completed. The National Lottery funded refurbishment of Cinenova’s viewing and editing suite is nearly complete, with Video Engineering and Training (VET) to deliver the portable viewing deck for disabled people soon. The new film leader commission entry forms have gone out. The tapes for Cinenova’s next Broad’s Perspective screening, Once Upon a Time…, have been sent to the Institute for Contemporary Arts (ICA). De Witt stresses that the ICA will discontinue the screenings if they are poorly attended. The Board determine to support the Rio Cinema’s National Lottery appeal, as the cinema has always supported Circles and Cinenova. Board and staff make personal donations, and Cinenova will add to that to make the £100 necessary to have a seat in the refurbished cinema named after them. (Cinenova, 1997c)

De Witt has attended the MediaWave festival in Gyor, Hungary and the IV International Women’s Film Festival in Minsk. The MediaWave screening was poorly organised, with Cinenova’s programme programmed against a rock band outside the cinema, and several projection mishaps. The Minsk festival was well organised and drew filmmakers and festival programmers from across Europe and the US, including a representative of Berlin Panorama and Debra Zimmerman of Women Make Movies (WMM). Cinenova’s programme was well received by the audience and at the press conference after. (Cinenova, 1997c)

8 July 1997: London. Cinenova Management Board meets and progresses the recruitment of Helen de Witt’s (Acquisition and Distribution Co-ordinator) successor. Board member Margaret Trotter has submitted a paper on staff and recruitment, stressing the centrality of day-to-day distribution and office duties, and the importance of not letting “speculative” special projects detract from them. She suggests that staff must have the basic competences to cover for each other, and that the Board take a far greater role in monitoring and listening to new staff. (Trotter, 1997)

The Board determine to keep staff roles as is, but to make Laura Hudson (Finance and Marketing Co-ordinator) the new Acquisition and Distribution Co-ordinator, and to re-title each job as ‘Manager’ to reflect their level of responsibility. Office cover during the recruitment process Bianca Adefarakhan and Karen Dowell will work three days a week between them, and interviews for a work placement from Commercial and Industrial Training For Employment (CITE) will take place later in the week. (Cinenova, 1997d)

The National Lottery funded refurbishment of the Viewing and Editing Suite and commission of a new Cinenova film leader is mostly complete, with the computer workstation, office PC upgrade, and leader commission remaining. The Board view leader commissions and select Marjut Rimminen’s entry. Cinenova’s educational video package project is to be completed in September. Design and printing has been arranged with the British Film Institute (BFI), and Beverley Zalcock has made a master tape for compilation in Package One. Sandra Plummer will complete her writing and tape compilation by September. Tina Keane will provide the writing for the leaflet accompanying Cinenova’s Arts Council of England (ACE) sponsored film tour, developed from their Cinematrix programme of 1996. Filmmakers have also bee asked to contribute a paragraph on how they see their work now, due 15 August. Distribution is largely on target, but showing a mall dip in VHS sales. I targeted mailout to university libraries is suggested. (Cinenova, 1997d)

18 July 1997: London. Helen de Witt, Cinenova’s Acquisition and Distribution Co-ordinator, resigns to become Curator at the London Filmmaker’s Co-operative (LFMC). (Cinenova, 1997c).

2000

9 November 2000: London. Gill Henderson (CEO, London Film and Video Development Agency) replies to Elaine Burrows (Cinenova Board), expressing concern about new staffer Sandy Weiland trying to prepare a RALF application “in a vacuum”, and warning that “Andrea Corbett here is rightly concerned about our ability to endorse the bid in the present circumstances”. Henderson asks for meeting with the Board ASAP. (Henderson, 2000a).

9 November 2000: London. Elaine Burrows (Cinenova Board) responds to Gill Henderson’s (CEO, London Film and Video Development Agency/LFVDA) concerns regarding the Cinenova Board’s handling of the current staff crisis. Burrows argues that “because of the uncertain nature of the funding, it would be improper to recruit new staff at present”, but that Melanie Wiley will be employed two days a week to “keep an eye on things”.

We felt that this was a better option than closing the company because we are confident of obtaining future funding. We considered that it would be more problematic to close down entirely and then have to try to pick up the pieces when the new funding came through.

Cinenova has informed filmmakers of an Extraordinary General Meeting in late November, at which:

The proposal to be presented by the Cinenova Board is that the organisation will temporarily shut down until small business stabilisation funding be secured. This has been precipitated by our Business Development Manager deciding to quit during her probationary period, and by our Distribution Manager leaving to take up a post with the British Film Institute. Cinenova would continue under core fundraising and administrative personnel during this interim period. Normal marketing and distribution activity would be suspended.

This is not a proposal to close Cinenova. All bookings that have already been made for the next four months will be honoured.

Royalties are still being collated and paid. Current fundraising activities are a New Opportunities Fund (NOF) digitisation grant – in partnership with British Film Institute (BFI), Lux Centre and British Pathé – and a Regional Arts Lottery Fund (RALF) business development grant, “which will stabilise Cinenova, write off our deficit and provide substantial funds for distribution and development.” (Burrows, 2000a)

17 November 2000: London. Gill Henderson (CEO, London Film and Video Development Agency/LFVDA) writes to Elaine Burrows (Cinenova Board), agreeing to wait until after Cinenova's Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) to meet. She warns however:

To put LFVDA cards on the table, continuing to support Cinenova to anything like the level that we have done within an increasingly regionalised funding structure isn’t an option. The only potential source of national funds would be what Gary Thomas has at the Arts Council [ACE] for national distribution/exhibition initiatives but you couldn’t run a stand alone organisation on that, even if a bid was successful (and he already has Film and Video Umbrella [FVU] and the Lux). Options could be:

Placing collection with a sympathetic and reliable distributor and converting website into a stand alone resource run on p/t basis with an advisory group. Realistically this would mean jettisoning the 85% of work that never goes out and probably concentrating on artists work, radical lesbian and historical context.

or

taking collection and website into a host organisation but retaining the Cinenova brand within it; women’s resource/library set up (isn’t there one in Shoreditch?) would seem the most appropriate. Again the collection needs serious pruning

Henderson guarantees funding through to end of financial year so long as it remains clear what it is being spent on. (Henderson, 2000b)

4 December 2000: London. Gill Henderson (CEO, London Film and Video Development Agency/LFVDA) tells Elaine Burrows (Cinenova Board) that

I can commit funds for the next few months (although if there are no wages being paid over a significant period then I’ll have to talk to Margaret about exactly what is required in terms of funding to cover necessary costs) but obviously for 2001/2002 projections there needs to be a plan in place.

Asks for meeting with board prior to Christmas. (Henderson, 2000c)

5 December 2000: London. Elaine Burrows (Cinenova Board) reports to Gill Henderson (CEO, London Film and Video Development Agency/LFVDA) that a “small – but select – band of filmmakers” attended the Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM), and others had an informal meeting the preceding Friday. A general plan of action has been formulated and the Board will meet Wednesday". (Burrows, 2000b).

Bibliography

??, Sue (1989) Correspondence with Alison Butler (IFVPA), 11 July: 1p. Source: IFVPA files, box 36, held at the Adsetts Centre, Sheffield-Hallam University. go back | see pdf (23.0 Kb)

Abbott, Stacey (LFMC Distribution Organiser) (1994) Correspondence with Leonie Greefkens (INSERT/the go between/), 22 July: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Lux. go back | see pdf (205.3 Kb)

ACGB (1975) Poster for The Video Show at Serpentine Gallery, London, 1-26 May. Funded by ACGB. go back

--- (1976a) Minutes of the Meeting of the Artists' Films Sub-Committee held on 7 April 1976: 5pp. Source: Artists' Film and Video Committee: agenda, minutes and papers, 1972-1987 (ACGB/54/60), box 8, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (334.3 Kb)

--- (1976b) Minutes of the Continuation Meeting of the Artists' Films Sub-Committee held on 17 December 1976: 3pp. Source: Artists' Film and Video Committee: agenda, minutes and papers, 1972-1987 (ACGB/54/60), box 3, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (748.0 Kb)

--- (1977a) Minutes of the Artists' Films Sub-Committee Meeting Held on 17 January 1977: 1-7pp. Source: Artists' Film and Video Committee: agenda, minutes and papers, 1972-1987 (ACGB/54/60), box 3, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (1.4 Mb)

--- (1977b) Arts Council Touring Exhibitions, Exhibition Information News Sheet, February: 1p. Source: Film-Makers/Video Artists on Tour, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (110.2 Kb)

--- (1977c) Film-makers on tour (booklet), February: 20pp. Source: Courtesy of BAFVSC. go back | see pdf (1.2 Mb)

--- (1977d) Minutes of the Artists' Films Committee Meeting Held on 25 February 1977: 1-5pp. Source: Artists' Film and Video Committee: agenda, minutes and papers, 1972-1987 (ACGB/54/60), box 3, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (956.7 Kb)

--- (1977e) Perspectives on British Avant-Garde Film at Hayward Gallery, London, 2 March–24 April 1977: 5pp (extract). Funded by ACGB. Source: Courtesy of Peter Mudie. go back | see pdf (816.6 Kb)

--- (1977f) Minutes of the Artists' Films Committee Meeting Held on 2 May 1977: 1-6pp. Source: Artists' Film and Video Committee: agenda, minutes and papers, 1972-1987 (ACGB/54/60), box 3, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (639.1 Kb)

--- (1977g) Minutes of a Meeting Between the Artists' Films Committee and London Video Arts Held on 20 May 1977: 8pp. Source: Arts Council of Great Britain, Records 1927–1997, LVA, box 2. go back | see pdf (523.2 Kb)

--- (1977h) Minutes of the Meeting of the Artists Films Committee held on 22 June 1977: 7pp. Source: Artists' Film and Video Committee: agenda, minutes and papers, 1972-1987 (ACGB/54/60), box 3, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (741.7 Kb)

--- (1978) Minutes of the Artists' Films Committee Meeting Held on 18 December 1978: 1-6pp. Source: Artists' Film and Video Committee: agenda, minutes and papers, 1972-1987 (ACGB/54/60), box 4, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (616.0 Kb)

--- (1980a) Video Artists on Tour, February: 4pp. go back | see pdf (456.7 Kb)

--- (1980b) Minutes of the Artists' Film and Video Sub-Committee held on 27 October 1980: 1–5pp (extract). Source: Artists' Film and Video Committee: agenda, minutes and papers, 1972-1987 (ACGB/54/60), box 6, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (241.6 Kb)

--- (1981a) Minutes of the 39th Meeting of the Artists' Film and Video Committee held on 26 January: 4pp (extract). Source: Artists' Film and Video Committee: agenda, minutes and papers, 1972-1987 (ACGB/54/60), box 6, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (411.2 Kb)

--- (1981b) Minutes of the Artists' Film and Video Committee Meeting held on 9 March 1981: 9pp. Source: Artists' Film and Video Committee: agenda, minutes and papers, 1972-1987 (ACGB/54/60), box 6, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (371.8 Kb)

--- (1981c) Minutes of the 41st Meeting of the Artists' Film and Video Committee held on 11 May 1981: 6pp. Source: Artists' Film and Video Committee: agenda, minutes and papers, 1972-1987 (ACGB/54/60), box 7, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (820.9 Kb)

--- (1981d) Minutes of the 42nd meeting of the Arts Council's Artists' Film and Video Committee held on 3 August 1981: 7pp (extract). Source: Artists' Film and Video Committee: agenda, minutes and papers, 1972-1987 (ACGB/54/60), box 7, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (382.3 Kb)

--- (1981e) Minutes of the 44th Meeting of the Artists' Film and Video Committee held on 30 November 1981: 5pp (extract). Source: Artists' Film and Video Committee: agenda, minutes and papers, 1972-1987 (ACGB/54/60), box 7, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (297.3 Kb)

--- (1982a) Minutes of the 45th Meeting of the Artists' Film & Video Committee held on 8 March 1982: 4pp (extract). Source: Artists' Film and Video Committee: agenda, minutes and papers, 1972-1987 (ACGB/54/60), box 7, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (567.0 Kb)

--- (1982b) Minutes of the Meeting of the Artists' Films Sub-Committee held on 27 September 1982: 9pp. Source: Artists' Film and Video Committee: agenda, minutes and papers, 1972-1987 (ACGB/54/60), box 8, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (486.0 Kb)

--- (1983a) Minutes of the 49th Meeting of the Artists' Film and Video Sub-Committee Held on 21 February: 1-11pp. Source: Artists' Film and Video Committee: agenda, minutes and papers, 1972-1987 (ACGB/54/60), box 9, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (1.7 Mb)

--- (1983b) Minutes of the Artists' Film and Video Committee Meeting Held on 11 April 1983, 11 April: 1-7pp. Source: Artists' Film and Video Committee: agenda, minutes and papers, 1972-1987 (ACGB/54/60), box 9, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (1.2 Mb)

--- (1983c) Minutes of the meeting of the Artists' Film and Video Sub-Committee Held on 18 April 1983, 18 April: 1-6pp. Source: Artists' Film and Video Committee: agenda, minutes and papers, 1972-1987 (ACGB/54/60), box 9, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (966.0 Kb)

--- (1983d) Minutes of the 53rd Meeting of the Artists' Film and Video Sub-Comittee Held on 20 June 1983, 20 June: 1-9pp. Source: Artists' Film and Video Committee: agenda, minutes and papers, 1972-1987 (ACGB/54/60), box 9, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (1.3 Mb)

--- (1983e) Film/Video Umbrella Press Release, London, August: 1p. Source: Artists' Film and Video Committee: agenda, minutes and papers, 1972-1987 (ACGB/54/60), box 9, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (116.5 Kb)

--- (1983f) Minutes of the 54th Meeting of the Artists' Film and Video Sub-Committee Held on the 26 September: 1-9pp. Source: Artists' Film and Video Committee: agenda, minutes and papers, 1972-1987 (ACGB/54/60), box 9, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (1.5 Mb)

--- (1983g) Minutes of the 55th Meeting of the Artists' Film and Video Sub-Committee Held on 7th November, 7 November: 1-7pp. Source: Artists' Film and Video Committee: agenda, minutes and papers, 1972-1987 (ACGB/54/60), box 9, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (1.0 Mb)

--- (1984a) Minutes of the 58th Meeting of the Artists' Film and Video Sub-Committee Held on the 5th March, 5 March: 1-9pp. Source: Artists' Film and Video Committee: agenda, minutes and papers, 1972-1987 (ACGB/54/60), box 9, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (1.5 Mb)

--- (1984b) Educational Services, April: 1p. Source: Arts Council of Great Britain, Records 1927–1997, Access Libraries, case 1. go back | see pdf (290.2 Kb)

--- (1984c) Subsidised Exhibitions April 1983/4, ACGB: 1-3pp. Source: Artists' Film and Video Committee: agenda, minutes and papers, 1972-1987 (ACGB/54/60), box 9, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (320.7 Kb)

--- (1984d) Subsidised Exhibitions April 1983/84, April: 3pp. Source: Victoria and Albert Museum (Arts Council of Great Britain, Records 1927–1997). go back | see pdf (320.7 Kb)

--- (1984e) Minutes of the 61st Meeting of the Artists' Film and Video Sub-Committee Held on the 18th June, 18 June: 1-10pp. Source: Artists' Film and Video Committee: agenda, minutes and papers, 1972-1987 (ACGB/54/60), box 10, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (1.6 Mb)

--- (1985a) Minutes of the 64th Meeting of the Artists' Film and Video Sub-Committee Held on the 16 January, 16 January: 1-8pp. Source: Artists' Film and Video Committee: agenda, minutes and papers, 1972-1987 (ACGB/54/60), box 10, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (1.2 Mb)

--- (1985b) Minutes of the 65th Meeting of the Artists' Film and Video Sub-Committee Held on the 13th March, 13 March: 1-10pp. Source: Artists' Film and Video Committee: agenda, minutes and papers, 1972-1987 (ACGB/54/60), box 10, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (1.6 Mb)

--- (1985c) Minutes of the 66th Meeting of the Artists' Film and Video Sub-Committee Held on 24 July, 24 July: 1-4pp. Source: Artists' Film and Video Committee: agenda, minutes and papers, 1972-1987 (ACGB/54/60), box 10, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (533.1 Kb)

--- (1986a) Minutes of the 70th Meeting of the Artists' Film and Video Sub-Committee Held on February 12: 1-9pp. Source: Artists' Film and Video Committee: agenda, minutes and papers, 1972-1987 (ACGB/54/60), box 11, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (1.4 Mb)

--- (1986b) Correspondence with Video Access Libraries, 5 June: 2pp. Source: Video Access Library files, case 1, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (580.5 Kb)

--- (1987) Public Library to House Arts Video Centre at Southend Central Library, June: 1p. Source: Video Access Library files, case 1, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (309.4 Kb)

--- (1992) Artists' Film and Video Committee, Regional Project Development Fund: Regional Commissioning Scheme: 1-3pp. Source: New Wave Women folder, Sleeve 3, held at Cinenova. go back | see pdf (146.3 Kb)

Alen-Buckley, Oonagh (Alen-Buckley & co.) (1994) Correspondence with Michael Maziere (LVA), 7 June: 1-2pp. Source: Courtesy of Film London. go back | see pdf (100.8 Kb)

Anon (1987) "Video shows at library" Evening Echo (Southend), 24 June. Source: Video Access Library files, case 1, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (279.5 Kb)

Armstrong, Neil (1981) Correspondence with Rodney Wilson (Film Officer, ACGB), 26 October: 1p. Source: Arts Council of Great Britain, Records 1927–1997, Film & Video Makers on Tour. go back | see pdf (225.3 Kb)

Arnolfini (1981) Video Library Screenings at Arnolfini, Bristol, October: 2pp. Source: Courtesy of Shirley Brown. go back | see pdf (400.9 Kb)

--- (1982a) Video Library Information – Press Lunch, 30 March: 2pp. Source: Video Access Library files, case 1, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (607.8 Kb)

--- (1982b) Video 82 Supplement at Arnolfini, Bristol, April: 4pp. Source: Video Access Library files, case 1, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (1.6 Mb)

--- (1985) New Video Library – We Have Moved!! at Arnolfini, Bristol, July: 1p. Source: Video Access Library files, case 1, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (429.4 Kb)

Arora, Krishan and Justin Lewis (LSPU) (1987) Off the Shelf: A Video Marketing Workbook, Recreation and Arts Group, London Strategic Policy Unit (LSPU), and the Independent Film and Video Association (IFVA), London, May(?): 39pp. Source: IFVPA files, Publications, held at the Adsetts Centre, Sheffield-Hallam University. go back | see pdf (4.3 Mb)

Ashbrook, Penny (COW) (1983) Correspondence with Ian Christie (BFI), 27 October: 1p. Source: Cinenova (COW films, Born in Flames, Correspondence with Lizzie). go back | see pdf (155.8 Kb)

--- (1985a) Correspondence with Poonam Sharma (Channel 4), 7 November: 1p. Source: Cinenova (COW films, Anne Devlin, communications with Pat & contract & channel 4). go back | see pdf (195.1 Kb)

--- (1985b) Correspondence with Elizabeth Atkinson (Living Magazine), 13 November: 1p. Source: Cinenova (COW films, Anne Devlin (green), Press screenings). go back | see pdf (719.7 Kb)

--- (1986a) Correspondence with Pat Murphy (Aeon Films Ltd), 6 February: 1p. Source: Cinenova (COW films, Anne Devlin, Communications with Pat + Contract + Channel 4). go back | see pdf (357.8 Kb)

--- (1986b) Correspondence with Lesley Thornton (The Observer Magazine), 17 February: 1p. Source: Cinenova (COW films, Anne Devlin (green), Press screenings). go back | see pdf (302.5 Kb)

Association of District Councils (1989) "Chapter 8: The Wilding Review and Other Policy Issues" in Arts and the Districts: 69-76pp. Source: Directorate Files, D/40 A/11, BFI Special Collections. go back | see pdf (594.6 Kb)

Attfield, Andrew (Dalston City Partnership) (1994) Correspondence with Irene Whitehead (Head of Cinema Services and Development), 2 November: 1-2pp. Source: Courtesy of Film London. go back | see pdf (109.1 Kb)

Baker Tilly Management Associates (1990) Correspondence with Sarah Bratby (Circles), 11 June: 1p. Source: 'Incoming correspondence dated 1987-1989, Jan 1990-Aug 1990' ringbinder, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (54.8 Kb)

Baker, Trevor (Property Manager, Sainsburys) (1993) Correspondence with Irene Whitehead (Head of Planning, BFI), 22 April: 1-2pp. Source: Courtesy of Film London. go back

Barnard, Roger (LVA, Chairman) and Stephen Partridge (LVA, Treasurer) (1977) Correspondence with Rodney Wilson (Film Officer, ACGB), 13 June: 6pp. Source: Artists' Film and Video Committee: agenda, minutes and papers, 1972-1987 (ACGB/54/60), box 3, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (687.2 Kb)

Barnard, Roger (LVA, Chairman) (1978a) Correspondence with Rodney Wilson (Film Officer, ACGB), November: 2pp. Source: Arts Council of Great Britain, Records 1927–1997, LVA, box 2. go back | see pdf (176.8 Kb)

--- (1978b) Correspondence with Rodney Wilson (Film Officer, ACGB), 28 November: 3pp. Source: Arts Council of Great Britain, Records 1927–1997, LVA, box 2. go back | see pdf (308.7 Kb)

--- (1979) Correspondence with Rodney Wilson (Film Officer, ACGB), 2 February: 1p. Source: Arts Council of Great Britain, Records 1927–1997, LVA, box 2. go back | see pdf (157.9 Kb)

Bell, Stephen (Acting Head of Exhibition and Distribution, BFI) (1993) Correspondence with Liane Harris, Kate Norrish and Gill Henderson (Cinenova), 2 March: 1-2pp. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (79.5 Kb)

Bell, Will (Film Education Services Officer, ACGB) (1987) Correspondence with Krysia Rozanska (Lighthouse Media Centre), 23 December: 2pp. Source: Video Access Library files, case 1, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (709.1 Kb)

--- (1988) Meeting at Southend re Video Access Library, 9 February: 2pp. Source: Video Access Library files, case 1, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (627.7 Kb)

--- (1989a) Correspondence with Rodney Wilson (Director, Film, Video and Broadcasting Dept, ACGB), 17 March: 1p. Source: Video Access Library files, case 1, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (321.0 Kb)

--- (1989b) Correspondence with Martin Ayres (Film and Photography Officer, Eastern Arts Association), 22 March: 1p. Source: Video Access Library files, case 1, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (339.6 Kb)

BFI (1975a) BFI Production Board Minutes, 28 May: 1p (extract). Source: Peter Mudie (LFMC-BFI 1975–82). go back | see pdf (266.3 Kb)

--- (1975b) BFI Production Board Minutes, 9 July: 1p (extract). Source: Peter Mudie (LFMC-BFI 1975–82). go back | see pdf (390.0 Kb)

--- (1975c) Minutes of the 43rd meeting of the Film Institute Production Board, 20 August: 2pp (extract). Source: Peter Mudie (LFMC-BFI 1975–82). go back | see pdf (275.6 Kb)

BFI, GLAA, ACGB, LBA and GLC (1976) Minutes of a Working Party Meeting between the British Film Institute, Greater London Arts Association, Arts Council of Great Britain, London Boroughs Association, Greater London Council, 21 December: 1-5pp. Source: Film, Video and Broadcasting Department: Individuals and Organisations, 1954-1996 (ACGB/58/16), from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (471.7 Kb)

BFI, GLAA, ACGB, GLC, LBA and ILEA (1977) Assessment of The Other Cinema (Exhibition) Limited, Working Party of the British Film Institute, Greater London Arts Association, Arts Council of Great Britain, Greater London Council, London Boroughs Association and the Inner London Education Authority, 13 July: 1-6pp. Source: Film, Video and Broadcasting Department: Individuals and Organisations, 1954-1996 (ACGB/58/16), from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (584.2 Kb)

BFI (1982) Publicising and Distributing Film and Television, 23 February: 5pp. Source: British Film Institute Archive (Library, Box 32, Distribution Division 1980–87). go back | see pdf (886.3 Kb)

--- (1988) Operations Group Meeting, 5 September 1988: 1-16pp. Source: Directorate Files, D/40 A/11, BFI Special Collections. go back | see pdf (552.5 Kb)

--- (1989a) Funding and Development Division – Report for Oct-Dec 1988: 1-4pp. Source: Directorate Files, D/39 A/11, BFI Special Collections. go back | see pdf (211.2 Kb)

--- (1989b) Notes of the Heads of Divisions Operations Meeting, 12 April 1989: 1-6pp. Source: Directorate Files, D/40 A/11, BFI Special Collections. go back | see pdf (346.1 Kb)

--- (1989c) Funding and Development Division – Report, January-March 1989: 1-4pp. Source: Directorate Files, D/40 A/11, BFI Special Collections. go back | see pdf (248.8 Kb)

--- (1989d) Funding and Development Division – Report, July-October 1989: 1-4pp. Source: Directorate Files, D/71 A/8, BFI Special Collections. go back | see pdf (289.0 Kb)

--- (1990a) Little Wizards from Oz film tour brochure: 1-4pp. Funded by BFI. Source: 'Incoming correspondence dated 1987-1989, Jan 1990-Aug 1990' ringbinder, Cinenova. go back

--- (1990b) Draft for Sir Richard's Speech at Sotheby's, 18 September: 3pp. Source: British Film Institute Archive (Miscellaneous, Box 11). go back | see pdf (216.2 Kb)

--- (1991) Funding for Film and Video in London: a Discussion Document, May: 1-4pp. Source: Courtesy of Sarah Turner. go back | see pdf (485.2 Kb)

BFI Planning Unit (1992) Regional Arts Boards and Film Councils, August: 1-4pp. Source: New Wave Women folder, Miscellaneous File 4, held at Cinenova. go back | see pdf (442.3 Kb)

BFI, GLAA, ACGB, GLC, ILEA (1977) Minutes of a Working Party Meeting between the British Film Institute, Greater London Arts Association, Arts Council of Great Britain, Greater London Council, Inner Education London Authority on 27 April 1977 at the British Film Institute, 27 April: 3pp. Source: Victoria and Albert Museum (Arts Council of Great Britain, Records 1927–1997, ACGB 58/16 TOC-Exhibition). go back | see pdf (796.7 Kb)

Biggs, Lewis (Gallery Coordinator, Arnolfini) (1982a) Correspondence with Rodney Wilson (Film Officer, ACGB), 3 April: 1p. Source: Artists' Film and Video Committee: agenda, minutes and papers, 1972-1987 (ACGB/54/60), box 8, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (135.9 Kb)

--- (1982b) Correspondence with Rodney Wilson (Film Officer, ACGB), 17 November: 3pp. Source: Video Access Library files, case 1, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (702.2 Kb)

--- (1983) Correspondence with Rodney Wilson (Film Officer, ACGB), 16 March: 6pp. Source: Video Access Library files, case 1, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (1.1 Mb)

Birmingham City Council (1988) Media Development Agency Prosepectus, Economic Development Unit, April: 1-12pp. Source: Directorate Files, D/41 A/11, BFI Special Collections. go back | see pdf (519.3 Kb)

Blanchard, Simon (1983) Film and Video Exhibition and Distribution in London, GLC, London, November: 30pp. Funded by GLC. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (4.2 Mb)

Blazwick, Iwona (1985) Correspondence with Sarah Watson, 13 September: 4p. Source: Victoria and Albert Museum (Arts Council of Great Britain, Records 1927–1997, ACGB/LVA, box 2, folder 1). go back | see pdf (153.8 Kb)

Bloor, Tony (Birmingham Filmmakers Co-operative (1978) Correspondence with David Curtis (Assistant Film Officer, ACGB), 29 November: 3pp. Source: Arts Council of Great Britain, Records 1927–1997, Film & Video Makers on Tour. go back | see pdf (285.5 Kb)

Bode, Steven (FVU) (1995) Correspondence with Stephen Vitiello (Electronic Arts Intermix), 29 March: 2pp. Source: Film and Video Umbrella. go back | see pdf (143.9 Kb)

Borden, Lizzie (1983) Correspondence with Tony Kirkhope (The Other Cinema/TOC), 24 July: 1p. Source: Cinenova (COW films, Born in Flames, Correspondence with Lizzie). go back | see pdf (429.7 Kb)

Bratby, Sarah (Circles) (1990a) Correspondence with Irene Whitehead (Head of Planning, BFI), 11 September: 1-2pp. Source: 'Circ/COW mtgs' ringbinder, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (232.6 Kb)

--- (1990b) Correspondence with Denise Kirkham (Nat West), 20 November: 1p. Source: 'Circ/COW mtgs' ringbinder, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (140.9 Kb)

Broad, Tony (Video Assistant, Arnolfini) (1984) Correspondence with Rodney Wilson (Film Officer, ACGB), 2 November: 4pp. Source: Video Access Library files, case 1, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (905.8 Kb)

--- (1985) Correspondence with Rodney Wilson (Film Officer, ACGB), 11 July: 2pp. Source: Video Access Library files, case 1, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (622.3 Kb)

Broadhead, David (Chairman), Steve Partridge (Festival Director), Patrick Day (Herbert Art Gallery) and Neil Stair (Media Centre) (1978) Video Art 78 at Herbert Art Gallery and Museum, Coventry, 6–21 May: 32pp. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (1.7 Mb)

Brookes, Steven (BFI Production) (1990) Correspondence with Trevor Vibert (Director, GLA), 5 December: 1-2pp. Source: 'Historical Docs - BFI and LFVDA Exchanges, held at Film London. go back | see pdf (76.1 Kb)

Burrows, Elaine (Cinenova Board) (2000a) Correspondence with Gill Henderson (Chief Executive, LFVDA), 9 November: 1-2pp. Source: 'Cinenova' box, 'Cinenova-Current' folder, Film London. go back | see pdf (506.7 Kb)

--- (2000b) Correspondence with Gill Henderson (Chief Executive, LFVDA), 5 December: 1p. Source: 'Cinenova' box, 'Cinenova-Current' folder, Film London. go back | see pdf (202.7 Kb)

Butler, Alison (IFVPA) (1989a) Correspondence with Felicity Sparrow (Film Officer, GLA), 15 February: 1-2pp. Source: IFVPA files, box 36, held at the Adsetts Centre, Sheffield-Hallam University. go back | see pdf (67.2 Kb)

--- (1989b) Correspondence with Felicity Sparrow (Film Officer, GLA), 30 June: 1-2pp. Source: IFVPA files, box 36, held at the Adsetts Centre, Sheffield-Hallam University. go back | see pdf (62.4 Kb)

Cairncross, Catherine (1983) "Infront: Women find a new voice in the cinema world" Equality Now!: Magazine of the Equal Opportunities Commission, iss. 1, Autumn: 17p. Source: Courtesy of Eileen McNulty. go back | see pdf (410.5 Kb)

Caldwell, Jane (IFVPA) (1989) Correspondence with Friends, June: 1p. Source: IFVPA files, box 36, held at the Adsetts Centre, Sheffield-Hallam University. go back | see pdf (42.6 Kb)

Carter, Vanda (LFMC) and David Finch (LFMC) (1985) Co-op Distribution Preview Show 1985 Report, June: 2pp. Source: Artists' Film and Video Committee: agenda, minutes and papers, 1972-1987 (ACGB/54/60), box 10, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (302.1 Kb)

Cawkwell, Tim (1982a) Correspondence with David Finch (LFMC), 16 August: 1-2pp. Source: Grey Distribution ringbinder, Lux. go back | see pdf (515.5 Kb)

--- (1982b) Correspondence with David Finch (Distribution, LFMC), 20 September: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Lux. go back | see pdf (325.7 Kb)

Cayford, J.K. (1984) CH4: The Eleventh House – Some Views, July: 4pp. Source: IFVPA files, Box 33, held at the Adsetts Centre, Sheffield-Hallam University. go back | see pdf (762.7 Kb)

Chandler, Chris (Regional Planning Officer, BFI) (1993) Correspondence with Florian Beigel, 7 June: 1-3pp. Source: Courtesy of Film London. go back | see pdf (295.4 Kb)

--- (1994a) Briefing Notes on Hoxton Square Development, as of 15/6/94: 1-2pp. Source: Courtesy of Film London. go back | see pdf (174.9 Kb)

--- (1994b) Correspondence with David Nicholson (Glasshouse Investments), 1 November: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Film London. go back | see pdf (54.9 Kb)

--- (1995) Correspondence with Steve McIntyre (Chief Executive, LFVDA), 19 July: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Film London. go back | see pdf (74.2 Kb)

--- (1996) Correspondence with Steve McIntyre (Chief Executive, LFVDA), 6 September: 1-2pp. Source: Courtesy of Film London. go back | see pdf (169.6 Kb)

--- (1997a) Correspondence with Michael Maziere (Director, LEA), 13 February: 1-4pp. Source: Courtesy of Film London. go back | see pdf (504.7 Kb)

--- (1997b) Correspondence with Michael Maziere (Director, LEA), 17 February: 1-2pp. Source: Courtesy of Film London. go back | see pdf (217.7 Kb)

Channel 4 (1982) New Independents on Four, Independent Film and Video Dept, London, October: 20pp. Source: British Film Institute Archive (Channel Four/independents, etc, Box N/73, held at Northchurch). go back | see pdf (2.3 Mb)

--- (2016) About Our Channels, 4 April. http://www.channel4.com/4viewers/faq/name/when-did-channel-4-launch/id/400286908 go back

Chauchard-Stuart, Sophia (Circles) (1990) Correspondence with Circles Film-makers, 5 September: 1p. Source: 'Incoming correspondence dated 1987-1989, Jan 1990-Aug 1990' ringbinder, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (57.6 Kb)

Chrisfield, Larry (Chair, LFVDA Board) (1994) Correspondence with Steve McIntyre (Chief Executive Officer, LFVDA), 9 August: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Film London. go back | see pdf (133.8 Kb)

--- (1995) Correspondence with Cinenova Board of Management, 19 January: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (40.4 Kb)

Christie, Ian (Regional Programme Adviser, BFI) (1978) Correspondence with Anthology Film Archives (NYC), 13 October: 1p. Source: Grey Distribution ringbinder, Lux. go back | see pdf (109.2 Kb)

Christie, Ian (BFI Regional Programme Adviser) (1979) Correspondence with COW, 25 October: 1p. Source: Cinenova (COW films, The Power of Men). go back | see pdf (152.5 Kb)

Christie, Ian (BFI Distribution Division) (1981) BFI Involvement in Distribution, 10 April: 1–4pp. Source: Library Files, Box 32, Distribution Division 1980–87. go back | see pdf (567.0 Kb)

--- (1982) BFI/Rank Programming Experiment: April–June 1982, 9 June: 1–3pp. Source: Library Files, Box 32, Distribution Division 1980–87. go back | see pdf (266.2 Kb)

Christie, Ian (Head of Distribution, BFI) (1984) Correspondence with David Curtis (Film Officer, ACGB), 20 November: 1p. Source: Arts Council of Great Britain, Records 1927–1997, FVU, box 3. go back | see pdf (105.0 Kb)

--- (1985) Correspondence with Mike O'Pray, (FVU Organiser), 30 April: 1-2pp. Source: Film, Video and Broadcasting Department: Film and Video Umbrella (ACGB/58/11), box 1, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (225.0 Kb)

--- (1990a) Correspondence with Jenny Holland (Circles), 27 March: 1p. Source: 'Incoming correspondence dated 1987-1989, Jan 1990-Aug 1990' ringbinder, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (53.4 Kb)

--- (1990b) Correspondence with Jenny Holland (Circles), 6 April: 1p. Source: 'Incoming correspondence dated 1987-1989, Jan 1990-Aug 1990' ringbinder, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (39.8 Kb)

--- (1990c) Draft Brief for CoW/Circles Development Consultancy, 13 July: 1p. Source: 'Circ/COW mtgs' ringbinder, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (45.9 Kb)

--- (1990d) Correspondence with Jenny Holland (Circles), 13 August: 1p. Source: 'Circ/COW mtgs' ringbinder, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (136.3 Kb)

--- (1991a) Correspondence with Abina Manning (COW) and Sarah Bratby (Circles), 18 February: 1-2pp. Source: 'Incoming correspondence dated 1987-1989, Jan 1990-Aug 1990' ringbinder, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (235.4 Kb)

Christie, Ian (Head of Distribution, BFI) and Irene Whitehead (Head of Planning, BFI), (1991b) Correspondence with Albina Manning, Jenny Shabbaz Wallace (CoW), Liane Harris and Sarah Bratby (Circles), March 25: 1-2pp. Source: 'Circ/COW mtgs' ringbinder, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (271.0 Kb)

Christie, Ian (Head of Distribution, BFI) and Irene Whitehead (Head of Planning, BFI) (1991c) Correspondence with Sarah Bratby and Liane Harris (Take Two, c/o Circles), 19 April: 1-3pp. Source: 'Circ/COW mtgs' ringbinder, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (390.5 Kb)

Christie, Ian (Head of Exhibition and Distribution, BFI) (1991d) Correspondence with Martin Lugg (Executive Committee, LFMC), 29 August: 1-2pp. Source: Courtesy of Sarah Turner. go back | see pdf (189.5 Kb)

--- (1992) Correspondence with Liane Harris (Cinenova), 29 April: 1p. Source: Artists' Film and Video Committee: Agendas, minutes and papers, 1989-1993 (ACGB/54/61) Box 2, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (187.1 Kb)

Cinenova (1991) Minutes of Cinenova Management Committee Meeting, 18 December 1991: 1-2pp. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (76.2 Kb)

--- (1992a) Minutes of Cinenova Management Committee Meeting, 29 January 1992: 1-4pp. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (203.5 Kb)

--- (1992b) Touring package Outline, February: 1-6pp. Source: New Wave Women folder, Sleeve 3, held at Cinenova. go back | see pdf (618.0 Kb)

--- (1992c) Minutes of Cinenova Management Committee Meeting, 22 April 1992: 1-4pp. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (243.3 Kb)

--- (1992d) Touring Package Outline, June: 1-4pp. Source: Artists' Film and Video Committee: Agendas, minutes and papers, 1989-1993 (ACGB/54/61) Box 2, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (638.1 Kb)

--- (1992e) Revised Budget for Touring Package, June: 1-2pp. Source: Artists' Film and Video Committee: Agendas, minutes and papers, 1989-1993 (ACGB/54/61) Box 2, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (231.6 Kb)

--- (1992f) Minutes of Cinenova Management Committee Meeting, 17 June 1992: 1-4pp. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (208.1 Kb)

--- (1992g) Minutes of Cinenova Management Committee Meeting, 15 July 1992: 1-4pp. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (189.5 Kb)

--- (1992h) Minutes of Cinenova Emergency Management Committee Meeting, 9 September 1992: 1-3pp. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (151.0 Kb)

--- (1992i) New Wave Women Touring Programme, October: 1-7pp. Source: New Wave Women folder, Miscellaneous File 4, held at Cinenova. go back | see pdf (285.3 Kb)

--- (1992j) Minutes of Cinenova Management Committee Meeting, 18 November 1992: 1-3pp. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (166.0 Kb)

--- (1992k) Correspondence with Ian Christie (Head of Exhibition and Distribution, BFI), 18 December: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (38.5 Kb)

--- (1992l) Correspondence with Irene Whitehead (Head of Planning Unit, BFI), 18 December: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (43.2 Kb)

--- (1992m) Funding Application for the BFI, 1993/94, 18 December: 1-33pp. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (1.7 Mb)

--- (1993a) Minutes of Cinenova Annual General Meeting, 13 January 1993, 13 January: 1-2pp. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (97.8 Kb)

--- (1993b) Minutes of Cinenova Management Committee Meeting, 11 August 1993: 1-2pp. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (77.8 Kb)

--- (1993c) Minutes of Cinenova Management Committee Meeting, 22 September 1993: 1-3pp. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (111.8 Kb)

--- (1993d) Final Budget for the New Wave Women Tour, November: 1p. Source: New Wave Women folder, Miscellaneous File 4, held at Cinenova. go back | see pdf (31.7 Kb)

--- (1993e) Application for Funding to the LFVDA, December: 1-6pp. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (206.7 Kb)

--- (1993f) Business Plan for 1994/95, December: 1-30pp. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (1.4 Mb)

--- (1994a) Minutes of Cinenova Management Committee Meeting, 9 February 1994: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (37.8 Kb)

--- (1994b) Minutes of Cinenova Management Committee Meeting, 6 April 1994: 1p. Source: Courtsy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (42.9 Kb)

--- (1994c) Minutes of Cinenova Board Meeting, 11 May 1994: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (37.7 Kb)

--- (1994d) Development Prospectus 1995/96-1998/9: 1-19pp. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (756.3 Kb)

--- (1994e) Minutes of Cinenova Board Meeting, 15 June 1994: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (55.7 Kb)

--- (1994f) Minutes of Cinenova Board Meeting, 20 July 1994: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (59.1 Kb)

--- (1994g) Management Members' Information Pack, August: 1-8pp. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (594.6 Kb)

--- (1994h) Minutes of Cinenova Board Meeting, 7 September 1994: 1-4pp. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (149.4 Kb)

--- (1994i) Board Members' Policy Areas Pack, 29 September. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (440.1 Kb)

--- (1994j) Dialogues with Mad Women? at the Institute of Contemporary Art, 22 October: 1-3pp. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (171.7 Kb)

--- (1994k) Minutes of Cinenova Board Meeting, 26 October 1994: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (58.1 Kb)

--- (1994l) Policy Working Parties, 25 November: 1-3pp. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (83.7 Kb)

--- (1994m) Minutes of Cinenova Board Meeting, 30 November 1994: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (60.2 Kb)

Cinenova Management Board (1994) Correspondence with LFVDA Board of Directors, December: 1-8pp. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (420.4 Kb)

Cinenova (1995a) Minutes of Cinenova Board Meeting, 25 January 1995: 1-2pp. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (109.9 Kb)

--- (1995b) Minutes of Cinenova Annual General Meeting, 1 March 1995: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (34.3 Kb)

--- (1995c) Minutes of Cinenova Board Meeting, 1 March 1995: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (56.0 Kb)

--- (1995d) Minutes of Cinenova Board Meeting, 19 April 1995: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (69.8 Kb)

--- (1995e) Minutes of Cinenova Board Meeting, 31 May 1995: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (63.6 Kb)

--- (1995f) Minutes of Cinenova Board Meeting, 23 August 1995: 1-2pp. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (118.5 Kb)

--- (1995g) Minutes of Cinenova Board Meeting, 4 October 1995: 1-2pp. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (107.8 Kb)

--- (1995h) Minutes of Cinenova Board Meeting, 15 November 1995: 1-2pp. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (104.4 Kb)

--- (1995i) Information for Board, 20 December: 1-6pp. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (212.6 Kb)

--- (1995j) Minutes of Cinenova Board Meeting, 20 December 1995: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (52.2 Kb)

--- (1996a) Minutes of Cinenova Board Meeting, 24 January 1996: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (52.0 Kb)

--- (1996b) Minutes of Cinenova Annual General Meeting, 6 March 1996: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (32.7 Kb)

--- (1996c) Minutes of Cinenova Board Meeting, 6 March 1996: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (60.4 Kb)

--- (1996d) Minutes of Cinenova Board Meeting, 17 April 1996: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (393.5 Kb)

--- (1996e) Minutes of Cinenova Board Meeting, 29 May 1996: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (68.1 Kb)

--- (1996f) Between Pathos and Camp: The London Scene of Women's Filmmaking Cinergy, 28 June: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (73.9 Kb)

--- (1996g) Minutes of Cinenova Board Meeting, 10 July 1996: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (65.9 Kb)

--- (1996h) Cinenova (Overseas Filmmakers) Questionnaire 1996, Summer: 1-2pp. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (84.6 Kb)

--- (1996i) Cinenova (UK Filmmakers) Questionnaire 1996, Summer: 1-2pp. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (84.6 Kb)

--- (1996j) Cinenova Filmmakers' News 1995-96, Summer: 1-4pp. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (231.6 Kb)

--- (1996k) Minutes of Cinenova Board Meeting, 18 September 1996: 1-2pp. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (104.6 Kb)

--- (1996l) Minutes of Cinenova Special Board Meeting, Finance and Marketing Co-ordinator Recruitment, 18 September 1996: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (47.7 Kb)

--- (1996m) Minutes of Cinenova Board Meeting, 6 November 1996: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (61.1 Kb)

--- (1996n) Minutes of Cinenova Board Meeting, 18 December 1996: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (64.7 Kb)

--- (1997a) Minutes of Cinenova Board Meeting, 29 January 1997: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (67.6 Kb)

--- (1997b) Minutes of Cinenova Board Meeting, 12 March 1997: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (66.9 Kb)

--- (1997c) Minutes of Cinenova Board Meeting, 3 June 1997: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (78.2 Kb)

--- (1997d) Minutes of Cinenova Board Meeting, 8 July 1997: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (69.5 Kb)

Circles (1980) Women's Work in Distribution (catalogue), London, February: 4pp. Source: Courtesy of Felicity Sparrow. go back | see pdf (800.1 Kb)

--- (1981) Women's Work in Distribution (Catalogue No. 2), London, January: 4pp. Source: Courtesy of Felicity Sparrow. go back | see pdf (631.4 Kb)

--- (1989) Notes of meeting with Irene Whitehead (BFI)/Plan of Action, 21 November: 1-4pp. Source: 'Circ/COW mtgs' ringbinder, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (360.0 Kb)

Circles-COW (1990a) Minutes of Circles and Cinema of Women meeting, 12 June 1990: 1-2pp. Source: 'Circ/COW mtgs' ringbinder, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (147.5 Kb)

--- (1990b) Minutes of Circles and Cinema of Women meeting, 27 June 1990: 1-2pp. Source: 'Circ/COW mtgs' ringbinder, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (245.6 Kb)

--- (1990c) Minutes of Circles and Cinema of Women meeting, 7 August 1990: 1-2pp. Source: 'Circ/COW mtgs' ringbinder, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (217.3 Kb)

--- (1990d) Minutes of Circles Meeting with Ian Christie (Head of Distribution, BFI), 9 August: 1-3pp. Source: 'Circ/COW mtgs' ringbinder, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (286.7 Kb)

--- (1990e) Minutes of Circles and Cinema of Women meeting, 13 August 1990: 1-5pp. Source: 'Circ/COW mtgs' ringbinder, Cinenova. go back

--- (1990f) Minutes of Circles and Cinema of Women meeting, 21 August 1990: 1p. Source: 'Circ/COW mtgs' ringbinder, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (69.1 Kb)

--- (1990g) Minutes of Circles and Cinema of Women meeting, 4 September 1990: 1-2pp. Source: 'Circ/COW mtgs' ringbinder, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (80.4 Kb)

--- (1990h) Minutes of Circles and Cinema of Women meeting, 11 September 1990: 1-3pp. Source: 'Circ/COW mtgs' ringbinder, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (97.4 Kb)

--- (1990i) Minutes of Circles and Cinema of Women meeting, 25 September 1990: 1-2pp. Source: 'Circ/COW mtgs' ringbinder, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (97.4 Kb)

--- (1990j) Minutes of Circles and Cinema of Women meeting, 24 October 1990: 1p. Source: 'Circ/COW mtgs' ringbinder, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (145.1 Kb)

--- (1990k) Minutes of Circles and Cinema of Women meeting, 12 November 1990: 1p. Source: 'Circ/COW mtgs' ringbinder, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (143.5 Kb)

--- (1991) Take Two Business Plan: Proposed Merger Between Cinema of Women and Circles, Cinema of Women and Circles, London, February: 1-51+pp. Funded by BFI. Source: Cinenova. go back | see pdf (4.7 Mb)

Circles (1991) Minutes of meeting between Circles and Tony Kirkhope (TOC), 10 March: 1-2pp. Source: 'Circ/COW mtgs' ringbinder, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (276.7 Kb)

Circles-COW (1991a) Budget Proposal, Circles and Cinema of Women, London, 22 March: 1-9pp. Funded by BFI. Source: 'Circ/Cow mtgs' ringbinder, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (596.4 Kb)

--- (1991b) Take Two Budget Proposal 1991/92, Circles and Cinema of Women, 25 March: 1-7pp. Funded by BFI. Source: 'Circ/Cow mtgs' ringbinder, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (896.0 Kb)

Circles (1991) 'Take Two' Budget revised budget, April: 1-5pp. Source: 'Circ/Cow mtgs' ringbinder, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (497.4 Kb)

Citron, Michelle (1979a) Correspondence with Audrey Summerhill (COW), 1 October: 1p. Source: 'Daughter Rite' folder, 'COW films' box, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (51.0 Kb)

--- (1979b) Correspondence with Audrey Summerhill (COW), 3 October: 1p. Source: 'Daughter Rite' folder, 'COW films' box, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (48.6 Kb)

--- (1979c) Correspondence with Audrey Summerhill (COW), 9 October: 1-2pp. Source: 'Daughter Rite' folder, 'COW films' box, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (107.8 Kb)

--- (1979d) Correspondence with Audrey Summerhill (COW), 12 October: 1p. Source: 'Daughter Rite' folder, 'COW films' box, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (127.9 Kb)

--- (1979e) Correspondence with Audrey Summerhill (COW), 28 November: 1p. Source: 'Daughter Rite' folder, 'COW films' box, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (37.4 Kb)

--- (1980a) Correspondence with COW, 7 June: 1p. Source: 'Daughter Rite' folder, 'COW films' box, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (40.1 Kb)

--- (1980b) Correspondence with COW, 5 November: 1p. Source: 'Daughter Rite' folder, 'COW films' box, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (102.1 Kb)

--- (1981) Correspondence with COW, 28 August: 1p. Source: 'Daughter Rite' folder, 'COW films' box, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (19.5 Kb)

--- (1982a) Correspondence with Jane Root (COW), 7 August: 1p. Source: 'Daughter Rite' folder, 'COW films' box, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (21.8 Kb)

--- (1982b) Correspondence with Jane Root (COW), 16 September: 1p. Source: 'Daughter Rite' folder, 'COW films' box, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (37.3 Kb)

Coelho, Mirjam (MonteVideo) (1995) Correspondence with Steven Bode (FVU), 13 January: 1p. Source: Film and Video Umbrella. go back | see pdf (80.1 Kb)

Cole, Shorelle (Women's Training Network) (1990) Correspondence with Ian Christie (Head of Distribution, BFI), 8 February: 1-2pp. Source: 'Incoming correspondence dated 1987-1989, Jan 1990-Aug 1990' ringbinder, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (124.3 Kb)

Comedia (1987) Birmingham Audio-Visual Industry, Birmingham City Council Economic Development Unit, April. go back

Companies House (1990) Correspondence with Circles, 4 May: 1p. Source: 'Incoming correspondence dated 1987-1989, Jan 1990-Aug 1990' ringbinder, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (30.7 Kb)

CoRAA (1989) Review of the Structure and Organisation for Support of the Arts in England - Submission from the Council of Regional Arts Associations, 7 June: 1-9pp. Source: Directorate Files, D/40 A/11, BFI Special Collections. go back | see pdf (519.3 Kb)

COW (1979a) COW. Cinema of Women Films. Meeting July 26, 1979, 26 July: 1p (extract). Source: Cinenova (COW films, Misc). go back | see pdf (619.6 Kb)

--- (1979b) Correspondence with Michelle Citron, 18 September: 1p. Source: 'Daughter Rite' folder, 'COW films' box, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (94.5 Kb)

--- (1983a) Press release for Lizzie Borden's Born in Flames, London, October: 1p. Source: Cinenova (COW films, Born in Flames, black folder). go back | see pdf (401.4 Kb)

--- (1983b) Draft press release for Born in Flames, London, September: 2pp. Source: Cinenova (COW films, Born in Flames, Correspondence with Lizzie). go back | see pdf (144.9 Kb)

--- (1984a) Leila and the Wolves notes of meetings, June-October: 1p. Source: Cinenova (Leila and the Wolves file, Leila Heiny). go back | see pdf (189.7 Kb)

--- (1984b) Telephone conversation with Heiny (notes), 12 December: 6pp. Source: Cinenova (Leila and the Wolves file, Leila Heiny). go back | see pdf (262.4 Kb)

--- (1984c) Phone call to Heiny (notes), 16 December: 2pp. Source: Cinenova (COW films, Leila and the Wolves, Leila Heiny). go back | see pdf (377.1 Kb)

--- (1984d) Notes on IBT discussion, 17 December: 1p. Source: Cinenova (Leila and the Wolves file, Leila Heiny). go back | see pdf (367.5 Kb)

--- (1984e) Phone call with Andy Engels, 18 December: 1p. Source: Cinenova (COW films, Leila and the Wolves file, Leila Heiny). go back | see pdf (344.6 Kb)

--- (1988a) Minutes of Cinema of Women Directors' Meeting, 16 November 1988: 1-4pp. Source: Courtesy of Eileen McNulty. go back | see pdf (276.3 Kb)

--- (1988b) Minutes of Cinema of Women Directors' Meeting, 29 November 1988: 1-4pp. Source: Courtesy of Eileen McNulty. go back | see pdf (226.6 Kb)

--- (1988c) Cinema of Women Limited, Accounts 31 March 1988, Sayer Vincent Accountants: 1-10pp. Source: Courtsey of Eileen McNulty. go back

--- (1988d) Grant Application to the Funding and Development Department, BFI, December: 1-9pp. Source: Courtesy of Eileen McNulty. go back | see pdf (397.5 Kb)

--- (1989a) Mailout (Draft), January: 1-4pp. Source: Courtesy of Eileen McNulty. go back | see pdf (273.3 Kb)

--- (1989b) Minutes of Cinema of Women Directors' Meeting, 12 January 1989: 1-3pp. Source: Courtesy of Eileen McNulty. go back | see pdf (129.3 Kb)

--- (1989c) Minutes of Cinema of Women Advisory Meeting, 1 February 1989: 1-3pp. Source: Courtesy of Eileen McNulty. go back | see pdf (95.5 Kb)

--- (1991a) Proposed Budget for Take Two, 18 March: 1-5pp. Source: 'Circ/COW mtgs' ringbinder, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (784.9 Kb)

--- (1991b) Correspondence with COW Filmmakers, 17 May: 1-2pp. Source: 'Cow Films Correspondence' Folder, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (97.0 Kb)

Cowan, Bob (1975) Correspondence with LFMC, 25 July: 1p. Source: Grey Distribution ringbinder, Lux. go back | see pdf (75.6 Kb)

Critchley, David (LVA) (1981) Correspondence with LVA Members, 5 March: 2pp. Source: Courtesy of Stephen Partridge. go back | see pdf (361.2 Kb)

--- (1982) Correspondence with ACGB, 3 February: 1p. Source: Arts Council of Great Britain, Records 1927-1987, LVA, box 2. go back | see pdf (148.4 Kb)

--- (1984) Correspondence with David Curtis (Film Officer, ACGB), 2 March: 3pp. Source: Arts Council of Great Britain, Records 1927–1997, FVU, box 3. go back | see pdf (275.9 Kb)

Curtis, David (1975) "English Avant-Garde Film: An Early Chronology" Studio International, vol. 190, iss. 978, November-December: 176-182pp. go back

Curtis, David (Assistant Film Officer, ACGB) (1978a) Correspondence with Film-Makers, 17 May: 2pp. Source: Arts Council of Great Britain, Records 1927–1997, Film & Video Makers on Tour. go back | see pdf (211.4 Kb)

Curtis, David (Assistant Film Officer, ACGB), Geoffrey Nowell-Smith (Head, Educational Advisory Service, BFI), Hilary Thompson (Film Promotions Officer, Production Dept, BFI) and Paul Willemen (Publicity and Documentation Officer, Film Availability Services, BFI) (1978b) Correspondence with Regional Arts Associations, 3 November: 1p. Source: Film-makers and Video Artists on Tour, 1977-1989 (ACGB/56/96) Box 3, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (127.1 Kb)

Curtis, David (Assistant Film Officer, ACGB) (1981a) Correspondence with Stuart Marshall, 30 October: 1p. Source: Film-Makers/Video Artists on Tour, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (105.6 Kb)

--- (1981b) Correspondence with Guy Sherwin, Al Rees, Felicity Sparrow, Dave Critchley and Simon Field, 2 December: 1p. Source: Film-Makers/Video Artists on Tour, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (74.1 Kb)

--- (1981c) Summary of points made at Film/Video Artists on Tour Schemes meeting 14 December 1981: 1-4pp. Source: Film-makers and Video Artists on Tour, 1977-1989 (ACGB/56/96) Box 5, ‘Correspondence’ file, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (221.8 Kb)

--- (1982) Correspondence with Sue Barrowclough (BFI), Chris Kennedy/Anna Thew (LFMC), Tony Kirkhope (TOC), Felicity Sparrow (Circles), Lewis Biggs (Arnolfini), Alex Graham (ICA), Dave Critchley (LVA), 30 April: 1p. Source: Video Access Library files, case 1, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (266.0 Kb)

--- (1983a) Film/Video Programming Adviser - Animateur; Short-Life Programme Tours - Umbrella: 1-2pp. Source: Artists' Film and Video Committee: agenda, minutes and papers, 1972-1987 (ACGB/54/60), box 9, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (315.1 Kb)

--- (1983b) Summary of the activites of the Artists Film and Video Committee: needs for 1984/85, September: 1-12pp. Source: BAFV Study Collection, courtesy of Peter Mudie. go back | see pdf (574.9 Kb)

--- (1984) Artists' Film and Video Sub-Committee: Outreach Report, Arts Council of Great Britain, London, April: 15pp (extract). Source: Courtesy of Peter Mudie. go back | see pdf (1.1 Mb)

Curtis, David (Film and Video Officer, ACGB) and Will Bell (Film Education Services Officer, ACGB) (1986) Correspondence with Training Committee, 21 January: 1p. Source: Video Access Library files, case 1, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (371.8 Kb)

Curtis, David (Film and Video Officer, ACGB) (1991) Memo to Rodney Wilson (Director, Film Video and Broadcasting, ACGB), 12 June: 1p. Source: LFVDA file (ACGB/54/197), from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (94.4 Kb)

--- (1992a) Correspondence with Liane Harris (Cinenova) and Gill Henderson (Cinenova), 10 March: 1p. Source: New Wave Women folder, Sleeve 3, held at Cinenova. go back | see pdf (62.5 Kb)

--- (1992b) Correspondence with Gill Henderson (Cinenova), 21 October. Source: Artists' Film and Video Committee: Agendas, minutes and papers, 1989-1993 (ACGB/54/61) Box 2, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (94.6 Kb)

--- (1992c) Correspondence with Irene Whitehead (Head of Planning, BFI) and Ian Christie (Head of Distribution and Exhibition, BFI), 23 December: 1-2pp. Source: LFVDA file (ACGB/54/197), from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (183.2 Kb)

--- (1993) Correspondence with Liane Harris (Cinenova), 7 July: 1p. Source: New Wave Women folder, Miscellaneous File 4, held at Cinenova. go back | see pdf (38.1 Kb)

de Witt, Helen (Cinenova) (1993a) Correspondence with Tony Warcus (Distribution Organiser, LFMC), 19 August: 1p. Source: New Wave Women folder, Miscellaneous File 3, held at Cinenova. go back | see pdf (41.5 Kb)

--- (1993b) Correspondence with New Wave Women Venue Mail Out, August: 1p. Source: New Wave Women folder, Miscellaneous File 4, held at Cinenova. go back | see pdf (42.1 Kb)

--- (1993c) Correspondence with Paul Taylor (BFI Distribution), 31 August: 1p. Source: New Wave Women folder, Miscellaneous File 3, held at Cinenova. go back | see pdf (36.2 Kb)

--- (1993d) New Wave Women Mail Out List, 31 August: 1p. Source: New Wave Women folder, Miscellaneous File 3, held at Cinenova. go back | see pdf (28.0 Kb)

--- (1994a) Correspondence with Steve McIntyre (Chief Executive, LFVDA), 7 April: 1-3pp. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (133.2 Kb)

--- (1994b) Correspondence with Cinenova Board Members, 25 November: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (31.2 Kb)

--- (1994c) Correspondence with Cinenova Management Board Members, 1 December: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (31.7 Kb)

Dickinson, Margaret (1989) Correspondence with Felicity Sparrow (Film Officer, GLA), 16 July: 1-2pp. Source: IFVPA files, box 36, held at the Adsetts Centre, Sheffield-Hallam University. go back | see pdf (75.5 Kb)

Dickinson, Margaret (ed.) (1999) Rogue Reels: Oppositional Film in Britain, 1945-90, BFI, London. Funded by BFI. go back

Dovey, Jon and Jo Dungey (1985) The Videoactive Report, Videoactive/IFVA, London, September: 145pp. go back | see pdf (12.2 Mb)

Dowmunt, Tony (Albany Video/Community Video Distribution Study) (1984) Correspondence with John Buston (GLC), 25 January: 6pp. go back | see pdf (602.7 Kb)

Drew, Joanna (Director of Art, ACGB) (1982) Correspondence with Jeremy Rees (Director, Arnolfini), 10 June: 1p. Source: Video Access Library files, case 1, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (287.9 Kb)

--- (1983) Correspondence with Jeremy Rees (Director, Arnolfini), 17 May: 2pp. Source: Video Access Library files, case 1, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (621.0 Kb)

--- (1986) Correspondence with Jeremy Newton (Director, Eastern Arts Association), 19 February: 2pp. Source: Video Access Library files, case 1, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (608.6 Kb)

Dunlop, Andrew (LFMC member) (1979) Some Notes on the Proposed Coop Magazine, 5 February: 2pp. Source: BAFV Study Collection, courtesy of Mike Leggett. go back | see pdf (365.3 Kb)

Dunphie, Karen, Jenny Holland and Hin Chee Hung (1989) Circles Reponse to the Boyden and Southwood Draft Report 'Developing the Independent Film and Video Sector', July?: 1-9pp. Source: IFVPA files, box 36, held at the Adsetts Centre, Sheffield-Hallam University. go back | see pdf (538.2 Kb)

Ellis-Jones, Barrie (Regional Officer, BFI) (1977a) Correspondence with Guy Sherwin (London Filmmakers Co-operative), 24 March: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Peter Mudie. go back | see pdf (260.4 Kb)

--- (1977b) For Working Party Meeting of April 27, 20 April: 1p. Source: Victoria and Albert Museum (Arts Council of Great Britain, Records 1927–1997, ACGB 58/16 TOC-Exhibition). go back | see pdf (336.9 Kb)

Everitt, Anthony (Secretary General, ACGB) (1992) Correspondence with Maureen McCue (Chief Executive, LFVDA), November 2: 1p. Source: LFVDA file (ACGB/54/197), from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (98.0 Kb)

Export, Valie (1990) Correspondence with Circles, 25 June: 1p. Source: 'Incoming correspondence dated 1987-1989, Jan 1990-Aug 1990' ringbinder, Cinenova. go back

Fantasy Factory (1989) Response to the Southwood Report: Developing or Dismantling?, 14 July: 1-7pp. Source: IFVPA files, box 36, held at the Adsetts Centre, Sheffield-Hallam University. go back | see pdf (388.5 Kb)

Field, Simon (LFMC) (1977) Correspondence with Stan Brakhage, October 9: 1-2pp. Source: Grey Distribution ringbinder, Lux. go back | see pdf (197.3 Kb)

Field, Simon (ACGB Animateur) (1982) Programming Artists' Film and Video: A Guide, October: 33pp. go back | see pdf (3.0 Mb)

Field, Simon (Animateur, ACGB) (1983) Animateur's Report (5) Oct 12-Feb 20, 21 February: 1-2pp. Source: Artists' Film and Video Committee: agenda, minutes and papers, 1972-1987 (ACGB/54/60), box 9, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (314.8 Kb)

Finch, David (Distribution Organiser, LFMC) (1982a) Correspondence with Tim Cawkwell, 25 August: 1p. Source: Grey Distribution ringbinder, Lux. go back | see pdf (61.0 Kb)

Finch, David (LFMC Distribution) (1982b) Correspondence with Tim Cawkwell, 5 August: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Lux. go back | see pdf (160.3 Kb)

Finch, David (Distribution Organiser, LFMC) (1983) Correspondence with Tim Cawkwell, 7 January: 1p. Source: Grey Distribution ringbinder, Lux. go back | see pdf (69.8 Kb)

Foot, Doug (LVA) (1991) Correspondence with Irene Whitehead (Head of Planning, BFI), 6 August: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Sarah Turner. go back | see pdf (85.5 Kb)

Fountain, Alan (Commissioning Editor, Channel 4) (1989) Workshop Policies in the 1990s: A Discussion Document, Channel 4, April: 1-11pp. Source: Directorate Files, D/41 A/11, BFI Special Collections. go back | see pdf (515.1 Kb)

FVU (1984) Film/Video Umbrella Touring Scheme: Interim Report. April 1 to June 18 1984, June: 1p. Source: Arts Council of Great Britain, Records 1927–1997, FVU, box 3. go back | see pdf (105.2 Kb)

--- (1985) Film and Video Umbrella Touring Scheme Proposal for 1985 – 1986, March: 6pp. Source: Artists' Film and Video Committee: agenda, minutes and papers, 1972-1987 (ACGB/54/60), box 10, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (629.8 Kb)

Garratt, Chris (1977) Correspondence with Felicity Sparrow (LFMC), 10 October: 1-2pp. Source: Grey Distribution ringbinder, Lux. go back | see pdf (147.1 Kb)

--- (1978) Correspondence with Felicity Sparrow (LFMC), 7 January: 1-2pp. Source: Grey Distribution ringbinder, Lux. go back | see pdf (252.2 Kb)

Gidal, Peter, Malcolm Le Grice, Alia Syed, Tanya Syed (LFMC Executive Committee), Tom Heslop (LFMC Distribution), Karen Smith (LFMC Executive Committee), Tony Warcus (LFMC Distribution), Sarah Turner, Sandy Wieland (LFMC Adminstrator), Mary Pat Leece, Ilias Pantos, Philip Sanderson and Philip Baker (1991) Alternative Agenda, Proposals and Information for the 12 October 1991 Extraordinary General meeting of the London Filmmakers' Co-operative, 4 October: 1-4pp. Source: Courtesy of Sarah Turner. go back | see pdf (368.4 Kb)

Gillan, Margaret (LVA) (1980) Correspondence with LVA artists, 28 November: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Stephen Partridge. go back | see pdf (146.6 Kb)

--- (1981) Correspondence with LVA Members, 13 April: 2pp. Source: Courtesy of Stephen Partridge. go back | see pdf (580.0 Kb)

Givanni, June I (Programme Advisor, BFI) (1991) Correspondence with Circles, 28 January: 1p. Source: 'Circles Incoming correspondence dated Feb 91' ringbinder, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (61.0 Kb)

GLA (1990) Press Release: Arts Plan for London Focuses on the Next Five Years, London, 6 March: 1-4pp. Source: 'Incoming correspondence dated 1987-1989, Jan 1990-Aug 1990' ringbinder, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (209.4 Kb)

GLC (Arts and Recreation Committee) (1975) Arts and Recreation Committee – Film Viewing Board, 29 September: 3pp. Source: Victoria and Albert Museum (Arts Council of Great Britain, Records 1927–1997, ACGB 58/16 TOC-Exhibition). go back | see pdf (805.9 Kb)

GLC (1984a) Funding for Cultural Industries Projects, October: 8pp. Source: IFVPA files, Box 64, held at the Adsetts Centre, Sheffield-Hallam University. go back | see pdf (1.6 Mb)

GLC (Arts and Recreation Committee) (1984b) GLC Film and Video Practice and Policy, London, 19 October: 21pp. Source: IFVPA files, Box 64, held at the Adsetts Centre, Sheffield-Hallan University. go back | see pdf (4.2 Mb)

Greater London Enterprise Board (GLEB) (1986) Altered Images: Towards a Strategy for London's Cultural Industries, GLEB, London, February: 26pp. Source: IFVPA files, Publications, held at the Adsetts Centre, Sheffield-Hallam University. go back | see pdf (6.0 Mb)

Graham, Alex (ICA Video/Cinematheque) (1981) ICA Video Library/Cinematheque, London, January: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Lux. go back | see pdf (286.1 Kb)

Grayson, Sue (Serpentine Gallery Organiser) and John Howkins (1975) The Video Show at Serpentine Gallery, London, 1–26 May: 2pp (extract). Source: BAFV Study Collection. go back | see pdf (634.1 Kb)

Greefkens, Leonie (Insert) and Diana Wind (Insert) (1994) Correspondence with Mike Jones (FVU), 12 July: 4pp. Source: Film and Video Umbrella. go back | see pdf (308.2 Kb)

London Rape Crisis Campaign Group (1990) Correspondence with Circles, 12 february: 1p. Source: 'Incoming correspondence dated 1987-1989, Jan 1990-Aug 1990' ringbinder, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (97.6 Kb)

H&H (1993) "Film co-op plans new £750,000 HQ: Centre would have 120-seat cinema" Ham & High, 29 January: 14p. Source: British Film Institite Library. go back | see pdf (200.1 Kb)

Hall, David (1975) "The Video Show" Art and Artists, vol. 10, iss. 2, May: 20–25. go back | see pdf (2.0 Mb)

Hall, David (LVA) (1977a) Correspondence with Rodney Wilson (Film Officer, ACGB), 26 January: 3pp. Source: Arts Council of Great Britain, Records 1927–1997, LVA, box 2. go back | see pdf (400.7 Kb)

--- (1977b) Correspondence with Rodney Wilson (Film Officer, ACGB), 30 April: 1p. Source: Arts Council of Great Britain, Records 1927–1997, LVA, box 2. go back | see pdf (96.3 Kb)

Hall, David and Stuart Marshall (LVA Steering Committee) (1978) Correspondence with Rodney Wilson (Film Officer, ACGB), 8 March: 1p. Source: Arts Council of Great Britain, Records 1927–1997, LVA, box 2. go back | see pdf (111.6 Kb)

Hall, David (1981) Correspondence with Rod Stoneman (Arnolfini), 4 September: 1p. Source: Video Access Library files, case 1, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (531.0 Kb)

Hall, Sue and John Hopkins (Fantasy Factory) (1976) Proposal for Video Distribution Research, March: 4pp. Source: Artists' Film and Video Committee: agenda, minutes and papers, 1972-1987 (ACGB/54/60), box 2, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (274.4 Kb)

--- (1977) Report to the Arts Council on Future Videotape Distribution, London, May: 18pp. Funded by Arts Council of Great Britain. Source: Artists' Film and Video Committee: agenda, minutes and papers, 1972-1987 (ACGB/54/60), box 3, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (2.1 Mb)

--- (1978) Video Distribution Handbook, Centre for Advanced TV Studies, London, February: 56pp. Funded by Art Council of Great Britain (ACGB). go back | see pdf (3.5 Mb)

Hansard (1988) House of Commons Hansard Debates for 8 December 1988. Source: See http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmhansrd.htm. go back

--- (1989) House of Commons Hansard Debates for 6 February 1989. Source: See http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmhansrd.htm. go back

--- (1990) House of Commons Hansard Debates for 13 March 1990. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm198990/cmhansrd/1990-03-13/Debate-1.html go back

Harris, Liane and Sarah Bratby (Circles) (1991a) Correspondence with Irene Whitehead (Planning, BFI) and Ian Christie (Head of Distribution, BFI), 23 April: 1p. Source: 'Circ/Cow mtgs' ringbinder, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (129.7 Kb)

Harris, Liane and Sarah (Circles) Bratby (1991b) Correspondence with Circles Filmmakers, April: 1-2pp. Source: 'Circ/Cow mtgs' ringbinder, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (109.6 Kb)

Harris, Liane (Circles) (1991c) Correspondence with Jenny Shabbaz Wallace and Abina Manning (COW), 1 May: 1p. Source: 'Circ/Cow mtgs' ringbinder, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (147.8 Kb)

Harris, Liane (Cinenova) (1992a) Correspondence with Julia Knight (Cinenova Management Committee), 6 February: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (26.7 Kb)

--- (1992b) Correspondence with Julia Knight (Cinenova Management Committee), 14 April: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (31.8 Kb)

--- (1992c) Correspondence with Cinenova Management Committee, 14 May: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (58.0 Kb)

--- (1992d) Correspondence with David Curtis (Film and Video Officer, ACGB), 9 June: 1p. Source: Artists' Film and Video Committee: Agendas, minutes and papers, 1989-1993 (ACGB/54/61) Box 2, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (111.3 Kb)

--- (1992e) Correspondence with Julia Knight (Cinenova Management Committee), 2 September: 1-2pp. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (127.1 Kb)

--- (1992f) Correspondence with Gary Thomas (Assistant Film and Video Officer, ACGB), 22 October: 1p. Source: Artists' Film and Video Committee: Agendas, minutes and papers, 1989-1993 (ACGB/54/61) Box 2, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (123.2 Kb)

--- (1993a) Correspondence with Julia Knight (Cinenova Management Committee), 5 March: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (24.7 Kb)

--- (1993b) Agenda for Cinenova Management Committee meeting, 21 April 1993, 6 April: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (28.4 Kb)

--- (1993c) Correspondence with John Mount (Watershed), 28 April: 1-2pp. Source: New Wave Women folder, Miscellaneous File 3, held at Cinenova. go back | see pdf (73.5 Kb)

Harrison, Karl (Director, RPM) (1991) Correspondence with Irene Whitehead (Head of Planning, BFI), 6 August: 1-11pp. Source: Courtesy of Sarah Turner. go back | see pdf (969.5 Kb)

Heinrich, Astrid (Feminale) (1990) Correspondence with Jenny Holland (Circles), 15 May: 1p. Source: 'Incoming correspondence dated 1987-1989, Jan 1990-Aug 1990' ringbinder, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (107.5 Kb)

Henderson, Gill (Circles) (1991a) Correspondence with Abina Manning and Jenny Shabbaz Wallace (COW), 30 April: 1-2pp. Source: 'Circ/COW mtgs' ringbinder, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (270.3 Kb)

Henderson, Gill (Cinenova) (1991b) Correspondence with Julia Knight, 12 November: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (49.2 Kb)

--- (1992a) Correspondence with David Curtis (Film and Video Officer, ACGB), 24 March: 1p. Source: Artists' Film and Video Committee: Agendas, minutes and papers, 1989-1993 (ACGB/54/61) Box 2, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (123.0 Kb)

--- (1992b) Correspondence with Julia Knight (Cinenova Management Committee), 20 November: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (46.1 Kb)

--- (1992c) Correspondence with BFI Programme Advisors, 4 December: 1p. Source: New Wave Women folder, Miscellaneous File 2, held at Cinenova. go back | see pdf (58.5 Kb)

--- (1992d) New Wave Women Touring Package Mail Out, 8 December: 1p. Source: New Wave Women folder, Miscellaneous File 2, held at Cinenova. go back | see pdf (48.6 Kb)

--- (1993a) Correspondence with David Curtis (Film and Video Officer, ACGB), 11 January: 1p. Source: New Wave Women folder, Miscellaneous File 4, held at Cinenova. go back | see pdf (53.1 Kb)

--- (1993b) Correspondence with Sarah Turner (Distribution Organiser, LFMC), 5 February: 1p. Source: New Wave Women folder, Miscellaneous File 2, held at Cinenova. go back | see pdf (34.4 Kb)

--- (1993c) Correspondence with Gary Thomas (Assistant Film and Video Officer, ACGB), 16 February: 1p. Source: New Wave Women folder, Miscellaneous File 2, held at Cinenova. go back | see pdf (45.3 Kb)

Henderson, Gill, Kate Norrish and Liane Harris (for Cinenova) (1993d) Correspondence with Stephen Bell (Acting Head of Exhibition and Distribution, BFI), 9 March: 1-2pp. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (69.3 Kb)

Henderson, Gill (Cinenova) (1993e) Correspondence with Sarah Turner (Distribution Organiser, LFMC), 19 March: 1p. Source: New Wave Women folder, Miscellaneous File 2, held at Cinenova. go back | see pdf (42.8 Kb)

--- (1993f) Correspondence with Jayne Pilling (Head of Programming Services, BFI), 19 March: 1-2pp. Source: New Wave Women folder, Miscellaneous File 2, held at Cinenova. go back | see pdf (68.4 Kb)

--- (1993g) New Wave Women State of Play, March: 1-2pp. Source: New Wave Women folder, Miscellaneous File 3, held at Cinenova. go back | see pdf (65.4 Kb)

Henderson, Gill (Chief Executive, LFVDA) (2000a) Correspondence with Elaine Burrows (Cinenova Board), 9 November: 1p. Source: 'Cinenova' box, 'Cinenova-Current' folder, Film London. go back | see pdf (114.4 Kb)

--- (2000b) Correspondence with Elaine Burrows (Cinenova Board), 17 November: 1p. go back | see pdf (153.5 Kb)

--- (2000c) Correspondence with Elaine Burrows (Cinenova Board), 4 December: 1p. Source: 'Cinenova' box, 'Cinenova-Current' folder, Film London. go back | see pdf (112.4 Kb)

Heslop, Tom (Distribution, LFMC) (1991) Grant Application to the Artists' Film and Video Committee, ACGB, February: 1-9pp. Source: Artists' Film and Video Committee: agenda, minutes and papers, 1987-1993 (ACGB/54/61), box 1, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (996.8 Kb)

Higginbottom, Judith (Exeter Film Workshop) (1983) Maya Deren film tour booklet, Exeter, June: 17pp. Funded by SWA. Source: Courtesy of Chris Rodrigues. go back | see pdf (1.4 Mb)

--- (1984) Report on Tour of Maya Deren's Work for South West Arts (June 1983), February: 4pp. Source: Victoria and Albert Museum (Arts Council of Great Britain, Records 1927–1997, ACGB/54/60, AFVC 1972-87, box 9). go back | see pdf (259.3 Kb)

Higginbottom, Judith (Film and Television Officer, SWAB) (1993) Correspondence with Liane Harris (CInenova), 12 May: 1p. Source: New Wave Women folder, Miscellaneous File 3, held at Cinenova. go back | see pdf (29.7 Kb)

Highsted, Time (ICA Cinema) (1990) Correspondence with Filmmakers, 13 February: 1p. Source: 'Cinema of Women 10th Anniversary' files, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (50.0 Kb)

Hill, Tony (1981) Correspondence with David Curtis (Assistant Film Officer, ACGB), 22 November: 2pp. Source: Film-makers and Video Artists on Tour, 1977-1989 (ACGB/56/96) Box 5, ‘Correspondence’ file, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (207.5 Kb)

Hoey, Brian (Biddick Farm Arts Centre) (1981) Correspondence with David Curtis (Assistant Film Officer, ACGB), 10 December: 1p. Source: Film-makers and Video Artists on Tour, 1977-1989 (ACGB/56/96) Box 5, ‘Correspondence’ file, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (93.8 Kb)

Holland, Jenny (Circles) (1990) Correspondence with Circles Management Committee, 17 July: 1p. Source: Cinenova. Yellow folder marked 'Circ/COW Mtgs'. go back | see pdf (41.4 Kb)

Hopkins, David (Independent Cinema West) (1975) Programme for the First Festival of Independent British Cinema at Arnolfini, Bristol, February: 8pp. Funded by ACGB, BFI and SWA. Source: Courtesy of Steve Presence. go back | see pdf (2.7 Mb)

Howell, Anthony (1993) Grey Suit 1: Video for Art & Literature, Cardiff, Spring: 2pp. go back | see pdf (157.0 Kb)

--- (1993) Correspondence with Steven Bode (FVU), April(?): 1p. Source: Film and Video Umbrella. go back | see pdf (190.3 Kb)

--- (1993) Grey Suit 2: Video for Art & Literature, Cardiff, Summer. go back | see pdf (152.7 Kb)

ICA (1981a) Video Library Programme Acquisition Agreement, February: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Stephen Partridge. go back | see pdf (268.9 Kb)

--- (1981b) ICA Public Access Video Library, Open Meeting, 23 March: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Stephen Partridge. go back | see pdf (153.6 Kb)

IFA (1981) National Executive Yearly Report, 30–31 May: 32pp. Source: IFVPA files, Box 5, held at the Adsetts Centre, Sheffield-Hallan University. go back | see pdf (6.6 Mb)

IFA South West (1977) IFA Newsletter: Independent Film-Makers Tour the South West (Interim Report), 11 October: 1p. Source: Film-Makers/Video Artists on Tour, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (117.1 Kb)

IFVPA (1989a) Minutes of the IFVPA meeting on The Boyden Southwood/Comedia Consultancy 6/2/89: 1-5pp. Source: IFVPA files, box 36, held at the Adsetts Centre, Sheffield-Hallam University. go back | see pdf (281.1 Kb)

--- (1989b) Agenda for London Region Open Meeting on 'Developing the Independent Film and Video Sector in London', June: 1p. Source: IFVPA files, box 36, held at the Adsetts Centre, Sheffield-Hallam University. go back | see pdf (45.8 Kb)

--- (1989c) Minutes of Meeting with Funders over Boydon Southwood Report, 7 July 1989: 1-3pp. Source: IFVPA files, box 36, held at the Adsetts Centre, Sheffield-Hallam University. go back | see pdf (171.0 Kb)

International Times (misc) (1966) "Underground Film Festival Supplement" International Times (London), 31 October–13 November: 7-10. Source: Courtesy of Peter Mudie. go back | see pdf (2.0 Mb)

IVA Working Committee (IVA) (1981) Correspondence with Friends, May: 3pp. go back | see pdf (433.2 Kb)

IVF (1981) 1st National Independent Video Festival, 22–24 January: 2pp. Source: Courtesy of Lux. go back | see pdf (392.3 Kb)

JFSG (1989) Minutes of the Joint Funders' Strategy Group, 1 November: 1-2pp. Source: BAFV Study Collection, Joint Funders' Strategy Group folder. go back | see pdf (127.7 Kb)

Kidd, Mick (Distribution Worker, LFMC) and Anna Thew (Distribution Worker, LFMC) (1980) Distribution 1980: Bookings Chart for 1978–80, November: 1p. Source: BAFV Study Collection, LFMC files. go back | see pdf (133.4 Kb)

Kirkhope, Tony (TOC) (1982) Independent Video Contract – Draft, April: 3pp. Source: Video Access Library files, case 1, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (958.3 Kb)

Kirkhope, Tony (TOC) and Ben Gibson (TOC) (1985) The Other Cinema and Video Distribution, May?: 3pp. Source: IFVPA files, Box 64, held at the Adsetts Centre, Sheffield-Hallan University. go back | see pdf (912.1 Kb)

Kirkhope, Tony (Metro Tartan) (1994) Correspondence with Steve McInyre (Chief Executive, LFVDA), 10 October: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Film London. go back | see pdf (51.9 Kb)

Knight, Julia (1996a) "A Chronological Guide to British Video Art" in Knight, Julia (ed.) Diverse Practices: A Critical Reader on British Video Art, University of Luton Press, Luton: 349-376pp. go back

Knight, Julia (ed.) (1996b) Diverse Practices: A Critical Reader on British Video Art, John Libbey Media, Luton. Funded by ACGB. go back

Lancaster, Roger (Director, Yorkshire Arts) (1989) Review of the Arts Funding Structure, 20 March: 1-9pp. Source: Directorate Files, D/40 A/11, BFI Special Collections. go back | see pdf (709.8 Kb)

Leece, Mary Pat (Distribution Organiser, LFMC) (1975a) Correspondence with Bob Cowan (NYC), 23 April: 1p. Source: Grey Distribution ringbinder, Lux. go back | see pdf (105.8 Kb)

--- (1975b) Correspondence with Charles Lyman, 19 November: 1p. Source: Lux, LFMC files. go back | see pdf (150.1 Kb)

Leece, Mary Pat (Distribution, LFMC) (1979) Correspondence with Robert Breer, 11 April: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Lux. go back | see pdf (289.8 Kb)

Leggett, Mike (1975) Regional Digest (IFA), September. Source: Courtesy of Chris Garratt. go back

--- (1977a) Correspondence with Rodney Wilson (Film Officer, ACGB), 18 May: 2pp. Source: Artists' Film and Video Committee: agenda, minutes and papers, 1972-1987 (ACGB/54/60), box 3, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (287.8 Kb)

Leggett, Mike (LFMC member) (1977b) South West Independent Film Tour at multiple venues in Exeter, Plymouth, Falmouth, St Ives, Penzance, Dartington and Exmouth, October–December: 4pp. Funded by ACGB, BFI and SWA. Source: Film-Makers/Video Artists on Tour, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (408.7 Kb)

--- (1978a) London Film-Makers Co-operative, General Meeting, Discussion Paper, 28 October: 4pp. Source: BAFV Study Collection, courtesy of Mike Leggett. go back | see pdf (797.9 Kb)

--- (1978b) London Film-Makers Distribution and Exhibition Working Party, December: 2pp. Source: BAFV Study Collection, LFMC files, courtesy of Malcolm Legrice. go back | see pdf (316.4 Kb)

--- (1979a) London Film-Makers Co-op: Distrib. Exhib. Working Party minutes, 27 January: 2pp. Source: BAFV Study Collection, courtesy of Mike Leggett. go back | see pdf (370.4 Kb)

--- (1979b) London Film-Makers Co-op: Guidelines for Film-Makers and Renters (Draft 1), 11 March: 9pp. Source: BAFV Study Collection, courtesy of Mike Leggett. go back | see pdf (861.9 Kb)

Leggett, Mike (1979c) A Potential Audience, South West Arts, Exeter, May 29. Funded by SWA. Source: BAFV Study Collection, Courtesy of Mike Leggett. go back | see pdf (1.2 Mb)

LFMC (1966) London Film-Makers' Co-operative, Draft By Laws and Constitution, July: 5pp. Source: Courtesy of Peter Mudie. go back | see pdf (519.6 Kb)

--- (1968a) Draft Constitution for London Film-makers' Co-operative, March: 2pp (PDF'd as 4). Source: Courtesy of Peter Mudie. go back | see pdf (793.5 Kb)

--- (1968b) Notice of Film-Makers' General Meeting, 13 March: 2pp. Source: BAFV Study Collection, LFMC files. go back | see pdf (160.3 Kb)

--- (1969) London Film-Makers Co-operative, Newsletter, February: 3pp. Source: BAFV Study Collection, LFMC files. go back | see pdf (221.0 Kb)

--- (1975a) Application for Assistance, March: 9pp. Source: Peter Mudie (LFMC-BFI 1975–82). go back | see pdf (1002.8 Kb)

--- (1975b) The London Filmmakers Co-operative, Summer '75 Application to BFI, June: 12pp. Source: Peter Mudie (LFMC-BFI 1975–82). go back | see pdf (1.9 Mb)

--- (1975c) London Film-Makers Co-operative – Relocation, 8 July: 2pp. Source: BAFV Study Collection, LFMC files, courtesy of Malcolm Le Grice. go back | see pdf (249.0 Kb)

--- (1975d) Draft of Revised Constitution for London Film-makers' Co-operative (1975), September: 2pp. Source: BAFV Study Collection, LFMC files, courtesy of Malcolm Le Grice. go back | see pdf (318.1 Kb)

--- (1976a) London Film-makers' Co-operative, Constitution, 1976, March (?): 2pp. go back | see pdf (278.8 Kb)

--- (1976b) Application for Financial Assistance, 22 March: 13pp. Source: Courtesy of Peter Mudie. go back | see pdf (2.3 Mb)

--- (1977a) Projected Running Costs of the London Filmmakers Coop for 1977–1978, 21 March: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Peter Mudie. go back | see pdf (347.5 Kb)

--- (1977b) Notice of General Meeting, 10 December, December: 2pp. Source: BAFV Study Collection, LFMC files, courtesy of Mike Leggett. go back | see pdf (905.5 Kb)

--- (1977c) London Film-Makers Co-op General Meeting, 10 December: 2pp. Source: BAFV Study Collection, LFMC files, courtesy of Mike Leggett. go back | see pdf (495.6 Kb)

--- (1977d) Meeting held on Monday 12th December to discuss issues raised at the Co-op's General Meeting regarding the Arts Council's package tour to Europe, 12 December: 2pp. Source: BAFV Study Collection, LFMC files, courtesy of Mike Leggett. go back | see pdf (455.0 Kb)

--- (1978a) Distribution Report, October: 3pp. Source: LFMC files from the ACGB/ACE files held at the Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (273.4 Kb)

--- (1978b) London Film-Makers Co-operative, General Meeting, Agenda, 28 October: 1p. Source: BAFV Study Collection, LFMC papers, courtesy of Malcolm Legrice. go back | see pdf (199.4 Kb)

--- (1978c) Report/Notes on Co-op's participation in Edinburgh Film Festival 1978, November: 2pp. Source: Film, Video and Broadcasting Department: LFMC (ACGB/58/7), box 2, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (151.9 Kb)

LFMC Distribution and Exhibition Working Party (1979a) Proposal for a Co-op Magazine, April: 2pp. Source: BAFV Study Collection, courtesy of Mike Leggett. go back | see pdf (508.7 Kb)

LFMC (1979b) Extraordinary General Meeting, Agenda, 28 April: 1p. Source: BAFV Study Collection, LFMC files, courtesy of Malcolm Legrice. go back | see pdf (494.4 Kb)

--- (1979c) Important News, 14 September: 1p. Source: BAFV Study Collection, LFMC files, courtesy of Malcolm Legrice. go back | see pdf (502.1 Kb)

--- (1979d) Extraordinary General Meeting (Working Party Reports), 6 October: 1p (extract). Source: BAFV Study Collection, LFMC files. go back | see pdf (255.0 Kb)

--- (1983) Minutes of the London Film-Makers Co-operative Annual General Meeting Held on the 12th November: 1-3pp. Source: BAFV Study Collection, LFMC files. go back | see pdf (262.3 Kb)

--- (1985a) Minutes of the LFMC Executive Meeting Held on 9 May 1985: 1-2pp. Source: BAFV Study Collection, LFMC files. go back | see pdf (306.4 Kb)

--- (1985b) 1985 Co-op Preview Show, London, 17–19 May: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Lux. go back | see pdf (155.7 Kb)

--- (1989) Response to: Developing the Independent Film and Video Sector report from Boyden Southwood and Comedia, July: 5p. Source: IFVPA files, box 36, held at the Adsetts Centre, Sheffield-Hallam University. go back | see pdf (234.3 Kb)

LFMC and LVA (1990a) Report on meeting with London Filmmakers' Co-operative executive and London Video Access, 9 April: 1-2pp. Source: Lux. go back | see pdf (61.8 Kb)

LFMC (1990b) Minutes of the 23 June 1990 Extraordinary General Meeting of the London Filmmakers' Co-operative: 1-8pp. Source: Courtesy of Duncan Reekie. go back | see pdf (529.1 Kb)

--- (1990c) London Filmmakers' Co-operative Newsletter, December: 1-12pp. Source: Courtesy of Duncan Reekie. go back | see pdf (589.2 Kb)

--- (1991) Minutes of the 12 January 1991 Annual General Meeting of the London Filmmakers' Co-operative: 1-16pp. Source: Courtesy of Duncan Reekie. go back | see pdf (753.0 Kb)

LFMC Cinema Committee (1991a) Minutes of Emergency Meeting of London Filmmakers' Co-operative Cinema Committee, 16 January: 1-2pp. Source: Courtesy of Duncan Reekie. go back | see pdf (193.3 Kb)

--- (1991b) Urgent Need of Attention for Smooth Running of Cinema, 17 January: 1-4pp. Source: Courtesy of Duncan Reekie. go back | see pdf (229.0 Kb)

LFMC (1991a) Minutes of London Filmmakers' Co-operative Emergency Executive Meeting, 21 January: 1-3pp. Source: Courtesy of Duncan Reekie. go back | see pdf (178.2 Kb)

--- (1991b) Cinema Organiser Job Description, January: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Duncan Reekie. go back | see pdf (56.5 Kb)

--- (1991c) Agenda for the Extraordinary General meeting of the London Filmmakers' Co-operative, 9 March: 1-2pp. Source: Courtesy of Duncan Reekie. go back | see pdf (92.2 Kb)

--- (1991d) London Filmmakers' Co-operative Newsletter, May-June: 1-6pp. Source: Courtesy of Guy Sherwin. go back | see pdf (717.3 Kb)

LFMC (Staff) (1991) Agenda and Proposals for the Extraordinary General meeting of the London Filmmakers' Co-operative, 2 June: 1-3pp. Source: Courtesy of Duncan Reekie. go back | see pdf (168.2 Kb)

LFMC (1991) Minutes of London Filmmakers' Co-operative Executive Meeting, 10 July: 1-3pp. Source: Courtesy of Sarah Turner. go back | see pdf (316.6 Kb)

--- (1991) Minutes of London Filmmakers' Co-operative Executive Meeting, 18 July: 1-5pp. Source: Courtesy of Sarah Turner. go back | see pdf (530.1 Kb)

LFMC Building Committee (1991a) Correspondence with Jim Pines (Planning Department, BFI), August 1: 1-4pp. Source: Courtesy of Sarah Turner. go back | see pdf (304.2 Kb)

--- (1991b) Cost Comparison of LFMC and LVA Relocation to Dunn and Co. and Saffron Hill Buildings, 1 August: 1-3pp. Source: Courtesy of Sarah Turner. go back | see pdf (241.0 Kb)

--- (1991c) Correspondence with LFMC Executive Committee, 14 August: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Sarah Turner. go back | see pdf (123.8 Kb)

LFMC (1991) Agenda for the October 12 1991 Extraordinary General meeting of the London Filmmakers' Co-operative, September: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Sarah Turner. go back | see pdf (81.4 Kb)

LFMC Building Committee (1991) Report on the LFMC Relocation Project, London Filmmakers' Co-operative, September: 1-6pp. Source: Courtesy of Sarah Turner. go back | see pdf (561.6 Kb)

LFMC (1991a) Agenda for London Filmmakers' Co-operative Executive Meeting, 10 October: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Guy Sherwin. go back

--- (1991b) Minutes of the 12 October 1991 Extraordinary General Meeting of the London Filmmakers' Co-operative: 1-4pp. Source: Courtesy of Sarah Turner. go back | see pdf (479.0 Kb)

--- (1991c) Agenda for London Filmmakers' Co-operative Executive Meeting, 4 November: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Sarah Turner. go back | see pdf (36.6 Kb)

--- (1992) Agenda for the Annual General Meeting of the London Filmmakers' Co-operative, 8 February: 1-10pp. Source: Courtesy of Guy Sherwin. go back | see pdf (506.4 Kb)

LFVDA (1994a) Cinenova Assessment/Review: Introduction and Agenda, 28 January: 1-2pp. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (76.2 Kb)

--- (1994b) Minutes of LFVDA Hoxton Building sub-committee meeting, 22 June 1994: 1-3pp. Source: Courtesy of Film London. go back | see pdf (194.7 Kb)

Liss, Carla (LFMC) (1968) Correspondence with David Curtis (LFMC), 29 October: 4pp. Source: Courtesy of BAFVSC. go back | see pdf (600.4 Kb)

LSPU-IFVPA (1987) Two New Film & Video Publications, London, May(?): 2p. Source: IFVPA files, Publications, held at the Adsetts Centre, Sheffield-Hallam University. go back | see pdf (644.8 Kb)

Lugg, Martin (Executive Committee, LFMC) (1991a) Mailout for the Extraordinary General meeting of the London Filmmakers' Co-operative, 2 June: 1-5pp. Source: Courtesy of Guy Sherwin. go back | see pdf (341.3 Kb)

Lugg, Martin (Building Committee, LFMC) (1991b) Correspondence with Relocation Project Management, 25 July: 1-5pp. Source: Courtesy of Sarah Turner. go back | see pdf (643.9 Kb)

--- (1991c) Correspondence with Irene Whitehead (Head of Planning, BFI), 9 August: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Sarah Turner. go back | see pdf (134.3 Kb)

--- (1991d) Correspondence with Irene Whitehead (Head of Planning, BFI), 14 August: 1-2pp. Source: Courtesy of Sarah Turner. go back | see pdf (334.9 Kb)

--- (1991e) A short response to the RPM report of 6th August 1991, London Filmmakers' Co-operative, 24 August: 1-2pp. Source: Courtesy of Sarah Turner. go back | see pdf (225.9 Kb)

Lugg, Martin (Executive Committee, LFMC) (1991f) Correspondence with Sandy Weiland (LFMC Administrator), 11 September: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Guy Sherwin. go back | see pdf (75.7 Kb)

--- (1991g) Correspondence with Ian Christie (Head of Exhibition and Distribution, BFI), 16 September: 1-2pp. Source: Courtesy of Sarah Turner. go back | see pdf (213.9 Kb)

LVA (1976a) Correspondence with Artists working with video, December 1976: 1p. Source: Arts Council of Great Britain, Records 1927–1997, LVA, box 2. go back | see pdf (144.6 Kb)

--- (1976b) Correspondence with Rodney Wilson (Film Officer, ACGB), 4 December: 7pp. Source: Arts Council of Great Britain, Records 1927–1997, ACGB/58/10, LVA. go back | see pdf (1.9 Mb)

--- (1981) Correspondence with Whom It May Concern, 24 February: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Stephen Partridge. go back | see pdf (207.0 Kb)

--- (1985) Channel 5 – A Showcase for Video at various London venues, September: 25pp. Funded by DER, Greater London Arts (GLA), Arts Council of Great Britain (ACGB), City Limits magazine, Channel 4. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (2.3 Mb)

Macgregor, Elizabeth A. (1988) Southend Video Access Library Progress Meeting, 8 February: 1p. Source: Video Access Library files, case 1, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (302.8 Kb)

Mackay, James (LFMC member) (1979) Festival Programming Report, February: 2pp. Source: BAFV Study Collection, courtesy of Mike Leggett. go back | see pdf (263.9 Kb)

--- (1979) London Film-makers Co-operative, Festival Programming Report (Draft for AGM April '79), March: 2pp. Source: BAFV Study Collection, LFMC files, courtesy of Malcolm Legrice. go back | see pdf (389.6 Kb)

MacPherson, Robin (Project Video Scotland) (1987) The Distribution Gap: Independent Video in Scotland, Project Video Scotland in Association with the Scottish Association of Workshops, October: 42pp. Funded by Ross Fund. Source: Robin MacPherson. https://robinmacpherson.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/the-distribution-gap-independent-video-in-scotland.pdf go back

Manning, Abina (COW) (1990a) Correspondence with Irene Whitehead (Head of Planning, BFI), 19 February: 1p. Source: 'Incoming correspondence dated 1987-1989, Jan 1990-Aug 1990' ringbinder, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (40.7 Kb)

--- (1990b) Correspondence with Ian Christie (Head of Distribution, BFI), 19 February: 1p. Source: 'Incoming correspondence dated 1987-1989, Jan 1990-Aug 1990' ringbinder, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (76.9 Kb)

--- (1991a) Correspondence with Liane Harris and Sarah Bratby (Circles), 3 April: 1-2pp. Source: 'Circ/Cow mtgs' ringbinder, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (284.4 Kb)

Manning, Abina and Jenny Shabbaz Wallace (COW) (1991b) Correspondence with Circles Management Committee, 23 April: 1-2pp. Source: 'Circ/COW mtgs' ringbinder, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (280.0 Kb)

Manning, Abina (COW) (1991c) Correspondence with Liane Harris and Sarah Bratby (Circles), 3 May: 1p. Source: 'Circ/COW mtgs' ringbinder, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (136.1 Kb)

Marris, Paul (Film & Video Officer, Greater London Council) (1984) Video Facility: Feasibility Study Criteria, June: 4pp. Source: IFVPA files, Box 64, held at the Adsetts Centre, Sheffield-Hallam University. go back | see pdf (542.2 Kb)

Marris, Paul (Film & Video Officer, GLC) (1985) Correspondence with Simon Blanchard (Editor, Views), 14 February: 1p. Source: IFVPA files, Box 64, held at the Adsetts Centre, Sheffield-Hallan University. go back | see pdf (280.3 Kb)

Matusow, Harvey (Chairman, LFMC) (1966) Correspondence with Jonas Mekas, 23 November: 1p. Source: courtesy of Peter Mudie. go back | see pdf (114.2 Kb)

Maziere, Michael (Director, LEA) (1995a) Correspondence with Chris Chandler (Regional Planning Officer, BFI), 2 February: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Film London. go back | see pdf (55.5 Kb)

--- (1995b) Correspondence with Chris Chandler (Regional Planning Officer, BFI), 10 February: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Film London. go back | see pdf (55.6 Kb)

McIntyre, Steve (Chief Executive, LFVDA) (1994a) Cinenova Review - Interim Report, 9 March: 1-5pp. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (286.1 Kb)

--- (1994b) Correspondence with Wilf Stevenson (Director, BFI), 29 April: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Film London. go back | see pdf (87.6 Kb)

--- (1994c) Correspondence with Larry Chrisfield (LFVDA Board), 16 November: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Film London. go back | see pdf (45.2 Kb)

--- (1994d) Correspondence with Wilf Stevenson (Director, BFI), 23 November: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Film London. go back | see pdf (58.1 Kb)

--- (1995) Correspondence with Margaret Trotter (Cinenova Board of Management), 16 January: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (40.4 Kb)

McNulty, Eileen (COW worker) (1984a) Correspondence with Cristina Perincioli, 29 September: 1p. Source: Cinenova (COW films, The Power of Men). go back | see pdf (254.2 Kb)

--- (1984b) Correspondence with Heiny Srour, 14 December: 1p. Source: Cinenova (Leila and the Wolves file, Leila Heiny). go back | see pdf (480.6 Kb)

--- (1985a) Correspondence with David Stone (Cinegate), 31 January: 1p. Source: Cinenova (COW films, Leila and the Wolves file, Worker). go back | see pdf (282.1 Kb)

--- (1985b) Correspondence with Pat Murphy (Aeon Films Ltd), 21 August: 3pp. Source: Cinenova (COW films, Anne Devlin, communications with Pat & contract & channel 4). go back | see pdf (354.1 Kb)

--- (1986a) Correspondence with Brendan MacLua (The Irish Post), 18 February: 1p. Source: Cinenova (COW films, Anne Devlin, Publicity). go back | see pdf (288.1 Kb)

--- (1986b) Correspondence with Pat Murphy (Aeon Films Ltd), 27 June: 1p. Source: Cinenova (COW films, Anne Devlin, Communications with Pat + Contract + Channel 4). go back | see pdf (328.8 Kb)

--- (1987) Correspondence with Pat Murphy (Aeon Films Ltd), 21 January: 1p. Source: Cinenova (COW films, Anne Devlin, Communications with Pat + Contract + Channel 4). go back | see pdf (669.0 Kb)

McNulty, Eileen (COW) (1988) Correspondence with Irene Whitehead (Funding and Development, BFI), 1 November: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Eileen McNulty. go back | see pdf (32.7 Kb)

Mekas, Jonas (1976) Correspondence with LFMC, 14 August: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Lux. go back | see pdf (1.1 Mb)

Messent, Kate (GLEB) and Ken Worpole (GLEB) (1985) Correspondence with IFVA, COW, Circles, The Other Cinema, Exchange Value Video Club, Turnaround Distribution, ICA Video, Comedia, VideoActive, GLC and Rough Trade, 26 June: 1p. Source: IFVPA files, Box 64, held at the Adsetts Centre, Sheffield-Hallam University. go back | see pdf (154.8 Kb)

Meyer, Andrew (1975) Correspondence with Mary Pat Leece (Distribution Office, LFMC), 13 December: 1p. Source: Lux, LFMC files. go back | see pdf (178.5 Kb)

Mole, J.C. (Office of Arts and Libraries) (1990) Correspondence with Sarah Bratby (Circles), 4 September: 1p. Source: 'Incoming 1990 Correspondence' ringbinder, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (47.8 Kb)

Morgan, Charles (2001) Reorganising the Arts Funding System: Trying to be Businesslike - Without Really Succeeding. Appendix 1 of Evidence submitted to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Third Report: Arts Development, 10 December. Source: See http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmcumeds/489/489ap02.htm. go back

Morgan, Nicholas (LFMC) (1994) Correspondence with Chris Chandler (Regional Planning Officer, BFI), 28 July: 1-2pp. Source: Courtesy of Film London. go back | see pdf (107.6 Kb)

Mulgan, Geoff (GLEB) and Ken Worpole (GLEB) (1985a) Correspondence with IFVA, COW, Circles, The Other Cinema, Exchange Value Video Club, Turnaround Distribution, ICA Video, VideoActive, Paul Marris (GLC) and Alan Tomkins (GLC), 20 May: 1p. Source: IFVPA files, Box 64, held at the Adsetts Centre, Sheffield-Hallam University. go back | see pdf (253.9 Kb)

--- (1985b) Correspondence with Simon Blanchard (IFVA), John Floyd (IFVA), Penny Ashbrook (COW), Paul Collard (ICA), Fenella Greenfield (ICA), Jenny Boyce (Comedia), Gari Crawford (Circles), Patricia Bird (Circles), Paul Marris (GLC), Justin Lewis (GLC), Ben Gibson (TOC), Tony Kirkhope (TOC), Will Keen (Rough Trade), Simon Edwards (Rough Trade) and Richard Powell (Rough Trade), 31 May: 1p. Source: IFVPA files, Box 64, held at the Adsetts Centre, Sheffield-Hallam University. go back | see pdf (264.4 Kb)

--- (1985c) One-Way Street? Cultural Diversity and Technological Change: the London Industrial Strategy and the Cultural Industries, June: 2pp. Source: IFVPA files, Box 64, held at the Adsetts Centre, Sheffield-Hallam University. go back | see pdf (636.5 Kb)

Murphy, Pat (Aeon Films Ltd) (1985a) Correspondence with Cinema of Women (COW), 12 August: 2pp. Source: Cinenova (COW films, Anne Devlin, Communications with Pat + Contract + Channel 4). go back | see pdf (376.8 Kb)

--- (1985b) Correspondence with Cinema of Women (COW), 4 September: 2pp. Source: Cinenova (COW films, Anne Devlin, Publicity). go back | see pdf (219.7 Kb)

--- (1986) Correspondence with Rod Stoneman (Commissioning Editor, Channel 4), 1 December: 1p. Source: Cinenova (COW films, Anne Devlin, communications with Pat & contract & channel 4). go back | see pdf (150.6 Kb)

Murphy, Pat (1987) Correspondence with Eileen McNulty (COW), 30 August: 1p. Source: Cinenova (COW films, Anne Devlin, communications with Pat & contract & channel 4). go back | see pdf (182.6 Kb)

Nicholson, David (Glasshouse Investments) (1994) Correspondence with Chris Chandler (Regional Planning Officer, BFI), 31 October: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Film London. http://hoxt legal/1/10 go back | see pdf (54.7 Kb)

Nicolson, Andrew (LFMC member) (1979) Extra Notes on the proposed Co-op Magazine, 12 February: 2pp. Source: BAFV Study Collection, courtesy of Mike Leggett. go back | see pdf (545.9 Kb)

Norrish, Kate (Cinenova) (1993a) Correspondence with Julia Knight (Cinenova Management Committee), July: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (30.9 Kb)

Norrish, Kate and Helen de Witt (for Cinenova) (1993b) Cinenova Annual General Meeting, 12 August: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (35.0 Kb)

Norrish, Kate (Cinenova) (1993c) Correspondence with David Curtis (Film and Video Officer, ACGB), 14 September: 1p. Source: New Wave Women folder, Miscellaneous File 4, held at Cinenova. go back | see pdf (43.1 Kb)

--- (1993d) Correspondence with David Curtis (Film and Video Officer, ACGB), 2 November: 1p. Source: New Wave Women folder, Miscellaneous File 4, held at Cinenova. go back | see pdf (25.0 Kb)

--- (1993e) Correspondence with Tony Warcus (Distribution Organiser, LFMC), 2 December: 1p. Source: New Wave Women folder, Miscellaneous File 4, held at Cinenova. go back | see pdf (33.0 Kb)

Nowlan, Kevin (Globe Town Neighbourhood Centre) (1990) Correspondence with Circles, 17 May: 1p. Source: 'Incoming correspondence dated 1987-1989, Jan 1990-Aug 1990' ringbinder, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (50.1 Kb)

O'Pray, Mike (FVU Organiser) (1983a) Touring Programme Organiser – 1st '20 day' Report, 20 September: 1pp. Source: Film, Video and Broadcasting Department: Film and Video Umbrella (ACGB/58/11), box 3, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (62.4 Kb)

--- (1983b) Correspondence with David Curtis (Assistant Film Officer, ACGB), 25 September: 1p. Source: Film, Video and Broadcasting Department: Film and Video Umbrella (ACGB/58/11), box 1, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (89.4 Kb)

--- (1983c) Film/Video Tours Organiser Report for period 21.9.83 to 6.11.83, 2nd 20 day claim, 6 November: 1pp. Source: Film, Video and Broadcasting Department: Film and Video Umbrella (ACGB/58/11), box 3, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (92.6 Kb)

--- (1984a) Correspondence with David Curtis (Film Officer, ACGB), 18 January: 1p. Source: Arts Council of Great Britain, Records 1927–1997, FVU, box 3. go back | see pdf (97.2 Kb)

--- (1984b) Umbrella Scheme: Proposals for Summer/early Autumn 84, February: 1-4pp. Source: Artists' Film and Video Committee: agenda, minutes and papers, 1972-1987 (ACGB/54/60), box 9, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (539.5 Kb)

--- (1985a) Film and Video Umbrella Report: April–December 84, January: 1-6pp. Source: Artists' Film and Video Committee: agenda, minutes and papers, 1972-1987 (ACGB/54/60), box 10, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (708.9 Kb)

--- (1985b) Film and Video Umbrella: Tours and Events from 1st April 1985 to the 17th July 1985: 1-3pp. Source: Artists' Film and Video Committee: agenda, minutes and papers, 1972-1987 (ACGB/54/60), box 10, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (306.1 Kb)

--- (1985c) Film and Video Umbrella Interim Report, September: 4pp. Source: Arts Council of Great Britain, Records 1927–1997, FVU, box 3. go back | see pdf (331.2 Kb)

--- (1985d) Tours and Events from 1st April to 17 July 1985, November: 5pp. Source: Arts Council of Great Britain, Records 1927–1997, FVU, box 3. go back | see pdf (402.7 Kb)

Observer (1996) "Preview: Club Class" The Observer, 9-15 June. Source: Courtesy of Julia Knight. go back | see pdf (118.3 Kb)

Ordonez, Carlos and Tony Nicholls (1981) Proposal: A Distribution Agency for Independently Produced Video, January: 3pp. Source: Courtesy of Lux. go back | see pdf (727.6 Kb)

Pantos, Ilias (LFMC Building Committee) (1991) Correspondence with LFMC Executive Committee, 4 October: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Sarah Turner. go back | see pdf (122.7 Kb)

Partridge, Stephen, Anna Ridley and David Hall (1975) Correspondence with Tamara Krikorian, Stuart Marshall, David Critchley, Pete Livingstone, Brian Hoey, Clive Richardson, June Marsh, John Grey, Steve James, Mike Upton, Mike Leggett, Dirk Larson, Trevor Pollard, Roger Barnard, Tony Sinden, Dave Parsons, Ian Breakwell, Bill Lundberg, Sue Braden, Nigel Smith, Cliff Evans, 2 June: 1p. Source: Courtesy of David Hall. go back | see pdf (62.8 Kb)

Perincioli, Cristina (Sphinx Film Productions Ltd) (1982) Correspondence with Cinema of Women (COW), 26 November: 1p. Source: Cinenova (COW films, The Power of Men). go back | see pdf (252.7 Kb)

Phillips, Mark (Nicholson, Graham & Jones) (1994a) Correspondence with Steve McIntyre (Chief Executive, LFVDA), 19 May: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Film London. go back | see pdf (54.9 Kb)

--- (1994b) Correspondence with Chris Chandler (Regional Planning Officer, BFI), 14 June: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Film London. go back | see pdf (57.4 Kb)

--- (1994c) Correspondence with Rachel Booth (Macfarlanes), 31 October: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Film London. go back | see pdf (63.6 Kb)

Pilling, Jayne (Head of Programme Services, BFI) (1990) Correspondence with Jenny Holland (Circles), 3 May: 1p. Source: 'Incoming correspondence dated 1987-1989, Jan 1990-Aug 1990' ringbinder, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (44.5 Kb)

Playpont Films Ltd (1983) Correspondence with Cinema of Women (COW), 8 August: 1p. Source: Cinenova (COW films, A Question of Silence, Correspondence). go back | see pdf (452.5 Kb)

Pointer, C.L. (Principal Assistant Librarian/Leisure, Essex County Council) (1985) Correspondence with Rodney Wilson (Film Officer, ACGB), 30 October: 2pp. Source: Video Access Library files, case 1, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (667.6 Kb)

Pointer, Christine (Principal Assistant Librarian, Leisure, Essex County Council) (1984) Correspondence with Rodney Wilson (Film Officer, ACGB), 25 October: 1p. Source: Video Access Library files, case 1, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (297.6 Kb)

Poole, G. M. (1990) Correspondence with Circles, 19 May: 1p. Source: 'Incoming correspondence dated 1987-1989, Jan 1990-Aug 1990' ringbinder, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (30.6 Kb)

Porter, Vincent (BFI Distribution Division) (1986) BFI Exhibition Policy: Films and Critical Concepts, 21 May: 1–5pp. Source: Box 32, Distribution Division, 1980–87. go back | see pdf (557.6 Kb)

Powell, David (Acting Chief Executive, LFVDA) (1993a) VAT Position - Grand Union House, 8 February: 1p. Source: Courtesy of FIlm London. go back | see pdf (40.9 Kb)

--- (1993b) Correspondence with Chris Parkinson (Gouldens), 2 March: 1-2pp. Source: Courtesy of Film London. go back | see pdf (152.8 Kb)

--- (1993c) Correspondence with Tony Kirkhope (Metro Pictures/LFVDA Board), 15 March: 1-2pp. Source: Courtesy of Film London. go back | see pdf (123.3 Kb)

--- (1993d) Correspondence with Peter Westley (Gouldens), 19 March: 1p. Source: Film London. go back | see pdf (53.1 Kb)

Power, Nigel and Justin Lewis, with Simon Blanchard and Alison Butler (1987) Twenty Years On: A Review of the Independent Film an Video Sectors in London, London Strategic Policy Unit/IFVPA, London, May(?): 18pp. Source: IFVPA files, Publications, held at the Adsetts Centre, Sheffield-Hallam University. go back | see pdf (7.6 Mb)

Power, Nigel (Acting Federal Organiser, IFVPA) (1990) Correspondence with Friends, 27 January: 1p. Source: 'Incoming correspondence dated 1987-1989, Jan 1990-Aug 1990' ringbinder, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (91.8 Kb)

Practical Arts (1990) London Filmmakers' Co-operative/London Video Access Proposed Sharing of Premises: Final Report, London Filmmakers' Co-operative and London Video Access, August: 1-39pp. Source: 'Lux Building and ERDF Papers' box, Film London. go back | see pdf (2.6 Mb)

Prescott, Michael (Assistant Director, BFI) (1989a) Restructuring – Reallocation of Funding and Development Budgets; Note of a meeting, 3 November 1989: 1-3pp. Source: Directorate Files, D/71 A/8, BFI Special Collections. go back | see pdf (146.5 Kb)

--- (1989b) Memorandum: Restructuring: Reallocation of Funding and Development Budgets, November: 1-2pp. Source: Directorate Files, D/71 A/8, BFI Special Collections. go back | see pdf (69.1 Kb)

Prior, R (Securicor) (1990) Correspondence with Circles, 14 December: 1p. Source: 'Incoming correspondence dated 1987-1989, Jan 1990-Aug 1990' ringbinder, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (41.1 Kb)

Raban, William (LFMC member) (1972) Correspondence with Regional Arts Councils, 6 December: 2pp. Source: BAFV Study Collection, courtesy of Peter Mudie. go back | see pdf (192.5 Kb)

Rodrigues, Chris (Film Officer, South West Arts) (1978a) Correspondence with David Curtis (Assistant Film Officer, ACGB), 24 April: 1p. Source: Arts Council of Great Britain, Records 1927–1997, Film & Video Makers on Tour. go back | see pdf (308.5 Kb)

--- (1978b) Correspondence with David Curtis (Assistant Film Officer, ACGB), 12 May: 2pp. Source: Film-Makers/Video Artists on Tour, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (173.3 Kb)

Root, Jane (COW) (1982a) Correspondence with Michelle Citron, 23 February: 1p. Source: 'Daughter Rite' folder, 'COW films' box, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (76.9 Kb)

--- (1982b) Correspondence with Michelle Citron, 24 September: 1p. Source: 'Daughter Rite' folder, 'COW films' box, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (61.3 Kb)

Sainsbury, Peter (BFI Production Board) (1975) Correspondence with William Raban (LFMC), 17 April: 2pp. Source: Peter Mudie (LFMC-BFI 1975–82). go back | see pdf (133.7 Kb)

Savage, Peter (1981) Correspondence with David Curtis (Assistant Film Officer, ACGB), 29 November: 5pp. Source: Arts Council of Great Britain, Records 1927–1997, Film & Video Makers on Tour. go back | see pdf (485.6 Kb)

Sayer Vincent Accountants (1988) Report on Systems and Book-keeping Weaknesses for Cinema of Women, 14 December: 1-2pp. Source: Courtesy of Eileen McNulty. go back | see pdf (91.5 Kb)

Shabbaz Wallace, Jenny (on behalf of Circles and CoW) (1990) Correspondence with Irene Whitehead (Head of Planning, BFI), 21 August: 1p. Source: 'Circ/COW mtgs' ringbinder, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (135.4 Kb)

Sharma, Poonam (Programme Acquisitions, Channel 4) (1985) Correspondence with Penny Ashbrook (COW), 28 November: 1p. Source: Cinenova (COW films, Anne Devlin, Communications with Pat + Contract + Channel 4). go back | see pdf (251.8 Kb)

Sherwin, Guy (1980) Proposal for a Modular Film Exhibition Programme – For Discussion, June-September: 1pp. Source: Arts Council of Great Britain Records 1927–97 (ACGB/55/28, Modular Exhibition Scheme), held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (424.7 Kb)

Soutar, Ian (1996) "Cinema hits the jackpot" Sheffield Telegraph, 4 October. http://www.syspace.co.uk/ciq/newspapers/teleg4.htm go back

Sparrow, Felicity (Distribution Organiser, LFMC) (1977a) Correspondence with Chris Garratt, 7 July: 1-2pp. Source: Grey Distribution ringbinder, Lux. go back | see pdf (291.6 Kb)

Sparrow, Felicity (Distribution Worker, LFMC) (1977b) Correspondence with Mike Leggett (LFMC member), July: 2pp. Source: BAFV Study Collection, LFMC files, courtesy of Mike Leggett. go back | see pdf (273.0 Kb)

Sparrow, Felicity (Distribution Office, LFMC) (1977c) Correspondence with Wilhelm and Birgit Hein, 23 September: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Lux. go back | see pdf (320.0 Kb)

Sparrow, Felicity (Distribution Organiser, LFMC) (1977d) Correspondence with Chris Garratt, 14 October: 1p. Source: Grey Distribution ringbinder, Lux. go back | see pdf (116.0 Kb)

Sparrow, Felicity (Distribution Worker, LFMC) and Mary Pat Leece (Distribution Worker, LFMC) (1978) Correspondence with all LFMC filmmakers, 13 November: 2pp. Source: LFMC files from the ACGB/ACE files held at the Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (289.5 Kb)

Sparrow, Felicity (Circles) (1980) Application to the Artists' Films Sub Committee, 6 October: 1p. Source: Artists' Film and Video Committee: agenda, minutes and papers, 1972-1987 (ACGB/54/60), box 6, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum.. go back | see pdf (183.0 Kb)

--- (1981a) Application to the Artists' Film Sub Committee for a personal grant to set up and administrate for one year a Circles distribution office, October: 3pp. Source: Artists' Film and Video Committee: agenda, minutes and papers, 1972-1987 (ACGB/54/60), box 7, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (193.2 Kb)

--- (1981b) Application to ACGB for Her Image Fades as Her Voice Rises, 10 November: 3pp. Source: Film, Video and Broadcasting Department: Modular Scheme, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (1.2 Mb)

--- (1982) Correspondence with David Curtis (Film Dept, ACGB), 2 March: 2pp. Source: Victoria and Albert Museum (Arts Council of Great Britain, Records 1927–1997, ACGB/55/28, Modular Exhibition Scheme). go back | see pdf (947.3 Kb)

Sparrow, Felicity (Circles) and Lis Rhodes (1983) Her Image Fades as Her Voice Rises at multiple venues, London: 8pp. Funded by Arts Council of Great Britain. Source: Courtesy of Felicity Sparrow. go back | see pdf (1.5 Mb)

Sparrow, Felicity (Circles) and Judith Higginbottom (1984) Application to he Artists' Film and Video Committee for subsidy towards 'packaging', promotion and subsequent touring of films by Maya Deren, February: 4pp. Source: Victoria and Albert Museum (Arts Council of Great Britain, Records 1927–1997, ACGB/54/60, AFVC 1972-87, box 9). go back | see pdf (456.6 Kb)

Sparrow, Felicity (Film Officer, GLA) (1989a) Correspondence with Alison Butler (IFVPA), 23 February: 1p. Source: IFVPA files, box 36, held at the Adsetts Centre, Sheffield-Hallam University. go back | see pdf (59.4 Kb)

--- (1989b) Correspondence with Film and Video Organisations/Meeting Agenda, 22 June: 1-2pp. Source: IFVPA files, box 36, held at the Adsetts Centre, Sheffield-Hallam University. go back | see pdf (179.0 Kb)

--- (1989c) Correspondence with Alison Butler (IFVPA), 4 July: 1p. Source: IFVPA files, box 36, held at the Adsetts Centre, Sheffield-Hallam University. go back | see pdf (99.9 Kb)

--- (1989d) Joint Funders Strategy Group – London Visits, Meeting with LVA and LFMC, 1 December: 1-2pp. Source: BAFV Study Collection, JFSG folder. go back | see pdf (112.2 Kb)

--- (1990) Greater London Arts: Developing the Independent Film and Video Sector in London, Greater London Arts, 19 January: 1-7pp. Funded by GLA. Source: BAFV Study Collection. go back | see pdf (366.4 Kb)

Stevenson, Wilf (Director, BFI) (1989a) Correspondence with Secretary of the Association of District Councils, 10 May: 1p. Source: Directorate Files, D/40 A/11, BFI Special Collections. go back | see pdf (47.2 Kb)

--- (1989b) Correspondence with Moira Sweeney (Cinema Organiser, LFMC), 24 July: 1p. Source: Directorate Files, D/39 A/11, BFI Special Collections. go back | see pdf (40.3 Kb)

--- (1989c) Correspondence with Trevor Vibert (Director, GLA), July 24: 1p. Source: Directorate Files, D/39 A/11, BFI Special Collections. go back | see pdf (52.8 Kb)

--- (1989d) Correspondence with Irene Whitehead (Funding and Development, BFI), 27 July: 1-2pp. Source: Directorate Files, D/39 A/11, BFI Special Collections. go back | see pdf (94.7 Kb)

--- (1989e) Correspondence with Richard Wilding (OAL), 28 July: 1-2pp. Source: Directorate Files, D/39 A/11, BFI Special Collections. go back | see pdf (134.8 Kb)

--- (1989f) Correspondence with Trevor Vibert (Director, GLA), 4 October: 1p. Source: Directorate Files, D/71 A/8, BFI Special Collections. go back | see pdf (48.1 Kb)

--- (1991) Correspondence with Anthony Everitt (Secretary General, ACGB), 31 May: 1-2pp. Source: LFVDA file (ACGB/54/197), from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (163.6 Kb)

--- (1993) Correspondence with Andrea Wonfor (Channel 4/LFVDA Board), 11 March: 1-2pp. Source: Courtesy of Film London. go back | see pdf (91.5 Kb)

--- (1994a) Letter of Indemnity to Glasshouse Investments, 13 April: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Film London. go back | see pdf (78.2 Kb)

--- (1994b) Correspondence with Larry Chrisfield (LFVDA Board), 19 April: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Film London. go back | see pdf (92.5 Kb)

--- (1995) Correspondence with Larry Chrisfield (LFVDA Board), 21 November: 1-3pp. Source: Courtesy of Film London. go back | see pdf (168.9 Kb)

Stewart, A.J. (DNH) (1996) Correspondence with Steve McIntyre (Chief Executive, LFVDA), 17 December: 1-12pp. Source: Courtesy of Film London. go back | see pdf (608.5 Kb)

Stewart, David (Documentary Video Associates) (1990) Correspondence with Sarah Bratby (Circles), June 21: 1p. Source: 'Incoming correspondence dated 1987-1989, Jan 1990-Aug 1990' ringbinder, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (52.1 Kb)

Stokes, Jill (Assistant Grants Officer, ACGB) (1993) Correspondence with Kate Norrish (Cinenova), 19 November: 1p. Source: New Wave Women folder, Miscellaneous File 4, held at Cinenova. go back | see pdf (36.4 Kb)

Stoneman, Rod (LFMC member) (1979a) London Film-makers Co-op Working Party: Publications, 16 February: 3pp. Source: BAFV Study Collection, courtesy of Mike Leggett. go back | see pdf (488.4 Kb)

--- (1979b) London Film-makers Co-op Working Party: Catalogue Proposal. Draft II, 24 March: 3pp. Source: BAFV Study Collection, courtesy of Mike Leggett. go back | see pdf (236.7 Kb)

Stoneman, Rod (1979c) South West Independent Film Tour 1978, South West Arts, Exeter, June. Funded by SWA. Source: BAFV Study Collection, courtesy of Mike Leggett. go back | see pdf (1.2 Mb)

Stoneman, Rod (Arnolfini) (1981) Application for grant to develop Video Resource, 18 February: 5pp. Source: Artists' Film and Video Committee: agenda, minutes and papers, 1972-1987 (ACGB/54/60), box 6, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (381.7 Kb)

Stoneman, Rod (Assistant Commissioning Editor, Independent Film & Video, Channel 4) (1986) Correspondence with Pat Murphy (Aeon Films Ltd), 22 December: 1p. Source: Cinenova (COW films, Anne Devlin, Communications with Pat + Contract + Channel 4). go back | see pdf (226.0 Kb)

Stott, Jennifer (Marketing Co-ordinator, AFC) (1991) Correspondence with Sophia Chauchard-Stuart (Circles), 2 January: 1p. Source: 'Circles Incoming correspondence dated Dec 90-Jan 91' ringbinder, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (33.4 Kb)

Summerhill, Audrey (COW) (1979) Correspondence with Michelle Citron, 11 November: 1p. Source: 'Daughter Rite' folder, 'COW films' box, Cinenova. go back | see pdf (92.3 Kb)

Swann, Cordelia (1986a) A Camera of One's Own: New Films by Women: 4p. Funded by ACGB and BFI. Source: Film and Video Umbrella: 1983-1990 (ACGB/58/11), box 1, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (857.4 Kb)

--- (1986b) Report to the Arts Council Film and Video Committee on the progess of the A Camera of One's Own tour, 9 June: 1-3pp. Source: Film, Video and Broadcasting Department: Film and Video Umbrella (ACGB/58/11), box 1, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (383.8 Kb)

--- (1986c) Report to Film and Video Committee on the A Camera of One's Own tour and the progress of the Heroic Times tour, 3 November: 1-4pp. Source: Film, Video and Broadcasting Department: Film and Video Umbrella (ACGB/58/11), box 1, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (752.1 Kb)

--- (1991) Alternative Agenda and Motions for the 12 October 1991 Extraordinary General Meeting of the London Filmmakers' Co-operative, 12 October: 1-2pp. Source: Courtesy of Sarah Turner. go back | see pdf (118.4 Kb)

Tait, Margaret (1981) Correspondence with David Curtis (Assistant Film Officer, ACGB), 7 December: 3pp. Source: film-makers and Video Artists on Tour, 1977-1989 (ACGB/56/96) Box 5, ‘Correspondence’ file, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (260.8 Kb)

Thew, Anna (Cinema Committee, LFMC) (1991a) Correspondence with Sandy Weiland (Administrator, LFMC), 28 January: 1-3pp. Source: Courtesy of Duncan Reekie. go back | see pdf (257.8 Kb)

Thew, Anna (Building Committee, LFMC) (1991b) Correspondence with Richard Susskind, Re: Relocation LFMC/LVA – Saffron Hill, 6 August: 1-3pp. Source: Courtesy of Sarah Turner. go back | see pdf (224.0 Kb)

--- (1991c) Correspondence with Irene Whitehead (Head of Planning, BFI), 8 August: 1p. Source: Courtesy of Sarah Turner. go back | see pdf (79.9 Kb)

--- (1991d) Correspondence with Irene Whitehead (Head of Planning, BFI), 9 August: 1-9pp. Source: Courtesy Sarah Turner. go back | see pdf (1.0 Mb)

--- (1991e) Correspondence with Irene Whitehead (Head of Planning, BFI), 12 August: 1-2pp. Source: Courtesy of Sarah Turner. go back | see pdf (255.6 Kb)

--- (1991f) Open Letter to the London Filmmakers' Co-operative Extraordinary General Meeting 12 October 1991: 1-2pp. Source: Courtesy of Sarah Turner. go back | see pdf (257.0 Kb)

Thompson, Hilary (Film Promotions Officer, BFI) (1977) Correspondence with Exhibitors, 14 October: 3pp. Source: Arts Council of Great Britain, Records 1927–1997, Film & Video Makers on Tour. go back | see pdf (256.5 Kb)

Thres, Mark (Senior Librarian, Arts, Essex Libraries) (1987) Arts Video Centre – Southend, 16 October: 1p. Source: Video Access Library files, case 1, from ACGB/ACE files, held at Victoria and Albert Museum. go back | see pdf (337.6 Kb)

Tillman, Lynne (1986) Correspondence with Eileen McNulty (COW), 7 January: 2pp. Source: Cinenova (COW films, Committed, Correspondence). go back | see pdf (176.3 Kb)