Before turning to an analysis of the content of Irish cinema, it is useful to understand how Irish films are funded and why. In common with the situation in other European countries and small national cinemas, nearly all Irish films receive state subvention. In Ireland, this funding comes mainly via the Irish Film Board/Bord ScannĂĄn na hĂireann (hereafter IFB), but most productions are equally reliant on tax breaks (Section 481) and international co-productions for equity. Section 481 itself depends on government support for its continuation. Unlike, say, British cinema, Irish cinema has always been too small to consider competing with Hollywood, even if it relies to an extent on Hollywood filmmaking codes. This raises a further question (which will be discussed at the end of this chapter): is Irish cinema âart cinemaâ?
How to fund an Irish film
The IFB currently (IFB/BSĂ, 2018a) provides for the following: project development; production funding; co-production funding; documentary production funding; animation funding; completion funding; support for distribution; and short film funding. In certain exceptional circumstances, the IFB will also fund television production. From 2017 onwards, additional funding of âŹ50,000 was made available for projects with a female writer or director and âŹ100,000 with a female writer/director (IFB/BSĂ, 2018a). In 2007, the IFB announced the launch of a new Regional Support Fund to offset the additional cost of shooting in regional areas. Films including Breakfast on Pluto (Neil Jordan, 2005) and The Guard received support from this fund, but it seems to have since been dropped. Instead, most local councils also offer some film funding. IFB support, therefore, runs from the initiation of a project through its completion, and allows for producers to market and distribute their own films.
The IFB experienced its own crisis during the recession. In 2008, they received government support of âŹ20 million, which was reduced year-on-year to âŹ11,202,000 in 2014 (IFB/BSĂ, 2016: 36). The budget of 2017 saw the Board receive âŹ18 million, returning it to a figure close to its pre-recession income. In addition, following the economic crash, the McCarthy Report (An Bord Snip Nua) recommended that there was no need for a Film Board:
In the end, after extensive lobbying, much of which was focused on the jobs created through inward and local investment, the tourist potential of an Irish setting, and the ancillary spend on hospitality and so forth, the IFB was saved.
Other small pockets of money exist, including the Broadcasting Authority of Irelandâs licence fee-derived Sound and Vision fund, which has been responsible for much of the funding for the documentary sector, the Arts Council of Ireland, and European money from the MEDIA and Eurimages programmes. Some producers raise finance through crowd funding (Atlantic (Risteard OâDomhnaill, 2016) and Out of Here (Donal Foreman, 2013) are examples). Filmmakers and the IFB have long been critical of the lack of television funding for Irish filmmaking but given RTĂâs own financial deficit, this is unlikely to change.
Section 481 (the tax incentive scheme) is crucial to Irish film and audiovisual production. One of the major benefits for Irish producers is that they receive the money up front, rather than after the release of the film or broadcast of the television show. It has been estimated (Department of Finance, 2012: 12) that for every âŹ100 raised under Section 481, the exchequer cost was âŹ34 but that only âŹ19 accrued as a subsidy to the producers with the balance being returned to investors or accounted for in administration costs. Thus, it could be more efficient. It is also constantly in competition with tax incentives in other countries, particularly in the neighbouring UK. When the UK introduced tax incentives of 20 per cent for television shows that cost more than ÂŁ1m per hour in 2013, Ireland increased their incentives to 32 per cent (effective from 2015). They also amended the regulations to allow, as the UK did, companies to claim for non-EU production and creative personnel, including Hollywood actors, as part of the qualifying expenditure.
If IFB support and S481 constitute the two local pillars of Irish film funding, the other major source of money is through co-production. European Union rules dictate that a tax incentive can only be claimed on 80 per cent of any budget in one country, so that it is in the interest of Irish producers (and overseas producers) to seek co-productions. It is also in the interest of anyone with ambitions to make an Irish film with a budget of more than âŹ100,000, the maximum awarded by the IFB to âmicro-budgetâ, or fully funded, indigenous films.
In their comprehensive overview of Irish film funding and production, Flynn and Tracy (2016: 38) have traced the increase in co-production funding to the recession, when indigenous funding evaporated:
Flynn and Tracy (2016: 42) also discern a movement by the IFB towards putting higher sums into more market-oriented productions, notably by high-profile directors, featuring established stars: Neil Jordanâs Breakfast on Pluto and Ondine (2009), John Michael McDonaghâs The Guard and Calvary, Intermission (John Crowley, 2003), Shadow Dancer (James Marsh, 2012), and The Wind That Shakes the Barley (Ken Loach, 2005). Overall, Flynn and Tracy (2016: 50) concluded that the IFB was most focused on productions that displayed market potential, even if they had no Irish theme, in order to sustain industrial activity. In fact, as we see below, this is also the practice of production companies, many of whom seem to be using non-Irish-themed co-productions to maintain cash flow.
The IFBâs 2016â20 strategy plan (IFB/BSĂ, 2016) acknowledges the Boardâs previous reliance on economic arguments to justify its funding and places greater emphasis on the cultural importance of supporting indigenous filmmaking. In this, its hand was very much strengthened by recent Academy Award (and other) prestigious nominations and wins. These include animation: Fifty Percent Grey (RuairĂ Robinson, 2001), Give Up Yer Aul Sins (Cathal Gaffney, 2001), The Secret of Kells (Tomm Moore and Nora Twomey, 2009), Granny OâGrimmâs Sleeping Beauty (Nicky Phelan, 2010), Song of the Sea (Tomm Moore, 2015), The Breadwinner (Nora Twomey, 2017); short films: Six Shooter (Martin McDonagh, 2004), New Boy (Steph Green, 2007), The Door (Juanita Wilson, 2008), Pentecost (Peter McDonald, 2011); and features: Once, Room, Brooklyn (John Crowley, 2015). Individual nominations for Saoirse Ronan and Ruth Negga in non-Irish as well as Irish films also enhance the prestige of the Irish film industry, as do three Academy Award nominations for Irish costume designer, Consolata Boyle.
Finding an audience for Irish cinema
The IFBâs Strategic Plan also acknowledges the challenges of finding an audience for Irish cinema. Over the years, the greatest praise for Irish films in the media has come in the wake of award nominations and wins, and the greatest criticism in terms of box office performance. The following list shows the ten highest-performing Irish films at the Irish box office to date (figures not adjusted for inflation) alongside their US box office take:1
Michael Collins âŹ5,139,473/$11,092,559
The Guard âŹ4.3m/$5,359,774
The Wind That Shakes the Barley âŹ4,134,909/$1,829,142
Veronica Guerin âŹ4,020,924/$1,569,918
Mrs Brownâs Boys DâMovie âŹ3.8m (no US release)
In the Name of the Father âŹ3,063,964/$25,096,862
In Bruges âŹ3m (approx.)/$7,800,825
Angelaâs Ashes âŹ2,798,977/$13,038,660
The Commitments âŹ2,764,963/$13,955,001
Brooklyn âŹ2.6m/$38,322,743
Intermission âŹ2,506,172/$889,857
Certain films performed relatively better in the United States than in Ireland, notably Calvary, which was the top film at the Irish box office for 2014 with a gross of âŹ1.5m and took $3,600,000 at the US box office. Laws of Attraction (Peter Howitt, 2004) took $2,277,196 at the UK/Ireland box office and $17,871,255 in the United States.
Of the other films that had Irish co-producers, the top performer at the US box office was Becoming Jane (Julian Jarrold, 2007), which took $18,663,911, and Love and Friendship (Whit Stillman, 2016), which took $14,016,568. Of these, the latter ought to have been profitable for its majority producer, Blinder Films, given its low budget. However, there are no figures that suggest that co-producing a non-Irish-set film (other than Room, which will be discussed below) was a particularly profitable venture for Irish production companies, rather more that such films paid for overheads and wages. Far more profitable is the television co-production market and many Irish production companies focus on this for income generation.
What is most difficult to explain in these figures is the massive discrepancy between the performance of Brooklyn at the Irish and US box offices. Received wisdom suggests, however, that Irish taste, particularly in recent years, favours comedies. This speculation is bolstered by the relative success of The Young Offenders (Peter Foott, 2016), which took over âŹ1m at the Irish box office and is now a television series and The Hardy Bucks Movie (Mike Cockayne, 2013), derived from a TV show that itself started online, which took approximately âŹ464,000. The performance of Mrs Brownâs Boys DâMovie (Ben Kellett, 2014) reflects the massive popularity of the original television show, which, as John Fagan (2015) has interestingly argued, speaks to a little-considered audience that favours broad comedy over cool millennial humour.
If all Irish films enjoyed a box office take like that of Mrs Brownâs Boys DâMovie, then the contentious debates that characterise so many public discussions in Ireland about the Irish film industry would never take place. The films that provoke such heated responses tend, however, to be those that do not appear in the above listings, are supported by the IFB, and achieve minimal financial returns or receive no theatrical release at all. Responding to a question concerning the poor showing of many IFB funded films, then-director of the Board, James Morris (in McGreevy, 2013) suggested that this was the productionâs fault:
One problem faced by small Irish productions is promotion. In a marketplace flooded by Hollywood films that come with ready-made campaigns, getting the news out about an Irish release is challenging, particularly in the current environment of deciding the fate of a film in the cinema on the back of the opening weekend figures, rather than letting it build word of mouth. The IFB (IFB/BSĂ, 2018b) offers some support for this, allowing distributors to apply for 90 per cent, up to a maximum of âŹ75,000, of marketing and publicity costs. They also support âdirect distributionâ, for films that have not found a distributor, âcapped at 80% of the total distribution b...