The South African film industry is in a state of decline, with our only national film fund, the NFVF, continuing to be mismanaged and marred by nepotism, argues Weaam Williams.
Image: Supplied
Weeam Williams
The South African film industry is in a state of decline, with our only national film fund, the NFVF, continuing to be mismanaged and marred by nepotism. The ethos that governs the allocation of funds seems driven more by personal connections than by merit or artistic excellence.
As a founder of the African Film DAO, I have written multiple times on behalf of our South African community to both the executives at the NFVF and the Department of Sport, Arts, and Culture (DSAC), yet our calls for dialogue and reform have gone unanswered.
Our last letter to the NFVF clearly outlined instances of corruption and requested recusals of certain NFVF staff and council members from projects where conflicts of interest are presented.
We have been met with deafening silence.
The most effective remedy may be for the National Treasury to significantly reduce the NFVF’s budget and minimise its bloated and nepotistic staff and unnecessary expenditures.
The NFVF historically selects projects and evaluators based on staff allegiances, not merit or expertise.
This has dire impact on the industry and oppresses talent, leaving South Africa as an underdog in the global film market.
The NFVF is great at funding travel to markets and festivals, however, development and production funding allocations in the industry are labelled by red flags as those in the know spot the friendships and connections to various NFVF staff members or council members.
In its place, a new, more forward-thinking fund should emerge—one that aligns with the evolving landscape of film, perhaps within the portfolio of Communications and Digital Technologies, to better embrace emerging technology and transparency.
The NFVF's opaque processes and the lack of clarity on who evaluates our work pose a grave threat to our intellectual property and further entrench the corruption within an organisation already rife with misconduct.
The Department of Sport, Arts, and Culture, it seems, turns a blind eye to this dysfunction, prioritising loyalty over transparency, and feeding the entrenched elite while the broader community of filmmakers struggles with debt, school fees, rent/bond, and other basic commitments.
Filmmakers, too, are individuals with families to support.
Filmmakers and artists dedicate days, sometimes weeks, to preparing grant applications, only to watch as friends and close associates of NFVF and DSAC staff are awarded millions of rands for project funding.
This favouritism undermines the integrity of the process and deepens the divide between those with power and those without.
The NFVF is crucial because without upfront commitments, we cannot approach institutions like the NEF or IDC for film loans—many of which require at least 10% of the budget to be secured.
The DTIC, also requires a percentage of upfront capital, the amounts varying depending on the criteria of the project.
The current system is pushing our industry to the brink.
This year, once again, South Africa did not make the Oscars long-list.
While some may argue that we shouldn’t measure our success by Hollywood standards, then why engage in that very competition?
Countries like Palestine, with far fewer resources, managed to make the list despite being caught in the midst of a genocide and dealing with the distortions of American film politics. This highlights a fundamental shift in perspective, one that we must adopt if we wish to thrive.
While filmmakers in other provinces benefit from the support of well-established film commissions, such as the Gauteng Film Commission, KZN Film Commission, and Eastern Cape Film Commission, those in the Western Cape are faced with a starkly different reality.
Film Cape Town, which serves as the region’s funding body, has an allocated budget of just R4,000,000 for local films while the Western Cape Government has allocated R900 million to the building of a new studio, with the intent to service international productions.
Moreover, its funding criteria for local filmmakers are restrictive: applicants must complete their projects before being awarded any funding and must provide an up-to-date rates bill.
This approach effectively excludes many filmmakers who lack the financial resources or infrastructure to meet such conditions, further exacerbating the inequities within the industry.
The Western Cape Government has to relook its local filmmaker funding policies if we are to truly grow our homegrown industry.
There currently seems to be a lack of political will and intentionality to do so. They ought to work closely with industry bodies and look at how we can grow the abundance of local stories to change the narrative of Cape Town being a great destination to shoot foreign high budget productions, to Cape Town is a city bubbling with writing, directorial, acting and crew talent, claiming it’s space on the international stage.
The NFVF’s annual budget of around R152.5 million and PESP at R163 million, is roughly equivalent to the budget of a single low- to mid-budget Hollywood film.
While we may not have the same resources as Hollywood, South Africa’s lower production costs, beautiful locations and skilled crew, should enable us to produce high-quality work that speaks to the needs of our audience.
Compare this to Nollywood, a thriving, self-sustaining industry that enjoys the support of its own public. The harsh truth is that many South Africans do not support South African films, often dismissing them outright.
Why has the government created such a downward spiral for our industry?
Filmmakers are complaining that our budgets are too low to be competitive.
Agreed, however, should Treasury decide to allocate more finances to support and grow an indigenous industry, it ought to be managed by a different Ministry.
Additionally the NFVF drag their feet with funding allocations announcements and issuance of contracts, which impacts the production schedules and finances of filmmakers.
To date the PESP 5 successful candidates due to be announced in November has not been announced, neither has the documentary slate fund, which is a part of the 2024 financial year.
Recently we saw press contending the appointment of the current Acting CEO at the NFVF, Ms Abegail Thulare.
My thinking is why should a contested council appoint the CEO?
Perhaps it was a good decision for the Minister to appoint the CEO himself.
Ms Thulare, ex CEO of Robben Island Museum has a lot to prove.
Her term according to press reports is three months. Despite the objections by industry, I am not one to judge before giving someone a fair chance.
We urge the Minister to not appoint a CEO connected to any industry bodies, or with a previous record in the South African film industry, this is imperative as he or she will have allegiances.
On the other hand, appointing a Council with no industry experience is a detrimental move, as the Council collectively needs to have intimate understanding of the mechanisms of the industry.
A reliable source confirms that the last Acting CEO Ms Thobela Manyinje, was dismissed by the old council with whom she had conflict as she would not freely sign off on their travel grants to attend various festivals.
This Council which had served more than two terms, also illegal, was dissolved by the Minister. Ms Manyinje, formally Head of HR, has been under administrative leave for several months, with no concrete evidence to justify her dismissal. It is believed that certain staff would like for her to remain on the outside so that they can continue with their masquerade.
It was this very issue of corruption and a lack of opportunities that inspired me to found the African Film DAO. With a robust technological framework in place, we are ready to lead the charge the reform. While the IPO has also written to the Minister's office proposing an advisory panel—one to the NFVF council, whose appointment contravenes the NFVF Act and includes individuals with no film industry experience, our approach is different.
It is believed that Wesgro, a Western Cape-based organisation, will use local government resources to facilitate a meeting with the predominantly Johannesburg based IPO Executive and the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee, excluding voices from the Western Cape and other industry bodies, that should be part of the conversation.
This truly speaks to the exclusionary politics Cape Town filmmakers have become accustomed to. If we are to transform this industry, we cannot afford to exclude key stakeholders. We urge that Wesgro and the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee is to be instructed to broaden their circle of engagement.
The African Film DAO, unlike any other organisation, is composed of filmmakers from all facets of the industry—writers, directors, actors, crew and producers. We propose that Treasury allocate a larger share of the film budget to a more innovative ministry.
Our suggestions to DSAC are as follows:
Promote Broader Industry Engagement and Inclusivity Industry-Wide Consultations: DSAC is to conduct industry-wide consultations to gather feedback from writers, directors, crew, talent, producers, and other stakeholders. These consultations should focus on the challenges faced by the industry, suggestions for governance reforms, and ways to ensure the NFVF and DSAC supports the sector effectively. Instead of the expense of outsourcing a company to do this, DSAC is to work directly with industry communities and guilds etc.
Advisory Committees:
DSAC could set up sectoral advisory committees that bring together representatives from different parts of the film community, including independent fifilmmakers, youth, women, and marginalised groups, to provide ongoing guidance and recommendations to the council.
Regional Representation:
Ensure that the committees includes regional representatives who can speak to the challenges and opportunities in various parts of South Africa, these representatives are to be elected by their region. The film industry is diverse, and regional concerns—whether in the Western Cape, Limpopo, or Eastern Cape—need to be reflected in decision-making processes.
Strengthening Oversight and Accountability Mechanisms Independent Oversight Committee:
Treasury should ensure the DSAC establishes an independent oversight body that monitors the activities of the NFVF council to ensure they act within the confines of the NFVF Act and align with the broader goals of South Africa’s film and cultural policy. The oversight body should have the power to review council decisions, financials, and the overall governance of the NFVF. The oversight committee details are to be made available to the film industry.
Regular Public Audits:
Treasury is to implement quarterly independent audits of the council's activities, funding distribution, and overall governance. These audits should be publicly accessible, with the results being shared with industry stakeholders, civil society, and the public.
We propose that Treasury increase the film budget and allocate the balance of the budget increase to a more innovative ministry.
We advocate for the use of blockchain technology to ensure transparency in funding and decision making. We call for the disclosure of film evaluation panelists and for a trial period of consultation with industry professionals, consultation that should not be limited to bodies aligned with SASFED, as we, the African Film DAO, are a Decentralised Autonomous Organisation (DAO), not under the SASFED umbrella.
We are ready and willing to engage with government in meaningful dialogue. Let’s work together to build an industry that reflects the true spirit of South Africa, one that supports its filmmakers, protects intellectual property, and fosters sustainable growth. The African Film DAO is committed to accelerating the growth of South African film talent via our lobby to government as well as our own innovation.
***Weeam Williams is a Cape Town based writer and director.
** The views expressed here do not necessarily represent those of Independent Media or IOL