REEL REBELS: THE LONDON FILM-MAKERS' CO-OPERATIVE 1966 TO 1996

The London Film-makers’ Co-operative was founded on 13 October 1966 by a group of painters, sculptors and others interested in the possibilities of the moving image. These artists chose to divert from painting and sculpting to create experimental films in order to maintain autonomy over the production, distribution and exhibition of their work. Founder members included David Curtis, Steve (Stephen) Dwoskin and Andy Meyer, who were joined by Americans Harvey Matusow, Simon Hartog, and Bob Cobbing. Photographed by Town Magazine in 1966 they were described as London’s leading underground film-makers. Founder members were subsequently joined by John Collins, Philip Crick, and undergroundconcrete poet, Raymond Durgnat the critic and, in 1968, by Americans Peter Gidal and Malcolm le Grice. Le Grice, who taught film studies at Central St Martins College, became a member of the Co-op as he sought premises for the production and exhibition of his own and his students’ works. Thus, the substantial number of artists creating films at the Co-op let to their works becoming known as ‘artists’ films’. Films were also referred to by artists as ‘avant-garde’ film, ‘structural’, ‘abstract’, ‘experimental’ and ‘free cinema’. The Co-op was established in the context of the ‘swinging Sixties’ a period of social and political changes with liberating influences such as the Beatles’ pop music, the introduction of the mini-skirt by Mary Quant and Pop Art by Bridget Riley. Changes in education offered opportunities to young men and women to study diverse subjects, including experimental film-making, at universities and colleges. Government state-subsidies became available for cultural activities which were financially supported by the British Film Institute, the Arts Council of Great Britain and the Regional Arts Associations of the 1970s. Equal opportunities legislation in educational policies encouraged large numbers of women to attend universities and colleges, many of whom chose film-making as their subject, which is evident in the number of women film-makers at the London Co-op during its three decades. Funding proved to be a major obstacle to Co-op film-makers as grants were difficult to obtain from the two main funding bodies, the Arts Council of Great Britain and the British Film Institute, as the Attenborough Report of 1973 illustrates. Short leases on rented premises frequently expired, leading to the Co-op’s peripatetic existence as it was forced to move, fairly frequently, into inexpensive, deserted and dilapidated buildings such as the Piano Factory and the Dairy, in which to house the workshop and cinema. Through the lack of funds artists performed mundane tasks to ensure the smooth running of the Co-op, as in moving heavy equipment into new premises. The shortage of funds was evident in the cinema at the Dairy for which no seats could be provided and audiences sat on mattresses on the floor. In the Co-op workshop, without grants to purchase new equipment, artists were compelled to modify and use the Co-op’s dilapidated printing and processing machinery. In addition, they administered membership and financial matters and, during the early years of the Co-op, contributed essays and articles to the Co-op’s own in-house magazine, Cinim. Most film-makers were self-funded apart from small grants from the Arts Council or the BFI. However, they were ingenious in applying novel solutions to their lack of resources. For example, they re-used old film-stock or used ‘found film’, discarded footage found in dustbins, or on the streets, with which to create new films. They used a hand-made printer and experimented with the printing gate and projector, with which they created novel effects for the films. Despite the struggles, they refuted the commercial ethos of mainstream cinema, creating films not for profit, but for aesthetic reasons. Money earned through renting films, for example, was used to create more films. Films created during this early period were largely abstract works where form took precedence over content. Scratches, dirt-marks, superimposition, out-of-focus, shaky hand-held shots and other faults were retained. This often renders artists’ films difficult to comprehend or interpret as, in addition, their films lack conventional narrative content such as clear story-lines, iconic stars, beginnings, middles and endings. Therefore, during discussions of artists’ films it is sometimes necessary to quote their own comments about their works in order to gain a deeper understanding of their aims and film-making techniques, as this book sets out to do. Advertising, exhibition, distribution and censorship were of great concern to artists. Alternative films clearly required alternative exhibition venues, provided mainly by underground venues such as the arts labs, the UFO club, the Round House at Camden and other similar film clubs. Subsequently artists’ films entered the public domain through ‘Artists on Tour’ screenings, as well as screenings in unconventional locations, and at universities, colleges and in public spaces such as the Tate and Hayward Galleries. Screenings were advertised in a number of small underground publications, including Afterimage , Film , Time Out , IT ( International Times ), Oz and Frendz/Friends . Films were distributed by the Co-op itself which also distributed films on loan from the New York Co-op. Most artists were present at the screenings of their films, often becoming part of the process of production in front of spectators. At other times, spectators were expected to be active participants in the production process. Undercut (1981-1990), a journal which received financial assistance from the Arts Council of Great Britain, was important to avant-garde film-makers as it was a medium in which they could discuss their own work and that of others. The publication of Undercut coincided with the emergence of a second generation of artists working at the Co-op during the 1980s and 1990s. Taught at colleges and universities by the first generation of artist film-makers, their interest in structuralism declined. The films of this new generation evince a return to the use of narrative elements, albeit in a form of narrative far removed from that associated with mainstream cinema. However, their idiosyncratic uses of narrative elements to express their personal and political ideas were juxtaposed with stylistic elements associated with earlier formal films such as structuralism. British Art Cinema was introduced by three film-makers who worked at the Co-op during its early years. In their feature-length films Derek Jarman ( The Garden , 1990), Peter Greenaway ( The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover , 1992) and Sally Potter ( Orlando ,1992), expressed their personal and political views in films where narrative structures appeared close to mainstream cinema. Jarman, Greenaway and Potter’s films engage with contemporary social issues such as homosexuality, excessive consumer consumption in the Thatcherite era and the property rights of women, respectively. The London Film-makers Co-op ceased to exist in 1996 mainly through lack of funding. However, its film-makers appear to have left an indelible imprint on the way in which artist’ film and video is regarded by new generations of experimental film-makers who are supported in their endeavours by funding bodies listed in Film London News Bulletin . Currently, the Lux (reinstated in 2002) continues to support and promote artists works through its website which lists London Co-op artists, their films and videos.