"We're under the Arts Council under the Minister for the Arts. The Minister for the Arts and the Minister for Industrial Development have great difficulty in agreeing over who should fund what in terms of film"

Ann Macbeth describes the complex dynamics of arts funding in relation to film, highlighting a bureaucratic tug-of-war between different government bodies. Her words evoke a bureaucratic landscape where film, as an art form with industrial and cultural dimensions, sits at an awkward intersection. The Arts Council operates under the umbrella of the Minister for the Arts, signifying that the creative, cultural elements of film fall within their purview. However, film is not just culture; it is also a significant industry, contributing to the economy, creating jobs, and requiring considerable capital. Therefore, the Minister for Industrial Development also claims a stake in decisions around film funding, seeing film as a sector that can spur technological progress, infrastructure, and economic growth.

The difficulty in reaching agreement between these two ministers symbolizes a larger challenge faced by the film community: navigating the boundaries between art and commerce. For artists and producers seeking support, this division can create confusion, delays, and complicated application processes, as criteria for funding may depend on which ministry assumes responsibility. It reflects the lack of a unifying vision that encompasses both the economic and artistic value of film. Institutions meant to support artistic enterprise sometimes become entangled in questions of categorization, rather than simply enabling creative output.

Macbeth's observation exposes how institutional overlap and divided authority can hinder coherent policy and adequate support for the film sector. Instead of benefiting from clear and focused schemes, filmmakers may find themselves at a crossroads, with neither ministry providing full backing. The struggle to decide "who should fund what" points to a deeper conversation about how a society values its creative industries: whether film should be primarily seen as art worthy of cultural investment or as an industry deserving economic stimulus. Ultimately, her words serve as a critique of bureaucratic fragmentation and a call for better coordination in supporting the arts in all their multifaceted roles.