Chris Aitken says...
The French take strong measures to protect their cinema as they see it as an act of protecting their culture. Just because we share a language with America, does not mean we should not take measures to protect our own cinema, culture, and furthermore, our industry.
My personal belief is that we should not be trying to compete with America/Hollywood on the major movie scale. We should stick to strong story telling techniques alongside directors being able to try their own style. Dead Man's Shoes should be the benchmark for British feature film making.
I strongly agree with the statement that we should be focusing more on script development. The last three films I have walked out of, were all British. I am only a young screenwriter, but I couldn't help feel like tearing my hair out to see that these films are getting funding, yet I wouldn't have passed either of these scripts/drafts suitable without major development.
We should focus on quality, which in the long run should spark new life in our industry and some inspiration.
Steve Ackhurst says...
It's a great essay.
I found it very difficult to give, 'yes/no/don't care' answers to the survey, as I had strong caveats to more than 50% of the questions.
Fundamentally, there is no 'film industry' in this country, it's not far off being a bunch of disparate unconnected quango execs, trying to fulfill their politically correct brief, keeping their heads down to keep a job. The UK, in the main, simply does not make good enough films, there just isn't good enough quality control...
John Schwab says...
I am a bit biased here, as Jason Solomons mentioned the film I produced, "The Hide", in his article as a good British film to see, rather than being forced the latest Sandra Bullock film down our collective throats.
Thomas McDaniel says...
British cinema is reduced to rubbish people like Noel Clarke making badly written ranting movies about inner city crime that are neither entertaining or get their point accross.
Edgar Wright is one of a few British directors making original films at the moment.
The industry needs local cinemas showing British films because they really are important!
Future Artists says...
I think we need as a country to stop accepting Hollywood as our voice in cinema and we need to work together as film makers to get the people of the UK loving our films and watching them. As film makers it is our responsibility now to find our audience, we have the tools, we are learning how to use them but we need to work together to create a hunger for British films in the UK, then Europe and then the world!
Ulas Yigit Ulker says...
According the rest of the world,British fim industry still the best.Still have some content but need to be more carefull what the producers pay for..
Daniel Outram says...
Character driven drama sells itself on the page, but often an absolutely cinematic script needs a filmmaker's imagination to help it jump off the page. More financing decisions need to be made by other filmmakers. Directors in particular. I totally agree that a lot of English film feels too much like tv drama. I made a film that feels like a kitchen sink drama. But I want to make cinema, and I've been absolutely unable to find any support to do so, be it financial or logistical. But whenever I show these scripts to directors, dops, or animators, they absolutely love it. Something is going wrong somewhere.
I don't agree with the idea of a british screen in multiplex cinemas. First of all, I don't think it would make the general public want to see a british film more than the multi-million pound blockbuster. But most importantly, I think British film has to stand up to the competition. Any film in the world should only be judged in it's own right. I'm utterly unpatriotic in this respect. A good film is a good film whether it be from Hungary, Hampstead, or Hollywood. If the British public haven't been watching British films it's because they'd rather watch the ones that do well at the box office. Expensive vfx offer a magical dream-like experience, and a lot of the viewing public want that kind of escapist experience. We may like to cast utterly believable unknowns, but the public like to watch Brad Pitt. The question is, who are these films being made for? My opinion is that they should be made for the audience.
The British film industry has some of the worlds greatest technicians, and yet it's very rare that a British film will take advantage of all of their skills. I think Moon and Sunshine were a step in the right direction. British sci-fi films. But we can go so much further. Why should Christopher Nolan have to go to Hollywood to make Batman? And why do so many of our brilliant actors work more in the US than in the UK? If our films had a broad enough appeal they would generate greater audiences and in turn greater budgets would become available.
When it comes to TV I think HBO has the answer to just about everything these days. And I think lessons can be learnt from them when it comes to both TV and cinema development. From what I understand their approach is to find a filmmaker with talent and a passion to tell an interesting story, and then have faith in their judgement. I. LOVE. HBO.
Alex Andreou says...
Would like to see more niche film festivals.
Like the Fashion in Film Festival.
Tom Lock Griffiths says...
I believe it is time producers and distributors took more risks - traditionally there is a suspicion of 'art-films' (perhaps due to a xenophobic attitude towards 'art' cinema being somehow foreign) in this country which is beginning to change. Such cinema doesn't usually attract big audiences but if we are honest nor do more mainstream british film, such as Young Victoria at least not compared to the big (and equally foreign) hollywood 'tent poles', Transformers and the like. My problem is that british producers tend to play too safe creating what essentially amounts to feature length BBC style period whimsy, often unimaginatively directed with casts of well trained but identy kit middle class actors - a situation which squashes originality rather than fosters it. However, as I say, there is hope and there are a growing number of alternative films getting bigger exposure, longer run times in cinemas and good press - including awards and exposure overseas. Films such as 'Hunger', 'Sleep Furiously', 'Helen' and 'Fish Tank' should point to a new exciting future for british cinema rather than simply exemplifying exceptions to the rule. We need more investment into low budget but challenging cinema, especially at the promotion and distribution end, to build from the bottom up a creative and globally recognised artistic film culture to compete not with Hollywood - which is beyond our reach so why try? - but with our European cousins who have, though not entirely unsusceptible to market pressure from Hollywood, their own thriving and proud cinematic cultures. Creating 'British Screens' is a small plaster for an old wound - what is essential is that we rethink how and which type of cinema we invest in.
James MacGregor says...
Can you ever imagine a French cinema that didn't show French films?
Why should British cinemas manage to get away with the equivalent of that here? The big problem is that the distribution industry is almost entirely American-owned and America is very patriotic. Maybe we could learn from this, but the quality of many of our films will have to improve dramatically.
James MacGregor
Chantelle Vallier says...
British talent is diverse but the British people and American society are putting such stains on these new talents that filmmakers are only making remakes, sequels or adaptations. Where are all the original and eccentric filmmakers that make Britain?
Rachel Noel says...
I agree that Britons need to have more faith in British cinema. I think that Britain is perhaps too obsessed with the celebrity/glamour at the moment for the rawness and reality of British films to appeal. However, these crude and often bleak themes are what I love about British cinema- we don't have the hollywood millions and the result is far more creative.
Four words: Andrea Arnold - British gold!!
Chris Li says...
a lot of british films are badly directed.
says...
There are plenty of hard working people working in British film, and I believe we have so much potential, creativity and talent to make it stronger. It isn't over, it really isn't!
Rudolf Buitendach says...
British film comes straight from TV culture at present and our directors and writers all think 'small screen' ending up on 'the big screen'. We need to say enough and start looking at the European roots of cinema or if we can't get away from a TV mentality, let it be HBO not Brookside.
Adam Dahrouge says...
Only until we cease to float on the same commercial paradigm as the states, will we be able to dream of becoming more than just buoyant. Unless we let go of their line and find our own, we'll be tugging at the same kind of movies with less money and fewer resources, victim to a bigger is better machine. Bring on the British prowess with its own method of movie so we can do things our way, the way we're made and move from period dramas to a period of prosperity.
Robert Brzoza says...
Great Ideas!! I really support them!!
Mark Street says...
Writing as a british filmmaker but having not read the article mentioned above I would say from my experience that the main problem lies with our writers. There are just not enough good writers out there. I shot a film for one of the main drama universities last week and the script I was given was not even formatted properly. The writer did not even understand what constituted a scene so one scene could include two locations which made scheduling problematic to say the least. However this I could rectify what really amazed me was that this person (can not call them a writer) actually teaches script writing. How?!
If we have people like this teaching then we have a big problem and I can not see it being sorted out any time soon. Trouble is people in the industry with credits behind them and experience need to be getting out there at grass roots level and sharing their experiences and tutoring the younger generation. This is done by making themselves available to the council run youth projects as this is another area suffering with incompetent people at the helm. Unfortunately they will not be able to charge their usual £250 fees but take a little less money.
Mark Neville says...
I fear that the biggest problem with British cinema is that (unlike our continental neighbours) because we share a common language with America, most cinema-goers lean towards the bigger films. If this were not the case and American films were subtitled, I think that British films would find an audience more easily here. I would love to think that dedicated "British screens" at multiplexes (How do you define British, I wonder? Where do co-productions stand?) would reveal a latent audience for home-grown product, but, in the face of better funded and more widely promoted American fare, I doubt it. At the moment British films' successes largely seem to depend on winning awards.
says...
I tried my best to like new British film. I think it's really boring and phoney. Very mediocre with a cocky attitude. All white and elitist and superficial. I think everybody tries to adore British film but it's just crap at the moment. Such a shame with so much potential as having London as a capital. Another trend is making films with over acting and telly like soap opera style. Nothing but cinematic. However I think there are loads of talented DOPs here but much less good actors and directors. Or how I guess the real good ones have no chance only the connected crap ones. I know it harsh and probably there are great people out there but I tried to watch many new British films and never in my life had to walk out half of the films..
says...
It's probably also true that distributors don't like British films, or at least trust them to deliver in the way that a hugely promoted US blockbuster will.
So anything that make Brit films easier to discover is good - a Brit download site anyone?
Aideen McCarthy says...
I don't like the idea of a dedicated British Screen in every cinema. We should not have to force people to watch British films if they don't want to. If the film is strong enough and is marketed adequately I think the cinema going public will happily go to see a British film not because its British but because its seems like it should be worth the £15 to go see it.
Graham Lester George says...
Actually I abandoned doing this survey as the statements don't reflect my feelings closely enough and the three choices of response are too defined. There is a lot to be said about British cinema, but this isn't the right way of going about it.
Daya Dodds says...
The French have got it made, 11 per sent of all films shown in French cinemas have to be french. So that money goes back into there film industy, thus making it more sustainable. We on the other hand are facing a losing battle to gain small scale cinema disubution when put up agenst Hollywood. Regardless of what anyone says, I find it hard to say we even have a industy, then again it depends on what you call Brit films.. Harry potter maybe a brit production but its money from the US. Many films made in the UK are made with US money or co productions.
Cheers Daya Directer/producer
tansy huws says...
I think it's more the British public that's the problem. No-one seems to know the first thing about cinema.
Which could be partly down to distribution, and ticket prices.
Claudette FLINT says...
British cinema is more appreciated in France than in Britain because, for the French, cinema IS entertainment + culture. So in France, Saturday night fills the cinemas, in England, it fills the pubs. Can you change an audience's habit? Yes by changing "the fashion". If the media carry the message that it is 'fashionable' to go to the cinema before or after the pub, you'll get it. The fashion is as effective as dictatorship.
Claudette
says...
Things are improving gradually from when I started in the industry 10 years ago and I'd regularly hear comments from people working at the funding bodies (after a few drinks) like 'I hate film anyway; don't you much prefer theatre', but we've a way to go yet! We should all keep focussing on the gems that break through now and then and aim high.
Samuel Marlow says...
We allowed our indigenous cinema really to die through the 70s and 80s. It picked up a bit in the late 90s and early 2000s with television-based funders coming in, like Film4, but there is still the problem that British film isn't commercial and audience-driven.
The problem with funding films with public money is that the agenda of the organisation distributing it becomes too important. I had this confirmed first-hand by a regional film body that unless I wanted to write a film about immigration, which was their pet project that year, I wouldn't see penny one. Whether the film I pitched was or wasn't any good didn't come into it, they just wanted a tick in a box.
Consequently we are making very "worthy" films that no bugger wants to see. I also find British cinema unnecessarily heavy-handed and totally lacking subtlety. I feel like every film I have seen has to be making some sort of social commentary. Watching a publicly-funded British film is a bit like being punched in the face by someone bigger than you who is shouting in your ear about how evil you are for holding a prejudice you never held in the first place. It feels like someone has given the helm of an otherwise good screenplay to an overpaid and sheltered civil servant with a Messiah complex.
The other kind are the ones that are made for the American audience. I don't consider films like Notting Hill, Bridget Jones' Diary et al British films as they were obviously designed to sell in North America first, and then they might get shown in the UK if they were successful there. They show Britain how American distributors think American audiences perceive it.
I think if you let British filmmakers off the reins and stop shackling with these self-imposed, self-important, self-congratulating requirements the UK film industry would quickly establish itself as one of the premiere ones in the world, and start to form revenue streams from foreign sales that can fund more or bigger projects.
The problem is all the decent talent is skipping town as soon as it has the chance, as they can work on their talent abroad and not how many hoops they have to jump through.
It is an utter paradox of the system that I feel it is organisations like the UKFC, regional film bodies, et al, that are stifling the British film scene, as they only seem to be making films they want to see, not what audience want to see and sells.
When you do get the successes - critical, artistic and commercial - like Slumdog and Moon, everyone runs around flapping their hands baying, "How can we recreate this success?"
MAKE FILMS PEOPLE WANT TO SEE!
It is easy to forget that The Dark Knight is essentially an American-funded and set British film. Look at the key creators. The same is arguably true of the later Potter films. Matthew Vaughn recently did a brave thing privately raising tens of millions of dollars to protect his adaptation of Mark Millar's KICK-ASS from executive meddling. Okay, it's set in America again (a gripe I would love to take Millar up on), but no one is in any doubt it is a British film.
Let the filmmakers tell their story without leaning over their shoulder saying, "Could it be more about disability?" Of course it should be about disability if that is what the film is about, but don't take a workable screenplay, tack on a disability theme and then force the film to contort into a story about disability in subsequent rewrites. Just write a damned good film about disability from the start, or make the film that was pitched, not this Chimera of a project that is the result of mad scientist-funders cackling away in some Lottery-funded office.
As for the notion of forcing cinemas to devote a screen to British cinema, there's no point until we start to make some films that can stand on their own against US productions. Then they don't need to be "given" a screen, but allowed to compete on an equal playing field.
That's my rant for the day!
says...
Too many British films make the mistake of trying to be like American films, and don't really say anything about life in Britain or about modern British culture. We need to stop looking for a trans-atlantic audience and start making films that appeal to the people of this nation, and recognise our huge cultural contribution. This may actually lead to more success in America - strangely, some of the most successful British stars have been "Very British" - Monty Python, Benny Hill, Fawlty Towers - even the likes of Hugh Grant. So stop making films for America (with American performers in them and using too many Americanisms), and start making films that actually say something to the British, and we might start to see audiences returning. Why does anyone want to see a British film "pretending" to be American, when the Americans make american films rather well?
Tom Kirk says...
An interesting positive development is the younger UK Distributors going increasingly into Production like Optimum and Revolver > financing films that they know how to bring to an audience.
If we can still make fiction and documentary films as heart-poundingly, mind-bogglingly wonderful as Black Sun, The English Surgeon, Hunger, In The Loop, Moon and Fish Tank there is hope.
says...
British cinema is being made redundant by the lack of homegrown films being funded and promoted. With little help and too much red tape from government bodies, corporations alienating themselves from the public and foreign studios funding big budget films which could have been filmed anywhere it raises the question of should we just forget our country and move to Hollywood?
Chris Castle says...
There is no proper industry in this country. The money that does go into it is diverted into companies making uncommercial rubbish. There needs to be a system where the commercial films can get made that then can somehow fund the more arty pieces. Script development is considered a dirty word and by the time people have learnt the lessons they've lost the drive they had to make films.
simon foster says...
There is an audience in Britain for British films - but I don't think they're big cinema goers. The average punter is happy to watch a Brit movie on DVD or TV and they'll go to a British movie if it's heavily advertised and gets good reviews. Unlike much of the western world we're in competition with a pretty high standard of tv. I do think that the 'mainstream' british film industry makes a lot of crap but there are some good movies too, same goes for Hollywood (but on a bigger scale). I believe that there is talent in the UK that cannot get finance to make films - I also believe that the majority of British indie films that are made (and I try and see a lot) are pretty poor. So what to do? Film London have got a great programme for micro features that's doing well. That's one way. I think ultimately you just have to go make your movie with whatever resources you can get, but don't do it unless 1. You know you have an outstanding script that you can execute with the resources available 2. Know that you can sell it to make enough to go on to your 2nd feature.
There are plenty of examples out there of people who have done it.
I noticed a while back that the BBC had a British film season (featuring directors like Shane Meadows). It was on BBC 2 after midnight...
Philip Wood says...
As an exhibitor, I wouldn't particularly want to be forced to play below-par films that don't get good audiences when i could be playing something that would.
However, question 4 is the key one - we need to encourage the British public to see more quality films, not just British ones - witness the lack of repertory cinemas in London compared to Paris. That said, I have agreed with the idea of a British Films screen, if only to kickstart the debate, but I think other measures need to be taken.
Robert McIndoe says...
The British Film Industry fundamentally needs more investment from government and elsewhere. We just let Hollywood steamroller us with all that sensationalist crap.
We make, generally, good films about real people and real issues, although sometimes verging on the sentimental.
We use too few actors and are in love with 'names'.
More British films being made and distributed would mean more diversity and new genres would develop.
We produce enough good actors, directors, producers and writers, we just don't produce enough films to nurture them.
I'm going to do my bit by making an independent British Film but I know I'll be up against it doing so. There'll be no government backing, little funding and no breaks from the Inland Revenue to do it. My employer will be annoyed if I take time off my 9-5 job which pays the mortgage. I'll have to hire all the equipment. But I'll do it and the result will be at least interesting. Then when it comes to distribution, if I haven't got a 'name' on board, nobody will give a toss about distributing te film, no matter how many brilliant young drama school graduates I have on board with winning smiles, beautiful faces, bodies, hair and teeth and shedloads of talent.
That's where we're at. And it's crap.
Robert McIndoe.
Simon Aldous says...
I'm not sure the UK film industry is any worse than the US industry - a lot of mediocrity, the occasional gem (though on smaller budgets). Would a UK-only screen help, or would it just be used to show Harry Potter, James Bond and Richard Curtis's latest, ie no change at all.
Harry Dixon says...
I work at one of the main British film-making institutions and agree with most of what Jason says, but with the following additional observations:
- yes we are (for the most part) totally scr*wed by the fact that we share the same language as the US. Film is an international business, and every film is sold on a territory by territory basis; so langauge is the key determinant as to which market(s) you're in, and at what level. Any half-decent film in, say, French or German, has an almost in-built residual value, because it'll have a theatrical audience and will most likely make a free & pay TV sale. Call this $1.2m. So if you can make films for approx $1m, you're in business. You can't do this in the UK. You don't have the in built theatrical audience (cos they'd often rather watch yank stuff - be it indie or studio), and you won't make the TV sale. You might make terrestrial - but not the Pay TV. Having said that, the ONE advantage we have of being lumped with the yanks is that if you break through and have the crossover, suddenly you can do 10s of millions in the US and become a blockbuster. So being in the British business is a bit like trying to win the lottery fo a business. But even then you're stuffed cos even if you win the lottery the studio usually makes all the money...
- We can only WISH to be like the French - at least in the low to mid budget range where they are infinitely better set up than us. They have language advantage (as described), but more importantly, their main Pay TV provider is FORCED to buy a certain quota of French films each years, and ours isn't... It's not entirely coincidental that two of our most successful indie distributors are now French owned (Pathe and Optimum)
- Now that a lot of crazy tax breaks are being phased out, we're entering a lean period. Arguably this might turn out to be a good thing. The projects that are going to be made are going to be the ones that should be made. Subsidy should have its limits. There is no point in spending £3m+ without an audience any more. It's absolutely right that there should be room for experimental stuff; but experiment with story and style, not with money. In other words, the product needs to have at least a reasonable chance at being worth the price.
- yes, British Screens would be a great idea; but very hard to do. What counts as "British"? (No point if it's just Harry Potter), and how do you enforce it when most of the cinemas are owned by hard-headed VCs?
For my money's worth, I think two things would help:
- force Sky to buy British; and
- give UKFC a stronger, more focussed creative remit. At the moment it's all over the place - trying to be all things to all people but they don't have enough money to do that. They should either support the new or the artistic or the commercially viable or the diverse or whatever but not all of the above.
Otherwise, I think we should ride out the lean period and see what happens - we might turn out the better for it.
Paul W. Franklin says...
We should have a Screenwriters Academy, beasting promising young writers and year-on-year producing decent, commercial scripts that are worth putting money into. We have talent in this country, but it seems somehow it's being quashed, judging by recent dross that's hit cinemas - Sex Lives of the Potato Men, Lesbian Vampire Killers, etc.
Films don't have to be $150m blockbusters to be good, and the British public mostly know that, but I think they need to be reminded.
And yes perhaps a British screen in cinemas would be good, perhaps at a reduced rate?
Ian Ginn says...
'... as money belts tighten, the British industry needs to focus on quality. I'd like to see far more time put into scriptwriters and a more stringent line taken by producers who should not go into production unless the script is strong enough ...'
This is really two questions:
1/ should more time/money go to scriptwriters, a definite yes.
2/ the statement on producers is very unrealistic. A producer who has packaged his/her film, is toward the end of development, and is faced with closing the budget and starting production, or passing on final money on offer ni or order to wait until the script is 'perfect'...is a no brainer. You go with what you've got, and lament the flawed result in the screening room...
Stephen Coltrane says...
Face it, we're never going to be world leaders in cinema. We'll always be the poor cousin of television in this country, and that's because not enough of us (by 'us' I mean the British population in general) care. It doesn't help that we have English as a first language, so American imports are much more accessible to us than to inhabitants of other countries (dubbing notwithstanding).
Veronica Igwe says...
British screen that will rotate black, women, disability, regional films etc
take more risk with new writers who have great ideas and attach top script editors to them. can't beat a good idea.
says...
Patrick Nash says...
Definitely more support for the scriptwriters who after all should be the foundation of the whole filmmaking process - more cultivation and financial support. Quality has always been important but not always recognized by some would be writer directors who think their writing skill is as good as their directing or other technical skills and rush to get into production with mediocre or poorly developed stories.
In Digital era every multiplex should have a screen dedicated not just to British but indie film - a screen 'protected' from big Studio Blockbuster pressures.
British people will like and go to see good films regardless whether they're British made / produced or made by any other nationality.
Escaped Telly or Theatre? It doesn't matter the source so long as it's a good, compelling interesting story well told - whether that originates on TV or anywhere else for that matter. Do you call Mamam Mia an escaped music video, Shawshank redemption and escaped short story, Schindler's List an escaped book?
Unique original directors pressured for big commercial success? Why can't the two go hand in hand? Why do we assume that clever smart unquie etc has to be uncommercial, low budget or arthouse? Why not use our brians to do both?
Andrew Robertson says...
Is the British Screen idea commercially viable? People don't really want to "take a chance" with their night out
Geoffrey Alexander says...
"Originality", "amateurish crap", "focus on quality", "commercial success" - do I detect contradictions here? Amateurish crap may be original, high quality films are usually a commercial success.
"the British industry needs to focus on quality" - that's the trouble, no one seems able to gauge from a script whether the resultant film will be genius or pants. The argument, "to make or to bin," amounts to little short of warfare and usually involves more politics than merit.
"one screen in every multiplex exclusively reserved for British films" - yes, why not? Why not insist (by law or licence) that every cinema, whether Multiplex or Independent, have a Film Club where members can review, write or make films? They could be set up as charities and need cost the cinema nothing to run.
But why only cinemas? What is it with British TV that we have to choose between one or two-star American films rather than see a three, four or five star British production? Our archives are overflowing with great British talent that never sees the light of day. How about a TV channel: "1001 British Films To See Before You Die"?
says...
I like the British Screen idea, but how to get people into the seats? There needs to be more incentive for people to be interested. As for me, I'm from Hollywood, but I prefer British films. I'll take Loach and Leigh over Bay and Apatow... but I'm usually not enticed to see them. The marketing hype, previews and virals for the Hollywood stuff make them far more attractive a place to spend your movie-night money, and I believe the UK gov't needs to step in there and make a difference; rather than pay aspiring filmmakers to dilute the market with stuff no one will ever see, find a balance and help develop the infrastructure.
Jonathan Goodman Levitt says...
a majority of these statements i agree with in their general form. but it was the closeminded and limited way jason seemed to define quality and success that pissed me off while reading this piece. there were indeed some good ideas in there, but linking these positives to windfalls at the box office seems to run counter to much of the rest of the argument, which was simply poorly argued...
Rhian White says...
most firmly agree with no.6. I'm sick of trash at the cinema. Talk about being prescribed.. aren't we prescribed American films anyway? It's about time we encouraged more people to watch British films, but only if they are worth watching.
Azeem Khan says...
Overall I think British filmmakers take chances, real risks, with their work, and this may not always be 'commercial'. I think it's important to continue this risk taking, as the British as a nation, are asking real questions about society and the world around them. This is vital in a healthy democracy (see This Is England, Outlaw, anything by Vertigo Films etc.) I think Jason Solomons suffers from 'terminal mediocrity' himself as a journalist, as what he's suggesting is largely nonsense.
Azeem Khan
Rob Pearson says...
Criticising the audience's taste does not strike me as the best way to embrace them.
They say at Pixar 'that quality is the best business plan,' but there's a caveat - Pixar make films that people actually want to spend money to see. As a country, we do best with films like Hot Fuzz or The Descent or This Is England... we can't then look down our noses at the population when the new Ken Loach or Mike Leigh film doesn't make £10m.
mick foley says...
I love the idea of a screen at a multiplex just for British films. I was lucky enough to live near the Watermans Cinema in Brentford for a number of years and there were easily films to show but what about going one step further and having a foreign screen as well.
nick buttons says...
The problems lie with distributors and audiences. Distributors won't take a chance on small British films and need some kind of incentive (more than just the UKFC P&A fund). Part of the reason they don't take a chance is UK audiences don't respond well to UK films. Distributor of Ken Loach film once moaned to me that he was being criticized for not opening the film on enough screens, and yet the screens it was on were no more than half full. One way to help educate the public about the wonderful diversity of British cinema would be to force broadcasters to buy a quota of UK films for broadcast. If the public see and enjoy films form UK filmmakers for free on TV they're going to be more likely to see their next film at the cinema.
Jonathan Williams says...
"We'll send the results to Mr Solomons". What a pathetic waste of time this is. 5 statements which have little to do with what's structurally wrong with the British film industry - which is all to do with the lack of theatrical and tv exhibition, an arthouse circuit that's funded so as to discriminate against British independent films, and a festival mentality directed which, unlike pretty much anywhere else in the world is skewed towards foreign films (this year's Raindance features line-up: 15% UK, 30% USA).
The UK Film Council has hid behind the nonsense that the state of British cinema is all the filmmaker's fault, and have championed and financed 'commercial genre film production', i.e. cheap copies of Hollywood. People have also gone on about 'platform releases' - that if an opening on a limited number of screens generates strong word of mouth then the multiplexes will want to screen it. 'Shifty' saw its box office rise week on week to levels which matched films in the top 15 - but it wasn't opening on more screens - it wasn't even being held over. 'Quality' does not change any of this. At the moment there is only one factor involved in widespread distribution - that the title has been acquired by one of the major US distributors.
Could we have an intelligent ballot with a valid purpose to it, PLEASE. This is just pathetic.
Hammad Khan says...
I don't see the British screen quota as controversial at all. We have Britishness tests to allow tax breaks for film investors, so why not have a policy which allows viewers some choice and encourages better cinema in the process? The hegemony of the studios-multiplexes has completely absorbed the film landscape and destroyed the cultural status of UK film. The failure of the digital screen network in freeing the screen has shown that market forces aren't going to be the solution.
There are some contradictions in Solomon's article that I've noticed, such as the tension between allowing film artists to say something original and the point about producers needing to take a more stringent line with scriptwriters.
But overall, I agree with pretty much the bulk of his concerns. Talented filmmakers and comatose audiences need to be stimulated, empowered and united in all ways possible to save British film culture.
Jon Mortimer says...
Mr Solomons is talking a lot of sense. A lot of dribble is spoken about the British film industry, that "it is in a fine state of affairs" and "we are making lot's of great films" when it is not and we are not. Most of the so called British films are backed by money from the States or Europe and it makes me laugh and virtually cry when I see Film London or The Film Council trying to get on to the back of a successful foreign film by paying for distribution, with no chance of making any money back, just so it can have a credit and looked like it has backed a winner. They should be spending their money on good interesting and entertaining British films. When they do splash out on British film they make it impossible to make great audience pleasing films by insisting that all their projects have some sort of social conscience. I have nothing against socially aware films but do all Film Council backed short films and features have to be about heroin addicts, drug dealers and council estates.
Let's be more French and celebrate our own. Give our filmmakers that actually have some talent the chance to express themselves and not make them express the non-existent creativity of the head of The Film Council and Film London.
And yes let's have more British film screens and even an entire cinema in each big city that only shows our homemade wares.
Thank you Mr Solomons for being brave enough to tell the truth and not hiding behind non-existent laurels.
Tony Franks says...
This debate reminds me of a magazine, British Film Magazine, that appeared a few years ago and then quickly disappeared. All the content was centered around British talent and British films. I don't know whether the venture was brave or misguided, but in reading it I couldn't help feel that something was seriously wrong about this categorization of film by country of origin. Maybe it's simply that the "quality" of a film is always far more important than the "origin" of the film. And maybe attempts to section off certain screens for British-only films will run into the same commercial problems this magazine surely encountered.
My own view of British films- the two phrases "load of rubbish" and "a real gem" seem to continually alternate. The UK is great at hitting both extremes...
Pete Wild says...
not too keen on yes/no polls... prefer 1 to 5 strong agree through to strong disagree...
richard dunkley says...
Much better idea to have British film nights on BBC 4 or Film 4, where people can take a choice that takes only a decision and time. All these polls forget that most people do not go to, or even watch films every or even once a week. Its a big deal to go to the cinema for most people, journey, a whole evening, cost and maybe a curry while you are out. That's a big investment for most people and you should be allowed to choose. People do not just turn up at a cinema to see what's on, like switching on the telly.
I think it is TVs job to promote new drama, instead of the prime time garbage we are served year after year, watching the same chefs and estate agents getting old and fat. Out here most of us work for next to nothing anyway, so I am sure we could make a great film for the cost of another hour of house decorating boredom. Use the talent and stories out here and let it be seen before midnight (surprisingly people also have jobs to get to!)
Richard Dunkley
says...
There are a lot of very talented people working in the British film industry - churning out endless crap!
Julian Boote says...
While I agree in principle to a subsidised screen devoted to British films, if you faced a situation of wanting, but being unable to see, the latest Hollywood remake/re-imagining/recycling of a classic, would the choice available in the British screen be something you actually wanted to see? Would I want to see Morvern Callar or Ratcatcher? F**k no! (No disrespect, but save them for the DVD bin in the supermarket.) The audience member would have to change their initial expectations to walk into that screen - and many wouldn't. Remember - nine times out of ten you have to meet your prospective buyer where they are. That's good sales practice. This is what the powers that be would need to consider - VERY carefully.
I suggest ensuring the British screen movie allocation matched the venue; the more deliberately commercial (dare I say it, "high concept") British entries go to the multiplexes, and the more arty British movies for the art house cinemas. I realise this creates a demarcation - even a form of cultural discrimination. But be realistic here and think like a business - which is what the film industry is after all. Place your product where the market is and where there's the best chance of capturing the right punters for your product. Then you have a better chance of getting a return on that subsidy - and a greater audience for the films.
Jacqueline Wright says...
The UKFC seems to be the only elephant left in Jason Solomon's room - is it possible to obtain a list of how their multi-million-pound budget has been spent? What percentage actually invested in films? And what percentage of those films were either (a) critically or (b) commercially successful?
I have a feeling if the UKFC was more effective and accountable it would make all the difference in the world...
Frederic Perraut says...
Not only British cinema has to compete with same language Hollywood but it has the same american cut throat model: work or be a waiter. Anyone working in the creative French industry enjoys generous benefits (google intermittent du spectacle) linked to the last job they've done. It allows them to sit moodily at cafes and think or run in slow motion with a jumper round their neck during down time and that's invaluable. British cinema is also very much competing with the BEST TV IN THE WORLD. I wrote that in capitals because it is true. You might take it for granted because you grew up with the BBC etc but consider this: the biggest 2 French TV exports are Fort Boyard and Countdown (from the same Armand Jammot). That's in lower case because it's only roughly true.
Rich Pickings says...
'yes', 'no' and 'don't care' are not enough choices. Yes, scripts need to be strong, but over-long development processes also kill exciting productions and dissuade filmmakers to stay on board with tough but interesting projects. British Peoples' relationship to 'British Films' changes every five years, depending on the quality and popularity of the films that are allowed to be produced and distributed. Cinemas need to support British Film, but British filmmakers and industry need to persuade them to with strong work and good distribution and promotional strategies, personal engagement in Cinemas all round UK etc, not with restrictive restrictive rules.
It's too hard, and misleading, to answer all these in three boxes.
James Mullighan says...
I voted yes for 06, even though it initially smacked of a kind of perverse cultural affirmative action, and is quite prescriptive. Now, I'm changing my mind, the more I think about it. Go to the multi-plex, can't get into the remake of Red Dawn, and you know that what's playing in that half empty British Screen has been carefully selected, is of quality. I imagine 1,000s of new love affairs with British Cinema springing up.
Ingrid Kopp says...
I'm not convinced that dedicated British screens are the solution. Dedicated screens for independent fare generally yes, but I think British films will get better when there is more investment in the films themselves and more entrepreneurial activity all round. This shouldn't be something for screen agencies to solve as they aren't always the best people to get truly innovative.
There are some great indie films made here in the US but a lot of them still don't get seen. So there is an audience/distribution problem to solve, demand must be stimulated. But this won't help if most of the films being made are rubbish. This is a problem that needs to be solved from the development and distribution ends.
cath le couteur says...
I'd be interested to know how many of the average cinema-going public in Britain have actually heard of films like Ratcatcher, My Summer of Love, Sexy Beast, Red Road, The Nine Lives of Tomas Katz, Hunger, Tideland, Control, Bullet Boy etc...
BIG YES from me to giving British audiences a longer and more high profile chance to take a risk on homegrown films. There is magic and wonder in them their hills.
Jess Search says...
I thought Jason's comment that the Lottery funded system we've had for the past 10 years have created supply without stimulating demand. The audience development work of the UK Film Council and the distribution funding they give is certainly an acknowledgment of this but more ambitious, smarter thinking is needed here. Viva la cinema.
