UK films urged to be more 'mainstream'

[Aploplectic]

At the beginning of each episode of The Story of Film, Mark Cousins said "Movies are a multi-billion dollar industry now, but what drives them isn't showbiz or box-office; it's passion and innovation."

The British film industry should back more mainstream movies, a report is expected to recommend next week.

Ahead of a visit to Pinewood Studios on Wednesday, Prime Minister David Cameron said the film industry should support "commercially successful pictures".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-16495095

I don't know the details of the current funding policy (such as it is since the Film Council was abolished), so I was interested to read Julian Fellowes' description of it in the article.  He says "There has been the thinking in the past that public money should only go into films that can't get any investment anywhere else.  When you actually analyse that it means it should only go into films that nobody could conceivably want to see and there's no logic in that." 

Obviously, having worked on the script for The Tourist, Fellowes is an expert on films that nobody could conceivably want to see.   

The suggestion that public money should go towards commercially successful pictures is flawed in just about every way.  Let's assume for a moment that it is possible to tell in advance which films are going to be successful at the box office (which it isn't, obviously).  If this were the case, these successful films would have more than enough funding without public money – who wouldn't want to invest in something that was going to guarantee a big return?  In this situation, public funding could be given to films that didn't guarantee a return, films that were aiming for something other than purely making money, perhaps films that demonstrated passion and innovation.

A push towards the mainstream can only mean one thing.  Given that nobody knows which films will succeed, funding will be based on previous successes and on guesses about what the majority of people might want to watch.  British films will become bland and homogenous.  On current trends, at least 90% of them will be period dramas focussing on the establishment or the upper classes.  Surely nobody (other than Julian Fellowes) could think that this was a good thing?

Am I wrong about this?  Is the only purpose of public investment in film to get a financial return?  Is David Cameron so frightened and confused by art that he has decided to destroy it in all its forms?

[BlodwynPig]

Yes, this is a completely flawed and hair brained idea. The logical conclusion is that all we would ever see would be films like InBetweeners V, Eastenders The Movie and Lord Bumblebrow and his shirtless adventures with The Ladies.

Fuck Cameron, fuck the mainstream - nothing ever innovative came from the mainstream.

[Zetetic]

I thought it was worth quoting this from the article

Mark Herbert, chief executive of Warp Films, which has made films including This Is England, Submarine and Tyrannosaur, said it was impossible to predict which films would be commercially successful.

He said the company's biggest commercial success had been Four Lions, a comedy about inept suicide bombers.

"It took £3m at the box office, won festivals, did brilliant business in Germany and France and is up there with big studio films in terms of DVD sales.

"Yet nobody backed that. There was no public money in that. When I was trying to raise the money, I had very experienced funders and producers saying 'Nobody will go and watch this film.'"

He also pointed out that black and white silent film The Artist was making more money per screen than any other film currently on release in the UK and is favourite to win best picture at the Oscars - but would not have looked like a hit on paper.

"You can imagine people saying 'Who's going to watch a black and white silent film?' But they are, and people are loving it," he said.

Since it backs up the point about the difficulty in predicting commercial success with examples.

(To detract from that a little, I'm afraid I would have predicted a film about pissing on Olivia Coleman would do poorly at the box office, regardless of enourmous critical acclaim, and how good a film it was.)

[Ignatius_S]

Actually, this isn't a new direction by any means. For example, a few years back, someone was brought in to shake up National Lottery film funding, who told film-makers that they should be trying to target the American mass-market (essentially, make bland mid-Atlantic films) and be better at pitching projects. Historically, there has been problems with film funding – e.g. under the terms of getting a grant to make a film, the Film Council had to be paid back in full before the makers got to see a penny, which isn't great when you're trying to work on your next project and need capital.

Also, film companies can be bone-headed. Film 4 was doing nicely making small budget films, but with the monster and surprising success of Trainspotting, which made a lot of money, it thought it could make even more money by producing a bigger budget. Alas, by skimping on the PR budget, Charlotte Gray wasn't destined to be a hit – and even if they had spent ten times the production budget on promotion, the movie never smelt of smash-hit success. That change from making a number of small films to one larger-budget (in conjunction with other companies) and the financial damage done was so deep that, at the time, Film 4 said it wasn't going to produce films again.

Going back to this latest uttering, the ending of the Film Council signalled that we were going to be hearing a lot more of this things about making more mainstream fodder – it's all about 'value for money'.

As others have mentioned, a huge problem is that it's usually very difficult to predict what's going to be a hit – if you've got a bankable star like Tom Cruise and a PR budget of $80 million, then there's a good chance are you're going to have a hit... something that doesn't happen in the UK.

The Full Monty was a surprise hit and the producers tried to follow that up with Lucky Strike, which performed badly – there are a number of differences, but a key one was with the first they were just doing to do a film, with the second they were trying to do a film that they were aiming to make even more money than the previos one.

This is a bit of a tangent, but I remember seeing a documentary about Dan Karno at the Slapstick Festival that had been made years ago for the BBC. The maker presented the showing and said that he pitched the idea to a BBC suit in the corridor – the response, there and then, was "Sounds interesting and I think some people would watch that... make it." The next week, it was in production. Today, nothing like that could happen – it's not unusual for the time to get something commissioned to exceed the time to make the bloody thing.

Personally, I would like to see a lot of small, varied films being made. A lot won't make money (in the short term anyway), but if you have one hit like the American film like Insidious ($1.5 million budget and a box office gross of over $90 million), you're not throwing money down a black hole. Also, with lots of productions, you have a vibrant, active film-making industry with people learning skills.

I mentioned short term in the above, because longer-term, some films offer a great financial return. For example, The Rocky Horror Picture Show cost $1 million or so to make and flopped in its initial run, but over time has proved to be hugely profitable for 20th Century Fox.

Perhaps we should be looking at the economics of making television and film – with the modern technology available, does it need to be costing quite as much?

[Dead kate moss]

No please make more movies about Northern Brass Bands and strikes at car firms in the 70s.

[Ignatius_S]

...Obviously, having worked on the script for The Tourist, Fellowes is an expert on films that nobody could conceivably want to see...

Although I don't agree with Fellowes, he's been consistent in his attitude and has been saying this for years. Additionally, he's been in the TV and film industry for years, so at least he has some insight into it.

With The Tourist, he was brought in to help with the script – so one could argue the damage had been done already. Additonally, the movie grossed over $250 million at the box office, so I wonder how much many it would have made if people had wanted to see it.

.......  On current trends, at least 90% of them will be period dramas focussing on the establishment or the upper classes...

Unlikely.

Is David Cameron so frightened and confused by art that he has decided to destroy it in all its forms?

What Cameron has said isn't a bolt from the blue – same shit, different arse. Under the previous government, there were politicians besotted by rich and powerful, film-makers. It's also worth remembering that they relaxed the rules about what was a "British" film in order to get funding, films didn't need to actually in the UK or require much 'UK' involvement – this benefited foreign film industries immensely.

Something that people forget is that the Film Council used to help finance Hollywood films. Here's what Alex Cox said, someone who has had work financed by the FC said, when asked for his reaction to the closure:

It's very good news for anyone involved in independent film. The Film Council became a means by which lottery money was transferred to the Hollywood studios. It pursued this phoney idea that James Bond and Harry Potter were British films. But, of course, those films were all American – and their profits were repatriated to the studios in Los Angeles.

Others weren't explicit as Cox, but he wasn't alone – the closure wasn't greeted with unanimous dismay.

[Pedro_Bear]

I'm extremely hesitant to draw attention to Adam Sandler's Jack and Jill, but it fits the criteria for the thread. NB: DO NOT WATCH JACK AND JILL, EVEN OUT OF CURIOSITY. Jack and Jill "cost" in the region of $79million to make, and it recouped via nuts and bolts corporate synergy. It's a middle of the road comedy about twin brother and sister (both played by Sandler) who don't get along because the sister is loud, naive and homespun and the sauve ad-exec brother is easily embarrassed by her antics. It has a zillion and one cameos including Depp and Pacino, and ultimately amounts to exactly what we'd expect from the premise i.e. prompting "people actually watch this shit?"

The $79million risk was offset by prominent product placement, a trick also employed by The Invention of Lying; it was a cushioned gamble for investors before it was even released. It was synergised to death in the promotional phase across several tv networks with corporate ties to the production, including an unambiguous endorsement by Letterman.

Now, the film itself could quite easily have slashed its budget down to one tenth and still delivered the exact self-same film. However, this was not the point of Jack and Jill. The point was to inflate the budget to bursting point and bank the money on the back of artificially creating a "safe" investment opportunity.

Sandler himself took home a full quarter of the budget in acting fees alone. It was in his best interest therefore that the film cost as much as investors would gamble. And he is a very safe gamble, bowling harmless, pseudo-heartwarming comedies for two decades now.

Every cameo in the film banked in the region of a million dollars for the bit-parts, and then in the region of ten million dollars for Al Pacino and Katie Holmes. So we're up in the region of $70million in "actor" fees and essentially free location shooting (paid for by the glorious product placement of being set mainly in fast food restaurants, or on a luxury cruise liner). The remaining $8million-ish was spent on actually making the film, transparently so by what the audience sees on screen.


The point is this, and this is what Cameron is getting at: a film that could have released $8million was pumped into releasing ten times that much money even before it started to recoup ticket sales by simple business tricks. This is what he's getting at. When we see "a film cost" it is actually business code for "this amount has already changed hands"; it's not a "cost" when viewed from the point of view of essentially tax-free money transfering from investors to film makers.

Or in other words: it is promoting short-term gains at the risk of detering long-term investment in future projects i.e. perfect Neo-Tory economics, and a complete abandonment of any vestigial concept of economic conservatism.


Now... is it a bad thing for audiences right now? In the case of Jack and Jill, surprisingly no. It was a shit film before it got pumped; no more or less people went "people actually watch this shit?" as a result of the artificial inflation of costs.

Could this potentially ruin a film? Difficult to say, beyond stealth advertising becoming even more widespread than it already is. James Bond films are no more or less what they are because of the watches and the cars and the laptops being sold, for example. Only committted anti-corporate plots would suffer per se, and what the Hell are they doing inviting corporate investment in the first place?

It is wrong to squeeze money out of investors looking for maximum returns for literally doing nothing more than transfering funds? Probably not. Will they really be deterred from future gambles given how cushioned their losses can be made? Again, probably not, people with money like the idea of making money make more money.

There is something undeniably creepy about suddenly perceiving corporate entertainment as the cash-cow it is, was, and always will be, but given the nature of the beast, does catching a glimpse of the financial structure that props up the show neccessarily detract from it?

[The Boston Crab]

why does it matter if british films are shit?

[kidsick5000]

Cheers Pedro. That was acely informative.
Adam Sandler is a very smart film maker. It's not like advertising in films is new, especially the Bond films



As for Britfilms being commercial. Isn't the usual practice of the Brit film industry to strike gold with one genre of film then investors just swarm to any similar sounding pitch hoping for a similar result

[confettiinmyhair]

Four Weddings...., The Full Monty, Billy Elliot and Trainspotting were surprise successes. None of them had mainstream appeal, they just became popular, because they were well written, well acted films. In this sense there's no formula for success.

[Dead kate moss]

Four Weddings was a UK romcom which happened to feature a performance from Hugh Grant that many, including the Yanks liked (basically effette and unsure) written by someone coming off Blackadder success. It could have failed, but when it didn't Curtis was smart businesswise to repeat formula ad nauseum.

Trainspotting - sexy teens take drugs, cult novel that people had heard of, good marketing and soundtrack... not a bad bet.

Full Monty - men maybe showing their willies. Got people talking, promised some laffs amid the humanity and dole queues.

None of these were sure-fire hits, nothing is. When I despair is when I see a UK film like Brassed Off or Made In Dagenham, which I referenced in my first post. Unlike say Rita Sue & Bob Too, or Mike Leigh movies, these films seemed dull, preachy and worthy, or about a Brass fucking Band. This is when the UK film industry seems hellbent on making movies that the general public will say 'er... nah' too.

Fake edit -

Not my cup of tea, but we also make loads of post-Guy Ritchie gangster movies or football thug movies? Do these make money? Probably got more of an audience than a lot of other stuff we produce. Didn't see Attack The Block yet, but that seemed a step in the right direction too.


What the UK film industry should of course definitely do is make a Blakes 7 movie. Michael Fassbinder as Avon maybe...

[biggytitbo]

The British film industry needs a bit more commercial discipline.


The fake outrage about this report is pretty predictable really, especially amongst the self interested elite who just want some free public cash to make their pet projects. But of course they have to couch any questioning of the status quo it in terms of a cultural apocalypse and philistinism rather than their own petty self interest.


Half the films this dysfunctional system produces are never seen by anyone, never even released in some cases. Many others have absolutely no business existing as films - they're TV and should stay that way.


If we ever want to to establish a thriving properly independent British film industry that's not just an arm of Hollywood then we need to think more commercially - and that doesn't mean downmarket or populist. We used to be able to do it, in the 50s and 60s, why not now?


Then there's the wider issue of public funding of the arts, which tends to go to those best at playing whatever perverse goals the system sets itself, whether that's elitism, social engineering, cultural propaganda or just old fashioned misguided incompetence, rather than those with the most talent and best ideas.


When it comes to public money nobody ever gets asked of course, because those in charge know what's best for us, despite their relentlessly shit record.

[Ginyard]

We need to make some kung fu action shit. That's what's missing over here. And cheerleaders with big tits. Bap to bap sweeps with a couple of rival quarterbacks punching the bones out of each other. All nicely rounded off with a coach who couldn't care less but comes through in the end. Fat loveable dogs slobbering for a bit of comedy value and a couple of references to cereal/sweets we've never heard of. Get me my fucking pen!

[Smeraldina Rima]

All the most successful British films are catchy rhymes like Rita, Sue and Bob Too, P'tang, Yang, Kipperbang, Triads, Yardies and Onion Bhajis, East is East, West is West, The Sex Lives of the Potato Wives and The Trials of Oscar Wilde.

[Ginyard]

Good point. The Kray Twins with their Cheeky Grins would have been a better title.

[Santa's Boyfriend]

What the British film industry really, really needs is The Adventures of Luther Arkwright move.  It's essentially Doctor Who, but in movie form and across dimensions rather than time.  It's big budget, but hey, it's a fantasy so it's got global appeal.

[Ignatius_S]

....Jack and Jill "cost" in the region of $79million to make, and it recouped via nuts and bolts corporate synergy....

The consensus is that this is a rare example Sandler comedy to lose money. Given that there's a rough rule of thumb that a film has to make double its production budget to turn a profit, that's very likely to have been the case.
 

....Now, the film itself could quite easily have slashed its budget down to one tenth and still delivered the exact self-same film. However, this was not the point of Jack and Jill. The point was to inflate the budget to bursting point and bank the money on the back of artificially creating a "safe" investment opportunity...

I'm certainly not going to dispute that the budget could have been a lot lower, but it's hardly unusual for a Sandler-vehicle to cost that. In fact, I think you would have to go back more than a decade to find one that cost under $75 million to make and in the last fews years, this has actually been the cheapest.

All of those could have been made a lot more cheaply, but as the vast majority took in excess of $200 million, it's been not an issue. If Jack and Jill has grossed $280 million, we might wringing out hands in disgust that it could do so well, but it's only when it flops do people really pay attention to how much it cost. 

....Sandler himself took home a full quarter of the budget in acting fees alone. It was in his best interest therefore that the film cost as much as investors would gamble...

Kinda. Like most of his films, this one was made by Sandler's own company, so it would be a win-win either way. However, as mentioned above, this one didn't cost a 'lot' of money for a Sandler flick - if he stars in a film made by his own company, which is going to be a big hit thanks to his box office appeal - let's face it, quite a few of his comedy films have has poor reviews but they've cleaned up - why shouldn't he be getting $20 million upfront?

Except he isn't.

With the income for a 'normal' star, 20% goes to their agent, 20% to their manager and 10% to their publicist. Sandler's arrangements are likely to be less straight forward but the headline number is going to be different. All this is the price of business, and it drives up that price.

.....The point is this, and this is what Cameron is getting at: a film that could have released $8million was pumped into releasing ten times that much money even before it started to recoup ticket sales by simple business tricks. This is what he's getting at....

If it had been made for  $8 million budget, it would have been a very different film. However, that aside, I think you give Cameron too much credit.

What he is proposing doesn't sound that much different to what happened the shake-up of the Film Council under Labour - 'unproven' talent can forget it, the money will go to prestige projects, which sound great but overseas companies profit.

The tone of that if there are problems in the film industry, they've been created by the industry. Nothing to do with government policy or the points that Loach raised, it's because that they aren't making films that people want to see. Ain't new.

....It is wrong to squeeze money out of investors looking for maximum returns for literally doing nothing more than transfering funds? Probably not. Will they really be deterred from future gambles given how cushioned their losses can be made? Again, probably not, people with money like the idea of making money make more money...

The real issue is that when films are seen as primarily as investments, film-making becomes increasingly cautious and individual vision is replaced by committees - this has been seen in the major studios in Hollywood.

The film industry has always been an industry and making money, so I'm not looking with rose-tinted spectacles. However, even though the feared studio heads during the golden age were answerable to the money men, it wasn't all nickels and dimes. For example, there was one studio head (I can't remember which, so that's is highly persuasive) who gave over a percentage of the annual budget (I think it was ten percent) wa to 'important' films - by this, I mean films that he simply didn't care if they made money or not, but felt they should get made (e.g for artistic reasons or social consciousness merit) and was aware that they wouldn't be if just the most commercially viable films were picked.

....There is something undeniably creepy about suddenly perceiving corporate entertainment as the cash-cow it is, was, and always will be, but given the nature of the beast, does catching a glimpse of the financial structure that props up the show neccessarily detract from it?

No, it enhances it.

....As for Britfilms being commercial. Isn't the usual practice of the Brit film industry to strike gold with one genre of film then investors just swarm to any similar sounding pitch hoping for a similar result

Not really. Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels arguably inspired a rash of British gangster films, but I'm struggling for other examples - largely, because we don't make enough films. In America, however, I think you could find more examples of people trying to cash in - the superhero explosion is a good example. If our output was larger, we'd do the same.

...If we ever want to to establish a thriving properly independent British film industry that's not just an arm of Hollywood then we need to think more commercially - and that doesn't mean downmarket or populist. We used to be able to do it, in the 50s and 60s, why not now?...

During that period, we made films that were popular in the UK but struggled everywhere else - this caused massive problems for the industry, when Hollywood offerings became increasingly popular. There were actors like Terry-Thomas who would have preferred to have stayed in this country, but went to the States (in his case, the early sixties) because there were so many problems in the domestic industry. Don't get me wrong, I love the vast output of this period, but commercially it wasn't a halcyon one.

I'm afraid your entire post came off as rather opinionated without it being clear what factual basis there is for the assertions.

[kidsick5000]

Four Weddings...., The Full Monty, Billy Elliot and Trainspotting were surprise successes. None of them had mainstream appeal, they just became popular, because they were well written, well acted films. In this sense there's no formula for success.

Four Weddings did do the usual Brit film stunt of getting as big "a name" in as they can afford. In this case Andi McDowell. A bit like how Local Hero had Burt Lancaster
But theyre still word-of-mouth "Hey we made something good" surprises.

The good thing now is that wealth of hot, popular big name brit talent has never been bigger, should they be feeling charitable. But populist directors? Vaughn, Ritchie, Wright.... Cornish? Much more limited choice

[phes]

NB: DO NOT WATCH JACK AND JILL, EVEN OUT OF CURIOSITY.

Jack and Jill "cost" in the region of $79million to make, and it recouped via nuts and bolts corporate synergy. It's a middle of the road comedy about twin brother and sister (both played by Sandler) who don't get along because the sister is loud, naive and homespun and the sauve ad-exec brother is easily embarrassed by her antics. It has a zillion and one cameos including Depp and Pacino, and ultimately amounts to exactly what we'd expect from the premise i.e. prompting "people actually watch this shit?"

these guys did a very comprehensive review that's very entertaining

http://redlettermedia.com/half-in-the-bag/jack-and-jill

[Pedro_Bear]

That review is hilarious, way, way better than the film. I don't begrudge Sandler as much as Team Plinkett there, although everything they say is 100% correct and expressed more succinctly and politely than the subject matter perhaps deserves. Their emphasis is on film as an artform, and how formulaic screentrash cheapens cinema, and there's a very strong argument for that, as naive and wishful thinking as it ultimately comes across, and I don't mean that in an offensive way.

Sandler pumping a middle-of-the-road comedy such that he banks ten times the amount of money before tickets are even on sale is business genius. Put it this way: if he hadn't pumped the film, if the film had gone through at around $8million, we'd still have Jack and Jill, and it would be exactly the same. The Jack and Jill part was going to happen one way or another, yeah? Sandler would have taken home $2million, bit-parts $100K and Pacino £1m. That they got paid 10X via cunning investor maximisation schemes didn't reflect on the film quality in real terms.

I think you give Cameron too much credit.

What he is proposing doesn't sound that much different to what happened the shake-up of the Film Council under Labour - 'unproven' talent can forget it, the money will go to prestige projects, which sound great but overseas companies profit.

Perhaps. I may be giving Cameron more business accumen than he deserves, but I recon he means "UK films should stop priding themselves on being cost-effective and start squeezing investors for every penny", or "start gambling more, guys."

Or, putting it another way: I honestly don't think the UK has a precious film scene that relies on handouts. I don't believe Cameron is saying "Hey, stop deliberately making uncommercial films you Hippies," mainly because nobody is doing/attempting anything of the sort.


Can we list films known to have been wrecked by committee? As far as I can tell, Old Age and People Refusing To Retire have been responsible for the decline and fall of contemporary cinema. 12A has come from within, not from the top down.

Watching the amusing Plinkett review of Indiana Jones And The Crystal Skulls Of Boring underlines this: everyone involved with that film was too old, too pedestrian, and too well-fed to pull off another action movie, or even tell Lucas where to shove his utterly ridiculous "ideas".

The sinister self-censorship and obscene over-reliance on CGI to blunt the edge off combat scenes came from the creative team not wanting to expose their own grandchildren to disturbing images, not dictated down by a demographics committee. The Star Wars Prequels were dire because George Lucas got to make his "artistic vision" appear on screen. A committee of Star Wars fans being able to veto ideas would have produced some kick-ass films, far more audience-friendly and appropriately artistic for the genre as well as the mythos of the universe in question.

[Funcrusher]

The budgetary details of some multi-million dollar Adam Sandler film don't really have a whole lot to do with the typical British film. Ignacious' post is a good 'un.

Cameron almost certainly has no real idea about what goes on in the UK Film industry, and is just talking out of his arse as usual. The mainstream by definition isn't very innovative and generates no new creative ideas. It needs uncommercial, more marginal and obscure artists to do this, which it then feeds off. Julian Fellowes wouldn't be in the position he is now had he not had a script filmed by Robert Altman, whose filmography is non-commercial and 'difficult', with occasional hits, which are the reason why big studios benefit from such artists existing. Likewise I'm sure Cameron would cite something like the new 'Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy' as an example of a 'film that people want to see', but again its success has been largely down to a director of an oddball Swedish arty horror film and the presence of Gary Oldman, a Mike Leigh protege.

[Pedro_Bear]

The budgetary details of some multi-million dollar Adam Sandler film don't really have a whole lot to do with the typical British film. That's the point, do keep up. At the moment the UK film industry is blind to maximising investment; low-budget high-return is taken as the be all and end all of commercial success via film. It's not, as even Adam Sandler has worked out.

[biggytitbo]

During that period, we made films that were popular in the UK but struggled everywhere else - this caused massive problems for the industry, when Hollywood offerings became increasingly popular. There were actors like Terry-Thomas who would have preferred to have stayed in this country, but went to the States (in his case, the early sixties) because there were so many problems in the domestic industry. Don't get me wrong, I love the vast output of this period, but commercially it wasn't a halcyon one.

I'm afraid your entire post came off as rather opinionated without it being clear what factual basis there is for the assertions.

What's wrong with having a strong internal film industry? France, amongst many other countries manage it, albeit the language barrier has a part, but it makes French films that do well in France and everyones happy with that. One of the litany of problems with our attitude is we have this terrible habit of making stuff that deliberately tries to pander to foreign, mainly American, cliches of Britain. Its not the be all and end all to be successful in America, look at the success of the inbetweeners film.


At least in the 60s and 70s we made films for ourselves and people went to see them, if that also means they occasional break out and become worldwide succeses then great, but that shouldn't be the aim.


Think the point about the 'smallness' of British film is crucial too. Too much of our output is TV, not cinema. We need to be bolder and more ambitious. Sci-fi and fantasy, action films. Less grim wrist slitting or cynical costume drama.

[Pedro_Bear]

Think the point about the 'smallness' of British film is crucial too. Too much of our output is TV, not cinema. We need to be bolder and more ambitious. Sci-fi and fantasy, action films. Less grim wrist slitting or cynical costume drama.

And that then brings us back to the question of what, exactly, is a British film? Perhaps if we abandoned the idea that British cinema has to be focused inwardly altogether, and just focused on making more films over here full stop, a lot of the issues with funding would sort themselves out?

The mainstream by definition isn't very innovative and generates no new creative ideas. It needs uncommercial, more marginal and obscure artists to do this, which it then feeds off.

This is a recent reappraisal of the term "mainstream". It used to mean the very best writers writing for the very best actors being directed by the very best directors. Most of classic cinema is mainstream; most of our favourite films are mainstream, unless we happen to have found a niche cinema that caters exactly to our tastes, or we're insufferable hipsters.

Mainstream doesn't mean "shit", any more than uncommercial means "integrity".

What uncommercial films have innovated the artform more than, say, Spielberg movies? What has changed in the way films are made that is preventing contemporary Spielbergs from arrising? I'd honestly say it's because Spielberg is still making now-lackluster movies. I'm personally confident that film will pick right back up again when the old guard of 70's cinema finally drop dead. The creative vacuum is an internal one; even the best of the best don't have that many amazing films to offer, and we don't have any way of politely demanding that they retire.

[Ignatius_S]

What's wrong with having a strong internal film industry? ...

You were talking about 1950-60s British cinema, which was a period when there wasn't a strong domestic industry. Over this period, the trend of the British cinemagoers favouring American films increased – and as there wasn't a good market elsewhere, this leads to trouble!

... France, amongst many other countries manage it, albeit the language barrier has a part, but it makes French films that do well in France and everyones happy with that...

French cinema has a long history of heavy subsidy. Additionally, there was a tradition restrictions placed on foreign films – although these have eased off somewhat. Considerable state intervention has played a part.

If you also look at the figures, Hollywood films have been increasing in popularity in France. Also, something to consider is that some in the industry think that the films being made aren't 'French' enough and cultural identity is being eroded.

... One of the litany of problems with our attitude is we have this terrible habit of making stuff that deliberately tries to pander to foreign, mainly American, cliches of Britain. Its not the be all and end all to be successful in America, look at the success of the inbetweeners film....

I think you would need some examples, rather than just saying that this is the case. It's been argued by film-makers, such as Alex Cox, that the real problem when appealing to the American market is that those films are insipid and bland.

... Its not the be all and end all to be successful in America, look at the success of the inbetweeners film....

Yes, which was an unusually successful film – these aren't going to be the norm.

..At least in the 60s and 70s we made films for ourselves and people went to see them, if that also means they occasional break out and become worldwide succeses then great, but that shouldn't be the aim....

Sorry, but this isn't accurate. There was far more to British cinema than bad horror films and sitcom spin-offs in the 1970s, but the industry was in trouble – and audiences were falling. Cinemas were often run-down and seedy – a lot of people, particularly families were opting to stay at home and watch the box. Also, we were trying to make money from the overseas markets.

...Think the point about the 'smallness' of British film is crucial too. Too much of our output is TV, not cinema. We need to be bolder and more ambitious. Sci-fi and fantasy, action films. Less grim wrist slitting or cynical costume drama.

Opinion.

If you want action and sci-fi, how about Attack The Block? It got great reviews over here and in the States, but hasn't made any money yet.

Film-making is an expensive business and it's difficult working out what will make money. It's all very well, saying we need to do 'action' films but Hollywood has a massive advantage.

Something people forget in Hollywood, the studio's bread and butter is from a decent number of smaller pictures. Yes, blockbusters can make fortunes, but they can break them as well.

[olliebean]

Isn't this just typical Tory bollocks to prevent the money going to anyone who'd feel the benefit?

[Ignatius_S]

Isn't this just typical Tory bollocks to prevent the money going to anyone who'd feel the benefit?

*sigh* If you read my posts, you'll see that this isn't new. In around 2003, the Film Council rules changed after Alan Parker looked at the system. Previously, in order to get funding, about 80% of a film had to have British funding – afterwards, it was almost bugger all.

If a film had a British director and a British star, that was 'British' enough – Alex Cox illustrated this with the example that under those new rules, Black Hawk Down would have been considered a British film. Take a guess which studios have been doing well...

[Funcrusher]

What on earth has Spielberg brought to cinema that's innovative? All he really did was infantalise mainstream films, which is kind of in line with television reducing the size of adult audiences. And bring in the era of the multi-million dollar exploitation film.

I don't really see what's exciting or artistically hopeful about Adam Sandler's creative accounting and use of product placement. So he can extract a bunch of money from investors because he's one of the few names who sells mega amounts of tickets. The product he will then produce will have to be safe, conservative pap in order to make back its money, and he'll park his wealth offshore - so not really benefitting the viewer who wants to see a good film, or UKPLC. All hollywood films seem to be balls-deep in product placement these days, but they're still fucked if the opening weekend doesn't deliver sky high ticket sales. Big budgets need big takings at the box office to recoup.

[Ignatius_S]

....Can we list films known to have been wrecked by committee?...

I will respond to your post when I've time, but I just wanted to quickly ask about this question.

If it was a response to me saying "film-making becomes increasingly cautious and individual vision is replaced by committees", then I think there's been a large leap there – and one that skirts over the issue. It's not a case of films being "wrecked" – but creativity stifled and potential not realised – that's not to say that all films made in committee will be bad or would have been worse if one person was calling the shots, but there are obvious drawbacks to the system. Also, and your point about Lucas supports me here I think, if the status of auteur can only be bestowed on established, powerful and wealthy male film-makers, then we're in trouble.

As Lucas was brought up, it's worth remembering that if a committee decision had been used, there would have been no Star Wars films. The 20th Century Fox Board wanted to pull the plug on the first movie, but studio boss Alan Ladd Jnr overruled them – I was going to discuss him because of Funcrusher said about Altman, so that was a happy coincidence!

... Julian Fellowes wouldn't be in the position he is now had he not had a script filmed by Robert Altman, whose filmography is non-commercial and 'difficult', with occasional hits, which are the reason why big studios benefit from such artists existing...

Funnily enough, I nearly started discussing Altman in my post! I'm in a rush now, but wanted to also respond to your post later.

[Ballad of Ballard Berkley]

What on earth has Spielberg brought to cinema that's innovative?

The special effects in Jaws[nb]Well, no one had ever built a massive sea-faring mechanical shark before, had they?[/nb], Close Encounters of the Third Kind and E.T? I know he wasn't responsible for them directly, but they were pivotal and, at the time, state-of-the-art components of those films.