• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

UK Film Council

Rii

Rear Admiral
Because the deep end of the pool is so much more alluring...

Jonathan Gems on the abolition of the UK Film Council
I and others welcomed the abolition of the UKFC not so much because it was a way for the government to save money but because the UKFC actively suppressed British Cinema.

You must be aware that, apart from a portion of UKFC funds going into 'educational projects' (i.e.wasted), and a small cosmetic portion going to a few rare and already-financed British films, most of the funding went to Hollywood film companies to induce them to shoot their films at British production houses.

[....]

In a newspaper interview the patriotic J.K. Rowling announced she would not 'go Hollywood' but would sell the rights to her Harry Potter series to a British film company. She didn't know there were no British film companies capable of financing and releasing the Harry Potter films. Later, she had to sell her rights to Hollywood or not see the films made. She had no choice.

Another recent ignominy was the drubbing received by Channel 4 when it made the excellent low budget film "Slumdog Millionaire" only to be forced to give it away to foreign studios in order to see it released. All the profits went to these foreign studios, not Britain.

And this is an old story. The film "1984" (which I co-wrote) starring John Hurt and Richard Burton has been seen by hundreds of millions of people worldwide. This was a British film financed by Richard Branson (Virgin Films) that was released in only one cinema in the UK. Why only one? Because Britain's cinemas are controlled by Hollywood and the Hollywood cartel was threatened by Richard's intention to start a British studio, so made sure to strangle it at birth.

In most years, about 99% of the films shown in UK cinemas are foreign films. (About 95% are American; 3% from other countries and 2% indigenous.) There is no nation in Europe whose film culture has been so thoroughly wiped out as ours has been.

Back in 1970, Britain still had its own cinema. We had three major studios: Associated British Pictures, British Lion, and The Rank Organisation. Between them, they produced and released between 30 and 40 films a year. In those days, we had home-grown stars like Michael Caine, Peter Sellers, Dirk Bogarde, Alec Guinness, Vanessa Redgrave and Norman Wisdom - and a plethora of character actors. For example, John LeMesurier (best known for Dad's Army) appeared in over 100 British films.

Today, to become a star, a British actor must go to Hollywood. To write movies, a British writer must go to Hollywood. To direct movies, a British director must go to Hollywood. Okay, there are a tiny few exceptions - such as directors Ken Loach and Mike Leigh. But their films were made by British TV companies until they stopped funding films in the early 90's since when their films have been made by French and Spanish studios.

[....]

Why did British Cinema disappear 40 years ago? Simple. Protections were removed. Without protection British Cinema could not compete with Hollywood so it disappeared.

Britain is the only country in Europe that does not protect its film industry.

In the past, when Norman St John Stevas - Arts Minister in Margaret Thatcher's government - lobbied to bring back protections, he was told 'no' on Free Market grounds.
This was puzzling because the American film market has never been free. It has always been closed to foreigners. No French, German, Spanish or Scandinavian film company is allowed to release a film in America. No British film company is allowed to release a film in America. And yet we allow America 100% access to our domestic market. Hardly fair, is it?

When we finished "1984", we could not release it in America but were allowed to sell it (at a loss) to a Hollywood studio. Richard Branson lost £3 million but the film went on to make a fortune for MGM.

The solution:

Write and pass a bill reserving, say,15% of the UK film market for UK films. This is what's done in other countries.

How it works is the government decrees that (say) 15% of all the films shown to the public in cinemas are indigenous. Cinema owners - to retain their licenses - must show that, each year, 15% of their screen time has been devoted to British films. This is not a lot to ask. Hollywood will still control 80% of the UK market.

The French government reserves 12.5% of France's film market for French films. Although done for cultural reasons, it has created a very lucrative industry that releases over 100 movies a year - in spite of the fact that roughly 80% of the screen time of French cinemas is devoted to Hollywood movies.

When, in 2003, the Spanish government reserved 20% of its domestic market for Spanish films, there was (unsurprisingly) a boom in Spanish filmmaking and now there are three robust Spanish movie studios not only releasing Spanish films in Spain but also selling them world-wide and earning foreign currency.

I urge Jeremy Hunt to take up the standard and champion British films. The restitution of protections will revive British Cinema, give us back our own indigenous cinema and improve our balance of payments. Not only would this be of ineffable value culturally but would, I think, be a vote-winner.

I know almost nothing about the UK film industry, let alone the UK Film Council, so I'm hardly in a position to evaluate the merits of Jonathan Gems' argument here, although I understand that it's a minority position (amongst those who give a shit at all). However, it occurs to me that when I think of modern British films... well, there's not much that springs to mind, although I did see Fish Tank a couple months back and will hopefully be seeing Four Lions shortly.

For those rather closer to the issue... what say you about British cinema, the abolition of the UKFC, and Mr. Gems' argument here?
 
People are going to spend their money on whatever the fuck they want to see. If they want to see The Expendables, no force on Earth is going to stop them, and if some bureaucrats don't like that, boo fucking hoo.

The UK government should figure out how to make more of the kinds of movies people actually want to see and start rakin' in the bucks because if they want power, they must have the money to back that power (without diverting tax dollars that I'm sure could be put to much more vital uses). The reason Hollywood rules all is because of their relentless pursuit of profit above all else, via giving people exactly the type of mindless garbage they want.

Of course the resulting movies wouldn't be particularly "British" except in a shallow James Bond-ian fashion but to compete in the international film industry, your movies must be deracinated enough that they will be palatable from Santiago to Singapore.

And garbage really does rule above all. When a movie that's basically a cross between action movie cliches and video game tropes is released, and bothers to include enough pretentious blather that it appears to be a cut above the usual trash, it's hailed as Great Art. I'm sure everyone can figure out what I'm talking about. ;)

Garbage rules because people like garbage. I'm not going to blame Hollywood one bit for this. The audiences are to blame.

EDIT: and on that topic, check out this depressing article. Foreign audiences are rewarding Hollywood for making utter crap!

While Americans are trying to send a message to Hollywood by rewarding movies that are no worse than middlebrow like Inception or genuinely good like Toy Story 3, and avoiding the really wretched stuff like The Sorcerer's Apprentice, The Last Airbender and Prince of Persia, which by rights should be total flops, foreigners are wrecking everything by going to those movies in droves and sending the message that the quality of a movie doesn't matter in the least.

Hollywood can make literally anything and it will make money. Toss the piggies any kind of garbage and they will snarf it up and squeal for more. So what's the motive to put any kind of effort into movies at all, beyond explosions, actions and SFX? If I ran a movie studio, I wouldn't bother worrying about the acting or script. What's the point? Instead, I'd have a lot of fun seeing how bad and stupid I can make a movie and still rake in the bucks. Is there a bottom to this barrel?
 
Last edited:
There seems to be two sides to this UK Film Council closure. There's the side that say they've made it harder to get actual British films made and distributed, and the other that says they're bringing industry money to the country by providing help, small amounts of funding and information on tax breaks, filming locations and crew for Hollywood films to be made here.

The way I see it they have ensured over a hundred British movies have been made, so whichever way you look at it they're doing a decent job encouraging the British film industry. Seems like a poor decision made by the government made on ideological grounds rather than on sound reasoning. They say the money will still be provided to the industry, but on a more direct basis, which removes the indirect aspects of the Film Council, such as helping Hollywood studios hire local cast and crew and inform them on locations and such like. Which will surely mean less Hollywood money coming this way.

Definitely seems like the wrong choice to me.
 
I'm fed up of government money subsidising private industries, whether directly or by quango.

If they can't make money by themselves, why should my money support them? Scrap all these subsidies. If they can't survive on their own, they can go bust and more competitive industries can take their place. It's better for the economy in the long term.

I am aware of the counter-argument that more money was generated by the investment in film than was spent subsidising it. This is a totally spurious argument that takes no account of the opportunity cost; the money invested could have equally have been spent on something else that would have generated an even greater ROI. I would prefer no government subsidy at all, but if we absolutely must, then at the very least it should be spent on our most competitive industries, to further sharpen their edge.

Besides, there is no money left anyway. :D
 
The UK government should figure out how to make more of the kinds of movies people actually want to see and start rakin' in the bucks because if they want power, they must have the money to back that power (without diverting tax dollars that I'm sure could be put to much more vital uses). The reason Hollywood rules all is because of their relentless pursuit of profit above all else, via giving people exactly the type of mindless garbage they want.

Of course the resulting movies wouldn't be particularly "British" except in a shallow James Bond-ian fashion but to compete in the international film industry, your movies must be deracinated enough that they will be palatable from Santiago to Singapore.

I don't think that competing internationally is (or was) the goal of the UKFC. Certainly I think the government's interest in promoting domestic cinema stops well short of that.

Whilst that interest necessarily involves economic factors, it's primarily cultural. Film is probably the most accessible art form around, and arguably also offers the widest scope. As such it can be a valuable cultural touchstone both in the present and for the future. If a domestic industry exists.

Leaving aside the ideological side of things, it seems clear that the protectionist policies of France/Spain/etc. work in this respect. Indeed, that's how I first realised that the author of the piece might have a point: French cinema, Swedish cinema, German cinema ... all terms that bring various films, names, styles to mind. British cinema? Err. British television, sure. I didn't even know that Slumdog Millionaire was a Channel 4 production. :lol:

Now whether that kind of protectionist system is necessary to revive British cinema, I don't know. Maybe it's the case that Brits simply suck at making films (like Aussies do :lol:) but the author makes the case that the situation at the moment makes the revival of British cinema impossible irrespective of the actual product. Of course I don't know if it's actually true that Hollywood controls UK cinema and has exercised that power to strangle potentially competing startups at birth; hence the thread: I know I'm only getting one side of the story here. But I certainly have no ideological objections to protectionism in cases where it's warranted for one reason or another. And nor, apparently, does anybody else, seeing as all nations do it when and where it suits them. I'm just interested in the pragmatics.

And garbage really does rule above all. When a movie that's basically a cross between action movie cliches and video game tropes is released, and bothers to include enough pretentious blather that it appears to be a cut above the usual trash, it's hailed as Great Art. I'm sure everyone can figure out what I'm talking about. ;)

Hmm. The Matrix or Inception?

EDIT: and on that topic, check out this depressing article. Foreign audiences are rewarding Hollywood for making utter crap!

While Americans are trying to send a message to Hollywood by rewarding movies that are no worse than middlebrow like Inception or genuinely good like Toy Story 3, and avoiding the really wretched stuff like The Sorcerer's Apprentice, The Last Airbender and Prince of Persia, which by rights should be total flops, foreigners are wrecking everything by going to those movies in droves and sending the message that the quality of a movie doesn't matter in the least.

I pulled the numbers for the five films mentioned off Box Office Mojo. Here they are arranged from highest to lowest domestic:foreign ratio:

The Last Airbender: 65/35
The Sorcerer's Apprentice: 45/55
Inception: 44/56
Toy Story 3: 43/57
Prince of Persia 27/73

Outliers at either end - albeit The Last Airbender is easy enough to explain, its primary audience being those already acquainted with the American cartoon; unsurprisingly most such people are Americans - and no clear pattern in any case. Prince of Persia? I dunno ... although it occurs to me that the game franchise is owned by Ubisoft, which is French. I suspect that delving further into the history of the franchise might provide some clues as to the film's geographic distribution in that case too.

Nonetheless it's certainly an interesting notion to explore. With a sufficiently robust database (consisting of an amalgamation of Box Office Mojo, IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, and a host of metadata on each film in question) I imagine one could identify all kinds of patterns and trends in the appeal of films, genres, directors, actors, etc. by country and time period. Give me a spare year or two and I might try it myself. :lol:
 
Last edited:
^To Holdfast Your argument doesn't hold water though. Because the point in the film council was not to invest money in an industry that's not profitable but to ensure investment in films that weren't attracting investors for one reason or another and help films that did have investors get the most for their money. Also it was meant to encourage British film in to British cinema by helping digital distribution, but Hollywood studios got involved and cocked that up by insisting the digital projectors be DRMed Thus it ended up being more expensive than it should have been.
Also the fact it a vast majority of the £15 million they invested wasn't tax money it was lottery funding, but it generates far more than that in the economy whether from job creation or consumer spending. So it costs the government next to nothing in tax spending but brings far more to the country.
 
or in short: the tories are being wankers. again.

i'm still trying to work out how Temis can say it's okay for people to see a mindless action flick like The Expendables and then moan that foreigners are going to see mindless Hollywood blockbusters. double-standards much?
 
Besides, there is no money left anyway. :D

That's the rub of it, and whoever was in the film council might have gone.

I do like the idea of ringfencing say 10/15% of screen time for British films, creating in effect a localised free market...of course the downside is that only the popular films will succeed because cinemas will quickly decide to take the latest Lesbian Vampire Killers over something more worthy because it'll bring in more reveue (and thus make up for having one less screen to show Shrek 7 in 3D)

I like to hope I've done my bit this year as I have seen some (I imagine) British films in the likes of Four Lions/It's a Wonderful Afterlife.
 
Besides, there is no money left anyway. :D

That's the rub of it, and whoever was in the film council might have gone.

I do like the idea of ringfencing say 10/15% of screen time for British films, creating in effect a localised free market...of course the downside is that only the popular films will succeed because cinemas will quickly decide to take the latest Lesbian Vampire Killers over something more worthy because it'll bring in more reveue (and thus make up for having one less screen to show Shrek 7 in 3D)

I like to hope I've done my bit this year as I have seen some (I imagine) British films in the likes of Four Lions/It's a Wonderful Afterlife.

For the most part it wasn't government money going to the Film Council, it was Lottery money. It's a shame more British film doesn't get in to British cinema. There's been about 5 or 6 over the last year or so I've wanted to see but they've not been shown locally. But they'll show some shit like Epic Movie...
 
Yeah there are some films that really shouldn't be shown over here and Epic Movie is one of em!

In fairness there's plenty of US films that get very limited release and are only on a week then dissapear.

The most depressing thing is seeing a cinema that has 14 screens yet only shows about 4 films! I guess when it comes down to it you can't blame the cinema owners. If 10 times more people will go see Shrek 4 as Four Lions then the maths is really simple.
 
Yeah there are some films that really shouldn't be shown over here and Epic Movie is one of em!

In fairness there's plenty of US films that get very limited release and are only on a week then dissapear.

The most depressing thing is seeing a cinema that has 14 screens yet only shows about 4 films! I guess when it comes down to it you can't blame the cinema owners. If 10 times more people will go see Shrek 4 as Four Lions then the maths is really simple.

Yeah, it can be kinda frustrating with an unlimited card and you've seen practically everything they're showing but know for a fact there's a load of smaller films on release that you'd love to see as well.
 
So are the government now appropriating lottery money that was supposed to support the arts to shore up their own failing finances?
 
So are the government now appropriating lottery money that was supposed to support the arts to shore up their own failing finances?

I think they're just doing it to make it look like they're cutting stuff. They said the money will still be available but on a more direct basis, whatever that means. To me it means they'll provide funding but no support, which the Film Council did provide, which seems to be a bit stupid.
 
Yeah there are some films that really shouldn't be shown over here and Epic Movie is one of em!

In fairness there's plenty of US films that get very limited release and are only on a week then dissapear.

The most depressing thing is seeing a cinema that has 14 screens yet only shows about 4 films! I guess when it comes down to it you can't blame the cinema owners. If 10 times more people will go see Shrek 4 as Four Lions then the maths is really simple.

Yeah, it can be kinda frustrating with an unlimited card and you've seen practically everything they're showing but know for a fact there's a load of smaller films on release that you'd love to see as well.

Yeah, although having said that when I saw Four Lions the cinema was packed!
 
Yeah there are some films that really shouldn't be shown over here and Epic Movie is one of em!

In fairness there's plenty of US films that get very limited release and are only on a week then dissapear.

The most depressing thing is seeing a cinema that has 14 screens yet only shows about 4 films! I guess when it comes down to it you can't blame the cinema owners. If 10 times more people will go see Shrek 4 as Four Lions then the maths is really simple.

Yeah, it can be kinda frustrating with an unlimited card and you've seen practically everything they're showing but know for a fact there's a load of smaller films on release that you'd love to see as well.

Yeah, although having said that when I saw Four Lions the cinema was packed!

Wasn't quite packed when I saw Four Lions but it was busy considering the day and time I saw it.
 
They've already plundered the lottery for just about everything they can get away with as regards the Olympics. I don't think they can actually take any more.
 
It's because they're politicians that they can't take any more of the moolah. I'm not entirely sure it would be legal but more importantly the worthwhile causes who have been robbed for the past three years would most likely try legal action. Frankly I don't care what they do with the money. I've never bought a lottery ticket and I probably never will, so it's SEP as the late great DNA would have said.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top