• 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!

Brits: "Local British Films" vs. "Hollywood-ized British Films?"

AFEK ESLCAFE W

AFEK ESLCAFE W

Lieutenant Commander
Newbie
I am an American, and when I watch films such as V for Vendetta and the James Bond films I notice a certain Hollywood polish where they eliminate hard to understand accents, region-specific vocabulary, and certain grit of the locale and atmosphere so that they can be better accepted by the international community.

Whereas films like The Commitments, The Snapper, and Billy Elliott definitely feel like they are homegrown and made for local tastes.

Do Brits clearly see the difference and make a distinction between the 2, or do people just pretty much lump the 2 together in the same category of British films?
 
^^

Thanks for correcting me.

Anyways, it's something I've wanted to know for years now in watching non-American films.
 
^ No problem.

As regards your main question, I can only speak for myself, but in general, I prefer both British and Irish movies which are authentic. A lot of movies are clearly made with an eye to the trans-Atlantic market and come across as wannabe Lethal Weapons, Dumb and Dumbers or whatever. (Yes, I know I'm naming quite old movies, but most of the sort of movies I'm thinking of are about 10-15 years behind the times they're made anyway) By and large, they just don't work, though The Guard was a fairly successful attempt at transplanting the buddy-buddy cop movie to the west of Ireland.

Funnily enough, however, a lot of the movies that have succeeded both at home and abroad have been the likes of Billy Elliott or the Roddy Doyle ones (Committments, Snapper, The Van) which haven't compromised on the accent or dialogue front.

I don't know if American audiences have embraced their authenticity or novelty or what. It may just be as simple as the fact that they were good movies (though plenty of other good movies didn't find their audience). And to be honest, that's how I personally categorise movies of whatever nationality. Good or bad.
 
V for Vendetta was an American production with a British location and largely British cast.

not entirely unlike Harry Potter...

for a truly British movie aiming for Hollywood, you should look at 28 Days Later or Simon Pegg's Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead.

the latter 2, if you ask me, are the right sort of British movies - polished production values but not compromising on their Britishness.
 
I love The Snapper, I actually saw it in a small little movie theater in New Jersey when it first came out. I still quote it to this day, my favorite is "I met your mother when I was drunk, I still remembered her name."
 
Captaindemotion said:
^ No problem.

As regards your main question, I can only speak for myself, but in general, I prefer both British and Irish movies which are authentic. A lot of movies are clearly made with an eye to the trans-Atlantic market and come across as wannabe Lethal Weapons, Dumb and Dumbers or whatever. (Yes, I know I'm naming quite old movies, but most of the sort of movies I'm thinking of are about 10-15 years behind the times they're made anyway) By and large, they just don't work, though The Guard was a fairly successful attempt at transplanting the buddy-buddy cop movie to the west of Ireland.

Funnily enough, however, a lot of the movies that have succeeded both at home and abroad have been the likes of Billy Elliott or the Roddy Doyle ones (Committments, Snapper, The Van) which haven't compromised on the accent or dialogue front.

I don't know if American audiences have embraced their authenticity or novelty or what. It may just be as simple as the fact that they were good movies (though plenty of other good movies didn't find their audience). And to be honest, that's how I personally categorise movies of whatever nationality. Good or bad.
Click to expand...

Just speaking as one American, I'm always interested in a good story, and will try just about any movie from any location around the world. When it comes to "authenticity", I prefer it to be as authentic as possible. I like it when Britons play Britons, the French play French, etc., because I don't want an actor/actress too busy trying to "be" a nationality before they've even begun working on their character's portrayal.

That said, I've seen some convincing work done by people of differing nationalities. Karl Urban comes immediately to mind, as in Star Trek 2009, where he plays McCoy's simultaneously frenetic yet laid back, southern American "old country doctor", to a T.

Plus, I don't like misrepresentation and negative stereotypes, which does factor into said "authenticity".
 
captcalhoun said:
for a truly British movie aiming for Hollywood, you should look at 28 Days Later or Simon Pegg's Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead.

the latter 2, if you ask me, are the right sort of British movies - polished production values but not compromising on their Britishness.
Click to expand...
I've seen 2 of the 3 you mentioned there.

That's what I like the most about them. They are geunine films that do none of the Hollywood pandering to the international audience.
 
Tom Hendricks said:
I love The Snapper, I actually saw it in a small little movie theater in New Jersey when it first came out. I still quote it to this day, my favorite is "I met your mother when I was drunk, I still remembered her name."
Click to expand...

One of my favorite films of all time, although it did help that Colm Meaney was the star of it -- along with The Commitments and The Van. :cool:
 
AFEK ESLCAFE W said:
Do Brits clearly see the difference and make a distinction between the 2, or do people just pretty much lump the 2 together in the same category of British films?
Click to expand...

I see a clear difference in the "types" of films you are discussing. I see regional films as regional films, something that celebrates that region and is designed to be region-speicific in its dialouge and mis en scene. Billy Elliot for example, is less British than it is NE England. The other types of films, Bond for example, I see as generic films that happen to be British-made. There is a Britishness about them. How could there not be. There is something so utterly British establishment in Judi Dench's portrayal of M that I'm at a loss to explain it (too close to the subject.) As for Hot Fuzz, Shaun of the Dead and 28 Days Later, I agree with captcalhoun's assessment. They really manage to capture a non-specific regionality while maintaining a British essence.
 
Last edited:
Indie movies also likely tend to capture regionality more than Hollywood movies, and that goes for nearly indie movie made anywhere. I find those more interesting as you really get a taste for the flavour of the culture where it was filmed.
 
I often think British made films done for a British Audience are much better films for it. Others can be good films, but they just lose some of the feel and connection to that Britishness. I assume the same can be said for a lot of other countries films too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top