UK film-makers should rival Hollywood, David Cameron to say

[DB7]

UK film-makers should rival Hollywood, David Cameron to say
Britain should aim to rival Hollywood and produce more blockbuster films such as The King’s Speech, David Cameron will suggest today.
Colin Firth in a scene from 'The King's Speech'
The King's Speech: Cameron will today urge Britain's film makers to aim for commercial success.

By Tim Ross

6:25AM GMT 11 Jan 2012

National Lottery money will in future be directed at “mainstream” films that could become commercial successes, rather than “art house” cinema that generates limited box office sales.

A strategy for exporting British film-making expertise will also be announced as part of a drive to exploit the potential of the £40billion industry to create jobs.

The Prime Minister will outline the plans during a visit to Pinewood studios in west London, where the next James Bond adventure is being filmed.

The proposal to focus lottery money on fims that are likely to be commercially successful films could be criticised by some independent film-makers, who are already aggrieved at the Coalition’s decision to abolish the UK Film Council.

Mr Cameron believes that resources should be focused on fully exploiting the potential to make the film industry even more lucrative. He said he wanted to build on “the incredible success of recent years”. “Our role should be to support the sector in becoming even more dynamic and entrepreneurial, helping UK producers to make commercially successful pictures that rival the quality and impact of the best international productions,” he said.

“Just as the British Film Commission has played a crucial role in attracting the biggest and best international studios to produce their films here, so we must incentivise UK producers to chase new markets both here and overseas.”

A review of government film policy conducted by Lord Smith, a former Labour culture secretary, is to be published next week. It is aimed at removing the barriers to making film companies more successful and to generate more jobs in firms offering special effects and other services.

Lord Smith is expected to recommend that lottery funding should be used to reward success and encourage film-makers to develop projects that could deliver commercial and cultural success.

The King’s Speech, the highest grossing independent British film of all time, cost £8 million to make an

[Steve Crook]

Is he going to do anything to help with the distribution of British made films in Britain? Most of the cinemas, especially the bigger ones, are tied up in deals that only let them show the major films - and that usually means Hollywood films.

Most attempts at government "assistance" (or "interference") with films fall down at the distribution stage

Steve

[jimw1]

BBC News - Ken Loach urges film funding variety

[julian_craster]

Is there a case for a new Quota scheme obliging Uk cinemas to screen UK made films, with financial penalties for non-compliance ?

[Moor Larkin]

Isn't the mark of success for a *British* movie when it gets distribution in the USA? Perhaps this is what the boydavid means........

The British film industry needs less not more subsidies Mr Cameron | Mail Online

[DB7]

It's gonna be interesting as commercial appeal goes against the BFI's natural instinct. It's also impossible to gauge what will be a commercial and critical hit; certainly the likes of The Kings Speech and Slumdog Millionaire hardly have hit written all over them.

[Nick Dando]

Perhaps we ought to start re-making old films? They worked in the past, so they ought to work today. It's what Hollywood does best.

Nick

[jaycad]

Gangster films starring Ray Winstone,Jason Statham and Danny Dyer are the way forward!

[CaptainWaggett]

Make commercially successful films? Why didn't the studios think of that one?

[Steve Crook]

Is there a case for a new Quota scheme obliging Uk cinemas to screen UK made films, with financial penalties for non-compliance ?

It never worked in the past, why should it work now?
Previous attempts never had any quality criteria. But that's the hardest thing to judge. Having no quality criteria meant that most people just turned out rubbish knowing that it would get screened and so they would be paid. That's why quota films got such a bad reputation

A few people, like the young Michael Powell, took advantage of it as a learning experience, making lots of films in lots of different styles

Steve

[Steve Crook]

Perhaps we ought to start re-making old films? They worked in the past, so they ought to work today. It's what Hollywood does best.

Nick

And is the reason why I don't watch many Hollywood films nowadays

Steve

[Steve Crook]

Make commercially successful films? Why didn't the studios think of that one?

Ah, but who can tell in advance which will be successful?

As screenwriter William Goldman famously put it in his book about Hollywood, 'nobody knows anything.'

Steve

[Steve Crook]

Gangster films starring Ray Winstone,Jason Statham and Danny Dyer are the way forward!

Aren't they all a bit too old now? They can't do the running around any more. They could be the Godfather - but who would be the younger gangsters?

Steve

[Moor Larkin]

Make commercially successful films? Why didn't the studios think of that one?

I suppose the *Studios* did, but the Studios have been largely dismantled by the rich and powerful actors haven't they?

If the British are meant to learn from the Americans, this guy is interesting.
An Interview with Scott Wiper, director of "The Condemned" - Kevin Carr, 7M Pictures

I listened to his commentary on the dvd of his piece-de-resistance movie so far, "A Better way to Die" and he explained how he needed the best part of five years to make that one movie. The main reason he got it made in the end was that he got *powerful* actors interested ..... Andre Braugher, Lou Diamond-Philips and Joe Pantoliano. As they came *on-board* he then found financial backing, but it was a slow and tortuous process. He began by making one opening scene, which he used to showcase his project. Much of the film he made in his home-town and got friends of his parents involved and all sorts of scams like that too.

One issue in Britain might be about that networking angle. Once an actor breaks through over here, they just *go to Hollywood* don't they, and never darken our shores again......

There are films that do get made though due to powerful actors lending it their names, but first they need a project to be involved in I suppose. Maybe the issue in Britain is where are the Producers? This is the movie I was thinking of. I would guess it fell at the distribution hurdle mentioned by Steve Crook though.

[MikeB]

havn't we heard Cameron's talk somewhere before? Oh yes, from every single other government for the last 30 years (and probably before then too). Politicians want a successful film industry in the UK, love the glamour, etc. But don't take it seriously as an industry, unlike the Americans (Hollywood had Johnsons former Special Assistant, Valenti as head of the MPAA for 38 years, followed by a former congressman, and now a former senator, Chris Dodds - they understand how to get the ear of Washington).

How many times have governments killed off film tax breaks overnight, meaning a collapse in a slew of projects. If you did that to any other part of industry, MP's would be baying for blood. Film? Bunch of luvvies, or crooks trying to con the taxpayer with loopholes (not entirely unfair, but small beer compared with other industries).

Inconsistant taxation towards actors working in the UK from overseas - yep. Killing off the UK Film Council? Yep (a Tory Special, I seem to remember Alex Walker being very upset that an earlier quango was also abolished by the Major government). A complete lack of any real interest in or understanding of film from the DTI, etc as a business? Yep. To be fair to Labour, they did at least set up the UKFC, and there were succesful films. Its a shame that they were so confused about tax, and an even bigger shame that the Coalition were more interested in headlines about quango cutting than building a thriving business.

Can anyone actually name the film minister? (if one still exists of course). No. I suspect that pretty much every film minister of the last 3-4 decades has been a total nonentity, whose only role has been to wander around a Bond set following a Royal, and makes a speech at Canne about how wonderful the industry is. Six months later, they will be doing something else. Cameron shows the usual politicians error of talking about something he knows nothing about (notice the way they also talk a lot about TV while hardly watching it). Goldmans adage has already been quoted - how do you know whats going to a commercial film? An art house film? Looking at so many money-making British films from the eighties onwards, they were arthouse films. Launderette? Mona Lisa? I'm sure that someone thought the Revolution was going to be a hit, just as they thought that Absolute Beginners was going to save the industry (or so the media said at the time). Ironically, it might be the Miramax in the States has provided far more of a friend to the British Film industry than the UK government. They recognised how small British film (arty films) could make money.

If the government was lots of profitable films and a strong base (full studios), then it has to stop thinking of it as a bunch of actory types poncing around. It has to look at it like an industry. That means spending money on R & D (nurturing talent, allowing small 'art' films to get made - something you just can't leave to the BBC), it has to aid production with reasonable tax breaks which are consistant and wont be changed on a whim, it has to have something like the UKFC to coordinate and finance film-making, and it has to realise that distribution is as important as production. A lot more venues for British product (rather than the limited number of screens available if your not a blockbuster) means a wider revenue stream. Allow the industry to make up its own mind, and all you'll see is Transformers 64.

You don't have to go as far as the French do, but you do need to care about your industry. You need to take it as seriously as the steel industry, etc, listen and plan accordingly. Sadly, all that seems to happen is a press conference, glad handing with some celebs and then complete non interest.

Hopefully, he will read stuff like this Hands off British film, Mr Cameron | Peter Bradshaw | Comment is free | The Guardian , this Why David Cameron's plans for UK cinema will make for a more boring world | Radio Times and this Film world hits back over PM's call to focus on blockbusters - News - Films - The Independent . Bet he won't though, when he's got to tell nurses, etc how to do their jobs as well.

[Moor Larkin]

havn't we heard Cameron's talk somewhere before? Oh yes, from every single other government for the last 30 years (and probably before then too)...................

All of which left me thinking that not only would the government and the *tax* system be better off leaving the people who want to make movies alone, but so would it be that the people who want to make movies should never be reliant upon the government and the tax system..........

I was reading that much of the *State Funding* in the USA actually comes from the states themselves, who offer local enterprise breaks if movies are made in their locality. Presumably they not only get local economic activity while the movie circus is in town, but also the later kudos of mass exposure. It struck me that this probably applies to their TV too. In some ways the BBC have done this, presenting Cardiff in Torchwood, much as Miami is presented in CSI, but the BBC do it out of charity and with no capitalist economic drivers, and so interest soon wanes and the collecting bucket moves to Salford.

I'm not sure it is the TV/movie industry's job to advertise urban regeneration, but perhaps somewhere along the line there might be some synergy.

The trouble is that if the British were to present Bootle they would offer it up as some Dickensian hell, making the people there feel even more depressed about their predicament, rather than as some Scorsesian New York swirl of opportunity and hope for a better future somehow. This is where we get into the differing Philosophies and Attitudes of Nations and their peoples, which is probably one reason all the British stars go to Hoillywood in the first place. It certainly used to be. I was watching an interview with John Boorman a while back and he was quite scathing about how much he hated the BBC and Britain itself as a *society* and would never come back here again. Of course that feeling stemmed from the Sixties.

[MikeB]

Cities tend to be nice to film companies because of the cash, plus the obvious benefit of publicity, although this applies more to Downton Abbey than it does to Get Carter (although there are tours about that now). When you think of the budget of an average Hollywood film, the location filming takes up a fair amount of that. Your shelling out for accommodation, supplies of all sorts, and transport. And the crew will want to eat and drink....

In fact ones of the problems with filming in the UK in the past had been the lack of coordination from authorites (although its now much better). If you film in New York, you get a huge amount of attention from both the mayor and the Governor. The Mayor's site says 'Free Locations, Free Police. Safest large city in the US' - they mean business.

I notice that lots of UK towns/regions are getting in on the act, with Glasgow really pushing for business. It doesn't mean that Glasgow will be featured in all the films as the actual place - in the Brad Pitt zombie film its standing in for a US city, but it does mean work for a lot of people, and helps to support a film ecosystem for Scottish production.

As for tax breaks and the like? There are (or were) lots of development agencies/councils who would give local tax breaks, etc for a factory being set up in their area, and plenty of governments give much the same thing. When you think how much a film will spend in one location for a month, or how much somewhere like Elstree generates for the local economy (much smaller than it used to be, but now looking to expand), then why shouldn't government make filming in a particular country as attractive as possible. If the UK doesn't, then Ireland et al will.

Many of our filmmakers and actors will go to Hollywood, but they've been going there since the days of the silents. Most of them will want to go where the work is, and that can mean in LA, Australia, NZ or where ever else they can work. Its true that a number of black actors have given up on getting good roles in the UK and are heading to the US, but that is the fault of TV writers, etc, and hopefully can be corrected. If there is a strong production base in the UK, they will work here. That means not just keeping the international productions, but also developing more local projects, with local funding, which means profits come back to the UK. And of course there are the tourists...

Of course this will take vision, insight, and wisdom, so I'm not holding my breath...

[DB7]

ITV and Sky told to do more for British film

Government report into UK film industry urges broadcasters to invest more, along with a renewed commitment to combat piracy

John Plunkett
guardian.co.uk, Monday 16 January 2012 13.57 GMT

A government-commissioned report into the future of the film industry has called on ITV and Sky to invest more money in British films.

The 56-point report by the Film Policy Review Panel, which included Downton Abbey creator Julian Fellowes among its panellists, also proposed an annual "British film week", a new programme to bring film education to every school and a renewed commitment to combat piracy.

Its publication on Monday followed comments by David Cameron last week that public funding of film should focus on "helping UK producers to make commercially successful pictures that rival the quality and impact of the best international productions".

However Lord Smith, who chaired the panel, said the report did not favour mainstream commercial films at the expense of arthouse offerings, saying it advocated "as wide a range of films as possible, from the overtly commercial to the overtly arty and much in-between".

The prime minister's comments prompted fears of a shift in focus towards trying to produce box office hits at the expense of small-scale, independent productions.

Smith said the remarks had been taken out of context. "Some of the reporting of what he was supposed to be about to say was perhaps unfortunate in giving the sense that he was only interested in a particular kind of movie," said Smith.

"That was not what he said. He understands just as we do that there is a whole range of movies and types of movie that we are supporting. He is very clear on that."

Smith said the British film industry was going through a "golden period" but warned against complacency. He said the aim of the report was to help ensure the success of the past 12 months – dominated by Oscar-winning global smash The King's Speech – was sustained "not just next year, but the next year and the year after that".

Smith denied that the report was prioritising commercially-minded offerings, but a key theme of the report was the need to take the importance of the audience as a starting point.

Smith said UK broadcasters should spend more money on British films and singled out ITV and BSkyB for not investing enough.

"There are two broadcasters doing very little to support British film – ITV and Sky – who we believe should be doing more both in terms of investing in British production and in their acquisition policies," Smith said.

"We have suggested the government sits down with each of the broadcasters to see if an agreement can be reached to ensure greater investment in and acquisition of British films.

"We have also suggested that if agreement turns out to be impossible it is something the government might turn its attention to in the Communications Act which is proposed for some time in the next year or two. We hope that won't be necessary and broadcasters would want to step up to the plate voluntarily."

Among the report's other key points was a proposal to launch a programme to extend the appeal of the big-screen experience to rural and isolated communities.

Under the proposal, communities that do not have a cinema could be provided with projection equipment for film societies and community halls.

The report also proposed new funding mechanisms for producers to be able to reinvest money from successful films into further production.

The reinvestment proposals, said the report, would "only make a significant difference to the small number of films that generate substantial recoupment, which are precisely the ones which are more successful and which we need to encourage for the broader benefit of audiences".

There was also a proposal that aimed to get producers and distributors to team up at an early stage in the production process, and for the joint sharing of rewards between producers, writers and directors.

"We want to get a culture of rewarding success," Smith said. "If you make a successful movie you have a chance of making another one.

"We are not trying to dictate an artistic vision. We are trying to set in place a range of financial and legislative arrangements which will enable a broad range of movies to be made. We are not making a distinction in the review between something called mainstream and something called ... something else."

The government will make a formal response to the report in a few months time, said culture minister Ed Vaizey, who commissioned the report.

Vaizey said the government was likely to accept the vast majority of its recommendations, some of which could be incorporated into the forthcoming communications bill.

A spokeswoman for the BFI said: "Against the backdrop of a record year for British film and film talent, we welcome this report which rightly places audiences at the heart of future UK film policy."

[julian_craster]

Do a tough remake of Hell Drivers with an international cast ...watch the cash roll in.....

[Moor Larkin]

Do a tough remake of Hell Drivers with an international cast ...watch the cash roll in.....

I think a new Lew Grade might be more useful in the longer run, but I daresay he would be viewed as a fatcat nowadays, who needs to be taken down a peg or two, and pay a lot more tax.