What do we want from the British Film Industry?

[john audley]

I do hope this thread will inspire a good debate. I am posting it because of a discussion with Cheeky Bob on the subject of the dying British film comedy (thread).

Reading again my contributions on that thread I do admit to sounding a bit stuffy even priggish! I am not in the least but guilty of being old fashioned? Yes.

What do we want from our film industry? I would like to put forward my sincere thoughts to inspire debate. The conclusions made upon the other thread I do stand by
regarding British films - I do not include foreign or American films.

(1) I am convinced that since 1960 (and the angry young men - kitchen sink era) 'art' has slowing diminished from our films. I do not mean 'art house' films for a minority I do mean mass market films. 'Dumbing Down' has been a consistent process.
I conclude this is laziness by the production company - or sloppy in the belief (as someone put it to me, 'give them tripe and they will come back for more of the same'). Or, drugs, perhaps some film Directors/Producers have been narcotic inspired! And what nonsense may appear on the screen reflects this? Or the deliberate cutting of costs and therefore quality.

(2) Pornography. I do mean the worst excesses of sexual content matter that is gratuitous and, also, likewise violence that is exceptional that I also consider pornography. For those who want these they should be outside of mainstream cinema.
Cheeky Bob made the point that films are entertainment. Sure, but they should be much more than that - a social service too. I have always thought, even as a teenager, that they should be more than entertainment.
I do think pornography should be rigidly controlled to protect our children. Yes, the Internet is wonderful but it also contains the pits of depravity - but that is another issue)
Some people - mostly males - find pleasure in pornography but in large doses it can be mind destroying and animalistic and insulting to women. But, it is also part of nature if base.
I made a big issue about 'civilisation' without being any better than most myself with the same weaknesses. But I still say that the cinema should inspire greater thought and progress upward and not pander to low instincts that are in all of us.
Like booze, the odd drink is fine but the current running item (newspaper) about the four heavy drinking film stars proves my point - they were hell to live with.

So we have the stupid 'Sex and Violence' WHY?
There should be nothing violent about sex unless the male is unnaturally aggressive and this is what we see too much of on the screen.
The cinema since 1970, has portrayed sexual matters with seediness and aggression instead of the beauty it should have.

Cheeky Bob spoke of 'subtlety' and the old cinema had this in spades. The hidden cleaver meaning for the audience to think about - this is art. All the old war films did not show bad language but every patron knew how a soldier would use it - this was cinema art. 'Films reflect real life' they cry. I say films should paint a picture of real life, a reflection of it. Escapist films make the most money.
My point being, Coronation Street has had umpteen murders robberies rapes and violence that can not be real life! This amount of strife does not happen in any street. Instead cinema does its best to show more badness than exists. How is this 'real life'?
Above all, young formulating minds are shaped by what they see and hear so we see copycat actions. I strongly believe that youth crime and low behavior is a result of inputs from films, TV and magazines.

(3) Film should inspire humanity upwards - spiritual. A subtle teaching aid, spread the facts. The pen is mightier than the sword. Absolutely, the spoken word is stronger than graphics than can mislead.
We therefore should have the best of writers without bigotry, a fair portrayal of the subject.
Rather than gratuitous sexual content I would prefer artistic erotica! The sexual act can be visually boring but erotica can be a pleasure to see but I do not mean rudeness.
There is nothing displeasing about the nude body in private situations. The audience must be prepared for it - expect it - rather than the current 'you must see the following whether you like it or not!'
The point has been made; why do women cover up after having (apparent) sex on the screen? I say, why must we see subliminal sex! Instead she might say 'darling, that was wonderful' before walking naked to the bathroom (and I do not want to visit the bath room along with the camera!)

(4) Culture. I would like each country to promote its own culture for we are all equal one way or another and equally interested in each other. Persons viewing a British film in China do not really want to see the same shop fronts they have themselves. I would like to see the real Chinese culture or Russian culture or Spanish and British films should promote ours to them - creating better understanding. They would be equally interested.

(5) I would like to hear the English language spoken well (even with accents) as it once was, the camera staying stable longer and not drunkenly wondering around. I would like to see the traditional full body or half body shots rather than the constant close ups that hide so much of the background (in silly darkness) that can add so much interest to a scene. The 'scenery' as it used to be mattered. Dial M' For Murder shows the flat in great detail as above.

(6) Obviously Hollywood has the punch and the cash to make blockbuster films - let them do it! I would prefer the British film industry to be financed with British money to make sure of our cultural identity. It would mean smaller budgets but for first class films to show a maximum return. The English language is the most spoken around the world - we do have a huge potential but do we have the will?

[DB7]

Originally Posted by john audley (1) I am convinced that since 1960 (and the angry young men - kitchen sink era) 'art' has slowing diminished from our films. I do not mean 'art house' films for a minority I do mean mass market films. 'Dumbing Down' has been a consistent process.

I'm not sure I agree, maybe the balance between arty films and populist films isn't quite right and few films have crossover potential. Many of the 60s kitchen sink films managed that fine balancing act of being challenging whilst also appealing to the masses; few manage today apart from the likes of London to Brighton or Meadows' films.

(2) Pornography. I do mean the worst excesses of sexual content matter that is gratuitous and, also, likewise violence that is exceptional that I also consider pornography. For those who want these they should be outside of mainstream cinema.

Can't even say this is an issue for me with British films, the sexploitation films of the 70s pretty much burnt out the subject and in mainstream cinema I think it's more prevalent in the US. What is pornography in a mainstream film? T&A like Basic Instinct?

Should add that films like Bound and Last Seduction do the noirish erotic thriller very well.

(4) Culture. I would like each country to promote its own culture for we are all equal one way or another and equally interested in each other. Persons viewing a British film in China do not really want to see the same shop fronts they have themselves. I would like to see the real Chinese culture or Russian culture or Spanish and British films should promote ours to them - creating better understanding. They would be equally interested.

The real Chinese culture? The Chinese culture on screen is what the censor wishes you to see (they'll not be Tibet protests that's for sure).

What is our culture? That 'tourist' image that Working Title sells so well to the US?

[batman]

What I want is probably tied up with what I miss ....

DRAMA
I miss watching British films that I can relate to, films about people who experience similar ups and downs in their lives as me. No doubt someone will point out some great classic of social realism, but I cannot personally relate to films about domestic violence, homosexuality in the family, drug addiction in inner cities any more than I can to films about ditzy London booksellers who marry Hollywood movie stars. Sure I know such terrible things go on, I encounter most of it at work every day, but I would like to see the odd film about a family or individual who experiences everyday difficulties. Interesting dramatic situations do not always have to involve drug dealing gangsters in decaying inner cities populated by multi-cultural groups constantly at each others throats. There is space for these sort of dramas but let's have something a bit more 'real' to the likes of me, an ordinary joe leading an ordinary life which sometimes gets frayed around the edges.

THRILLERS
I miss thrillers that set out to do nothing but entertain. The Brits used to make some marvellous thrillers but these days they all have to have some sort of 'message' or 'agenda'. Of course some thrillers from way back used to have a 'message', but as Moor Larkin pointed out in another thread, the writers were more subtle about how the 'message' was woven into the story. Todays writers seem to prefer the sledgehammer to crack a nut method.

COMEDY
Comedy films in the UK at the present time seem to fall into two categories. The 'quirky' comedy and the 'romantic comedy'. We seem to be doing better at comedy than any other genre at the moment. What I miss is the real old fashioned 'family' comedy .... films like Please Turn Over and the 'Doctor' films. We've had some really good comedies over the past few years but none of the ones I see are really suitable for all the family. Ones for kids are often too puerile for adults and some designed for teens are beyond the comprehension of adults. Adult comedies which kids can enjoy as well don't seem to exist any more.

These are just my own feelings about the films I would like to see made in Britain. We have some great actors and directors but the writing often comes up short. There was a time when much of the cinematic talent was drawn from the theatre .... these doesn't seem to be the case these days. The crossover seems to come predominantly from TV, and we know how crap most of that is!

[CaptainWaggett]

I'd just be glad if some British films would get some sort of distribution outside film festivals and a couple of weeks at an arthouse in London. Look through the programme of any film festival a year later and see how few films get seen here outside the mainstream US studio productions.

[Moor Larkin]

Get all film production and anything else to do with British Films out of London and the Home Counties, and then hope for the best

[john audley]

Hi and good morning and thanks for coming back on this one.

To: DB7
The 1960s low subject films were popular at the time - ground breaking perhaps but they were miserable (Saturday Night and Sunday Morning etc). I say our films now should show the positive as much as possible. Be uplifting. happy people buy tickets (I say). This is not to deny the truth but I claim that the truth is not as bad as the media keeps pushing.

I can watch pornography sure, (in very small doses) but I get annoyed if the whole purpose is to inspire lower thinkers to a film (porn films are more honest - the subject matter is the truth)
The Michael Douglas films do this and the promotion made sure you knew about it. Pornography was the point of Basic Instincts but British cinema need not go down the same route - we can not control Hollywood if it controls us!

Culture, I meant really when we might make a film or part content of a foreign land - it should not be biased it should be accurate. Summer Holiday in 1962 received much stick from Yugoslavia when (they claimed) it showed the country as being backward. I was exceptionally impressed with their national bus service when I used it!
What foreign lands do with their culture to us is their business but we do not have to buy it or believe it.
There is far too much of 'politics' in all film production (spreading distrust around the world). Evil is out there but keep it proportional?

You make the point for me re the US. I know in the 1950s and after they would not circulate our films to best and found silly excuses on occasions. Like our language could not be understood in some areas! Yet we must endure their products when the language is unintelligible to me most of the time and we have their culture totally dominant to us.
So we patronized them (or they us) when we chose to include constant reference to the USA in our films or imported American actors or Britain had to be portrayed as some mystical comic land. Hollywood now dominates our film output and (apart from earnings) do us no real credit as I can see,

Bats: Most agreeable

Captain Waggett. Film distribution. to the 1960 - 1970s we did have a sound film distribution system but this again is now taken by America and our films must comply (this is how it seems). Who owns most of the cinema complexes her?
He who pays the Piper.....

[Moor Larkin]

Originally Posted by john audley Film distribution. to the 1960 - 1970s we did have a sound film distribution system but this again is now taken by America and our films must comply (this is how it seems). Who owns most of the cinema complexes her? He who pays the Piper.....

Lord Rank was constantly blocked by anti-monopolist forces within the British government from obtaining full power over British films. Only he ever came close to competing with the Americans and he was largely destroyed from within

[john audley]

Originally Posted by Moor Larkin Lord Rank was constantly blocked by anti-monopolist forces within the British government from obtaining full power over British films. Only he ever came close to competing with the Americans and he was largely destroyed from within

This sounds as if we are back with the dreaded 'politics' again and conspiratorial thought might argue that certain minds do not want a free film industry?

[Moor Larkin]

Originally Posted by john audley This sounds as if we are back with the dreaded 'politics' again and conspiratorial thought might argue that certain minds do not want a free film industry?

No really, more the thought that any healthy industry would come from unfettered imagination and freedom rather than woolly-minded liberalism and ideas about what people might like or approve of. Plus the attitude that if something makes money it must be taxed out of existence.

The same reasons we haven't got one are why we never will.

[DB7]

Originally Posted by john audley This sounds as if we are back with the dreaded 'politics' again and conspiratorial thought might argue that certain minds do not want a free film industry?

Other European countries see film as part of their culture and are protectionist towards it, but over here we've allowed the US majors to monopolise distribution. It might be something for the MMC to have a look at but in the past they've always found their is a monopoly but made recommendations about strengthening independent cinema or promoting British films overseas - never confronting the major circuit at home.

[john audley]

Thanks DB7 but I do think we should move back to a quota system I know France has put up a definite effort and 50 per cent of the films would be a good aiming point.
Any foreign dominance will push its own culture although America claims to be a melting pot of many - and it is - there is no country on the planet who puts self interest first! This attitude goes back to the second war at least - they strongly believe that the USA won both of the big wars - but that is another good debate.

Our two countries have much in common divided by language as someone said and this is a good point for Hollywood can dominate via the English language - around the world - although it could be improved in some of there films. Their old films seemed to take pride in the better speech - Bet Davis for instance, she could have been from Surrey.

[Moor Larkin]

Funnily enough I was reading an archive American newspaper review of Hell Drivers just the other day. The American journalist referred to that film as signalling Rank was increasingly abandoning its traditional fare (Robert Morley was mentioned by name) and attempting to take on Hollywood on its own turf with fast-moving spectacle and violence; features that were known to appeal to the American cinema-goer.

The article finished by suggesting that the British should be careful not to throw all its eggs out of the basket as there was clear demand for the more typically British pictures.

Nobody reads American newspapers in Britain of course, so the message never got through.

Thrusting executives busy in the International Media City that is London probably have no more sense of loyalty to British creativity than the men in the City Finance Houses have, to British engineering and British manufacturing industry.

[Buffalo_Chuck]

JohnA, you use "should" and I don't do that. "Could", however, probably produces the same level of disappointments for me as your "should" does. I think laziness is the large factor. It's easier to copy. It's easier not to think. It's easier not to be creative. Assure the finance people that this template worked before and they'll keep handing over money because it's easier for them to be lazy and hope for the best, rather than spending time, looking for good, creative ideas. That takes real effort, real imagination. It's much easier to be lazy.

[john audley]

Originally Posted by Buffalo_Chuck JohnA, you use "should" and I don't do that. "Could", however, probably produces the same level of disappointments for me as your "should" does. I think laziness is the large factor. It's easier to copy. It's easier not to think. It's easier not to be creative. Assure the finance people that this template worked before and they'll keep handing over money because it's easier for them to be lazy and hope for the best, rather than spending time, looking for good, creative ideas. That takes real effort, real imagination. It's much easier to be lazy.

Hi Chuck! I was referring to the past tense, the British film industry did have a quota system once. I do not wish to criticize Hollywood unduly, it has made some spectacular films and with great scripts. The whole point of this thread for me is to say 'look, the viewing paying customers should be the Kings (or Presidents!) of what appears on the screen and main stream cinema should be uplifting'.
I would argue that good creative ideas (you have just had a writers strike?) comes from the best writers who deserve the best pay and this will bring in the crowds.
I thought that intelligent writing was better for this aim and should please the moguls otherwise I am wasting my time with this thread logic.

Producer spend zillions on the effects (and actors?) and minimum on the script logic.

[Steve Crook]

Originally Posted by john audley Hi Chuck! I was referring to the past tense, the British film industry did have a quota system once. I do not wish to criticize Hollywood unduly, it has made some spectacular films and with great scripts. The whole point of this thread for me is to say 'look, the viewing paying customers should be the Kings (or Presidents!) of what appears on the screen and main stream cinema should be uplifting'. I would argue that good creative ideas (you have just had a writers strike?) comes from the best writers who deserve the best pay and this will bring in the crowds. I thought that intelligent writing was better for this aim and should please the moguls otherwise I am wasting my time with this thread logic. Producer spend zillions on the effects (and actors?) and minimum on the script logic.

Which do you want, the customer to be king and have public opinion determining what appears on screen? Or do you want good writing?

The sad fact is that populist rubbish often outsells well written, high quality work

Steve