'It's no wonder nobody watches British films'

[Lord Brett]

I'm being dragged against my will to see 10,000 bc tonight. Just the sort of brain-dead American effects-fest I can't be bothered with, but I know darned well my local multiplex won't have a single British film on unless it's a low-brow horror flick.

Having said that, I might be posting on here tomorrow to say how much I enjoyed it, though generally, if I want to see I film with a dinosaur, there has to be a small Japanese man inside it fighting Mothra!

[penfold]

The sad thing is that if you read any British Film trade magazine from the 1920's onwards, you will see the same arguments rehearsed, with only the names changed....US cinema was able to achieve a dominant position as a result of the economic disruption of the First World War, and the coming of sound simply nailed them in that position..no longer could contnental European films get worldwide distribution in the same way as their silent predecessors. Experiments in Multilingual versions, dubbing or subtitles never have compensated for the lack of natural dialogue in the viewer's tongue. The next best thing was to hear it in a universal language - English, thanks to our Empire - and America was in a better economic position to dominate....largely using continental European behind-screens talent, and UK performers. It was always thus, and so really the best we can hope for is the current niche industry with the occasional world hit; whether as in the 1930's and The Private Life of Henry VIII, or The Red Shoes, or Chariots of Fire, Four Weddings, or Atonement (apparently a bigger hit in the States than here). Australia is in much the same position.

[homeguard]

After the sentiments expressed on this thread, I hardly dare, but here goes....
Could it be that we are more realistic in our outlook as a nation, and only ever went to the cinema for a little escapism and to view a super-hyped musical, such as the King and I, etc? Once television came on stream, which it did in the early sixties, there seemed little point in dragging off to the local 'flea-pit' , as we called them then, to watch anything other than a blockbuster from over the water. If we were going to retain a film industry we had to compete with the Americans, and with a home audience tucked up in front of the telly, where was the incentive to invest in a battle with the American studios. I have heard it said by many American servicemen who visit our shop that our television is so much better than theirs which, if as good as ours, would keep them out of the cinema also. So I suppose we should be grateful for the artistic quality we have in documentary and drama even if it isn't on the big screen. I miss the cinema experience, but not the twenty quid's worth of junk treats my children expect before sitting down to watch Harry Potter.
Regards,
HG

[cbig]

Does anyone actually watch Ken Loach films?Surely not.

[batman]

Originally Posted by cbig Does anyone actually watch Ken Loach films?Surely not.

I do ... Land and Freedom was excellent.

[christoph404]

Originally Posted by DB7 I'm not sure it's that simple. If you look at some of the big successes of the past decade or more like Trainspotting, The Full Monty, Billy Elliott, Secrets and Lies and Lock Stock they often featured virtual unknowns (or people more noted for their tv work) and there was no inclination towards making them acceptable to overseas markets; had that been an issue Danny Boyle and Guy Ritchie would have opted for actors with watered down accents. Boyle is especially interesting as despite using DV and the then unknown Cilliam Murphy he still knocked out a film that produced $50m+ profit. Bottom line is that if the film is strong enough people overseas will check it out. (in the way Croupier flopped here but was a sleeper hit Stateside)

"Croupier" was given a release by the BFI as a "favor" to Hodges as they had just re-released "Get Carter" There were initially only two prints made for the UK first release, a rubbish poster and no advertising, Film Four made a trailer which for one reason or another was not used and Film Four shelved the film. The film received good reviews but with practically no distribution in the UK it didn't so much as flop as no-one got to see it! I think Mike Hodges nearly jacked in film making at that point, he had such a bad experience in the UK just trying to get his film shown. It got picked up in America and made $8 million, only then did it get a re-release in the UK. I've never understood that, Mike Hodges is a British film maker of considerable reputation and achievement but in 1999 in the UK couldn't get a proper distribution in the UK for a critically acclaimed film. He has since had two major retrospectives of his films in the USA, one at the LA Cinema Tech and Museum of Modern Art. Has anyone any suggestions as to why he seems to be ignored in Britain? It seems scandalous to me, but he is a good example of a British film maker who is popular in America so its a mystery to me that he is not doing more.

[batman]

Croupier is a fine film and Hodges even manages to draw a decent performance out the usually leaden Clive Owen. It is stylish, atmospheric, well written and has Nicholas Ball in it! What more could you want?

[Piccadilly]

A lot of British films are tat because each aspect of production's subject to rushing. Paradoxically, it's often the "depressing, dispiriting" films that break that trend and have a bit of oomph about them.

[john audley]

Originally Posted by Piccadilly A lot of British films are tat because each aspect of production's subject to rushing. Paradoxically, it's often the "depressing, dispiriting" films that break that trend and have a bit of oomph about them.

I have just commenced a new thread 'what do we want from the British Film Industry'?
I do hope it may inspire something.
Cheers