samkydd

Instead of the BBC wasting money on Freeview channels for non-licence payers ie. CBeeBies or whatever this inane drivel channel for kids is called, why don't they do a TCM? Give people a dedicated film channel to include unfashionable monochrome old films, but no advert breaks, and no streetwise young BBC type presenters who can hardly string a sentence together "Nah wot I mean!", and put it on round the clock! It would be worth the licence fee on its own and save them a few quid!

"...the chairman of Littlewoods stores made a Keynote speech!"

Wetherby Pond

I actually think CBeebies is pretty good, but then I suspect I see rather more of it than you do on account of having a two-year-old child. Far from being "inane drivel", I'm genuinely impressed at the way it combines education and entertainment without any advertising (which I feel particularly strongly about when it comes to children). It's exactly the sort of thing the BBC should be doing - especially as its target audience is inevitably going to be several orders of magnitude bigger than an audience for obscure black-and-white films.

The answer to the question "why don't they do a TCM?" is that Ted Turner owns a vast library of classic films already, whereas the BBC would have to licence them from the rights holders, so their operating costs would be much higher. Carlton tried something along these lines a few years ago with the Carlton Cinema channel (like Turner, but unlike the BBC, they have a big library of titles to draw on), but it bit the dust a couple of years ago in the wake of the ONDigital/ITV Digital debacle (in which Carlton were major players).

So you should ideally be approaching a major rightsholder in the first instance - Granada being the obvious one at the moment, as it's the only one I can think of that combines broadcasting interests with a very large library of classic films (they recently acquired the old Carlton library - i.e. Rank, Gainsborough, Korda and many others). And don't whatever you do slag off their other projects in the process, as that's a cast-iron guarantee that your letter will either be binned (the best outcome) or widely circulated and mocked (the worst!).

samkydd

So what you're saying is that the BBC have the right to use TV licence money to fund minority channels accessible only to those people who can afford to buy a Freeview box, and live in an area where they actually function properly. You are also saying that terrestrial BBC television channels don't provide quality programmes for children, therefore you need an exclusive channel for your children to watch!

If this is the case then children from poor families, or who live in remote rural areas where Freeview doesn't work, are only allowed to see the poor quality terrestrial channel children's programmes! Surely the high quality children's programmes should be on terrestrial TV anyway! Or is this the BBC's way of introducing children to the harsh reality of society where those who can afford quality get it and those who can't, don't!

You are obviously an expert on all things BBC and television in general so I'll refrain from voicing any opinion in future!

"...the chairman of Littlewoods stores made a Keynote speech!"

Wetherby Pond

With the very greatest respect, I'm not saying anything of the kind, and the rest of your post goes on to ascribe similar opinions to me which I have not expressed and which I don't necessarily hold.

You seem to have misinterpreted my initial defence of CBeebies as being some kind of unqualified endorsement of Freeview and the digital divide in genera l, and have decided to run with this side-issue instead of tackling the points that I was actually making as a direct response to your call for a British TCM.

In fact, despite quoting it in full, you've ignored the last two-thirds of my post and by concentrating exclusively on the BBC you've also missed my main point – which is that the BBC is far from being the best-equipped organisation in terms of creating what you're after. TCM was created by a man who was already sitting on a gigantic film library and wanted to find a way of maximising its value. The BBC also has an amazing library, but of its own programmes, not of classic British films.

So the companies best equipped to match what Ted Turner did are those like Granada and Studio Canal, who between them already own the UK rights to the vast majority of "classic" British films – which is why it makes much more sense to lobby them instead of the BBC. Not least because if a channel along the lines you're calling for actually gets off the ground, whoever runs it will unavoidably have to strike a deal with them anyway.

samkydd

You're perfectly correct in what you say. I have a bee in my bonnett over Freeview and the BBC because I don't think that it is right for the BBC to use licence payers' money to fund television channels that are not freely accessible to all licence payers. I'm not knocking CeeBeeBees in particular, its the principle of it. It's like paying council tax and having to pay an admission charge to go into your local library or town hall.

"...the chairman of Littlewoods stores made a Keynote speech!"

smudge

Here we go again....

"Thank you for your e-mail regarding BBC film policy.

I am sorry that you feel there is a clear bias in the BBC towards 'blockbuster' films and American products.

You are correct in your recollection that, like other television organisations, we normally purchase films in packages rather than as individual titles meaning that the quality and subject matter of each batch is not strictly under our control. We aim to transmit each film two or three times within its normal seven-year licence period in order to make it a worthwhile acquisition.

BBC Television aims to show a reasonable number of feature films distributed throughout the daytime and evening slots during the week, with more shown during the holiday periods when more viewers can watch them. We are keen to show more BBC-produced material during peak-viewing time.

In relation to your point about the presentation of monochrome movies, there is a view that paying for a colour television licence fee should not include black and white programmes such as old feature films. In fact, there is no reduction in the actual cost of transmitting black and white material as opposed to colour.

Many classic feature films and television programmes were made in black and white and continue to be enjoyed by audiences young and old to this day. Like your self, we believe that we are right to show such material. If we did not, our viewers would lose out on much worthwhile entertainment and cinema history. Virtually all programmes made today are in colour as are the vast majority of the films we show.

I hope this does not come across as an attempt to 'fob you off' but rather as an honest account of BBC policy in relation to screening home-made and foreign films.

May I re-iterate that the notion of impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC and that the BBC serves the nation as a whole, recognising and responding to all different tastes, views and perspectives.

I can assure you that your comments will be recorded and made available to programme-makers and senior management within the BBC.

Thank you once again for taking the time to voice your concerns."

Regards


BBC Information

Doesn't really SAY anything, does it ?

SMUDGE

Welcome to my house. Enter freely, and of your own will...

howard 65

Why are there so few British films on our TV in this multi-channel age?

I couldn't believe it when I saw ALL OVER THE TOWN is being shown on American TCM. Since the demise of Carlton, the choice is lamentable here. Our TCM have been showing the same hundred films for the last ten years.

Ascoyne D'Ascoyne

I can't answer that one but I can pose another question,
"Why are there so few different American films, or indeed films from any source shown here?"
It's been lamented before on this site that the television companies churn out the same films over and over again. I can recall a time -just- when it wasn't unusual for the BBC to show non-English language films on a fairly regular basis. Perhaps people can't cope with reading the subtitles nowadays.

Moor Larkin

I beg to differ. There are lots but they tend to be in daytime slots or very early evening. FilmFour (freeview) does show them and is trying to do an evening modern British season again at the moment.

Recent examples in the daytime schedules included "The Amazing Mr. Blunden" which has done two Threads here recently.

BBC4 also shows British movies in an early evening slot quite often and even More4 I think......

I would agree that they tend not to be 'Primetime' though. That's reserved for Reality Shows............

[code]http://www.flickr.com/photos/29487363@N02/sets/72157606700675506/code]

DB7

It's something myself and Deckard have contacted the BBC over (they'll be old threads on it) in the past but the replies have always been unsatisfactory. CH4 aren't the worst offender but ITV normally struggle to hit their legal quota (mainly via repeated Bond showings) and the BBC tend to miss the required figure.

MrT

I fully agree with Howard65's comments. My main interest is in British Cinema of the 30s, 40s and 50s and whilst it is true that some films of the 40s and 50s are still screened, it is the same small minority of titles that are repeatedly shown again and again and again. Even a quick glance through David Quinlan's reference book will show that there are literally hundreds and hundreds of films that have not had even one screening, even though still in existance. As for the 1930s, that era has disappeared from the schedules completely. Up to about 1995 there was a small trickle of films screened, C4 showed a number of quota quickies from the 30s as well as most of the Jessie Matthews musicals, Will Hay and George Formby comedies, but now virtually nothing. Can anyone remember accurately when the last 1930s British film was shown, other than maybe one of Alex Korda's technicolour films such as The Drum or The four feathers?

Before people say that anything worth screening has been shown, here are some better films that surely deserve screenings:

1. From the 30s some of the missing musicals include starring vehicles for Stanley Lupino, Gracie Fields and other top stars. Also, some quota quickies from prestige directors such as Michael Powell such as Crown v Stevens deserve an airing. Early works from the Boulting brothers could be shown - Inquest (1939);
other thrillers from companies such as Associated British -Dead men tell no tales; The return of carol Deane (1938) etc.

2. From the forties, why is so little seen now from British National - dramas such as The Agitator and Appointment with crime, both with William Hartnell (Dr Who) in early roles? And films with top stars such as Margaret Lockwood and James mason - Alibi (1942); Dear Octopus (1943); The upturned glass (1947) etc? Rex Harrison in Escape (1948) ?

3. From the fifties even some Rank films are not shown - eg. The secret place (1956), directed by Clive Donner with Belinda Lee & David McCallum; Missing comedies from the likes of Ronald Shiner (Worm's eve view) and Arthur Askey (Friends and neighbours; Ramsbottom rides again);

I have collected films on VHS since 1980 and estimate that over that whole period only around 1200 films from the 3000+ listed in Quinlan's reference book have been shown. So I think the tv companies could be doing a lot lot better - I live in hope...

Mike (MrT)

Moor Larkin

Is it British or Old or Old British that is at the heart of the problem?

Assuming advertisers are not interested in sponsoring old black and white stuff it would seem to be one for the BBC, to fund out of the TV tax. I suspect the staff at the BBC have a vested interest in making stuff: ie keeping their jobs, rather than one or two blokes clicking the video-machine to Play every two or three hours.

I have read some statistics that I made up, which suggest old repeats cost the broadcaster about £30K/hour compared to a new programme costing £100K/hour. Maybe this cheapness is an opportunity for Pay-per-view if the digital revolution we keep being promised ever happens.

But then of course it might be still cheaper to buy the DVD set.

[code]http://www.flickr.com/photos/29487363@N02/sets/72157606700675506/code]

Cuffy

The actual costs issue could be an interesting one.

If we're talking the older material, I've often wondered if there isn't a whole untapped market out there that marketing bods have thus far missed - in terms of opening up interest amongst the modern audiences.

Then again, perhaps I shouldn't be wishing for such things - I guess it also opens up the whole potential for misuse of older material.

Moor Larkin

Has anyone else caught any of Paul Merton's progs on BBC4 referencing the old Silent Comedy Stars? I caught Laurel & Hardy, who I always loved, and Harold Lloyd. I thought the structure of the programme was quite good.

Seasons of 'directed by' might be interesting. To serve any purpose though they should be comprehensively obscure. No point in doing one on Terence Young and only showing Dr. No.......... It's Zarak I really want to see!! .

Films like The Third Man could be given a whole new interest if prefaced with an historical backdrop for people who don't even remember the Berlin Wall, never mind the central Europe of a decade or so before it, whilst access to post-cold war archives could also refresh old duffers like me. I often wonder if movies can tell people more about what it was like think in the past than all the fact-laden documentaries can, poilitically-incorrect cliches and all.

[code]http://www.flickr.com/photos/29487363@N02/sets/72157606700675506/code]

Client Fan

Admittedly paraphrasing Don McLean in my post title, there is a direct correlation between the burgeoning of multiple-choice viewing options in the mid/late 90s and the decline of all sorts of weird and wonderful films on terrestrial TV.

That's the Nature of the Beast I'm afraid (to cite just one example of a British film that hasn't been shown on British terrestrial TV since 1991).

There are soooooooooo many many films that once reliably appeared on British terrestrial TV - some 'staples', others gathering a few years' dust inbetween screenings - that are now guaranteed never, ever to be shown again.

When terrestrial TV was the only choice there was, it made economic sense - people would watch whatever was put in front of them, regardless of issues of 'quality' or 'culture'. Now it's simply all about market forces, corporations and competition.

I became seriously addicted to films on TV, as a developing adolescent who decided cinematic escapism was a much preferable alternative to the lunacy of real teenage life, round about 1991.

Fortunately, I am also blessed with a semi-photographic memory and so carry round with me in my head, courtesy of memories of old TV and Radio Times listings, an extensively useless mental list of thousands of films, with approximate transmission dates, between the 'glory' terrestrial years of 1991-1995. That's roundabout when the state of terrestrial TV British/World/old/obscure film coverage started it's fairly vertiginous collapse from 'saturation' to 'non-existent'.

I now suffer from a frequent, disconcerting switching between a dream nostalgia state of recollections of, and the nightmare about the evanescent unavailability of, films I once saw courtesy of the good old British Box that have never been released on DVD (and in many cases VHS) - and now never will be. For better, worse, richer or poorer, I will never again have the chance to give these films a second opinion.

Thank God I taped, and kept, but a mere fraction of them onto old Scotch VHS tapes.