End of the line for the British film comedy?

[julian_craster]

Where is Sir Norman Wisdom when you need him ?


End of the line for the Britcom?

Three and Out's makers thought their film was something special. It turned out to be a dismal flop. How did they get it so wrong? Owen Gibson reports

Friday May 9, 2008
The Guardian

Since it first crept on to our screens seven years ago, it has entered the canon of classics that have revolutionised television comedy. Those who appeared in it have been showered with awards, praise and leading film roles. But there is one aspect of The Office's legacy that is less than sparkling - the British films that used its actors as their selling point. The presence of Martin Freeman (Tim), Mackenzie Crook (Gareth) or Lucy Davis (Dawn) in the cast list has helped secure funding for a run of movies that at best were sporadically amusing (Confetti) and at worst downright terrible (Sex Lives of the Potato Men). Now that the latest, Three and Out, has hit the buffers, it could spell the end for this curious British film-making subgenre.

It is one that its ultimate Godfather, Ricky Gervais, has repeatedly tried to dissociate himself from. Although he would never criticise his former Office co-star Crook directly, Three and Out was surely precisely the sort of movie he was talking about when I interviewed him following the success of Extras. "After the second episode of The Office went out, I was offered the lead role in a film," he recalled at the time. "I hate it when a British comedian [becomes popular], the first thing they do is appear in four films and they're all terrible, lottery-funded, tacky shit. They're on the side of buses for one week and then they go straight to DVD. That goes into your goodwill pot. I see all these people that release stats about how much money they made and I think, good luck to you if that's what you're here for."

Now you might think Gervais is being sanctimonious, or even that he is setting himself up for a fall, given that he's currently directing his first feature film in the US. You might even, recalling his appearance in Night at the Museum and given his expression of similar sentiments since, think he is being a tad two-faced. But you can't deny that he has a point.

When the backers of Three and Out, the latest in a less than proud lineage of British comedy turkeys starring names who made their reputation on the small screen, dreamed of causing an industry buzz with their first feature, this probably wasn't exactly what they had in mind. The quote from TV and radio presenter Eamonn Holmes that headlined the second wave of its advertising blitz declared Three and Out was "the film everyone is talking about". Sadly for its makers, it was for all wrong reasons - and it was also the film that no one was actually going to see. In its first week of release, it didn't trouble the box office scorers, taking just £189,454. To add insult to injury, the No 1 film that week was Forgetting Sarah Marshall - the latest in a production line of US comedy hits aimed at a similar audience and one that managed to succeed in making a bona fide star of a UK TV name in Russell Brand.

Three and Out didn't dent the top UK's box office top 10 despite a huge marketing spend and a widespread release. That failure may just have sounded the death knell for the breed of Britcom it represents. Others were disappointed because a film that could have established a new force in British film-making outside the usual funding routes - the new production and distribution companies behind it are both bankrolled by money raised by Aaron Gershfield, brother of the film's director, Jonathan Gershfield - appears to have faltered at the first hurdle.

Worldwide Bonus Entertainment, a new entrant into the cutthroat world of independent movie distribution, had been hoping the movie would kick off its new integrated company. It has signed a five-picture deal with Rovinge Motion Picture Company (also apparently funded by Gershfield), the first fruit of which is Three and Out. The company boasts on its website that a "generous P&A budget" is a vital ingredient for success. P&A - prints and advertising - refers to the amount distributors spend on the prints distributed to the cinemas themselves and the amount they pour into marketing.

Filmgoers, particularly those in London, are unlikely to have been unaware of the film's existence. For weeks they have been bombarded with ads. From the moment they stepped out of the door, Crook's distinctive hollow-cheeked visage stared at commuters from billboards and the sides of buses. As they opened their morning paper, they could expect to be confronted with huge press ads covered in endorsements from such noted film critics as Giles Vickers Jones of Love It magazine ("Putting British comedies back on track") and Justin Matlock of North London Newspapers ("Loved it! Three really is the magic number").

A glossy website, which also attempted to tap into the controversy engendered by the charges of insensitivity made by the train driver's union Aslef ("Join the debate!"), was the icing on the cake. Meanwhile, armies of enthusiastic amateurs were recruited to ram the message home online in forums and on fansites. None of this is unusual for a new movie. What was surprising was the sheer volume, and the amount of money it cost, for a film of its size.

Some industry sources estimated the film had spent more in a short period of time than some blockbusters would burn through in their entire UK runs. Others close to the production insist it was nowhere near that much, but concede it was far more than necessary and insufficiently targeted. "It fell between several stools," said one.

Despite the spend, the film was poorly received. The Independent on Sunday found it "lamentable", the Times said it "starts falling apart the moment you locate a seat" and the Guardian found it "just another depressing, mediocre, muddy-looking British film that wastes an awful lot of talent". If that wasn't enough to put you off, it also features an ill-advised cameo from Kerry Katona.

Over the past decade, the Britcom has become a rite of passage. Even a moderately successful TV comedian can expect to see film offers flood in. Take one or two rising stars, add a dash of experience in the form of a handful of recognised and respected domestic character actors, market heavily and sit back. Unfortunately for Crook, he also starred in the movie that has become the nadir by which all other British comedies have come to be judged - Sex Lives of the Potato Men. Yet even that 2004 outing, in which he and Johnny Vegas co-starred as sex-obsessed potato delivery men from Birmingham, managed to get its hands on a decent amount of cold hard cash at the box office - something Three and Out has signally failed to do.

Ever since Jaws hoved into view, bringing with it the advent of the event movie and making the opening weekend the defining factor that would determine a film's success from failure, producers have longed to perfect the alchemy of pre-release buzz, marketing spend and the number of screens on which a film opens. Getting the balance between the three right remains more art than science, but marketing and distribution experts think the kitchen-sink marketing plan for Three and Out got it all wrong.

"Marketing is far more sophisticated than people will have you believe. It's very easy to over-market, so that the hype reaches fever pitch prior to the actual opening. That way, some people feel like they have already seen the movie. This happened with Snakes on a Plane," says Adam Rubins, the former marketing director at Buena Vista International, who now runs Way to Blue, an online film marketing company that specialises in placing free promotional content (trailers, interviews, extras) on partner sites.

"The trick is to create a hunger for a product and then feed it within reason so that fever pitch meets the release of the movie. In terms of British comedies, it's all about supply and demand. There is always a demand for an engaging British comedy. Comedies are low-budget with a high return, so from a business perspective, they are very attractive. The only problem is that film distributors and production companies have recognised that, followed a trend and flooded the market with the same movie."

In the case of Three and Out, making the film so visible appears to have backfired. Those close to the campaign point out that the film got some good reviews and that word of mouth might have helped its cause if it hadn't been so overhyped. But even the film's supporters, who concede it could have done with a more vigorous script editor but argue that it is in fact a more thoughtful and sensitive film than it would appear from its advertising, concede that Gershfield and his producer - 26-year-old Wayne Marc Godfrey - got "a bit carried away" with the marketing. The ham-fisted attempt to create a controversy around the Aslef protests appeared to backfire, while the marketing onslaught only served to disprove the maxim that all publicity is good.

A spokesman for Worldwide Bonus Entertainment said it was "obviously disappointed" at the film's performance and that early indications were that Aslef's intervention had "affected us quite badly". It said the criticism of the film from the train driver's union had given audiences the wrong impression. "The real frustration is that it wasn't really a film about suicide but a film about attempted suicide that is very touching in places," he added. The "exuberance that has taken us to where we are" would now be transferred to the DVD release, he said. "We're certainly not writing it off. We still have high expectations for Three and Out and there's no reason to suspect it won't be a slow burn," he said.

Still, those who attended last night's glitzy "fish and chip supper" in Los Angeles, for the inaugural US version of the British Comedy awards, might like to ponder the fate of Three and Out. And comparing the wit and invention of the programmes nominated for its best TV programme award (Gavin & Stacey, Little Britain, The IT Crowd and Extras) with the paucity of the film list (two Simon Pegg pictures in Hot Fuzz and Run Fatboy Run, plus Magicians, the first cinematic outing for David Mitchell and Robert Webb) might also give pause for thought. Because, in the tabloid ubiquity of Gavin & Stacey co-writer James Corden and the rush of praise afforded the programme following its recent Bafta wins, you can sense the whole cycle starting again.

From The Office to ... the bin

How TV success did not mean movie stardom for the cast of the hit sitcom

Martin Freeman

In The Office: Tim

The film where it all went wrong: The All Together

What the critics said: "Utterly pointless" Guardian. "Could well be the worst British film of the year" Daily Mirror; "Sheer, grinding unfunniness" Sunday Times

UK box-office takings: £7,553

Lucy Davis

In The Office: Dawn

The film where it all went wrong: Rag Tale

What the critics said: "A boring mess" Guardian. "The plot's so stupid that it wouldn't get in the Sunday Sport" Independent on Sunday; "Literally unwatchable" Daily Mail

UK box-office takings: £10,900

Mackenzie Crook

In The Office: Gareth

The film where it all went wrong: Sex Lives of the Potato Men

What the critics said: "A film which isn't in the slightest bit funny or sexy, and is deeply depressing" Guardian; "A masterclass in film-making ineptitude" Times; "Never has a film targeted a common denominator quite so low" Observer

UK box office takings: £725,000

[davidb]

perhaps the uk public has more taste than theyre given credit for !

[batman]

You can't really blame the actors for these dreadful films .... these people have to earn a living and if this is all that is on offer they can't really say 'no'.

MacKenzie Crook seems to be a bit of a one-trick pony but Martin Freeman is a talented actor. He deserves better scripts.

[samkydd]

Originally Posted by batman You can't really blame the actors for these dreadful films .... these people have to earn a living and if this is all that is on offer they can't really say 'no'. MacKenzie Crook seems to be a bit of a one-trick pony but Martin Freeman is a talented actor. He deserves better scripts.

I'd agree, the main problem being that using cast members who have been successful in previous offerings doesn't necessarily mean that a film is going to be any good. Like English footballers, many actors become "flavour of the month" too early and can seemingly do no wrong, but they can't make a film succeed on their own.

Like most things in life the creation and execution of a good idea is everything, and if you don't have the skills to accomplish even the basics in writing a good story and then being able to interpret it for presentation on the screen then it's doomed from the start.

Unfortunately many creative people are not working in the industry, it now seems to be a closed shop dominated by accountant types and upper middle class tossers who like the idea of a career in film and television but have neither the wit or the imagination to contribute anything worthwhile. People should go into film making on merit rather than via unrelated academic qualifications or nepotism, and if they're not creative then they should be pretty easy to weed out and discard within a few weeks and save an awful lot of time and money in the process.

[john audley]

It is clear to me that the buffoons that are dominating British 'comedy' writing/producing now fail to realize that the best comedy must be clean comedy! (Two Way Stretch - The Wrong Arm of the Law etc).
The Carry On's were hit and miss because of the innuendos that did not always work.

[DB7]

It's very selective to fit the articles stance, you could say Mackenzie Crook in Pirates of the Caribean or Martin Freeman in HHG2G. I'm sure a good comedy is likely to be just round the corner.

[smiffy]

Originally Posted by batman You can't really blame the actors for these dreadful films .... these people have to earn a living and if this is all that is on offer they can't really say 'no'. MacKenzie Crook seems to be a bit of a one-trick pony but Martin Freeman is a talented actor. He deserves better scripts.

I know what you mean about MC Bats ,but I think of him in the same mould as Bernard Bresslaw.
Bernard was a fine actor , but due to his physical attributes he was always destined to be typecast as a comedic actor,which is how I see MC .
Martin freeman on the other hand is quite an ordinary looking bloke ,who seems to have a natural talent for dead-pan comedy but offers much more.
I think he deserves better scripts as much as the "Great British film watching public does "
Sam Kydd is right ,there are too many people in the industry who are devoid of talent ,and are trying to make films to make money using some kind of formula known only to themselves

[batman]

Originally Posted by DB7 It's very selective to fit the articles stance, you could say Mackenzie Crook in Pirates of the Caribean or Martin Freeman in HHG2G. I'm sure a good comedy is likely to be just round the corner.

I have a great comedy script sitting in my study that got a fine report from the Film Council's script reading service a few years ago ..... unfortunately we couldn't get anyone to stump up the cash.

So if anyone has got a few hundred grand to spare, it's called Dead Dogs Don't Cry and is about .... but that would be telling!

[Cheeky Bob]

Originally Posted by john audley It is clear to me that the buffoons that are dominating British 'comedy' writing/producing now fail to realize that the best comedy must be clean comedy! (Two Way Stretch - The Wrong Arm of the Law etc).

I'd disagree with this on principle anyway, but especially in a week when Radio 4 paid lavish tribute to Withnail & I, for my money the greatest and funniest British comedy of the last thirty years - but hardly something you'd take a maiden aunt to.

What matters isn't the script's moral stance but whether or not it's any good to begin with. Withnail's script was honed for over a decade, and every word was polished till it gleamed (in fact, I can't think of a British film since Kind Hearts and Coronets that generates so many laughs simply from a perfect turn of phrase). By contrast, most British comedies these days rarely get beyond the first couple of drafts - and it shows.

And another crucial difference between Withnail and Three and Out is that the former achieved its reputation entirely on merit: the initial marketing spend was so minuscule that they might as well not have bothered to draw up a budget at all.

[batman]

While I am not a fan of Withnail and I, I think Cheeky Bob has hit the nail on the head. Any film, especially comedy, has to have a quality script to have any chance of success. Four Weddings and a Funeral went through umpteen drafts before arriving at the one we see on screen. Unfortunately that kind of dedication appears to be in short supply these days. A lot of Brit films seem to be of the 'knock 'em out cheap and quick' variety.

[Cheeky Bob]

The biggest problem, and it's a nut we seem no closer to cracking, is that British film companies still don't spend anything like enough money on development. Whether these statistics are still valid today I'm not sure, but in the mid-1990s I read an article that alleged that Hollywood typically spends 10% of a film's budget on development (primarily script development), while in Europe it's less than 1%.

It shows.

And until we grasp that particular nettle, the likes of Withnail (a special case, because it was such a personal project that Bruce Robinson was happy to work on it unpaid for years) are going to be radical exceptions to the general run of Three and Out imitations.

What's interesting about the Three and Out débâcle is that they clearly DID try to resolve our other perennial problem - not spending enough on distribution and marketing - but they'd have been far better off spending that money on a decent script in the first place. For the most part, British producers are just too stingy to pay writers for more than a couple of drafts, and it's a completely false economy.

[batman]

Originally Posted by Cheeky Bob And until we grasp that particular nettle, the likes of Withnail (a special case, because it was such a personal project that Bruce Robinson was happy to work on it unpaid for years) are going to be radical exceptions to the general run of Three and Out imitations.

I totally agree. Although I wouldn't claim our script is of the quality of Withnail and I .... we spent a long time writing it and went through umpteen versions before deciding on one we liked. However, that version is still only classed as a 'first draft' until it moves into the production arena. Then more drafts may be required before anything appears in front of a camera. We started writing our first version in 1994 and it took three years before we were happy with it .... and that was in our own time, no one was paying us. There are very few 'overnight successes' in the film world, especially with regard to scripts.

[Cheeky Bob]

It's interesting that the article quoted Ricky Gervais, because of course he and Stephen Merchant are also exceptions to the general rule, in that they also refuse to put their scripts into production until they're note-perfect. The quality of The Office wasn't down to beginners' luck - it's because said beginners took time to get it right.

It's also revealing that on both The Office and Withnail (each directed by their scriptwriters, which didn't hurt), the actors were ordered to stick rigorously to the text - there was no room for improvisation or clowning around.

In other words, having a good script is only part of the battle - trusting a good script is also important. Especially in the face of incomprehension from the men in suits - HandMade's Denis O'Brien nearly shut down production of Withnail because he thought it was too murky and that Uncle Monty should be played like a camp limp-wristed stereotypical old queen. In fact, as we all know, Richard Griffiths went on to create one of the most gloriously nuanced and rounded (in every sense) characters in all of British film comedy, precisely because he trusted Bruce Robinson's script enough to underplay things.

[john audley]

Originally Posted by Cheeky Bob I'd disagree with this on principle anyway, but especially in a week when Radio 4 paid lavish tribute to Withnail & I, for my money the greatest and funniest British comedy of the last thirty years - but hardly something you'd take a maiden aunt to. What matters isn't the script's moral stance but whether or not it's any good to begin with. Withnail's script was honed for over a decade, and every word was polished till it gleamed (in fact, I can't think of a British film since Kind Hearts and Coronets that generates so many laughs simply from a perfect turn of phrase). By contrast, most British comedies these days rarely get beyond the first couple of drafts - and it shows. And another crucial difference between Withnail and Three and Out is that the former achieved its reputation entirely on merit: the initial marketing spend was so minuscule that they might as well not have bothered to draw up a budget at all.

Sure, I mean everything will be tasteful to somebody but I was looking at it from that old fashioned perspective of commercialism - i.e., no funding from the Arts Council or the government. A project that must stand on its own feet.
The old philosophy was that a film should be welcomed by all ages to stand the best chance of maximum incomes and distasteful comedy will not do this.
Films that do not contain unnecessary rudeness (Raiders of the Lost Ark for instance) will far out gross those that do. My point was, the same applies to comedy in films.

[Cheeky Bob]

Originally Posted by john audley The old philosophy was that a film should be welcomed by all ages to stand the best chance of maximum incomes and distasteful comedy will not do this.

The "old philosophy" was coined in an utterly different commercial environment, where the cinema was the focus of mass audience entertainment, and you didn't need a large-scale marketing campaign, because people would go and see your film anyway simply because it happened to be playing at your local. This isn't the case any more, so a film needs to have an authentic marketing hook in order to get bums on seats.

You claim "distasteful comedy will not do this", but what was the most successful British-made comedy of recent years, albeit largely US-set and funded? Few comedies are as demonstrably distasteful as Borat, or more replete with gloriously unnecessary rudeness, and yet it took an absolute fortune.

In fact, Borat is an interesting case study in generating across-the-board appeal. Clearly, under-15s are excluded by default, but it managed to be funny enough to appeal to people merely in search of a good time, and intelligently multi-layered enough to garner good reviews from highbrow critics and appeal to a far more discerning audience. Even my parents went to see it, and they're Merchant-Ivory fans in their seventies. (And they loved it).

Films that do not contain unnecessary rudeness (Raiders of the Lost Ark for instance) will far out gross those that do.

I'm fascinated by this - so you're saying you have less problem with graphic gore (people being sliced up by aeroplane propellors, run over by trucks in close-up, or having their faces melting and heads exploding) than the occasional bit of innuendo? Which, for what it's worth, Raiders of the Lost Ark ALSO has!