djdave

"The most interesting thing about the British film industry is the fact that it never really existed. Television is often blamed for its demise but the fault lies elsewhere and goes back much further in time. Since the early 1900s, it has undergone a piratical process of Americanisation, until, by the 1960s, it was as much American, if not more so."

This is the first paragraph to an essay I did in late 1991 for a media studies course. Prior to researching the piece, I'd assumed that Hollywood's stranglehold on English-language films was a relatively recent thing. Not so. Even more interesting was the idea that we only had ourselves to blame. The British were at the forefront of cinema technology in the early 1900s, but right from an early stage the Government - and businessmen involved in the industry - weren't interested.

Whatever you may think of the French, they have a very healthy native film industry. Same for the Italians. American films co-exist easily with their home-grown product. Perhaps it's the language barrier: perhaps the Americans haven't been so bothered about those countries because they don't speak English.

What does everyone think?

Ambrosia

Sackless Drivle if ever I heard some, wake up and look around.

It is cruel to discover one's mediocrity only when it is too late.

Iain1962

Hi there.

I agree that prior to WW1 the British film industry (which I seem to recall reading was based around Brighton and surrounds for many years) was arguably on a par with the US film industry in terms of creativity and technical quality. Probably the biggest blow to the industry was the war itself when most of hte leading lights behind British cinema were killed in combat. I don't have a list of names but I'm pretty sure that many of the most prominent names up to 1914 failed to appear after the conflict.

I don't think that you can really blame the Americans for taking over the industry in the UK - they were just taking advantage of a gap in the market. I'm no expert on early European cinema but I'm pretty sure that the people and organisations responsible for producing the key works of their cinemas prior to WW1 were still doing it post-1918 thus preserving some form of continuity which we couldn't do.

I think there's also the problem of the fact that cinema in the UK has never really been taken seriously as an art or cultural form especially when compared to theatre and television (whose roots are firmly established in the theatre anyway).

I'd like to read more of your thesis - maybe you could post it on a web page?

Cheers.

Iain

djdave

'Fraid it 'aint drivel. The majority of British film are - as they always have been - only technically British. So long as a certain proportion of the labour costs are paid to UK nationals, a film can be legally defined as "British": the entire creative team can be American and the film can be wholly financed and distributed by Hollywood companies, with any profits going over to America.

By 1925, only 5% of films shown in Britain were British i.e. Britons financed them and took the profits. Writing in 1970, Raymond Durgnot’s opinion of this was that many films made in this country were “to all intents and purposes” indistinguishable from American ones. (Durgnot, R., (1970), A Mirror for England: British Movies from Austerity to Affluence, Faber and Faber) Although this particular reference is a bit old, if you know of a more recent one which has more encouraging statistics, please let me know.

Channel 4 has made a valiant effort to finance British cinema, and I believe some films have been financed - at least in part - by the Lottery. There have certainly been some independent productions over the last few years. But it hasn't been much. And they certainly haven't competed with what Hollywood has to offer.

Which films are you refering to, when you say "look around"? I'd be intrigued to know if there's a clutch of successful British - i.e. wholly financed in Britain - films of which I'm unaware.

djdave

I've still got the piece on computer. If I knew how to put it onto a web page, you'd be more than welcome to read it!!

You're right: WWI didn't help, because it killed off a lot of our talent. Nor did the fact that films were considered as merchandise and not art. Many of the Britons involved in the 20s and 30s were perfectly happy to show Hollywood films, rather than make their own, because it was easier and there was perceived to be more profit in it.

That's not to say that mainstream Hollywood films don't exist to make a profit. But the fact is, they DO exist.

sanndevil

Pedant's corner - it's Raymond DurgnAt in case anyone wants to look up this excellent reference. I've never liked the guy's writing style, but he sure as hell knows his territory!

And don't start me on the Lottery funding again!

DB7

You seem fixated on finance. How did this Americanisation you speak of manifest itself on the screen?

Steve Crook

Ray Durgnat did tend to see everything in terms of the class struggle. But as you say, he did know his films and if you can look past his political slant there's some great writing there. And he had a lovely turn of phrase as well. Who can argue with someone who describes "(Michael) Powell's colour by pyrotechnicolor"

Steve

djdave

I take your point about the misspelling: I must have copied it down wrong way back in 1991, and it's been wrong ever since.

The other references I used were:


Manvell, R., (1969), New Cinema in Britain, Studio Vista Ltd

Betts, E., (1973), The Film Business: a history of British cinema, 1896-1972, George Allen and Unwin

Docherty, D., Morrison, M. And Tracey, T., (1987), The Last Picture Show? Britain’s Changing Film Audience, BFI Publishing

Dickinson, M. and Street, S., (1985), Cinema and State: The Film Industry and British Government 1927-1984, British Film Institute


Even in 1991, the most recent was already four years old. Obviously, therefore, things may have been written since which paint a more optomistic picture (if you'll excuse the pun). If anybody knows of a more recent book, let me know.

But for an examination of the decline and fall of British films, from the early 1900s to the late 1980s, they're all good.

djdave

Increasing numbers of American films and American-financed, but British made films shown on screen.

For example, Wallace and Gromit's Curse of the Were-Rabbit has just won the Oscar for Best Animated Feature. Well done, us Brits. But did you know that the film was partly financed by America's Dream Works Animation?

Sad but true.

Steve Crook

Given the long Dream Works animation at the start, yes, I would imagine many people do know that.

Steve

DB7

Well derr. Using your rule of thumb the likes of MGM, UA and Columbia are making Japanese films as they are holdings of Sony, and 20th Century Fox are a subsiuary of Aussie Rupert Murdoch. Many Hollywood films are also financed through German tax havens (in exchange for the film rights) but nobody classes these films as anything but American. Only the anally retentive and ridiculously pedantic will trace film funding right back and try and claim that equates to a films land of origin. As our government now realise you must factor in cultural appendage or the whole issue becomes a farce.

Wallace and Gromit may have a deal with Dreamworks, so what? It's still Nick Park and Steve Box that create the characters and storyline (ie the film), just stumping up money wih no creative input can't give you claim to a film.

As I said previously, if there has been Americanisation how did it manifest itslf in the completed film? (And I mean prior to Working Title)

djdave

Fair point about Japanese holdings in US-based studios and Rupert Murdoch's 20th Century Fox/German tax deals.

However, there's no need for personal insults. If you don't feel that the funding source has a bearing on the paternity of a film, then that's fine. But I thought the whole point of a disucssion forum was to air differences of opinion: name calling is a bit lame, don't you think?

I think the point you're making regarding "Americanisation" is that British films don't look or sound American. But if it's set in Britain and concerns British issues, then it probably wouldn't.

Moreover, your point about the creative input of W+G's creators actually lends support to my own. If just stumping up the money, without any creative input, doesn't give you claim to a film then what about when you put the money up AND supply the creative input?

djdave

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic. If you are, bear this in mind: Dream Works' involvement may be obvious, from the animation at the start, but only if you've seen the film.

I haven't and nor, I suspect, have thousdands of other people.

Ambrosia

My appology, I will withdraw my comments and to you research if that is how you see the British film industry, however although Hollywood has dominated the British industry prior to WW2 and replaced it during the war since then I conced that there has not been anything like the power of the film mogals in Hollywood, and if your point was to say Hollywood has and will dominate British film production and provide its consumption with blockbuster type films then I agree and this forum and website is probably based on those who are in denial of your hypothesis. will get back to you in more depth, later.

It is cruel to discover one's mediocrity only when it is too late.