Define

[A Pemberton]

I know its a big question but how do we define what is a British movie today

Could we call An american werewolf in london a British film?

Is Pacinos Revolution a British film? I dont think we would want claim it is [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/no.gif[/img]

Was Alfie (Michael Caine) a paramount backed I think, one?



and how far do we go back in time for a totally British studio based cast/star/financially backed production?



I would welcome your comments

[Wetherby Pond]

This is a perennially thorny question, not least for anyone with a professional interest in whether or not films are British (for instance, anyone taking advantage of tax breaks), and the answer invariably is: "it depends on the individual film".



To take your three examples (all excellent ones), they're all officially 'British' (the Monthly Film Bulletin records them as such), but this doesn't necessarily mean much, as the 1978 Superman is too - but that was purely for tax reasons. But I think you can construct a pretty good case to say that they're all British from a cultural as well as a financial perspective.



Alfie is the easiest one - pretty much 100% British cast, crew, locations and subject matter, it was produced by the British company Sheldrake Films with financial backing from Paramount's short-lived UK subsidiary. So I'd say this is unarguably British.



An American Werewolf in London seems slightly more problematic, as its director and two of the leads hail from the US. But the supporting cast, crew, locations and subject matter are overwhelmingly British, as was the funding - it was one of PolyGram's first forays into film-making. So I wouldn't have any problem defining this one as British either.



And although Revolution looks least like a British film - its subject-matter and setting being clearly American, and its star Al Pacino - it was shot over here, funded by Goldcrest, and the overwhelming majority of the people on the payroll were British. So I'd say that's another definite yes.



As for your second question, 100% British films are being made to this day. I just picked Shane Meadows' Dead Man's Shoes at random and can't detect any obvious non-UK involvement aside from a small financial contribution from the European Regional Development Fund - but since that's our money at base, I don't think that counts!

[A Pemberton]

The films mentioned were more examples than strategic choices but I think these and many more films can be called "British " because of the contribution made by either an actor/ producer /director/technician et al .The point about Superman is well made, you also could consider Douglas Slocombes cinematography style of superman another part of its Britishness(is there a word britishness!)

There is also the question of directors ,Alan Parker ,Adrian Lyne add a style to their directing of american subjects.

I think we all agree that although Bridge on the river kwai was a William Holden star vehicle, Alec Guiness and David Lean were the reason of what it is .

We should applaud a british contribution to any film,in any field of excellence the british "feel" of it .

The definition of a British film today is still open to debate,the cultural, financial and style defintions are very blurred.

[Wetherby Pond]

I think it's more a question of "feel" than individual nationality - as I'd argue that the most "British" thing Ridley Scott ever directed was his Hovis ad from the 1970s! Most of his films are unchallengeably American (in both content and tone), as is most of Hitchcock's post-1940 work.



I'd also be hard pushed to identify much that's specifically British about Cary Grant's work - North By Northwest is an interesting case study since it nominally has a British director, star and villain (James Mason), but I think it's squarely American in almost every respect. (For much the same reason, though in reverse, Bridge on the River Kwai is British).



I don't really go along with the "well, it has a British director and/or cinematographer so it must be (partially) British" argument, because I don't think anyone would dispute that the 1939 The Four Feathers was British. Yet its director, producer, co-writer, production designer and composer were all Hungarian!



For what it's worth, I think the current legal definition of a British film is by far the most elegant a government has come up with - it's a film where at least 70% of the budget has been spent on British people, goods and services.

[A Pemberton]

I must say the government definition is as you say an elegant description and is I think the best possible marker to call a film British.On the question of directors it is natural progression for the best British directors to aspire and to go to Hollywood(Ken Loach an exception!),But as you say they make american films ,I think or maybe I hope they retain that British feel in their style of directing,but its not going to be a truly British film.

This also brings forth another question that if the americans didnt take all our talent what an incredible film industry we would have ,if all the finance was available and british skills were used at home .I have a sneaky admiration for the French in this regard ,they guard their industry and its talent for their own use and the french film industry is as vibrant as ever,perhaps the language and French government play a part in this but a French film is what it says ,a home grown French production.



I only hope that the enthusiasm and finance to make British films continue and possibly a return of the type film industry we had from the thirties to the seventies

I can but dream.

[Craig Mason]

<span style="color:blue"> There is a legal definition of what constitiutes a British film: Wetherby Pond has already touched upon it, but it's a bit more involved than that.



To qulaify as British, a film needs to meet the critria set out in Schedule 1 ofd the Films Act 1985. This stipulates that at least 70% of the film's expenditure must be incurred in the UK or fulfil the terms of an international co-production agreement to which the UK is signatory. (You can see full details here)



It should be borne in mind that these criteria are primarily, if not exclsuively, financial ones - they don't require any more than a certain percentage of expenditure is spent in the UK and don't have any 'cultural' element. This has given some rather odd results - Sense and Sensibility was not a Britsh film, but Eyes Wide Shut was...</span>

[Wetherby Pond]

Originally posted by A Pemberton@Apr 24 2005, 02:53 PM

This also brings forth another question that if the americans didnt take all our talent what an incredible film industry we would have ,if all the finance was available and british skills were used at home .I have a sneaky admiration for the French in this regard ,they guard their industry and its talent for their own use and the french film industry is as vibrant as ever,perhaps the language and French government play a part in this but a French film is what it says ,a home grown French production.

<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

The great advantages the French have are that they take film seriously as an art form (and always have done) and they don't share a common language with the US. As a result, with the exception of a handful of megabudget productions like The Fifth Element (shot in English), the primary audience for French films lives in France.



But even so, they need massive amounts of government subsidy, and a huge amount of crap gets foisted on French cinemas as a result of various quota agreements (I think something like 30% of all films on release at any one time must be French). By contrast, on an average week fewer than 5% of UK releases originate here.



And, as Jonathan Gems persuasively argued in this recent article (one of the best I've read on the subject in recent years), this isn't going to change without massive government intervention of a kind that's anathema to the centre-right administrations that have ruled since 1979.



And it's got to be massive, as breaking the stranglehold that the Hollywood majors have on the UK market requires primary legislation - and nerves of steel. Unlike the French who merely had to piss the Americans off during the early 1990s GATT trade negotiations (when they successfully secured an exemption for audio-visual products, i.e. French films), a British equivalent deal would have to undo roughly six decades of entrenched special interests and would almost certainly imperil other trade agreements between Britain and the US as a side-effect.



Which is why it ain't gonna happen (not least because, unlike the French, the British don't give that much of a toss about their native film industry), and why we should stop trying to compete with Hollywood and concentrate on our real strengths.

[Steve Crook]

The trouble with that Jonathan Gems article in the Indie is that he doesn't really address the problem. Firstly he doesn't really try to define what is or isn't a British film. But he also ignores the fact that it's not really who made the film that's important, it's who controls the distribution.



That's why J. Arthur Rank started up in the film business when he couldn't get his first film Turn of the Tide distributed, so he set up his own film company and bought up the Odeon chain of cinemas.



If the cinema chains and video & DVD distribution companies are owned by non-British organisations and most of the money (that is where the money is made after all) isn't fed back into making more films then I don't see how things can get much better.



Marx didn't get it quite right. It's not the control of the means of production that's important, not when the distributors can control the profits and choose where those profits go.



Steve

[Wetherby Pond]

Originally posted by SteveCrook@Apr 24 2005, 09:02 PM

The trouble with that Jonathan Gems article in the Indie is that he doesn't really address the problem. Firstly he doesn't really try to define what is or isn't a British film. But he also ignores the fact that it's not really who made the film that's important, it's who controls the distribution.<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

I'm slightly bemused by this, since the Gems piece constantly refers to distribution (a search on the prefix 'distrib' turned up a dozen instances), and includes this passage:



A revival of our industry cannot be achieved while governments cling to an absolute belief in the free market. Besides, it's hypocritical of the government not to protect British films when it protects British television. In TV, legislation dictates American products cannot take more than a 30 per cent share of terrestrial broadcasting. We won't have a film industry until we're releasing at least 50 films regularly each year. For this to happen, we don't need grants or lottery funds, we need bankers who understand the movie business - and we need a measure of protection. All the government has to do is inform UK distributors that 20 per cent of the films they release must be British. Local distribution and marketing managers will welcome this because it will make them important players in the new British film industry. And, although their foreign parent companies are bound to squawk, they will still retain 80 per cent of a lucrative market.



Does this not address precisely the point you're accusing him of ignoring?

[Steve Crook]

Originally posted by Wetherby Pond@Apr 24 2005, 10:48 PM

I'm slightly bemused by this, since the Gems piece constantly refers to distribution (a search on the prefix 'distrib' turned up a dozen instances), and includes this passage:



A revival of our industry cannot be achieved while governments cling to an absolute belief in the free market. Besides, it's hypocritical of the government not to protect British films when it protects British television. In TV, legislation dictates American products cannot take more than a 30 per cent share of terrestrial broadcasting. We won't have a film industry until we're releasing at least 50 films regularly each year. For this to happen, we don't need grants or lottery funds, we need bankers who understand the movie business - and we need a measure of protection. All the government has to do is inform UK distributors that 20 per cent of the films they release must be British. Local distribution and marketing managers will welcome this because it will make them important players in the new British film industry. And, although their foreign parent companies are bound to squawk, they will still retain 80 per cent of a lucrative market.



Does this not address precisely the point you're accusing him of ignoring?

<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

Not precisely. It goes a fair way towards it though. I've seen this article so many times in other groups and many of them didn't quote the whole article. That 20% idea could help - although it should include the exhibitors as well. His point about their being told not to deal with HandMade is a telling one.



However, it would need to be done carefully. Quota systems have never worked very well in the past.



Steve

[Wetherby Pond]

Originally posted by SteveCrook@Apr 25 2005, 08:35 AM

However, it would need to be done carefully. Quota systems have never worked very well in the past.

<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

This is why it's an almost inconceivably huge job, as you have to take every element of the development-production-distribution chain into account and make sure that everything is operating up to par before any significant and measurable improvements can be made.



All too often, government intervention only tackles one small part of the equation, which is normally worse than useless as you end up with situations like the late 1920s (a quota but without enough high-quality product to justify it = cinemas showing crap) or the late 1990s (huge boom in production, but poor distribution and development = tons of crap and no cinemas prepared to show it).



I haven't read into this in any detail, but wasn't the Australian film industry essentially kick-started by massive government intervention round about 1970 covering everything from basic training up to distribution? The result: virtually no significant Australian films in the 1960s (the high point arguably being Michael Powell's They're A Weird Mob, which was both directed by a foreigner and nowhere near the standard of his best work), but a veritable explosion of high-quality work in the 1970s - and despite a few wobbles since, the Australian industry still seems to be doing pretty well, not least in terms of attracting big projects like the Star Wars films.



And of course Peter Jackson has more or less single-handedly built a viable industry in New Zealand, though again there was a huge amount of government backing - as someone pointed out, his notoriously gory schlockfest Braindead was partly funded by the Kiwi equivalent of the BFI!

[Steve Crook]

There's a very good article about the quota system on the British pictures site In Praise of the Quota.



It might have been a good system if there had been any mention of quality. But it was OK to turn out any old rubbish. Film-makers were paid by the length of film regardless of how much time or money they spent on them.



But they were a good training ground for some directors who saw how to take advantage of that system. Michael Powell used it to experiment with as many different styles and techniques as he could. Not all of them worked, but you can sometimes see things that he first tried in the quota quickies being done again (and done properly with more care) in his later films.



And talking of Michael Powell, as I have been known to do occasionally, They're a Weird Mob might not have been one of his best, but it did do quite a lot to kick start the Australian film industry. If we ignore The Story of the Kelly Gang (1906) then They're a Weird Mob might be considered to be one of the first Australian films that got an international audience.



Steve

[Craig Mason]

Originally posted by Wetherby Pond@Apr 24 2005, 10:48 PM



A revival of our industry cannot be achieved while governments cling to an absolute belief in the free market. Besides, it's hypocritical of the government not to protect British films when it protects British television.

<span style="color:blue">Surely it is wrong to say that the Government have an absolute belief in the free market or that they do not protect British films. Not only do they offer tax breaks which other countries would die for, but they also dole out grants to Britsh films paid out of lottery money.



What's that if it's not protection aginst the free market?</span>

[Wetherby Pond]

Originally posted by Craig Mason@Apr 27 2005, 07:37 PM

<span style="color:blue">What's that if it's not protection aginst the free market?</span>

<div align="right">Quoted post</div>

It's nowhere near enough, though - as Gems points out, the market is so rigged in Hollywood's favour that this kind of intervention ultimately makes very little difference. In the case of the late 1990s Lottery/tax-incentive boom, all that happened - and this was totally predictable, and indeed predicted by many - was that there were vastly more films chasing the same minuscule number of screens prepared to show them.



Effective government intervention needs to tackle distribution and exhibition, not production. True, there are EU incentives (the MEDIA programme has been a godsend for smaller distributors), but that's just a drop in the ocean.