The British Film Industry

Transcription

1 Media Studies Number 100 The British Film Industry The aims of the Factsheet are to: give a definition of British film outline the problems the British film industry faces suggest strengths of the British film industry and possibilities for the future What is a British film? In order to be defined as British, a film needs to do more than simply feature British characters or represent a British way of life. In fact, the film has to meet one of the following three requirements: ( 2011/05/British-Film.jpg) be produced according to one of the UK s official bilateral co-production treaties If a film is made with one of the nine countries that have active bilateral treaties with the UK, the producers can apply for BFI funding and benefit from the UK s tax relief system. The countries that UK filmmakers can work with are: Australia, Canada, France, India, Jamaica, New Zealand, South Africa, Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Treaties are in development for Morocco and China. If a film is a co-production, it is classified as a British film and does not need to also pass the Cultural Test. be produced as part of the European Convention on Cinematographic Co-production This allows up to three countries within the European Union to work in partnership on film production. Countries outside the EU are also able to contribute towards funding in addition to the three EU countries as long as the proportion of money they provide does not exceed 30% of the total budget. pass the Cultural Test If a film does not qualify as a co-production, it must pass the British Film Institute s Cultural Test in order to be defined as British. The Cultural Test is divided into four sections and a film must score at least 16 out of a possible 31 points to be classified as British. Points A - Cultural Context A1 The film is set in the UK 4 A2 The lead characters are British citizens or residents 4 A3 The film is based on British subject matter or underlying material 4 A4 The original dialogue is recorded in mainly the English language 4 B - Cultural Contribution B The film represents or reflects a diverse British culture, heritage or creativity 4 C - Cultural Hubs C1 British studio and/or location shooting, visual effects or special effects 2 C2 British music recording, audio post-production or picture post-production 1 D - Cultural Practitioners D1 British director 1 D2 British scriptwriter 1 D3 British producer 1 D4 British composer 1 D5 British lead actors 1 D6 Majority of cast are British 1 D7 British key staff (lead cinematographer, lead production designer, lead costume designer etc.) 1 D8 Majority of crew are British 1 So, a British film can be defined as any film that has been funded according to the bilateral co-production treaty or the European Convention and / or has scored at least 16 points on the Cultural Test. 1

2 The following films can all be defined as British. Use and to find out how they qualify. How have they been financed and what do they score on the Cultural Test? Film Reasons it can be defined as British ( The Sweeney (dir. Love, 2012) ( Attack the Block (dir. Cornish, 2011) ( The King s Speech (dir. Hooper, 2012) ( /posters/we-need-to-talk-about-kevin.jpg) We Need to Talk About Kevin (dir. Ramsay, 2011) ( AAAAAAAAJeY/Z_c5jzHoVr4/s1600/Skyfall-Quad-Poster.jpg) Skyfall (dir. Mendes, 2012) 2

3 Problems faced by the British film industry Historically, the British film industry has been production led rather than distribution led. This means that many UK films are made but, in order to get the film exhibited, the filmmakers have to sacrifice the distribution rights by selling the film to a distribution company. Once sold, all revenue from cinema screenings, DVD and Blu-ray sales, plus sales to television companies, are lost. Even a highly successful British film is not necessarily making money that will be reinvested in British filmmaking. For example, though based on a novel by an Indian writer and telling a tale set in the slums of Mumbai, Slumdog Millionaire (dir. Boyle, 2008) is classified as a British film since its production was financed by two British companies, Celador Films and Film 4 productions, along with Pathé Pictures International, a French production company and distributor. In addition, the film s screenwriter, director and leading actor are all British. The film cost under 10 million to make but went on to take approximately 235 million at the world wide box-office. ( poster/mpw-55462/ Slumdog_Millionaire.html) However, though Pathé retained the film s international distribution rights, North American distribution rights were purchased for $5 million by Warner Independent Pictures, who subsequently sold half the rights to Fox Searchlight Pictures, both American companies. This means that around 90 million in American box-office takings will benefit the US film industry rather than the UK film industry. In addition, any profits from the sale of the film in any format in North America are the property of these two companies too. This production led approach to filmmaking means the British film industry is often described as a cottage industry. This suggests it is small-scale and, whilst making unique and distinctive products, can never truly compete with the factory industries of the Hollywood-based studios. This notion is reflected in the practice in British filmmaking of establishing a company to make one film and then promptly dissolving the business upon the film s completion. Also, 95% of film companies in Britain employ fewer than ten people so it is no surprise that they cannot compete with large-scale American film production companies who are part of wider conglomerates, employing thousands of people on a global scale. American production companies can survive a weak box-office performance as the principle of synergy means the film can still make a profit in the end. The different elements of the conglomerate can work together to sell the product so profit can be generated by merchandise sales, including the DVD and Blu-ray release. For example, Pearl Harbor (dir. Bay, 2001) was considered a box-office flop as it cost $140 million to produce but only took $500 million at the world wide box-office. Though this sounds like a great deal of money, a film with such high production costs would barely breakeven with those takings. Luckily for Touchstone Pictures, the film was distributed by Buena Vista both in North America and internationally. Buena Vista and Touchstone are both part of the same conglomerate so, when the film went on to be hugely successful on DVD, the profits stayed within the company who had originally financed the film. This process is rare in the UK as only Working Title, which made such British films as Bridget Jones Diary (dir. Maguire, 2001), Notting Hill (dir. Michell, 1999) and Love Actually (dir. Curtis, 2003), is part of a wider conglomerate. With a cottage company, it is impossible to deliver a production line of products because one film failing to be sold to a distributor is enough to bankrupt the company. A consequence of this is that finance for British films is hard to come by and any integrated support from other British media is limited. The BBC only spends 1% of its revenue on filmmaking and only Channel 4, through its Film4 programming, have fully supported the British film industry over the last two decades. Approximately forty fully British films are made each year compared to Bollywood where a thousand films a year can be said to be Indian. Choose one of the British production companies below to research. Find out about the company s history and choose a film they have produced to write a case study on. How much did the film cost to make? How was it distributed? Who owns the rights to the film? How much profit has it made? Decide whether the film has been a success for the film production company and whether this has benefited the UK film industry as a whole. Aside from the production company s official webpage, you could also use and ( wyznyclwlfy/s1600/working_title_films_logo.png) ( ( vertigo_films_logo.jpg) Other problems faced by the British film industry include the following: American actors are seen as more glamorous than their UK counterparts so a big, Hollywood name is often drafted into the lead role of a film in order to encourage the audience to see it. Examples include Julia Roberts in Notting Hill and Renee Zellweger in Bridget Jones Diary. This can affect the Britishness of the production, even when the lead actor is putting on an accent (which would usually be English). Typically in the UK, theatre acting is seen to be of greater worth than film acting so film has never been seen as a worthy artform. This is partly as a result of Britain s great literary heritage but has been compounded by government attitudes. For example, in the government paper Government and the value of culture published in 2004, the then culture secretary, Tessa Jowell, made no mention of film as a significant cultural medium. Despite Britain having many talented production personnel, the lure of better pay and conditions in Hollywood is often too great for them to remain in Britain. For example, directors such as Ridley Scott and Sam Mendes and actors such as Christian Bale, Tom Hardy and Kate Winslett, have all chosen to base their careers predominantly in the Hollywood film industry. Britain shares a native language with America so it is very easy for American films to be exported to the UK. Countries that have a native language that is not English find it easier to run their own language film industry alongside American imports. 3

4 ( Hardy-as-Bronson-001.jpg) Despite starring in British films such as Bronson (dir. Refn, 2008), Tom Hardy s most recent films have been Hollywood productions such as The Dark Knight Rises (dir. Nolan, 2012) and Warrior (dir. O Connor, 2011). Strengths of the UK Film Industry Despite intense competition from Hollywood and the ongoing issues of funding and marketing, Britain has had a film industry since well before World War I and several important film studios are British, such as Ealing Studios and Pinewood Studios. The British film industry has several strengths that make it the third biggest film industry in the world. British films take 5% of world box-office takings, which is extraordinary for such a small nation. British films are not so fortunate and have to rely on finding smaller amounts of money from a combination of different sources. The British Film Institute (BFI), which replaced the UK Film Council when it was closed by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government in March 2011, is responsible for assigning funds allocated from the National Lottery each year. There are four funds that filmmakers can apply to for partial funding of their production, distribution or to help with exhibition costs: the Film Fund According to the BFI website ( this fund is intended to support filmmakers in the UK who are emerging or world-class and are capable of creating distinctive and entertaining work. The fund has an annual budget of 15 million to invest in pre-production, production and postproduction of films. In addition, the BFI has a team of experts who can help the filmmaker during development and production. the Innovation Fund This fund supports projects that can help the UK make a successful transition into the digital age. This includes investing in new ways of getting films to the audience, in distribution and in developing modes of exhibition. In the past, this fund has been used to finance the Digital Screen Network, which facilitated the installation of digital projectors in 240 cinemas in the UK, and a pilot project which is attempting to bring films to rural communities via the latest digital equipment. the Prints and Advertising Fund Even when British films get made, it is often difficult to find additional funds to market the final product so audiences are unaware the film exists, do not go to see it and the film s boxoffice takings suffer accordingly. The Prints and Advertising Fund has an annual budget of 4 million used exclusively to raise awareness of films through distribution and marketing. ( Sir Alan Parker, a British film director, producer, writer and actor believes the British film industry is strong for the following reasons: outstanding creative skills of practitioners Directors like Richard Curtis have made films, such as Love Actually (2003), which have grossed billions of dollars worldwide and intellectual property, such as J. K Rowling s Harry Potter books, have also enabled British film production companies to be involved in the production of financially successful franchises. outstanding facilities British studios, camera companies and digital post-production houses all attract investment from filmmakers around the world, especially the USA. These attributes have been recognised by some organisations that have sought to offer either financial aid or training opportunities to ensure that the British film industry continues to operate in a competitive global market. Funding British films Finding adequate funding has always been an issue for British filmmakers. Whilst the average Hollywood blockbuster can expect to secure a budget of $100 million from the big, American studios, ( 4 the Film Export Fund This fund is for filmmakers whose films have been selected for screening at international film festivals. Film festivals are an important way of making distributors aware of new films so it is crucial that specialist films, namely those that are different from mainstream or commercial films, are shown to as wide an audience as possible. The fund aims to help reduce the financial risk for distributors who wish to buy British films and it has an annual budget of 200,000 per year. Further reading go to to read about the BFI s strategic five-year plan to support British filmmaking between 2012 and In addition to the BFI funds specifically for production and distribution, funding and bursaries for training can be accessed through Skillset, the Sector Skills Council for Creative Media. In 2009, five key areas for development were identified to ensure UK filmmakers are highly skilled and can compete in a global marketplace. These were: training in new technologies improving business skills developing creative talent investment in trainees enhancing health and safety skills (

5 Finally, once funding opportunities have been identified and secured, British films are entitled to tax relief from the British government to help lower production costs. For a film with a core expenditure of less than 20 million, the production companies can claim back a cash rebate of up to 25% of their budget. For films costing over 20 million, this drops to 20%. In order to access the rebate, the film has to meet one of the criteria outlined above to be defined as British plus it has to be intended for theatrical release and have at least 25% of its budget coming from UK film production companies. The future of the British film industry In an ideal world, films with British subject matter would be British productions. However, despite being typically British in content, three of the biggest current film franchises are all co-productions with American companies. Britain does not have a filmmaking institution that could finance the production, distribution and exhibition of franchises such as James Bond, Harry Potter and Sherlock Holmes. This leaves the British film industry in a difficult position and with two main options. Firstly, British filmmakers could choose to rely upon co-productions with American studios to keep the industry afloat. However, the drawback would be that much of what makes the film British may be lost, such as regional accents and dialects or cultural and political references. Since these features would make no sense to an audience outside of Britain, it is unlikely that an American company involved in a co-production would approve of them. For example, the sci-fi comedy Paul (dir. Mottola, 2011) was a co-production between Universal Pictures and Working Title but much of what had made the film s two stars so popular in the UK was lost in the Hollywood version of their comedy style. Simon Pegg and Nick Frost had previously worked with director Edgar Wright on the Channel 4 TV series Spaced ( ) and Shaun of the Dead (2004), which had both attracted a cult following. However, the change to working within the Hollywood system arguably diluted the Britishness of their humour leaving British audiences disappointed and American audiences slightly confused. (See for examples of reviews.) ( 2012/07/paul-movie-poster21.jpg) The UK film industry s second option is to attempt to make low budget films targeted at a niche, British audience. Though the production costs will have to be lower and box-office taking and profits will necessarily be lower too, the filmmakers will be able to retain what it is that makes British films so distinctive without compromise. Careful sale of distribution rights could also mean that profits are channelled back into the UK film industry. For example, The King s Speech (dir. Hooper, 2010) was partially funded by the UK Film Council and the British production and distribution company Momentum. It was intended for a British and European audience but went on to be hugely successful in America and the rest of the world too. Its content is stereotypically English and, despite costing only around 8 million to make, it went on to take over 230 million worldwide and to win the Best Picture Oscar in Considering the options open to the British film industry discussed above, which do you think is the best course of action? Should British filmmakers compromise their vision in order to get funding or is it better to sacrifice some of the budget in order to make the film you want to? Research recent British films such as Submarine (dir. Ayoade, 2011) and The Sweeney (dir. Love, 2012) and decide which option you think the filmmakers chose. Acknowledgements: This Media Studies Factsheet was researched and written by Helen McDonald Curriculum Press. Bank House, 105 King Street, Wellington, TF1 1NU. Media Factsheets may be copied free of charge by teaching staff or students, provided that their school is a registered subscriber. No part of these Factsheets may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any other form or by any other means, without the prior permission of the publisher. ISSN