BRITISH FILM INDUSTRY PART II

[Guest]

And lets face it, Hollywood films are not really better than other countries, but they monopolize cinemas because of their huge marketing budgets.

 

It's not just that. Hollywood runs screaming to the US gov't every time a foreign nation tries to keep their films out. Then the US gov't threatens trade action if Hollyood doesn't get their way.

 

That's exactly what happens with the US approach to Canada. Canada could impose a quota of 50% Canadian films at the Canadian box office. Then Hollywood would run crying like a baby to their senators and congressmen who would say, "Ok Canada, let's see how you like a 30% tarrif on auto parts." Then Canada is screwed.

 

In Europe you have a much greater opportunity to protect your local film industry from Hollywood. Since the US is not such an important trading partner for you. Canada exports 85% to the USA alone, so we're sunk.

 

Of course we could just shut off the oil, natural gas, and electricity, but then I think Dick Chenney sends the tanks over the border.

 

R,

[Adam Frisch FSF]

I don't want to turn political, but protectionism is the road to serfdom - this has been proven time and time again by history. There's a reason why mercantilism was abandoned centuries ago..

 

poop is poop, no matter where it's produced. It's better that those who are particularly well equipped to produce a certain product (even if that product is film), do so. And those who have skills or ambitions within this field can then migrate and contribute to it at the place it is best produced.

 

There is no value, or benefit, in forcing Swedes to make Persian rugs. Or to swamp the French market with crappy French movies just because their made in the country.

[Francesco Bonomo]

poop is poop, no matter where it's produced.

 

I couln't agree more with you, Adam. I cannot speak for the French, but here in Italy a lot of people have somehow hinted at a different approach, introducing restrictions for foreign movies and so on. Personally, I don't believe that would solve any problem, i.e. the absence of a film industry in this country. We wouldn't have more money invested in movies, we would have the same Italian crap we see every year, with the occasional excellent film that comes out once every decade or so.

 

What we need is to give tax cuts for people coming here, VAT-free deals, moreso now that the euro is stronger than the US dollar. That would give Americans a reason to come and shoot here, resulting in a series of positive things: first of all, more money for the italian film industry (rentals, studios, and especially crews), and a chance for Italian crews to work and gain experience from people working in a real industry.

 

The only "protection" we could have is some sort of a tax on the dubbing: since virtually all foreign films are dubbed in italian (it sucks, anyway), we could have the ones who want their movies dub to pay 1% of the budget as a tax, and that money could be used to finance italian movies. Easy to say it, almost impossible to do it, i know...

[Andy_Alderslade]

To quote director Alex Cox who was giving evidence at a goverment select commitee:

 

"Our culture is not the same as the US. The great British film successes - whether Billy Elliot, The Full Monty, Trainspotting, Women in Love, The Devils, If, Kes, Brighton Rock or Brief Encounter - talk about our own unique experiences...To lose our capcity to make British films about Britain in the UK is like losing our capacity to paint, or to write poetry."

 

This is why protectionism works sometimes, thats why it works in French cinema - an industry which continues to be productive for decades on end despite its relatively limited size and the limited target audience of French speaking countries.

 

I don't want to turn political, but protectionism is the road to serfdom - this has been proven time and time again by history. There's a reason why mercantilism was abandoned centuries ago..

 

Can you name an example?

 

poop is poop, no matter where it's produced. It's better that those who are particularly well equipped to produce a certain product (even if that product is film), do so. And those who have skills or ambitions within this field can then migrate and contribute to it at the place it is best produced.

 

So in other words, people are expected to completly uproot to another country weather they want to or not (and is sometimes not legal). Plus maybe people who want to tell stories through cinema want to tell stories about the counrty they have first hand experience off, instead of being a polite guest in another land.

 

'poop is poop, no matter where ists produced' - That reminds me of line in Ghandi which infers the opposite: 'I beg you to accept that there is no people on Earth who would not prefer their own bad government to the good government of an alien power.'

 

There is no value, or benefit, in forcing Swedes to make Persian rugs. Or to swamp the French market with crappy French movies just because their made in the country.

 

Well protectionishm for the sake of national cinema isn't about making Swedes make Persian rugs, its about leting British people make British films about British experiences.

 

You obviously don't like French films, thats fine but in France they never insist someone has to see a French film, there is simply the choice of seeing a French film or a US film, or an internationaly made film.

 

What we need is to give tax cuts for people coming here, VAT-free deals, moreso now that the euro is stronger than the US dollar. That would give Americans a reason to come and shoot here, resulting in a series of positive things: first of all, more money for the italian film industry (rentals, studios, and especially crews), and a chance for Italian crews to work and gain experience from people working in a real industry.

 

So then you are essentialy subsiding Industry and international conglomerates with public money which is always a dubious, morally questionable thing.

 

Subsidising art is perhaps less dubious, though equally controvercial.

 

 

Plus all it takes is some other country to offer better tax deals, and those American films go else where.

 

Today Prague, tomorrow Istanbul?

[Francesco Bonomo]

Plus all it takes is some other country to offer better tax deals, and those American films go else where.

 

That's partially true, Andy. Right now, in Italy, there are lots of studios who invest millions of euros in television series and mini-movies. Most of them are crap, and half of them are produced with public money. I'm not saying we should lower our crew rates for Americans to come over here and shoot (which is what happens in Bulgaria at the moment), but we could at least try and have foreigners to invest money in our still non-existent film industry.

 

Last year I worked in Cinecittà, right next door from HBO's Rome, and you could tell the difference even though that show was for tv and not for theatrical release. Everyone was saying "wouldn't it be better if we worked like that?". And the funny thing is, most of Rome's crew were italians!

 

If we can have more money invested here, then even some Italians would see the benefits, rather than making cheap and crappy things for tv. To me it sounds better than protectionism, because you'd end up with some new good producers, more experienced and professional crews, and more connections with, say, better screenwriters (which we totally lack), but most importantly, we would realize what it means to have an industry. It's not easy and it takes a long time, 20 or 30 years, but it's a long-term plan, rather than a short-term act that would only kill whatever we have now.

[Andy_Alderslade]

That's partially true, Andy. Right now, in Italy, there are lots of studios who invest millions of euros in television series and mini-movies. Most of them are crap, and half of them are produced with public money. I'm not saying we should lower our crew rates for Americans to come over here and shoot (which is what happens in Bulgaria at the moment), but we could at least try and have foreigners to invest money in our still non-existent film industry.

 

Last year I worked in Cinecittà, right next door from HBO's Rome, and you could tell the difference even though that show was for tv and not for theatrical release. Everyone was saying "wouldn't it be better if we worked like that?". And the funny thing is, most of Rome's crew were italians!

 

If we can have more money invested here, then even some Italians would see the benefits, rather than making cheap and crappy things for tv. To me it sounds better than protectionism, because you'd end up with some new good producers, more experienced and professional crews, and more connections with, say, better screenwriters (which we totally lack), but most importantly, we would realize what it means to have an industry. It's not easy and it takes a long time, 20 or 30 years, but it's a long-term plan, rather than a short-term act that would only kill whatever we have now.

 

I agree that an indusrty still needs to support outside investment, however the British industry, despite having excellent technical skills, has always been at the mercy of national and internal tax rates and loop holes. And with changing goverments comes changing agendas, so long term investment plans don't really hold out.

 

Do you know what stoped the entire production of the recent Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix moving to Prague?

 

Daniel Radcliff's mum didn't want her teenage son working in a city associated with prostitution and drugs. They had already started shipping the sets over, and how many UK jobs would have been lost had it happened. And that is for material which is of British intelectual copyright.

 

Out of curiocity, what was so great about the HBO production which made Italian crews so envious? was it budget, skill or imagination? Why can not an Itailian crew be capable of that on its own?

 

When seeing Best of Youth, I saw something as good as anything HBO has churned out.

 

Remember though protectionism isn't just a short term solution - its served France for decades. And even so the system isn't inpenetratable, Disney set up feature animation production there, and US features will often be enjoyed by French citizens.

Edited April 3, 2007 by Andy_Alderslade

[Francesco Bonomo]

Out of curiocity, what was so great about the HBO production which made Italian crews so envious? was it budget, skill or imagination? Why can not an Itailian crew be capable of that on its own?

 

well, let's just say the better overall working conditions, i.e. "feeling" like you're shooting a movie and you have a production that actually cares about what you do, instead of fighting million battles everyday just to have something more than free coffee on set.

 

When seeing Best of Youth, I saw something as good as anything HBO has churned out.

 

exactly, and that's what upsets me the most, knowing that the professionalism of our crews can match the american's, if the production allows it to stand out. But I have to say that "best of youth" was a very beautiful and lucky exception.

 

Remember though protectionism isn't just a short term solution - its served France for decades. And even so the system isn't inpenetratable, Disney set up feature animation production there, and US features will often be enjoyed by French citizens.

 

If we develeped a more protective attitude, the only result we'd get would be to have less movies in theaters (since there wouldn't be an increase in the number of italian movies anyway), less money from theatrical releases, more crappy tv shows. Protectionism would somehow affect the state of the industry if we actually had one. And in Italy, to this day, we don't.

[Andy_Alderslade]

If we develeped a more protective attitude, the only result we'd get would be to have less movies in theaters (since there wouldn't be an increase in the number of italian movies anyway), less money from theatrical releases, more crappy tv shows. Protectionism would somehow affect the state of the industry if we actually had one. And in Italy, to this day, we don't.

 

As I've already said in France the protectionist quotas encourage the cinemas to be full of a variety of films rather than just US productions.

 

Of course you would have to start with a relatively low percentage, and raise it gradually year by year over several years. That would give the industry time to respond to the sudden need. In the case of the Italian industry that would probably mean the emergence of some new talent.

 

From a British point of view, many UK features are never able to penetrate the UK cinemas and are lost on some dusty shelves - that is often not related to quality. It would give those films a chance to be seen, and hopefull increase the need for new talent.

 

Obviously the Italian industry is very different and I don't know how it would react to such new laws, my childhood friend (I lived for patches in Sicily as a kid) knows your previous cultural minister, and apparently the film subsidies and funding regulations haven't been changed since Fellini.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> Why can not an Itailian crew be capable of that on its own?

 

They can. So can we. Many of the world's most insignificant principalities, countries you could step over on a walking tour of central Europe, have thriving independent film industries who could, theoretically, produce world-beating material.

 

But we can't, because nobody will bloody well pay for it.

 

We might be expert. We might be inspired writers and directors, we might harbour the Ansel Adams of cinematography in our midst, but it's completely irrelevant. You, and I, and most noticeably the UK film council can, and often do, wax poetic on the high standard of crew and facilities in this country. But it doesn't matter. We will never, ever get to show what we're capable of.

 

As it happens I believe that the standard of crewing in this country is being promoted mainly on the basis of an out-of-date impression of it. I've worked with microbudget independent crews both here and in the US and the standard in LA was so much higher it was palpably embarrassing. We were once great - once, maybe twenty years ago, we were good. Now, we're so out of practice it's ridiculous. There's almost nothing left of us anymore.

 

But like I said, it's irrelevant. Do what you like.

 

Phil

[Adam Frisch FSF]

OK, let's turn political for a second. Despite what everyone thinks, this world has got less poverty, less gaps between the rich and the poor, less famine, less child mortality and more equality than it has ever had before in the history of modern man.

 

It's a total myth that the world and its people are worse off today.

 

This is mainly due to one single thing: globalization (and capitalism). Globalization is the locomotive that enables and empowers poor nations to pull themselves out of complete poverty and compete with the one thing they can compete with: cheap labour. Europe and the US did the same trip a hundred years ago - we slaved our way to it (in both senses). It doesn't mean it has to stay that way, but that IS the ticket out of poverty.

 

Now, the only thing that keeps poorer countries from fully realizing their potential and gaining wealth is our countries huge tariff's aimed at keeping their cheap produce at bay. Tariff's that have been put in place so that US and EU companies can produce the same stuff at a much higher cost - and still have a market for it. This is not only a huge waste of production means, but also huge waste of money and time. But most importantly, it's a complete disgrace from a humanitarian standpoint - we are robbing underdeveloped nations of their ability to actually change their future to a brighter one. For instance, chronically underdeveloped Africa could easily compete and sell food to the US and the EU - but we don't let them, because that would threaten our farmers.

 

Anyway, in the long run, this will not work. And the same applies to film. There will always be a market for French film to be enjoyed in France or abroad. That won't go away. But the minute you start protecting an industry you are not only blocking other filmmakers (that are probably better at it), but in the end, also your own (since creativity rarely works well in state funded environments).

 

For every reaction, there is a counter reaction - this is the beauty with the free market system. It's self regulating. US films, given the chance, could never satisfy 100% of the worlds film market needs. Never, ever. Yet, this is what one often hears "what - you want even MORE American movies?". They just don't understand how markets work. GM will never be able to satisfy 100% of the car market - neither will McDonald's be able to serve 100% of the food market.

 

I say, tear down all protetctive subsidiares, tariff's and walls designed to keep a cheaper or a better product from being able to compete. Freetrade is the only way forward. And this goes for film as well.

[Jaan Shenberger]

... I've worked with microbudget independent crews both here and in the US and the standard in LA was so much higher it was palpably embarrassing...

 

hey Phil, in what way exactly were things so different?

just curious.

[Francesco Bonomo]

As I've already said in France the protectionist quotas encourage the cinemas to be full of a variety of films rather than just US productions.

 

I picked the newspaper and I looked at the movie theaters section of the Rome edition: ironically, most theaters are showing the few (bad) italian movies that came out during the last few weeks. We don't really need "quotas", so to speak, because there is a tendency for the audiences to go and see the italian movie of the week along with the hollywood blockbuster. The real problem is quantity (less than 20 movies a year) and quality (1 good movie out of 100), and that's because we lack a real industry system and we invest too much money on television productions (which, by the way, suck 99% of the time).

 

Obviously the Italian industry is very different and I don't know how it would react to such new laws, my childhood friend (I lived for patches in Sicily as a kid) knows your previous cultural minister, and apparently the film subsidies and funding regulations haven't been changed since Fellini.

 

that's true, and i think those funding regulations were already old when Fellini was making his movies. back then, though, we did have an industry.

[Jaan Shenberger]

that's true, and i think those funding regulations were already old when Fellini was making his movies. back then, though, we did have an industry.

 

isn't that because italy had quite an export cinema industry back then (genre & drive-in fare being dubbed into a multitude of languages)? ...not at all meaning to sound snarky.

[Phil Rhodes]

One thing that nobody quite gets, if you look at the newspapers and see who's showing what:

 

Almost no British films are shown here. I like to take UK film magazines and theatrical exhibition schedules to the US and show people there what we're up against, and they inevitably display genuine shock. It is unusual to see a British film shown in the UK more than once every six to eight weeks or so. And that's only recently, when we've seen more and more inwardly-invested shows like Closer which are American movies in more ways than one.

 

I am not joking; for every one British film that's shown here, there are fifty or sixty American films shown here. This is not a small problem we're talking about, we're drowning, we're absolutely dying. It's like an ant trying to stop an express train; like trying to swim up Niagara falls. It's not a little bit of help we need. We're absolutely overwhelmed, buried, exterminated. It's a war we lost decades ago.

 

 

> hey Phil, in what way exactly were things so different?

 

Difficult to put a finger on, but for the same level of crew, just vastly more competence and experience. After all, you can make at least a bit of a living in microbudget independent filmmaking in LA, and it shows. In the UK, the only way to make a living in film and TV is to be one of the top 1%. The result is that in London people spend one day a week - two or three a month - working in film, and the rest of it doing a McJob. It's hardly surprising the talent's better. The crew were better, the performances were better. Not to knock the people I work with here, I have my favourite people, but assuming the fairly randomly-selected people I grabbed off Craigslist are representative of the average, the average is almost as high as the very top peak here.

 

The attitude is better; it's more can-do, less stressful even when things go wrong. Less blame-related; more about what's wrong than who's wrong. There's less nastiness, no snide asides. I'm sure these things change when you get to higher level production, but there will always be one big difference: in the UK, people working for pocket money on tiny projects know that's almost certainly about the best they'll ever get. In the US, they know there's somewhere to go. That bitterness, the knowledge of inevitable failure, is very clear even in fairly high level UK crews, because at the end of the day even on the best jobs in the country, we know that there will never be the big theatrical features, there will never be more than a hand-to-mouth financial existence off this stuff.

 

Yes, a lot of it comes down to national culture, but at the end of the day UK crew are usually miserable because they have a very good reason to be.

 

Phil

[Andy_Alderslade]

Freetrade is the only way forward. And this goes for film as well.

 

Yes, all hail to the Free Market, then you find out American peanut farming is one of the highly subsidised agrigcultural industries in the world. But of course we can't say that because their lawyers kick ass.

 

Film is also an art not just an industry.

[Tim Terner]

Daniel Radcliff's mum didn't want her teenage son working in a city associated with prostitution and drugs.......

 

I live in Prague and it's comforting to think that Sean Connery's, Tom Cruise's, and Roman Polanski's mothers didn't think the same way

[Andy_Alderslade]

I picked the newspaper and I looked at the movie theaters section of the Rome edition: ironically, most theaters are showing the few (bad) italian movies that came out during the last few weeks.

 

So then its better then in Britian, at my local Odeon 8 films showing, 7 US films and one i assume is British - Mr Bean's Holiday.

 

I live in Prague and it's comforting to think that Sean Connery's, Tom Cruise's, and Roman Polanski's mothers didn't think the same way

 

Well obviously their mothers are better informed. Perhaps Mrs Radcliffe reads the Daily Mail.

[Tony Brown]

> hey Phil, in what way exactly were things so different?

 

Difficult to put a finger on, but for the same level of crew, just vastly more competence and experience. After all, you can make at least a bit of a living in microbudget independent filmmaking in LA, and it shows. In the UK, the only way to make a living in film and TV is to be one of the top 1%. The result is that in London people spend one day a week - two or three a month - working in film, and the rest of it doing a McJob. It's hardly surprising the talent's better. The crew were better, the performances were better. Not to knock the people I work with here, I have my favourite people, but assuming the fairly randomly-selected people I grabbed off Craigslist are representative of the average, the average is almost as high as the very top peak here.

 

The attitude is better; it's more can-do, less stressful even when things go wrong. Less blame-related; more about what's wrong than who's wrong. There's less nastiness, no snide asides. I'm sure these things change when you get to higher level production, but there will always be one big difference: in the UK, people working for pocket money on tiny projects know that's almost certainly about the best they'll ever get. In the US, they know there's somewhere to go. That bitterness, the knowledge of inevitable failure, is very clear even in fairly high level UK crews, because at the end of the day even on the best jobs in the country, we know that there will never be the big theatrical features, there will never be more than a hand-to-mouth financial existence off this stuff.

 

Yes, a lot of it comes down to national culture, but at the end of the day UK crew are usually miserable because they have a very good reason to be.

 

I guess I'm lucky I dont work with the same people you do Phil. I can honestly say the English crew I work with are extremely good natured, some of the funniest people I've ever met

 

I'll tell you exactly why there was more competence and experience 20 years ago, as I said in an earlier post, there were less of us. During the 80's it was extremely unusual to turn up on a shoot and there be somebody there you didn't know. Now you're relieved to see a couple of familiar faces.

 

Craigslist. Who? Try the mainstream diary services.......

[Max Jacoby]

(since creativity rarely works well in state funded environments).

Sorry Adam, but that's just not true.

 

We are not talking about the Soviet government making propaganda films here, but about Pan-European funding bodies like Eurimages as well as filmfunds of various countries, whose aim it is to encourage a cinema that is less commercially oriented, but has artist and cultural merit.

 

It is in purely market driven places like Hollywood where creativity suffers, because there are enormous pressures to make a 'hit'. Where actors get cast because of their box-office drawing power and not because they are right for the part. Where they start shooting because they have a release date already, but no script yet. Where they avoid 'downbeat' endings because it could impact the box-office negatively. Where the producer has more power than the director.

 

 

 

 

I live in Prague and it's comforting to think that Sean Connery's, Tom Cruise's, and Roman Polanski's mothers didn't think the same way

Yeah, well we all know how Roman Polanski turned out... ;)

[Phil Rhodes]

> I guess I'm lucky I dont work with the same people you do Phil.

 

Tony, you are part of that top 1% I was talking about.

 

Yes, you are lucky. Very, very lucky. Also amazingly talented, but as we've seen, that isn't actually much of a contributing factor here.

 

You know what pisses me off? A while ago, someone was asking me (hah!) about how to improve and thereby get on in the industry, and I had to honestly tell the poor girl not to bother. Go buy a PD150 and practice wobbly camerawork, because it's all you'll ever do in this place.

 

Phil

[Max Jacoby]

A while ago, someone was asking me (hah!)

She obviously didn't know of your reputation as most miserable person on this board ;)

[Matthew Buick]

HEE HEE!!! :lol:

[Phil Rhodes]

Well, she could have asked you, Max, but you don't actually live here, and you've made it very clear in the past that despite where you claim to come from you know little or nothing about the situation here!

 

Phil

[Jaan Shenberger]

Sorry Adam, but that's just not true.

 

We are not talking about the Soviet government making propaganda films here, but about Pan-European funding bodies like Eurimages as well as filmfunds of various countries, whose aim it is to encourage a cinema that is less commercially oriented, but has artist and cultural merit.

 

i have to agree with Max. a great example is the film board of canada and its legendary animation program. simply put, canada is the best in the world in animation and has produced numerous incredible works of genuine art in that medium, largely thanks to state subsidies.

 

on the flipside is the flimsy american "independent" film industry/community. it kinda runs on capitalistic trickle-down reaganomics... all the low-brow and ad/commercial projects result in enough work that some people/prodco's can save up funds & network in order to work on their personal side projects. but there is virtually no state money anywhere to fund film/cinema projects of artistic merit, and when there is, it's a general arts grant that's priced out for painters/sculptors, meaning the sums are nearly irrelevant in regards to film budgets. it's no wonder that more and more film students are using their thesis projects to make slick spec commercials for sneakers or soft drinks, rather than making something of artistic merit... and every year it seems to get worse, and it just grosses me out.

 

and to be honest, if you compare the two, i'd say that canadian animation has american "independent cinema" clearly beat when it comes to overall artistic merit and output... though it's worth mentioning that almost no one anywhere has ever seen all that great canadian animation work.

Edited April 3, 2007 by Jaan Shenberger

[Ken Cangi]

though it's worth mentioning that almost no one anywhere has ever seen all that great canadian animation work.

300