Jump to content

BRITISH FILM INDUSTRY PART II


Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member

Social irresponsibility?

 

Oh well, I shall bask in the warm, comfortable glow that can only be achieved by paying ludicrously high taxes for very little service, as we do in the UK.

 

Ah, socialism.

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 124
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The problem here is we are taxed on everything we buy . the answer is the only fare tax is income tax ,but as we still have a tory govenment here vowing not to raise income tax for the mega rich ie wankers who buy and sell god knows what in the "City" and russian gangsters who drive up the property prices to ridiculous levels and this a Labour Govenment . i am very pissed off .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

> i am very pissed off .

 

You're pissed off?

 

You probably own a house already.

 

There's a whole generation of people in this country - my age and anyone born since - who are going to grow up owning nothing, having no pension, no property, no savings, nothing - every last penny squeezed out of them by the avaricious predatory bastards at the top.

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> move to Luxembourg

 

But seriously, I don't even speak Luxembourg...er...ish?

 

Phil

 

Phil, that isn't your usual articulate self. I think Max Jacoby got you there. :D

 

 

The problem here is we are taxed on everything we buy . the answer is the only fare tax is income tax ,but as we still have a tory govenment here vowing not to raise income tax for the mega rich ie wankers who buy and sell god knows what in the "City" and russian gangsters who drive up the property prices to ridiculous levels and this a Labour Govenment . i am very pissed off .

 

Sounds a bit like Getaway 2. :D

 

This is hardly a fair country. It taxes the hell out of it citizens and then bends over backwards for foreign businessmen who are only here to make a few million in the stock market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
There's a whole generation of people in this country - my age and anyone born since - who are going to grow up owning nothing, having no pension, no property,

Phil

 

Phil,

 

It's the people at the bottom of the ladder who actually push up the house prices, when they stop borrowing huge multiples of their earnings, prices will then fall. I remember buying my first property in London in 1983, I could only borrow 2.5 times my earnings, that was all banks would lend. Interest rates were 12%

 

Stephen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I'm not in the slightest bit interested in a big flash house - I just want to avoid having to pay The Man rent every month from now until the end of eternity and end up owning nothing.

 

I will fully agree with you that Farquharson and Jemima should be prevented from borrowing £500,000 to buy a Kensington crash pad, but at some point, one needs a roof over one's head.

 

If the usual price of said roof now means that the latest Bovisville in my area can unblinkingly call a £250,000 single bed apartment "affordable", what am I supposed to do?

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that films should adhere to the philosophy of "user-charges". Ideally, bad movies would not be made because no one would go to see them.

Your original complaint regarded government-funded "short" films. I see that you've amended that to be "bad" films. Are you inferring that they are one in the same? Just curious.

 

I'm not in the slightest bit interested in a big flash house - I just want to avoid having to pay The Man rent every month from now until the end of eternity and end up owning nothing.

Phil

Then get out of the film industry, and sell real estate.

Edited by Ken Cangi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
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.

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

 

I don't agree. My main beef with state funding for films is that that inevitably means someone gets appointed (politically) to judge what, and whatnot, should be made. This, I have from experience, ends up being a race to see who can produce the most political correct film ever. Filmmaking by committes and filmmaking by political taste.

 

Sweden has a state funded film program that's been in action since the late 60's. They only give money to old chummy directors who have the right political convictions (was on the barricades in the 60's chanting anti-US sentiments, basically), not surprisingly, Sweden has produced very little "significant" film in all these years. Ingmar Bergmans big films got made before this system was in place.

 

Now, really subversive movies for their time, like Death Wish, or Dirty Harry, or French Connection could never have been made in a state funded environment. That would have been an impossibility. Nor would any genre film get state funding, since it's regarded as something the cat dragged in. Therefore it's my strong belief that the best way to help film is to not help it at all - good stuff will be made anyway. Film shouldn't be dictated by anything else than the sheer will to make it.

 

As a final note - the American film industry has never had any state funding in place, and has in a crass, cold, capitalist way STILL managed to produce tremendous amounts of very good film. So there's absolutely no thruth to the fact that creativity suffers in a commercial environment or that that should produce lesser quality films.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Therefore it's my strong belief that the best way to help film is to not help it at all - good stuff will be made anyway. Film shouldn't be dictated by anything else than the sheer will to make it.

 

As a final note - the American film industry has never had any state funding in place, and has in a crass, cold, capitalist way STILL managed to produce tremendous amounts of very good film. So there's absolutely no thruth to the fact that creativity suffers in a commercial environment or that that should produce lesser quality films."

 

I'll second all of that!

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Now, really subversive movies for their time, like Death Wish, or Dirty Harry, or French Connection could never have been made in a state funded environment. That would have been an impossibility.

Well my definition of subversive would be something along the lines of Lars von Trier's 'The Idiots'. Now tell me that Hollywood would ever touch something like that! I can imagine already the calls to actors: Now listen Brad, there is a sex scene in it... No a real sex scene.... Yes you have to be naked... No Brad, we'll do it for real, but we could get you a stuntcock... Brad, are you still there?

 

'Idioterne' was financed by the Danish Film Fund if I'm not mistaken. Let's face it, there are always people whom you have to convince to finance your film, but if you compare Hollywood films to publicly funded European art films, there is no doubt which ones are allowed more creative freedom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a final note - the American film industry has never had any state funding in place, and has in a crass, cold, capitalist way STILL managed to produce tremendous amounts of very good film. So there's absolutely no thruth to the fact that creativity suffers in a commercial environment or that that should produce lesser quality films.

 

And its done so by obliterating all of the other countries film production.

 

With the exception of India.

 

Beilieve it or not, when I saw Sean Of the Dead, despite not being terribly impressed by the movie, I was actually quite shocked to see real things of british life in a cinema. For instance a 'swing ball', something you see in 1000s of british gardens has never been on a big screen before - its small but it shows that individual existence in a country like Britian has its on individual peculiarities, ironies etc... often very different from that of a US existence.

 

And this whole argument that state funding for films is wrong is completly trite, its necessary in smaller countries to preseve some national identity and to assist with with the development of talent.

 

If state funding of films didn't exist, we wouldn't have the French New Wave, nor the Australian New Wave, nor the few New Zealand films we occasionaly get to see.

 

International talent like Peter Wier, Peter Jackson, Jane Campian would not exist had it not been for state funding schemes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
And its done so by obliterating all of the other countries film production.

 

It has a dominant place - maybe too dominant. But ask yourself WHY has it got such a dominant place?

 

And Peter Jackson is a perfect example - I doubt very much that he got funding for Braindead or Meet the Feebles. But I bet they were

tripping over themselves to give him money and bask in his glory after LotR was being done...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
But ask yourself WHY has it got such a dominant place?

Because it has more money at its disposal than anybody else. Which unfortunately does not show itself in the quality of its product, but rather in the ability to dominate the marketing and raise the awareness of its product far beyond any competing films. We all know you can buy an opening weekend, as has been demonstrated numerous times. Pearl Harbor anyone?

 

 

With the exception of India.

On a related note, has anyone seen these ridiculous ads in the London Tube about investing into the Nigerian economy? Among other things that ad claims that Nigeria has the 3rd biggest film industry in the world. On the amount of films produced maybe, but they are all made very cheaply on video and I seriously doubt it is good investment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Peter Jackson is a perfect example - I doubt very much that he got funding for Braindead or Meet the Feebles. But I bet they were

tripping over themselves to give him money and bask in his glory after LotR was being done...

 

Actually for Braindead, their national body did provide some development money - which enabled Jackson to take time of work to complete it - of course they did it in a very hushed up way (feeling the subject matter was not going to be politcaly correct) - but they stood by their beilief that there was talent there.

 

tripping over themselves to give him money and bask in his glory after LotR was being done...

 

Well thats the darker side of film funding, and perhaps the problem with the UK Filmcouncil of only wanting to bet of on the obvious winners, rather than develop new and unique talent, and to preserve cultural identity which is perhaps a more ligitment use for public funds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Because it has more money at its disposal than anybody else. Which unfortunately does not show itself in the quality of its product, but rather in the ability to dominate the marketing and raise the awareness of its product far beyond any competing films. We all know you can buy an opening weekend, as has been demonstrated numerous times. Pearl Harbor anyone?

 

No, I'd say it's down to overall quality.

 

The blockbuster wasn't invented until Jaws came along - that was the first big one (and what a good blockbuster it is!) so it's a relatively new invention. Before that film was released without much marketing fanfare. And American movies still dominated.

 

Listen, we can argue this forever. For me personally, I think the US produces some of the worst movies in the world. But also the best. I don't mind that dynamics. In Europe I think we often get to caught up in our own a** and think we're so good and so much better, yet we never reach the same top quality that American movies can reach. Different isn't always better.

 

My top ten list of films is probably 90% American funded film (not shot there, just paid for there) - that says something (maybe about my taste). But do your own top ten list and I can assure you that more films will be American than not. And frankly, I don't get why everyone is so terrified of American movies and moviemaking here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
The blockbuster wasn't invented until Jaws came along - that was the first big one (and what a good blockbuster it is!) so it's a relatively new invention. Before that film was released without much marketing fanfare.

As a matter of fact wide relases were already common before Jaws. I'm not with my books at the moment, but one of them deals with the misconception that Jaws was the first blockbuster when in fact saturation booking was being practiced way before it already.

 

 

But do your own top ten list and I can assure you that more films will be American than not.

Hehe, I doubt that's the case with me ;) Not that there aren't any Hollywood directors that I like (Terrence Malick, PT Anderson for instance), but most of my all-time favourites are either European or Asian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The blockbuster wasn't invented until Jaws came along

 

I agree with Max, the idea that Jaws invented the blockbuster is completly false, gramaticaly and practically -there were big hits before (suprise and less suprising) and infact the word already previously existed.

 

I friend of mine actually owns an original record of Western Theme tunes that predates Jaws and refers to the Magnificent Seven as guess what, a 'blockbuster.'

 

 

Anyway, most of my favourite movies are US made too, however if this discussion is actually still about state funding and protectionist quotas for cinema then its not what about is better, its about preserving cultural identity and generating and developing local talent.

 

Also why simply lay down to U.S. production, why not make European films too. They may not always be as good,but at least they are different. To put this in a more technical context, would you have Arri close down and let Panavision make film cameras for the world, no. Because Arri makes great cameras also, different yes from Panavision but its the competition and cross fertalisisation of two competing companies that make their products so good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If state funding of films didn't exist, we wouldn't have the French New Wave, nor the Australian New Wave, nor the few New Zealand films we occasionaly get to see.

 

International talent like Peter Wier, Peter Jackson, Jane Campian would not exist had it not been for state funding schemes.

 

Almost all decent films that come out of Australia have been government funded (there are some low budget exceptions) FFC and AFC along with the state funding groups help make all these features and together usually fund at least 80 percent of the budget. The rest of the world occasionally see?s these films because the reality is that a large majority are abysmal.

 

As soon as a director starts to see some international stardom they become international directors. Our government cannot afford the budgets of the films they want to make and our society/economy/industry is not set-up to support private funding/studio?s.

 

These organisations also fund a lot of really bad short films. I would say less then 5 percent of these shorts have seen international success.

 

The funding situation here in Australia is really bad also. The films barely get watched, barely get the marketing budgets for people to want to watch them and usually are bad scripts. Of course there are a few exceptions. Rolf De Heer for one has stayed in Australia and makes Australian films.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

No, no - I was of course not talking about laying down to US production. I want European film as much as anyone else! I just don't think state funding is the way to do it. It's also unfair market-wise compared to all countries that don't have state funding and isn't the US of A.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Almost all decent films that come out of Australia have been government funded (there are some low budget exceptions) FFC and AFC along with the state funding groups help make all these features and together usually fund at least 80 percent of the budget. The rest of the world occasionally see?s these films because the reality is that a large majority are abysmal.

 

As soon as a director starts to see some international stardom they become international directors. Our government cannot afford the budgets of the films they want to make and our society/economy/industry is not set-up to support private funding/studio?s.

 

These organisations also fund a lot of really bad short films. I would say less then 5 percent of these shorts have seen international success.

 

The funding situation here in Australia is really bad also. The films barely get watched, barely get the marketing budgets for people to want to watch them and usually are bad scripts. Of course there are a few exceptions. Rolf De Heer for one has stayed in Australia and makes Australian films.

 

At least Australia has a few a famous films that they can point to as being distinctly Australian, ie The Man From Snowy River, Pharlap, Road Warrior. These films have been seen all over the world and the actors actually had Australian accents.

 

Compare this with Canada's entry into the Best Foreign film category of this years Oscars. It was a film called "Water," made in in India about Indians :blink:

 

This friggin thing isn't even in one of Canada's two official languages:

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0240200/

 

Fully funded by the Canadian sucker taxpayer, and this is what we call a "Canadian" film. Sorry, but there is nothing Canadian about a film set in India about Indians.

 

This is why people like me are working to blow the lid off this government scam to appease our immigrant populations. "Here we'll give you money to make films, and then you vote for us." It's a total crock!!!!!

 

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I think talking about "laying down" to US production is pointless. We have already been forcibly laid down by it, in rather the same way that I'd expect to be laying down if I stood in front of an express train armed with nothing more than a challenging expression.

 

As for Canada funding Canadian films, well, the UK film council is quite rabidly concerned with this. The application form, as an RTF document, is here.

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bread and circuses... or is "circui" plural for circus? "Circi"?

 

It's the latter, although everyone says "circuses". This may be the first time that those three years of Latin way back in HS have paid off ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least Australia has a few a famous films that they can point to as being distinctly Australian, ie The Man From Snowy River, Pharlap, Road Warrior. These films have been seen all over the world and the actors actually had Australian accents.

 

Compare this with Canada's entry into the Best Foreign film category of this years Oscars. It was a film called "Water," made in in India about Indians :blink:

 

This friggin thing isn't even in one of Canada's two official languages:

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0240200/

 

Fully funded by the Canadian sucker taxpayer, and this is what we call a "Canadian" film. Sorry, but there is nothing Canadian about a film set in India about Indians.

 

This is why people like me are working to blow the lid off this government scam to appease our immigrant populations. "Here we'll give you money to make films, and then you vote for us." It's a total crock!!!!!

R,

Richard,

 

I'm not going to argue the pros and cons of taxpayer-funded filmmaking with you, because it will get us both nowhere. I am, however, curious about why you feel that a film has to be about the country and people who produced it, in order to qualify for public funding. From what I can tell, this is a good film, and it's nominations for some serious awards seem to corroborate that. How can that hurt Canada?

 

I also don't understand your premise that the taxpayers of Canada are suckers. My experience with average Canadians is that they are very aware of what takes place within their government. You vote your party leader into power. As Prime Minister in a centralized system of government, he is less likely able to be influenced by big money. Parliament members see to that. That, in my opinion, is the beauty of your system. You don't run the higher risk of having corrupt Senators and Representatives sliding earmarks into law under your noses. My point is that when you vote in a party leader, you get, for the most part, what you voted for. Consequently, if you don't like the outcome, you only have yourselves to blame for it.

Edited by Ken Cangi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Forum Sponsors

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

Film Gears

CINELEASE

BOKEH RENTALS

CineLab

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...