23 replies to this topic

[Dr. Tynan]

I really hope I don't offend anyone, but I really don't like the movies we make here in the UK.

I dunno, they just seem so dull and boring when compared to American or Canadian movies, especially American.

I'd rather see a movie where the action (all of it) takes place among the magnificent skyline of American cities.

When I walk into a cinema I discover that a film is set here in the UK, I think "AW "

They just do my head in. so boring.

This guy I know agrees with me. He says he does not like the scenery of British movies.

How do I know for sure what anyone is thinking. But I just think that Americans who say they like British films are just being polite. And we have our heads so far up our here in the UK that we actually believe they respect our movies. Well I'm talking about our action flicks here.

I know scenery is a silly way to judge a movie, it's just what i like, sorry.

[ACE]

You're exactly right, Dr Tynan!

I've just viewed the 3rd cut of a movie I've co-produced and think it stinks.
No, it STINKS! It limbo danced under the standards of the first film, which is an achievement. I feel like Max Bialystock except without an accidental hit or the need for a loss ;-(

No chance of sales whatsoever.

The scripts that constantly get sent to me are written by writers who:

1) Write television
2) Write to get produced
3) Write for tax-shelter budgets ($1-5 million)

Those scripts will never be properly developed. European productions are notoriously bad at development. This is an expensive process because there is no money for it and people want to rush into production to get the cash flowing. Short termism and bad, bad, bad for business.

There is no industry in the UK for films, no film distribution or exhibition network. People blame all sorts of reasons (the Government, the US, the public) but the industry is to blame for decades of hitting and running.

I really think your comments are the truth - few true UK productions are watched by a native/domestic audience.

It is no accident that the few British based production companies (Working Title, Scala, Eon - yes, Eon) are backed by US studios because their audience skills are great.

In the industry, everyone is of the same opinion and it all starts with good scripts. We need them in Europe before we ever have anything approaching an industry.

Of coure, there are exceptions to what I have said. But anyone in the UK who produces theatrical feature films will agree with me.

Of course, it means I'm bad at my job. But it's more complex than that....

Come screenwriters out there, heed William Goldman: "Control my eye!"

[Number 6]

I think that for some Americans, not me specifically, you have to have an acquired tastes for British cinema. Whether it's a cultural gap in the machine or we're just spoiled to the over-the-top approach we covet so much, especially with summer/Christmas holiday blockbusters.


The majority of my family and friends find anything not on this side of the pond either confusing or just down right boring. Case in point when Twenty-Eight Days Later came out here...although it was a critical and by some means a financial success, I heard a lot of Americans leaving the theatre wondering what all of the fuss was about. I saw one guy go up to the theatre manager and have the audacity to ask for his money back.

Edited by Number 6, 05 January 2006 - 11:21 PM.

[Roebuck]

While it's generally hard to stomach Michael Winner, his autobiography has some brutally candid insights into post war film making in Britain. In particular he has a rant against the Eady Levy, introduced in 1957. Under this scheme cinema owners had to hand over fifty percent of their takings for the purpose of supporting the UK film industry. The problem for the exhibitors was that audiences didn't want to see the British films being made in the 60's and 70's, far preferring the American product

[ACE]

Good point, Roebuck.

But when the Eady Levy went in 1985, the British Film Industry roared against it's removal and mourned it's demise. That Levy is one of the things that brought Hollywood to the UK.

Of course, the levy encouraged commercial film making. The UK has no protectionist policies like France (a wonderful system which encourages the French to see their own product but ultimately, like a lot of things propping up France, a relic soon to be eviscerated as markets become more open) and the breaks for entrepeneurs have been abused by financiers so no one trusts the film industry in this country.

Film, and by that I mean popular, enduring film, is the greatest cultural vehicle and is vitally important to preserve, dictate and promote the intellectual property of a civilization. It has broader, more important resonances the just art. The powerful long term benefits (economic and cultural) of so potent an artform are not quite understood. Especially the policing, protection, creation and value of Intellectual Property. Anyone interested in this waffle should read The Undeclared War by David Puttnam.

However, film is also the world's most luxurious and expensive and collaborative artform. So it is the nexus of art and commerce. Show-Business. And a balance has to be struck. Those who knock Hollywood (by that I mean Santa Monica, Century City and the markets in New York, Frankfurt and London) do so unfairly. The film industry is like running a nation. It takes years to get right, after many mistakes. The US Film industry is like a mature nation. The UK film industry is like a recently independant ex-colonial republic in a developing world continent.

Anyway, the exhibitors victory in doing away with Eady has arguably swung the other way with exhibition in the UK being in too few, corporate hands.

[Major Bloodnok]

Take this for what it's worth. I'm just a fat man in Green Bay, Wisconsin who watches lots and lots of movies, and owns between 700 and 1100 in various formats (VHS, DVD, Beta and laserdisc- most of which I just sold so that's why I don't have a more accurate count for you). I've studied film history for 20 years and hope to make it in the near future. I'm not as accomplished as ACE (who is my hero by the way) but I'm active in the Independent Filmmaker's Guild and have my own Production Company that went live 1 January. Mythic Productions, watch for it.

That said- my opinion is that the best writers, actors and directors- as well as many cinematographers come from Britain. How is it that the movies aren't BETTER than US films?

Like ACE says, there are a few companies that are backed by American companies and have a huge money pot to draw from, but as we've seen, money doesn't make a good movie (DIE ANOTHER DAY anyone?). Are we talking about American productions that take place in London? Or are we talking about homegrown British films? Or even films made by the BBC which, compared to a ABC, NBC, CBS movie of the week, are far superior. I own many on dvd and enjoy them frequently.

I would ask ACE, with this movie you coproduced that disappoints, what is it that is so bad? Obviously the script passed muster at one point. The director must have satisfied sometime during preproduction. The cast and crew were chosen for their skills. How did it go so bad? I'm not saying that you did a bad job, even though you already said that. What you need to address, and not with us, is what is bad and how can it be fixed and even avoided in the future.

And then, would that film have been better if produced in Chicago?

I remember waiting for STAR WARS EPISODE ONE for fifteen years. Then, the summer it comes out I see it, liked it a lot, but was blown away by another film that summer called NOTTING HILL. It's in my top five faves of all time and I don't like Julia Roberts all that much!

You can say, that was Universal money in a Working Title film so at some level it was an "American" movie, but the fact is Richard Curtis is British, it was filmed in England with a British cast and crew with the exception of the afore mentioned big lipped actress.

Then again, almost everything I've seen in te last year disappointed, including KING KONG. Stupid New Zealand!

Just kidding...

[Tarl_Cabot]

Yeah you Red coats should stick to rock n roll. And I want my $20 back for Layer Cake.

[ACE]

Take this for what it's worth. I'm just a fat man in Green Bay, Wisconsin who watches lots and lots of movies, and owns between 700 and 1100 in various formats (VHS, DVD, Beta and laserdisc- most of which I just sold so that's why I don't have a more accurate count for you). I've studied film history for 20 years and hope to make it in the near future. I'm not as accomplished as ACE (who is my hero by the way) but I'm active in the Independent Filmmaker's Guild and have my own Production Company that went live 1 January. Mythic Productions, watch for it.

"Interesting role model" Bad choice for a hero, Major Bloodnok I'm not accomplished at all. Yet....Anyway, you are far more qualified than me to talk about, perhaps, the art of film. You have an impressive resume.

That said- my opinion is that the best writers, actors and directors- as well as many cinematographers come from Britain.  How is it that the movies aren't BETTER than US films?

Like ACE says, there are a few companies that are backed by American companies and have a huge money pot to draw from, but as we've seen, money doesn't make a good movie (DIE ANOTHER DAY anyone?).  Are we talking about American productions that take place in London? Or are we talking about homegrown British films? Or even films made by the BBC which, compared to a ABC, NBC, CBS movie of the week, are far superior. I own many on dvd and enjoy them frequently.

I was talking about UK financed and developed feature films for cinema exhibition. Of course, British TV and music is very, very good. But TV is a different medium with its own set of rules and creative/economic parameters.

I would ask ACE, with this movie you coproduced that disappoints, what is it that is so bad? Obviously the script passed muster at one point. The director must have satisfied sometime during preproduction.  The cast and crew were chosen for their skills.  How did it go so bad?  I'm not saying that you did a bad job, even though you already said that.  What you need to address, and not with us, is what is bad and how can it be fixed and even avoided in the future.

And then, would that film have been better if produced in Chicago?

Good points. Firstly, I was not involved throughout the development process. The shooting scripts were presented as a fait accompli. I wanted at least another 3 months and more development time. I can't go into the detailed specifics.

As for fixing, that's what we're in the process of doing now.

It's not necessarily the geographical location of production but the know-how and sensibility. I think any film would be different if produced in Chicago because the basic nature of how film in perceived in the US.

I remember waiting for STAR WARS EPISODE ONE for fifteen years. Then, the summer it comes out I see it, liked it a lot, but was blown away by another film that summer called NOTTING HILL. It's in my top five faves of all time and I don't like Julia Roberts all that much!

OK, this is where I get flamed. I LOVED The Phantom Grimace. And Attack of the Clowns. I liked Notting Hill. But those 2 films cannot be set against each other. Name a globally popular British space opera? They just are not even capable of being developed here. As for Notting Hill, I love the sensibility of it (if not the film) and am in favour of that approach to film making. But it is basically a urban romantic comedy - and the US has made a beautiful bunch of those.

You can say, that was Universal money in a Working Title film so at some level it was an "American" movie, but the fact is Richard Curtis is British, it was filmed in England with a British cast and crew with the exception of the afore mentioned big lipped actress.

I'm not specifically talking about the nationality and sensibility of individual film-makers. I'm talking about the culture of the film industry in respective nations. NH would NOT have been made or as successful without said big lipped actress. It would probably never have been seen in the US outside an arthouse crowd.

Then again, almost everything I've seen in te last year disappointed, including KING KONG.  Stupid New Zealand!         

Just kidding...

I was disappointed with King Kong but that film will make a lot of money and drive other productions. But the fact is, it was made, gave a lot of people employment and will be seen in large numbers around the world. A King Kong and a Lord of the Rings script would not even be read by British producers. NOT EVEN READ!

I am a member of the British Film Institute and I once attended a Q&A session with Quentin Taratino at the National Film Theatre on the South Bank in London.
After the talk, members of the audience could ask question. A smug person asked QT ironically that if he was the head of a studio would he have greenlit Sister Act 2 expecting the answer to be "No". QT said he would have and insightfully went on to say that that was symbolic of the European film industries. He said he would greenlight SA because the success of a Sister Act film could fund 10 of his.

Because film is so expensive it has to be popular i.e. seen by a number of paying punters who will recoup the budget. The economics of producing a film are staggering. However, people like Tarantino and Rodriquez and Soderbergh actually are quite frugal with budgets yet make interesting and worthy films which get an audience.

I'm not saying the above are the best filmmakers (my favourite directors are people like Woody Allen, Sidney Lumet, Sydney Pollack and Anthony Minghella) but I am talking about the producing culture in respective countries. And the nature of the industry, per se.

I am not lambasting established film-makers on the basis of their nationality. I am commenting on the different creative and economic considerations that get movies off the starting block in respective film-making cultures and explaining why a global audience does not go and watch homegrown Brit movies, generally, and why so many movies get made in the UK and then sit, undistributed, on shelves, gathering dust.

Tarl_Cabot is right - the music industry in the UK is so completely different. It is an industry.

A wag once said that the British Film (Cottage) Industry is like a terminally ill patient who occasionally goes into fits of remission.

But, as William Goldman famously said of the film industry:

NOBODY KNOWS ANYTHING

[Loomis]

Some bloody good points, ACE. You really know your stuff (and your film history).

And I remember that Tarantino appearance of about a decade ago. I think I tried to get tickets, but it sold out at lightning speed. People were saying he could have filled Wembley Arena, which he probably could have done at that point (in 1994/95, hot off PULP FICTION, Tarantino became a huge cult figure in Britain; of course, he became a very famous name all over the world, but the UK went especially nuts for him, for some reason - over here he was much more like a rock star than a film director).

Tarantino - the Robbie of his day.

[Major Bloodnok]

I think that living where I do I'm "sheltered" from the bad films and only get to see the ones with US appeal, which I think is a load of rubbish as well. And who decides what plays in Peoria anyway?

My point was, and is, that some of if not THE best film makers are from the UK. Even historically- give me a David Lean or an Alfred Hitchcock over QT anyday. Give me an Alec Guinness or a Ralph Richardson over a George Clooney or Samuel L. Jackson. And I love the Americans I mentioned! I firmly believe that English actors, with very few exceptions, have superior skills to their American counterparts.

ACE, I love the STAR WARS movies too- all six of 'em. I'm just saying that George Lucas, from a writer's standpoint, is no Richard Curtis (who I swear I saw one Saturday morning when I was visiting Portobello Road in 2001- he was wearing a red baseball cap. I yelled his name from 100 feet away, and the guy turned around. I know, I'm a jerk).

I understand that crappy movies with broad appeal have to be made. Hollywood does that better than anywhere else in the world. For every ENDURING LOVE (hated it) which was probably made with US dollars, there are 20 DUKES OF HAZARD, SUPER TROOPERS, ROAD TRIP, etc.

Then, and I'm aware I'm rambling here, we finally got our HITCHHIKER'S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY film this past year. I've been a fan for over twenty years and thought it was okay. The biggest problem in my opinion: it lost it's British charm. The things I LOVED in the radio show (my favorite incarnation) were so watered down for the stupid American audience (not all of us, just those who paid money to see DUKES OF HAZARD, SUPER TROOPERS and ROAD TRIP) that it was like watching a grade school play of CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY. And don't get me started on Zaphod's extra head...

I guess what I'm trying to express is that while you are disappointed with the UK film scene, America has far more bad films and actors that annoy the beejeezus out of me. ACE, you're in a great place to raise the bar- and I hope you do. And then I hope I'll be making a movie with you sometime. I'll let you know how my shoot goes this spring (there's talk of shooting hi def! Brilliant!).

Don't give up! The UK has the talent! Don't settle for being "as good" as Hollywood. Be way better! Lead the way! Hang on to Chris Nolan! He's a genius.

[ACE]

Thanks Major B.

I accept all the points you make.

However, I think we are talking at cross purposes.

I am not, repeat NOT, talking about the nationality and skill of established British film makers like the names you cite.

I was trying to answer the thread topic.

I was actually trying to explain why a lot of homegrown (UK) financed and developed films

a) never get released;
do not find an audience;
c) if they do, they do not live in the memory;
d) do not travel or are understood outside the UK;
e) are not held in high esteem by British audiences;
f) do not make money;
g) do not make enough money to sustain the misses; or
h) all of the above.

Of course Britain has more than its fair share of wonderful, talented filmmakers.

But they rarely make films in the UK and add to the infrastructure of the industry.

I wish you all success in your adventures in the screentrade and maybe our paths will cross.

[Major Bloodnok]

I guess in my random, scattered thoughts what I was trying to say was, I don't get it either. I hope I didn't come off argumentative.

And I always find it amusing how much people in America like Monty Python, and (mis)quote THE HOLY GRAIL from the time they're nine years old, and then say they don't "get" British humor. Spike Milligan is so far beyond these people that they'd refuse to watch him. They don't understand that without Spike they wouldn't have the Pythons and Douglas Adams. Maybe not even Ben Elton and Mr. Curtis.

As James Bond would say, "Keep the British end up." Until I can afford to visit again I console myself watching the movies filmed there!

[ACE]

I guess in my random, scattered thoughts what I was trying to say was, I don't get it either. I hope I didn't come off argumentative.

And I always find it amusing how much people in America like Monty Python, and (mis)quote THE HOLY GRAIL from the time they're nine years old, and then say they don't "get" British humor. Spike Milligan is so far beyond these people that they'd refuse to watch him.  They don't understand that without Spike they wouldn't have the Pythons and Douglas Adams.  Maybe not even Ben Elton and Mr. Curtis.

As James Bond would say, "Keep the British end up."  Until I can afford to visit again I console myself watching the movies filmed there!

It's alright. Don't worry, intelligence isn't argumentative and your opinions are excellent and I agree with most of them.

As for Americans not "getting" English humour or irony, that's balderdash.

The US has developed some of the finest humour in the world and large chunks of it are based on irony.

Groucho Marx
Billy Wilder
Robert Altman
Paddy Chayefsky
William Goldman
Dale Launer
Larry Saunders
Larry David
Bill Hicks

Although I think Python is overrated, I can appreciate it's brilliance. Sure Adams, Curtis, Elton, Cleese, Gervais owe a debt to the absurdist, surrealist school of comedey (which can go back to Tati, Laurel and Hardy, Harold Lloyd).
But everybody is influenced by each other.

Long may movies continue to be made in the UK and around the world. Long may British talent thrive. But let us look carefully at our system of producing films and see if we can learn some lessons from the US and not be so fashionably snooty about creating a property, self-perpetuating industry.

Major Bloodnok, isn't it time you were promoted?

[Major Bloodnok]

Spike even said most of his humour was based on one Groucho Marx joke.

And I have just promoted myself to Cat Stevens. But I don't feel like changing my profile...

[spynovelfan]

Hang on to Chris Nolan! He's a genius.

I think Chris Nolan is a very good example of what ACE is talking about, Major B. He made his first feature film, FOLLOWING, for less than $10,000 with friends (yes, $10,000), and took it round festivals. It attracted the interest of American investors. I met him in New York the day he signed that deal (), which meant he could make his second film, MEMENTO, for a budget of around $5 million. His third film was INSOMNIA, which had a budget of $50 million. BATMAN BEGINS' budget was around $135 million. Quite a leap in six years! Nolan was born and bred in Britain, but also has American citizenship. In an interview with The Guardian in June 2005, Nolan had this to say:

"I don't dispute that it's ironic that it was Warner Bros that brought me back to film in England. But there's a very limited pool of finance in the UK. To be honest, it's a very clubby kind of place. In Hollywood there's a great openness, almost a voracious appetite for new people. In England there's a great suspicion of the new. In cultural terms, that can be a good thing, but when you're trying to break into the film industry, it's definitely a bad thing.

I never had any luck with interesting people in small projects when I was doing Following. Never had any support whatsoever from the British film industry, other than Working Title, the company that [producer] Emma Thomas was working for at the time. They let me use their photocopier, stuff like that, which is not to be underestimated."

We've already lost Chris Nolan. Depressing, innit?

[Dr. Tynan]

Major Bloodnok, I see your reading this. You've expanded my thread into a wider discussion , nothing wrong with that.

Look you have a point about about the UK's talent. My point is not as deep as that.

Put it this way, maybe this is not important. What would you rather watch a car chase taking place with two crappy British cars, down a skinny, insignificant looking UK street. Complete with crappy weather.
Or else a carchase with two fancy American cars, driving through the tall buildings of a US street.

I'm sorry mate and to everyone else, I just hate Brit-flicks.

[spynovelfan]

Put it this way, maybe this is not important. What would you rather watch a car chase taking place with two crappy British cars, down a skinny, insignificant looking UK street. Complete with crappy weather.
Or else a carchase with two fancy American cars, driving through the tall buildings of a US street.

Aren't you just saying that you prefer America's landscape to Britain's, though? Which country would you rather live in?

[Dr. Tynan]

[quote name='spynovelfan' date='7 January 2006 - 17:24']
Aren't you just saying that you prefer America's landscape to Britain's, though?]

Yeah I am saying that. It may seem trivial. I want watch a film that does not look it has been filmed in my own street.

[Major Bloodnok]

In my case it's the wrong question. I'd rather watch a film with witty, well written dialogue and a catchy story. Action must support story. Otherwise it's... ROAD TRIP or DUKES OF HAZARD.

[Dr. Tynan]

I like story, but when I go to the cinema I want to be entertained so 99% of the time I pick an entertaining movie (action, horror, comedy-action). I love a good horror flick.

[ACE]

In my case it's the wrong question. I'd rather watch a film with witty, well written dialogue and a catchy story.  Action must support story. Otherwise it's... ROAD TRIP or DUKES OF HAZARD.

Aint nuthen wrong with those Dooks o' Hazard. Daisy was sure some fine piece of tail!

SNF's quote about Nolan says it all.

[Major Bloodnok]

Yeah, I can't argue it. QED.

I still like a bunch o' UK films though...

[ACE]

Cor blimey, guv'nor.

That Keira Knightly, a bit of alright, int she?
Marks out 'o ten? I'd give her one!

Hey, we just love movies!

[Major Bloodnok]

All right, now you're just making fun of me. I'm a man, I can take it!