Comments on: The Prime Minister’s Speech: Why The British Government’s Plan To Shake Up Film Financing Is Wrong-Headed & Doomed To Failure

By: Jan Davids

Jan Davids — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:38:50 +0000

Good article. Couple of points:
– nice bit of revisionist historical analysis going on in the media. Remember the UKFC was criticised in indie film circles because it mostly backed "commercial" projects (unlike its predecessor) – so interesting that now it's being held up as an example of promoting indie talent. The idea that the King's Speech is now being highlighted as a publicly funded indie success is also interesting. Would the UKFC have put production finance on the table for The King's Speech if Colin Firth / Geoffrey Rush were not attached and lesser-known actors were involved? I don't think so… So UK public film funds have always (since the onset of the UKCF) considered commercial factors and been conservative in their choices, which is why films like The Iron Lady get made with UKFC money (biopic of well-known figure, clear commercial potential), and riskier projects i.e. by first-time directors who direct spec scripts about fictional characters, have always struggled to get their projects funded (even in indie circles a lot of filmmakers have complained that any public money for indie / arthouse films will automatically go to someone like Ken Loach or Mike Leigh – public funders know that those filmmakers have a reasonable chance of making a film which will do ok financially – not great – but ok – as well as creating critical success to use in their next annual report – so there's always been a level of conservatism.)
– Many small indie films are much more commercially successful than higher-budget more commercially positioned films i.e. they deliver much higher ROI. Yet, the indie film will be seen as commercially unsuccessful because everything in the industry is measured by box office take, irrespective of the marketing spend and ROI. So not only does âno one know anythingâ. But even after a film comes out and the box office figures are published, we still know very little about its commercial success.
– So perhaps we should just accept that in the last 10 years UK's film funders have always looked at the bottom line, that there has been inherent conservatism in their funding choices and accept it for what it is. The idea that there has been a strong cultural element in funding decisions, that talent has been backed before commercial considerations is nonsense. So what can we do? We can get behind Film 4, Warp and other risk takers (go to the cinema to see their films, watch on TV, catch-up / online) to give them more strength to continue their risk-taking approach. And instead of complaining about a system which weâve had for years, we need to evolve alternative finance strategies for funding films â through crowd-funding, community-sourced support, sponsorship, branding, and investor tax-break schemes (EIS). It's not ideal, but it's better than pretending that the UK film funds are something they are not.

By: Benjamin Vega

Benjamin Vega — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:38:50 +0000

Great article. I'm very glad you guys chose to write about this, some of us at the other side of the pond may not have found out about such an alarming development otherwise.
Here's hoping the British film industry will manage to sort it out, the possibility that a great many little films would never be able to get made is incredibly disheartening

By: Kieran McMahon

Kieran McMahon — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:38:50 +0000

Great article, intelligent, absolutely spot on.

By: Vinnie

Vinnie — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:38:50 +0000

Thank you so much for writing this and highlighting this issue. All well said.

By: Cinematic_High

Cinematic_High — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:38:50 +0000

It's funny that you mentioned Working Title…..since they're going to continue that slump when Big Miracle comes out…..nobody went crazy for Dolpin Tale….in fact…no one has flocked to a theater to see sea creatures since fucking Free Willie! Great article by the way….it's a damn shame that nobody wants to take risks in cinema anymore…..

By: Annie Hall

Annie Hall — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:38:50 +0000

What also stands out is the face that the 'teen movie' genres are for UK teens; ie "Inbetweeners". In the rest of the English speaking world, no one watches it and no one cares. It's not aired abroad to reach audiences who'd even know the characters. Also, Working Title is a US run branch, and all the films mentioned from "Four Weddings" to "Bridget Jones" to "King's Speech" were highly employed with US talent, money, distributors and producers in Hollywood of New York (the King's Speech screenwriter himself was from NY just as many other films were, and based on his uncle who went to the same tutor as the king did and who gave him the tutors actual notes of these sessions). My point is, when these articles are written, no one ever looks under the rug to find out just how much abroad money and resources it took to get the film made and bring in the talent and the pounds. Although hard to find at first, you can locate many reports that UK film council had to take leave of it's responsibility of managing for 20 yrs. because it failed to actually bring money back to the UK. Many people were hired but so were others from abroad, and once the film was done, that money went back to its distributors (ahem, not UK – we don't even own the cinemas in England either) so that, and the fact 300K per year was going to Jonathan Ross to "manage" the fund. That was not good news when that was published. Hence, no more UK film council and BFI was probably chosen for "a safe bet" although as the article said and we all know – can't be guaranteed (especially if the country doesn't distribute it's own films. 75/25 is the normal split with any theatre and any film company. UK doesn't even get the 25. Everyone is paid at production and the rest is zero in the bank as any film, even "Slum Dog" chalked up millions. You do the math. It's not the films it's UK's ownership of any of it's films and ability to produce other than local interest stories without help of abroad financiers and talent. "Full Monty" and "Trainspotting"? Not 100% UK owned either. So, no matter who manages isn't the issue. It's the structure of ownership and distribution. But any film guru could have told us that if they looked closer at this issue right?

By: ANNIE HALL

ANNIE HALL — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:38:50 +0000

clarification on 75/25 – if 75% automatically goes to the distribution company (as with any film produced at any time) 25% of every ticket goes back to the production company – which is usually a group of people who financed; ie channel 4, private investors, venture capitol from here and there, and most of the time, US studios like fox or warners for the big films… then 25% is split between those financiers, despite the "uk studio name" listed on the credits. So in this way UK films don't make even the 25% back per ticket. They may make it back by buying back the rights to show it on BBC, but if they need to make money by showing on cable (Sky Atlantic which opened February last year) then that is another US managed company that gets part of that pay-channel price you spend to watch it. And it was a 'home grown' film that no one at home get's money back from. Even if it's in the Odeon (owners are Australian or Canadian) that ticket price goes to them. So I hope that made it clear – my roommate said it was a bit confusing. Cheers.

By: TheoC

TheoC — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:38:50 +0000

Great article, well written / thought out. Nobody knows anything, perfect.

By: anon

anon — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:38:50 +0000

wow…great article and great comment annie hall

By: ad

ad — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:38:50 +0000

If British film is such a success, why does it need a subsidy? There must be more important things for public money to be spent on.

By: Donald

Donald — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:38:50 +0000

Very sensible article. This sort of crap comes along every few years. Remember the elaborately wigged Michael Fabricant MP urging UK producers to make more films like the Carry On… pictures?

By: ng

ng — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:38:49 +0000

Cameron and the people who support this kind of approach are simply trying to use a more subtle form of censorship to determine what the film conversations with the public will consist of. We should all be concerned about the narrowing of the field of acceptable dialogue. To me, it's as if he's laying the groundwork to say, sometime in the future, that all films will have to tote the party line; but, of course, the language to silence thought will always cloak the real intention.

By: pi

pi — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:38:49 +0000

Completely disagree with this article and the sheep who agree. Any industry that is funded by the tax payer must be done with purpose. In this case its in the name of national art/entertainment so people accept tax payers money funding culture on the basis that only a few million (under 50 million pounds a year) is spent keeping it afloat but remember 10/20 years of keeping it afloat builds to big money money that could have gone towards more important causes like health and transport etc. You forget this moral debate of whetever any money at all should go towards a non existing national "industry", thats why I fully support the idea thats films should gain back the money and also profit from it, to spend on many more films with a range of budgets. Quite frankly that would build a much more joyful film culture than the one we have now. I love film and aim to make some myself so i do care about the quality and art but why is commerical and popular such dirty words, david cameron never mention it had to be commerical and CRAP. We can have both commerical and good. I would in fact argue Slumdog Millionaire was a commerical film because it had a high profile director (I know because i was looking up the film on the internet before the trailer came out, looking forward to see the director's next film), Trainspotting was based on a best selling book and was the second film made by danny boyle following his hit and well recieved film shallow grave and the king's speech had three stars in it all who have been nominated for a oscar before and the subject matter was about royals. Therefore i would argue that all of these films that were well recieved artistically were infact commerical films from the start.

By: Andrew Morris /Andrew Morris Managment

Andrew Morris /Andrew Morris Managment — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:38:49 +0000

I think the time has really come for the Coalition to stop taking crap about what it thinks is good for the British film industy, and start introducing some policies to generate films and work ;- for a start , they must reintroduce tax breaks to film makers accross the board ;- if people here ae encouraged to make films here, with tax breaks and cost effective production costs , it will CREATE JOBS , as all the supporting roles in the ffilm , on the crew ect , will be hired here . Add to this a policy that percentage of sales and distribution costs , from the top to the bottom at the cinema, where , say every Â£2/Â£3 of each ticket , is placed into a National film account to fund future films , the critera of which , can be decided upon via a points system , depending of categories such as subject matter , target audience , local national critera, ect .
Like other industries , the coalition need to stop diverting any profits made from films , abroad to companies , for short term gain . The french , germans , and other europeans manage to do this with their industies , so we now need to do this with ours . The Government must now start to think and act this way ….oh , and i have already been asked to assist with the policy lobbying !! thank you .

By: Edd Morgan

Edd Morgan — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:38:49 +0000

This article and many of the comments only goes to show how spoilt and deluded people in the so-called British film industry have become. Government subsidies are naturally good to help new production companies get off the ground, but they should be then expected to stand on their own financial feet without further support, or else go bust and leave room for another company. If you havenât noticed, itâs how any other business works. Working Title have had great successes and flops as well, itâs the nature of the business, and if you donât like it then pull out, just donât expect the government to play Daddy whenever convenient and give handouts whenever you want. Critical plaudits and high marks on Rotten Tomatoes mean nothing, the public is the only critic that matters.

Aiming to make a profit is not âselling outâ it is simply good business, as you have in an industry, including a film industry, get it? It also helps prevent filmmakers from disappearing up their own backsides by remembering that they are meant to cater for an audience, especially if they are spending other peopleâs money. This does it spell the end of less commercial film ventures, but just that a responsible production company can use the profits of more successful and popular productions to fund its more risky projects. I know we all like to boo and hiss at Hollywood studios, but they take risks all the time, winning some and losing some.

As for saying that ânobody knows anythingâ (an overused quote fast becoming a bad clichÃ©) itâs no excuse for not trying to appeal to a larger audience. Film industries all over the world do so making both successful and unsuccessful films, but generally staying afloat; why should the UK be any different? I am sick and tired of the patronising attitude in British film circles saying that anything Hollywood is crap and that the millions of people who flock to see those movies (instead of seeing theirs) are clearly misguided and stupid. What a great way to regard the general public! If filmmakers are really desperate to make an arty-farty pet project, they are welcome to do so, but they will just have to fork out the money themselves and face the consequences.

Stop blaming the government, stop blaming Hollywood, stop treating the general public like morons and start taking responsibility for your own industry.

By: anonymous

anonymous — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:38:49 +0000

I'm not British but I've loved a lot of British films. While I like some Holywood movies I don't think there is a need for more Hollywood style films. Hollywood doesn't make as many major arthouse films or even middlebrow dramas as it used to and I would hate to see that happen in Britain.

By: Tobias Bowman

Tobias Bowman — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:38:49 +0000

Agree with Jan. UK film funding changed dramatically in early 2000s. Tax Breaks existed in the form of incentivised legislation targeting individuals incurring high income tax: "Section 42 relief allowed the cost of producing British films to generate a loss which can be offset against other income over a 3-year period. âSection 48 reliefâ was more generous and allows the loss to arise entirely in the first year of the partnership. In either case the loss could be used against income in the year of the loss or in the previous three years. Film partnerships have traditionally required a 15-year commitment, and have usually been financially complex, but the film partnership scheme attracted about GBP500mn in investment in its first two years." This changed due to anti-avoidance legislation culminating in the 2006 Finance Act. The frustration is that film is not purely a commercial art form and many of the stories that need to be told are not deemed as commercially viable, so require subsidising to get made and require some space within exhibition and marketing channels. As Ken Loach stated, we need more localised, independent picture houses and let the cinema goers make up their mind; not everyone in the UK wants to witness Optimus Prime updating his Facebook profile in the 'Transformers VI' horror show, or some 3D remake Citizen Kane nightmare. Quite frankly Cameron is showing his true ignorant colours, stripping everything back that does not have the overt super purpose of profit, 'in these testing times' which were actually caused by that very attitude. Much of the funding available comes from funding such as the National Lottery, so therefore defining a film as a success in purely financial/awards terms is a complete misnomer. The solution is a complex one but is achievable. In my opinion I think that revisiting the tax-break schemes is the way to go made available with mandatory investment in films within certain budgetary brackets â i.e 500K â 3 mil. That in combination with more transparency and accessibility from regional grass roots organisations who can identify projects of cultural and artistic importance which require developmental support.