The UK film industry is booming - Australia would love our success
Audiences just love British films - and there's more of them in cinemas than ever, says John Woodward
Tuesday July 11, 2006
The Guardian
Britain spends more money on making movies than every country except the US.
Guy de Beaujeu's article overlooks both the success story of British film and the problems faced by the Australian industry in the last few years (Lights, camera, bonza!, June 23).
He says that the "British film industry is in a shambles", but British films accounted for 33% of the UK box office in 2005, the highest level since reliable records began and an increase of almost 50% on 2004. This success was international, with the top 10 UK films grossing $2,599m worldwide - more than double the $1,167m of 2003, despite last year's global downturn in cinema admissions. The UK was one of the few countries to escape the ticket slump - admissions in the US fell by almost 9%, in Germany by 19% and in France by 10% - largely due to crowd-pulling British films.
De Beaujeu is absolutely right when he says that most high-earning UK films are co-productions with the US. But to write them off as not truly British and to treat them as some kind of failure denies the inescapable fact that few films today are financed by one country alone. Yes, Harry Potter has US finance, but it is driven by a British producer, filmed in the UK with a British cast and crew, employing thousands of British workers, using UK studio facilities, special effects, editing, and is based on British books. So let's be proud of its success.
It goes without saying that we must also make distinctively British films that challenge and inspire audiences. They are important to our culture and identity. De Beaujeu cites the Australian examples of Muriel's Wedding, The Dish and Lantana and argues that we have a treasure chest of historical and cultural experiences which we should be sharing with the world. I totally agree, but he chose to ignore our own home-grown greats: The Wind That Shakes the Barley, and Red Road - big winners at Cannes - as well as The Constant Gardener, 28 Days Later, Touching the Void, Gosford Park, Bend It Like Beckham and so on. They are all brilliant films with great scripts which sold well around the world and were consumed by audiences on a scale that the Australian film industry would give its right arm for.
We do need to give audiences the opportunity to see a wider range of films, including lower-budget British films, classics and archive material as well as the best of world cinema. Until now, choice at many cinemas outside the big cities has been limited due to the high costs of 35mm prints (anywhere from £1,000 to £2,500 each). To help change that, the UK Film Council is investing £12 million of national lottery money into a digital screen network. Digital distribution is significantly cheaper than 35mm and will allow a richer diet of films to be distributed. With the new network fully up and running by next spring, more than 200 cinemas - including multiplexes - will be required to devote more screen time to British and non-blockbuster films.
Digital will give the public unprecedented choice and filmmakers more opportunity to get their films on to the big screen. The future for the cinema-going public looks bright, and British films are set to play a leading role.
· John Woodward is chief executive officer of the UK Film Council press@ukfilmcouncil.org.uk
guardian.co.uk
Audiences just love British films - and there's more of them in cinemas than ever, says John Woodward
Tuesday July 11, 2006
The Guardian
Britain spends more money on making movies than every country except the US.
Guy de Beaujeu's article overlooks both the success story of British film and the problems faced by the Australian industry in the last few years (Lights, camera, bonza!, June 23).
He says that the "British film industry is in a shambles", but British films accounted for 33% of the UK box office in 2005, the highest level since reliable records began and an increase of almost 50% on 2004. This success was international, with the top 10 UK films grossing $2,599m worldwide - more than double the $1,167m of 2003, despite last year's global downturn in cinema admissions. The UK was one of the few countries to escape the ticket slump - admissions in the US fell by almost 9%, in Germany by 19% and in France by 10% - largely due to crowd-pulling British films.
De Beaujeu is absolutely right when he says that most high-earning UK films are co-productions with the US. But to write them off as not truly British and to treat them as some kind of failure denies the inescapable fact that few films today are financed by one country alone. Yes, Harry Potter has US finance, but it is driven by a British producer, filmed in the UK with a British cast and crew, employing thousands of British workers, using UK studio facilities, special effects, editing, and is based on British books. So let's be proud of its success.
It goes without saying that we must also make distinctively British films that challenge and inspire audiences. They are important to our culture and identity. De Beaujeu cites the Australian examples of Muriel's Wedding, The Dish and Lantana and argues that we have a treasure chest of historical and cultural experiences which we should be sharing with the world. I totally agree, but he chose to ignore our own home-grown greats: The Wind That Shakes the Barley, and Red Road - big winners at Cannes - as well as The Constant Gardener, 28 Days Later, Touching the Void, Gosford Park, Bend It Like Beckham and so on. They are all brilliant films with great scripts which sold well around the world and were consumed by audiences on a scale that the Australian film industry would give its right arm for.
We do need to give audiences the opportunity to see a wider range of films, including lower-budget British films, classics and archive material as well as the best of world cinema. Until now, choice at many cinemas outside the big cities has been limited due to the high costs of 35mm prints (anywhere from £1,000 to £2,500 each). To help change that, the UK Film Council is investing £12 million of national lottery money into a digital screen network. Digital distribution is significantly cheaper than 35mm and will allow a richer diet of films to be distributed. With the new network fully up and running by next spring, more than 200 cinemas - including multiplexes - will be required to devote more screen time to British and non-blockbuster films.
Digital will give the public unprecedented choice and filmmakers more opportunity to get their films on to the big screen. The future for the cinema-going public looks bright, and British films are set to play a leading role.
· John Woodward is chief executive officer of the UK Film Council press@ukfilmcouncil.org.uk
guardian.co.uk
