What’s
holding the UK film industry back?
Read
through this essay and answer the following questions. Make any additional
notes that you think are relevant.
1) What was the state of
Pinewood Studios’ activity in 2009? What is problematic about this? What is the
“wider conundrum”?
Pinwood studios' activity in 2009 was not
the best, in 2009 only one out of five films being made were financed and owned
by Britain. The wider conundrum was that UK has yet to develop a self
sustaining domestic film industry while having a long cinematic tradition.
2) One of the early questions
is “should film, straddling the commercial and cultural worlds, be subsidised
for its artistic value, or left to commercial producers?” Outline your opinion
on this.
I say left to commercial producers as
they are more the experts in how they can gain more audience for the films
through its use in commercials and advertisements, and with more viewers the
film will gain more money
3) How did the early US film
studios ascend into dominance? (You will have to read several paragraphs and
then bring the ideas together)
Entrepreneurs such as Adolph Zukor and
Carl Laemmle who founded Paramount Pictures and Universal which had advantages
over British counterparts which were swift integration of the disparate arms.
This tactic gave the studious invest in great technology, sets and talent.
Lammae also opened a ground-breaking film studio called "Universal
City" which also had its own post office, blacksmith and two
restaurants.
4) How does this compare with
early efforts from British men like Boot and Rank? What are the explanations as
to why their results differed?
With the US having a far greater
population it was much easier for the US to sell movies with their bigger
domestic audience. British studious such as Shepperton and Teddington, don't
fund their own film projects anymore. Also since Hollywood studios made most
money very easily in the domestic market alone they could then sell movies
abroad cheaply. In 1927 ever 4/5 films shown in the UK were American, 4% were
actually British. Nowadays
5) Explain how Britain’s
shared language with the US is considered a hurdle. Consider what Thykier has
to say on the matter.
Thykier says due to there not being a
language barrier people can now no longer tell the difference between American
and British films.
6) Outline the issues with acquiring
funding for films in the UK.
Only few movies that are made become big
hits which makes investing in a movie a risky idea as it has a chance to
backfire.
7) How does the French system
contrast from the UK system? What are the advantages/disadvantages of the
French system? Do you think the UK should follow a similar model, and if so do
you think it is feasible?
The UK government doesn't assist the
industry as much as the French government. There are regulations in France that
ensure the domestic market remains successful and popular however there are no
such regulations in the UK. France also help ensure this by making sure most of
the films in France are in French not English
8)
“If the aim was merely
financial self-sufficiency, some might say the government should give up on
funding film production, and instead try to boost what Britain already does
quite profitably: acting as a service industry to international filmmakers, as
exemplified by studios like Pinewood and the strong post-production sector
based in London’s Soho.”
What are your thoughts on this?
I think it is a better option for Britain as the UK
film industry has not been going very well so helping in being a service
industry as it is a more profitable option for them
9) In what way was the Film
Council stuck “between a rock and a hard place”?
Because it was criticised for financing
films that were claimed to be not entertaining enough
10)
Why
was the “golden era of British film” possible?
It was possible because the US influence
was reduced at the star of the war and so it was a while before it was going
well again. With a film enthusiast Churchill at the head of the government
found its way into an enlightened for of support, which was the Ministry of
information financed documentary production, gave arm-lengths support to
commercial producers. However audiences needed both morale-boosting
entertainment and information and they flocked to British films as well as
Hollywood ones. With a public service blend with commercial enterprise, was
forged in the special conditions of wartime it wouldn't last with a subsidy in
the shape of the NFFC ahead, while the British cinema had never been so
commercialy or artistically buoyant it was good while it lasted but would not
last.
No comments:
Post a Comment