The British Film Industry

The British film industry like all industries is a product of its own culture. The unique style and mannerisms of the British always and sometimes unknowingly seep into each and every film. Critics wrongly compare the British industry to the American industry, but it is on a smaller scale and it cannot compare with the large number of American films that are produced each year. The British film industry also has its fair amount of ebbs and flows, and its recent resurgence is a result of the internationalization of the global film industry. Its success abroad deals with the popular British tourism industry including Britain's rich history that comes up in heritage films. One of the worst depressions of the British industry, which occurred during the 1980s, was caused by a variety of factors that dealt with the financial aspects of the industry in Britain.

This brought about the 1990s resurgence that included a new breed of heritage films as well as a new genre of modern middle and lower class films that emphasized Britain's class system problems. Internationalization is an issue of great importance to the global film picture and had similar consequences to many of the other film industries around the world. One of the strong bases of the British industry is the quality of the crews that work in some of the most famous production studios. The study of British film has increased greatly over the years because of the latest resurgence and the various genres that British filmmakers have attempted to go into. But these are ebbs and flows that British society has generally known to not read much into. The British are proud of what they have accomplished and understand that success only comes alongside failure, and as Winston Churchill once said, "The maxim of the British people is 'Business as usual'."

When most people think of the films that are produced by the British film industry, they think of what are known as heritage films. These are without question the most financially successful films overseas, especially in the United States. Heritage basically deals with the storied past of the United Kingdom, which includes England, Scotland, and Ireland. These films can be fiction or non-fiction and they include films like Chariots of Fire (1981), Gandhi (1982), Lawrence of Arabia (1962), A Passage to India (1984), Elizabeth (1998), and Shakespeare in Love (1998). The other portion of heritage film comes from classic British literature like William Shakespeare and Jane Austin. Some of these heritage films are the writer-director Kenneth Branagh's Shakespeare adaptations of Henry 5^th (1989) and Much Ado About Nothing (1993), and the Jane Austin adaptations of Sense and Sensibility (1995), Emma (1996), and Pride & Prejudice (2005). Some of the reasons for the financial success of these films overseas have much to do with the genre of escapism as well as tourism. Tourism in Great Britain has always been very popular and visitors from the west have always flocked to attractions that are set up just for them. The monarchy, the changing of the guard, and all of the various palaces and castles are attractions set up just for tourists. Clearly, the point of having these particular types of attractions plays on the purely British persona.

The stereotype of the stiff Brit also lets tourists know that this is the only country where you can see attractions of this caliber. The main motivation for tourism around the world is financial, but the British do have a desire to share their unique way of life with the world. The public has contempt for certain nations especially the United States but this is because they are content with the British way of life. These heritage films play right into the escapism genre because they bring the viewer across time periods. Chariots of Fire is a film that shows the basic setup of most heritage films because of the treatment of its main characters. It includes the minority athlete who is oppressed by the rampant class system that is present in England. The outcomes are uniformly inspirational, however there are no long term solutions suggested for the caste system problems. I believe that the British heritage films will continue to be critically and financially successful in the future. Young directors like Joe Wright, the director of Pride & Prejudice, are taking on the classic pieces of literature and bringing them to a broader audience than ever before. These directors do view the literature as the best in their genre and that is their motivation for filming a different adaptation of the material. That is partially what makes Jane Austen novels timeless; every reader relates differently to the material, and that is why there can be an infinite amount of adaptations.

The British films that deal more with modern characters who are struggling with modern issues tend to be produced by independent companies. This means that many of these films have significantly lower budgets than most of the heritage films. However, this does not mean that these more modern films are not as well-written or well-directed than period dramas. Some of this new genre includes films like Trainspotting (1996), Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (1998), and Gangster No. 1 (2000). The last film is a gangster film that is set in the past starring Paul Bettany but it does deal with its subject matter in a very realistic way (Murphy, Cinema of the 90s). These types of films prospered more in the 1990s because of the lower budget screenwriters and directors who wanted to show the world life in the places that they never see; lower class England and Scotland. The fact that these films are grounded in realism helps the viewer to relate to the characters. Independent organizations and websites like www.britfilms.com are helpful aides to a needy independent movement that is far more connected than mainstream productions.

Britfilms.com offers information on funding sources, a directory of film festivals, databases of British directors, and databases of British features and shorts from 1998 up to those in production this year. These listings are extremely helpful for any up and coming filmmakers and producers because it does encourage that type of connection with their fellow British industry workers that is mentioned earlier. The festivals also help get these filmmakers more recognition that is valuable in order to gain further financial opportunities in beginning future projects. Filmmaking is generally a freelance occupation and all of these steps are necessary in order to have a long lasting career. The historical opposition to independent film has long been getting more people to show the films. In Great Britain, as well as around the world, the major releases are produced by the United States. These releases are generally out three months after they come out in America. For example, the major Christmas release in England will be the new Martin Scorsese film The Departed. This is a huge challenge for British independent films because there are also American independents that are released in England. Therefore, there is a large portion of these films that never reach the multiplexes. This new need of marketability might take out sources of originality; however this is partially balanced by the governments' increase in funding and new technological developments which allow films to be more cheaply produced (Murphy, Cinema Book).

"The British are coming!" These words were proclaimed during the 1982 academy award acceptance speech of Colin Welland, the writer of Chariots of Fire which won for best picture. This statement was ironic on several levels because shortly after this day the Argentineans invaded the Falklands/Malvinas islands and Great Britain's Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, sent a naval task force that successfully retook the islands a couple months later (Hill, 20). The other reason is that the following period during the 1980s was one of the most depressing eras of the British film industry. Thatcher was not completely against the film industry, but she certainly was not lobbying for it. Her policy towards the industry was to tie the funding for the television industry with the funding for the film industry. This of course decreased the funding for both industries and paved the way for the entirely negative 1985 films bill (Auty & Roddick, 1-2). The British industry's first challenge had always been the commercially driven films from Hollywood. But the 1980s brought another challenge from the television industry including rentals of which Britain is very high in that category. During this period the most glaring change was the type of films that were produced. Thatcher brought back the films that celebrated British pride like Chariots of Fire and even Gandhi, which recognizes that the British government was wrong in violently opposing the peaceful leader. This illustrates how much of a hypocritical society Great Britain has.

Historians and artists remember past mistakes and even publicly criticize them, but when it comes to changing current circumstances it is simply asking too much. This is present when looking at continued British control of Ireland as well as the ever present class system. Another issue during this time period was British multiplexes, from 1965 to 1980, the number of cinemas open at the end of the year declined from around 2000 to around 1300. Also, the annual cinema admissions declined and finally box office figures saw a sharp drop between 1980 and 1985. It was very interesting to read some books on the British film industry of the 1980s. Many introductions and early chapters apologized for the state of the industry at that time. I believe that this is an explanation of British culture in that these analysts are all a part of the industry whether or not they contribute to it. It is as much their fault that the industry is in a poor condition as the person sitting next to them. (British Cinema Now, 8-11) The reasons for these declines clearly point back to the emergence of television as the primary entertainment outlet. Audiences never have to leave their homes and they can quickly change the channel any time they want. And except for the most elite films, many were critically unsuccessful during this time period. This was the result of the decreased funding from the British government. As the famous British director Ridley Scott once said, "A knighthood certainly doesn't help getting a film made though!"

In November of 1990 Margaret Thatcher stepped down as Prime Minister of Great Britain. And at the start of the 1990s the industry almost immediately began producing more films. The modern type of independent films that included the fairly new genre of British gangsters included Trainspotting, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, and Gangster No. 1. The Kenneth Branagh written and directed Shakespeare adaptations of Henry 5^th and Much Ado About Nothing opened successfully overseas and were also critically successful. There were also a string of Jane Austin adaptations such as Sense and Sensibility and Emma as well as romance genre films like Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994), Notting Hill (1999), Bridget Jones' Diary (2001), and Shakespeare in Love (1998). Other heritage films that were produced during this time were Restoration (1995), Topsy-Turvy (1999), Howard's End (1992), The Remains of the Day (1993), and Elizabeth (1998). It was all of these films that saw critical successes and increased financial gains overseas that were not expected. In the United States these films saw numerous academy award nominations and best picture and best actress wins. The reasons for the resurgence in the 1990s have to do with some of the keys for the 1980s depression. There were more British films being made because of increased funding from the government, a strong increase in the number of multiplexes in the country, a strong increase in movie-goers, an increase in the study of film, and more media outlets for the promotion and review of film (Murphy, Cinema of the 90s, 28).

There is one significant change in the way that films are made around the world during this period; internationalization. Over the 1990s, there came to be very few completely British production companies. The American or overseas companies produced films in the United States, Great Britain, and other various countries that the film requires. Partisanship in the business declined in the interest to better serve the individual films. However, in the 1990s even though the resurgence had materialized, there were still several issues hampering the current British film industry as well as its future success. There were questions about whether financial successes went to the films that deserved that extra backing. Some of the mainstream films supported by the British Film Institute received financial backing from American companies who hoped to further market those films in the United States.

This left many independent films in the dust without a distribution deal for it to play in theaters, which was a common occurrence during the 1990s. Also, what use is the British film industry to itself if a majority of the movie-going public goes to see the films of the United States? However, this is basically true for any film industry that is not the American film industry and at this current point; internationalization is still not a complete entity. First of all, when analysts speak of this nonpartisanship, they are referring to mostly English-speaking nations. There are some exceptions like the up and coming Hong Kong film industry but the world is not yet completely international at this specific period in time. However, a guide into which screenplay ideas international companies pursue deals with a purely American gauge; box office results. This came to be because all of the analysts of the British film industry know that a couple of big budget flops could send Britain into the freefall that all industry professionals dread. An example that contributed to the demise of the 1980s was the Al Pacino vehicle Revolution (1985), critics did not hate it but audiences simply did not respond to it. The industry has also rarely been under British control (Murphy, Cinema Book, 305) This contributes to the fact that film production is not yet completely internationalized because many of the means that film is produced through center on the methods of the American film industry.

One of the strong points for British cinema has always been the production aspect of filmmaking because British crews have consistently been known as the top of the line. That is the reason why so many American productions shoot at British studios like Pinewood and Elstree. Some of the famous productions that were shot in Great Britain are Star Wars (1977), 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), Superman (1978), and all three Indiana Jones films. These films are definitely not British films because either the director or the cast were not British and in three of the films the ideas are strictly against anything British writers would come up with. "The British studio complexes have provided work for the cinematographers, art directors, editors, assistant directors, production managers, and general technical personnel on whom another aspect of Britain's cinematic reputation has largely rested: that of having the best technicians in the world" (Auty & Roddick, 6). These various workers are represented by a common union; the Association of Cinematograph and Television Technicians. And they mostly stay in the studios or areas that they normally work in and just switch from one production to the next after their job is done. It is these workers that have largely maintained the British film industry during the worst depressive years (Auty & Roddick, 7).

The current state of the British film industry has not significantly changed since the late 1990s. During this period the conservative government was voted out and the new labour party government was voted in. This ended some of the ties between the television industry and the film industry as well as restoring the funding needed for the strictly British companies to produce a decent amount of successful films. Since 2000 there have been a string of very popular films in Great Britain. Especially in the United States these films have been successful and have continued the British resurgence that began about fifteen years ago. This shows us that a film industry can never die because of new talent, changing styles of government, and talented professionals who work some of the toughest jobs in filmmaking. Some of those films are Pride & Prejudice (2005), Love Actually (2003), Bend it like Beckham (2002), The Constant Gardener (2005), Gosford Park (2001), Billy Elliot (2000), and Mrs. Henderson Presents (2005). (Murphy, Cinema Book).

The future holds many of the same type of films as those that were produced during the period since 2000. However, the increasing internationalization of the entire film industry throughout the world shows that the British film industry has by no means solidified itself for even a couple more years. There will always be ebbs and flows in the film industry of every country. The United States faced their depression during part of the 1970s and Great Britain faced their most recent depression during the 1980s. It only takes a couple of high-budget low-grossing films to ruin the chances of some other worthy films for the next few years. Another prominent issue that will probably be understood much better in the future is the comparison between the American film industry and the British film industry. Every other film industry has also historically been compared to the United States, the post-war industry standard. And even though Great Britain has been listed as a major national cinema, this is a poor comparison. The British film industry produces so many fewer films per year than the American industry that the number of successful films cannot justly compared (Walsh). The populations of these countries are vastly different and so many young and older filmmakers have come to Hollywood and New York and this shows that Hollywood is the center of the film universe. The American way and its professionals affect the procedures of the worldwide film market and Great Britain is in line. However, the type and subject matter of British films are what set it apart from others. And the competence of the thousands of crew workers and industry professionals make up the heart of the British film industry.

"The UK film industry is like every film industry outside the USA-a colonial outpost. Despite an incredible roster of British actors, directors, writers and technicians, it is hostage to the whim of the American market and our own governmental disdain." This quote by Richard E. Grant sums up a great deal of the way that many British industry professionals view the goals of the British film industry. They wish to be a completely unique entity and to ensure that British values and ideas are what come through on the screen. And to do this you must understand some of the causes for both the depressions and resurgences of the industry. The huge 1980's disappointments were really a block that the industry could not get past. Prime Minister Thatcher and some of her policies and values may have been this block, but this was not something that could not have been overcome. The 1990s resurgence was something that was actually created by a new breed of younger filmmakers that knew how to make heritage films with a new emphasis and understanding that was not seen before. Many of the policy changes did not come until later in the decade when the labour party government took over. Internationalization is not something that can be stopped or cured but it never stops evolving.

This does help both the worldwide industry and British films, but it also hurts individual industries including the British industry. Generally, these changes help individual films that are looking to be made wherever they can, which can never be seen as a hurtful occurrence. The individual crew members that have held up the entire industry at its lowest points will continue to be known as such because the elders will teach the information to the next generation. The famous studios of Pinewood and Elstree are also increasingly becoming more of a choice for American productions because the rates are cheaper. The study of British film is also continuing to increase, which can also be seen as something positive because it allows students to see the many excellent films with intriguing subjects that come out of the United Kingdom. This is no doubt a contrast from a vastly different action and violence oriented American culture. Overall, I believe that the British film industry is headed in a very promising direction. The films that have been produced in the last five years have been excellent and intriguing. And some have been very commercially successful at home in Great Britain and abroad in the United States as well. The industry has been in resurgence for around fifteen years now and we very well may be looking at one of the best eras in a very long history.

Works Cited

Ashby, Justine and Higson, Andrew. British Cinema, Past and Present. London:

Routledge, 2000

Auty, Martyn and Roddick, Nick. British Cinema Now. London: British Film Institute,

1985

British Film Institute. 2006. British Film Institute. 12 October. 2006

www.britfilms.com. 2006. Film Department of the British Council. 12 October. 2006

http://www.britfilms.com/

Hill, John. British Cinema in the 1980s. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999

Murphy, Robert. The British Cinema Book. London: British Film Institute, 2001

Murphy, Robert. British Cinema of the 90's. London: British Film Institute, 2000

Walsh, Michael. Personal Interview. October 2006.