Wednesday 4 August 2010

A New British Cinema Law

I've just done some research on the quotas and protections that countries use to safeguard their national film industries. This was no picnic. Going through the different rules and regulations and claw-back tax schemes was like filling out a government application for disability benefit.

As with most of what issues from governments, most countries' legislation is complicated and filled with loopholes and grey areas. Is this done to let friends wriggle around the regulations? Is it done to provide work for lawyers? Is it done to permit governments to censor films without seeming to? Maybe all three.

In some countries, like Brazil, there are effectively no quotas because the legislation isn't enforced. In others, like Finland, there are no quotas officially but then you find out the government subsidizes 50% of the cost of every Finnish film - in effect, a decent quota.

In Spain the law requires exhibitors to show 1 day of EU produced films for 3 days of Hollywood films, which averages out as roughly a 20% quota for Spanish films. However, the rules surrounding co-productions can be interpreted by lawyers to suit American interests. "Vicky Barcelona" by Woody Allen, for example, qualified as a Spanish film (even though it wasn't in Spanish) and was part-funded by Catalan taxpayers - much to their disgust.

In Sweden, national, regional and local governments provide subsidies, via various complex arrangements, of about £90million. It's not easy to quantify, but this equates to something like a 12-14% quota. The Swedish film industry is punching way above its weight, however, because its share of the domestic market is 26% - a testament to how good their films are. Last year, they released 27 films including Let The Right One In, The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo and Mammoth. In December 2009, the Swedish Film Institute celebrated 145 International awards given to their feature films, documentaries and shorts. What's Sweden's population? 9 million. How many films did they release last year? 27. What's Britain's population? 61.4 million. How many films did we release last year? 10.

The most complicated tax/subsidy/quota protection rules are in France. I now understand why the media tells us France protects 12% or 12.5% or 14.3% or even 25% of its indigenous cinema. It all depends on how you interpret the data.
It's possible the French protections are convoluted because they provide politicians with ammunition to support whatever positions they are holding. If the French complain about the government wasting public money on films, the government can point to statistics showing government hardly supports French films at all. But if the they complain their culture and identity is being annihilated by Hollywood, the government can demonstrate that it's doing a lot to support French films!
So far as I can tell, the French system effectively protects 12-14% of its indigenous Cinema. It also appears that, thanks to the high success rate of French films, 25% of all the films shown on French screens are French.
Most people admire the French film industry and wish their own countries were equally blessed but, personally, I don't think their Kafkaesque bureaucracy would suit us here in the UK.

I prefer the Argentine model.

In Argentina, the government decrees that 1 local film in each 12 week period must be shown on each Argentine screen. This works out as a 8.3% quota protecting Argentine films.
With this small quota, in 2008-9, Argentina released 23 new movies. That's almost one every fortnight. Not bad.
This compares to only 10 British films released in 2008-9.

Now we enter an area of controversy. I say 10 British films were released last year. The UK Film Council says 46 British films were released last year. This is a big difference in perception. Who is right? To answer this question we need to define what is - and isn't - a British film.

Firstly, let's react to this intuitively. We're told 46 new British films came out last year. That's nearly one a week. Wow. Did it feel like there were a lot of British films coming out last year? What were they? And who are all the new British movie stars?
I remember some apparently British films - like An Education, starring a new actress named Carey Mulligan, and Harry Brown starring Michael Caine - but it didn't feel like there were a lot. If we really had 46 new movies last year, British Cinema would be booming - it would be a renaissance. Does it feel like a renaissance? No. So what's going on?

The official list of British films for 2008-9 contains 29 motion pictures that are not British, 4 that went straight to DVD and 3 that were not even released.

At the risk of being pedantic, here's the list.

44 Inch Chest................................................CANADA
Awaydays......................................................BRITAIN (Red Union Films)
The Boat That Rocked..................................U.S. (Universal Pictures)
Boogie Woogie..............................................U.S. (indie)
Bright Star.....................................................FRANCE (Pathé)
Bronson.........................................................BRITAIN (Vertigo Films)
City Rats........................................................BRITAIN - straight to DVD
Cherrybomb..................................................U.S. (indie)
Clubbed.........................................................BRITAIN - straight to DVD
Creation.........................................................BRITAIN (Recorded/Hanway)
The Damned United......................................U.S. (Sony Pictures)
Doghouse.......................................................BRITAIN (Carnaby International)
Dorian Grey...................................................BRITAIN (Ealing/E1 Ent.)
An Education.................................................U.S. (Sony Pictures)
Endgame........................................................SOUTH AFRICA
Exam..............................................................BRITAIN - straight to DVD
Englishman in New York..............................U.S. (indie)
Fish Tank.......................................................BRITAIN (BBC/Content Films)
FAQ Time Travel...........................................U.S. (HBO)
Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince.......U.S. (Warner Bros)
Hippie Hippie Shake.....................................U.S. + FRANCE (Universal/Canal)
Imaginarium of Dr Parnassus.......................U.S. + CANADA (Sony/Infinity)
I Know You Know..........................................BRITAIN - not released
In The Loop....................................................BRITAIN (BBC)
Iron Cross......................................................BRITAIN - not released
Is Anybody There...........................................U.S. (indie)
Jack Boots On Whitehall...............................U.S. (indie)
Jack Said........................................................BRITAIN - straight to DVD
Lesbian Vampire Killers................................BRITAIN (Alliance Films)
Little Ashes....................................................U.S. (indie)
London River.................................................FRANCE
Looking for Eric.............................................FRANCE
Moon..............................................................U.S. (indie)
Nowhere Boy.................................................U.S (Weinstein Company)
Perriers Bounty..............................................IRISH + U.S.
Rage...............................................................U.S. (indie)
Secret of Moonacre........................................U.S. (indie)
Sherlock Holmes............................................U.S. (Warner Bros)
Shifty..............................................................BRITAIN (BBC) - not released
St Trinians II..................................................BRITAIN (Ealing Studios)
Telstar............................................................NETHERLANDS
Tormented.....................................................U.S + FRANCE (Warner/Pathé)
Triangle..........................................................U.S. (indie)
Wild Target....................................................BRITAIN (Magic Light/Protagonist)
Young Victoria...............................................U.S. (indie)

So, what's the difference between a British film and a foreign film. Basically, a British film is one that is financed and released by a British film company. That's it.

Let's say, you write a script and you want to make it into a film. Where do you take it? Where do you go? You go to a movie studio. A movie studio is a company that finances and releases films.
Next, the studio executives consider your script and, if they like it, assign it to a producer. Alternatively, you might take your script to a producer who might take it to a studio. Or you might show it to an agent who might send it to a producer who might take it to a studio. The point is: it's movie studios that make films.
The studio executives decide what films to make, who to direct, who to star, what level of production budget, what to spend on the release campaign, how many cinemas to open the movie in, and so forth. The movie studio is at the heart of the movie industry.
So, how many movie studios do we have in Britain?
None.
Well, that's not entirely true - Barnaby Thompson's Ealing Studios has functioned like a movie studio on a few occasions - but that's about it. Some might argue the handful of companies making films for release on DVD are studios (and, technically, they are) but are DVD releases the same as Cinema? Not really. They're more like films for TV.

Before quotas were removed in 1970, we had three major studios: Associated British Pictures, The Rank Organisation and British Lion. But since 1976 (when British Lion bit the dust) we've not had a real, functioning British movie studio. Not one.

In 1980, there was a small revival in British films when Channel 4 was set up and pursued a policy of financing and releasing films. However, these were low-budget films released on television. This wasn't a revival of British Cinema and, sadly, Channel 4 stopped making TV films in the mid-90's.

Question: how do you make a British film if there are no British studios?
Answer: you go to a foreign studio.
Where can you go? Well, most producers try the Hollywood majors first. If that doesn't work, they might try their luck with the small U.S. independents. They might try Pathé, Gaumont or Studio Canal in France. They might go to Canadian studios, like Alliance, or try the Spanish, German and Dutch studios. I've known some British filmmakers who've tried to get projects made by Danish, Swedish and Norwegian studios.

What happens when you go to a foreign studio? Well, the executives look at your project through their own eyes. They don't look at it as a British person would because they're not British. They see it through their own eyes and assess whether it has potential in their home market. If they like the script they'll ask for changes to adapt it to their market. They will stipulate the hiring of stars that have traction in their culture. After all this, is it still a British film? Not really.

Do you remember Four Weddings and A Funeral? It was an excellent film but it didn't ring true; it was a Hollywood fantasy about jolly old England and the charming/eccentric British middle classes. It had an American star (Andie MacDowell) and an American sensibility. It was made by a Dutch studio (Polygram) for the American and world markets. And there's nothing wrong with that. Sometimes French studios will do the same. Subway by Luc Besson (Gaumont) was a film like this. In general, though, studios make films for their domestic markets and this is a good thing. Why?
Because film is the best medium we have for reflecting, challenging and revealing our own society to ourselves.
A nation, like Britain, with no film studios, is cut off from itself - cut off from its own culture. This weakens the identity and morale of the nation and makes it vulnerable to erasure by alien cultures.

The BBC made a good film last year: In The Loop by Armand Iannucci. This was a British film. However, the BBC also teamed up with two foreign studios and made a genre movie for the U.S. and world markets called Tormented. This was not a British film.
Why was Tormented not a British film, even though it was developed by the BBC? Because it could not have been made without the participation of Warner Bros and Pathé. Tormented was developed by the BBC but made by Warner Bros and Pathé.
Let's be clear about what 'made by' means because this can be confusing. 'Made by' means: causes to be made.
The BBC can develop a script - that is: pay a writer to write a script and torture him with script notes - but it only makes the film if it causes it to be made by financing it.
The people hired by the production company are actually the ones who literally make the film but they wouldn't be able to do it unless the film was caused to be made by the financing entity. In the case of Tormented, the financing entity was the BBC.
But if the BBC gets it money from a foreign studio it is not the BBC but the foreign studio that is causing the film to be made. If Warner Bros and Pathé are causing the BBC film to be made, it is no longer a BBC film. In effect, the BBC becomes a contractor, working for the foreign studios.
Would the foreign studios contract the BBC to make In The Loop? No, because In The Loop is a British film. Would they contract the BBC to make Tormented? Yes, because Tormented is a genre movie, written and directed in the Hollywood style, and designed for the U.S. and world markets. The studios are in the business of releasing films and, presumably, were persuaded that Tormented would be profitable for them.
Should the BBC - which is taxpayer-funded and supposed to be safeguarding the interests of British culture - be trying to get into the Hollywood film business? I don't think so. They're violating their remit. Channel 4 did the same thing in the 90's under Paul Webster with dire consequences.

So, if a British company makes a film with its own money, it's a British film. If the company is paid by a foreign studio, or gets a loan from a foreign studio, or gets a loan guaranteed by a foreign studio, it is not a British film.
If a British film company makes a film with its own money, then takes it to film markets (festivals) and sells the right to distribute the film to foreign studios, it is still a British film. But if the film is dependent on foreign studio backing in order for it to be made, it is not a British film. It can't be because the key decisions are made by the foreign studio and the film must be adapted to the requirements of foreign markets.
Sorry to keep hammering these points but it seems to be necessary. Some people still insist Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is a British film when it was made by Warner Bros! Nobody outside Britain thinks Harry Potter is a British film. They certainly don't in America. It's a Hollywood movie. But, wait - it was based on a book by a British writer and it was shot in Britain and it had British actors in it. Doesn't that make it British? No. Batman had British screenwriters, was shot in Britain and had British actors in it too, but it wasn't a British movie. It was made by Warner Bros - a major Hollywood studio. It was American - not British!
When a Hollywood studio exploits British talent, it doesn't mean the film is British, it means we've been shafted.
Reportedly, the Harry Potter films have earned more than £3billion for Warner Bros. Imagine what that would have meant for the British film industry if they'd been made by a British studio. Even if half the money went in taxes and expenses, there would still be £1.5billion to spend on making British films. We could make 50 films with a budget of £30million each. We'd have an industry!

CULTURE

In 1996, Jack Lang, the former French Cultural Minister, said: "The cultural colonization of France by American films has reached saturation level." He also said: "Creating a more level playing field within the film industry worldwide is a goal France is working towards."
French President, Jacques Chirac said: "I do not want to see European culture sterilized or obliterated by American culture."
He also said: "A legitimate desire to preserve national and regional identities should not be confused with protectionism."
Do these statements appear unreasonable?
Not when you consider that, today, Hollywood has 80-85% of the entire European film market and well over 90% of the UK market. But it wants more.
I think what we're dealing with here is the American mindset of 'Manifest Destiny' - the idea that the American way of life is the best and therefore should take over the world.
If you conquer a region, nation or group of nations militarily, the conquest is usually short-lived because the population tends to undermine, or otherwise rebel against, their conquerors. But if you can succeed in conquering a region, nation or group of nations culturally, they stay conquered.
We need to defend our culture and our way of life. We cannot do this without our own movie studios. When, thirty years ago, protections were removed, we were disarmed, rendered defenceless. We became lambs to the slaughter. The result is what we see now: a nation with an identity crisis; a people who don't know who they are or what they stand for. We urgently need to fix this problem.

HOW TO FIX IT

Many European countries have complicated quota systems to protect their indigenous film industries. Governments like things to be complicated but most people don't - they prefer simplicity and transparency. How can a democracy function if the information on how the demos (people) are governed is obscured by regulatory confusion and impenetrable econo-speak?
For this reason I don't advocate bringing back the protections we had in the past. I don't support a return of the Eady Levy or the National Film Finance Corporation, or any other government creatures.
Our new government, under David Cameron, has begun a bonfire of the quangos that I, for one, greatly welcome. The abolition of the UK Film Council is a case in point and clears the way for a revival of British Cinema.

The reason I believe the Argentine model is a good one is because it is simple. Also, if they can release 23 movies with an 8.3% quota, we should be able to make/release at least 40 movies a year with a 15% quota.
Let's have a 15% quota. It's easily done with the stroke of a pen and costs the government nothing. The only question is how to enforce it. This is what I propose:

The manager of each cinema in the United Kingdom should be required to submit, with his annual accounts to the Inland Revenue, a list of the movies he has shown at his cinema with their national origin and number of performances. So, for example, a couple of lines in the ledger might go:
01/01/10 - 24/01/2010
Harry Potter
- Warner Bros (US) 109 perfs..........................£261,600
25/01/10 - 14-02-2010
Hooligans In Love
- Piccadilly Pictures (UK) 20 perfs..............22,400

The last page of the accounts should give a film showings total and a UK film showings total. These can be checked by Inland Revenues officers. If the number of UK film showings is less than 15% of the film showings total, the exhibitor is in breach of the code. If this happens, the Inland Revenue officer passes copies of the documents to the cinema's local council, which can schedule a hearing and, if necessary, rescind the cinema's licence.

SUBSIDIES

1) Film Education.

Education is quite different to commerce. Most of us accept the principle that it's good to provide students with occupational training. There can be no objection to government funding film schools out of public revenues.

2) Archives

The preservation and curating of archival film material, as done by the British Film Institute, is of great value. Subsidizing this activity is as important as supporting libraries and museums. Few would object to this continuing to be funded out of the public purse.

3) That's all.

Personally (although I know many disagree), I'm not in favour of grants and subsidies because they tend to enable problems rather than solve them. For the same reason, I'm against giving money to most charities. If there's a problem, solve it - don't maintain it with financial support. For example, if people are homeless, find them somewhere to live. Don't give money to a homeless charity because then a homeless charity industry is created that, in order to maintain itself, needs to ensure the continuation of homelessness.
Likewise, where poverty is a problem, solve the problem; don't maintain people in poverty by giving them charity. I'm not against emergency relief, that's different and can really help people - if they've suffered a disaster, for instance, or are sick, injured, or too old to look after themselves. My point is: you don't help people by maintaining them in a state of poverty, which is what charity tends to do. Rather than giving people fish, teach them to use a fishing rod. People don't like being dependent. They'd rather be self-sufficient.

If the British Cinema Law can protect 15% of the UK film market for UK films, there ought to be no need for subsidies or charity. What will be achieved, within the protective fence of the 15% quota, is a free market. This will reward filmmakers who make popular films and discourage those who make boring films. Only a free market gives an equal chance to everybody. A free market doesn't care about your background. In a free market the most talented rise to the top. Only a free market will deliver the best possible British films.
And good films will always find a market abroad.

It's my belief that, were a new British Cinema Law to be enacted, entrepreneurs like Richard Branson would set up movie studios and, within a few short years we'd have a thriving industry to equal that of the French. It's not hard to imagine - especially when you think of the films we made in the past before the protections were removed. Films like: Zulu, The Ruling Class, I'm All Right Jack, The Lady Killers, The Wicker Man, The Devil Rides Out, O Lucky Man!, Passport to Pimlico, Sir Henry of Rawlinson End, The Ipcress File, Alfie, Windbag The Sailor, Blithe Spirit, The Rebel, Two Way Stretch, The L-Shaped Room, Blowup, Kind Hearts and Coronets, Heavens Above and all those Carry On and Hammer House of Horror movies, and all the movies with Terry Thomas in them.

It's time to bring back British Cinema.



2 comments:

  1. Many thanks for this, Jonathan. I too have spent time being submerged in researching various countries laws relating to film quotas, and I know it's like wading through mud. I also suspect that another reason why countries make it all so opaque is because of how the US uses bodies like the World Trade Organisation, within which it is the major interest, to attempt to bully countries into allowing free trade agreements.
    Only a very few months ago they were threatening action against China over its quotas on American films - of course America does not operate quotas on Chinese films, or films from any other country, they simply chose not to buy them!
    Many, many thanks for providing such a comprehensive account.

    ReplyDelete
  2. A very good piece and one that clarifies a great deal (although I would have liked to see references).

    I would like to point you in the direction of our own perspective; one that has been preceded by 5 years of study into the use of copyright backed assets within the framework of an independently regulated market/exchange. You can find more information at http://www.lumenmedia.net and would be pleased to hear your views.
    SGN

    ReplyDelete