British Film Industry and Financial Reliance - Coursework Example

Topic:  Is the British film industry enabled or constrained by its financial reliance upon television? Introduction Compared to American cinema, the relation between British television and cinema has been viewed as rather hostile. During the 1950s, the sell of films to television created disputes and this is one of the reasons why the relation had soured [1]. The British film industry was of the view that the only way they could protect a declining trade, was by refusing to sell films to television – the new kid on the block. According to Ed Buscombe, British film industry had always behaved in a restrictive way, when faced with the competition from the new medium of television. Also, then, BBC had an elitist view of the channel’s responsibility and image and Head of Television Service, Norman Collins, had made it clear that BBC had no intention to turn into home cinema and show commercial movies, as it had much more serious responsibilities. In spite of the tension caused by refusal to sale feature films to television, the decade broadcasted television cinema programmes such as Current Release, Picture Parade and Film Fanfare, which kept the two industries connected. However, this is only a partial perspective and does not cover the true dynamism and depth of the relation. To view this relation in the proper light, one has to consider the economic interdependence of both media. As different delivery systems, such as video cassettes, cable and satellite and then the new age media such as Internet and i-phones have broken technological barriers, they have revolutionised the business of film production. Hollywood had also gone through the same experience. The remarkable revival of the US film industry from the end 1980s, after its slump in the end 60s and early 70s, was a result of Hollywood taking advantage of pay television and video market. This is evident from the revenue figures of the studios during the 1980s and 1990s. Theatrical releases, which accounted for 76 percent of the studio revenues in the 80s, fell to 24 percent in the 1994. The revenue from pay TV rose in the same period from 4.8 percent to over seven percent and that for videos from one percent to 46.4 percent [2]. These figures prove that between 1983 and 1993, popularity of movies had not decreased but the audience had moved from the big screen to the television screen [3]. As in Hollywood, in Europe (mainly Western Europe) too, the box-office spending accounted for 34.8 percent of film spending in 1992, while video accounted for 41.1 percent and pay TV for 24.1 percent [4]. The movies viewed in Europe, however, were mostly Hollywood productions, which had captured 77.4 percent of the theatrical market and a greater portion of the video market in 1990 [5]. In UK, a massive 94 percent of the video rentals market was taken over by US films in 1991 [6]. This comparative data shows that while Hollywood took advantage of the new delivery mediums to capture market at home and abroad, the European film industry failed to take this advantage. This fact, compounded with the general decline of cinema audience by approximately 24 percent in the period between 1983 and 1993, in Western Europe, led to a decline in European film production between 1980 and 1994, by almost 25 percent [7]. The Era of Television Production of Films This lull gave television the opportunity to come to the forefront, as a major investor in European film making. European Filmfile data for June 1994 shows that 51 percent of the films produced in Europe, at this time, were backed by television finance [8]. While in some countries such as Belgium and Portugal, television had investments in all films, in others such as France and Germany, television was involved with 74 percent and 63 percent, respectively, of the films produced in those countries. One major difference that existed between US and Europe in the context of television companies investing in film production, was that while in the US the private pay channels such as HBO, etc, were into financing film production, in Europe it was majorly the public service broadcasters, which provided the financial backing to films. In UK, the late 1980s saw a massive surge of television production of films. In 1989, 49 percent of all UK productions were produced or coproduced by television [9], a fact that led to the Policy Studies Institute to suggest in 1990 that had it not been for the television companies in UK, the British film production industry would have collapsed [10]. Though this happened in the late 80s, the proposal of television playing a bigger role was not new. In 1973, the Cinematograph Films Council, as part of their proposal for reviving the British film industry, had suggested that levies should be imposed on television for screening of films, particularly as movies amounted to 13 percent of BBCs output and 20 percent of ITVs output [11]. The Terry report in 1976 also urged British producers and distributors to ask better rates from television and also for television to get involved in film production. However, the 1977 Annan report rejected the idea that British television will be instrumental in rejuvenating British film industry and proclaimed that television would not be needed to support the film industry [12]. This report suggested the introduction of a fourth channel, which will not add to the duopoly of BBC and ITV, but would be instrumental in encouraging productions that showcased new ideas [13]. Channel Four came into being on 2nd November, 1982. Though the Annan report had excluded the role of television in film industry in UK, it was Channel Four, a product of the Annan report, which started with ‘TV only’ films. This was because, ‘TV only’ films were cheaper to make. Also, since the Cinematograph Exhibitors Association (CEA) allowed theatrical releases to be shown on TV only after three years, television investment in film production was less attractive. However, in spite of this, Colin Gregg’s Remembrance was commissioned by Channel Four and had a short run in theaters, before being aired on television. As the commissioned movies got a theatrical run and were then shown on television, after a period of eight to nine months, filmmakers viewed this as a favourable opportunity [14]. As a result, ‘Films on Four’ (Channel Four slot) were shown selectively in cinemas and CEA became flexible to an early television transmission. In 1986, the ban was lifted for films costing less than 1.25 million pounds, which in 1988 got extended to 4 million pounds. Over the years the channel built a portfolio with a large number of movies, which enabled it to broadcast a movie after two years of its theatrical release. Channel Four brought in a new level of support to film production and had many ‘TV films’ released in theatres. Though full-funding was the predominant concept in the starting years, when the channel had still to prove itself, later on, three types of funding – full-funding, co-investment and pre-purchase of television rights – were applied. The channel had always aimed at making movie on modest budgets with established names and encouraging new writing and directorial talent [15]. Movies such as Riff-Raff, Bhaji on the Beach, My Beautiful Laundrette, all full-funded movies, not only became commercial successes but also created a new genre comprising ‘different’ movies that the channel became synonymous with. However, most movies of the channel were co-funded, which were either a combination of equity investment and payment for TV rights or just the later. With various degrees of financial involvement in movie making, the actual output and investment, spanning a period between 1982 and 1992, was 91 million dollars for 264 films [16]. The Department of Independent Film and Video (within Channel Four) had played an important role in supporting British films, though it did not always get the credit for this [17]. The department was instrumental in giving a platform to different sort of work by low-budget independent cinema, political documentaries and any unorthodox viewing removed from mainstream cinema, which would normally not be taken up by the television system. In 1982, the Workshop Declaration was passed and Channel Four agreed to finance franchised non-profit making workshops and in return was provided with programming for its ‘Eleventh Hour’ and ‘People to People’ slots. Channel Four also supported organisations such as British Screen, British Film Institute Production Board and the Scottish Film Production Fund. Between 1987 and 1992, Channel Four provided 22 percent of British Screen’s total film investment [18]. However, with satellite television making its appearance, (British Satellite Broadcasting and its subsequent merger with Sky), Channel Four’s role in British Screen productions took a back seat. This is because British Screen got associated with BSkyB, which restricted itself with purchasing satellite rights only. Channel Four became reluctant to be part of projects involving BSkyB. This resulted in the channel scaling down its investment in British Screen’s films (the channel invested in only two of the twenty films made by British Screen in 1994) [19]. In the case of Scottish cinema, Channel Four, in the mid-1990s, had an overall budget of 400,000 pounds [20]. Channel Four’s success and popularity motivated other television companies to get involved in the production of films. Thames Television established the Euston Films, its filmmaking subsidiary, which during the mid-80s produced a number of movies in part or totally. The Central Television also got into film production with its Zenith productions and invested in mid-budget movies. In course of time, with many changes, the company was ultimately taken over by Portman Entertainment in 1993. The Granada television company started the Granada Film Productions in 1987, which made significant investments in film production. Other companies also got involved and made significant contributions to British cinema. The London Weekend Television, the Scottish Television, Grampian and Ulster Television got involved in film investment. In the 1980s the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) became involved with films that were slotted for theater releases. Though initially BBC started with pre-buying of television rights, in the late 1980s, it began to invest in films which would be released in theatres. However the ad hoc system of work was regularised in 1993 and BBC took up the mantle for co-producing five new feature films annually, and also invest in other films that were being independently produced. Neither BBC nor FilmFour (Channel Four, film slot) can be classified with any particular type of cinema, as both have a repertoire of films that were as diverse and interesting, as they were experimental. BBC with The History Boys, In This World, Dirty Pretty Things, The Mother, and FilmFour with The Road to Guanlanamo, Brothers of the Head, Me and You, Everyone We Know and Venus, as some of their successful ventures, had both treaded into different kinds of cinema. Both these channels made successful, critically acclaimed and experimental movies that contributed greatly to the British film industry and created a lineage of films, sought after even today. There is no doubt that British television, particularly Channel Four, has given a big boost to the faltering British Film Industry during the 1980s. However, if measured according to the cinema’s box office or financial success, then the films produced by Channel Four or any other television company, usually made a loss. What these movies and the television channels gained is critical appreciation, prestige for its support to quality film making and a better television viewership because of the ‘film’ tag. In fact the channel admitted that in a span of ten years, only a handful of films had made a profit [21]. However, since the intention and the economics were not intended in the usual profit sense of film production, television’s subsidised film production gave British cinema the much needed boost, at a time when theatre audience fell to an all time low (in 1984), US movies were ruling the box office and investment in British cinema was an unattractive proposition. During this time it was only television and state-funded bodies such as British Screen, which financed indigenous film production on a regular basis and created a vast body of critically acclaimed cinema. In spite of this, there have always been complaints that the films sponsored by television have lacked the cinematic values associated with real cinema [22]. Other than the fact the Channel Four sponsored films were shown on a particular slot of the channel (FilmFour), there were no other similarity between the movies made by the channel, which can label it as a product of particular television aesthetics, removed from parameters of real cinema. If big budget British cinema had been possible, then British film industry would not have been dependent on television. Trying to compete with Hollywood film making was not a practical proposition, as Hollywood movies had the advantages of a scale of production, homogeneity of the US home market, concentration of resources, successful penetration of the ancillary markets and ownership and control of an international distribution network [23]. The cost of a Hollywood film, including its marketing and advertising expenses, in 1992, was 42.4 million USD [24], an amount which cannot be matched by any national film production let alone television. However, television film making scored over Hollywood, in its ability to communicate with the own/local cultures. Decline in Television’s Capability to Support Films The change in the broadcasting climate, its becoming commercial and cost conscious, affected the ability of British television to support films. A host of ITV companies, keen to produce films, had been involved in as many as 20 productions between 1985 and 1989. However, 1988 onwards the government changed the system of levy on profits to levy on advertising revenue, for the ITV companies. This made it difficult for ITV companies to continue in film production and their involvement fell by one-third between 1989 and 1990. The increasing commercial climate in television, with channels competing with each other for advertisements, created pressure on the operational methods of Channel Four; the channel was asked to make popular programmes that would be economical rather than culturally prestigious programmes, the costs of which had to be underwritten. This made television channels more conservative in their approach and less eager to take risks, unlike the way it had operated till now, encouraging low budget films, new faces in script writing and direction and generally more concerned with quality and the cultural aspect, rather than the economics. A survey of the Channel Four backed films in 1994 proves this. Of the 15 films that were made, nine were with US partners, which apparently is a replacement for British Screens but in actuality was a safer investment. Also of the 15 films, the channel had paid television rights for 10 and had equity investment in five, which goes to show that the era of deficit financing that the channel had done at one time, was over. The conditions of the 1980s had supported the dependence of films on television and the subsequent government policies had determined how television and films have cooperated. Also, changes in broadcasting policies by the government had changed the situation in the 1990s and made it difficult for this support system to go on working. The British Film Industry (1995), remarks that the dependence of British films on television is a ‘problem.’ Though it accepts that Channel Four and other television channels created a dynamic film and audio visual industry [25], the hankering for big-budget, internationally popular British cinema remained. Television got blamed for popularising low budget movies, which have limited prospect in international markets [26]. However, this allegation was not entirely true, as quite a number of films made during 1980s to early 1990s had done better than big budget international projects. A fact that the document also supports by identifying three Channel Four movies – Four Weddings and a Funeral, The Crying Game and The Madness of King George, as examples. Even if it is accepted that the industry needs to think more international and bigger, then the government had not really done anything by way of fiscal incentives, which would make investment in films a realistic and attractive option. With television being the only available investor, the government had also not created any incentive for television to invest more into films. Channel Four also lost its force with two expensive flops – Lucky Break and Charlotte Gray, and from 2002 it again became a cable TV channel rather than a production company. BBC moved in and with Mrs Brown and Billy Elliot embarked on a growth curve. Since then BBC has curved out a place in the British film industry with projects as different and successful as – Sweet Sixteen, Iris, My Summer of Love, Bullet Boy, Match Point, Mrs Henderson Presents, etc. The Future of Television’s Role in Film Making The role of television in film making, not only in Britain, but also in Europe, will continue to be important. However, this will need government policies that will protect and sustain public service broadcasting against the pressures of commercialisation, which may result in the narrowing down of the range and diversity of British films. If that happens then government has to be proactive in making things attractive for the television industry, to be able to support the film industry. BBC and Channel Four invest substantially in British films through BBC Films and FilmFour, respectively. The independent film production sector, in Britain, finds this investment very helpful and wants the channels to invest even more. From the broadcasters point of view also this investment brings them great returns in terms of the worldwide branding that they receive. BBC Director General, Mark Thompson, also acknowledges that their annual investment in the film industry strikes the right balance in terms of money spent (around 12 million pounds), movies made (eight to 12) and giving the British public the chance of viewing the eight to 12 movies on television. For Channel four, film investment has typically been a creative activity and not a commercial one, according to Andy Duncan, former Chief Executive. Channel Four’s investment had benefitted the British film industry culturally, socially and economically. The relation between the film and television industry in Britain has peaked and ebbed over a period of last 30 years. The film industry has always treated television as a necessary bother; one whose role and contribution could neither be ignored nor refused, but at the same time was a constant source of unwanted presence. In the UK, film industry has never really been actively protected, unlike rest of Europe, where TV money goes into movies, which otherwise would not see the light of the day. British cinema has always been concerned about commercial viability. Television also gains from investing in films, as they get broadcasting right to the film, which translates into two hours of programming and tons of critical acclaim and prestige. Hence it is just not dependence but more of interdependence. Channel Four’s FilmFour is back with These Times and BBC is back with – Notes on a Scandal, The Other Boleyn Girl and Death Defying Acts, and both are in top form for the first time in almost half a decade. Nothing breeds like success, so if this is any indication then the British film industry is once again ready to bounce back. Reference List: 1. Michael Brooke. Channel 4 and Film. How a television company became a major film industry player [Online]. Available: http://www.screenonline.org.uk/film/id/1304135/ [20 April 2010]. 2. John Hill. British Television and Film: The Making of a Relationship. University of Luton Press. 3. Su Holmes. The Cinema Programme on 1950s British Television. British Television and Cinema in the 1950s? Friend or Foe? [Online]. Available: http://www.birth-of-tv.org/birth/assetView.do?asset=1413260435_1135079207 [20 April 2010]. 4. Nick Roddick. Jan 2007. British Cinema Now: Industry: Almost Rosy Sight and Sound. Journal Record 17:1. Go to Journal Issue p. 22-24. 5. CHAPTER 2: A better future for British films. Financing film production. [Online]. Available:http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldselect/ldcomuni/37/3706.htm [20 April 2010]. Works Cited: 1. For a discussion of the history of Hollywood’s long standing interest in television, see William Lafferty, ‘Film and Television in Gary R. Edgerton, Film and the Arts in Symbiosis: A Resource Guide (New York: Greenwood Press, 1988). 2. The percentages are derived from calculations made by Goldman Sachs which appear in Screen Finance, 5 May, 1993, p.8 and 17 May 1995, p. 10. The percentages for both pay-TV and video have, in fact, dipped slightly during the 1990s due to the growth of revenues from videodiscs and pay-per-view. 3. Screen Digest, September 1994, p.207. Douglas Gomery argues that movies watching, in fact, more popular than ever during the 1980s as a result of the new outlets, especially video. See Shared Pleasures: A History of Movie Presentation in the United States (London: BFI, 1992), p.276. 4. Screen Digest, March 1993, p.60. 5. Screen Digest, April 1992, p.84. 6. BFI Film and Television Yearbook1993 (London: BFI, 1992), p.60. 7. Screen Digest, June 1995, p.130. 8. European Filmfile, Issue 7, vol. 1, p. 3. 9. According to Jim Hillier, HBO became the largest financier of Hollywood movies in the 1980s. See The New Hollywood (London: Studio Vista, 1993), p.35. 10. Richard Lewis, Review of the UK Film Industry: Report to BSAC (London: BFI, mimeo, 1990), p.20. 11. These figures are for 1974-5 and are cited in the Annan report. See Report of the Committee on the Future of Broadcasting, Cmnd. 6753, (London: HMSO, 1977), p. 33 6. More recent figures suggest that the percentage of films on the ITV channels has dropped a little and that the BBC percentage has slightly risen. In the case of Channel Four, feature films (excluding Film on Four) accounted for 16.7 percent of output in 1994. See Channel Four Television Corporation, Report and Financial Statements 1994 (London: Channel Four, 1995), p. 22. 12. Ibid, p.32 However another report made by the Interim Action Committee of the Film Industry, and chaired by Harold Wilson, were of an opposite view. This report was of the view that both television and films would benefit and all the encouragement should be given for investment in production of TV features, films for TV, feature films, etc, to be first released in theaters and then subsequently in television and other medium. See Films and Television Co-operation, Fourth Report of the Interim Action Committee of the Film Industry, Cmnd. 8227, (London: HMSO, 1981) pp. 4-5. 13. Report of the Committee on the Future of Broadcasting, p.482. 14. Quoted in ‘Rose on “Film on Four”’, AIP & Co., March 1984, pp.21-2. 15. Quoted in Nigel Willmott. ‘The Saviour of the Silver Screen’, Broadcast, 28 October 1983, pp. 13-14. 16. Monopolies and Mergers Commission, Films: A report on the supply of films for exhibition in cinemas in the UK (London: HMSO, 1994), p. 151. 17. In addition to the Drama Department and the Independent Film and Video Department, the channel has also supported film through the Multicultural Affairs Department (which has provided pre-purchase monies for films such as Salaam Bombay [1988] and Mississippi Masala [1991]) and the Films Acquisition Department (which has pre-bought a number of films including Drop Dead Fred [1991] and A Map of the Human Heart [1992]). 18. See Screen Finance, 6 October 1993, pp.13-14. 19. British Screen Finance Limited, Report and Accounts for the year ended 31 December 1994 (London: British Screen, 1995). 20. For a discussion of the Scottish Film Production Fund by its first Chairman, see Ian Lockerbie, ‘Pictures in a Small Country: the Scottish Film Production Fund’, in Eddie Dick (ed.), ‘From Limelight to Satellite: A Scottish Film Book, (Glasgow and London: Scottish Film Council and BFI, 1990). 21. Monopolies and Mergers Commission, Films: A report on the supply of films for exhibition in cinemas in the UK, p. 151. 22. John Dugdale defends the tradition of television films against what he calls ‘the Campaign for Real Movies’ in The Sunday Times, 4 April 1993. 23. For a good discussion of the weak competitive position which the British film industry occupies in relation to Hollywood, see Steve McIntyre, ‘Vanishing Point: Feature Film Production in a Small Country’ in John Hill, Martin McLoone and Paul Hainsworth (eds.) Border Crossing: Film in Ireland, Britain and Europe (Belfast and London: Institute of Irish Studies/BFI, 19994). 24. Screen Finances, 5 May 1993, p.9. 25. Department of National heritage, The British Film Industry, Cm 2884, (London: HMSO, 1995) p.5 and p. 18. 26. Ibid, p.5. Read More