The Rise and Fall of British Cinema

Statistics over the last 100 years, as the BBC state, indicate that the popularity of British cinema has not been consistent.

* All-time high - 1945: 1585 million cinemagoers
* All-time low - 1984: 54 million cinemagoers
* Improving? 2000: 1420 million cinemagoers

Starting off in the 1940s, during World War 2, Britain's film industry took off and was very successful- even more so than Hollywood. This is because war films became very popular, and the British public were more eager to watch British films due to the fact that they were more patriotic. A number of key figures in British cinema such as Michael Powell, David Lean, Thorold Dickinson and Carol Reed, also exploded onto the scene during the war. 

In the 1950s in Britain, Carry On films (comedy) became specifically popular along with Alfred Hitchcock. During the 1950s and early 60s Films had to learn to be more exportable and welcome to foreign audiences. Many achieved both of these criteria among them works by David Lean and Carol Reed. International co-production began to be a feature of the industry. Big-budget pictures aimed at the international market and not just the British audience became the norm. Films such as Mogambo (1953), Bhowani Junction (1956), Moby Dick (1956), and The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957) mixed British and American themes and stars. 

During the 1960s, British actors were able to benefit from the co-productions and find success in the US included Jack Hawkins, Keneth More, Richard Todd, Laurence Harvey, Richard Burton and Peter Finch.In 1960 the decline in British cinema continued, but also brought around the first James Bond film. During the beginning of the decade Britain were producing mainly gritty realism films. The reason the decline has slowed down since the past decade was because of the commercial success of James Bond, plus actors and actresses were aplenty and in much demand. Four of the decade's Academy Award winners for best picture were British productions, and there had also been a boom of horror movies created. In the US they'd been suffering through the Vietnam War and Rights Protests, but also produced films such as The Sound of Music, and Hitchcock had begun directing films over there.

The 70s are considered as one of the most dismal decades for British film. Hollywood dominance was paramount and American studios seemed disinterested in financing UK movies. But there were some highlights: David Puttnam, Derek Jarman and Ken Russell all emerged in the decade. British film highlights included Straw Dogs, Get Carter and The Long Good Friday. Computers were also invented during this decade, and TV's became very important for the distribution of films due to adverts. The 1970s also saw the beginning of the Star Wars series directed by George Lucas- science fiction films were gradually more popular due to steadily improving technology for special effects. The 1970s also saw the creation of Jaws in the US, which even today is still widely watched. For the UK Railway Children was created. With the film industry in both Britain and the United States entering into recession, American studios cut back on domestic production, and in many cases withdrew from financing British films altogether. Major films were still being made at this time, including Anne of the Thousand Days (1969), Battle of Britain (1969), and David Lean's Ryan's Daughter (1970), but as the decade wore on financing became increasingly hard to come by.

The 1980s saw the biggest downfall of British cinema, and in the first year only 31 UK films were made, down 50% on the previous year, and the lowest output since 1914. Critics site the main reason for Britain's failure to compete with the USA is a lack of investment in the industry, especially  when the USA began making high budget films that embraced expensive new technology and special effects. The 1980s for Hollywood include E.T and two more in the Star Wars franchise. This decade also started the downward trend in self financing British movies – the Americans began to take over and really never looked back. When movies were made in Britain they were either American financed or had American directors / producers. This was in part because the market potential in Britain is too small to produce a profit return on anything more than the most modestly budgeted production.

During the 90s decade, Hollywood produced some extraordinarily well known films such as Titanic which made $658,000,000 and is, to this day, still the highest grossing movie of all time. It was directed by James Cameron, who was also the director of Avatar (the second highest grossing film of all time, which was released in 2009). Trainspotting came out in the UK and grossed around $48,000,000 (which was nothing compared to Hollywood). Critics also felt that the standard of cinemas themselves were partly to blame for the lack of box office revenue in the UK at this time because once multiplex cinemas became common place in the 1990s more people, as the statistics above show, went to the cinema thus supporting the argument that multiplex cinemas rejuvenated the industry - 1997 was a high point in the industry as admissions were the highest they had been for 22 years! Another reason why British films suddenly became more lucrative in the 1990s could be because finance was sought from American production/distribution companies. While shot in Britain with British stars and production crew, the finances for such movies were often American. Hugh Grant, star of Notting Hill and Four Weddings, established himself as one of the few British stars with international appeal. British cinema had a strong decade at the Oscars - nine films received best picture nominations in seven years, among them The Full Monty, Four Weddings and a Funeral, Secrets and Lies and The Crying Game.

The 2000's looked promising for the UK. They had the rights to Harry Potter and although Warner Bros. (an American company) helped produce it, the cast and crew were mainly British due to J.K. Rowling's commands. For Hollywood, the 2000's was a set back because their writers went on strike. This gave Britain an advantage to catch up with some James Bond films and also good comedy films (a popular genre for Britain, mainly due to lower budgets), such as Shaun of the Dead. Hollywood produced Avatar which had a box office of $2.8 billion, and one of the biggest reasons for this was because it was the first large film to go 3D.

From 2010 to the present day, Superhero films have been dominating the film industry. American companies such as DC and Marvel have been producing many high budget (and high grossing) superhero films each year.

Production Cycle

Pre-Production 

(funded by production company)

• Producer/studio acquires rights to film story or treatment OR an independent production company chooses a production company/distributor - Hollywood has the advantage as it has more money to spend securing the rights to films. 
• Screenplay is developed - Hollywood has advantage as it employees more writers and can afford the best 'talent.'
• Production finance and cast/crew are confirmed, locations are confirmed, scheduling takes place, call sheets are created, costume fittings happen, equipment is organised - Hollywood has the advantage as it can afford to spend more on big name stars, directors (even great British directors like Hitchcock get lured to Hollywood), experienced crew, locations, costumes and equipment. 

Production

(funded by production company)

• Principle photography takes place, in studios and/or on agreed locations (on average this takes 3 months) - Hollywood has the advantage as vertical integration means access to studios, equipment etc. Also, they can afford to spend longer on shoots. 

Post-Production

(first two stages funded by production company, the other stages are funded by the distribution company)

• Editing and scoring takes place, test screenings take place that the producer feels are necessary after getting feedback from the primary target audience (could even include re-shooting some scenes). Hollywood have the advantage because they can spend more of employees, editing equipment/technology and music rights.   
• Master print of finished film delivered to distributor - USA distributors have the advantage because they can afford to produce more prints for blanket release. 
• Distributor determines national and international release strategies and date (where/when/how in each country - also decide on premieres, film festivals etc.)
• Distributor presents film to exhibitors and negotiates bilateral agreements to have film shown in cinemas
• Distributor's marketing campaign creates 'hype' amongst target audience and launches film (marketing takes many forms, big Hollywood conglomerates have the advantage because they can use synergy across range of media platforms)
• Prints are delivered to cinema a few days before opening - Hollywood films have the advantage because multiplex cinemas are loyal to Hollywood films for profit reasons. 
•  Film's run extends any number of weeks subject to demand  
• Marketing of home media begins after the film has left cinemas - Hollywood companies have the advantage as they have more to spend on marketing.  

• Film is released on DVD, Blue-ray and becomes available to download. Home media sales is often where British films make the most profit - they can compete on a more level playing field at this stage as the production costs of DVDs etc is less than reels.

Low budget films do not attract as many viewers as big budget films. The majority of films that do well at the box office have massive production and distribution budgets, as this list of the all time highest grossing films demonstrates:

Viewers want to see famous A list celebrities in state of the art films and a big production budget is necessary to get the rights, starts, crew and technology. Also, advertising is vital to a films success and a big budget is necessary to get this right as well. Hollywood are not stupid, they have a pretty good idea what films are worth investing in. Through looking at the list I posted earlier of the most expensive films of all times you can see that most of these films grossed a profit. However, occasionally mistakes are made and big budget films flop at the box office making massive losses such as; Cutthroat Island (net loss of £92.7 million), The Alamo (net loss of £92 million) and The Adventures of Pluto Nash (net loss of £91.8 million). http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/gallery/2012/mar/20/biggest-box-office-flops-in-pictures

The Blair Witch Project is an exception, as it was filmed in just eight days and had a budget of $600,000, but grossed over $248.3 million. The post production was much more important and took eight months and mainly included groundbreaking viral marketing and online buzz. http://www.businesspundit.com/10-most-profitable-low-budget-movies-of-all-time/9/

Finance

Why has Hollywood dominated the industry since the 1980s?

* Hollywood started taking risks in the 1980s, producing massive thrilling, special effects driven adventurous films. By contrast, British films tended to be more conservative drawing on history and literature.

* British film makers tended to go down the path of 'gritty' social realism exploring social issues like homosexuality, drug taking, poverty, racism, class, religion etc. whereas Hollywood tended (and still tends) to avoid this in favour of glamorous escapism/fantasy that supports dominant social groups/ideologies (e.g. as Medhurst (1997) summarised "straight, middle class, able bodied white males" are in the staring roles etc.) - this obviously helped Hollywood films remain more lucrative because the majority of people in their target audience felt represented by this. 

* Hollywood grossed more profit/had more investment therefore could afford to continue affording the latest technology for special effects/filming/editing and the most talented people in the industry - this made British films look cheap in comparison (hence why UK cinemagoers began to prefer USA films and why British films found it hard to break into the international market place).

* British films do not attract as much investment as Hollywood films and do not gross as much profit meaning Britain has less money to spend on the production of new films.

* Britain's film industry went down hill after two World Wars where Hollywood saw the need for escapist films and profited from this (the UK was harder hit as it was actually bombed but it also continued to make social realist films that did not cater for the post-war audience as well as the escapist films the USA was producing).

* Hollywood had always been good at production, vertical integration accounts for a lot of this because big conglomerate studios work together to produce films and this means the resources (financial, equipment and people) are always there allowing for continuous improvement. Britain does not have the same set up making it a lot harder to produce films. 

* Hollywood has had better 'business sense' in terms of production (vertical integration conglomerate set up) and distribution. In terms of distribution, Hollywood has developed a system that allows films to be exported around the globe in a way that ensured cinema exposure and profit. Britain has not manage to do this, even in the UK they often rely on USA distributors who have the right connections with multiplex cinemas etc! It is important to note that a number of multiplex chains are owned by USA companies (and have been since the 1980s - the point when British films hit an all time low) and this obviously has had a negative impact on the British film industry because it makes it harder to get British films in the cinemas without a USA distributor.

* Hollywood also has more money to spend on distribution - marketing cost can often be almost as much as production costs and Britain, unless they involved a USA distributor, cannot afford to spend millions on trailers, poster, internet campaigns etc. In other words Hollywood conglomerates have the advantage because it can launch massive synergy marketing campaigns internationally across a range of media platforms. 

* Between the 1950s-1980s (before multiplex) there was little or no investment in the cinemas themselves, meaning cinemas were dirty (they became known as 'flea pits') and the image quality was poor - this obviously put people seeing films (don't forget that home media was not like it is today so most people would only have seen films at the cinema).

* UK actors/stars and directors have not/are not always well known abroad meaning they do not 'sell' films abroad in the same way Hollywood actors can. 

* Another problem is famous actors and directors (like Hitchcock and the Scott Brothers) move to Hollywood where the money is and therefore generate profit for Hollywood rather than the British Film Industry. It is worth noting some directors/actors remain true to the British film industry. 

* Hollywood has been established as the biggest producer of English Language films for a long time now, this means it is hard for anyone to display them. 

* UK-based subject matter does not seem to be able to find a market abroad in the same way US films have done/do. There are some exceptions (e.g. Harry Potter Franchise - that was a D/E category film), but the British film industry is not like America because it continues to make films that do not follow the 'American formula.'

Major USA Production/Distribution Companies

As Hanseen (2007) summarised, 'The Hollywood studio system era' of vertical integration that impacted production, distribution and exhibition (because the major companies owned the cinemas) came to an end in 1948; "when the USA Supreme Court issued its famous Paramount decision. The Paramount consent decree required the divestiture of affiliated cinema chains and the abandonment of a number of vertical practices" (Hanseen, 2007 www.montana.edu/econ/seminar/Archive/hanssen8222007.pdf

What this meant, in theory, was that the five major conglomerates (Fox, MGM, Paramount, RKO and Warner Brothers) and the partly integrated companies (Columbia, Universal and United Artists - N.B MGM have now bought out United Artists) who had made up the Hollywood studio system had to compete on a more level playing field with other companies. However, these companies did still have an advantage over independent studios because vertical integration could still take place at production and distribution levels - the court only ruled against cinema ownership (exhibition).   

Today, the major USA Production companies associated with the term 'Hollywood' (many of whom also distribute their own films) are: 

 

 

UK Production Companies & Finance 

Unlike Hollywood we do not have a selection of major conglomerate established production companies that have the resources to internally fund their own films. Instead funding, secured by independent production companies (like Warp who produced This is England), generally comes from a number of investors/sources.

There are three forms of British films differentiated by the amount of non-British funding they receive, they are as follows:
* British - solely funded with British money (an example being Trainspotting)
* Co-funded - a large amount of funding comes from European or US investment (an example being Love Actually)
* Inward funded - the majority of funds or all of the funds come from the USA even though the film is a 'British Production' (key examples being the Harry Potter and James Bond franchises).

Average annual UK Productions:
Under £2 million - 30
£2-£5 million - 30
£5-£10 million - 15
£10+ million - 6

Some common sources of British funding include: 

The BFI/British Film Council 

 Film 4

BBC

National Lottery Grants

Government Grants

It is however worth noting that the Conservative government does not offer as many arts/film grants as Labour did in the past. However, the current government are supportive of the film industry as they have recognised the positive impact it can have on the economy.

Distribution Companies

As McDougall (2008) summarised, five major distribution companies dominate the UK film industry:
- United International Pictures
- Warner Brothers
- Buena Vista
- 20th Century Fox
- Sony
None of these distribution companies are British, approximately 9/10 films seen in UK cinemas have been distributed by these Hollywood companies. In the majority of cases, these companies are either the same company who produced the film or are directly linked to the Hollywood production companies who made the film (vertical integration). Although the Paramount 1948 Supreme Court ruling now prevents these companies from owning the cinemas used for exhibition, films distributed by these Hollywood companies are still prioritized (for reasons of long term and short term profit) over films produced/distributed by independent companies e.g. Hollywood films generally gross more than a independent film and also because they make more films than independent companies cinemas can make more each year through supporting Hollywood films than they would if they started prioritizing independent films over Hollywood releases (doing this might prompt Hollywood to stop using this chain which would obviously impact profit for the cinema). 

The fact that multiplex cinemas are often owned by American companies also has an impact here because they obviously have deals with the Hollywood distributors in the USA and UK that makes it easier/more cost effective for them to secure Hollywood blockbusters than it is for independent cinemas (it is basic business that works in the same way to Tesco's v independent stores).

Distribution is also expensive, Hollywood distributors can afford to spend millions on marketing and distribution while smaller independent companies struggle to compete. Aside from advertising, one of the biggest costs in prints (every film shown in a cinema is a separate 'print'). Each reel cost approximately £1000-£2000. When you multiply this by the number of cinemas in the UK, for example, it is easy to see why Hollywood companies can afford to 'blanket release' their products in the majority of cinemas while smaller companies struggle to do this.

In theory, this problem should be a thing of the past because we live in the 'digital age' and it would be straight forward for companies to simple digitally release their films to cinemas on the release date. This has a number of potential advantages:
1) Image quality could be improved. Have you every noticed 'scratches' on the screen at the cinema? The reason why you sometimes notice this is because the reels we get in the UK are the ones that have already been used in the USA cinema. Changing to digital distribution would solve this.
2) Piracy could be adverted if the film was released at the same time throughout the world.
3) It would cut costs dramatically and make it possible for British distributors to compete. Cutting cost could also mean more profits for production/distribution companies that they could then put back into films.
The British Film Council even took steps to via the 'Digital Screen Network' to help equip independent cinemas with digital facilities. This has lead to more British films being shown in independent cinemas but the multiplex cinemas are not following this example because Hollywood films are still made on reels.
Why? Again, this links to economics and business - Hollywood distribution and production companies known they have a massive advantage over independent companies because they have more money. Through making films on reels they are ensuring they keep this advantage because it makes it harder for smaller companies to gain any market share without teaming up with Hollywood companies (to make D/E Category films) because they simply cannot afford to shoot 35mm pictures and print hundreds/thousands of reels without the financial backing from bigger companies.

British Film Distribution Summary

* Hollywood distributors dominate distribution in the UK.
* American companies own the majority of multiplex cinemas and thus profit from exhibition in the UK.
* American distributors have the advantage in the UK because even if an independent distributor gets a film into an independent cinema it is competing against Hollywood films in multiplex cinemas (audiences often prefer multiplex) that have had much higher advertising budgets.
* Hollywood production/distribution companies are continuing to use reels which ensures they keep the advantage over smaller independent companies who cannot afford to produce enough reels for blanket release. This means multiplex cinemas who show predominantly Hollywood films, for profit reasons, are not moving to digital which prevents independent production/distribution companies from being able to compete.
In short, Hollywood profit more from distribution and American companies profit more from exhibition in the UK than the UK film industry. As this is the case, it is hardly surprising that when British films do get released in the USA once again Hollywood profits more successfully from this than any British companies involved.
* A spokesperson for distributors Polygram summed up the problem as follows; "The British film industry is renowned for its creativity but we need to improve distribution and training, get closure to out audiences and take a global perspective. Only then will British film have a brighter future in the worldwide movie business."
* The main problem at present is a lack of investment in films means the industry is limited to producing films that rely on scripts rather than special effects (statistics tell us that audiences prefer action-based escapist films and we do not have the money to make these without USA finance) and this in turn means British films do not gross as much at the box office preventing the industry from becoming self-funding like Hollywood.

History of the British Film Industry

Slumdog Millionaire vs. Avatar (2009)

Mise-en-scene: 

SM- Set in India, and the two main stars are Dev Patel (adult Jamal) and Freida Pinto (his love interest). The lighting used is quite dark, and the costumes used are quite basic, and towards the end it becomes more Bollywood. 

A- Set in a futuristic world on a different planet called Pandora. The main stars are Sam Worthington (Jake Sully), Stephen Lang (Colonel), Sigourney Weaver (Dr. Grace Augustine) and Zoe Saldana (Neytri). The lighting is much brighter (to help show off the special effects), and the clothing used is more fashionable than that used for SM. 

Genre

SM- Social realist drama
A- Fantasy Sci-Fi

What is the camera work (image quality/range of shots) like?

SM- They would have used basic cameras for an average quality looking film.

A- They developed their own 3D camera (very expensive).

What is the editing (special effects etc) like?

SM- Doesn't have a mass use of special effects.

A- Well known for it's incredible and mass use of special effects.

What do you think the budget was for the film?  

SM- $15 million

A- $237 million + $9 million for the re-release

Who do you think the primary target audience is?

SM- 

A- 

Do you think the film made a profit?

SM- Had a box office of $377.9 million
A- Had a box office of $2.8 billion

What film genres do you think Britain and America are stereotypically famous for based on these trailers and your own prior knowledge of films?

In Britain, the genre we're stereotypically famous for 

What is a British film?

What is a British Film?

As critic McDougall (2008) states there are various 'official' ways of categorising British films. The most common is through using the following categories defined by the BFI (British Film Institute):

Category A: Films made with British money, personnel and resources.
Category B: Films co-funded with money from British and from foreign investment, but for which the majority of finance, cultural content and personnel are British.
Category C: Films with mostly foreign money (but non USA) investment and a small British input either financially or creatively.
Category D: Films made in the UK with (usually) British cultural content, but financed fully or partly by US companies.
Category E: US films with some British involvement.

10 Brit films

The Inbetweeners Movie (comedy)
Skyfall (thriller/action)
Woman in Black (horror)
Spectre (thriller/action)
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows- Part 2 (fantasy/action)
Shaun of the Dead (comedy)