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.
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
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.
- 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment