David Cameron wants state funding to go to 'commercial' films. The BBC's Christine Langan and film-maker Gareth Edwards discuss big-screen risks and rewards
Gareth Edwards, film director and Christine Langan, director of BBC Films debate the rights and wrongs of commercialism in film-making. Photograph: Felix Clay
This week, ahead of a report on Britain's film industry, David Cameron said state funding should be directed at mainstream films. Christine Langan, head of BBC Films, and Monsters director Gareth Edwards tell Emine Saner what this could mean for film-makers.
Gareth Edwards: What films are held up as great examples of commercial films?
Christine Langan: Harry Potter, The King's Speech, The Inbetweeners. I'm not sure if Cameron is prescribing a type of film. I think it's flattering in a way. It's recognition that the British film industry is very valuable. I think Cameron has stirred up a bit of a bees' nest, in that people interpret "commercial" differently. Some people will think that means genre, derivative, exploitative, manipulative. I think he's talking about crowdpleasers. The perfect result for all of us is where you make a film that is creatively risky when you set out, but proves to be a crowdpleaser for whatever reason – and you can't legislate for those. Slumdog Millionaire is one example.
GE: Slumdog is a great example, because some film executives had doubts about its commercial success. What will or won't be a hit is not something that's clear in advance.
CL: Absolutely. It's really hard to read, and it's vulnerable to all sorts of things, like timing. It's hard to tell how a film will be received and whether it will catch the mood. I don't think anyone expected The King's Speech to perform in the way it did. Distributors were not deeply enamoured of period movies that would appeal to an older audience. They thought they're not going to fill the multiplexes on a Friday night with youngsters, and it just takes one film to come along and buck the trend.
GE: Heads roll in the studio when you reject an idea and it goes on to make $200m. It feels to me that we already have a system where you can go somewhere with a highly commercial idea and raise the finance for it – it's called Hollywood. You get to the bigger question of what is the point of a BFI [the British Film Institute has taken over funding distribution from the dismantled UK Film Council]? It's like the BBC – what should they be doing that commercial television isn't doing? They probably should be taking more risks.
CL: At the BBC we're a little bit freer to pursue an idea for its own sake. Something like An Education was very uncommercial. Because of the period it was set in, nobody else was keen to dive in and develop it. There is a real case for development to be a bit leftfield. It's imperative that we maintain a liberal, nurturing attitude at that level. Where we need to get savvier is in terms of how we finance and distribute, so we can make more out of the films we make.
GE: When you look at the films that may be considered more art-house that have gone on to do well commercially, they tend to have a groundswell around them – they do well at festivals, and with word of mouth. The current problem with distribution is you have to have an amazing opening weekend or die.
CL: Power devolves to one small department that makes a decision about how much to invest in the P&A [prints and advertising]. The value of the niche needs to be explored more, because people love the idea of discovering something for themselves, but often there isn't time for that. If a film doesn't perform on its first weekend, people don't hang on to it.
GE: We've got such amazing talent over here – film-makers, technicians. A lot of the American studios are coming over here and using our people. I would love, in the long run, for us to be making those kind of movies, but on our own – without having to wait for Hollywood.
CL: I think that's what Cameron's hinting at. You and I know that most film-makers in the independent sector right now are scratching around to put even a budget of £5m together. Your film Monsters was made for a fraction of that. It didn't look like a film that was made for a micro budget [it cost £500,000] – it looked glossy and rich.
GE: With the big studio stuff, it feels like they are not taking risks.
CL: You're right, they're not necessarily taking creative risks or innovating.
GE: When I was making Monsters, if we had knocked on loads of doors and said we want to shoot a film on the other side of the world, we're not going to have a script, I'll do the effects from home and we'll do it for peanuts, virtually everyone would have gone, "You're an idiot, it's not going to work." Vertigo [the producers and distributors] were really brave and backed it. There was total support. You have to risk something to have a reward. There is this assumption that if someone says they are going to do something commercial, it means they are not going to do something artistic. Everybody's goal is to do both. Who sets out saying "I'm going to do this beautiful film but I don't care if nobody sees it"?
CL: There has been talk of snobbery within the system. I think there's room for all of it. You can have the purist, auteur-loving cineaste and equally someone who wants to be entertained on a Friday night.
Emine Saner: But will those art-house, independent films get made now?
CL: I think they will. Unless they fire everyone in public funding. We're talking about people like Andrea Arnold, Lynne Ramsay, Steve McQueen. These people are making challenging movies and clearly they are worthy of support.
ES: But Cameron wouldn't call them "commercial".
CL: They're making money. We Need to Talk about Kevin made £2m. But yes, it's not the sort of film, if you were purely in it for the money … You can't just be in it for the money because you'll get found out. Nobody wants to go and see your film to make you rich. There's got to be some magic in there somewhere.
GE: The thing that has helped young filmmakers 10 times more than any government grant could is digital technology – you can make something that looks cinematic that would have cost you tens of thousands to make before. Now you can do it for £1,000. That's really exciting. The cost of making movies is potentially coming down, even though it's going up on Hollywood movies. Instead of saying "Harry Potter costs hundreds of millions, why can't we have hundreds of millions?" we should be saying "why can't we make it for £10m?"
CL: The movie industry is the perfect meeting of art and commerce, but some of the Hollywood franchises are veering very far to the commercial side.
GE: I don't blame Hollywood. They're a commercial entity, and they're right, those movies make a lot of money. If you've got a problem with them, you can not go to see them.
CL: But do you want to live in a world where it's all that's available? There's always going to be a role for the creative part of it and therefore we are nowhere without writers, directors, producers – and they need to be supported.
Gareth Edwards: What films are held up as great examples of commercial films?
Christine Langan: Harry Potter, The King's Speech, The Inbetweeners. I'm not sure if Cameron is prescribing a type of film. I think it's flattering in a way. It's recognition that the British film industry is very valuable. I think Cameron has stirred up a bit of a bees' nest, in that people interpret "commercial" differently. Some people will think that means genre, derivative, exploitative, manipulative. I think he's talking about crowdpleasers. The perfect result for all of us is where you make a film that is creatively risky when you set out, but proves to be a crowdpleaser for whatever reason – and you can't legislate for those. Slumdog Millionaire is one example.
GE: Slumdog is a great example, because some film executives had doubts about its commercial success. What will or won't be a hit is not something that's clear in advance.
CL: Absolutely. It's really hard to read, and it's vulnerable to all sorts of things, like timing. It's hard to tell how a film will be received and whether it will catch the mood. I don't think anyone expected The King's Speech to perform in the way it did. Distributors were not deeply enamoured of period movies that would appeal to an older audience. They thought they're not going to fill the multiplexes on a Friday night with youngsters, and it just takes one film to come along and buck the trend.
GE: Heads roll in the studio when you reject an idea and it goes on to make $200m. It feels to me that we already have a system where you can go somewhere with a highly commercial idea and raise the finance for it – it's called Hollywood. You get to the bigger question of what is the point of a BFI [the British Film Institute has taken over funding distribution from the dismantled UK Film Council]? It's like the BBC – what should they be doing that commercial television isn't doing? They probably should be taking more risks.
CL: At the BBC we're a little bit freer to pursue an idea for its own sake. Something like An Education was very uncommercial. Because of the period it was set in, nobody else was keen to dive in and develop it. There is a real case for development to be a bit leftfield. It's imperative that we maintain a liberal, nurturing attitude at that level. Where we need to get savvier is in terms of how we finance and distribute, so we can make more out of the films we make.
GE: When you look at the films that may be considered more art-house that have gone on to do well commercially, they tend to have a groundswell around them – they do well at festivals, and with word of mouth. The current problem with distribution is you have to have an amazing opening weekend or die.
CL: Power devolves to one small department that makes a decision about how much to invest in the P&A [prints and advertising]. The value of the niche needs to be explored more, because people love the idea of discovering something for themselves, but often there isn't time for that. If a film doesn't perform on its first weekend, people don't hang on to it.
GE: We've got such amazing talent over here – film-makers, technicians. A lot of the American studios are coming over here and using our people. I would love, in the long run, for us to be making those kind of movies, but on our own – without having to wait for Hollywood.
CL: I think that's what Cameron's hinting at. You and I know that most film-makers in the independent sector right now are scratching around to put even a budget of £5m together. Your film Monsters was made for a fraction of that. It didn't look like a film that was made for a micro budget [it cost £500,000] – it looked glossy and rich.
GE: With the big studio stuff, it feels like they are not taking risks.
CL: You're right, they're not necessarily taking creative risks or innovating.
GE: When I was making Monsters, if we had knocked on loads of doors and said we want to shoot a film on the other side of the world, we're not going to have a script, I'll do the effects from home and we'll do it for peanuts, virtually everyone would have gone, "You're an idiot, it's not going to work." Vertigo [the producers and distributors] were really brave and backed it. There was total support. You have to risk something to have a reward. There is this assumption that if someone says they are going to do something commercial, it means they are not going to do something artistic. Everybody's goal is to do both. Who sets out saying "I'm going to do this beautiful film but I don't care if nobody sees it"?
CL: There has been talk of snobbery within the system. I think there's room for all of it. You can have the purist, auteur-loving cineaste and equally someone who wants to be entertained on a Friday night.
Emine Saner: But will those art-house, independent films get made now?
CL: I think they will. Unless they fire everyone in public funding. We're talking about people like Andrea Arnold, Lynne Ramsay, Steve McQueen. These people are making challenging movies and clearly they are worthy of support.
ES: But Cameron wouldn't call them "commercial".
CL: They're making money. We Need to Talk about Kevin made £2m. But yes, it's not the sort of film, if you were purely in it for the money … You can't just be in it for the money because you'll get found out. Nobody wants to go and see your film to make you rich. There's got to be some magic in there somewhere.
GE: The thing that has helped young filmmakers 10 times more than any government grant could is digital technology – you can make something that looks cinematic that would have cost you tens of thousands to make before. Now you can do it for £1,000. That's really exciting. The cost of making movies is potentially coming down, even though it's going up on Hollywood movies. Instead of saying "Harry Potter costs hundreds of millions, why can't we have hundreds of millions?" we should be saying "why can't we make it for £10m?"
CL: The movie industry is the perfect meeting of art and commerce, but some of the Hollywood franchises are veering very far to the commercial side.
GE: I don't blame Hollywood. They're a commercial entity, and they're right, those movies make a lot of money. If you've got a problem with them, you can not go to see them.
CL: But do you want to live in a world where it's all that's available? There's always going to be a role for the creative part of it and therefore we are nowhere without writers, directors, producers – and they need to be supported.
No comments:
Post a Comment