The British government wants to help filmmakers - cut their money and give it to big studios

[Andrew Reid]

[html]

[img]http://www.eoshd.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/david-cameron-pinewood-studios.jpg[/img]

British Prime Minister David Cameron went on a visit to Pinewood studios last week to enjoy the company of his elitist counterparts in the film industry. As part of accepting their generous hospitality, Cameron said that he wants to make more money available for commercially successful filmmakers rather than funding unproven ones.

EOSHD sends his assistant Watson to investigate – who finds a tiny flaw in Cameron’s plot…

[url="http://www.eoshd.com/content/6802/the-british-government-wants-to-help-filmmakers-cut-their-money-and-give-it-to-big-studios/"]Read full article[/url]

[/html]

[moebius22]

Is there anything you people don't give government money to? This is not to stand judgement over you (because my country spends like no tomorrow as well), but your country is in pretty bad financial shape.

The little I know of Cameron comes from the media here decrying European austerity, but he seems to be looking at the British film industry much like Hollywood does. I know everyone decries Hollywood's lack of taking chances, but due to "pay or play" contracts, people would rather take a chance with something safe, rather than something untried. Sequels and remakes still seem to make money.


The King's speech was a pretty good film.

[bradbell.tv]

It seems odd to hear people discuss the relative merits of the 'star system' vs 'culture industry' models in film funding in the present context. Merit seems to have little to do with it. It's a simple matter of ideology. This is the Conservative Party's version of arts funding. It is similar to the Conservative Party philosophy of healthcare, which we see in the current privatisation of the NHS. (Humorously, it turns out ex-Goldman Sachs executives can't run the hospitals any better, and have been forced to admit they were wrong about being able to improve care. If they are to take a profit, it has to come from somewhere. Waiting times are now longer. Quality of care has gone down. Profits are up.)

It's not Capitalism vs Communism, it's Capitalism vs Milton Friedman's version of de-regulated Capitalism as embraced by  Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. Over the last 30 years it has spread throughout the world via the IMF, with 'Neoliberal' policies as conditions of loans. It is responsible for the de-regulation which lead to the collapse of the financial system. Bizarrely, the UK Conservative Party's solution to this problem of Thatcherism is a kind of Super Thatcherism (Or in US parlance, Reaganomics; 'trickle down' economics.)

For the record moebius22, the UK is not in dire financial straights. We have household debt comparable to Canada. And government debt comparable to Canada (which, incidentally, didn't deregulate and didn't have a financial collapse). We DO have a lot of banking debt. The banks owe nearly 1000% of GDP! And the primary donor to all our political parties is the financial services industry. This, of course, explains why we have austerity cuts to government services that affect everyone, and subsidies to banks.

So we are completely fucked and our children have no hopes for education or jobs - we are rebuilding Great Britain in the 19th century, with a good strong class system and chimney sweeps for all the children -  but we are definitely NOT in "pretty bad financial shape."

Graph:
[url=http://static7.businessinsider.com/image/4edb70a56bb3f7b433000030/debt.jpg]http://static7.businessinsider.com/image/4edb70a56bb3f7b433000030/debt.jpg[/url]

Personally, I favour the Canadian and EU 'culture industry' approach to arts funding. In the 'star system,' it seems 99% of the artists starve, and 1% get rich in a market controlled by a tiny elite of speculators. In the 'culture industry' approach, no one starves, and your culture becomes a cross section of a diverse set of people making work in the context of a professional discourse. It also seems a more digital, contemporary approach. Stars, of course, suit the mass media and the market, by creating brands and limiting experience and choice.

Check this out: Bill Mayher on why the 'socialist' model is better via the profitable NFL (US football)

[url=http://vimeo.com/35003246]Bill Maher - Irritable Bowl Syndrome[/url]

[moebius22]

UK's debts 'biggest in the world'
[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15820601]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15820601[/url]

Mind you, our debt is equal to our GDP, but you guys (like us) are not in good shape by a long shot.

I'm not going to get into an argument on capitalism versus socialist models of film funding. Our system is obviously financially healthier - I mean different than yours.

Good filmmakers can still make movies here without government funding.

[markm]

I think Camerons idea is to try and get our film industry to make money for the economy. Star wars Indiana Jones and an awful long line of films made here using our expertise studios and people but by Americans while OUR directors follow an artistic path that is often not mainstream and often a moan at mainstream films. Another problem is many of the theatres here are owned by American distributers who choose what does or doesnt get shown. I want to make mainstream films and many times come across obstacles from those who dont like it. Dont see any value in mainstream standards and feel anything new or different no matter how bad many here in this country would feel, is preferential. The film council loved anything from other cultures or off beat and put money into films like Harry Potter they KNEW would be big But very little if anything to the indigenous culture and people.

There has and always been a gate you have to pass to get distribution if they wont let you in your stuck. As for crowd funding and airing on the internet thats fine if you make something people want to spend ten seconds on. Like a cat chasing its tail or a titbit like how to tell if you have chlamidia. Or how to apply makeup. All really nothing to do with proper film making skills but can make money through ads etc.

The more people are attracted to film making the more watered down even the most basic opportunites become. I would say its harder now to make anything likely to be succesful than ever before unless you have a captive audience that follow you like for example Andrew does. You can see this on vimeo where the guy who invented it can put any thing up he wants and get nice comments loads of views etc. Maybe people have to spend all their time creating a blog that people follow before they can get a very moderate amount of praise for films that without would be completely ignored.

Making a film is far more than having access to a cheap camera. A camera is just a very small part of the equation. The most important thing is script and actors and budget. But a good director can use a good DP to enhance already high standards of acting. A DP is someone who is highly trained in camera work and lighting and could make a phone camera look great. Far more than most realise. A film can be a flop because to much emphasise is placed on the camera and its moves. Lighting, sound, set design, effects EVERYTHING has to work together to make a pretty film But ONLY the actors and script will make a film that people will want to watch. Better though to have a film people want to watch and pretty.

Cameron wants those with a proven track record to get funded and yet another chicken egg situation HOW do you get a track record if you dont get funding.

As always in this country its a head they win tails you lose situation. Of course we could always get those with extraordinary skills together and make a film so good that it just bypasses all the gatekeepers and all those with vested intersts. But getting cooperation of this sort takes setting aside your own personal interests and investing serious time into a directors vision. How many can do that in todays consumer world of its all about me.

Thats why manufacturers and the media always win and why we end up with cameras and equipment designed disallowed to cross into the pro world IE crippled or just under the standards and rules set by pros. Of course some may break through but most never will.

[Simco123]

If cameron shows the same commitment about helping home base filmmakers as he does with the country's poor then there will be no chance.

[bwhitz]

[quote author=brad link=topic=176.msg1303#msg1303 date=1326678890]
Check this out: Bill Mayher on why the 'socialist' model is better via the profitable NFL (US football)

[url=http://vimeo.com/35003246]Bill Maher - Irritable Bowl Syndrome[/url]
[/quote]

That fact that a sport's economic model is being compared to an entire countries' is beyond stupid... and why I still don't take liberals seriously.

Football has a fixed number of players, teams, ect... it is controllable. Players are "picked" based on physical and mental abilities before they ever step foot in a stadium. All those "not worthy" are "cut" and never make it. Is this what Bill Mayher is suggests we do in our population as well?

Socialism will work... but we'll need to "cut" all the "undesirables" from the general population first. That way, when the wealth is re-distributed, we'll know it isn't being wasted. At least with capitalism, anyone has a chance... as "unfair" as it may be. You want a working socialist model? Well, then you'll have to die if you're not 6ft tall and IQ over 100.

What will a functioning socialist civilization look like? Logan's Run.

For a civilization to function or grow, the output must exceed or meet the upkeep. Would you like this to happen freely among the population? Or would you like a team of bureaucrats to decide who is "worthy" or not? A working socialist model is not a free-for-all like people seem to think. It is impossible, in any functioning civilization model (capitalism or socialism), for an individual with no value or contribution to society, to live a life equal to those who do. It's the truth nobody wants to hear... but it is the truth.

Also, as far as cameras and filmmaking is concerned. You have capitalism to thank for the $700 GH2. The socialist consortium of manufactures would never allow this to happen if they didn't half to. Competition from other divisions and companies is what keeps technology moving forward. Canon, Panasonic, and Sony are FAR from capitalistic in the way they function internally. They are best described as "collectivists". Meaning they function internally with the principles of socialism (reduced competition, non-canibalization of products, "planned" market places), yet still collect profits from a free-market. This is what needs to be regulated, but it's far from capitalistic ideals. It's a socialist philosophy they're subscribing to. Could you imagine what products we would have available if their wasn't free choice in the market? We'd be lucky to be shooting on $500 a foot 8mm film stock. When there's no free-market, no choice, and no liberty... the market leaders/producers can do whatever the hell they want. When consumers have free choice of what products they buy, and the profits of the manufactures are dependent on those the consumers, they are forced to continually improve and create new products. This is capitalism. It's about keeping the market in check and progress moving forward by protecting the liberties of the consumer. When this is lost... the system flips over and the manufactures are free to do what they please. Including, and especially, dragging out technology as long as they please...

The real problem that needs to be stopped here (and especially in hollywood) is nepotism. Nepotism is bad for any model, socialist or capitalist. People are comfortable giving money, jobs, and opportunity to people they know... regardless of skill set. This leads to only "people who know people" getting a shot. It's far from being related to any economic model.

[markm]

Capitlism is the only system tha works But needs to be tempered with a government that make laws for the people that makes tempered and under control and is beneficial to all. Unfortunatly for the most part our governments have been working for themselves and been got at by big business and lots of bribes mostly hidden although cash for questions peerages and the expenses give a glimpse into their world of lining their own pockets.

As for Cameras like the GH2 often made in countries like china where the currency is deliberatly undervalued and kept that way. China now has most of the worlds money) We are paying a price when we import cheap goods when really there should be import duty that levels the playing fied so British workers can compete and we can live within our means. We have seen most of our manufacturing closed down due to this and it can only go on for so long. Because our government allows cheap imports those countries are growing stronger and demanding better lifestyles and massively contributing to the pollution that is destroying our planet. Not that you can blame them its just a shame we couldnt find a way to control pollution before importing cheap goods to enable a quadrupling of it. We love our recycling and emmision targets Meanwhile China etc use the biggest coal polluters they can to export all our cheap goods to us.

We are at the end of the road with cheap imports now and a leveling is occuring with our economies decling and living standards going down although mostly down to the EU but thats another story.

Unfortunatly its all down to our politicians who are mostly self serving bunch of idiots who often get nice little back handers from big business and why the bilderbergers the architects of the EU got founded.

One of this countries other problems is just how unpatriotic the people are. They would always go for the cheapest no matter how many times they shoot themselves and each other in the foot

[MatthewP]

[quote]This is probably controversial in these parts, but to be honest, I couldn't care less about a film being "artful" or not. Films are a form of entertainment, and as long as people come away from the film saying "wow, that was lovely/awesome/hilarious/amazing, I'm glad I saw it!", then it's a good film! But, in my experience, "arty" films NEVER leave you feeling happy that you've spent your time watching them. The annoying thing for me is that British films always seem to be of the "arty" kind. Thankfully Americans make plenty of awesome films, so that fills the gap.[/quote]