I'll start this post by saying I like David Cameron.
I was going through my old computer the other day and found a story I'd started writing when I was about 15. It was a weird mixture of The Hurt Locker, 2012 and The Bourne Identity focusing on a worldwide terrorist attack set in the future. In it, I'd made reference to Prime Minister David Cameron, thus second guessing the future of British Politics by about four years. And before you ask, I will be offering my Mystic Meg insight to the upcoming American Election in November, so get your betting slips at the ready.
Anyway, back to the matters at hand. Today, after a personal tour of Pinewood Studios, the Prime Minister announced he would like the British film industry to focus on more comercially successful films instead of low budget critical darlings that the UK is more famous for nowadays.
Remember that fire at Pinewood a couple of years ago? After comments like that I'd wished the inferno had held off for a few years and treated the PM like medieval folk treated witches.
This was the alternate poster for Kiss Ass- I MEAN Kick Ass. Satire.
First of all, commercially successful movies cost money. Avatar, the highest grossing film of all time, cost an estimated $240million to make. Titanic, the second highest grossing film ever, cost $200million to make back in 1997. The latest installment of Twilight, Breaking Dawn Part. 1 cost $110million to make, although I'm sure it'd rack up serious box office numbers even if the filmmakers scrapped the original shoot and just held some kind of puppet show using knitted characters made by Tayler Lautner's nan.
Before the government scrapped the UK Film Council last year, it had an annual budget of £15million to invest in different films all year round.
I'm not saying dosh automatically equals more dosh, but when given a choice between the idiot-fuelled cash juggernaut Transformers and the lower-budget more thought provoking Tyrannosaur, most punters this summer plumped for the money option.
Unfortunately, such is the way of modern politics that the electorate of UK will hardly be too pleased if a £200million government funded big screen production of Doctor Who all of a sudden popped up at the Odeon. You can imagine it now, a local news report with a batty old lady complaining they've spent all the money that'd been promised for a new streamlined Meals on Wheels service on enticing Brad Pitt to be the new Doctor and George Lucas to create the special effects.
So there's that to consider. Then there's the other problem, which goes back to my what-at-the-time-seemed-irrelevant story about my prediction of David Cameron becoming British Prime Minister:
How do you predict a commercially successful film?
There is a reasonable formula for working out a sure fire hit. Big actors + big explosions + news-worthy budget + story based on previously popular work/sequel = $$$
But who would've predicted things like Slumdog Millionaire or The Hangover would've become smash hits? Slumdog Millionaire is a good example because it's a British film that'd been financed by the UK Film Council. Its a Danny Boyle film that is remarkably un-Danny Boyle (mainly because it makes you smile) about a boy from the slums of Indian who manages to win Who Wants to be a Millionaire because all the answers relate to flashbacks that make up the film's narrative (what are the odds?). It was a massive hit, helped by the fact it generated a serious amount of pre-Oscars chatter.
Its the same with The Kings Speech. Most of it's success is down to the hype around Colin Firth's and Geoffrey Rush's performances and the whole 'Britishness' of it all. No one was that interested in the history lesson about a King who had a stutter, just the fact Firth could pull off a stutter without...stuttering.
Two of Britain's most successful films in recent times then have been Oscar successes revolving around the central theme of personal triumph. Most films that battle it out for Oscars are rarely commercial juggernauts, instead they're usually more obscure pictures that come to the forefront of public attention due to their critical acclaim. They aren't necessarily commercial nor mainstream, but they are bloody good.
Maybe it's the fact Cameron is currently seeing Margaret Thatcher's face on the side of every bus in London like a miner's nightmare that has driven a little bit loopy. Britain makes good films, regardless of whether they're commercial or not. I'm more excited about seeing The Kill List, a low budget obscure British horror/thriller when it comes out on BluRay than any other film coming out this month. When Britain tries to make commercial bigger budget pictures, they tend to be horrible gangster flicks starring Ray Winstone or Danny Dyer that are a) shit b) offensive to our intelligence.
Politicians should stay away from the film industry, especially when you take into consideration the fact David Cameron has Armageddon on his DVD shelf (I did not realise he had special needs). Investing in the production of films is incredibly risky when compared to the investment in other commodities. But few other commodities are as loved as films. It's art, and art should not be told how it should be produced, especially by those who have no real interest other than pound signs.
And yes, this is a topical post from yours truly, I hope you've enjoyed the ride.
