Cinema And Englishness - Steve Blandofrd by Tallis Media Online

The Media Studies Conference Wednesday 25 th - Friday 27 th June 2008 BFISouthbank,London

Cinema and 'Englishness'

STEVE BLANDFORD

THE BFl IVIED1A STUDIES C00:FEREi'.'CE Z008 TH TH \VED~ESD/\Y 25 - FIUDAY 27 Jt!NE BFI SOIJrI-HlA:"iK, LO:"DO,,"

PRESE~TAT[Ol": THURSDAY Ze JUNE H

11.45AM - 1.00PM

CIi'\EJ\1AAo'<D 'ENCLlSHi"ESS'

Professor Steve Blandford Cardiff School of Creative & Cultural Industries The University of Glamorgan Over the last t\vo c1eudes a number of ['.luors have combined to sipnificmtlv [",llse <:> • awareness amI pwyoke debate about the Idea of an English Identi1y that is sep:mltc and chstlnct fmm:l more gcner;J sense of what it means to be British. These f,lctors Include tl,e devolUtlon elf power 1'0 elected bodIes in Scotland and \Vales, the re-mst:ltemcnt of devolved po\ve:r to a Nortl,ern Ireh.nd J\sscmbly (and the: changed rel,ltionshqJ to Ireland both Sides of the border), the raclic-l\ changes to deb,\les o,'er ll1ulticultlJClllsm 1I1 the post-9/1 L post-1rac1 W;lr context and the rrtpld c:\p:mslon of the EU. [ \ -(Iuld hke to explore how film makers have re:qvJIlded to these debates e1tber ,-cry directly the manner Slune -":[cAdow's 7... / JillJ EWl,jilrl or more U;";lljUc!V.. ill films sucb ,IS PAwel P:l\Vllk()w:·;J'-I'~ !\ 1)' Si/lP/iller of Low.

111

.'.)

The discussion wdllnvolve a onef sucvcy of some of the landm:-J.rk represent,ltions of Fnglishncss from the last t\vo decAdes r,merin 0o' rom Fo!!r I.Veddllli!Y aIId A Funeral to Lay! Ore/en ;md wdl conclude by lookl11g ,1t the W(Jrk of Shane Meadows as a else study of a body of work fhaf Ius, It IS argued, :1 p'.lrtlcuhr Vle'v o( England ,md the Engltsh at 1ts heart. ',.,;

<.1

INDlCAT1VE FlLJvlOGRAPl-IY

Sly!)!

011

the Beach (Dlr. C;unnder Chadha 1993)

j::o/£/'" Ir'eddli(~.l

(i//Q /-i flll/eral (Oil', ;\Iike Newcll, 1994) The rllll ;\-[01//) (Dir. Peter Cattaneo, 1997) BiOIJd O,((Dlr. .\hrk HenmU1, 19%) J!idi!/~; Doo/i (Dlr. Peter Howltt 1(98) ,\;/'/ 13) A[(!/II!, (lJir. Cary Oldman, 1(97) ;\i(j!11I.~'!. }-fi/t (Dil'. Roger :\[Jchdl, 1(99) l.r;'fWa',:;!(./I!d (0 I r. lvriclne! \\ltn tc:rbottom, 1CJ9CJ) A I\(loi/;jor ROJiiCO HraJ,' (Dir. Shanc i\Ie:ldo\Vs 10(9) B//I)' ELllot CDlr. Srerhen D~tlclry, 20(0) Tj,{J L-:ii! l<e!or! (DiL l\lwcI Pa\Vlikow~kl 2(00) J(?"j Ha1l"1 (Dir. JllllatlHI1 GLt7-er, 2000~ J AI! On/ell (D1J~. Fred Sclwp'ol 20(1) Lh':! il L.-I,:.:,' Hedhi./iil (Oir. GUl"iIlder Chad h;t 20(2) Oidy P/t1t!}· n)i!{~, (0 ir. Sf eph en fre:ll's 20(2) lJi INI IFodd (Dir :\lich;tel \Vinterhortnm 20(2) O//ce [.j;Oil 111 Illl(' i:,> Fi,c Mi.dlaml; (Dir. Shane !\-kadows 20(2)

<...J

Bld/';!;J)' C/I{ (Dir Jt:% Butrenvorth 2(02) Dead ;\,!elt '" .f/,ocl ')ir Sh;m c \fc'ldo\\'s, 2004) Aly Swmiitr 0/ J JU'c (DIL T>;l\'v-cl 1\IWlikowskl, 2004) I),id!' (!/ili PIl'Jlldi e (Dir, C;unndcr Chadha 2(04) rhi!' /.<' E/~!.!/((!.d (Oil'. Sh:lne ,\ le3dows, 2007) I"orCATfVE I3IBLIOGRc\PHY BLmdford, Skye (2007) fIlm Drama and the Break-Up

d Britain, Bristol, ]ntelkct

Bradsh;lw, Peter (2004)

'\ily Summer of Love', The GlIardion, 22 October.

Brooks, Xan, (2000)

'Billyl~lliot

brings Hollywood to Brit.ain', The Cuardlon,

bl1+':': /Hm.,nJArdJ;:lf],co,uk, last :1.ccessed 28 June 2005,

Broob, :\:111, (2001)

'Se:")' Beast', ,S{g!JI & S Olflld, Vol. 11, 2, February,

l:3runsc1on, Charlotre (2000)

'.\1ot 1Ltvlng It All: \\'0111en ;md Film In the 1990s' In Robert \[urphy (ed,), Bnli,h Cinema a/the 90,1, London, BFI.

lo'rench, Phlhp, (2002 ;1.)

'Last ot- a dying breed', The ObJmlel~ January 13,

HIli, John, (2000)

'Fflilure and Utopi:.1nism: Represent'ltions of dIe \Vorktng Cbss

111

Britlsh Cinema of the 1990s',

ll1

Rohert ;\f[urphy (ed,),

!3liliJh CZnema ofthe 90." London, B FI. j:lIllCS,

Nick, (1999)

?\'fartJn Jones, Dand (2004)

'Farewell to NapoJi', Sight &SOll!l(!, Vol. 9,:J, :\'{:1Y,

'Two Stones, One JZtgbt, One \'x/rong. ?"'drrative, National Identity And Globalization in S!idit{ij, Dood Cmeaetion, 64,

\IcLoone, :\1;;rtin, (2001)

'Intem:l) DecolonlsatlOn? Dritlsh Cinem:.1

the CeltiC Fnnge',

in Robert LVlurphy (cd,), The BritiJh Cinema Book (2" d edition), London, Bntlsh Film Institute,

Perertl, ,J:ICllut:s (20UO)

'Shame of a

~atJOn',

The Glfr:mJioll, i\Jlaj' 26, 2000,

accessed February 2006,

SincLm,

Llll,

(10(11)

TUI111CY, Tom, (1998)

'The Cruel Selslde'

S!~ght and

'Tom T unncy cooks up

& Sound, 8, 5, June,

SOlllld, 11, 3, ;\[arch,

hardho ilcd movie menu', Sight

(j) Teaching Recent British Cinema

A possible outline of Course Content

This is not a definitive order but rather outlines possible components of a course in terms of areas of knowledge and examples of films

The definition from the OCR syllabus Understanding Exhibition, Distribution and Production and their significance for film finance An outline understanding of the modern Hollywood production system The British Film Industry -distribution, exhibition and audiences Aardman Animation and DreamWorks -a case study Types of British made films Case studies: The Full Monty, Bend It Like Beckham, 28 Days Later, Gosford Park, Dirty Pretty Things Representations of British life and culture across the case study films Relation of the case study films to audiences and box office Production in Britain -the role of the television companies - UK Film Council - Working Title and DNA films

Media Audiences: domestic proliferation of technology, the quest for ratings in a commercial market, the role of public seNice broadcasters, audience interactivity, niche marketing, fragmentation of society and family. Media Representations: Americanisation, multi cultural representations, Britishness, children's television, middle of the road radio, specialist programming. SECTION B: FILM Contemporary British Cinema An examination of the main creative, economic and institutional issues in contemporary British cinema. Media Languages, Forms and Conventions: generic codes and conventions, codes of realism, styles and movements, relationship with Hollywood and European styles. Media Institutions: historical context of British film industry, auteur theories, stars, contextualising specific films within the historical, social and economic background, financing of British cinema, production, distribution and exhibition, regional film theatres, British Film Commission Funding, relationship with Hollywood/multinationals, independents, British Screen/BFI, Film Four; international film festival. Media Audiences: constituency, mass/niche, British/international, art-house, home video and television viewing, notions of 'British audience'

Media Representations: dominant and appositional ideologies, stereotypes and archetypes, representations of gender/sexuality and social groups, representations of Britain and regions, relationship to Northern Ireland (and Eire) Scotland and Wales, 'selling Britain' overseas. The Concept of Genre in Film An examination of the main debates surrounding the functions and purposes of genre in film, including how, and why, definitions of particular genres change according to the contexts of their production. [Texts may be chosen from any national cinema, with reference to contemporary mainstream or alternative and "classic" texts]. Centres are recommended to choose several film examples from two or more genres. Media Languages, Forms and Conventions: codes and conventions of different genres, historical origins and development over time, construction of realism and other codes, strengths and weaknesses of genre theory. Media Institutions: film industries 'Hollywood studios' production line approach to genre associated with specific studios, pre-/post production, distribution, exhibition; genre as marketing tool. Media Audiences: pleasures, expectations, audience identification, fans; cults, genre as 'contract' Media Representations: character types-stereotypes and archetypes, representations of gender, race, nationality, age, sexuality etc, ideological dominant values, typecasting and genre as a 'reading' device.

ÂŠ OCR 2005

Specification Content GCE Media (386017860)

速 Teaching Recent British Cinema Some Organisational Issues

- How many films are you going to be able to show Complete or Extracts?

- What basis for selection? Different economic levels of financing? Different 'genres' - heritage, comedy, horror, social realism Comparative representations

- How much background reading can be covered? Organisation of Hollywood and film finance History of British Cinema Cultural Analysis of British films

- Hidden Agenda How far does the debate about British National Cinema relate to cultural Assumptions about Hollywood cinema as 'populist' and 'politically reactionary' whereas models of 'British' cinema either reflect notions of 'high culture' -the 'heritage film' and/or the 'art house film' 'social realism -the 'political film' 'independentlavant garde - the 'experimental film' Of course such categories are not discreet and involve long-standing arguments about 'realism and anti-realism'. Equally these 'cultural' arguments are inevitably defined against the economic and cultural practices of the Hollywood industry and the ways in which the British film industry operates in reaction to these.

Teaching Recent British Cinema

Student -Centred Issues

- How interested are students in the issue of 'national cinema'? Is it a distinction they make for themselves and if so what does it mean to them - are British films to be avoided or some of them to be enjoyed (e.g. comedy, gangster, horror)? - What British films will they be likely to have seen, what are common reference points? - How interested are they in issues of representation in British films Including those of gender and ethnicity?

速 Teaching Recent British Film Annotated Bibliography There are obviously many books about aspects of British Cinema. My intention here is to gloss those sections I think are most useful for work with students, and also to include a brief list of titles teachers may find useful. For the most central texts I have outlined the content in some detail so that it is clear what they cover.

Branson G and Stafford R The Media Students Book (3 rd Edition) Routledge 2003 Case Study: The British Film Industry pp350 -363 What is a British Film?; British Film Culture; British film makers and film-making traditions. This study considers the problems of film finance, with a detailed example of Iris Government funding, Distribution. It then outlines arguments over what British film culture might be, followed by accounts of film-making traditions, including realism. It concludes by looking at Working Title as a production company and an outline account of Michael Winterbottom as an auteur.

Bennett J, Jones T, McDougall J A2 Media Studies for OCR (2 nd Edition) Hodder Arnold 2006 Section 3 Part 4 Contemporary British Cinema pp 137-144 This is the 'offi.cial' text book ,so one presumes it will give a sense of what students are expected to cover.. It defines the key areas of knowledge as: ,

The current state of the British film industry; the relationship between British film, European cinema and Hollywood; the representation of contemporary (and changing) Britain in films' It offers a short section on 'Context' followed by 'Multicultural Britain -themes, 'politics and culture', 'contemporary ownership and institution' -this section deals with production finance plus the roles of Channel 4 and BBC and the UK Film Council. 'The fall and rise of cinema in Britain' includes cinema going, the introduction of the mUltiplex but returns to the issue of the how diverse exhibition mayor may not be .. The final section offers 'British film and changes to national identity' and considers three films about British Asians, East Is East, Bend It Like Beckham, Ae Fond Kiss and makes passing mention of In Th;s World and O;r1y Pretty Things raising questions about representation and the complexity of contemporary Britishness.

Abrams N, Bell I and Udris J Studying Film Arnold 2001 I think that this book is written at a level that students should be able to grasp. It has a first section on 'Cinema as Institution' of which the fourth part 'Cinema. The Media and Globalisation' could provide a useful background study for understanding the contemporary Hollywood within a global context. It also has a section on British Cinema which includes consideration of 'what is British cinema?', an overview history, which covers the period broadly since World War 11. It is completed by case studies of Brief Encounter, East Is East. Other useful books Hill J, McLoone M, Hainsworth P Border Crossing 115 and bfi 1994 This has a very good summary of the problems of financing films in Britain related to an account of how Hollywood is economically successful by Steve Mclntyre.

Murphy R (ed) British Cinema of the 90s bfi (2000) This has a number of useful chapters with information on the industry for teachers and also covers areas of representation. This is not easy reading but might be tried in extracts e.g. Men In the 90s Claire Monk Friedman L (ed) British Cinema and Thatcherism UCL Press 1993 This has a number of interesting articles including an analysis of 'new British cinema' by Elsaesser, Higson on 'Re-presenting the National Past' and Wollen arguing for the 80s as the real modernist new wave in British film making, led by directors such as Jarman and Greenaway.

Hill J ' The Issue of National Cinema and British Film Production' in Petrie o (ed) New Questions of British Cinema bfi 1992 This is one of the shortest and clearest cases I know for taking British Cinema seriously, though it leans towards favouring a particularly socially commited and avant garde type of film-making. Hill J British Cinema in the 1980s Oxford 1999 This has a particularly good account of Channel 4's involvement in film making during the 1980s.

Useful individual accounts of recent British film production and its upheavals

Eberts J and 1I0tt My Indecision Is Final -the Rise and Fall of Goldcrest Films Faber and Faber 1990 Finney A The Egos Have Landed -the rise and fall of Palace Pictures Weldon no date -around 1998 Kuhn M One Hundred Films and a Funeral: Polygram Films Thorogood 2002

Media In Britain

Information on the film industry in Britain (Source SFI Film and Television Handbook 2005)

•

Top 20 Films at the UK Box Office 2003 Country of Origin

Box Office Gross

Entertainment

USfNZ

(£m) 60.666,284

Buena Vista

37,364.251

UlP

UK/US

36,450,860

Warner Bras

33.423,117

Buena Visla

28.171,721

Distributor

Title Lord of the Rings: Return of the King'

2 Finding Nemo 3 Love Actually 4 lhe Matrix Reloaded 5 The Pirates of the Caribbean 6 Bruce Almighry

Buena Vista

23,642,290

20th Century Fox

20,660,229

Buena Vista

UKNS

20,427,788

UIP

UKNS

19,650,225

Columbia TriStar

US/Germany

18,909,904

Warner Bras

17,992,877

12 American Pie: The Wedding

UlP

17,093,190

13 Chicago

Buena Vista

US/Canada

16,4J9,445

Entertainment

J6,344,883

UIP

15,044,459

7 X-Men 2 S Calendar Girls 9 Johnny English 10 Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines 1\ The Ma.trix Revolutions

<""

14 Elf 15 Catch Me If You· Can 16 Two Weeks Notice

Warner 8r05

17 8 Mile 18 Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle .19 Kill Bill- Volume 1 . - ·--20 Gangs of New·York

13,651,822

US ... {jS/Gemiany

VIP .. Columbia TriStar Bucna-Vi:sta

Entertairunent

13,254,612

12,355,642

U?.-,.

li,621,761

10,563,616

Box office gross; eumuJative total up t;' 22 March 2004. Films with asterisk (» we~e still being-exhibited on 22 March 2004

Source: Nielsen EDIIUK Film Council analysis

--.

Top 20 UK Films

Ti1le

at the Ut< B9l~itice 2003 .";": ,,

.-~ ", ':-CoJ~trY of Origin

Distributor .

VIP:.

1 Lodctually .2 Calendar Girls

.<1;': Johnnr

Buena Vista

English.

i' >i~'i

Cold Mountain~

i'~~'9

The Pianist

Ull'."

' .~~;,:~~~

;.>••:'.,::.

<;:tr~~~, ..:~~; '0<~s .

. ....:,} 'Ul</US '.;;

Box Office Gross

~:,7:0.860

20.427,788

19,650,225

.' c' ,~,.~::~,..;Y~S!Ro.:"aD~a/ltaly ;,.~

;9, JI8,8l7

i~-~§;: ····";~i· +~S;":;:~;7lc!1;'~" .~~~~ ~th~.~..:': ~.!..

.;'

".;o' ,,':':' uK/FriwcelGermany/Poland

2,972,334

~{1l';~;2'!~;:~":'ltt';.;'jt£;~~: .,;';'~~;t::;-':( .' ': ~:;: ;:. .

•

lln, America

'~Velyn

.~cholas Nicldeby

•. _0

Soldiers'

~right Young Things

_, .-' .' , ':'

,.'r.~\i

:\._,20t/,l.C~tury Eq".'..•. ~;,·,~x~.'UKi)Ieland., I

.!-,900;096 ',.-

' . :f.

i ,445.3~6_ l,244,263

i~.

' : \:'

~ ,~.,

Capture the Castle

':pley's Game

-i,098,522 : 1,085,4,70 \' 1,043.230 :'-' 1,011,364

,,~all '.1 .,.~,

gross = cumuJative lotal up to 22 March 2004. Films with iLSterisk ("), w;'~~'~iill beiIig exhibited OD 22 March 2004

J:~: Nielsen EDIIUK Film Council anaiysls

'.'

•

\~'.

'.'

',' .. ~_~ ::_):.. - :,~.'" .

~~.

Media In Britain

•

.\" Distributor

Breakdown of UK Box Office by Distributor in 2003

Distributor

Box Office

Titles

Buena Vista Int!.

224,605,319

United Int!. Pictures

195,763,176

Warner Bros.

81,665,144

Columbia Tristar

80,026,369

Twentieth Century Fox

69,310,342

140

651,370,350

Tolal Majors

Tilles

Box Office

Verve Picture

7,846

Metropolis Films

6,263

Capers Matcine

6,058

~;:

-j~

lan Rattray Films

4,799

Timeless Picture

4,442

ti1~

Mandrake Media

3,367

' <

Independent Uk

2,908

Blue Dolphin

2,648

Millivres

2,513

,-.. ,

1,932

,',

,-:ii ~

•t

Gala

Ratpack

1,444

9,585,811

Parle CiIcus Films

1,134

8 5

5,532,683

Buccaneer

1,046

4,143,872

Hyde Park Pictures Ltd.

901

Metro Tartan

3,734,332

P-Kino

285

Eros International Ltd,

17 3

3,033,707

Rafu Miah

282

2,865,970

2,515,211

282 423

178,439,640 829,709,990

Enlerlainment

115,515,057

Path. Distribution Lld.

17,925,974

Momenl1lm Pictures

Icon Film DisL Redbus

Yash Raj Films Optimum ReI.

2,349,619 1,999,089

WlJlcbester Films Artificial Eye

3 4 21

1,332,599

MettodomeDisL.

..5

937,759

Helkon Sic

UGC

EuIDs

Total Independents Tot<ll Box Office gross forperiod

\' ~:

l' J 1

3 J~uary 2003 t~ 22 March 2004

1,986,893

I;:.' ~;

"Source: Nielsen' EDI

BFI

10·

704,722

'. Abbey Hciine Eiitertainmeiit

11 ' f· 8 '

561,695 479,243 454,584

yenu'sFilmS ;

446,480

Tip To~ Entert~ent.. , Tartan FiIm~

423,731

,BoUywood fu,;,s

215,361 187,274

Gurpieet '{ideo Int!.

163,200

Twenty First Century Film

151,987

Sodll PiC\lu:es Shree Krishna'Film

lSO,550

139,352

Spa:i-'kEni,

12J,946

3 2

83,028 55,838

1984

660

1985

663

1,251

" ,(I

54,610

1986

660

1,249

1987

648

1,215

1988

699

1,416

1989

719

1,559

1990

737

1,685

·v.nU5~~er.t~~t leA ~I)i~~;' :",

d "

~cle Commumcations City ~~:,

s';e'e:n';

MoVie Box

: .',

::Z:~:ifPi~~e;~' :";,-~, :=~p~tt'~:~L~· :~ ., .. Ri~'Dist.·'

,.'

M~dUSa .

Ga~'-F~s";:-

"5D~~:0:f';:: ~', ;:

UK Sites and Screens 1984·2003 Yea

~~:~~~ ~:::::

41,841

~~Frims, Cin~Ce

Circuit Film

, _,

:,;'

Total Screens 1,271

1991

724

1,789

, 40,026

1992

735

1,845

28,252

1993

723

1,890

1994

731

1,969

.~~:~::

{Ar owPalni~"':':Pi'~~es~~:~;,;.:.;; "':"·'2.,.:-.:21¥j./."·,:.- ,~, ':- P;~4, ' ~~

Total Siles

.."':';.'

~> ·:;I~.21·,·',:6865~·i "2;:- .' . ",':': . 1

" ~,4?1

1"::.

. 9,026

1995

74~

2.019

1996

742

2,166 . 2,383

1997

747

1998

759

. -692 .

~:.

1999

. '2000 ~I 2002 2003

686

692 ~;,

: ': :····i,758 '

668" " : , .; 678 -"

Source: Doilona Researcli

, 'i,564

' "

;,'

.•

2;954 3,164

<3i58 . " 3,318

e Age Group

No. of People (minion) Once a month or more

Frequency of Cinema-going 1997 25 10 34

35+

ABC1

30.8

27.01

710 14

151024

8.14

7.12

9.22

26%

520/.

34%

10%

25%

47%

34%

43%

24%

36% 21%

82%

Less than once a month but at least twice a year Once a year or less

15%

16%

260/.

88%

95%

93%

60%

Total who ever go

to the cinema Source: SCreen AnancelCAVIAR

Top 20 Rims at the UK Box OffIce 1997

'-~'1iil'e

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

The Full Monty" Men In Black The Lost World Jwassic Park Bean star Wars (re-Issue) Batman & Robin Tomorrow NBV8r Dies路 Ransom The English Patient

Uar uar Space Jam Hercutes Sleepers Jeny Magulre My Best FrIend'! wedding SCream Wllliarn Shakespeare's Romeo + Juliet Empire Strlkes Back (re-issue) The FI1th Sement Mars Attacks

Source EDVBA "Alms stili playing at cinemas af\llr Jan 3rd 1998 NB:Box Office figures have been rounded up.

CoIlnby

DIstr1bUlDr

USlUK US US UK US US USlUK US US US US US

20th Century Fox Columbia TriSlar UIP PolyGram 20th century Fox Warner UIP Buena Vista Buena VisIa UIP Warner 8uena VIs\a PolyGram Columbia TriSIar Columbia TriSIar Buena VisIa 20th Century Fox 20th century Fox Pathe Warner

US US US US US US FR US

Box Office (拢In) 46.2 35.8 25.8 17.9

16.3 14.6

14.5 12.8 12.7 11.7 11.6 11.2 10.1 9.4 8.7 8.3 7.4 7.2 7.1 7.0

IVM1AS~ PO~I J~~c,)1:JJ<., With this Gradgrindish exercise in blunt reality complete, i~ is now possible to turn to the key features of the international and national movie making scene in order to establish what kinds of film-making might be possible in Scotland, and what the financial basis of this might be, Money no Object One key mistake usually made when thinking about film production is to focus on the difficulty of raising the actual production money. Thi,s is often considered to be a problem with the financial institutions and the financial markets: if only they could see the opportunities they are being offered and take advantage of them, everything would be all right. A recent report from London Economics asks whether the problem is really the supply of finance:

It could be argued that the market has demonstrated its efficiency at weeding out the poor projects, and financing those with good prospects. This a priori view is supported by casual empirical evidence. European bankers assert that their problem is in finding credible European films to finance, rather than any innate conservatism on their part. The success of European films relative to American supported ones, goes some way to supporting this view. The willingness of European banks to be players in Hollywood again provides evidence for the view that the banks do not have a natural resistance to film per se. J The problem, therefore,.is likely to be on the demand side, not the supply side of finance. There are simply inadequate numbers of projects which are structured, as far as financial institutions are concerned, so as to have sufficient earning potential to cover their costs. Those banks (such as Guinness Mahon, Credit Lyonnais) that do participate in lending to film projects make, it is reported, a handsome profit on this business. Under normal cirCUJl1SL,l11CeS, they share very little of the risk that the film will fail- that is usually carried by distributors who underwrite the film by way of pre-sales. In other words, there is little evidence that a properly structured film project (with adequate pre-sales and identified income streams) will have difficulty raising finance. The difficulty of so structuring a film project in the UK (or, more specifically, in Scotland) is another, 'and more difficult, question.

!/l,

~~.,tnJI2,~.,,;g.J~4 Hooray for Hollywood Financial institutions are geographically neutral (i.e. they will, all other things being equal, as readily lend to a production in Scotland as Los Angeles). Why, therefore, is the latter market a magnet for finance - what is the competitive advantage of the Hollywood film industry? Reflect, for a moment, on WiIliam Goldman's immortal assessment of the dynamics of the movie business - 'Nobody knows anything!'.2 In other words, nobody, from the highest studio head to the studio gofer knows what films are going to work, what films are going to make money and what films are going to close studios. While Batman Returns (1992) might be a pretty good bet, who can predict (apart from with hindsight) the reception ofa Hudson Hawk (1991), an Ish/aT (1987), or a Ghost (1990) and Pretty Woman (1990)? Closer to home, why My Beautiful Laundrette (1985) and nOL London Kills Me (1991), why A Letter to Brezhnev (1985) and not Blonde Fist (1991)? Or, even closer, why Gregory's Girl (1980) and not The Girl in the Picture (1985)? And so on. The poin t of this is that each film is unique _ the movie business is a prototype industry. Each time it brings together a unique combination of elements (script, financial package, actors, etc.), never knowing, for sure, what the finished product will look like and how the eventual film will be received. As a mature industry, Hollywood has, of course, evolved a number of mechanisms to attempt to overcome, as far as possible, this serious problem of massive future uncertainty. It attempts to replicate elements of proven successes in order to guarantee future successes. Some of these elements might be : - use of stars - use of known talent (especially writers, directors and producers) use of special effects - sequels - generic labelling What is significant about this list is that none of these characteristics could be readily attached to British film-making. Hollywood also employs a number of strategies to create a 'must see' feeling around a film: - massive advertising and promotional campaigns - platform releases - massive trailering - previews to create word of mouth

速

- early exploitation of ancillary markets (toys, games, tee-shirts, etc.) Again, with a few notable exceptions, such strategies are not ~mployed to promotc British films (either at home or abroad) for good reason. What c~n be discerned beneath both lists is money: it is axiomatic in Hollywood that the more that is spent on a film the more likely it is to make a serious return. That is, a $20 million movie with possibly another $10 million spent on a platform US release is a better commercial risk than a $5 million independent production. And nobody is going to risk a lot of promotional money on a low-budget movie that doesn't have the known (expensive) talent base which at least gives it a fighting chance in the mass market-place (i.e. it enables the film 'to open'). Now, in order to spread risks as much as possible, a serious player in the game is not going to make one $20 million film but ten or twenty. It will bc necessary, therefore, to have access to the widest range of talent, to the biggest stars, to the best ideas, to the most skilled 'deal-makers' and agents, and so on. In other words it will be necessary to trade in and with Hollywood. It is significant, in this regard, that the huge investme;1t in film production from Japanese companies (e.g. Sony, Matsushita, Pioneer) has been by way of exploiting the Hollywood market (acquisition and investment in US companies) rather than by attempting to compete. 3 Another key element of Hollywood's pre-eminence is distribution. It is difficult to overestimate the centrality of this to the financial musclc of Hollywood. In order to be able to service the huge costs of a slate of major films, buy in the necessary talent and fund project development. the income from distribution is cruciaL The major studios in the US (Warner Bros., Buena Vista/ Disney, MCA/Univcrsal, Paramount, Fox) dominate the US movie business because they control the means of distribution. Even though independent production companies produce more films than these five, the majors earned 70 per cent of the US box-office retllrns in ]990. A recent study by Robins and Aksoy concluded that: Financial muscle is acquired through controlling the distribution stage where the money is made in rentals from cinemas and new media outlets across the world. The Hollywood studios

owe their long standing position in the film industry to their strategy of controlling the critical hubs in the film business, that is, distribution and finance: The US majors control distribution not only at home but also in all major markets overseas. Two thirds of UK distribution. is accounted for by just two companies - UIP and Warner Brothers - which are, in turn, controlled by five of the seven top US studios. Box-office returns (in economists' j,lrgon, rents), thercl'ore, return to what is already the centre, that is Hollywood (although, from there, they might well be repatriated to Japan). Another feature of Hollywood production is its immense skill in producing movies for the single largest audience segment: the 12-29 year aIds. More than 60 per cent of the global audience for cinema comes from this age group. Given that the US market is approximately 50 per cent of the global market for what might best be called 'western cinema', it is clear that there is a massive home audience for the bulk of Hollywood's output: 30 per cent of the total global cinema audience is made up of American 12-29 year olds. Hollywood has the most lucrative primary cinema market segment on its doorstep. It can, therefore, in the main, make a profit in home territories, with overseas sales as icing on the cake. And, certainly, an additional 30 per cent of world audiences made up of 12-29 year olds in Europe,japan, Canada and Australia, with tastes, in the main, dominated by American cinema, comprise very lucrative secondary markets.~) The Competitive (Dis)Advantage of Nations Hollywood dominates the world's cinema industry because It IS the 'thickest market'. In exactly the same way that a new restaurant will be wise to open in a part of town already characterised as an eating-out spot, or a new financial services operation will trade in the City of London, s~ too in the film industry the tendency will always be for trade to gravitate to the market.which is already the strongest. Another way of putting this is that in the thickest market there will' cluster' the widest choice of every conceivable element necessary to the complex process of putting together a movie. At every stage of this process, therefore, high quality, competitively-priced semces will be available. The compass of movie finance, therefore, inevitably points in this direction.

速

a/s media studies Audiences and Institutions: Media Ownership

Case Study: Chicken Run - Review In reviewing the various work undertaken around Chicken Run the focus for this case study is In how the relationship between a small British production company Aardman and the large US media conglomerate company Dreamworks operates. Why might the relationship路 or another proposed one between Aardman and Disney - have been necessary? What consequences might there be from the Dreamworks - Aardman relationship for both companies and also for audiences, especially British ones? What follows are some suggested discussion points to think about. Possible advantages for Aardman - developing a feature film involved much more preparation, research and script Writing and revision than for the Wallace and Gromit short films. It is unlikely that Aardman could have risked this cost without the aVailability of Development Money provided by Pathe. Amongst other things this paid for an experienced script writer. - given the huge cost of a feature film - remember Chicken Run cost around $40 million to produce Aardman could not just borrow such money from a bank on such a risky venture as a feature film. The backing of a big media conglomerate in evidence that a successful media company believes in the project and will also be marketing it. Without such backing it is unlikely tt'lat Aardman could have begun the project. No British media company is probably in the position of being able to invest $40 million. Pathe could provide the much smaller amount of development money but needed Dreamworks when it came to actual production finance. - Dreamworks had the experience and money to finance a trial version of the film through shooting the storyboards. Aardman were able to use Dreamworks' storyboard artists to help in this process. This trial run revealed several problems with the script, especially its length, and led to the rewritten final version. The very experienced Katzenberg regularly saw the footage as the film developed and could comment on whether or not he thought there were problems. Because it invests so much money in any feature film, most Hollywood companies follow this process of carefully monitoring development and changing things if they think they will not be successful, even if it costs money. British productions tend to be shot in a more hurried way with less testing because British companies cannot afford the time and money this takes. - Aardman had to find new much larger premises for making Chicken Run and to take on 150 extra staff. They could not have done this without Dreamworks' financial backing. The deal signed with the US company to make four other feature films means that they have long term security and can keep the team of expert staff built up on this first feature and afford to develop new ideas. Dreamworks provides them with the essential money to do this whilst they are making the films. - Dreamworks were essential for Aardman to make the film. But making the film would be of little use unless audiences come to see it. The Wallace and Gromit shorts had all been shown on television which can reach huge audiences and can provide its own publicity through promotional trailers. To attract cinema audiences requires both a wide release for a film and extensive marketing. Pathe marketed the film entensively in UK where it had a wide release whilst Dreamworks spent $40 million on marketing Chicken Run in the US - as much as was spent on production. The result of the marketing -and,of course, the quality of the film - meant that it had very substantial audiences in both UK and USA and competed very successfully at the box office.

Possible advantages for Dreamworks - What were the advantages for Dreamworks of this partnership? As a comparatively new Hollywood Major media company, Dreamworks success or failure would rest on the quality of production talents they could finance. Success at the box office would attract other film makers to try for backing from Dreamworks. - Dreamworks had already negotiated a number of deals with other media companies, such as selling the pay tv rights for its films to Home Box Office. It was in a position to exploit Chicken Run not only through world wide cinema release but also through video and DVD rental and sales, through sale of rights to television and possibly through such spin-offs as computer games. If the film were successful at the cinema it would also increase the likely amount of money to be made from all these other sources. - By establishing a further four picture deal with Aardman, Dreamworks could hope to guarantee themselves access to very original film makers who could be predicted to produce a number of hit films. Possible disadvantages For Aardman - the question for the smaller British company is how much they can keep their independence to make the films they wish to make and how far they must accept pressure from Dreamworks to change their ideas. This relationship will presumably depend upon the success of each film. Seemingly there was little friction during the making of Chicken Run and it has been very successful. However if one of the films underperforms and loses money at the box office then Dreamworks may want a greater say in any subsequent productions or might decide not to finance any more. The commercial reality, given the scale of the British film industry, is probably that Aardman could not have made a feature film without backing from Hollywood. The consequence is that they now have an enlarged and even more successful production company. However presumably all of the money which the film may make will go either to Dreamworks or to Pathe since they financed the production and spent all the money needed to market the film. Aardman have, apparently, retained the merchandising rights, so these may make them quite an income. What about us, the audience? If we like Aardman films, we may have been pleased that Chicken Run was made and that we were able to see it at the cinema and/or on video - WaJlace and Gramit have achieved almost cult status and this film may do similarly. However the existence of the film is only due to the willingness of a big media company to risk its money. Since such companies are primarliy in existence to make profits -if they didn't they would go out of business and not make any more films - then usually large media companies will be conservative in only making films which they think large audiences will want to watch in a number of countries and which can therefore also be sold on video and to television. This means that more experimental films or more controversial ones may either not get made or that the big media companies may not be interested in marketing them because of the huge amounts of money involved. Chicken Run may demonstrate that talented British film makers can find a world wide audience and succeed but such success is dependent upon the investment of the Hollywood majors and they ultimately decide what is available for us to watch.

elon

~'jj

i'~

.. ., r<'

'!.r

.*- ~

WWW.THOMASEXCHANGE.CO.UK

Euro US dollar ---_._-~

AUllltralian dollar Canadian dollar Swedish kroner

Danish kroner

148

192 -- .... --_.2118 ; .!) l3.1':1

__._---

.. lOSCJ

ong Ko~~ dollar . Japanese yen South African rand Swiss franc

ltI77 ).;

.....J.J

1 i .1_~::...'

L 40

---_._--------- ._AARDMAN SPliTS FROM US PAl<:TNER

Gromit i

.)1

10 Spln

EUGENE.HENDERSON @thelondonpaper.com

WAl.I ACE and Gromitcrcator

Nick Park's co m PZIIlY A.lrdIllan Anirnations ha~ severed t1l'swith Hollywood partner DreaIllWorksAnim<1tion. The move follows the boxoffice disappoineJ1lent of thei r last two joint venmres, The Curse afthe Were-Rabbit a nd Flushed Awny. DreamWorks had made it dear it was more interested in computer-generated feRtures

than in I)ark's trademark stop-motion techniques. The US moviemaker, rUIl by fi)rmerWalt Disneystudio (hiefJeffrey Katzenberg, is also counringthc pennies in the run-up to the release of SIl1"ekJ rhissummer. Now Aarclma n is expected to ser up a new deal with another Hollywood stud iD. Kilrzenbergsaid: "While I will always be a fan ofAardmail's work, our different business goals no longer support e.:Ich other."

TATA IN STEEL TAKEOVER .\;1

The home cf'Nailace;} Gromit yesterdayagreed c: three-year deal with Sony ?icmres, 35 part ef ct drive by the Hollywood studio to increase its investment in an~mation cnd family··frieildly l]

;ctt:!!t:'s.

AaI' man ?e?tures, t~"t(~ Bristol-based animator, had een leoking for a new HoUywood par,neI giace its deal vv'tll Dreamworks came to an end. it has sue· cessfuliy moved on to tb.e big screen in recen~ years with its ?005 f:!m WalJace & Gromit: T!,e Curse ofrhe Vliere-Rabbit, 'Ninning an Oscar fcr crea,or Nick Pari<. ~ony ~Jictures

chief executive Michael Lyntoll said the dezl was a key plank in Sony's an:biuoli5 to increase the range , a.nd diversity cfits animation titks. 1!()~;:f.:Jr'1~· ~)-::~d'ii-; ..y::-·k:-

@ film and media studies

Some case studies of British Films from the 1990s Background details on some films in terms of their production finance, marketing and box office The Full Monty An article in Empire no 101 Nov 97 says the film will be the 'sleeper' of the year in US. It was currently 5th at the US Box Office whilst in UK it had been number 1 for three weeks and had already taken ÂŁ8 million. rnUS 95% of moviegoers who had seen the film gave it the thumbs up which the article says means that the film will get great 'word of mouth' Screen International Aug 22nd 1997

The campaign for the film began in January 1997 with a screening at the Sundance Festival organised to try to create a 'buzz' around the film. In US the film was given sneak previews in NY and LA to build up awareness. It was then given an initial limited release on 6 screens in NY,LA and San Francisco on Aug 13th. On Aug 27 it was planned to open the film in some other major cities and then to go for a 'platform release' on 400 screens on Sep 5th. Four Weddings and a Funeral had had just such a platform release and gone on to be very successful in US. The main target market for The Full Monty was 25-45 year olds -it was not seen in US as a film for younger teenagers. The review is from I:-merica where the film was shown first. 'Peter Cattaneo's enormously endearing crowd-pleaser has summer sleeper written all over it. ...... (it) may sound too tackily high-concept to work. But in Cattaneo's gentle hands The Full Monty is an understated gem of recent British comedy that mixes humour with wry socio-political commentary' In SI for March 20 1998

it notes that Titanic was just about to replace The Full Monty as the biggest grossing film ever in UK Box Office history

Bend It Like Beckham Empire had an interview with Keira Knightley as an up-and-coming actress in the month the fim as released and reviewed Screen International 22nd March 2002

'Production values are modest but attractive, especially the setting in the heart of one of London's largest Asian communities, with its dramatic contrast between the colourful sari

shops and street markets and the suburban semi-detached houses' .... ......... 'Most importantly, Chadha draws winning performances from her central trio- the two young actreses are a particular revelation - and creates an enormously appealing chemistry between them' ........ a real charmer should score with teenagers but also has a strong cross-over potential. In the UK it will coast on a successful new wave of popular Asian comedy ............ more recently there have been the 1999 hit East Is East and the long running TV satirical show Goodness Gracious Me' ..... 'And it offers, above all, a gorgeous, hughely likeable young cast and that feel-good, triumph-over-adversity plot line which worked so well for low-budget Britpix like The Full Monty, Bil/y EI/iot' Film Release was opened at 384 sites in April 2002 and took $2.9 mirlion dollars -a better opening than Billy EWot which had made $2.2 million. The article says that Billy Elliot went on to make $22 million in UK and a global total of $106.6. million. The film became number 1 at UK box office the week it opened. Was in the period of the run up to the World cup and also the period of beckham's foot injury -there were newspaper headlines like 'Break It like Beckham' and 'Mend It Like Beckham' Chadha's previous film Bhaji On The Beach was released with seven prints but the British distributor Helkon decided to release this film with 390 sites. There was a significant multi-million pound spend on marketing The film was targeted at young females with a trailer but there was also a shorter one minute trailor aimed at boys. Exit polls showed a 60/40% sp~it in favour of women to men. 'I did not want to make a grey British movie. I've gone for a very classic bright Hollywood look' Gurinder Chadha. She says she wanted to take the national obsession with football and put two girls in the middle of it. The film was difficult to finance, got money from B Sky B for tv rights, Film Council, a german company and the british distriubtors Helkon The sales agents took the idea of the film to Cannes at script stage also to other festivals, Some interest but people wanted to se the finished film .At Cannes 2002 there were bidding wars Fox took the film for North and South America SUbsequent data from the bfi yearbook 2004 The film is third on the Top 25 all-time Lottery Funded films by UK Box Office takings behind "Billy Elliott' and 'Gosford Park' It's British gross was ÂŁ11, 551,538

British Cinema: The Heritage Film (based on part of a chapter in John Hill's British Cinema ofthe 1980s in which Hill explores some of the arguments about what 'Heritage' films might be and how they might fit into the production pattern of British cinema in relation to Hollywood)

Questions and issues to consider:

What do Corner and Harvey identify as the three main emphases within heritage culture and which of these does Hill suggest predominates in heritage films?

Why do heritage films often concentrate upon country house settings and who are such films designed to appeal to?

In what sense do 'heritage films' draw on the literary heritage of novels and plays about upper middle class life set in the past? How might' heritage films' be thought of as a kind of' art cinema' but different from European art cinema? How successful have British heritage films been in the US market? How does Hill suggest that British heritage films are different from mainstream Hollywood movies? Why might 'heritage films' want to offer historically accurate sets and costumes?

Follow up work Think about how far Gosford Park might fit the characteristics of heritage films as Hill defines these. Try to watch at least part of one of the films Hill lists on p76177 as heritage films.

P 235/h Culture

The institutional approach to British cinema clearly leads us towards some important obser~~tions about Britain's film industry in terms of finance and ownership, but the cultural .. approach is also useful in providing an understanding of British cinema, although the emphasis ", on the films themselves rather than the industry. The British Film Institute's annual review of the film industry provides five categories of British films, all of which refer to elements of finance and production personnel as originating from Britain, while two of the definitions also refer to aspects of British culture being featured in the films. The categories are as follows:

.路is

Category A: Category B:

Category C: Category D: Category E:

Films where the cultural and financial impetus is from the UK and the majority of personnel are British. Majority UK co-productions. Films in which, although there are foreign partners, there is a UK cultural content and a significant amount of British finance and personnel. Minority UK co-productions. Foreign (non-US) films in which there is a small UK involvement in finance or personnel. American-financed or part-financed films made in the UK. Most titles have a British cultural content. US films with some British financial involvement. (Dyja, 1999, pp. 20-2)

The UK Department of Culture, Media and Sport has also concerned itself with ,defining what constitutes a British film. It commissioned a report from the Film Policy Review Group, and proposed two categories. The first category relates to film finance and identifies a film as British if '75% of total production expenditure is incurred on goods supplied or services performed in the UK' (FPRG, 1998, Annex 2). The second category classifies a film as culturally British with reference to a points system, with points allotted if key production staff are British and if the subject matter of the script is about Britain. A cultural definition is concerned with how films represent aspects of British life, especially with regard to social groups and ideologies that exist within British society. Thus the cultural approach looks at how issues relating to class, race, gender, sexuality, age and national and regional identity, as well as values and beliefs about social institutions and

pra~tices. such

as family, work, leisure, religion, education and politics in Britain, are ':1' depicted In films. A cultural approach enables films such as Chariots of Fire and The Full; Monty to be interpreted as British films, even though their finance came from outside the :l.: UK, because they deal with aspects of British culture. ~ Representation is a central issue in every sector of the media, be it film, television or some other media form, because the media mediate; they show things. Representation is ~~. an import;nt and often controversial topic in studies of the media because there is alWays! more than one way to represent something; choices are always made. Representations can ~ be positive or negative, dominant or alternative. Thus there is always the possibility of an .:~, individual, or a social group, believing that they have been represented inaccurately or :". unjustly, in other words, misrepresented. Behind representations lie ideologies; values and : beliefs shape how things are shown to us. Film, like other media, is a form of indirect -: communication: we experience an interpretation of the world second-hand. The messages ,. we receive are mediated; the process of production comes between us and the things being :,:: represented within a film. It is always possible that our perception of the world, of British ..";, society and the social groups it contains, could be shaped and influenced by the represen- ~~: tations we experience in films. What appear to be natural ways of seeing aspects of British';' society may in fact be no more than selective interpretationsl-

:~ >

j 28

Days Late

Oi.Jlogue Edite>r

ChristQphl!r OlUlnC

G;!han Dcdd~rs

jlm's!Jlnc:

Souud Effects Editor

AOR

EmmJ. Hilching hm'smOlher AJexzmder Oelamcrc

red 5wzr.S':.:>i1 P.:.uJf.Jtr

}..lr [bdg~' da:;gr:c:

Torn S.lYl:!"S

~!l

Director

Art DlrN:torS

n; S,""','le

P"'Oducer

Andre..... MJc.:iO:-..1IJ

!'..:.trid. Ro!:"~ C,.{"rm.ar.\··

Dl'!l;ll~ S~hl"!"gg

Screenplay

S.Jild

Aie:..Gar!J!'lll

M.;l;;;":.:.ml-1n

Director of PhotOYr-Ctphy

Art Diredor/OraulJhtsman Sud Gr,rw",oG

, '\"iho'l~' DcJ ~~.!nll:;:

llj'.

Editor

Sd Decorator

ChrisG;J: ProdllCtio."'1 Dl'signer

::anny Tayiol Costume O@siQI1el"

~irk T:ldtsh.·y MusIC

P...:rchaet F!e:njng

John ;-"'h.lTyh~

WanJrobe Supervisor Anne uvendcr-l n~ Makc·lIp Oesigner

CUK'.FiI""ud

Salllc IJ\'l"

Production COIl1P.lnl(.."S

M.Jkc.up Artist

FJX Scar:hl!;.ht Pictures

SiJn Gngg

\l"t:h D~'; Films ar,dThc

ArJditioll.lI1I.Mke-lrp ~lehtsJ wc:,:::r'Sw.:n

filfi1 Cm.:nr:l t"~~ 'n: ;\~ade y.;lh the s-upiXlrt of lhl.: Film (OlliH:!l

$uoe rolrJJ llson

',Iflth It:e<l~:>.sldn,t' of

?\'1l.;J:: COfJw,ly

:t.c ellS: L:>:-:J.o!': film

[\~'bl:tJh l:lp;!s

Fund J:l,U ~:u £'Jr1pe.Jn

!\"onn<l \\t!Jb

Fund

P,-osthetlc.s Malle-up Effe:cts CrC."'I:UTt: EfiecIs

Region.:!: D:·\"l.'lop~e:,t

Line

Produ~

, Rohl.::t Ho\\.' Films

'o.mnc Srr,nl'l PToduction Co·ordinJtors

CJndi::t Fon~"CJ C.erman P :UetlOn C!(W:

B'rg;1 'I.'olln)'

McCarri~v

l\>l~; 'lC'd .... es

Just," Hackney

£ciltor' GiIl,J:':

l.uke Mably

Idl'Cltdl:id DOI1d.:~s

Foie)'

P:i\'a~(' CililO:1

;,\rt:sls'

Stuart McOuarrip.

'Felicit\' CQtlr~lI

S~rbeaal

f.urtH

l:u h S'ullinn

Ricci Jia.rnett

.,:dyBctt ,\1:»(>[

Corpcr.l! Mit::h~:J Leo Bill

K('v:nTJ·,'icr

?'ri\'.:te l:1nt."S

f.dilOr

Junior Laniyan

GranaiOef'elers.

Private: Bell

Mil/laryAd'lrser HC'lIry CJm:lkn

Ray PJntholki

Stunt f;o·ordin.ltor

S-'llljay Rambaruth

i\ichulas

Pow~l1

Pri'hw;: &dford f':-;'."lit l)avis

A"nou~r

r......"'Irvin CilmplJe.il

:'Ju;ja Sin£h

!'T;\"J:..: \lJ:i~r Adnan Clvistophcr

Equipment Supplied Uy

6.rplyS Allim.,l Action A1To11l9r.:tlj Co·(lrdiUi\lcd by '~'1. :\illn:ah LHWl1.:d Clrirl1l1anze-c Trail1C!I·s

Thomas HU(;I:!n~,~ll~1 SylviJ Huc.k':n,ucr

RIChard Owyel" Nldc Ewans 'Terry Jol1tl

P.lUII<.lscy Sebastial1 Kn;lflp

JennifC'r AJlcn C,lst

JodIe Slcnps-on Al StDkes

Adri;~ C£rJcy

Cltliall Mllrphy

St~nYoun9

'\n·hvfl~' rJ~ker Lu:Mo:"se

Naotnie Ha.ms

:\IJn Hedgm<:k P'rosUlChcs Cn!w And'iGamer

KJl~

Hill

C~nn.ln P:,oG:.lC:I0il

U$aCr"wky T:I!o1an 5.:'-havr.r.l<ld Rob::'. $.;.. noG:l~.=.ac

Crc:w:

John S:::-,nonrJo1J

Production Servic~

BndSes

Nichol.~ Jamcs lcwis Jenm lus.h Trisbn Mattfli"c Jcff RJnn

Chf(Walt.~e

Gl!Ilcral M.1:nager for ONl\

ACflal Unit Opcr.tlolls

ftlturcd infc:ltd

Stlena

CertifICate

MeganBl 1m5

Har.n:th

Distributor

8t"C.ndan Cleesoll

20lh C-::IU!V Fox

(,;.lmb:!GmoH

:ustin riLkelhle-v

Christophcr Eccl~on

('..h:i.st1an HU:'1::n6rder

S",:""rit (jO\l,.'cr • Dfe Sherwood·\\-'albcc MihoS'J7.l:ki

Major H~nr)' Wesl

Init:r:lJ:...un~1(UK) 10.173 fuel ill milJu1cs 3 seconds

"'lex PaJmer Bindu de Stoppatli

Oolby Digital

~1lduc:l hmgf.tlSCh

Production ManaJ)<!r !'rc.iuc:lon Crew'

Fra..nk

H;lhm~

G~rman

Contactl~s

Jw<lca

JCtiVlSts

T-=~hnjcoJol

'Monik:;

G('mm3.Scoa The Reel Ey' Comp,ny TiUcsOC1ign

Oavid Schneider

Prints by

sciel:List

DcLux('

rj~t~el

Ulljt M31lCKJUS Cl.:IircTovcj" German !'roduClion

C,eJ:'.i'.'C Pannership End Credits

C:~w:

(in" Image

A:llje Kn.:t~

Shings

Lo~,tion r~"Ma9ers

Post-proullclion

Music Co-ordina.tors for

Avenger EntertJinment l\:;:oic Cauno

Ccnsullimcy:

I3Jrrie Rc\;in~on

Sl~ple Post

Music EditlJrs

Assisi.lllt Directors

R!chilrd St.yies

Hugt.\ i\dams Let Hemel.:

SJ!a~rno~d

Socore MixcrfProdu:::er Daniel L Griffhhs

Carlos-Fldd Vi::.. i Al1cn

SiP.1on "Df:nny

Script Supervisor

String1/Choir Recordcr

Additional Enomeering

E\'eS~:1~

Mike Hunter

CAsting Glil StfVe:lS

Music Consultarrt. Lauril 7_ Wasstcman

ADR Voice loais E:n-."m Aerial unit Camenmil:l1

~£.lSI Hastings· Godspeed You SI.lck

AdJmIJ,Jt Camera Opcra:tor M~rce!

Zyskm:!

Additlorul Camera Crew

300 Shipscj' ~(c-vC' \VallJu Digital Effects Supervisor

Tony u .....!~:'lCf" OigitaJ EHeets Consultant !'~tc'! B.1{'h Spet:Jal Visual Et1ects C!~.H

~undtr.lck

Emperor: -.'-a\i. rSo"G,a.,uddy; 'Whalev" Will Bc, Wi.H Bc (Que ~ra. ~'eJ~Y; "An Ending lAsn.':1t)'" - BMJrl Eno; -,"vc ~1.1na· by Ch~r1cs

C()unod. ~Abide wilo Me~ by He!H)' franClS LVIC', Will He-arv MonkP~:n AJleynC?: -in r.l~adlSlum for Requi"rn·

Nc::oux - 01 RlCh;mi

Simon f,lIon

Milrlo...... The Choir oj the lrinilr College. the

Greg Caplan

London Music!: ~Frosty

OloltalLab

lh(' Snowman"; -Season

The MO\'l:'1g ?i('\ure

Song"" -

CompJny

Sound Design

ProduCt!r5 fo~ MPC 3cgofIJ l.Or:2

Glenn Freemantle

B!u~

Si.ltC'S

S<lund Recordist

Matthew Bri:;·[owe

John Rodd.

Special EHens

Re·rt~cording Mixers

S~neryisor$:

RI~hMd Conw.!\' Bob Hollow . ·re-:hr.kians SJmConwa,' Wh:/(:

Audre ...: Kt'!ly St~'vt

l.ondon. the present. When aaimal-righrs activists free caged chimps infected with 'rage', they are attacked and killed, and a deadly virus is unleashed. Twenty-eight days later, cycle courier fim <lwakes in <In <lbandoned hospital in a deserted London terrorised by 'zombies'. Saved from death by fellow survivors Selena and Mark, fim learns of the bleod-transmitted plague that overwhelms victims in seconds. Accompanying Jim to his parents' house in Deptford, Mark is infected and

hy G.abJid fallle. !I.·iicnd

Exec.utive Producers tor Clur

~iark

In:ec"..d priest

:\ndrcw Price PcrcussionlOrums

Sl.:per\'isor:

PTod\.i.CI:on

Toby Sedgwid< Noah Huntley

Gcd ·God· Lynch

S,,:virl.'S

COIOllt by

Mark

PJl !\J:Jm :\ic,... CI.lcSlOr.c

JareSi. form

!">U" Eaf":'";~hJ.w

Kim

LeM,'ssufler

flil,;.IMI:\:: Rl}'~krri:-I

GrJham Daniel AJ.!.r.1 Daniel

After th~ mainstream mcauderings of The Beach, this b<lck-to-basics genre hybrid finds director Danny Boyle en home ground, delivering exactly tlle kind Pums!:ll1enl. and who here handle~ the of pacey entertainment that or.ce earned transition from scenes of languorous intimacy and c~eering tension him the title of "the future of British film". Based on a script by Beach-boy Alex ! to explosive action with ease. l{ayle and Macdonald's casting choices Garland. 28 D'IYS La/cr.,. cannibalises a : are, despite some wandering accents, wide range of popular culture, dra....ing on novels (H.G. Wells' Th( Time Aiachine, impressive. Rising Siar Cillian Murvhv J.G. Ballard's Concrete Isla/ld, Richard I sheds the untrammelled histrionic~ of Matheson's I Am Legena), movies (George I Disco Pigs to hamess his oddiy ethereal A. Rorm:ro·s Dead trilogy, forge Grau's i charm in a manner Lhat is engaging rather than irritating, while. laomie Living Dead at !he Manche;t~y Morgue). Hams treads an instinctive lhe and even television (disaster-soaps such between tough posturir.g and tender as Suroivors and Threads). The result is a protectiveness. As the gnArly loveable thoroughly modem throwback to tried· father figure Frank, Brendan Gleeson and-tested fantasy formulas of yore, lends much-needed ballast. But ic is spiky given a tense 2Ist-renturyedge by sta;wart Christopher Eccleston (the true Boyle's stripped-down visual aesthetic star of Boyle's feature debut Shaliow and (presumably) producer Andrew Grave) who really gets the dramatic Maedonald's continuing mandate bit between his teeth, swallowing his to think big on modest budgets. (At borderline-psychotic soldier role'with il reported $10 million, this is less ease. and politely spitting it iDlO pricey tnan The Bmch yet far more the auditl1ce's face in a measuredly richly rewarding.) On this evidence, menacing performance. It's a c~editt() two of the wheels of the TmlnspL't1h19 Eccbton that while his ehar<lcter Major team are back on track. Henry West never quile slips into the Having found himself at home with realms of self parody, he still exudes a the in.creasingly mis\L~ed medIum larger· than-life qUJlity in keeping with of digital video (which seems to have che generic roOts of the material. offered as many constraints to filmFor those wh<l loved the hnme-gTown maker;;' creativit)' a;; fre~dom5), Boyle independ~nt spi,it of Boyle's firsttwo here brings the promise of his rictures, it's :empting to see 28 Days Later... as a return of the prodigal son. chastened by the bland excesses of American filr'"!-",a~,ing (.;lthoLtoh both A Lije Less Ordinary and The Be!2.~h were. on some level. 'UK productions'). Certainly the :Jp!>e2t chimes of the Clash's 'Hitsville UK', which played over the closing credits of test prints of 28 Days Lu/cr... strengthened this impression. Alchough the song does not feature in released prints,the echoes of its celebra tion of homemade entertainment ("a mike and bOOlTI in your living room''') can still be heard ringing oul across the post·apocalyptic landscape on screen. Despite being co·produced bv 20th Century Fox, this·remains at heart 2 piece of punk-rock movie-making - quincesser,liall>' Bri:ish, sneeringly aggressi"e, appetisingly meatv,

I i I

qkSccu·Dar};ng

P.l.Ion

Sup~jsing

P;{',mL~'

;:·.:.:1:~.::,'w.lrd

~lcl.;

Ar1 DIrector

~t.lf~' !)igh~'

Supervising Sound Editor

Gl·::l:1 f;e:Cr;-1<lr.:lc

... televislOto fi Ims SlrUmpC[ ,~nd 'ya(lI~"?ling COIt1pletr!y Nttd:.' in H?n1dlSl~ to cinemalk rrui~!on. U$lng DP Anrhony Vod \·ldntle's extr.10rCin.,,\' mIxture of k'L hr.:c ,1! !lOUS .3:1d a.rtis~!~ :1.:'~j[ to ol1j'~re a daringly r;gged vision of a de':a;tatcd world Ee eariy ,cenl:S in p..~ni(l1l~lr, i!1 Whh.:h a wi\slt!andtikl: LO:1don is hid out bef rt U~ much ~s T.S. Eiiot·; f'ro\"Crbial·patjf"~t et;'c~'$~d . . lpon .~ i~1hle", ~re -triklng not only for th~ir practical ac~o;nplishmeJ:t (:s it a digll.:d ('[feet, or are those $trc-et$ r:'.:.'.~·; emplY?) Dla Jl$o for their hJuntii::)} )1o~::: resonance. Rarely hJS the West End. c1ean~ed of human traffic, st'em~d so ltrriiyingly tranquil. When the accion moves north of the Watford Gap. the fiTm's palette changes, balancing some ironically bright and expansiv~ rural interludes with scenC$ of tht kind of d.lrk cloustrophobic horror tradition"liy a$sociated with post-!\Ignl oflh~ Liulng DCJd terror. Top marks too to editor Chris Gii!, who cuc the BBC's recent nma\-\:JY .;daptation of Cn"rne and

promptly despatched by Selena. Teaming up w:th tower· block survivors Frank an,cl his daughter Hannah, the group drives towards "'!"nchester in search of the source of a radio b:OJC:OSl professing to have the 'answer' to inf~ction ..'\t a roadb.,)c ' outside ,h~ciIY Frank is infected by a single drop of blood and 5hot by 50ldiers who take in !im, Hannah and Selena. In their remote hideou t, the army. led by Henry, firsr f05ter, then abuse thei: new ip,mates, as it becomes apparent that the women hav~ been 'captured' for sexual and reproductive services. Condemned to die, rim escapes and returns to aliow 'zombies' to wreok havoc as he rescu~s Hannah and Selena. On a remote landstretch, the three survivors signa! their e,oistence to a search plane.

Mark I<crmode They live: Naomie Hams, Cillian Murphy 60 112 SIGHT & SOlj~.'V

SIGHT & 00UJJD

2002...

SiGHT & SOUND 591

'28 Days Later' : a case study

Production Information '28 Days Later' was produced by DNA films, part of one of the consortia funded by the Arts Council with lottery money. The film was also financed by Fox Searchlight and the Film Council. According to Mark Kermode the production budget was $10 million The production team of Danny Boyle, director and Andrew Macdonald, producer were a long established partnership. They had already made 'Shallow Grave', 'Trainspotting', 'The Beach' and 'A Life Less Ordinary'. They had experience of low budget films and large Hollywood budgets. Most of their films had been successful at the box office.

Distribution and Marketing The film was launched on October 31 st 2002 (Halloween) It was shown in 318 venues -a wide release for UK There was an expensive marketing campaign (according to Screen International 8 November 2002 p6) £600,000 spent on a tv campaign over 5 weeks. Advts placed in football games and with terrestrial tv premieres of 'The Matrix', and 'Clockwork Orange'. £170,000 on outdoor print campaign. This included a storyboard poster setting out what happens before the beginning of the film. This was run in 'Time Out' and also in 9 underground stations. There was a teaser trailer in cinemas and a deal with The Times which had free CD Roms with the opening 10 minutes of the film. Box Office

figures from weekly editions of Screen International Position

Week taking

Total Gross

Week 1. 318 sites

£1.5 million

$2.35 million

Week 2 320 sites

£1,073,142

$5,307,642

Week 3

£768,687

$7,390,649

319 sites

('Harry Potter' tops UK box office with £10 million plus take) Week 4

270 sites 4

£371,139

$8,531,921

('Die Another Day' is number 2 at Box Office) Week 5 Week 6

214 sites 7 178 sites 8

£195,177

$8,992,851

£116,576

$9,460,477

Week 7 no longer in top 15 at box office so no details given

Some comments on the film 'Screen International review' -this is the trade paper in part intended for cinema managers, distributors etc. it usually stresses the commercial possibilities of films.

'A smart and stylish UK marketing campaign should ensure a strong opening there on Nov 1, but this is unlikely to be sustained either by universal critical enthusiasm or word of mouth. The absence of star names and the gritty digital aesthetic are unlikely to further international prospects ' The review says that Garland's inexperience as a screenwriter shows in unconvincing dialogue and a weak sense of characterisation. Points out that there is no explanation as to why the monkeys were infected and why there was no antidote

'There is neither enough gore nor ghoulish humour to completely satisfy genre addicts, while the intellectual element or social comment is not provocative enough to win over audiences who would normally avoid the genre. After all the doom and death, the happy ending feels like an afterthought' Allan Hunter Premiere US June 2003 Interview with Danny Boyle

'I don't see it as either a horror film or a zombie film, although there are these elements in it', says Boyle. He was drawn to the idea that the virus was a psychological one, and that the story touched upon 'a kind of social rage or intolerance to each other that might reflect to viewers a social malaise particularly in Britain at the moment' p69170

* **** ** *

I * ** *

The following section reviews every film released in the UK in November. Any omissions were not ready to view at the time of going to press.

I ** ;* I

Brilliant An unmissable film. Very good We urge you to go. Satisfying Asolid example of the genre. Disappointing Caution advised.

Tragic Don't say we didn't warn you,

28 AYSLATER HE LAST TIME ABRIT TRIED TO make azombie movie, it turned out to be Resident Evil- afeeble, bloodless, scareless imitation of George Romero's Living Dead cyc!l;. Here, Dilnny Boyle and novelist Alex Garland (doing a

survivors gathering guns and using them as if they'd been fightinq wars all their lives; here, even the touqhest character - hardboiled cllemist

_lolll.e.tieLb.y an-or~gj+la.J.-sEfeeF1play-than----Selemr=-isn'n71a[---in adapting The Beach) evoke Romero, skilled at fending 011 as survivors try to cope witl) the evil zombies. Survivalism is I' I walking dead and the gun-toting shreds better represented by of devastated authority - but they atower block roortop aren't content with mere pastiche. covered with apathetic For astart. they invoke the array of bright plastic specifically British roots of this buckets, basins and bins genre. Floating in the mind of 28 Days to catch rain that hasn't Later are lasting cultural artefacts fallen. It proves that. even after the passed around or holly discussed in apocalypse, the weather will still be British school playgrounds for decades: anational obsession and the scene the no~els of John Wyndham (the sets up an unforgettable sudden waking-up-in-a-deserted-hospital bit is thunderstorm to accompany the anod to Day Of The Triffidsl and James fast, gut-punCh, brutal third act. Herbert (one scene hinges on aflood of The power of the film is not that rats); or the science shock TV series it hasn't been done before, but that Doomwatch (don't trust the labcoats!) it hasn't been done recently. Since } anhd St,Urtvhivors (itfeV(?ry~ne's ?d)ead,' the earIYd19th70.s'fBritis~ mtohvies hba,ve , was epain In survIving. . narrowe elr ocus la epro ems , ii Depopulated London, stunningly of small groups of people, gnawing over pulls daring tricks with speeded-up achieved by snatched digi-cam shots microcosm genres like the gangster motion and blobby bloodbursts to make of empty streets and abandoned heist or romantic comedy. Here, we the horror sequences genuinely jarring landmarks, is aresonant location. It look at abigger picture, intensifyin~ in amanner that marks abreak with t strikes chords with anyone who has the situation for atypically Boyle-like the more traditional effects style of, .!: ever wondered what the place would knot of antagonistic, uncomfortable say, Dog Soldiers. There is also room I: be like without people, and is embedded characters. Headlines about Tony Blair for the subtle, character-based chill: 1I deep in the psyche by everything from and talk about The Slml!?.QD.~J.!l.SlsUbaL-l:he..sGariest-ltfleÂˇis Ectlestun',-- --W-- -----H.G-Wells:.War-6f-HreWoTtdsto1YareRs:-Ihls fu"ture is just astep away, but forget whispered, "Slow dawn," apregnant j',: Invasion Earth 2150 AD. An American the rave scene that might theoretically phrase overheard just as Vie realise film on this theme would start with tfle embrace such anarchy - here, the how bad things really are whole of Manchester IS on fire and the If you look for flaws, they're there M ' only use for mood-altering drugs IS to Any film as rough-edged as thiS flirts 11 numb tile mind to literally unbearable with seeming amateurish. But the lli,I realities. This may be astylistic break powerful, broad-strokes performances CAST . Cllllan hlurphyJim . with previous Boyle movies, but it has a recall an observation made of 1959 Haomle Marris Selena Chrlstopher Eccleston HenryWesl similar structure (he likes games of two nuclear war movie, On The Beach: that BrendonGleesorifrank . halves, with acollection of anecdotes it's impossible to judge the acting since setting up a more concentrated what constitutes appropriate behaviour Director Dan'iw Boyl. narrative)_lt even falls back on the in this situation is anybody's guess. Producer Andrew Macdonald Screenplay Alex Garland essay topics ofThe Beach, as alternative KIM NEWMAN Running time tbe mins. society turns out to be flawed by Distributor 20th Century fox reliance on brutality and vulnerable ANY GOOD? IN AHUTSHELL to sudden shark/zombie attacks. The best purely British Animal rights activists release achimp Shot with Dogme-like camcorder horror/science-fiction film Intected with avirulent geneticallyveracity by Anthony Dad Mantle, the film in decades. And the first engineered plague. Twenty-eight days later, comatose Jlm wakes in aLondon has space for lyricism as the survivors great apocalypse movie of hospital arid dlsC<lvers the city .bandoned briefly make it as happy campers in the new millennium. but for vicious bands of "The Infected"... green, damp countryside. But it also

THE FIRST GREAT APOCALYPSE

MOVIE OF THE NEW

MILLENNIUM.

,' \ I I

****

48 EMPIRE

DECEMBER

2002 '.~."'~'"

, .... - ,....

,."

".'

.â&#x20AC;˘.......--

-,"'-

,..,.

-,,~.-

,. ,.

~.~

.......

'to ~

...

.\,

·~_.l.

'.'

.. -(.

of sun As his sci-fi fantasy arrives in m( cinemas. the producer talks about keeping a realistic eye on the money Sunshine, the sci-fi li.lm which opens today, should provide a ready metaphor for the [3ritish film industry. As the onscreen team struggle to save the Earth with a desperate attempt to reignite the fading sun, so a few British fIlm-makers struggle to save a beleaguered industry frOln being eclipsed by Hollywood. In reality the UK film industry is enjoying one of its rare moments in the sun and DNA Films, the producer/ financier of Sunshine, is playing its full part in the renaissance. Andrew Macdonald, the 41-year-old who formed DNA Films, has either produced or financed three recent movies that are ,h,Pected to enter the toplO UK grossing I filJI1s - The Last King of Scotland, Notes oula Scandal and The History Boys . . Sunshine, starring Cillian Murphy as a member of the spaceship crew battling to save Earth in 2057, is the company's biggest gamble since it set lip a joint venture with Fox Searchlight, the distribution arm of 20th Century Fox, in 200l. Although filmed largely in an East End warehouse, the special effects pushed the budget to $4501 (£23m), almost three times DNA's average. Yet hopes are high at the company. For the first time in several years, the success of a spate of films - including Oscar-winners such as The Queen - has sparked talk ofa new goldell age for the UK film industry. "Oh God, don't say that," says Macdonald. "That's always the kiss of death!" Yet Macdonald, the gral~dson of emigre fIlm-maker Emeric Pressburger a,l1d olde~.brother ofOsc~r-winning

:I. ~:

\ ,'. -

•

"'-'!f,

.. .,,'r~· . ~ ..... "

'l.

~ ~.

t~;'

U' ~. tl It

.~l;

!iI

Pi'

.,~

M....

:. .....

f't ~

itish

CrV~RpIAN

F1NAfJC/lt'y

blt/o)

'''4t'

~I''.J.'"'' ""'IIiJIIO 0is unique In British tt/m and not a production company. "I've tried to build a company the way you would any other company. My whole reason for creating DNA was to make a fIlm company that really works. Production companies don't really work." DNA Films is a 50/50 joint venture between the Film Council and Fox, a subsidiary ofRupert Murc\och's media empire. The $som used to set it up in 2001 has produced seven films to date, but not all have seen DNA take tile traditional role of creative producer. It provided the finance and distribution for Notes on a Scandal, whereas for Sunshine, Macdonald was involved from the film's inception.

..... , ... "-TIll

Trainspotting The aim is to spread the risk of a creative business that depends on the box office. The fmances of the UK film industry are complex. Macdonald's earliest production house, Figment Films, made a "minuscule" ainount. about 5%, from the film that first brought him to Hollywood's attention - Trainspotting - even though its $4m outlay returned approximate revenues of$8om. On Notes on a Scanclal, where DNA provided 100% of the finance but none of the creative input, DNA has taken about 40% of the total $50m box olfJ.ce so fat. After Fox takes its undisclosed distribution fee, profIt is pu t back into DNA for future projects. Such successes fund riskier projects such as Sunshine., Macdonald used $25m of the original UK Film Council funding to form the $som joint venture with Fox Searchlight in 2001. The partnership is up for renewal in 2008. It is unClear what return the government-funded council will get, although it will probably he higher than that made from the original funding in 1997. This has provoked some criticism in the industry as the original £29m from the Film Council was meant to fund 16 films but ended by financing significantly , ril K

... .------, - _I fewer. Macdonald has an agnostic and I still relatively unusual approach to the films his company supports. "I don't want just to sit down and Born Glasgow, January 11966, the have a good idea and then spend the next four years getting it made. I do that grandson of the film-maker Emeric as well but it's difficult. Great British Pressburger producers, people like David Puttnam, Education GlenaJmcind College they did it. But you can't really create a business that way ... You have to get in Perthshire involved in a variety of stuff to make j money ... You need to get into this game Career of doing 10 or more films and then they 1985 -1993 Worked as a runner and in various production jobs in baJance out." Hollywood and Scotland. Made The average return for the seven films supported by the joint venture to date Scottish TV documentary series with brother Kevin, who this year has been 20%, the sort of figure that directed L3.$t King of Scotland should attract other financiers such as hedge funds once the Film Council money is up for repayment next year. 1993 Set up Figment Films and produced Shallow Grave with the If the company's two big forthcoming releases, Sunshine and 28 Weeks Later, director Danny Boyle and writer John Hodge, followed by Trainspotting a follow-up to the company's earlier in 1996, then A Life Less Ordinary sleeper hit 28 Days Later, fail to deliver, (pictured below) and The Beach, the average could faJl. But Macdonald believes enough of the risk is hedged. 1997 Joined Duncan Kenworthy, I-lis Scottish can-do attitude has won him many fans in the US. producer of Four Weddings and a Scatt Rudin, the film producer behind Funeral, to set up DNA, which was awarded £29m by the Arts Council hits from The Truman Show to The Queen, has worked with him on several 2001 Used $25m of public money films. "I have an enormous respect for to set up DNA Films, a new joint Andrew and am personally very fond venture with Fox Searchlight, of him," Rudin says. "He cares about distribution arm of 20th movies, is shrewd and yet doesn't take it all too seriously. He doesn't think it's ':.~:. Century Fox. Kenworthy genetic research." . :,~\. took a non-exec.utive role. Recent productIOns Yet although in Britain DNA ranks ,include Sunshine, which second only to Working Title - the opens toOay. The company behind Notting Hill, Love Last King of Actually and Mr Bean's Holiday - its unusual financial status has attracted Scotland, Notes on a Scandal and some sniping. \N"hen I mention this . 28 Days Later to Rudin, he says: "The British film industry - hasn't it historically resisted , F~ily Lives any kind of entrepreneurship?" The ·withwife. director of Sunshine and a long-time Ra,chel, collaborator, Danny Boyle, says the UK . industry tends not to appreciate the former money-managing skills of the producer. costuTI)e '. designer, and "There should be a few more producers as canny as Andrew Macdonald." '\", five children. . aged~ tog Macdonald himselfis more circumspect, although there are some barbs .._" .,_ '" ' .~ }C ~',,: :~_~'l

{.~:

:r\;,.·1~A 1\:'_'_M'

Photograph by ·;~anlOl1n McC~~b~ for what he obviously sees as the failures of the establishment. "I don't just think I want to make a film about Proust because I read it at college," he says. "And there are a lot of people who think like that. I only want to make films that I think are going to be successfuL" Tall and restless, he says: "I don't think we have a great love of film in Britain, not like the French or Italians. I just don't think you'll find the middle-class Guardian reader goes to the cinema as much as they do other things." After A Life Less Ordinary and The Beach failed to live u[J to the huge and unexpected success of his first two films, he was reported to have decided to premiere all his films in the US. He admits the US is better when a film requires "specialist handling" or a cityby-city release, for example. He is, however, cbmmitted to making films in the UK, partly because his seven collaborations with D,lJlny Boylc so far have been better for it. "We could have saved $3m$4m by going to New ZeaJand but we would make a better film here." He may criticise UK film-goers but he is a huge fan of the British government, which has introduced new tax reliefs for the film industry. "I'm a supporter of this government and a bit of a fan of Gardon [Brown, the chancellor]." 28 Weeks Later, to be released this

_._._-_._-

'I don't think we have a great love of film in Britain like the French' On t he audience

._-- -,------

'I only want to make films that I think are going to be successful' On choosing a project i~y

I' summer, is the first DNA film to use the !

new 20% tax reheffor UK-made films, introduced by the chancellor last year. "1 might feeldiflerently ifit doesn't work ... but there aren't many creative industries given the same amount of help," says Macdonald. He is more concerned by the weak dollar, which is making filming 111 the UK expensive. "We have avoided going to Poland or the Czech Republic bu t that is going to get more and more difficult." Macdonald turned to his maternal grandfather - a man responsible for The Red Shoes and Black Narcissus among other c1assics- for advice when he first wanted to go into the industry. But he got his first job - as an intern for Ocean Pictures in Hollywood - through the "usual way" of using a "friend of a friend". After 18 months on the west coast, he returned to Scotland: His big break came in a chance meeting with doctor-turned-screenwriter Joh!1 Hodge at the Edinburgh film festival in 1990 that resulted in Shallow Grave.

The Sweeney Shunning "show business" friends, he confesses to not watching as many films as he should since his wife gave birth to twin boys just over two years ago. The couple now have five children. "1 used to be obsessed with watching films but since haVing kids I probably go less than average. It's really crap. The last film [ saw was probably Charlotte's Web and Ninja Turtles will probably be next." He wants to make "some kind of kids' flhn" Other [Jrojects include a film version of 1970S TV cop classic The Sweeney, and a film version of the Kazuo Ishiguro book, Never Let Me Go. He wants to expand into television and the internet. "My theory about the British film and TV business is that if there were no more British films in the cinema, nobody would care. But if you turned off Coronation Street and Match of the Day, they'd be rioting in the street." The "single-minded" Macdonald, " wants to change that: "I want people (~ to think, tbis is a Britisb film and that makes me want to see it even more."

- ~,~

..,-

Dirty Pretty Things

I I

! piece of d:ama. Clearly the film's gene~is . goes a long way towards expIJi":ng tlus. i Written as a "mainstream" cirama (the Sh,ntl's gr:mdci.ll,.;~r:tc: Iva.:: KrlSS DoSJ Iljll Barber Ali adjective IS inSlS\ent:v inserted j'lc3.r the .\.SiJr: b\..lSlne$S:1~.l..n sweJIshCF fOit:;':J.Tj beginnmg of the ~Im's press noresl by Jean-Phillppe t::coftey Israel Adul'3:mo USAlUnited !(ingdom 2002 Y~iAj;bade: \e-a,,'L'Jc Steven Knight, who cormibuted to ,he Yusuf ,\[till Nilwar K.ilTAnj creai.lon of television gu..rne shew H'r,(1 D~bj~ Oparel ~\\"e4\'Shop bo\' Director SC~lic Artis.l H'arm I'D & Q Miliionaire l . the Dn~y Fi~un Burgess mml cab dr.'Je-~~ Su~pi1en Frc.. n. S~U2..rt Cbrke Jeffe.t'j KissQon beory worke~ Producers Storyi.xl,lrd ArtlS't Prerrjl Things sCript :inally found its Sabina Michael cah..:on:rcll::!~ T3Ce:,,5clWltd Ilne C1a~k way to The Usual S'-'SPCCIS producer KenM Hudavetdi Ge:mar. womCin Rc1:'e~ [on~s CO!otume OeslQner Mlch<JelMellinger cafi:ow:1tl' RG~'en iones, who passed i, 0" :0 Slepnen Saeenptay 8d11t Dtcks.~~I:rea"J.'i Oilman Younger Gennan mol:l Sw:er. ~f1lghl WJrdrobi Master Frars 'vi/hat presu..>;\abiy prompted Norma Oumuweni pur.l~r Dirt'ctol"'S ()f Photo(JY.lphy CO:H1M"y ({,ha Paul Bhatttl.chaf]ee lones 10 think of Frears WJS his abilir, Chr.s .\~erlg,,:s Make--up De:slgne:r Adnall $c.1rboroogh l/ioh.:.:nr.'led .... ddJt.or.~i ?h~l~taFh~ jenny Shi:core to explore London's parallel universes. Oarrell D'Sjlv~ !~(' dOClO: i\'.in SlrJ.~ot;..,! Make-llplHair O~sl~er <is evidenced by such fi,ms as My Beal<l(f,,' iT1'.l~irr':\l:on oino:er Editor" -i.ddirioT:JI Pho:Q{;1J.phy Certificate SotJ.9ul KOUYo1t~ Lalindl'erteand Samm) and Rosie Get L~id. M:ck A\JC.S!t\' Sa7ah Gr..:.r.dy ,e, Shina production DesilJner Prosthetics \l-lhat's more, \vith The Gr.ften the Olstributo,. Abi c:.ollhad H~gC' !.1J~!yC':·.\.'~·hvw~kJ Ar,',m.atcdEx{ras Shlr,il's son Bue:u \'lSlii director bad shown himself to be ii Music M~l:hew SOli;:rl Jelllo Ed\Nard~ In:c:-:I41"o:;ai (UK) !:,u::i:-.!..::rsor: ?.luh;le :'ow!e-r dab·hand ar dar:·dy comic thriE~rs: tbc fe('t hC'S7:1.:d '::~f.');'U;'l:i; :dCY fitJ~ O~iqrt it was a promising combination. Rila H.vnlll tbe mJnule~ <I;.!:7.jr.:,4.\ ~:~;. Cn:? r,g F'loductlO:1.", rhtlrrr:a::; :;:.:.r::.~ Frears. however. e\;dently respondec ProauctJon Compafllcs Opticilli OOlb)' Digital Ron Stenllfr :-. ;: J..;'..l:~ '=;. ::.> Jr:': (:;:t {:TInge more the world depicted in Diny In Colol,r pilJ.[;;1a~:5: gSC ~:::1'.~ -:~"$C;,: Additioo.al Music Pretty Things than to the thr:iler aspec:..s, io Ce !Jcv~ Y::~<; C~H$na.n L fiem,,:: p~i':d:"':(,,:lon Violinist \vorking \~ith threc equa!ly experier.ced C-~':ejc:pcc 'A;:::: .':'~.i. r..l..Q.."l~sor; veterans ,- cinematographer Chris !Gin{"!.ro;n;:-.. ~}· Addition.ll VlCllln Menges, production designer Hugo l":"cdC(1:0:1S G..vin \Vr.ght , The pr~sen( day. Okwe is an iliegal E.!lce:utivc Produc~ Music: Supervisor Luczyc-Wyhowski and editor Mick Nigeria" irn:nigrar.t who trained as (1<.1.; S;'-:~l:-: Kare:l FJlio~ ;\udsley - to craft a London which always a doctor cut now works days driving ::'c;',:a M. ,;nCr.1pson HofHou~e !'vl1JS1C' Lld 1":4o.:e)" S':ofhela Score Prodoce.r seems to be just around the corner from a minicab and ;lights as a receptionist at Alion Re:ch Naihan UiSO;. j the one most British audiences know London's ;.{ote! Baltic. He kee;:>s himself it:eSJ. :V:~r.<:~ Music Editor )ul:eGulcislf'lii This is by far the most satisfying part of !\'1khaelHigr..Jm awake by chc\\~ng herb and cornaps on Production uect,Uves Engineer/MIxer the film. ~onveying the feeling of a whole the sofa of Turkish asylum seeker Senay. F:, BBC ,-Un, AnO-,!' Richards quasi-mvisible civilisation created by the a chamcerr.:aid at the Baltic. Told of a • Music Consultant t.:icha~: Wood For ~1ira;';1Jx Fi;:ns' CharlicGilien needs of a modem tourist-cum-business proble;n ir! a room. Okwe is horriiied to !uk~My(,t5 Soaundtnek metropolis, whose members get by as find ,he toilet blocked by a human heart. ic:ml(~:i...lr:.e ·W:'lil! Do You S~\'~ Production Co--ordinatof" Gan\(~:t SiL\.; ·:";iii~e;s.a.: best they can on one or other side of the in between treating his minicab Ht::-;n~one: )Jinmffi !..ove~ -?a1O 3.;,ntor.: law. The casual way in wnich Okwe boss and fellow workers for sexually Production Martage..-s ·'Lilt:- - urol Die.:.;. t: draws on acquaintances from every trar:srr.itled diseases, Okv,'e comes Lin<i. Gretorv Roy; -Fd.nta..zy~ - OOJami: MdillOil.:l Pho:'jgTopny' ~How Jibo\1~ alinle"corner of !.he \/Jorld, operating a barter across a Somali in agony after a botched L\S4 Roxanm; ·Aude rA/e Br:.an Donovan system of favours. c01.lnter-fa'iours and o;Jeration to remove a kidney, and lJnit ManagV10 R,,>:e)" - IIC o~gi",1 !.C$-l!Pr. JaY3wJ:d~:)4 version fe.uurir.g the occasional exchange of cosh 10 get realises that Sneaky, the Baltic's manager. .J"ddhioa~! ~h~tog!aphy-. Cht=i.se 3.51. "'Sh..:o::c w"':hat he wants. is entirely convincing. nms a trade ir. illegal organs from the Michaei t!,;;,m v....ard 21; ~Gl.ilss, Better sriil, it is simply presented as a hoteL The laner, realising Okwe's Location M.ln.. g~r Concrefe & SlO:1e~ Sue Qt:.mn Dav1d Byme (\lc:.lls' given, not heavily stressed - other, that medica' ski lis could be useful, tries to cut Post-production b,lsstguita~), Mauro is. than in the scene in which a business him :r., rut Ok wc ret-uses. He appears to SupervLwr Re.tMCQ (man.."T'.ba: Tan:.:l \~"L;tbc; B!unoe-i: oe:cussion), uJ,\1d associate of Sneaky's comments that he's chcnge his mine when he discovers that 200 UnIt Di~ctor HiUurd {drums). ja!'l~ never seen Okwe before. Okwe a"swers Seilay has bee:: :ricked into becoming a .:',ddllion.11 PhO,OgT3?l":y: So:rpamoni (ct!:l1oj \\i th a bitter, '~Ne are the people you dono:-, But. aided ~~. ~ Chinese morgue M1C.~ i\ud.;,i~y Sound ~ecord~ts ASSi$t3Ilt O;rect.or'S Pele: .lma>av don't see. We drive your caDs. We clean allendar.: anJ a:-..".fncan hooker, Okwe S!ewaIl Renftcw Addition:!l P'hotogr"phy your rooms. V,'e suck your cocks" -a line "nd Sena)' ,(;;;0 ,he tajles on Sneaky and WiUiJrn B·.Joker Christian ,oye" Aic): St:ert~~ Re--recotdiog Mi);en that jumps out at vou like a flaw in the use the money to escape from London A.ddil;cnaJ Phot::JgrJ.phy :-Ohkt Prcsf"H'cod Smi:h texture of the film. - she to >iew York. he back to !'iigeria. M'.:.Iio:.W\TlO~ :i.drnn Rhode-s Far better c.re the mu:tiple RkhmSlyil."\ AdditionaJ Martin O'MQ.:>~y Matthew Go\;.sn details which build up the Sasha Mann Sven !allS world in which Okwe There a;e two folDS nestling inside the Supet'vlWlr;l Sound Edit.ors Simcn Do',(~es Fine ~~,Grztf; MArk :\ug'Jsle and Sena)' live. or bleakiy elegant, confidently executed Becky Sirnmcms ?eurJo!y dialogue frame of Din'} Prelry ThIngs: a black Ho~i) Watson Sound Effects EditCl' Ma:k Rose Ben Di.'\;co comedy:th:ilier aboul a sinister ilJegaJ Foley lezOakiey trade in organs, with a few ninch.:..nists, SCript Su?t'r'Vk.or!l mducir.g close· ups of the surgical ?a:.;Ja Bo:am Pe-nn:: t:y: ...s Addlncl)a! Photography: Dianne Gj(d\,es procedures involved: and a OUTlc"Cl!; jlekStew touching but impossible Carting E.<htors: DiI~ctO:: lanCholawa love affair between (wd ~Da,;lS L1n \Vilson me;nbers of London's Pharmacy Technlc.al "DRVOlce' recenHmmigrant Adv~r Li'PS Inc Script Editor Ron Ste:lr:er underdass, Nigerian J,mFlelSchcr Tluiftsh Advistr Okwe and Turk Senay. CMnea. Operator~ UssalSmi:hers Medical Advlsers Chri! ~4tngts Sometimes the two Addltion;;,1 ?hotogIG;:,hy: jtf!\lfebs-IEr themes alternate; Rodngo Guticncz, Be:Ila.Hugnan sometimes they Stunt CO-<Jrriinator'S Steadlc,1.m Add.Hl0nal ?hOlogr<'lphy: NIck Gillard clash; but only once ...:..lfTl'mJonti:i r.ddi tiona\,Pho!Og ,.:. pny. - in the scene in PeteI Rclberi~-en JuhJ. fl Sper..<:e~ .~.1SI1irRle which Okwe pulls a c.,. Scrt-enlOispla'l Advi:Sfr last·mhute s,vitch Chlwetcl Eilofor Ran Osm.1n DlgitJiI Visual Effects Okwe 011 hIS boss Sneaky, Audrl"y Tautou i=f.omeitore - crc freeing Senay and Se",,}' Spcdal Effects SUPE"rv,r.or l':imself in the SemI Lopt'l. Giaham. Longh\lISI Snt:lky ArtOir-e:ct.e,. process -do Sopl1fe OkOIH!do Re~('::2 Hoimc$ they combine SC!ll)rcorator' ;ulienc Und;; 'JJiiwr. ir.to a satisfying

Benedict WOflg

S~I~:!i's d.zu~hifl',i:-,.lJ.w

ZI:lt!toBunc

N.1ollli

pET

fer whom i\'ev,: York 1$ th€:: sum of al} .

Simpson

) I[HT

t.\changeslike the onc in \\'flich SeilJV,

Jem;)nC5h Solomon

(-\.10 )'1

cireams. is beWIldered '-~ :::am that Okwe h~~ air~.1dy heen tht:::.:. '<YOU were H1 ~iev;

Yerk a"c'. you came back"" she ~sks mcrtdukus\\'. "[t is ar. ,vrican storv: he ,eplies s:mpiy. . There is, how"··:er, a hidden iron\' in the corr.~.e;1t for ali its detailtri p~:t:(\i( of London's Inlffilgrant undef\\'orid. Di.l'!].> Prmy Things is distinctly lacking in wen· developec ch<iracters. T,ut. Okwe:s ,he centre of the Bb. and Chiwetel Ejiofor tarns in (; magnince!1t pe:[ormance whose $olidi!~! dTavls anention away from the somen:nes too-gocd-tcrb~'Ii"Ue aspects of his character. Audrey Tau,ou's Senay, 0:1 6e othcr helld. is rr.uc~ less develo;:,ed. This is no ;eflection en Tautou, who succeeds tn putting the Saccharine ~t'yness of :\.meiie fimdy behind her -ar. achievement 0.;1 the more impresslve in tht this is her first t:nglish-lar,gu<lge film. But apart from in a scene in which she dances e~lJberantly to loud Turkis:. music, we lea.rn very btle oiSen~y other than that she is single-rnmdedly fOCused on her d:eam of getting to !'Vew York. Perhaps this is the point. As Okwe puts it. "For you and I. there is onlystirvival" - a desperate pragrr:atism which ef>eclively buries matters of identity cnd personal history. And cenainly, Senay's surrendering oi her virginity 10 Sneaky as a way - tile only way - to get the mo"el' ro go to New York is one of the film's most disturbing scenes. But the rest of the ch"racters - Zlo.tko Buric's Ivar,. 011 Balkan bius,er and facial hair; Benedict Wong's Guo Yi, a source of phliosophical calf:') and dry h=our; and above ali Sop hie Okonedo's )uliette, a brave and amusing pomal'al of wha, can only be described as il tan with a heart - 2re strictly {WO dimensional. And the walk-ons, especially the [WO C2!IOO!~' villain immigration officials, are hardly even that. Nick Roddick Fore.ign bodies: Audrey

Tautou, Chi_tt" Ejiofor

.~.

media and society 2003-2004

Dirty Pretty Things According to Hugh Davie (Telegraph 7.9.02) the film production cost £5 million The film was produced by Celador who are an independent television production company The script was written by Steve Knight who had been writing for them for 14 years as a comedy writer and who was also co-originator of 'Who Wants To Be A lVIillionaire?' Paul Smith, one of the directors of Celador decided it would be worth trying to develop Knight's script. Celador submitted the script to BBC drama who didn't feel they wanted to do it but passed it on to BBC Films. Celador decided to branch out into feature film production aiming to make 1 to 11/2 feature films a year on a budget of maximum $12 million. For Dirty Pretty Things Celador co-financed development with BBC films and if need be would have risked financing the whole film themselves. Smith says this enabled them to push the deal up in a more favourable way so that they were able to get Miramax to take the world rights for distribution. It is unclear whether Miramax put in production finance but since they are credited as producers it seems likely. Smith says that from his long tv producing experience Celador aims to retain as many of the rights to projects as they can by bing able to put up much of their own finance. Smith says they had already made money from the film by November 2002. He suggests of British producers

Too many people are chasing a limited amount of profit on a film. And too many UK producers are happy just to earn their $150,000 production fee (Screen International 4.10.02) The film was shown first at the Venice Film Festival and then opened the London Film Festival in autumn 2002 David Thomas, head of BBC Films is quoted as saying

To make a film in the UK, you can't be ordinary because ordinary pictures just don't get noticed. You have to be out on the edge (Telegraph 7.9.02) Box Office -it is difficult to get accurate figures until they are subsequently published in the bfi handbook. The following information comes from Screen International which gives box office figures for films whilst they are in the top 15 gross earners following their release. The film opened the weekend of Dec 13-15 2002 on 50 screens Dec 20-22 Dec 27-29 Jan 3-5 2003 on 29 screens not thereafter in the charts

£141,865 £ 81,479 £ 76,946 £ 56,765

7th 9th 9th 13th

in chart in chart in chart in chart

cumulative gross box office $849 838

Material from the Production Notes (bfi microfiche) Frears ... if your taste is for more modern things that (the immigrant community) is where you'll go because it it's where the biggest changes in British society -well London society-are happening. That's what's going on in modern British politics It's like a rather gothic horror story . ...........As a microcosm of society the hotel represents a way in which people from all walks of life can coexist and yet not know the first thing about their neighbour Sophie Okonedo .... lt's an incredibly British film, but there are hardly any British people in it - in fact I think Juliette is the only British character. It's about the invisible people in London who don't have a voice

Some Review Comments Lee Marshall in Screen International 13.9.02 presumably at the time of the film's showing in Venice The film's topicality and its provocative visually arresting view of a hidden London should help Buena Vista International roll this out wide on home ground early next year. meanwhile the FrearslTatou billing has already produced healthy sales for Miramax elsewhere . .....................The potentially lame matinee-thriller story is saved by the vigour and energy of its execution ..... The really striking thing, though, is that none of them -excep for the two immigration officers- are standard-issue white Brits: all are part of the immigrant subclass that oils the wheels of the metropolis and cleans up afterwards. Full marks go to cinemaphotographer Chrisi Menges an.d production designer Hugo Luczyc-Wyhowski for cretaing a truly original cinematic London. This is a place of garish, neon-lit interiors and seedy backstairs entrances, of makeshift mini-cab companies nestling under bridges and cheap cafes decked out with day-glo tack Alexander Walker Evening Standard 16.9.02 Dirty Pretty Things is a film with a social heartbeat that pumps much needed new blood into British cinema ....... it seems to me the kind of film that people in the future will look to in order to understand the new society pushing its way up with desparate tenacity out of the immigrant underclass......

Dirty Pretty Things - Some Box Office Comparisons (data from BFI Handbook for 2004) The film is a Category D -UKlUS co-production cost was £6.10m. Box Office Gross was £717,876 Some comparisons from the same year About A Boy Gosford Park

£17m £12m

Bend It Like Beckham

£11.5m

Iris

£ 4m

Sweet 16 All or Nothing Morvern Callar

£ 824,821 £672,605 £384,049

The Handbook points out that over half the films released in 2002 were from US and that if co-productions were included the figure became nearly 80% of releases. UK films, including co-productions took about 330/0 of the total box office for that year.