The British Film Industry

What is a British Film?

A main problem with studying the British Film Industry is the difficulty of defining exactly what a British Film is. For example, is it correct to call a film set in Britain, with a US director a British film? Can co-productions with European countries also be classed as British?

The BFI British Film and Television Handbook attempts to define precisely the term ‘British Film’: “Feature-length films which are expected by their makers to receive theatrical distribution and for which either the financial or the creative impulse came from Britain. The guiding principle is to identify films which directly contribute to British film culture of the British film industry’. We can see from this definition given by Eddie Dyja, that some ‘British’ films will be more British than others.

British films are placed into five separate groups:

1. Feature films where the cultural and financial impetus is from Britain and the majority of personnel are British.

Number of films made: 47

Average cost: £2.24 million

2. Majority British co-productions. Films in which, although there are foreign partners there is a British cultural content and a significant amount of British content and personnel.

Number of films made: 16

Average cost: 4.20 million

3. Minority British co-productions. Foreign (non-US) films in which there is a small British involvement in finance or personnel.

Number of films made: 12

Average cost: £3.94 million

4. American financed or part financed films made in Britain. Most titles have a British cultural content.

Number of films made: 23

Average cost: £13.95 million

5. US films with some British financial involvement.

Number of films made: 2

Average cost: 4.24 million

Film production in Britain takes place on a much smaller scale than in the US – Hollywood. Research proves that in 1999, the total number of ‘British’ feature films was 100 compared to an all time low of just 24 in 1981. The small size of the British film industry compared to that of Hollywood can partly be explained in terms of economics. In America, with its potentially vast and massive audience, a Hollywood film can cover its costs with even moderate audiences by using the large network of cinemas. Further profits are then taken if the film is distributed internationally. Also, television deals, sales of the soundtrack and specific merchandising will all add to the profit, if successful.

On the other hand, if a British film was moderately successful, it would be unlikely to cover its costs from theatrical exhibition alone, due to the much smaller scale of audience. A British film would have difficulty in attracted the British audience from American films that have higher production values, recognized stars and substantial marketing campaigns.

However, despite all these problems, low budget films such as Four Weddings and a Funeral, Shallow Grave, Trainspotting and Billy Elliot demonstrate the ability of British film makers to make films that appeal to the home audiences, but which also are successful internationally but never on the scale of Hollywood films.

It has to be recognized that major Hollywood studios play an important role in the British film industry because of the production work that they bring into the country. Neil Watson points out that many big budget films, such as Gladiator or Bridget Jones, are made in Britain and other countries because studio facilities have improved and tax incentives have increased with the result that film production is more ‘portable’. Britain actually offers a place where Hollywood can produce films more cheaply, especially if the exchange rate is good.

Financing and funding films in Britain has always proved a difficult task for British film-makers, and over the past years, funding has been obtained from a number of different sources. The nest quote is taken from Eddie Dyja’s BFI Film and Television Handbook 1995 outlines the changes in the last ten years.

“In 1983 and 1984, at least half of the films were supported by British sources other than channel 4, British Screen and the BBC (all of which are either state funded or perform a public service function). Since the ITV companies invested only modestly in feature films at that time, the assumption must be that equity was available from the film companies themselves. Indeed, in the early 1980’s there was a host of properly capitalised British production companies willing to risk money in films – among them Handmade, Hemdale, Virgin, Goldcrest and, most importantly, Thorn EMI Screen Entertainment. Now there are none, unless one counts Polygram, which strictly speaking is Dutch. (Polygram was subsequently bought by Seagram now part of Vivendi Universal). The latter day British producer, no matter how experienced, goes from project to project, raising money where he or she can and in the process giving away the bulk of the rights. Little or no value accrues to the producer or Production Company beyond the production fee, and even that is sometimes part-deferred. British film production, in other words, has migrated in the past ten years from being a small industry to being a cottage industry.”

In the 1990’s British producers have increasingly relied for finance upon European funding bodies such as the European Co-production Fund and the TV industry. The National Lottery emerged as a further supplementary source in 1995.