The Future of British Cinema #2: Audiences Shunning British Film

In the last instalment of this series, I examined how British movies would get funded and released when faced with extensive government cuts. Now it is time to ask an even more important question: with those cuts in place, will it affect the types of film that are getting produced? After all, if David Cameron wanted the British film marketplace to exclusively be making “movies the British people want to see, like Harry Potter”, are filmmakers and production companies going to bow down to his wish, or rebel against it with works that are challenging or overtly political in nature? Five years into a decade of Conservative rule, it is the best time to analyse the movies that are getting made- and the ones that audiences are turning into box office hits.

The Problems with Modern Political Filmmaking

For a starters, British cinema appears to be in a currently apolitical state, whereas great works of literature, music and of course, film have all been made to reflect their creators’ opinions of governments of the past, mainstream British cinema (and on a side note, British music) has seemingly nothing to say about the current political situation. Could this be due to a tightening of purse strings, only allowing funds for movies with mass commercial appeal that won’t alienate audiences on either side of the political fence?

On an initial glance, yes, but a deeper look at the movies being produced offers a far more complex story. Films critical of the ruling political party are being made, only all are period pieces, retroactively criticising their past policies and the human triumphs over them. The earliest example of this was the 2010 movie Made in Dagenham, a dramatisation of the 1968 strike at the Ford factory, as workers angrily demanded equal pay for women. This movie is an anomaly in the recent line of movies critical of former government policies; the events took place under a Labour government and are specifically critical of Labour policy, whereas all the other key cinematic examples I will list are highly critical of a Conservative one.

It is almost like the filmmakers expected Labour to have lost power again by the time the movie was released, so a film that foreshadows a Conservative triumph (the Equal Pay Act 1970) would be more likely to be lapped up by viewers, the majority of whom voted for them. The movie was much-hyped at the time of release, and became a gigantic flop in the UK, with no movies released since being this congratulatory towards Conservative policy. Despite the themes of supporting the workers, the backbone of Labour policy, the film’s sly acknowledgement that a Tory government set things straight didn’t go unnoticed by viewers. However, by dying a death at the box office, weirdly acted in Cameron’s favour.

The film was nothing like Harry Potter, and nobody went to see it. The film didn’t even face box office competition. Instead, on the weekend of release, it was held off the top spot by The Other Guys, which was in its third week at the top; more damningly, it was the only weekend in 2010 the UK box office number one grossed less than a million pounds. To add further insult to injury, a stage musical based on the movie is also having to close because of low ticket sales. It seems the British public don’t want a story about textbook Labour voters (factory workers, union members) portrayed as a triumph of Conservatism.

Filmmakers have apparently nothing to say about the current government, yet all of a sudden are beginning to rise up and criticise previous governments; the times passed since the events happened have ensured that audience members won’t get alienated, regardless of their political stance. Pride, released last year to critical acclaim, documents the “Gays and Lesbians Support the Miners” movement of the 80’s. It is the most politically active film of recent years, even if it is documenting a vital movement thirty years after it has descended into irrelevance.

Like Brassed Off before it, it is highly critical of Margaret Thatcher’s stance during the Miner’s strike, turning what was a crushing defeat for mining communities into a minor (no pun intended) triumph of human spirit. Yet with the previous, Conservative-led coalition government legalising gay marriage, being critical of the party’s former policies seems safe; in this respect, the party has changed for the better, so obviously a film critical of its shameful past can be funded by the BBC, as public money isn’t being spent to criticise the current government.

Why are audiences shunning British cinema?

With the BBC frequently being cited as either sympathising with the right (by those on the left) and sympathising with the left (by those on the right), to fund a movie with political overtones it has to prove to be outdated by current policy in order to still get made. Yet again, audiences stayed away from it; it opened third at the box office, being beaten to second place by Lucy (which had at this point been on general release for four weeks, in 39 fewer cinemas).

Maybe Cameron was right; audiences want escapism, not examinations of the detrimental effects of his party’s previous policies, or celebrations of them. Why else would they still be flocking to see Scarlett Johansson turn into a human USB stick, when faced with newer, more relatable options? It isn’t like Pride didn’t receive a wide release, or benefit from a massive marketing campaign. It just so happens that it was released at a time when the British public are themselves at their most apolitical, becoming disenfranchised with all the major parties to the point that any statement critical of a specific party is met with a cry of “yeah, but what’s the alternative? They are all the same!”

However, that doesn’t mean filmmakers should turn their backs to realism, regardless of the financial positives of mindless escapism. Matthew Vaughn, director of several homegrown hits (most recently the inexplicably popular Kingsman: the Secret Service), came out before the last election as a supporter of the Conservative party. Subsequently, he has made comments about how there is no such thing as a British film industry and that movies should not be subsidised with tax breaks.

Vaughn was exceptionally critical of Jonathan Glazer, who funded Under the Skin with help from the BFI and Film 4; yet as he is a prolific director of commercials, Vaughn claimed he should have used his own money to fund it instead of asking for tax breaks for a film that will never turn a profit. All of Vaughn’s films have, coincidentally, turned a profit, proving the hypocrisy of a successful filmmaker ensuring his films continue to get made, whilst others languish in development hell, never to see the light of day when major studios won’t fund them.

Vaughn is in the business for commercial and not creative reasons; if he is producing movies as deliriously enjoyable as Kick-Ass, that is fine. But when producing a film like Kingsman, a misogynistic, class-unconscious piece of cinema that claims to be a subversive espionage parody despite embracing all the outdated hallmarks of the genre, his commercial endeavours are front and centre. The fact the movie was called “edgy” by many upon release surprised me; it’s brain-dead views on social class are exactly what you would expect from a Conservative sympathiser, and sadly, what you expect to be lapped up by a Conservative-sympathising general public.

Yet, British cinema audiences still lap up challenging fare: Kingsman may have generated £15 million in total at the UK box office following its January release, but in the equivalent period in 2014, 12 Years a Slave (funded by Film 4 and directed by Turner Prize winning artist Steve McQueen) generated £21 million. This proves that if intelligent and groundbreaking cinema is actually given a wide release, audiences will rush to see it; the British film industry isn’t dead, but distribution is making it harder for most films to remain in cinemas long enough to turn a profit. The 12 Years a Slave example should be used to show that audiences are receptive to many commercially unfriendly prospects, and why they should continue to get funded.

Conclusion

Nonetheless, this example still proves to be an anomaly: British cinema as a whole is becoming more risk-averse than ever, with the most challenging and innovative movies being relegated to opening in no more than a few screens. This isn’t to say there aren’t terrific mainstream hits (after all, Paddington and Skyfall have graced our screens recently), or crossover successes like 12 Years a Slave, but to support British cinema, we need to help support independent productions more than ever, by tracking down showings or lobbying for wider releases.

The tax break model isn’t perfect, but it is helping us get some of the most innovative movies of recent years made; the final challenge, in lieu of a more sustainable film funding model, is to translate these productions into box office hits. In the third and final part of this series, I will try to find out if there is any practical way of getting British movies of all shapes and sizes onto our screens, in a way that celebrates commercial and uncommercial fare equally.

Can British independent movies survive in the current marketplace? And, does Britain have a film industry, or at least a film culture comparable to the US?

(top image: Kingsman: The Secret Service – source: 20th Century Fox)