British Prime Minister David Cameron will visit Pinewood studios today where he is expected to urge filmmakers to ramp up efforts to rival Hollywood by making more “commercially successful pictures.” Cameron’s visit comes just ahead of next week’s release of the findings of a government film policy review overseen by former culture secretary Chris Smith with input from such folk as Downton Abbey creator Julian Fellowes. According to Cameron’s official website, the review is expected to suggest the UK’s Lottery funding scheme be rebalanced to support more mainstream films with commercial potential as well as culturally rewarding films. The news is likely to upset the independent film community, with director Ken Loach already appearing on the BBC today to say: “If you knew what was going to be successful before you made it then we’d all be millionaires. It doesn’t work like that. Public money should go to fund a wide variety of projects and people.” The review is further expected to propose that the British Film Institute reinvest returns into film companies with the most box office success.
In remarks on his website, Cameron said: “Our role, and that of the BFI, should be to support the sector in becoming even more dynamic and entrepreneurial, helping UK producers to make commercially successful pictures that rival the quality and impact of the best international productions. Just as the British Film Commission has played a crucial role in attracting the biggest and best international studios to produce their films here, so we must incentivise UK producers to chase new markets both here and overseas.” In 2010, the UK produced The King’s Speech, which went on to earn over $400 million worldwide. Last year, The Inbetweeners Movie — another homegrown, though decidedly less highbrow, hit — was a big local success with over $70 million in UK box office. However, the UK is facing the first year since the Harry Potter franchise has been put to bed, and despite the continuing influx of high-profile Hollywood films that shoot there (think Steven Spielberg’s War Horse, Ridley Scott’s Prometheus, Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight Rises), Cameron is clearly looking for a way to bring the spotlight to Britain without the use of Hollywood coin. “In this year when we set out bold ambitions for the future, when the eyes of the world will be on us, I think we should aim even higher, building on the incredible success of recent years,” he said.


Production is one thing, but distribution is the real key to success, and the UK simply doesn’t have anything to compete with the studios.
Oh, great. So now Britain has to start putting out the same crap-fest that comes out of Hollywood?
Good man. Too many people will misread this as ONLY supporting mainstream pictures – but what he’s asking for is balance. There is room for variation, but the longer we give money to movies that have a very limited commercial appeal (check lottery funded film slate), the UK Film industry will continue to be a business that is parochial, whereas it should be thriving.
Well stated!
I can think of a great movie about a Prime Minister who hires one of Murdoch’s minions that’s still on his old Master’s payroll.
go “Bain”.
This is clearly a case of who pays the piper calls the tune. Cameron is well within his rights, as the closest thing to being the keeper of the public purse to demand that they at least try to get a better return on their investment.
I know from personal experience in Canada that dependence on government funding for movies means that the audience, outside of the “taste-makers” in the politically/bureaucratically connected centers of power, is mostly forgotten. This has put a negative stigma on English Canadian movies that even the rare films with broad commercial appeal have a hard time overcoming.
Quebec’s French language cinema has managed to avoid this trap for the most part, because they actively pursue films with broad appeal, in order to help win financing, and audiences for their more “art-house” material.
Now Ken Loach has a point, there really is no way to accurately predict if a project’s going to be a success. However, there are some movies that are pretty obviously box office poison from the beginning that get made anyway not because of the project’s merits, but because of the standing the filmmakers in question have with the funding bureaucracies.
No system is perfect. The completely privately funded Hollywood system made “Bucky Larson” because the studio wanted to appease Adam Sandler, but at least it was the studio who took the financial loss from the film, and not the taxpayer.
What the British have to do is find a form of balance. Get the audiences on their side, so that they will go to the “crowd pleaser” films, but also give the more “artsy” projects a chance too.
Please let “the eyes of the world” be on you guys. Many of us Americans don’t want “eyes” on us.
I love the Brits and wish them well. I strongly hope that they don’t use “commercially successful films” to try to become the greatest nation in the world.
No matter how hard ANY country tries, they will NEVER pump out as much CRAP as the Americans.
Ken Loach’s comments were right on the money (so to speak).
UK Producer: “We’d like funding for a costume drama about how a king overcomes his stammer.”
Minister of Culture: “Hmmm… How about he develops a sonic voice weapon to defeat the transforming robots that threaten Earth?”
Best comment I’ve read all week!!!!!
So The King’s Speech, which made 400 million dollars worldwide and received money from the UK Lottery Fund (and was notoriously hard to finance in the first place) would therefore not have been made? This non-mainstream “culturally rewarding” film surely wouldn’t be anyone’s idea of a blockbuster hit that it has turned out to be… This kind of picture would be the first to good for less risk-adverse, more “commercially successful pictures”. I would call the guy an idiot but he clearly has no clue about the motion picture business so it is not his fault…
That should read – first to go…
There is neither the cash nor the mindset in the UK to make high concept four quadrant movies. The real money in the UK is in property development – they are more risk averse than studios.
You will never see the day that a purely funded UK production budget
exceeds $100m.
Fine words by Cameron, he can also add;
Gamblers bet on more winning horses.
Banks do not invest badly.
Lottery players – pick the right numbers.
What a fanny.
Oh, no!
On one hand, I truly want for the UK film industry to be more recognized and respected world-wide. There are many great films that deserve the recognition, cast & crews who deserve a paycheck and etc.
But “rival Hollywood by making more “commercially successful pictures”?? With all due respect to Hollywood, most of its successful films are quite shallow, that’s normal in the age when entertainment is the key.
What I mean is, I wouldn’t want to see British films loose their originality, boldness, the unique way that they, let’s face it, push the audience up in terms of intellectual requirements, instead of dumbing it down.
I really hope that the quest for “commercially successful pictures” wouldn’t affect the quality of UK films.
You are aware that ‘commercially successful film’ is just a synonym for ‘good money laundering operation,’ aren’t you?