Filmmakers Hope British Vote Will Revive Industry : * Movies: Ten years after the screenwriter of ‘Chariots of Fire’ shouted ‘The British are coming!’ on Oscar night, the country’s film industry stands at an all-time low.

The outcome of today’s British general election could have a substantial impact on the fortunes of the moribund film industry, whose decline is partly blamed on government tax policies.

Many film industry figures are advocating a change in the nation’s leadership. Producer David Puttnam (formerly studio head at Columbia Pictures) and producer-director Richard Attenborough, for example, are both supporting the opposition Labor Party in the hope that it will do more to foster the arts in general and the film industry in particular.

“It’s a fact that the British film industry has been understood better by the Labor Party than by the Conservatives,” said Sydney Samuelson, 66, who for more than three decades headed the world’s leading film equipment supply company and last year was named British film commissioner. “They’ve been more interested in its well-being. And they’ve come out with a manifesto (promising) certain changes which would be a shot in the arm to the industry.”

But Samuelson saw hope, too, in recent Conservative moves to stimulate film production in the United Kingdom, saying, “If the Conservatives are returned, well, they’ve made a start with the budget this year, and I would look forward to further incentives.”

The government’s budget, as presented during the election campaign by Chancellor of the Exchequer Norman Lamont, would provide new tax benefits to film producers, including allowing them to write off costs as they are incurred, rather than having to wait until a film’s release, as under the present system.

The tax relief proposals were greeted with qualified optimism by key figures in both the Labor Party and the British film industry, with Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock offering a cautious approval of the “modest” steps being proposed.

Attenborough (“Gandhi,” “Cry Freedom”) said that the “chancellor has not gone as far as we hoped,” but nevertheless called the proposals “a major step in the right direction.”

But film director Michael Winner was less enthused. “If I was a doorman getting this (the tax concessions) as a tip, I would give the person who gave it to me a sour look,” he said. “It is at most a gratuity and certainly not a lifesaver.”

Other industry figures also have taken a role in politics. Moviemaker John Schlesinger (“Midnight Cowboy,” “Pacific Heights”), an admirer of British Prime Minister John Major, helped film a Conservative political broadcast last fall, while Hugh Hudson (“Chariots of Fire,” “Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes”) did the same for Labor’s Kinnock in the 1987 election with a film that is credited with substantially boosting the Labor Party leader’s popularity.

Also, Scots-born actor Sean Connery has aided the minority Scottish National Party, which seeks self-determination for Scotland. And Beatle George Harrison returned to the British concert stage this week after a 23-year absence to boost the fortunes of the Natural Law Party, a political group that favors transcendental meditation.

Film-related taxes, however, have been the compelling issue for those in the motion picture industry. While certainly not the overriding subject in the election campaign, the issue spotlights the decline of the industry here since it reached its zenith a decade ago: On Oscar night 1982, the British film “Chariots of Fire” won four Academy Awards, including best film, and its screenwriter Colin Welland held his Oscar aloft and roared: “The British are coming!”

Since that night, acceptance speeches have been delivered by actors Ben Kingsley (“Gandhi”), Jeremy Irons (“Reversal of Fortune”) and, just last week, by Anthony Hopkins (“The Silence of the Lambs”), as well as by a host of accomplished behind-the-camera British talent. But the British film industry itself now stands at an all-time low.

Only 12 films wholly dependent on British financing were green-lighted last year. And only occasionally are major features now made at the big, formerly bustling studios outside London--Pinewood, Shepperton and Elstree.

The number of theater admissions may have increased dramatically in recent years, but overall British moviegoers continue to flock to American films. In fact, of the top 100 British box-office draws in 1991 listed in the trade magazine Screen International, only two were indigenous: the beyond-the-grave romance “Truly, Madly, Deeply” (No. 83) and Mike Leigh’s off-center comedy “Life Is Sweet” (No. 88).

Film Commissioner Samuelson, despite optimism about the Conservative proposals to aid the industry, expressed concern that the “chancellor did nothing about the withholding tax on American stars,” and also said he had hoped for “some sort of a levy on videotapes or on theater admissions.”

Samuelson and his film commission, formed following a 1990 meeting at 10 Downing St. between a score of leading figures in Britain’s film industry and then-Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, hope to persuade major American producers that Britain is a desirable place to make movies.

Until the last few years, this was unquestioned. Several big-budget films were made in Britain--especially those whose special effects called on the skills of British technicians. According to Samuelson, “Three ‘Star Wars’ movies, three ‘Superman’ films, three ‘Indiana Jones’ movies, three ‘Alien’ films and ‘Batman’ were all made in Britain.

“Many James Bond films were made in Britain, too, but we lost the last one to Mexico, because it was considerably cheaper,” he added.

Making movies in Britain is an expensive proposition. One reason: All highly paid foreign talent working in Britain are subject to a punitive withholding tax on their earnings, which can take a long time to be resolved. Samuelson said that Jack Nicholson was approached by Warner Bros. to reprise his role as the Joker in “Batman Returns,” but Nicholson insisted he not be subject to this tax.

“The sets from the first ‘Batman’ film were still up at Pinewood, but they decided to shoot the sequel in the U.S.A.,” Samuelson added.

The lack of work has caused a major drain of British talent to Hollywood. Most successful directors--Alan Parker, Ridley and Tony Scott, Peter Yates and Adrian Lyne head a lengthy list--are involved with American-funded films, because that is where the work lies. Similarly, many star-quality British actors--Hopkins, Michael Caine, Bob Hoskins--work mainly in the United States.

The crisis in the industry raises the question of whether Britain has a viable film culture. In some respects, Britain is caught between the United States, where movies are equated with entertainment, and Europe, where films equal culture and are often supported by government subsidies.

Alan Parker (“Midnight Express,” “Mississippi Burning”) bemoans the lack of a producer class in Britain: “In our generation, it was rather vulgar to be interested in money. Nobody wanted to be a producer. If you were into film, you directed. We just lacked that entrepreneurial spirit back then.”

Parker, who has been critical of British film over the years, is unapologetic for working from a Hollywood base. “Why aren’t I doing it in London? Because I don’t want to beg for money each time I make a film.”

Now British filmmakers must look beyond their borders for financing. Oscar-winning screenwriter Mark Peploe (“The Last Emperor”) has just directed his first feature, shot in Britain, called “Afraid of the Dark.” But he received financing from a French company.

“I can honestly say that if I had to look for funding in Britain, I literally would not know where to start looking,” Peploe said. “There is just nowhere.”