Britain Resists Colonization by Hollywood

Britain has long been a magnet for Hollywood filmmakers, both because its special-effects technicians are regarded as being among the world’s best, and because it is usually cheaper to work here than in the United States.

But Britain’s home-grown movie industry never has taken full wing, despite a string of box-office successes like the latest, “Billy Elliot,” and a slew of Oscars over the years. There are several reasons for that, all of them to do with money, and the situation isn’t likely to change suddenly.

But a start is being made.

The government has set up a film council to make the first concerted effort to pump more life into the British industry. Headed by producer Alan Parker (“The Commitments,” “Evita,” “Angela’s Ashes”), the council will help fund movies that appear to be likely box-office hits; help bring struggling scriptwriters and producers together; encourage innovative, low-budget features and short films; and seek out co-production projects with other European countries.

The film council also has expanded an existing office in Los Angeles to try to sell Hollywood on making more of its films here.

“We have a disproportionate number of highly talented people who historically have delivered high-quality film,” said John Woodward, the chief executive. “But we have no big distribution companies and very few big film companies employing more than a few hundred people. This is essentially a cottage industry. The government wants us to try to correct that.”

Last year saw the production of just 52 home-grown British films, made at a total cost of $316 million. That works out to just over $6 million a film--less than major Hollywood stars can command for a single movie.

British producers have long complained that British banks are generally reluctant to finance films because of the high risks. Only about 1 in 10 films ever achieves commercial success. Another problem is that distribution is entirely in the hands of big American companies.

“We are blessed and damned with having the English language,” said Woodward. “The advantage is that we can get to the biggest markets in the world. The curse is we are wide open for all their films coming here. This makes it difficult for Britain to define what its film culture is.”

The film council has been given a total of $224 million for the next three years to finance its various projects. The biggest amount, $15 million a year, will be divided among 10 or 12 films that have a “real chance of finding bigger audiences,” Parker said. Producer Robert Jones will be in charge of this fund.

It is, of course, a modest amount of money, and Woodward acknowledged that steadily rising expenditures make it increasingly difficult to produce films at the current $6-million average. Filmmakers can expect to get as little as $150,000 from the council, but subsidies may range up to $3 million.

Woodward said the council would act like any other investor, expecting to recoup its money if a film is a hit.

*

Just where the overall film council involvement will lead remains to be seen. Woodward said he would be satisfied when Britain has two or three major companies involved in development, production and international distribution. That, he said, will take seven or eight years to achieve.

“In the end, the business will not be driven by the state but by the private sector,” he said.

Jenny Borgars, a former script editor with major U.S. independent film companies, will head a $7.5-million development fund designed primarily to improve the quality of screenplays and bring writers and producers together.

“We will work with a writer who wants to develop a script idea but doesn’t have a producer,” she said. “Writers can use us for any idea that has ambition at its heart.”

She said her fund also would work with up to 15 production companies, both start-up and experienced firms, for up to three years, and encourage them to consolidate.

“We will look at genres we are good at, such as period films, and those we are not so good at,” she said. “We have an incredible wealth of talent in Britain. We want to develop the next generation of talent and nurture what’s there already. We also want to woo people back to the U.K. who have gone to the U.S. to work.”

Dutch producer Paul Trijbits has been put in charge of the film council’s new cinema fund. He said his emphasis would be on innovative, experimental films, including low-budget digital shorts, documentaries, music videos and adaptations of plays.

Sarah McKenzie of the British Film Commission, an arm of the council, is in charge of promoting inward investment by foreign film producers. That investment, she said, has increased almost 1,000% in eight years, to $805 million last year from just $88 million in 1992.

Hollywood films in production here last year included “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone,” “The Mummy Returns,” “Chocolat,” “Tomb Raider,” “51st State,” “Proof of Life,” “Possession” and “Pearl Harbor.”

McKenzie said 81% of Hollywood films made outside the U.S. last year went to Canada, but 10% came to Britain, more than other parts of the world combined.

The film commission has even managed to attract 10 producers from Bollywood, as the Indian film industry is known. The Indians have developed a taste for using British castles and stately homes in their films, and the commission is hoping Britain can replace Switzerland as their main overseas location.

In recent years the British government has introduced tax incentives to help lure foreign producers, and also made changes in child labor and animal quarantine laws to help them to work here.

Hollywood producers have been attracted to Britain for the quality of special-effects work done here for a long time. It started with the “Superman” and “Star Wars” films, and this sector of the British industry has flourished since.