1 of 1

Write now Article Tools

Page 2 of 5

time of release), so it appears their success was down to other factors - largely U.S backing and strong advertising. As the Film Council claim that part of British cinema's problem is a lack of quality scripts, talent, and too many poor films (Beckett, 2001), it appears that their portfolio for success is rather short-sighted, in that quality' is an ambiguous area of any art form, and that based on financial figures, it is distribution and exhibition that are the vital areas for them to improve. However, American hegemony of both exhibition and distribution in Britain proves this is a difficult task.

Therefore the government is stuck in a quandary that was created by themselves in the late 1940s. British Films that have made a lot of money have as Anthony Davies says evoked a world of country houses, upper-class life, social restraint and sexual hypocrisy', adding the heritage cinema' of the 1980s simply provided what was needed for international success in an American-dominated market defined by the competitive circulation of idealised images.' (Davies, 2000. pg 113) In other words British Films have succeeded in the international market by appealing to what American audiences desire seemingly that of national stereotypes, seen in many successful British films such as A Fish Called Wanda' (1988), Four Weddings and Funeral' (1994), and Notting Hill (1999). In a sense their British-ness' is an American concept British films made to imitate American narrative and aesthetic. As Sorlin states, We Europeans create and see the world through Hollywood's lenses' (Davies, 2000. pg 112).

The British government then should not be discouraging American investment but embrace it and create incentive for it to occur. Their aspirations for the Film Council and a national' cinema through localised funding seem rather overzealous since it has been proven the market for such English' films is small and hardly lucrative. It seems even more disparaging to think of such a concept when the Film Council themselves admit to pandering to America's needs, saying their public prescription for the industry is to imitate Hollywood.' (Beckett, 2001) Since the Film Council are saying about American investment: there's no sense in fighting the inevitable. They hire our talent. The investment they bring, we hope, will have a knock on effect' (Beckett, 2001), why then is the government defeating the object by taking away these tax breaks? Interestingly, they've been making these kinds of mistakes

• << previous page
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• next page >>

Add your voice

Know something about The effect on the British Film industry of American investment since 1945?
We want to hear your view. Write now!