Time to Celebrate British Cinema July 17, 2006
Posted by John Hodson in : Film General, British Film , trackbackMy old mum, bless her, tells me that before I was even a glint in my dad’s eye, that she would go nowhere near the local Odeon if a British made film was showing. They were all, without exception ‘rubbish’. My old mum has, I’m afraid, as I often tell her, no taste whatsover. ..
Surveying my ever diminishing shelf space, I can see a wealth of treasures from the vaults of Hollywood; terrific sets devoted to Alfred Hitchcock, John Ford, Greta Garbo, Busby Berkeley et al. Set devoted to genres (Film Noir, Golden Age Comedies) and whole eras on which studio fortunes were built (Universal Horror, Gangsters).
But where are the sets, and features packed special editions, devoted to classic British cinema? Why aren’t there boxed sets of carefully restored British films, loaded with the extras we’ve come to expect from the best American releases? Why not boxed sets featuring London Films, the Kordas, the Boulting Brothers, British Lion? While other Eurpean countries have sets of films featuring Alfred Hitchcock’s early period, we have no equivalent. Madness. Isn’t there a market for a Dirk Bogarde box, John Mills, Noel Coward, Charles Laughton, Jessie Matthews, George Formby; someone, somewhere is probably gasping for Gracie Fields to be boxed (and, I realise, there are a 1001 witty retorts to that; try and restrain yourselves…) and granted acknowledgement of the superstar status she enjoyed at the height of her fame? Why not a Betty Box, er, box?
Where is there a decent DVD of Seven Days to Noon, Things to Come, The Private Life of Henry VIII, Pimpernel Smith, Contraband, The Spy in Black, Rembrandt - 100s and 100s of films, seemingly unloved. I’m perfectly aware that some of those titles have indeed been transferred to a digital medium, not with any sense of style or celebration of the fact that they emerged from British studios.
Surely there’s a market in this country for boxed sets of Hammer films, chock full of extras? DD Home Entertainment have tried, but both their range of titles, and their expertise it would seem, is limited. It’s frustrating that Warners hold the Hammer ‘crown jewels’, but seemingly refuse to present them in anything but barebones fashion. Even Anchor Bay UK have apparently gone off the boil, and I had high hopes after their Amicus set; but, then, they have an excuse. Prising licenses from the grasp of rights holders is both difficult and expensive.
Yes, Carlton - now Granada Ventures - who hold the rights of 100s of British films, did produce some box sets, notably for Will Hay (rumoured to be being prepped for reissue with extras - huzzah!), Norman Wisdom and the ‘Carry On’ series. There are their ‘Powell and Pressburger’ and ‘Rank 70th Anniversary’ boxes, but both those sets are reissues of extant material (save one film in the P&P box), and in some cases, the material is in dire need of further restoration.
Since the Granada Ventures takeover there has also been a shift in strategy; many of the old Carlton titles went out of print, as Granada issued licenses to first Network, then DD Home Entertainment (apparently a loop-hole in the Network contract means that we have the ridiculous situation of both firms issuing the same films). Network have been improving, in some cases, the old Carlton transfers and, again in some cases, adding decent extras; but it’s laborious work, with no boxed or themed material on the horizon. DD have been slapping films into boxes with little fanfare, but it’s ever so slightly shoddy stuff - three film sets for Alastair Sim and John Mills; nothing really to write home about.
There is also some hope following the end of Warners UK license with Studio Canal, the rights holder for many, many British films, including Ealing titles. Studio Canal has now sealed a deal with Optimum who produced the very best of the Ealing box sets in terms of extras and quality. Indeed, Optimum’s handling of Whisky Galore! showed just how it can be - should be - done for quality British films. In this respect, it is surprising that the BFI hasn’t been more on the ball; the BFI’s pricing of discs is breathtaking, sometimes it’s not reflected in the content. And on the marketing front, it can be argued that the British Film Institute has not always been seen as a champion of British film; it may not be the actualité, but it’s certainly the perception.
The British are just awful at promoting themselves; we stand around, coyly looking down, refusing to raise our hands, waiting for someone else - usually Anchor Bay US or Criterion - to tell us how terrific we are.
Isn’t it about time that the British celebrated the fact that we have made some terrific films over the years, films that have had a profound effect on cinema as a whole? Celebrated them with releases containing genuinly useful and informative extras, with transfers that sparkle like the jewels that they are?
Comments»
“And on the marketing front, it can be argued that the British Film Institute has not always been seen as a champion of British film; it may not be the actualité, but it’s certainly the perception.”
(Ahem!)
Also, your comments goaded me into investigating exactly what proportion of the BFI’s DVD output has been British - and the answer is 32%, rising to 38% if you factor in non-British work by British filmmakers such as Peter Brook and Alex Cox.
Which, considering the stranglehold that Granada and Canal have on the vast majority of mainstream British film history, plus the fact that the BFI’s remit is as much to bring outstanding international cinema to British audiences as it is to promote homegrown work, is a pretty healthy figure. Granted, most of these films are aimed at the specialist end of the market - early cinema, documentary, the avant-garde and so on - but who else is going to bother to release them?
Part of the problem you highlight is that third-party organisations (i.e. not just the BFI) are faced not only with the licensing costs but also of licensing and/or creating extra material themselves at their expense. Given that the rightsholders will probably demand a fairly hefty chunk of the resulting profits (as is their right), this doesn’t provide much of an incentive other than the labour-of-love one.
I recently learned the hard way just how difficult it is - I went into the DVD project I’m currently producing with all sorts of wildly ambitious ideas, but had to scale them back pretty sharply once they came up against the production budget and schedule, availability of suitable mastering materials, music rights issues, and so on. (Don’t get me wrong: I’m still very very happy about the way it’s going, but I just KNOW that some critic or other is going to slag the end result off for “obvious” omissions, as though I hadn’t spent weeks trying to resolve them!)
I’ve been waiting for you Michael
I fully understand the problems the BFI faces, but when faced with, say, their lightweight ‘The Charge of the Light Brigade’ (which seems to have gone OOP) or MGM’s R1 - with what appears to be an equally good transfer - at a fraction of the price what is a boy to do?
I’m on record as saying at the time of it’s release that, should the BFI release have had something in the way of better inducements, a commentary or even just a filmed interview with a Richardson expert, I would have been right there, and slapped my money down with a smile on my face and improved the profits of the BFI instead of sending my hard earned abroad. The BFI has done some sterling work in recent times, there is no denying, but when it does obtain a license for a great British film, by a great British director, I’d like them to do them both justice. I’m not privy to the sales figures, but let’s say they are disappointing; will they shrug it off and say that few wanted it, or will they look at themselves, hold their hands up, and admit that part of the blame lies within? Even in this carniverous commercial environment, they are the British Film Institute; practically every time they work on a British film it should be a ‘labour of love’. (Apologies to those of a sensitive nature if that last bit veered off into ‘Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells’ territory…)
I’ve just bought ‘Thunder Rock’ which is on the ’Partner’ label; a venture between the BBC and Woolworths (!) I believe; decent transfer, no extras, shoved out into the cold on a ‘cheapie’ label. Wouldn’t the BFI loved to have got their hands on that?
BTW, now I’ve mentioned it, just what is the postion with the films that have gone OOP recently; ‘Light Brigade’, ‘A Taste of Honey’, ‘The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner’ and more? Has the license simply expired; and what now for those films?
“BTW, now I’ve mentioned it, just what is the postion with the films that have gone OOP recently; ‘Light Brigade’, ‘A Taste of Honey’, ‘The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner’ and more? Has the license simply expired; and what now for those films?”
You’ve answered your own question - the distribution licence expired, as it also did for the Pasolini titles and various others. As for what now, it depends on what the rightsholders propose to do with them, or on whether anyone else is interested in snapping them up. This is of course another drawback with distributing other people’s films - you only have a limited time with which to recoup your investment.
As for your other comments, I haven’t seen the ‘Charge of the Light Brigade’ DVD and haven’t been privy to any behind-the-scenes stories, so I can’t answer specifics about that particular disc. I also can’t answer your ‘Thunder Rock’ point, except to say that at any given moment there are literally thousands of titles the BFI would love to release, but it only has the resources to cover a few dozen.
But on a more general note, while it would undoubtedly be great if every release was an all-stops-out labour of love crammed to bursting with coruscating extras, the sad fact is that neither funding nor manpower makes this possible - and even quite basic self-generated extras can cost a startling amount once you’ve factored in relevant fees, studio time and professional assistance.
And while hiring freelance producers makes a lot of sense in “labour of love” terms (the producer of the Free Cinema collection got that particular job after completing a PhD on the movement, and my own DVD projects arose out of pre-existing expertise), that’s also a more expensive option than doing it in-house.
And when you bear in mind that specialist titles are never going to race up the charts, with the best will in the world, you’re going to have to compromise somewhere along the line. The trick is doing it in such a way that no-one notices.
My ‘Thunder Rock’ question was largely rhetorical, an example of the standard of film that is ‘uncelebrated’. That’s all very disheartening isn’t it? I expect moreso for those that appear powerless at the heart of the machine; but thanks for answering my question - the Czech is in the post (sorry, couldn’t help it
)
I don’t think it’s so much disheartening as realistic. Part of the problem is that rather too many people erroneously assume that the BFI has vast resources and some kind of magical powers that ordinary distributors don’t possess.
I know this first-hand because we had some gloriously deluded and wonderfully utopian e-mails when Screenonline launched, none of which displayed the slightest awareness of logistics, budgets and copyright (apart from the guy who insisted that once something had been broadcast on telly it automatically passed into the public domain - I forwarded that one to our lawyer, who thanked me for giving him the biggest laugh he’d had all week).
True, the BFI has easier access than most to raw materials, but it’s as powerless as anyone else when it comes to securing permission to do anything with them. And the problem with British films is that the UK rights, almost by definition, tend to be held in perpetuity by large British companies - so it’s paradoxically harder to do a decent independent British release of a mainstream British film than it would be to do one in the US.
One of my points was marketing (and I’m uncomfortably aware that references to the BFI amounted to very little of my original post, but now seems to be the focus of it); I’m amazed, for instance, that knowing the licenses for a number of British classic films were coming to an end, that - as Criterion did with the Hitchcocks that were about to slip out of their hands - they didn’t slap ‘em all in a box set - ‘Saturday Night and Sunday Morning’, ‘The Loneliness of The Long Distance Runner’ and ‘A Taste of Honey’ would have made a great set.
A shiny new box, an informative booklet, not only would it have squeezed the last drops of commercial juice from those titles, but it would also have raised the profile of the BFI, the films in question and British film in general would it not? The BFI’s resources may be limited, but are they really awake to the marketing possibilites? Sometimes, it seems, it’s not down to a lack of cash or resources, just imagination; a problem, as I have said, not limited to the BFI.
Off topic, but I also think they are missing a trick not boxing some of their BBC titles; a Nigel Kneale or Ghost Stories set.
John, with the greatest respect, that’s more than a little unfair. Just because the BFI didn’t adopt your preferred marketing initiative doesn’t mean that they did nothing at all to exploit these titles before the end of their licence, as you seem to be heavily implying.
In actual fact, what happened was that the Daily and Sunday Telegraph recently gave away free copies of two of those titles, with an offer to buy the others at a discount, accompanied by background context-setting articles in the paper (here’s one of them).
In terms of profile-raising, wouldn’t you agree that this was a fair bit more effective in terms of addressing all of your points (particularly the ones about promoting British films to the widest possible audience) than producing yet another niche-market box set aimed purely at film buffs?
Michael; I seem to be in grave danger of appearing to be conducting a witch hunt against the BFI when that is simply not the case. However, suggesting that they could have done better, is not impuning that they did nothing at all.
I’m very pleased for Telegraph readers, I hope they enjoyed them, but that’s the whole point of my post - the more ‘niche-market box set(s) aimed…at film buffs’ (amongst others) that exploit the wealth of British films as yet unreleased, uncelebrated, the better. In my humble, if misguided, opinion, of course.
While I’m on the subject of raising the profile of British cinema in imaginative and unexpected ways, have you seen this yet?
It’s the sequel to this - and the third is currently in production. Sadly, I can’t reveal either the subject or the celebrity presenter just yet, though I can probably get away with confirming that his contribution is already on tape.
Excellent; I’m very pleased (and surprised) that Merton’s Beeb series has provoked so much interest particularly amongst those who previously would not have touched silent films with a barge pole - the very best with these and I hope they have a similar impact.
People like Merton are absolutely crucial ingredients in all this - combining widespread popularity with a passionate and formidably erudite knowledge of the subject. So you get the best of both worlds: a genuinely popular presenter, but without any chance of being accused of selling out.
I was particularly impressed by the way his hour-long BBC4 programmes were structured - i.e. 40 minutes of build-up, and then a representative short in its entirety - and I’d love to see more in a similar vein. (And I have reason to believe, following a recent chat with someone at the BBC, that this may not be an entirely vain hope…)