why are 'british' films shit?

Unlike european cinema we expect american production values from our cinema. We make films that have to sell in american, so have to pander to their values to make their money back. Best films already mentioned have been low budget just aiming to make their money back in britain, (life is sweet, shallow grave, land and freedom). Make films for britain in the here and now and maybe they'll be better.

(Oh yeah, Ambrose, you enjoyed chicken run)

Plus lots of great Mike Leigh films, obviously. 'Naked' especially... now that was a film.

Another question to ask is; where are our Marcus Kassowitz, Nanni Moretti, Lars von Trier. There seem to be no young cutting edge directors in england (not that lars and nanni are that young but you know what I mean)

That said I don't think all British films are bad, infact some have been pretty good over the last three years. Stuff coming from Scotland like Ratcatcher and Orphans (easily the the blackest comedy I've seen in ages) were both refreshing and rather moving. Equally some of the newer low key low budget films like The Lowdown or TwentyfourSeven were enjoyable and did not work in the mechanistic way of much overseas film-making. Of course one of the main problems with "British" film-makers is when their films do okay they are easily lured by the money and distribution of America - you can't say why a British film-makers so bad (except for perhaps Simon West).

I think the main problem is - as said above - that our film market is torn between financial success and the longing to make art. Most new films aim at the first without a scant thought that to achieve it on a low budget you cannot completely compromise the later - script quality is about the only thing that does come cheap. Remember mainland Europe churn out loads of films a year of which we tend only to get the cream. Unfortunately the only people who get to see the crap Brit Flicks (not including the hundreds which never get distribution) is Britain itself.

And yes, I quite liked Bridget Jones's Diary as well. Obviously structurally flawed but in the end it was an amusing character piece. Now going to count the number of seperate threads Hugh Grant has been mentioned on.

I think the other key factor is the complete collapse of the British Film industry in the early eighties. The US studios pulled out, the movie making process changed and suddenly became about spectacle - something we do very technically in Britain. But the idea of raising 50 million for a big movie is pretty much unheard of in this country, putting all your eggs in one probably rubbish basket. The sympiotic relationship between the British and American film industries ended and we were left with nothing but technicians.

A good example of doing spectacle on a small scale is the french film 'the rivers of purple' (poss dodgy title trans., Its gone through two languages). Which was an action thriller, much better than a lot of the genre that comes out of the states. I think what the British Film Industry really ought to do is lower its expectations of what can be achieved visually and work on plots. (Basically we could do with a new hitchcock)

Have to say the questions flawed as prob no greater ratio of duffers to gems than in US* (or elsewhere) though when they’re bad they stink (Rancid aluminium, twin town, young Americans, anything with Eddie Izzard or Eric Idle in). Where most would end straight to video in US, they’re given a ‘run out ‘ here with all the attendant hype and bullshit.

There’s a great deal of emotional investment in the UK film industry doing well (what about car manufacturers, farmers, brewers etc) in the US market. Media seems to thrive on the idea that UK work is validated by US success, but other territories just aren’t as important. Bean did ok in US but phenomenally elsewhere in world, though that received little publicity compared to publicity given to the relatively minor successes of UK movies in the US

I haven’t read Mark’s article but I would expect that there just isn’t the money to foster daring and innovative (loss making) works hence if something’s a success you end up getting a number of diluted variants following on Son of Trainspotting, Lock Stock, 4 Weddings etc.

I think cos’ we share a language with the US there is a tendency to skew our movies towards US market e.g. token US star, pandering to national stereotypes, ‘cor blimey guv’ mockneys and Poshos in morning suits with little in between.

However got to stick up for Bridget Jones, despite the upper middle class luvviedom and a truly predictable ending I found it v. funny, plus not many mainstream movies with a joke about anal sex in them. Plus I found Snatch to be funny, pacy and inventive. Monty Python overrated and would have benefited from Sid James being in them (apart from Meaning of Life which is prob darkest, bleakest comedy ever made).

Anyway plenty more great movies knocking around now than in 80’s e.g East is East, Debt Collector, This year’s love

im not really thinking at all of mike leigh etc....

LvT, on the other hand, worked in Danish TV v. productively and daringly, and his movies AND Dogme95 both demonstrate that he has a dynamic philosophy of same. Not that he ever expounds it: in interview he = most entertainly manipulative man who ever lived.

Of course a lot of the established British directors come from the tradition of the the BBC's Play For Today strand which would be stand alone hour / ninety minute dramas. Good training ground for stand alone ninety minute films. This has almost died from TV now - initiatives like Clocking Off (a British Ressources Humaine) and Murder In Mind are welcome.

I for one would watch a Chris Morris movie. His mastery of technique on TV and Radio suggests he could do something very interesting and satirical on film.

Hitchcock was bout by the American Film Industry and thus, the only good thing to ever come out of British Cinema tore up his roots and went American as well -- Thus, an entire generation of American filmmakers grew up stealing from Hitchcock, while the Brits were left with... nohing, really.

Also, picking up what Billy said about the proportion of good films coming out of England versus the proportion from the US, I'm sure there's ten times more tat coming from America.

'Honest' was great, though!

Pete makes the case I meant to make in a far more reasonable and well-informed way.

_________________

'in your dreams'

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0134741/

a bbc tv movie. i remember it vividly.

Meh. It's good but feels like something that has been done before.

always good to set a nebulously impossible bar then watch stuff not meet it.

I've got I think seven debut films on my 2017 ballot that passes that bar.

I am Not a Witch is really good but it's aesthetically fairly ordinary arthouse style without a lot of surprises.

i'm not defending any particular movie here but i srsly distrust any aesthetic with "novelty" central to its values and wondered if you could make clearer what you think "amazing" or "exciting" means

there's an irony here when you argue with imago cos i think both of you value "the new" pretty highly

spooky magic realist witchcraft tone poem meets genuinely hilarious zambian corruption farce, you bet nothing like that's been done before

although in saying that I'm reminded of Arabian Nights which was another recent favourite. maybe surreal political allegory is my thing idk

was asking Fred but yeah thanks for answering imago. one of my big problems with novelty is that "nothing like that's been done" breaks down to "i'm not aware of other things like this" at some point, in any sphere.

and that's before we get to "sure, but was it worth doing?"

what do people like about ben wheatley?

first 3 or 4 movies were nicely opaque/wyrd. he might've jumped the shark now tho.

-_-

Still rate Kill List as just about the best British horror movie of the last X years, but High Rise - so so bad - pointed to the limits of his (and Amy Jump's) abilities. Don't think making American-set films will help him, either.

high rise...madly overwrought retrofuturistic dystopian melodrama, last days of rome to portishead covering abba, feminist magick undercurrent rising to overwhelm, whole thing is basically a punk movie...the goddamn fall over the end credits...I mean sure you can call it bad or weirdly paced but it is compelling, fun, kitschy brilliance imo

Whether its good I don't know however I am not a witch sounds like a few things Sembene has done, as well a couple of African filmmakers.

(but mainly I like wheatley/jump because they made 'a field in england' which is a truly superior treatise on this little benighted nation)

xyzzzz feel free to recommend!

It's exactly like the plot of 'Xala'

think I've discussed this elsewhere but I can't remember a film that has disappointed me more than a field in england

A Field in England and Kill List are both superb. “Compelling” is the last word I’d use to describe High Rise but it does have some good images.

we also haven't mentioned joanna hogg's last two films yet, both of which i think fred likes? idk *shrugs* they're p great

I dare say there's an extent to which you can say ________ is making some really exciting films at the moment but i suspect all or nearly all of those countries are in east asia so i'm not sure why you'd single out britain as lacking excitement.

x-post: Haven't seen them. Really want to!

My favorite British film from the last few years - apart from the Paddingtons! - is probably Ben Rivers' 'The Sky Trembles and the World is Afraid and the Two Eyes are Not Brothers'.

And other countries that excites me: Denmark, Sweden, Iceland, Portugal, Romania (still), Italy, etc. Lots of countries make exciting things. Russia is probably the one big one where I feel as confused about how little is going on as with Britain.

This is a weird complaint (and lol @ listing Denmark, Sweden and Iceland). Britain just doesn't (odd filmmaker aside) embrace the sorts of aesthetics in places like Romania or Argentina or Iran or parts of East Asia, say. Of the current bunch I think Hogg probably engages with it (given her interest in Akerman) but I haven't seen her films.

What we come out with is stuff like Apostasy and God's Own Country, and they are fine debuts that speak to things locally. There probably is something to be said for the aesthetic of BBC Films, which is illustrated by this pair - they are accomplished, well-acted, with nuance in their treatment of subject and yet they lack a scene that pushes it over the line. But that isn't to say that the people involved won't do something really great in future.

Overall a bunch of filmmakers are making good stuff, it feels like they are supported. xp

Lady Macbeth perhaps has that quality you can't quite pin down. GOC has it at times, the way the story expands to say or show something broader, more poetic or more widely relevant than what is being explicitly addressed on screen.

Maybe, anyway!

Well, I guess that's as comprehensive an answer to the question as can be.

I do get a bit sad at the idea that there's something inherently exotic about modern experimental film aesthetics. Most films from Romania and Iran and East Asia is just as drab and conventional as everywhere else, in most countries it's just a couple of weirdoes. (And the traditional East Asian film nations has kinda declined recently, which iirc has to do with China's rise as a film nation crowding out local industries. The flipside to that is that China has made a lot of great films recently, with that Elephant Sitting Still being the latest example)

But if what you say is right, perhaps it's the film system in Britain that makes it more samey than should be? Does BBC perhaps have too much power? The reason Danish cinema is so great at the moment is due to a specific political prioritization of low-budget cinema which has led to a bunch of young directors getting the chance, resulting in festival winners like Winter Brothers, The Guilty and Holiday the last year. And they've probably killed that by giving the power over the purse back to the tv-stations, who don't care about that.

jed - agree that it isn't as straightforward with GOC, just loved the sequence of the main leads working the land and building their r/ship. I enjoyed Lady Macbeth enough, that was an unexpected adaptation of a story I really like.

I should read that.

I know most local films in those countries are purely conventional made for the market and we are looking at things that travel on the festival circuit. But it isn't just a couple of weirdoes. Like, quite a lot of Romanian films in the last decade or more by quite a few directors, enough for the bfi to recently have a whole month retro.

Can't comment on how UK film is funded rn but there is more of (massive generalisation alert) a realist tradition going on here. That isn't bad at all, there is variety to this, its just not what you might count as exciting. It used to be that a lot of the talent was snapped up by TV as well -- which totally scanned when I watched a lot of it -- but that view is not something I've re-visited recently.

Romania is the big miracle country, but that's still only four really great ones (Puiu, Porumboiu, Mungiu and now Jude) and they've been greatly helped by the fact that the local cinema distribution system is still, well, pretty fucked if I understand it correctly. It's not as if there's something in the water in Romania that makes them see things differently, and that Britain couldn't equally easily get back the adventurousness from the Greenaway/Jarman/Potter period.

There was more than four of those directors in that bfi retro (and its a range of good to great - your "only really great ones" is part of the problem with your initial complaint - Romanian New Wave is a bit of marketing and scene/myth making making but it wouldn't stick if the films weren't there). Equally some countries just have that kind of arthouse cinema scene with ppl exploring similar types of aesthetics and issues (ppl that seem to know one another too) and its an interesting story of how the legacy of 60s/70s cinema took over in countries like Argentina or Romania (Iran is more 60s/70s but its definitely gone on and on).

Greenaway and Jarman seem totally diff sorts and again it never added to a kind of movement (and I don't like either, especially have very little time for Jarman). There was definitely more exciting stuff in Taiwan in the same period.

(iirc Jarman and Terence Davies got a lot of their funding from Channel 4 so there is a cinema/TV continuity there maybe to current BBC films era)

How could I forget Terence Davies!!! Tbf he made the best film of the last few years, so... perhaps not that shit.

The, relative, strength of British TV, historically anyway, is definitely a factor. Maybe the theatre too, it's generally shit but it has had exaggerated respect in the UK imo.

Thanks to someone's recommendation of the BFI Flipside documentary, I ended up buying one of the films profiled: Privilege by Peter Watkins.
It's about the british government using a pop star to seduce his fans into religious nationalism. I thought it was slightly too long and occasionally too on the nose but the portrayal of the pop star's anxiety, frustration and the way he has been infantilized was quite powerful. The advert for apples and the anarchist character were quite fun too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_dZEky0KAw

I've had that on my wish list forever, seems quite unWatkinslike in some ways. There's a fair bit of on the noseness in most of his films but he's so good at moving his camera and creating an authentic sense of documentary that it never bothers me

It's about the british government using a pop star to seduce his fans into religious nationalism.

Gotta say this doesn't appeal to me. But he is one of the greats and he made an appearance to introduce a screening of La Commune, which was a great way to go. Edward Munch is also fantastic!

I was not at that screening, sadly.

I didn't know there was a Flipside documentary - only know it as a BFI sub-label for brit grindhouse stuff. I own two releases: The Pleasure Girls (really good, surprisingly feminist movie about a flatshare of young women in 60's London - also has Klaus Kinski as a love interest, if you can believe that) and The Party's Over (about the dangers of bohemian nihilism - preachy, whiny moral majority bollocks. Good Oliver Reed perf tho!). I also saw Man Of Violence, which is in that collection too, on the telly once - terrible movie, but kind of fascinating in its total incompetence, and fwiw it does feature a male protagonist who has sex with a dude, which is pretty progressive for 1970's British genre cinema.

Other Flipside discs I would recommend:

Herostratus, Duffer/The Moon Over The Valley, Deep End, The Black Panther, the BS Johnson anthology You're Human Like the Rest of Them, Symptoms and Psychomania.

Privilege is Watkins' most conventional film, and yes, suffers a bit from didactic obviousness, but it's interesting too to see a 60s 'youth' film express disillusionment with the notion of popular music as a form of subversion.

I really enjoyed Black Panther, Donald Sumpter is tremendous in it.

He is. And yes, I loved the grimy banality of the 70s settings - brought to mind other, similar shabby British serial killer texts like the film of 10 Rillington Place, or Gordon Burns' Happy Like Murderers.

I have a lot of the Flipside films on DVD/BD; one of the few rewarding parts of my job around 2008-11 was getting these as freebies for working on the subtitling (yearned after all the COI / Free Cinema / Humphrey Jennings compilations too, but didn't have enough input on those to blag anything). Deep End might be the best.

I'll also rep for Queen Of Spades, KJB. May be Anton Walbrook's best performance.

― the clones of tldr funkenstein (James Redd and the Blecchs), Tuesday, February 2, 2010

This is newly released on disc by Kino Lorber in the US, and I recommend; superbly crafted, a Scorsese favorite.

Walbrook's antihero hisses with such reptilian duplicity that I couldn't help but see Peter Lorre in the role, and sure enough, he played it in a radio adaptation of the Pushkin story.

The Railway Children Return, fuck this let's take off and nuke the British film industry from orbit

Wonder if I need BFI Player to watch Queen of Spades again.

hey look it's the guy who has bad, wrong, smug opinions on TV for money

Like all 1970s British movies, great cast shit film.

— David Quantick (@quantick) July 17, 2022

i just watched dirty pretty things with my kids and 3/4 of the way through they asked why it was so boring and i wanted to throw them both through the window

IT’S FUCKING ART YOU CRETINS

DPT is grebt but it's also a very "keep these spaces liminal!" film

now that i’ve settled down i have had to admit it is not really a movie for kids

but yes it is full of liminality isn’t it - a minicab backroom, a hotel kitchen, an airport, an shared apartment with only one key, a mortuary… the river styx is even invoked at one point

the way the gang joined up at the end to pull off a plan made me think of kaurismaki