Cuts Kill off British Film

ruggedtoast

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-10773054

In a letter to the British film industry, John Woodward, Chief Executive of the Film Council, said he had been informed that "the target is to have the organisation totally closed down with its assets and its remaining operations transferred out by April 2012".

Hooray! :j:j:j

I hate British films. If I never see another depressing kitchen sink drama, or Sci Fi with childrens BBC special effects as long as I live itll be too long.

The worst thing is when you get something from Blockbuster and then put it in the DVD player and get that heart sinking feeling when you realise that instead of picking up a slickly produced well acted piece of American cinema, you've inadvertantly chosen a lottery funded British film that looks like it was made by a bunch of 6th formers, who ended up getting a C for Media Studies.

According to the piece, Mike Leigh is upset. What a shame, as without him we would never have had to endure:

• 2010 - Another Year
• 2008 - Happy-Go-Lucky
• 2004 - Vera Drake
• 2002 - All or Nothing
• 1999 - Topsy-Turvy
• 1997 - Career Girls
• 1995 - Secrets & Lies
• 1993 - Naked
• 1990 - Life Is Sweet
• 1988 - High Hopes
• 1985 - Four Days in July
• 1971 - Bleak Moments

All complete and utter maudlin sh1te. Especially Vera Drake, and Happy Go Lucky which I couldnt even get to the end of.

Die British film die.

This and speed cameras is a good thing.

mramra

Quality rant!

carolt

Nonsense - some great British fims.

Do I take it you're not a fan of Hugh Grant either?

FTBFun

Slumdog Millionaire is a British film. Do you think that is rubbish too?

drc

The luvvie. Soon to be an extinct species :T.

FTBFun wrote: »

Slumdog Millionaire is a British film. Do you think that is rubbish too?

Yes, it's absolute cack.

kalaika

I've seen some excellent British films.

Yes, there are some shockers, but let's not forget that for every "slickly produced well acted piece of American cinema" that Hollywood produces there is also plenty of utter tosh such as The Hottie and the Nottie, Gigli or Glitter.

princeofpounds

I wasn't that bothered by this cut. Then I too read the press releases and interviews by the luvvies.

I suddenly switched to being a big supporter of the cuts!

Joking aside, just looking at the numbers should help a person realise that there was something deeply wrong in that funding body. It employed 75 people to distribute £16m pa.

That means is took one person* to distribute every $200k of funding over a whole year. That's a ridiculously small amount, atrociously inefficient. Any kind of private venture capital enterprise (which this is) would collapse within no time at all if they were that bad at getting money into the right projects efficiently.

And then I got thinking about Mike Leigh... he's got a nice lifestyle, is probably quite rich. Why should the public purse be paying him with a slush fund for vanity projects? It's not his money, ultimately it's yours and mine as a taxpayer and this is almost a frivolous use of it.

* edit: plus attendent staff budget and expenses including lunches with many famous directors and stars of course, and trips to film festivals no doubt.

Generali

princeofpounds wrote: »

I wasn't that bothered by this cut. Then I too read the press releases and interviews by the luvvies.

I suddenly switched to being a big supporter of the cuts!

Joking aside, just looking at the numbers should help a person realise that there was something deeply wrong in that funding body. It employed 75 people to distribute £16m pa.

That means is took one person* to distribute every $200k of funding over a whole year. That's a ridiculously small amount, atrociously inefficient. Any kind of private venture capital enterprise (which this is) would collapse within no time at all if they were that bad at getting money into the right projects efficiently.

And then I got thinking about Mike Leigh... he's got a nice lifestyle, is probably quite rich. Why should the public purse be paying him with a slush fund for vanity projects? It's not his money, ultimately it's yours and mine as a taxpayer and this is almost a frivolous use of it.

* edit: plus attendent staff budget and expenses including lunches with many famous directors and stars of course, and trips to film festivals no doubt.

In comparison, 7 people (including the Board of Directors) could run an investment fund of £100,000,000 pretty easily.

carolt

princeofpounds wrote: »

I wasn't that bothered by this cut. Then I too read the press releases and interviews by the luvvies.

I suddenly switched to being a big supporter of the cuts!

Joking aside, just looking at the numbers should help a person realise that there was something deeply wrong in that funding body. It employed 75 people to distribute £16m pa.

That means is took one person* to distribute every $200k of funding over a whole year. That's a ridiculously small amount, atrociously inefficient. Any kind of private venture capital enterprise (which this is) would collapse within no time at all if they were that bad at getting money into the right projects efficiently.

And then I got thinking about Mike Leigh... he's got a nice lifestyle, is probably quite rich. Why should the public purse be paying him with a slush fund for vanity projects? It's not his money, ultimately it's yours and mine as a taxpayer and this is almost a frivolous use of it.

* edit: plus attendent staff budget and expenses including lunches with many famous directors and stars of course, and trips to film festivals no doubt.

Agreed - I did wonder why on earth they needed a staff of 75 people.

FTBFun

drc wrote: »

Yes, it's absolute cack.

Fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion. It was a great critical and commercial success, mind.

I paid money to see "Batman and Robin" btw so its not just British films that can be terrible!

I still think the Film Council should have been scrapped, mind, as it appears to have been somewhat inefficient.

Mr_Mumble

I saw Pan's Labyrinth at the cinema and was rather embarrassed when "film distribution funded by the National Lottery and the UK Film Council" popped up at the beginning. It's rather ridiculous that access to these films, watched by upmarket demographics, is being funded by the working classes who buy lottery tickets. Are the rich really going to be that worse off if they have to watch it on their own TV rather than in a theatre?! Hopefully all toff subsidies will be cut before any services for the genuinely needy.