Cuts Kill off British Film

FTBFun

tomterm8 wrote: »

Maybe they should put the £100 million odd into a 8 man investment company with the remit of making as much profit as they can for the british public. No arty farty stuff, just good old fashion British escapism, violence, and pr0n.

Run well, we could reduce the artistic merit of british cinema, and make a pot of cash for the state. A win-win situation, I'm sure you agree.

I like this.

As long as Danny Dyer isn't in any of the films, obviously.

StevieJ

nicko33 wrote: »

or even
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BFI_Top_100_British_films

Wow fantastic :T I really do love British films, French ones are pretty good too (always being ripped off by the Yanks), the US do have the odd great one like The Silence of the Lambs but they produce masses of junk as well.

tincans

A._Badger wrote: »

They also push a liberal/left viewpoint, almost without exception - as does the state subsidised theatre.

Why entertainment industry luvvies feel they are entitled to have their fabulous upper-middle class lifestyles funded by everyone else is one of the paradoxes of the socialist mind.

Most of the early James Bond films enjoyed a UK "London subsidy" - which the government used to attract filmmakers.

Certainly Dr No through to Diamonds are Forever (and pretty sure after that).

These films certainly push a pinko, liberal, homoerotic viewpoint alongside other state subsidised arts organisations such as the Royal Opera house, The National Portrait gallery, English Heritage etc, etc

Other liberal / leftist organisations to receive government subsidy in one form or another are all the UK defence companies.

:rotfl::rotfl:

Angelic

Sad news. The tories have it in for the Arts which is a shame and Mike Leigh is underrated in this country of philistines who'd rather watch soaps !
There was a lot wrong with the UK Film Council but to totally remove it is wrong when a rearrangement would have been more beneficial.
We should be like the French and make more films instead of importing Hollywood/bollywood tripe.
I wonder if they will find the money to maintain the forces , buy guns and pay people not to wrok...

StevieJ

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Other British films I do not like

• Everything Ken Loach did apart from the one about the Spanish Civil War

Kes by Loach was an absolute classic, so many brilliant scenes, the football one in particular.

A._Badger

tincans wrote: »

Most of the early James Bond films enjoyed a UK "London subsidy" - which the government used to attract filmmakers.

Certainly Dr No through to Diamonds are Forever (and pretty sure after that).

These films certainly push a pinko, liberal, homoerotic viewpoint alongside other state subsidised arts organisations such as the Royal Opera house, The National Portrait gallery, English Heritage etc, etc

Other liberal / leftist organisations to receive government subsidy in one form or another are all the UK defence companies.

:rotfl::rotfl:

Are you seriously trying to pretend that output of the state subsidised performing arts sector is not absolutely and overwhelmingly of the liberal/left?

A._Badger

Angelic wrote: »

Sad news. The tories have it in for the Arts which is a shame and Mike Leigh is underrated in this country of philistines who'd rather watch soaps !.

A bit snobbish, isn't it? They pay for it, so why shouldn't they watch what they like?

Or is it (in good socialist style) that the proles shoud be fed solely what middle class 'intellectuals' want them to be fed?

StevieJ

A._Badger wrote: »

A bit snobbish, isn't it? They pay for it, so why shouldn't they watch what they like?

Or is it (in good socialist style) that the proles shoud be fed solely what middle class 'intellectuals' want them to be fed?

Interesting that the most popular soaps in the UK are British made

FTBFun

A._Badger wrote: »

Are you seriously trying to pretend that output of the state subsidised performing arts sector is not absolutely and overwhelmingly of the liberal/left?

Probably because righties don't do arty things particulary well.

Angelic

A._Badger wrote: »

A bit snobbish, isn't it? They pay for it, so why shouldn't they watch what they like?

Or is it (in good socialist style) that the proles shoud be fed solely what middle class 'intellectuals' want them to be fed?

I don't know if i'm being snobbish but you are barking up the wrong tree if you think i'm a middle class intellectual as i'm the opposite and probably part of the underclass the more I think of it...

I just think that the Arts are an important part of life and that we deserve to have a choice. Mike Leigh and Ken Loach have made some beautiful films and I suppose some are difficult to watch if you prefer light popcorn entertainment with happy endings but surely there should be room enough for both?