When Fiona Halton first mooted the idea of a special initiative to revive Britain's ailing film industry she was met with a certain lack of response. Cinema attendance had slumped from 1,200 million in 1953, to 500 million in 1960, to 55 million in 1984, and the distribution and exhibition of films in Britain seemed to be a dying business. Cinema managers hid in their back offices, distributors buried their heads in the bars in the ostrich oasis of London Soho's Wardour Street, and the U.S. majors were considering restricting their releases in the U.K. to video sales.
But Fiona, who left a successful position as a director of the Association of Independent Film Producers, has been compared to Margaret Thatcher in her determination to get things done. "I saw a tremendous gap between the enthusiasm for films and the fact that nobody seemed to go to the cinema," she said. As a result of her efforts she was awarded Britain's Institute of Sales and Marketing Management Award for 1985. "She could have sold us the Eiffel Tower," commented the chairman of the adjudication panel.
Twenty-eight-year-old Ms. Halton was able somehow to sell the idea of having a "British Film Year" (BFY) to the tired and dispirited industry, even though she couldn't get all the support she felt necessary. Just over 1 million pounds was raised, 500,00 pounds from distributors, 325,000 pounds from the Government, and film industry companies and sponsors.
The original purpose of the British Film Year was two-fold: to promote British produced films on the world market and to promote cinema going in Britain. Following the critical, award winning and financial success of Chariots of Fire and Gandhi, British films have been on the upsurge in recent years. When it was realized that the BFY appeal was only going to raise one-third of its proposed budget, it was decided that the bulk of the money be invested in the second purpose, domestic attendance. However, BFY has still been able to stimulate increased interest in recent films, including the low budget features, at a number of international film festivals.
The movie-going public in London (which accounts for 25 percent of United Kingdom admissions and 40 percent of the box office takings from 12.4 percent of the nations' population) is well served, both in the quality of the cinemas and choice of films. A number of independent houses as well as the West End 70 mm and Dolby Stereo theater show foreign and low budget films. But the provinces are not so fortunate. Until recently, the vast majority of cinemas were owned by two distributors, the Rank and Thorn/EMI "duopoly" and their managements seemed to have believed that patrons would appear to see the stars no matter what the state of the theaters was. With the advent of video, however, the public had another option, and a recent survey in one London school revealed that in the twelve to sixteen age group only one in three children had seen a film in a cinema. The largest section of British cinema-goers (29 percent) were "courting couples" who probably had nowhere better to go, and who, when married, would probably settle down with the television and films from the local video library. The empty theater would be closed, turned into a bingo hall, or left deserted.
Yet this past year has seen a dramatic upturn in the British film industry. Thorn /EMI has built its first completely new cinema in 40 years, and a number of
...
Read Full Article
|
