I listen a lot to Radio 3, the classical music channel, especially first thing in the morning. This inevitably involves listening to BBC news bulletins, which can be quite an ordeal. This morning, as my brain surfaced into consciousness, I heard a strange item, about how the government intends to switch the subsidies it gives to the British movie industry towards more popular movies, presumably away from whatever unpopular movies government subsidies had hitherto been encouraging.
Two questions immediately present themselves.
First, how does the government expect to be able to foretell which films will be popular, before they are made? Many very highly paid, very clever people routinely fail in this task, despite such people entirely concentrating (in extreme contrast to people run governments) on trying to be right about such things. What makes our government suppose that it can do any better than such persons?
And second, are not “popular” movies the exact sort of movies as would be encouraged in a totally free market? So what is the point of such subsidies? Would it not be more sensible simply to get rid of them altogether?
This seems to be the story that my half-awake mind latched onto this morning. For once, I agree with Ken Loach, who appears briefly in the video report. This is indeed typical Tory crassness. Many “mainstream” movies, or at any rate movies intended to be maintream, fail. But, and here I presumably do not agree with Ken Loach, all other government movie subsidies are also crass.
First, how does the government expect to be able to foretell which films will be popular, before they are made?
I think that the issue is that choosing to make a commercially successful film is hard.
On the other hand, choosing to make a commercially unsuccessful film is relatively easy, and this is what they are doing at the moment.
(Yes, I know that the plot of The Producers is lurking somewhere in this comment).
Hi,
Thank you for your nice writing on Picking movie winners?I like it.
Thanks
Subsiding popular movies is an idiotic policy. If they are popular they won’t need subsidies.
Which movies will be popular? Sam Goldwyn said ‘Nobody knows anything.’
Cameron and his mates should have this policy opened up to inspection and shown for the idiocy it is.
Subsidising unpopular movies ? More difficult to convince the undecided as to why this is a bad idea, but worth a try.
I’m pretty sure, as MJ alludes, that this is about stopping all those terrible lefty propaganda films that the liberal intelligensia love so much from seeing ht elight of day.
If the Govt can change a policy that prevents these from being made and make that cost neutral then I’m not going to cry about the “still funding popular films” which is clearly designed to allow the Culture secretary to answer the the “impartial” BBC interviewer.
It’s easy to pick commercially successful films: look at the ones which maid lots of money. Then give the film makers public money.
“maid”? Gahh! MADE!
Does the State sponsor the writing of books? Why film?
Government-sponsored bodice-rippers and chick lit are in the NEXT five-year plan, Rob.
Maybe such decisions should be left to that other Cameron? But then again…
I’m not sure what effing business it is of “government”, as to whether there should be a film industry, or what it should produce.
If there was a true market in culture, and a level playing field, then people which make interminable boring lefty films with very long cuts, poorly shot, about sad people who all die of things due to capitalism, would go bust.
People who make interesting and exciting and uplifting films, about how the GramscoStaliNazi anti-hero gets wasted at the last moment by the Revolutionary-Liberalist hero (aided of couse by his girl) will make loads of money.
There is no need for States to get involved at all.
This is how I feel about ‘popular’ shows on the BBC. I understand the elitist authoritarian viewpoint for its existence. It seems to basically boil down to.
“The little people don’t know whats good for them so we, their cultural masters, must supply them with the dose of Kultur they need in order to expand their pitifully limited horizons. Its for their own good.”
Along with this there is a bunch other parochial bullshit about National Prestige the importants of The Arts yadayadayada.
I get it.
It’s utterly vile wicked nonsense but I get it…
I do not understand the public funding of ‘popular’ entertainment in any way shape or form. What is the argument for using taxation to produce something like East Enders? The free market is not efficient at meeting the public demand for day time soap operas? (why not? What has caused this market failure?)
I’d make the same argument about BBC radio stations devoted to Top 40 pop music. Is it the case that without government funding the populace listens to an insufficient amount of Lady Gaga?
Can someone please explain the thinking behind this?
Not being sarcastic here. I would love to understand the underlying chain of reasoning.
Circuses, as in ‘bread and circuses’? IOW, shameless base populism, as opposed to sophisticated snarky elitism?
Maybe I’m just being obtuse still don’t get it.
If there is one thing a free market is good for it is producing popular entertainment. Even absent the BBC there are no lack of circuses.
If you spend public money on something you are implicitly arguing that there would not be enough of that something otherwise.Do the people who greenlight this stuff think that the free market is producing an insufficient volume of Top 40 radio, reality tv and celebrity waffle? Do they seriously sincerely believe that a free market would will produce a socially sub-optimal amount of low brow crap?
Ah, I see the point you are missing: see, the crap produced by private market is not free – you either have to pay for it directly, or are forcedto watch commercials (which, among other things, corrupt you and your children, forcingyou and them to buy crap you don’t need). Conversely, the crap produced by the government (i.e. the BBC) is given to you for free. Big difference.
Face it. You had the Labour : The Socialist left. Now you have the others : The Socialist Right.
Its perhaps worth noting that Ridley Scott owes his career to the UK taxpayer.
You cannot predict how a film will perform, and its initial box office does not decide its fate. Films such as Its A Wonderful Life and Bladerunner flopped at their initial release but have made far more money than the film’s which beat them at the box office at their original release.
Inception, a film which everyone in Hollywood thought would flop, became a box office hit. Nolan has repeatedly showed smart films can triumph at the box office. Nolan applies his intelligence to both his “arthouse” and “commerical” films (as do Del Toro, Cuaron, and Jones) showing a distinct lack of snobbery.
The problem with British films is their smallness and their (deliberate) visual dullness. Its considered “shallow” to want to make a film visually striking. Also, the British hate the idea of “art for art’s sake”, hence why most British film’s are obssessed with making statements, thus proving Francois Truffaut’s point. The point of art is it is meant to question and explore ideas and stories, having a political agenda kills that as there’s no discovery. Indeed many supposedly great British film-makers, such as Loach, are every bit as formulaic as Hollywood; there’s the same repetition of tropes, the same tedious fixation on male characters, etc.
(BTW Snobbery comes in many forms, of course, and Michael Bay is clearly just as guilty of it as Loach, as evidenced by his arrogant contempt toward the Transformers lore (“we will kill them all” wtf?!) and source material (ignoring Budiansky and Furman). If Bay had made Dark Knight, doubtless Batman would be slaughtering people left and right, while riding a giant worm, then hovering in the sunset).
Duncan Jones’ Moon is one of the few British films that really does break away from the heritage costume drama/gritty/gangster/rom-com dirge.
It’s perhaps revealing that its hard to imagine a British film-maker making something like Pan’s Labyrinth, District 9 or Cyrano De Bergerac.
Oh no.
More “government subsidy should act like a free market” stuff.
From people who would not know a free market if they fell over one. As they prove by thinking they can finance a free market with tax money.
Ken Loach is very much in favor of subsidizing films, just not anything people would actually pay to go and see.
https://twitter.com/#!/yungkha/status/157031642869932032
Nigel Holland.
Quite so.
But the reply of the present government “taxpayer subsidy is O.K. – as long as it is for popular stuff” is no reply to Ken Loach.
Indeed it is LOACH who is taking the logic of interventionism to its logical conclusion – not the government (which is just being demented).
As Ludwig Von Mises often pointed out…..
It is the MOST intelligent (not least intelligent) students who go for collectivism.
Why?
Because the alternatives they are presented with (in school and university and …..) are between collectivism and half baked (and utterly confused) interventionism (as with this suggested government policy) and, of the two, the collectivist alternative appears more rational – as it is the logical conculsion of the principles that “both sides” admit.
Of course opposition to collectivism on grounds of PRINCIPLE (i.e. being presented with fundementally alternative PRINCIPLES to those of collectivism) is not something that most school children or unversity students experience.
Although I do not believe that this is inevitable – in different circumstances (for example if there was no government funding of education) the environment MIGHT be very different. Although it would still depend on human choices – it would not be an automatic change in what was taught.