Geoffrey Macnab, The British Film Industry in 25 Careers: The Mavericks, Visionaries and Outsiders Who Shaped British Cinema

2022 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 106-108
Author(s):  
Andrew Spicer
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
Michael Ahmed

Eric Schaefer, in his exploration of the American exploitation industry, has argued that exploitation cinema developed in opposition to mainstream Hollywood products. Furthermore, the topics and subject matter presented in early American exploitation films dealt with subjects Hollywood were unwilling to produce. As a result, the production, distribution and exhibition strategies developed by exploitation filmmakers differed markedly from the American mainstream film industry. However, in Britain (amongst critics and scholars) the exploitation film has no similar defining characteristics and is a term that has been applied to a wide variety of British films without regard to their industrial mode of production, distribution or exhibition. As a result, the cultural currency of the British exploitation film, as it is now understood, has no connection to the films they now describe, and often fails to take into account how these films were originally produced, marketed, distributed and exhibited. In the British film industry during the 1960s, the term ‘exploitation’ was used by the industry to refer to a wide variety of films which are now viewed differently by contemporary critics and academics. In other words, the currency of the term exploitation has changed from its original meaning. Therefore, this article is an attempt to reframe the debate around the meaning of the British exploitation film from the 1960s onwards, and to re-evaluate our understanding of the development of British cinema during this period.


2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 34-49
Author(s):  
Laura Mayne

Despite being one of the most significant players in the British film industry of the 1960s and 1970s, Nat Cohen remains a curiously neglected figure in histories of that era. At Anglo-Amalgamated he oversaw a varied slate of productions, from B-movies and cheap programmers to box-office successes like Ken Loach’s Poor Cow. He greenlit some of the greatest commercial hits of the 1960, including New Wave dramas ( Billy Liar, A Kind of Loving), pop musicals ( Catch Us If You Can) and horror films now widely considered to be classics of British cinema ( Peeping Tom). After Anglo-Amalgamated was acquired as part of EMI’s takeover of the Associated British Pictures Corporation (ABPC), Cohen headed Anglo-EMI, where his business acumen and shrewd commercial instincts led to him being dubbed ‘King Cohen’ by the press and widely recognised as one of the most powerful men in the British film industry. Drawing on recent scholarly work on the role of the producer, this article will explore links between Anglo-ABPC and EMI through the lens of Cohen’s career and distinctive ‘movie mogul’ persona.


2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Merle Peirce

<p>Little notice has been paid to the British film industry and the way in which it was able to effect changes during the inter-war years, in particular 1930-1939. Members of the Foreign office and the Special Intelligence Services were able, through the subtle choice and influencing of specific filmic texts, to bring the British populace from a pacifist attitude, to one of resigned acceptance of the inevitability of war and the need for re-armament in the face of a growing German menace.</p>


2014 ◽  
Vol 11 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 312-331
Author(s):  
Erik Hedling

In spring 1986, Lindsay Anderson appeared in a television programme on British cinema. This was part of a series of three under the heading British Cinema: Personal View, produced by Thames Television. Anderson's contribution, Free Cinema 1956–? An Essay on Film by Lindsay Anderson, was written and directed by him. He was also the star of the programme, providing a lecture on the history of British cinema with himself at the very core, although, at the time of the production, Anderson's career was in decline and he was not involved in any film projects. Drawing on press materials, the programme itself and Anderson's personal papers in the University of Stirling library, this article analyses Anderson's personal conception of Free Cinema – according to his understanding, a short-lived documentary movement in the 1950s which eventually transformed itself into a series of feature films in the ensuing decades, particularly his own trilogy If…. (1968), O Lucky Man! (1973) and Britannia Hospital (1982). The polemic in the programme was particularly aimed at the general idea of the British Film Year of 1985 and at the successful film producer David Puttnam, at the time well known for his contribution to what was sometimes called the ‘New British Cinema’ of the 1980s. Anderson, however, dismissed Puttnam as a film-maker concerned only with Oscars and economic success, and instead lauded the qualities of ‘Free Cinema’, a realist, non-conformist and radical aesthetic, as the most artistically rewarding tradition in British cinema. The programme was highly entertaining and was generally well received by the British press, but did not really strengthen Anderson's position within the British film industry, which might, or might not, have been Anderson's intention.


2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-33
Author(s):  
Andrew Spicer

The article argues that Bernard Delfont played a significant role in the development of the British film industry in the 1970s as head of EMI's entertainment division that included film. In contradistinction to existing accounts, it is contended that Delfont provided dynamic leadership to the corporation's policies through the skills and knowledge he had developed as a highly successful theatrical impresario, even if he lacked a detailed understanding of the film industry. Delfont made a series of bold choices. The first was to appoint Bryan Forbes as Head of Film Production in an imaginative attempt to revitalise the British film industry using indigenous resources and talent. The commercial failure of this initiative occasioned Forbes's departure and a more cautious regime under the direction of Nat Cohen. Faced with a rapidly shrinking domestic market, Delfont decided that a thoroughgoing internationalism was the only way to sustain EMI's film business. He sidelined Cohen by appointing two young ‘buccaneers’, Michael Deeley and Barry Spikings in May 1976 to pursue a policy of investing in Hollywood films and producing ‘American’ films financed by British money. This radical strategy was controversial and reconfigured EMI as a ‘supranational’ rather than national film producer. This was intensified by Delfont's boldest move: establishing Associated Film Distributors (AFD) in July 1979, in partnership with his brother Lew Grade's Associated Communication Company, to distribute their companies' films and become a major Hollywood player. Its failure, after only 20 months, coupled with spectacular production losses effectively ended both companies as important film production units. Delfont's career demonstrates the wider significance of the risk-taking impresario in understanding British film as a business enterprise, the importance of the policies and tastes of studio heads and the need to reposition the film industry as part of wider entertainment and leisure provision.


Author(s):  
G. M. Brown ◽  
D. F. Brown ◽  
J. H. Butler

The term “gel”, in the jargon of the plastics film industry, may refer to any inclusion that produces a visible artifact in a polymeric film. Although they can occur in any plastic product, gels are a principle concern in films where they detract from the cosmetic appearance of the product and may compromise its mechanical strength by acting as local stress concentrators. Many film gels are small spheres or ellipsoids less than one millimeter in diameter whereas other gels are fusiform-shaped and may reach several centimeters in length. The actual composition of gel inclusions may vary from miscellaneous inorganics (i.e. glass and mineral particles) and processing additives to heavily oxidized, charred or crosslinked polymer. The most commonly observed gels contain polymer differing from the bulk of the sample in its melt viscosity, density or molecular weight.Polymeric gels are a special concern in polyethylene films. Over the years and with the examination of a variety of these samples three predominant polymeric species have been observed: density gels which have different crystallinity than the film; melt-index gels in which the molecular weight is different than the film and crosslinked gels which are comprised of crosslinked polyethylene.


2020 ◽  
pp. 83-108
Author(s):  
Moon Hwy-Chang ◽  
Wenyang Yin

Although North Korea is one of the most closed countries in the world, it has long been pursuing international cooperation with other countries in order to upgrade the quality of its film industry to international standards. Preceding studies on this topic have mainly focused on the political influences behind filmmaking in general and very few studies have exclusively dealt with North Korea’s international co-productions. In this respect, in order to develop a comprehensive understanding of the internalization strategy of North Korea’s film productions, this paper uses the global value chain as a framework for analysis. This approach helps understand the internationalization pattern of each value chain activity of film co-productions in terms of the film location and the methods for collaborating with foreign partners. By dividing the evolution of North Korea’s international co-productions into three periods since the 1980s, this paper finds that although North Korea has shown mixed results with different aspects of the film value chain, it has generally improved its internationalization over the three periods. This paper further provides strategic directions for North Korea by learning some of the successful Chinese experiences in the film sector regarding collaboration with foreign partners—to foster a win-win situation for all involved parties.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document