Film production in the UK in the 1990s and 2000s

Film England ◽  
2011 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
Johnny Walker

Chapter 2 contemplates why British horror was revived at the dawning of the new millennium, and also considers some of the reasons why British horror films produced in the 2000s and 2010s can be viewed as constituting a distinctive aspect of contemporary British cinema. I discuss the establishment of the UK Film Council (UKFC) in 2000 and contextualise the contemporary British horror film in the international film marketplace, drawing parallels between British horror and British film production more broadly, British horror and international horror production, and the audience demographics targeted by distributers and film production companies. This involves examining British horror’s shift from a theatrical genre to one associated primarily with the home video and online market.


Author(s):  
David Thackeray

Chapter 5 considers the role that Britannic loyalism played in various facets of everyday life in the UK and the Dominions, exploring developments in the fields of advertising and market research, attempts to promote Commonwealth collaboration in non-fiction film production and distribution, and the politics of post-war patriotic trade campaigns. The dismantling of import controls in the late 1950s and early 1960s led to a revival in patriotic trade campaigns. However, such campaigns increasingly came to be seen as outmoded during these years, jeopardizing trade with growing foreign markets. Moreover, changes in the advertising and marketing industries, and the growth of market research, discouraged businesses from making undifferentiated appeals to national markets. Earlier ideas that consumers across the British World had broadly similar interests and tastes were comprehensively challenged with the expansion of segmented marketing.


2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 50-76
Author(s):  
Claire Monk

First coined in the UK in the early 1990s as a new label for an ostensibly new, post-1979 kind and cycle of period cinema, the ‘heritage film’ is now firmly established as a widely used term and category in academic film studies. Although the heritage film’s defining features, ideological character and ontological coherence would remain debated, its status as a ‘new’ category hinges, self-evidently, on the presumption that the films of post-1979 culturally English heritage cinema marked a new departure and were clearly distinct from their pre-Thatcher-era precursors. Yet, paradoxically, the British period/costume films of the preceding decade, the 1970s, have attracted almost no scholarly attention, and none which connects them with the post-1979 British heritage film, nor the 1980s cultural and industry conditions said to have fostered these productions with those of the 1970s. This article pursues these questions through the prism of Britain’s largest film production and distribution entity throughout 1970–86, EMI, and EMI’s place as a significant and sustained, but little-acknowledged, force in British period film production throughout that time. In so doing, the article establishes the case for studying ‘pre-heritage’ period cinema. EMI’s period film output included early proto-heritage films but also ventured notably wider. This field of production is examined within the broader terrain of 1970s British and American period cinema and within wider 1970s UK cinema box-office patterns and cultural trends, attending to commercial logics as well as to genre and the films' positioning in relation to the later heritage film debates.


Author(s):  
John Billheimer

This chapter traces the origins of film censorship in Great Britain, in particular the development of the British Board of Film Censors, which was managed by Joseph Brooke Wilkinson over the years Alfred Hitchcock was directing films in England. The chapter cites examples of the Board’s general impact on film production in the UK and on Hitchcock in particular. In comparison with American film censorship, with its emphasis on sex and violence, British censors proved to be more interested in social and political issues. Their concern for worker strikes caused them to ban the classic Battleship Potemkin for over twenty years.


Author(s):  
Gillian Doyle

This chapter examines how the UK Film Council managed and organised the allocation of public funds for film production, after taking over the administration of Lottery funding from the Arts Council of England and incorporating existing film investment bodies British Screen Finance and the BFI’s Production Department. It outlines how a distinctive model was pursued through the creation of three separate streams led by industry professionals, in the form of the Development, New Cinema and Premiere Funds. Drawing on interviews with the Heads of Funds and key stakeholders from the independent film sector, it traces how the funding schemes developed over two phases while reflecting on the often difficult relationships between fund heads and independent producers in the UK.


2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clive James Nwonka

This article traces the evolution of diversity policy in the British film industry and seeks to explore how the under-representation of BAME groups has been defined vis-à-vis shifting political discourses, in particular those emerging from the Conservative-dominated coalition government which came to power in 2010. This also enables an exploration of how various diversity issues have been addressed within the specifically depoliticised language used to articulate such inequalities within the film sector and an examination of whether recent developments in the British film industry are a genuine challenge to the exclusion of ethnic minorities in British film. At a moment when the diversity agenda has re-emerged, this article offers a critical examination of the ways in which specific political moments have influenced the production and grammar of contemporary diversity policy. The article concludes by offering an analysis of current diversity strategies devised from the beginning of the British Film Institute's role as the lead body for British film production in 2011 to the present day and traces out the patterns of decontextualisation, naturalisation and acquiescence which characterise such strategies.


2000 ◽  
Vol 111 (1) ◽  
pp. 78-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. R. M. Hay ◽  
T. P. Baglin ◽  
P. W. Collins ◽  
F. G. H. Hill ◽  
D. M. Keeling

2006 ◽  
Vol 175 (4S) ◽  
pp. 476-477
Author(s):  
Freddie C. Hamdy ◽  
Joanne Howson ◽  
Athene Lane ◽  
Jenny L. Donovan ◽  
David E. Neal

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document