I hate to be negative, but this:

“they “owe any success we have had in our acting careers, to varying degrees, to films supported by the UK Film Council.””

So they couldn’t achieve anything without a taxpayer-funded quango? I love crappy British films that can’t compete with any other film market as much as the next flag-waving Brit, but I’d rather my taxes didn’t go on Gangster Flick With Two Big (G)Uns”, thanks.

“Robert Coello, serving life for raping a child, died on Sunday from head injuries that may have been inflicted by being stamped on.”

Is this supposed to be something that will get the middle classes up in arms?

For an alternative “luvvie” view of the UK Film Council and its value, listen to film director Chris Atkins.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00t9rq7#-

Chapter 2 at 2.53.30

Anti-cuts campaigners would do well to say as little about the Film Council as possible – chances are people will think “well if that’s where the cuts are coming, I’ve no objections”

Honestly, actors who have enjoyed tax payer funded largesse protest about it being withdrawn.

“I love crappy British films that can’t compete with any other film market as much as the next flag-waving Brit, but I’d rather my taxes didn’t go on Gangster Flick With Two Big (G)Uns”, thanks.”

Why use a fictional example when there’s Sex Lives of the Potato Men ready at hand?

Oh dear, I think these poor actors are deluding themselves if they think the average tory voter gives a shit about them.. Quite why they would waste their time writing to Call me Dave’s in house magazine I can’t work out.

Seeing as the tories want to kill the BBC, I don’t think the tories give a fig about The UKfilm council or anything else for that matter.

But don’t forget folks we are all in this together, or something.

London west end stage productions – which are a huge perennial tourist draw – receive no regular taxpayer funded subsidy so it’s never been clear to me why films made in Britain need subsidising.

Successful stars of screen and stage, as well as producers, can earn lots of money so why don’t they take up equity stakes in a film production venture fund to boost the indigenous film industry?

I’m certainly no film buff but as I recall, successful British film production companies – like Working Title – have made regular commercial successes of producing films in Britain without depending on handouts from the Film Council or its several predecessors with similar functions:
http://www.workingtitlefilms.com/

I wonder why an internationally celebrated film director like the late Stanley Kubrick chose to live in Britain or why the likes of (hugely welcome) Kevin Stacey and David Soul settle here? The late Sam Wanamaker was another and the late Carl Foreman yet another. Surely, it can’t be the climate?

I hate to be a spoilsport but two out of these three examples are bloody shit that no-one will care about. Or maybe people will care about the film council when we start seeing more US crap on our shores, but I really don’t think the dead paedo is going to tug anyones heartstrings..

“These ConDem cuts are bad.”
“Oh, why’s that?”
“Well, y’know, that paedo got killed.”
“…”

Why on earth is being used as an example?

Pagar
Atkins does have point about the film council but like most right wingers he does go over the top in a camp Gove type manner.
A slimmed down version like channel 4 film would be s effective. i would say that the council has produced some good work.
.

“i would say that the council has produced some good work.”

At what cost and with how many bad or indifferent films which attracted only small audiences?

“The council had an annual budget of £15m to invest and employed 75 people.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-10876173

The question is whether there are more cost-effective ways of doing what it did. And I remain curious as to why stars, producers and directors don’t take equity stakes in a film production venture fund to bring on new talent etc, the supposed rationale for the Film Council? Britain has a highly developed venture capital market so why not a venture capital fund to invest in making films?
http://www.bvca.co.uk/About-BVCA/Our-Industry

One reason, I suspect, is that those who work in the business of making films know that without tight financial controls, millions can easily get lost in production.

Production companies, like Working Title, have produced a succession of commercially successful films without public subsidies. With its own money at stake, up front, there are powerful incentives to choose film ventures with care and maintain effective financial controls.

Reportedly, the conventional wisdom from Hollywood used to be that 7 out of 10 movies don’t recover their production costs. Of the 3 which do, one is a (unpredictable) blockbuster success which, hopefully, helps to pay for studio losses on the others.

True Bob
Good points, they deserve the bullet in the neck.

More here about Tim Bevan, one of the original co-founders of Working Title:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Bevan

“Among Bevan’s more than 40 films as producer or executive producer are Moonlight and Valentino, Fargo, O Brother, Where Art Thou?, Captain Corelli’s Mandolin, Love Actually, Notting Hill, Elizabeth, Bridget Jones’s Diary, Atonement, and Frost/Nixon.”

Worth seeing this interview of Hanif Kureishi, who wrote the original screen play for My Beautiful Laundrette, the first film produced by Working Title, which was widely celebrated on its release and the screenplay was nominated for an Oscar:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-10893595

My Beautiful Laundarette can be seen in 10 parts on YouTube, starting with:

My Beautiful Laundrette (1985) Part 1 of 10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eec6tLgJb3U

Rhys Williams: “A slimmed down version like channel 4 film would be s effective. i would say that the council has produced some good work.”

Is film4 slimmed down? i think they have the same number of people involved in commissioning/funding as the UKFC don’t they? the rest of the work the FC do is always overlooked in favour of the more media-friendly production side. also if you add in the facilities, legal, HR and other support staff that film4 rely on too which are probably provided by C4, it starts to look a bit more of a fairer comparison.

Bob B – you’ve also made the mistake of thinking that all they do is invest £15m in production. read up on the subject.