Why Hollywood needs breakthrough films
It was 1982 when Chariots of Fire scriptwriter Colin Welland held his Oscar up and said "the British are coming" but they have ebbed and flowed in Hollywood long before and ever since, and there seems to be general embarrassment that he said it in the first place.
marks a particular benchmark for British films, because it is the first film, fully financed in the UK, to win best picture since Laurence Olivier won four Oscars for Hamlet, which he starred in and directed.
Hollywood, though, has long been charmed by British talent, and this year's movies show the versatility and freshness of that talent. Slumdog aside, I am thinking about In Bruges, The Reader and Man on Wire to name a few.
I have long thought there is no such thing as a British film industry, because the industry is now almost fully international and it is very hard to define what makes a film British. While the subject matter of Slumdog is a rags-to-riches tale in contemporary Mumbai, and the original source material is a novel written by an Indian author (Vikas Swarup) and the co-director, rarely mentioned, is Loveleen Tandan, it could be argued that the creative force behind the film is British - from Film4's Tessa Ross, who bought the rights after reading three chapters of the book, to screenwriter Simon Beaufoy and director Danny Boyle.
is in serious financial trouble; I would love to be a fly on the wall of the board meeting in which any attempt is made to close the film arm of down after its massive victory in Hollywood. Film4 has been pivotal to Danny Boyle's entire career, from Shallow Grave to Trainspotting.
And for all those who think it is only about glamour and red carpets, think again: Hollywood studios want sure fire returns on their investments and so roll out the usual suspects in terms of stars, writers and stories. Public funding allows British talent to take chances and when the chances amount to a film like Slumdog Millionaire (made for £8m and now enjoying takings of £100m globally) then there might be a tendency to emulate Hollywood and see the film as a template and attempt to replicate. That way lies madness and the antithesis of real creativity, surely.
A football analogy comes to mind: it's great having a successful team, but what about the grass roots and remembering to invest in new talent, to ensure the next generation comes through? That's why training and supporting writers is so important and I'd put money on Danny Boyle being the first to endorse that sentiment.
I'm 
Comment number 1.
At 24th Feb 2009, thatotherguy2 wrote:I agree with you Razia, but only up to a point. The Scottish Arts Council gave a small five figure sum to JK Rowling which helped her along the way and the benefits to the British economy from the international success of the Harry Potter films has been abundant.
However if you add up the public money that has been squandered on straight to video flops?
It is not just films. Poets in Scotland write lines dripping in metaphysical cleverness and a small industry of mutual back scratchers give each other awards, often sponsored by same Council. But when you see these lauded winners have had their work taken out of the Morningside library no more than a dozen times in the last decade you soon realise that public subsidy is very much a two edged sword for writers.
I write songs for the Lincoln City rock band at anyoldfun and who knows, maybe one day we will be up for an Oscar for best song. But if we do it will have been under our own steam and without a penny piece of subsidy from any public body. Like JK Rowling I think that Danny Boyle would always have found a way to a mass audience through sheer talent alone. Not just in writing but in understanding the human spirit and how to make us feel collectively good about the human condition. I think that is what all great artists do, and I couldn't be more thrilled at Danny's success.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)