Squeezed into a crowded corner of suburban London, just south of Heathrow Airport, the barracks-like sound stages of Shepperton Studios have echoed some of the great moments in the history of motion pictures.
Such classics as “The Third Man,” “The African Queen” and “A Man for All Seasons” were partly filmed here. The studio work for “Four Weddings and a Funeral,” the most successful British film in history, with $250 million in earnings, also was done at Shepperton.
James Mason and Richard Burton started their movie careers at Shepperton, which has been making movies since 1932.
The studio has had its lean years and good ones, but, as he embarks on a busy 1995 schedule, Shepperton manager Paul Olliver is wearing a broad smile.
“1994 was the best year ever,” he said. “We built two more sound stages-we have 16 now-and the whole place was chockablock with feature films, a lot of TV and a lot of commercials. We completed `Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein’ and we filmed `Judge Dredd,’ `The Madness of King George’ and a number of other films that haven’t come out yet.”
Pinewood Studios, north of Heathrow and Britain’s biggest, had a similar year. Stephen Woolley, 37, one of the hottest young British producers, filmed the $50-million-plus “Interview with the Vampire” at Pinewood. He says it already has earned $100 million in the U.S. and another $70 million in the rest of the world.
“There is more confidence and trust in British studios than before,” Woolley said. “There is more money floating around than for years.”
Money, yes. But it’s mostly American money. In one sense the British film industry, with hits such as “Four Weddings,” “Howard’s End” and “The Crying Game,” is spectacularly successful. The country is awash with a pool of talented directors, performers and technicians. In the last 20 years, the British have carried away 30 percent of Hollywood’s Oscars.
But these successes obscure the fact the British have so far failed to establish a truly indigenous film industry, financed with British money. “The British film industry is alive and well and living in Los Angeles,” says actor Michael Caine, who has spent most of his career there.
This is an old complaint, but it has taken on a new urgency as British film people have become aware of the vast growth potential of the film industry in an age of satellite and cable television and an explosion of TV channels hungry for film material.
In the next 20 years, industry experts estimate, the number of feature films made in Europe will quadruple, and the total value of the audiovisual industry will climb to $125 million from $48 million today.
Filmmakers throughout Europe chafe at the dominance of Hollywood. U.S. films take 80 percent of box-office receipts in Europe. But the British, who enjoy the advantage that their films are made in English, nonetheless lag behind not only Hollywood but other European countries, where the industry is heavily subsidized.
Last year Germany made 150 films, France 150, Italy 124 and Britain 69. Of the films made here, only 34 were truly British and only 10 of these were aimed at the mass market. The rest were low-budget productions. British studios survive largely on TV programs and commercials.
Film people blame this state of affairs on what they regard as short-sightedness on the part of the government and investors in the City, London’s financial district. Other sources say the film industry itself bears a share of the blame.
Last year a group of producers, directors and performers organized the Initiative for Motion Picture Arts, Commerce and Technology (Impact) to lobby the government for help. Impact does not want subsidies, but argues that the government could give a significant boost to the industry if it would allow producers to write off the costs of production in one year rather than three.
Producer Timothy Burrill, chairman of Impact, says this would lower production costs by 10 percent. “That would be the little push needed to get people to make films here instead of going to Ireland,” he said.
Ireland offers generous incentives to filmmakers. In the last 3 years, its annual earnings from film have risen to $150 million from just $2 million.
Impact also contends that more American companies would be willing to come to Britain to make movies if the government would stop taking a 40 percent withholding tax from foreign stars. The tax does not apply to foreign producers or directors, nor does it apply to the TV industry. “It’s silly,” said Wilf Stevenson, director of the British Film Institute.
“We can be the leader in Europe,” Burrill said. “We do have studio space that is larger and better equipped than in any European country. We can compete in hardware with any of the companies in the U.S.”
The government has shown no sympathy for Impact’s proposals. Burrill says National Heritage Secretary Stephen Dorrell, whose department oversees the film industry, “seems to disregard all the advice given to him by his civil servants” and has a “negative attitude” toward the film industry.
Stevenson said: “The government’s approach is not to prioritize any industry over another. They don’t accept that film is the supreme cultural art form of the late 20th Century. We keep trying to make the case, but it’s depressing to try to keep going.”
He favors direct subsidies to the film industry, and points out that the government does subsidize opera.
A spokesman for Dorrell said he did not know the minister’s views and it would be difficult to find out because Dorrell “is very busy.” A Treasury spokesman said he had no idea why the Treasury rejected Impact’s proposals in its last budget.
“Successive governments have succeeded in killing this film industry-the socialists by interference and the Conservatives through neglect,” Michael Caine told an Impact news conference.
Olliver, the Shepperton manager, says local government bodies also are a problem, often making it difficult for film companies to obtain permits for location shooting.
“If you want to shoot in Manhattan, there’s a department in the mayor’s office that clears the way,” he said. “The Americans understand the value of it. Here film is almost looked down upon as not being a valid part of industry.”
All film industry sources say an indigenous film industry can never get off the ground unless a company has enough money to make 10 to 15 films a year. It’s a high-risk business, in which about two-thirds of films that are made flop at the box office. If a company can make 10 to 15 films, it can expect one or two major successes, which will enable it to survive despite the films that lose money or only break even.
The fate of two film companies, Goldcrest and Palace Pictures, is illustrative. Goldcrest went under in 1986 after its huge success with “Chariots of Fire,” and Palace folded immediately after its own success with “The Crying Game.” The common problem was that both companies, restricted to making only three to four films a year, lacked the capital to offset losses from other ventures.
The British spent about $350 million making films in 1993, the last year for which figures are available. With more secure financing, Stevenson believes, this could easily rise to more than $600 million.
Actors like Caine tend to blame the financial district, or City, for the lack of funding. “Banks have a strange idea of what the film industry is,” said Caine. “To them, it is a lot of sissies prancing about in makeup.”
Olliver, the Shepperton manager, said City financiers don’t do proper research, and sometimes give money to producers whose films are undeserving while denying it to others. “Our financial institutions have let the British economy down extremely badly,” he said.
Dan Allen, who follows the film industry for accountants Coopers and Lybrand, agrees that the City bears a heavy share of blame, but says the industry itself has not helped to present a coherent message to the money holders.
“The investment community has not recognized that the economies of the industry have changed dramatically with pay TV, satellites and cable,” he said. “Any investment idea that goes with the word `film’ in it is turned down right away. They are quite blinkered.”
But Allen also says, and many producers agree, that British producers often have tended to ignore what audiences want and have made films with little commercial value.
“As an art form, U.K. film is pretty good, but that doesn’t pay the rent,” he said. “If they want a film industry, they are going about it the wrong way. Audiences want simple films, with big stars, a low dialogue-to-action ratio and special effects.”
Channel 4 Television and, to a lesser extent, the British Broadcasting Corp., have financed British films. But the most significant contribution recently has come from PolyGram, the Dutch video and tape company.
PolyGram financed “Four Weddings” and has five British films in production or in a post-production stage. Worldwide, PolyGram is involved with 34 films, ranging from a $1 million Chinese-language film in Hong Kong to a $40 million blockbuster.
“We have the luxury of having funds from the parent company that come in on a worldwide basis,” said Stewart Till, president of PolyGram International. “If you’re an independent, you do need deep pockets to help you ride the troughs.”
He said one reason the British have had difficulty raising funds is that they have made films that are “more parochial and local” than those Hollywood produces. “Americans are better at making films people in other countries want to see,” he said. “American culture is better known, and people feel comfortable with stories about America.”
But producer Stephen Woolley thinks American audiences are more accepting of British themes now than in the past. “They don’t mind people drinking tea,” he said.
Woolley said Hollywood financiers have become more willing to have British films made here rather than luring British directors and stars to Hollywood.
“That’s a good thing,” he said. “It’s always been a bit of a shambles. Fish out of water often don’t perform as well as they do operating with a tried and tested team.”
Woolley is more optimistic than many British film people. “In budget-to-return ratio, we are the kings of Europe,” he said. “We are doing extremely well.”
But unless the government and financial district change their views, he said, “it could end up with the resurgence in British filmmaking going back into the ground as soon as we have a couple of flops.”
