The Business

The Business

Comparing Hollywood to Britain

Hollywood and British cinema obviously differ in many different ways, and in this post I will discuss a number of different ways they differ.

Funding Bodies

Funding bodies are extremely important in film; someone needs to pay for these films. In Hollywood it is somewhat obvious who pays for them, the production companies such as Warner Bros. or Universal, but it’s a bit more complicated in British cinema, as these massive companies don’t really exist here. For Hollywood the production company, whoever it is, will pay out of its own pocket for the film to get made and everyone to get paid, and will then take a cut of the proceeds when the film comes out. They will make money from its cinema release, DVD sales, soundtrack sales and whenever it gets rented and this money will all be put back into the pockets of the production companies so they can make more films. They also make money when the film is shown on certain TV channels if they have a contract or agreement for this kind of thing. An example of a production company that funds its own films would be Walt Disney Pictures, Disney’s film production company. They are the main producer of live-action films from Disney. ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’ is the studios most successful franchise, and has so far made $3.7 billion for Disney. The films have cost a total of $1.36 billion to produce so far, so not all of the money made by these films will have been profit, as almost half of it will have been used to actually make the films.  It’s all very basic in Hollywood, and very lucrative, but in the British side of the world it’s a little more complicated. As already stated, there aren’t really any huge British production companies to pay for these massive films to get made, which is one reason why British films are often on a smaller scale to Hollywood films. This leads to people finding ways to save money wherever they can, with tax breaks or legal loopholes. The BFI (British Film Institute) funds a lot of smaller independent films in Britain. They use money from the national lottery to help develop UK filmmakers as well as from donations and money from the Department of Culture, Media and Sport. They have complete control over who gets money, what films get funded by this money, and how much they get.

Technologies of Production

The technology used in the making of films in Hollywood is obviously going to be different than that used in making British films, mainly because of the difference in budget. Or Hollywood, it’s a drop in the ocean to pay the extra to film in IMAX as well as regular vision, but this would be almost impossible for a smaller budget independent film funded by the BFI, which is why you don’t see many IMAX British films.

Distribution and Exhibition

The distribution and exhibition of films in Hollywood is somewhat similar to that of British film distribution, with both requiring a distribution company to help. In Hollywood many of the

production companies will double as the distributor of the films they make, such as Warner Bros. and Walt Disney Pictures, because they have the experience, money and capacity to do this. Companies like this may also distribute films made by other production companies, such as ‘The Polar Express’, which was produced by Castle Rock Entertainment, but distributed by Warner Bros. Pictures. This is mainly how it works in the world of British film, a production company going to a distribution company. This is mainly because not a lot of the production companies in Britain have the money or capacity to act as the distributor of their own films, and will seek out the help of others. An example of this would be the film ‘This Is England’, a 2006 British film that was produced by Warp Films in collaboration with FilmFour Productions on a budget of £1.5 million, and distributed by Optimum Releasing. Another example of this would be the film ‘Snatch’, a 2000 British film produced by SKA Films on a budget of £10 million, but distributed by two different distribution companies, one in the UK and one in the US. It was distributed by Columbia Pictures in the UK and by Screen Gems in the US.

Stars

The use of stars is an obvious must in film, otherwise there would be no one in the films, and the stars you see in the massive Hollywood films often start out there life in the smaller scene of British film. A great example of this would be Jason Statham, who actually started life as a model and competitive diver. Once he was picked up by Guy Richie in ‘Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels’ and subsequently ‘Snatch’ and ’Revolver’ Statham became a household name as the British anti-hero/villain, known for the fact that he does all the fight scenes in the films that he is in. Statham is a great example of the reason some people will watch specific films, because a specific actor is in it. When people go to see a film that has Jason Statham in it, they will expect lots of fighting and action, such as in ‘The Expendables 3’ and the ‘Transporter’ series. After the success of his early films, he went on to be featured in American films, such as the ‘Fast and Furious’ franchise and ‘The Mechanic’ series. Statham is a great example of how success in smaller independent British films can lead to bigger roles in bigger films in Hollywood. Another example would be Daniel Radcliffe, who shot to stardom after being the main lead in the ‘Harry Potter’ franchise as the boy who lived. These films were British/American made and starred a cast of almost all British actors. After these films both Radcliffe and Emma Watson rose to the spotlight and began being seen more in American Hollywood films.

Social and Political Issues

Social and political issues have been explored a lot in film and Hollywood and Britain are no different. One of the most classic representations of society and politics in film would be ‘1984’, a British film about the George Orwell novel of the same name. It is centred on the idea of a ‘big brother’ society in which everyone is watched and monitored and must comply with whatever the government wants. Although it was originally written in 1949, it has come quite close to reality recently, and was made into a film in 1956 and then remade in ‘1984’, ironically. Being a British novel by a British writer and then made into a British film by a British director show that British cinema has always been good at hitting hard on the political and social issues, though Hollywood is also good at it too. In 1996 a novel was written by Chuck Palahniuk which was later adapted in 1999 into the film ‘Fight Club’. It is about a nameless protagonist who is fed up with his dead –end white collar job and, after meeting Tyler Durden on a plane, decides to set up an underground fight club as a form of radical psychotherapy. Compared with ‘1984’, ‘Fight Club’ is about far more American topics, such as being fed up with a dead end job, or destabilising the government, whereas 1984 is about darker topics, like a lack of individuality, and being forced to cooperate in a dead world. Both film industries, Hollywood and Britain, have touched on some heavy topics in society and politics, and both have done a great job at highlighting the issues with them, but I personally enjoy Britain’s concepts more, they are darker and scarier because of how real they are.

Regulatory Issues

Neither Hollywood nor British film are free form the grip of censorship and regulator laws, and some say it is even worse here than in any other form of media. In 1934 the MPPDA (Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America) created the Production Code Administration (PCA) to help enforce the Motion Picture Production Code. In basic terms, this means that all filmmakers in America must submit their films for approval by the MPAA before they can be released in cinemas. At this point the MPAA had all the power to accept or decline a film’s release at any point, and in extreme cases, could even demand a script change, although this is rare. This is somewhat similar to the way the British film industry works, only instead of all films needing to go to the MPAA they instead go to the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC). The end goal is always the same though; make sure any submitted film meets the requirements set up by whichever imposing group and get the film a rating that fits with the script. The BBFC also has the statutory requirement to even classify some video games as of the video recordings act 2010, one major difference between them and the MPAA.