InsIder’s PoInt of VIew: dIstrIbutIon
Will we at last start to
see a self-sufficient
and freestanding
independent film
production sector where
investors do not have
to worry about overseas
performance to get their
dough back?
Classic British explotation comedy
Adventures of a Plumber's Mate (1978)
production companies sprung up to take US companies were pouring in to co-finance and even Ken Russell (who, let us not
advantage of these new market conditions and distribute this seemingly parochial and forget, started his feature career with the
and audience appetites rolling out a slew of critically dismissed genre fare with AIP, saucy French Dressing).
genre product from derivative horror knock- Warner Bros. and Columbia particularly However, it was not to last. In the mid
offs (Konga, Gorgo) to lo-fi sci-fi (The well disposed to satisfying low brow to late 1970s, these same US companies
Projected Man, The Night Caller), audience appetites through the ABC, Odeon withdrew their support for British feature
beat rock musicals (Gonks go Beat), teen and Granada cinema circuits of the day. production, and the UK’s own higher profile
gang melodramas (The Leather Boys) The rise in British cinema during this companies (Hammer, Amicus, EMI, Rank)
through to naturist documentaries (Michael period can be directly attributed to the moved into recession and largely withdrew
Winner’s Some Like it Cool) and soft Eady Levy—and also to the cheaper from domestic production activities. With
adult sex comedies (What’s Good for production facilities—making it cost far this arguably came the end not just of the
the Goose). less in the UK to achieve the same quality British exploitation film but British popular
During these boom years a number of of production than it would be for similar cinema itself.
these quota quickie producers and auteurs (!) fare in the US (the Bond series was another So what does all this mean for the future?
rose to prominence: transplanted Americans beneficiary of the UK Government largesse.) Could there be a eureka moment? Will we
Milton Subotsky and Max Rosenberg of A number of producers and directors at last start to see a self-sufficient and
Amicus Films (Hammer’s only real rival whose careers traversed the burgeoning sex freestanding independent film production
during the period), Herman J. Cohen (Trog), and horror film industry in the late 1960s sector where investors do not have to worry
Tony Tenser (The Blood Beast Terror) even managed to cross over to bigger- about overseas performance to get their
of Tigon British Film Productions, Stanley budgeted and more critically acceptable dough back?
A. Long (Adventures of a Plumber's fare, enjoying success to the point that their It is a nice thought and certainly if the
Mate), Lindsay Shonteff (Devil Doll) and more modest genre beginnings were put same kind of determination and expertise
Pete Walker (House of Whipcord). well behind them. They forged new careers goes into future low-budget flicks that can
So successful were these companies that in mainstream cinema including the capture a defined group in the country, then
at the peak of this wave of UK exploitation aforementioned Michael Winner, Sidney J. why not? More likely, though, we will see a
production in the late 1960s and early 1970s Furie, Donald Cammell, Martin Campbell return to good old-fashioned exploitation;
sensibly priced, hard slash ’em up or tit and
giggles genre movies that have a unique, if
somewhat low-brow, selling proposition.
St. Trinian’s is a good example of a softer
variation. Internationally it has by all
accounts, been as slow as a tax rebate, yet
here in the UK it took the ceiling off,
recording over £10 million at the box office.
Run, Fatboy, Run and quite a few others
have enjoyed a similar level of bums on seats.
Yep, the talented Mr. Clarke and his
cohorts have shown us one possible
future by reminding us diligently of our
past. Anyone out there fancy knocking
out a script for the next Confessions
St. Trinian's
of… movie? n
16 by fIlmmakers. for fIlmmakers.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84