Channel 4 Films
Introduction
When Channel Four became the fourth terrestrial channel in 1982 (the
only channels you could get then were BB1, BBC 2 & ITV) it had a
brief for commissioning and showing a range of cutting edge materials
which were very different to what was being shown on other channels.
British film became a huge beneficiary of this policy and many films
were made which appealed to quite different audiences. Many of these
films became some of the best known and most financially successful
films in British cinema since 1982. This shows what a powerful
influence C4 has had over the long term as it has now been operating for
over 25 years. By 1984 C4 had co-produced over 20 feature films for the
special slot Film on Four.
Because there was a guaranteed TV premiere for these films they could
afford to take more risks in terms of both their content and their
treatment of this than mainstream films. Nevertheless few of the films
were about contemporary Britain. Alexander Walker (2004) correctly
identifies
The Ploughman's Lunch (1983) as a film which was more critical of the trends within the Thatcher government of the time to which could be added
Mike Leigh's Meantime (1983)
which deals with a dysfunctional London based family with everybody in
it on the Dole (Income support rather than gainfully employed). this had
great resonance at the time given that unemployment in the UK was
approaching the 3 million mark under the Thatcher government.
Channel Four Films and the Industrial Context
In terms of costs C4 films were typically £500k-£600k at the top end,
this compared with conventionally funded feature films of the time
which typically cost around £3-4 million. (Walker 2004). C4 films proved
attractive to filmmakers and producers because until 1985 there was a
generoius system of tax write offs against production costs in which
costs could be written off against profits straight away whilst films
not initially targetted at TV had their cost written off over several
years. This meant that in terms of risks and returns for investors
funding C4 films was much lower risk in a high risk business. The Nigel
Lawson budget of 1985 was to reduce this tax shelter as the government
sought to ensure it got its share form the film-making business.
Whilst film-makers enjoyed the tax write offs they wanted to have
their cake and eat it by having the films given a theatrical release in
the cinemas first of all. Many wanted an 18 month to two year window for
cinema release however David Rose the commissioning editor for fiction
at Channel 4 correctly felt that this wouldn't allow C4 to build up its
audiences. The reality was that these films even when they did get
theatrical release didn't enter into the mainstream anyway usually being
released in a small number of cinemas which were identified with the
Art House circuit. From the perspective of many in the audience this
acted as an artificial ckoke on the market and represented greed from
the investors by tryng to squeeze every last penny out of audiences. The
problem for C4 was also that the freshness and sense of the
contemporary would inevitably be watered down if audiences had to wait.
They might even lose interest in the film. As a result few films had
theatrical release and those that did had very limited ones. At this
time there was still considerable friction between the film and TV
industries. Cinema was very defensive about its major circuits of
distribution and exhibition which is where the real money has been made
in cinema. The distributors wanted to keeep films off TV for three years
and only in the case of commercial flops were they prepared to allow
them onto TV inunder three years.
Channel four was badly effected by this industry restriction on trade practices. An example cited by Walker (2004) concerns
She'll be Wearing Pink Pajamas (1984) starring
Julie Walters. Walters had starred in the very successful film
Educating Rita
(1983) only the previous year a film which she is still rembered for
and consequently her fees had gone up considerably. C4 had put up all
the funding for this film coming to £950k, whilst they had planned an
initial theatrical release they had intended to release it on TV as soon
as possible in order to recoup their very high overheads against tax.
Sadly they were unable to follow this release strategy and the film
didn't justify its costs. This is a good example of the British film
industry cutting its own throat when it comes to investment in genuinely
British films rather than what are effectively Hollywood ones.
During the mid 1980s the costs of video recorders was coming down
considerably as was the cost of films on video and by 1990 most homes
had a video-recorder. The rise of video rental shops was an important
phenomena and this began to undermine the distribution industries
stranglehold on film release. Piracy and fear of piracy within
the industry meant films became generally available to audiences much
more quickly at at more reasonable prices than before. When videos were
first made of Hollywood films they cost around £50-00 each at 1980
prices.
Channel Four had been established with the aim of getting many
programmes either by commisioning or buying in programmes from other
companies rather than producing its programmes in house which was what
both ITV and the BBC did. By 1987 24% of C4 programming was externally
produced and films were a large part of this 24%. C4 had an ambitious
target of co-producing 20 films per year which was beyond the resources
of any other film making companies in the UK. According to Walker (2004)
it had a budget of £6 million to spend on fully or part financing
films. It typically invested between £250k - £300k per film buyijng in
the TV rights. C4 also invested £750k per year in British Screen
Finance and another £500k per year in the
BFI Production Board. One of C4 first films
The Draughtsman's Contract (1982) was
a co-production with the BFI Production Board . In the case of the last
two investments funds were matched by the government which provided
extra stimulaus to the industry.
By the end of 1987 C4 was producing 17/28 films per year on a £9.5
million budget. Very few of the films directly recovered their costs and
to all intents and ourposes C4 remained an 'art-house' producer as the
films weren't reaching mass popular audiences they had on the other hand
established a good rapport with more specific audiences and can be used
as an example of how audiences were beginning to fragment as more media products became available. The breakthrough films for C4 were My Beautiful Laundrette (1985), Letter to Brehznev (1985) Mona Lisa (1986). A useful boost was that these films also found an alternative audience in the United States.
By 1989 the bonanza for the film industry through TV funded film was
beginning to dry up. Channel reduced its financial committment to film
making reducing its annual production target down to 16 films and
capping its financial committment to any one film to one third of the
overall costs. The head of film at Channel Four David Rose was about to
retire. He had had a considerable influence on the success of C4 Film
with about £50 million spent on around 160 films up until this point.
Many in the British film industry were critical of the C4 approach
arguing that the small scale cutting edge film that C4 had built its
reputation around was dead. They further argued that C4 had not acted as
the launchpad for British cinema which they had expected instead film
makers still had to find a considerable amount of finance for
themselves. In all honesty this sounded like the carping on of
filmmakers eager to break into the Hollywood market and get themselves
fame and fortune. Pure greed and overblown egos and the hubris which has
seemingly beeen present in the British film industry for decades. In
the first instance if the ideas for British films were so good why
shouldn't they go out and sell it to find the financial backing? People
in other types of business do this all the time. Rather than looking to
the amazing effect that C4 had in stimulating a distincly British type
of film which was representing aspects of British society greed was the
driver of these criticisms.
Walker (2004) suggests that many in the British film industry including the likes of
David Puttnam and
Working Title
(the production company which had grown dramatically on the back of
Film Four) were impatient for the bigger budget more ambitious films. TV
financed films were too small in their cope and their appeal so the
argument went.
Despite this criticism one Film Four success of the time was
Riff-Raff (1991).
There was a huge debate about whether this film should receive a
theatrical release at the time. Eventually the BFI arranged some limited
screenings and then
Palace Pictures
screened it in a range of university / art house cinemas around the
country. It reached around 200 screens out of the 3,000 available in the
country at the time. Walker is keen to point out the problems that
independent British films had in Britian compared to releases in
continental Europe:
In Europe where a culture of exhibition existed and was
valued, Loach's film was a popular success, ahcieved full-scale releases
in several countries and won the new European Film Award in 1992 (Walker, 2004 p 122)
Successes of the Early Years of C4 Films: Developing New Audiences
Films that were especially successful in the early years of C4 were
Letter to Brehznev (1985) and
My Beautiful Laundrette (1985).
My Beautiful Laundrette was a seminal film of the mid 1980s for it brought the mischievous and iconoclastic scriptwriting of
Hanif Kureishi into the public eye as well as proving successful for director
Stephen Frears and actor
Daniel Day Lewis.
These were films that touched contemporary critical audiences in the
20 something to 30 something age ranges especially. Kureishi had been
brought up on the back of sixties hippiedom then the punk rebellion and
then Ken Livingstone's first GLC which had promoted festivals, events
and activities by the ANL, Rock Against Racism, feminist organisations
and Gay Pride. The concept of cultural industries was also developed.
London and young audiences especially in larger cities around the
country were keen on seeing the representations and contradictions
concerning hybridity and identity which people of a critical nature were
keen on debating, discussing and acting out at the time.
My Beautiful Laundrette was followed up by C4 and Kureishi a couple of years later with
Sammie & Rosie Get Laid (1987). Again directed by Frears and scripted by Kureishi it failed to touch the cultural moment in the way that
My Beautiful Laundrette had done but at least Asian identity was now recognised in British cinema. Before
My Beautiful Laundrette
a large percentage of the British population went largely
unrepresented in the media. There can be little doubt that C4 Film made a
significant contribution in this respect.
The 1990s under David Aukin
By 1992 the succession from David rose to David Aukin had been
completed. Channel 4 had increased its average contribution to the
financing of films to over 40% "but only because costs had risen, not due to optimism" asserted
Alexander Walker (2004 p 154). The cost of a typical Channel Four film
had risen from £400k in 1982 to £1.8 million. So much for Thatcher's
stance against inflation or was it the greed of filmmakers and others in
the industry which caused this 4.5 fold increase over a ten year
period? Walker's explanation doesn't really add up here. However by this
date C4 had part-funded nearly 250 films which is an excellent record.
It was still associated with more radical and alternative film-making for it co-produced Derek Jarman's
Wittgenstein with the BFI Production Board. The film was produced by
Tariq Ali and the script was written by
Terry Eagleton. In 1994 C4 backed
Shopping
which was pitched to them as a film made with the stylishness of Luc
Besson. 1994 also saw C4 become involved in part backing The Madness of
King George. It starred Nigel Hawthorn and
Helen Mirren
and was an excellent history film which also benefitted from crossing
over with costume drama thus fitting the heritage genre. However the
film was dealing with an unusual and turbulent period of British history
and didn't simply celebrate the successes of Britain in the past. It
was a much more expensive film than was usual with its budget running in
the region of £13 million. It gained good distribution in the USA and
turned out to be a profitable film.
The sort of films that C4 was involved with through commissioning and / or co-production deals include
Trainspotting and Four Weddings and a Funeral. Both of these films were hugely successful although appealing to very different audiences. Trainspotting was
a low budget film based upon the book of the same name which had carved
itself a good niche audience. It was co-produced with Working Title and
backed by the powerful Polygram filmed entertainment department.
Polygram put some canny marketing into the film. Knowing it would appeal
to ravers and clubbers they focused their marketing on this large niche
audience which proved highly successful. As a result the film gained
distribution in the USA as well although it did need sub-titles there. Four Weddings and a Funeral
was a clever production which played upon aspects of national identity
successfully including Scotland, however moving renderings of a W. H.
Auden poem provided a double theme of national and gay identity, and the
film played upon the 'naice' elements of Britishness rather than
focusing upon the sort of aspects of British society apparent in Shopping and Trainspotting
(ram-raiding and heroin addiction respectively). With a continuing well
handled light-hearted romantic comedy audiences were won over on both
sides of the Atlantic by its feel-good factor making all concerned large
amounts of money and providing the breakthrough film for Hugh Grant as
the quintessential 'English Gentleman'.
Channel Four Films and the Representation of Cultural Hybridity
Channel Four has had a very progressive policy when it comes to
helping to fund films - and guaranteeing a scrrening of these films -
representing relatively recently ethnic groupings in the UK. These films
have been far more than just about separate communities which early
multicultural ideas were concerned with. The films commisioned explored
and developed ideas of
cultural hybridity in which there was mixing and exchange of ideas and attitudes in a complex way.
My Beautiful Laundrette launched this approach which was followed by
Bahji on the Beach, The Wild West and perhaps most successfully
East is East which
was the first British film representing hybrid and ever changing
cultural and social mix in Britain to make it into mainstream multiplex
cinemas. Recently Film four produced the BAFTA prizewinning
film Brick Lane (2007) directed by Sarah Gavron.
In this respect Channel Four has played a groundbreaking role taking a
lead in developing this theme for over twenty years. It also screened
the film
Yasmin
when it failed to gain a cinema distribution deal in 2004. As well as
extending the ways in which British society is represented Channel four
has thus sought to develop and win over entirely new audiences who are
foar mor hybrid and cosmopolitan in their world view. It is not
unreasonable to suggests that out of all the film making institutions
operating in Britain since 1982 -when the Channel Four film arm was
initiated- Channel Four has been by far and away the best in this
respect. In that sense its committment to the public service
broadcasting ethos perhaps means that it has earned the right to gain
some of TV licence fee payers money.
1999 Film Four Dominates at Cannes
The late 1990s saw many changes in the structure of the film section of Channel Four.
FilmFour separated from Channel 4 to become a stand-alone company in 1998 (
Guardian July 2002).
By 1999 Film Four was at the top of its game with nine films were
officially selected for the Cannes Film Festival that year although some
of these were American. By the late 1990s Film Four was building on its
successes but also responding to changes in the structure of TV in the
UK which had seen the launch of Channel Five a few years previously and
increasing numbers of digital satellite channels becoming available via
Sky. This led on to more changes in 2001 & 2003:
In 1998 FilmFour, a specialist subscription film channel, was
launched.... and in April 2001... FilmFour World and FilmFour Extreme,
two further film channels, available to subscribers to FilmFour. These
channels were available on ITV Digital but are not carried by Freeview, a
wholly free-to-air proposition. In 2003 Film Four World and Extreme
were replaced by Film Four Weekly... In May 2001 Channel 4 formally
launched a new incorporated company, 4 Ventures Ltd, to manage all its film, learning and other new business activities. (ITC [now Ofcom] on C4 history)
Problems at Film Four
One of FilmFour's biggest problems has been competing for
cinema space with multinational film companies, whose films account for
more than two thirds of UK box office takings. FilmFour blames the poor
box office results on its lack of clout in the distribution market
rather than the quality of its films. (BBC on Film Four Partner Search)
2001 turned out to be rather a problematic year for Film Four. Charlotte Gray
contributed to a £5.7 million loss as it was one of the most expensive
films thay had made and it was a box office flop. Ever since it has
become remembered for causing major financial problems at Film four
however the problems were more deepseated than that.
In 2001, Film Four put out 14 films, but its releases accounted for just 0.7% of the UK box office market. (ibid)
By 2006 Film four was struggling. Its business model of pay TV on a
subscription basis wasn't working, Andy Duncan C4's chief Executive
announced:
The people who make money in terms of pay channels tend to be
the platform owners or big rights holders. The subscriber levels that we
have been getting [for FilmFour] have been very low. We believe we can
make money from advertising," (Guardian report)
In the process it will become the UK's largest free film channel, available to 18m homes, the broadcaster says.
Around one-quarter of the films shown on the channel will come
from the UK, but they will be broken up with advertisements for the
first time.
Film 4 currently appears to b doing well now it has migrated to Freeview and has taken to an advrtising model to pay for it.
Timeline of Channel Four / Film Four: Films & Events
Webliography
