So, apparently our Prime Minister David Cameron believes that the British Film Industry should make more films like Harry Potter.
What does he mean by this? Does he want more films about boy wizards? Or films about remote boarding schools in Scotland or more films about good young people battling evil demons from beyond the grave?
Actually I can guess what he is really driving at – that is that the UK film industry should make more films that people want to see, which is all fine and dandy until you realise that no-one knows what the great British public really does want to see.
This remark was made during Prime Minister’s Questions, when answering a query about the withdrawal of funding to the UK Film Council. In the eyes of David Cameron, if more films were like Harry Potter, then there would be no need for a UK Film Council.
I’ve got nothing against Harry Potter, in fact I really enjoy the films, but you wouldn’t want to exist on a diet of Harry Potter blockbusters – any more than you would want to exist on a diet of Ken Loach movies.
Variety is what it is all about. You need a mix of different types of film. And it’s no good asking the public what they want to see because they can’t tell you until the films are made.
Also it’s no good making films that copy a previous success because part of the reason the original film was a success was the fact that they were doing something different. This is why sequels seldom work. By and large they are retreading old ground – rehashing something that was original but now no longer is.
Also, second-guessing the tastes of the public is notoriously difficult. Lots of seemingly very successful film-makers have gone spectacularly bust over the years by betting their shirts on a sure-fire winner.
Science Fiction was box office poison until Star Wars came along. It was supposed to be a cheap B movie for kids then suddenly it rewrote the history books.
That’s the point. At the end of the day you can’t predict what the next Star Wars or Harry Potter will be. We all know there will be one but it could come from anywhere. The film industry doesn’t decide, the public does and long should it remain so.
Hollywood studios would love to dictate public taste. They do their best to shape it as best they can but every now and then a Heaven’s Gate style disaster reminds them that no-one can guarantee a hit movie. If they could someone would have bottled it and locked it away as the ultimate industrial secret.
Also films aren’t just commerce. There has to some degree of art and craft in there still.
Also audiences change as they get older. Blockbusters are increasingly being aimed at the 12-25 age group. Are older audiences not to be served by David Cameron’s new film policy?
Are we not to be treated to Mike Leigh’s Another Year or the John Lennon bio-pic Nowhere Boy or even Made In Dagenham?
There are a lot of films that have a substantial audience which is above the upper age range of 25 that most multiplexes are aiming for. Are we to be discriminated against?
Look at the success of the animated feature The Illusionist. This had virtually no release in the mainstream cinemas and yet arthouse and independent cinemas across the country did a roaring trade. In fact we had our single busiest evening with that film – and it inspired a spontaneous round of applause at the finish.
Can you legislate for films like this? In mainstream cinema terms there is no market for films like this and yet, as we have seen, there is a substantial audience for well-made films drawn from a variety of sources.
They may not make the sort of profits that Harry Potter conjures up but they still make money and more importantly make a wide variety of audiences very happy.
We would all be a lot poorer and the world would be infinitely duller if we all liked the same thing.
So Mr Cameron invest in British film-making and celebrate our diversity.
