Edgar Wright Defends Her Majesty's Cinema

[devincf]

http://chud.com/articles/articles/16...EMA/Page1.html

[Tati]

Links ain't working. Thanks for this, sounds interesting.

[Tati]

Links fixed. Thanks.
Great list. And yeah, his films belong there as well.

[Bluelouboyle]

Well I'm English, and I'd have to agree with Edgar. Gervais has been too big for his boots for a long time.

There are some great British movies, and also crap ones - Rancid aluminium and other post lock, Stock, for example.

I think a movie is English if it's made with a mostly English crew and financed with English money. But if Limeys are making great Hollywood movies - Paul Greengrass, Ridley Scott - then who cares?

[JWinge1, Napoleon in Rags]

Could Gervais have simply expressed an opinion that OVERALL American films have been better than British films since 1950? That is, that not all British films since 1950 have been "bollocks," as our British friends would say.

Off topic, but was anyone else disappointed with Son of Rambow?

[DARKMITE8]

Gilliam is a weird example, being an American, yet Hollywood-outsider. From his association with Monty Python & gang (HOLY GRAIL), to his British cast flicks (TIME BANDITS, JABBERWOCKY), to his mixed casts (MUNCHAUSEN, BRAZIL), to his American "only" (ie: mostly) casts (FISHER KING, FEAR AND LOATHING, 12 MONKEYS)... to his Americans faking British accents casts (BROS. GRIMM).

[Justin Clark]

If an American making a film with a British crew makes a film British, then Aliens counts.

Argument ended.

That said, there's certainly plenty of films made in the UK and countries far less politically prescient than the UK that hold their own, and I'm happy Wright took Gervais to task for that.

[Disciple_72]

Even the shittiest Hammer horrors are better than Night at the Museum, Gervais.

[Andrew C]

I can't wait til this Son of Rambow nonsense wears off.

[Andrew Eaton]

In defense of Gervais, most of these films were made by filmmakers on the outside of studio thinking be it British or American. Wright lists a lot of indie films, new and old. I wouldn't say we (USA! USA!) are always better at it, but I certainly understand where Gervais is coming from.

There aren't really any homegrown British studios handing out millions upon millions of dollars to their directors to go make superhero movies or scifi epics or what have you. The industry's just not the same over there. All the same, I bet Gervais' comment stung a lot of people there who are doing a lot of great, underappreciated work.

I love that picture of the queen by the way.

[Luca S.]

Outside of Edgar's own movies, Layer Cake deserves to be on that list. Oh and fuck yes to Zulu and Wicker Man.

[Tom Reagan]

I tend to think that Gervais meant the British film industry in general as opposed to the American film industry. Sure, there are lots of great British movies, but even if you go by Edgar's list, that would mean 2 per year since 1950. I know that there are obviously more great British films than that, but surely if you were to go year by year and count the number of great American films versus the number of great British films, the list of American films would be much longer. Entertainment is America's biggest export. It's big business here, for better or worse. What's the UK's biggest export? Condescension? (Just kidding. I lived in London for almost a year, and next to New York, it's my favorite place in the world.) Seriously though, what does make a British film a British film? Funding? Location? Cast? Crew? I think the line gets blurrier every year. United 93, one of the best and most important American films in years, was directed by Paul Greengrass (I know he's not British, but you get the point.) Run Fatboy Run, not one of the best and most important British films in years, was directed by David Schwimmer. I don't think anyone would call United 93 an British film, nor would they call Run Fatboy Run an American film. Obviously these are two very different movies, and I'm sure there are better examples out there, but I think they both illustrate the point that the distinction between American and British film is harder to define than just by who the director is.

[DARKMITE8]

Location isn't that important. Budapest? Vancouver?

It's the production $, film-maker (and a certain percentage of the crew/cast), and sensibilities. Actually... it's just the dominant speech accent (and if the characters don't speak, what if they did?).

And in regards to the "who makes more better films?". America is all about volume, so the #s are skewed to the USA for sure.

[Dannychico]

The 100 greatest American films since 1950 would SWAMP the 100 greatest British films since then. Gervais ain't wrong.

But they've clearly got us beat with rock bands.

[mr_adam]

Fucking Gervais, he's a douche and soon enough people will realize what a one-trick hack he is. He says this kind of shit to suck up to his american pay masters.

There's no difference between the US and the UK in terms of who makes it, in fact, it's not really mattered since probably 1950. the UK's (indeed the all the world's) best talent invariably goes to the US eventually because of the money.

Lots of British films get money from Europe but people would never think of Son of Rambow as French or German. So funding can't be the basis of this distriction. (incidentally - I thought it was OK, Jess Hynes etc.)

The location as discussed also cannot be a determining factor, neither can director / writer / star.
Arguably the UK could lay claim to star wars (filmed in that london) and the US could claim bond (chubby cubby) and harry potter (WB). Much of Wright's list is arguable (and copied from the the BFI 100) in terms of origin. Does it really matter any more? The british film "industry" was pretty much dead until the lottery commission started funding any old shit that was going around.

as dark mite said,when you look at quality v quanitity it's a whole new topic and if you look at value per $ "british' films cost much less.

Anyone who had something singular to say, shaun of the dead, full monty, lockstock etc. mostly had to do it off their own bat and usually struggled to break into the mainstream US industry.

[Andrew Eaton]

Originally Posted by Dannychico

But they've clearly got us beat with rock bands.

And hype. Although I'm pretty sure Canada's looking to unseat Britain from that position this decade.

[Ali]

I think it's a matter of numbers. We have a ton more filmmakers and the people needed to get wide distribution. Hence a greater amount of "better" films. But I think the British might make a higher amount of better films per capita. I call this GFP.

[Fat Elvis]

Great list by Wright. Thanks for pointing it out. Have to say though, our greatest movies are better than anybody else's. Q: Couldn't Hitchcock's films count as much as Greengrass' ?

[Glisten]

Terry Gilliam is British now surely, legally at least? You could argue that he was American by birth but by this logic you would have to argue that America was British by birth

Anyway, not trying to be incendiary here, Anthony Hopkins became American in 2000 so we can consider that an amicable swap.

[Bombjack]

Originally Posted by Tom Reagan

...Paul Greengrass (I know he's not British, but you get the point.)

Huh?

On topic, I think the popular (i.e. press) interpretation here of what makes a 'British film' is where the money comes from. No amount of UK talent on a film made with foreign money will make it a 'British film' in that view.

[Johnny Depth]

So maybe I'm not reading a lot of this right, but would High Fidelity be considered an British flick due to its director, and despite the fact that its set in Chicago?

And would About a Boy be considered American because of its directors, but despite that its set in London?

I know those are foolish to ask because I actually consider them both to be American. I just find it ironic that the more faithful Hornsby adaptation comes from the guys who made American Pie.

[Ken Savage]

Once again Gervais proves himself to be a total cock.

Edgar W is spot on. There have been pleanty of great UK films - and there will continue to be. It's just there are so many more US films the UK ones tend to get forgotton.

[Xagarath Ankor]

As others have said, I think the ratio of good british cinema to poor is actually pretty good, even if we're overall outdone by the sheer quantitiy coming out of the US.
If we're going purely by director, everything Hitchock did pops up as well.

[Sharpel007]

Also why are complete UK productions not considered foreign films at the Oscars? I would say its a very fuzzy line when trying to determine the Yankness and Britness of most films made these days. Also there is such mutual affection and mixing between all media from us and them that it really should be studied more in depth. But Gervais is off his rocker, and Edgar called his bluff beautifully. Lean and Kubrick alone make the argument shallow.

[EchoBase]

Originally Posted by Dannychico

But they've clearly got us beat with rock bands.

And with actors, writers, directors, musicians, painters and drunken loutish thuggery. Your lot have us beat on the obesity thing though.

[Sonic Boom]

Originally Posted by Sharpel007

Also why are complete UK productions not considered foreign films at the Oscars?

Because it's a Foreign Language category.

[willywayne]

Originally Posted by mr_adam

Fucking Gervais, he's a douche and soon enough people will realize what a one-trick hack he is. He says this kind of shit to suck up to his american pay masters.

QFT... He was amazing in The Office. Apart from that he's nothing. I did like the end of his cameo in GTA IV though ("I ate it... Tastes like chicken!")

I'm off to watch SCUM.

[Nabster]

I am British, and I gotta agree with Gervais. Relatively few good films are made here, Shane Meadows makes some good films, but than one of the most heralded directors of the last decade was Guy Ritchie, and he is terrible.

The movie theaters here are packed with American films, everyone here watches American films, rarely some English films are played but even the few good English films never recieve the same wide release as the American films.