(1) The main section of this is a straight comparison of two binary opposites: the 'Britishness' represented in This is England and that seen in any of the Richard Curtis rom-coms (you could consider several of these rather than just one), considering issues such as:
What part does funding/economics play in these representations? [We keep coming back to this question]
The budget for ‘This Is England’ is £1,500,000 (estimated) this reflects the unknown actor/ess’s, simple locations and easily accessible costumes. The major costs in this film will have been the production team and 1980’s props.
In the opening weekend of the release of ‘This Is England’ the gross was $18,430 (USA 29th July 2007) and £207,676 (UK 29th April 2007), this reflects the film was targeted to the UK rather than the USA however still appealing to both.
The budget for ‘Notting Hill’ is $42,000,000 (estimated) this reflects the actor/ess’s used being well known and successful such as Hugh Grant and Julia Roberts providing cross-over appeal both to the UK and the USA as they’re both classic representations of their own culture.
Locations were’nt made on set but real streets etc which enabled the production companies to spend more of the budget on the famous cast.
In the opening Weekend the gross was $27,689,760 (USA 30th May 1999) and £152,532 (UK 23rd May 1999) which shows the representation of Britain in the film was of an American view (stereotypical southern England, in an upper class area) which doesn’t appeal to middle-England as they’re unable to relate to it.
Where as ‘This Is England’ although a gritty view its also a truthful one and most British people can relate to the film and its themes from some part of their lives, making it a nostalgic experience for the older age group hence why there’s a large target audience. This is also shown through the economics as the film made alarger profit in Britain, rather than America.
The choice of production companies is also representative of the films made such as ‘Warp-X’, ‘Film 4’, ‘Screen Yorkshire’ and the ‘UK Film Council’ who produced the independent film ‘This Is England’ as they’re British companies who make prodomenantly British independant films, such as ‘Train Spotting’ and ‘Donkey Punch’.
Which is a contrast with ‘Notting Hill’ which is produced by ‘Working Title Films’ who produce many films that are classed as ‘Big Blockbusters’ such as ‘Australia’ ‘Four Weddings and A Funeral’ and ‘Love Actually’ (2 both Ricahrd Curtis films) these films are more ‘crowd pleasing’ films more interested in ‘cross-over’ appeal and naking mone than the independent thought provoking films of Warp-X etc.
summarise which aspects of 'Britishness' we see - and, just as important, which we don't; link this back to the point on economics
‘This is England’ :
We see:
An aspect of typically British films is that they have a fairly low budget
broad Northern accents which represent middle-England (working class) Britain, and are classic aspects of Britishness.
Weather- typically dull and miserable reflecting typical moody northern people.
Location- council estate
Class- working class, C2 D E.
war- CP’s dad was in a war- shows effects on those left behind.
We don’t see:
Southern representations
Class- Middle/ Upper A B C
Notting Hill:
We see:
Class-middle/upper A B C
Typical southern well educated
We don’t see:
Northen representation
Class- working class C2 D E
Industrial backbone of Britain not shown
Linking into this (and your recent work on Welsh/Scottish/N Irish cinema), can we really talk about British cinema, or should it really be English etc? Are films set in England just the same as those set in NI etc (maybe think about Mickybo and Me here)
British films set in Wales, Scotland and Ireland tend to be more the genre of realism, drama or social realism, most plots of which to do with everyday life scandals such as ‘Evelyn’ (set in Ireland) or have something specific to that region ‘Loch Ness’ (set in Scotland).
Despite England being one country it’s a country divided by North and South.
Films set in the South of England are generally of the genre ‘rom-com’ demonstrated in films such as ‘Love Actually’ and ‘Notting Hill’ are mostly about middle/upper class well spoken characters, that a foreign audience such as America can understand and relate to; as it’s the stereotypical view of British people to them, this therefore produces cross-over appeal which is reinforced by well know actors such as Hugh Grant.
Because these films tend to have a relatively high budget they also tend to use foreign actors/actress’s such Andie MacDowell in ‘Four Weddings and a Funeral’ and ‘Julia Roberts’ in Notting Hill’, therefore increasing potential audience size.
However films set in the North of England have very different accents and tend to be more the genre of social/gritty realism.
These films are harder hitting, deep and make the audience think a little more; they’re also predominantly not there to make money but meaningful effective films usually about lower/middle class such as ‘This Is England’ and ‘Train Spotting’.
Meaning they have little cross-over appeal as hardly ever use well known actors and actress’s due to their low budget, and don’t really give the foreign audience much to relate to, as it’s the hidden part of England.
These kinds of films tend to explore issues rather than skirt around them like the southern England films.
We can therefore talk about English cinema in 2 parts one of these parts is similar to most of the Celtic cinema (Northern), we can therefore say these is typical English cinema, but that the ‘on-show’ cinema of Southern feel good films and rom-coms tends to be Southern English cinema, there are of course some exceptions, like ‘About Adam’.
Certain companies tend to produce certain genres of British films such as the Northern Company; ‘Warp-X’ who produced ‘This Is England’, ‘Film 4’ who produced ‘Train Spotting’, and ‘Working Title’ who produced ‘Billy Elliot’.
These films are more the genre of drama and realism.
In contrast to ‘Ealing Studios’ who produced films such as ‘Notting Hill’ and ‘ST Trinians’, which are more to do with the genre of rom-com.
What stereotypes/countertypes do we see (and is there a link to economics) [this article on Yorkshire on screen is very useful, + this on Hugh Grant with further links to reviews of his WT films]
Notting Hill
Hugh Grant –typical American view of an Englishman (southern, upper class, well educated)
Julia Roberts
‘Combination of Hugh Grant and Julia Roberts proved a Box Office success’ (www.britmorie.co.uk)
Hugh Grant and Julia Roberts are both well known actors/actresses and are usually well known for acting middle/upper class characters and could be seen as the stereotypical middle/upper class characters which they both are in ‘Notting Hill’ as we can see this through the costumes that they wear and their accents throughout the films are classic British, Southern, Middle/upper class accents.
This could be linked in with the economics as there was a high budget for ‘Notting Hill’ therefore they were able to get higher classed actors to play the parts.
The stereotypes we see in ‘This Is England’ are the stereotypes of the 1980’s as the film is set in this time period. The ‘Skin Heads’ are stereotypical of this time wearing lots of denim, big leather boots and a skin head. Also the accents are very stereotypical of the northern population as the accents are a very strong northern which can reflect the working class cast, which can then be reflected on the budget of the film. Through the stereotypes in the film, it probably represents ‘Britishness’ better than ‘Notting Hill’ as it shows the true Britain.
How gendered is British cinema? (I.e., are films generally aimed at one gender; do we see the (fe)male gaze theory being reflected; are gender stereotypes much in use) [Try this on women in Brit cinema, plus several BritCinema blog postings!]Does the idea of genre play a part in this contrast (again, consider the role of economics in the film industry - and think about what you've heard from the various presentations on historic studios and film movements) [use this screenonline resource, wiki on British genre films, BritishCinemaGreats.com, this essay: 'Gangster Genre in British cinema: Historical shift from origins to it’s establishment
I think ‘Notting Hill’ could be aimed at both male and female audiences as it has both a famous male and female playing characters, I think Hugh Grant enables a female gaze but I also think Julia Roberts enables a male gaze however the genre of the film is ‘Rom-Com’ and I think these sort of films are aimed more towards the female audiences. ‘This Is England’ is a real gritty British film which I think could be aimed again at both male and female however I do think it could potentially be aimed more towards the male audience as the main protagonists are a group of young male’s who go on adventures etc therefore I think the film could be more of a male’s films rather than female’s. I think it depends on the genre of the film as to whether its gendered or not but I don’t think films nowadays are very gendered I think British films will be aimed at both male and female audiences to enable a wider audience.
(2) Does British cinema matter? Can we really talk about a British cinema when Hollywood is so dominant? Using BFI resources and other info contained/linked from the British cinema blog, bullet point some arguments on this
Yes because it represents our British culture to others as well as ourselves, giving audiences everywhere something to relate to especially typical British films which are social realism therefore about issues for example teenage pregnancy, alcoholism and drug taking.
We can talk about British cinema when Hollywood is so dominant as they both have a different take on filmmaking. Therefore tapping into a range of target audiences so that both are able to survive.
British cinema has evolved and adapted to keep up with the high flying, high budget and dominant films of Hollywood. Films used to use technical features, stunts etc (lots of new technological features) to excite the audience in order to maintain a significant mainstream audience, because they were new; nowadays major celebrities are made to help endorse films and attract a significant mainstream audience which taps into our innate drive to be liked, (e.g. wanted to fit in as a child at school), so like sheep most people watch films which have a well known reliable actor/ess, which is why Hollywood does so well as most celebrities are produced here and so used in films.
British films makers are then able to pick and choose key famous actor/ess’s to use in their own films providing they’re budgets high enough, to create cross-over appeal, while still able to show our home grown talent which helps them to become famous, and us to show off our Britishness.
Actors such as Hugh Grant, who’s used in both British and non-British films, have achieved this, giving a representation of Britain to all.
Even though Hollywood has therefore adapted this way too they’ve also kept with the old way of wowing the audience (with ‘attractions’) making Hollywood and British cinema different, as on the whole British cinema tends to be more meaningful more about the acting and Hollywood more about the presentation of the films.
The development of genre has also helped British cinema compete against Hollywood as Britain does social/gritty realism best which ‘middle-England’ and most others can identify with or be fascinated by.
Gaining British cinema a host of award wins and nominations, despite having a low budget such as; a BAFTAs, British Independent Film Awards, Gijon International Film Award etc which are more highly thought of than the cheaper ‘American ‘ star system used to seduce audiences.
We as a culture need British cinema to help express the British culture for effect, thought and money so they can carry on being made, if British films weren’t made we wouldn’t fit in anywhere, and the British economy would be sure to fall as a result.
British and Hollywood cinema are very different and even though they may have similar audiences overall, the audiences choose the films for different reasons.
