Apparently, anyway. So the summation by the BBC suggests. I tend to agree with them. Let’s face it, what they’re actually saying is that making subsidised cheap labour brings in revenue and maintains jobs. At the moment I don’t see that’s a bad thing, external investment and all.
Let’s not forget, however, that the bulk of those profits go back to the US. The Brits tend to shoot in lower cost centres like Hungary, even the BBC does. Most British films (as I class them, I still need to go through the Film Council list and put together a proper one) are low budget (< $5 million) and are lucky to get a theatrical release. If we could make something that would rake in blockbuster money we could start building a global business. It's risky though, even Hollywood studios must be bailed out more often than most people realise (look at MGM's current woes).
On the plus side, tax breaks keep work coming in and people employed who can then choose to work on low budget Brit flicks for rock-bottom wages, knowing they’ll earn top dollar on the big budget ones. It also stops those skills and people having to find other employment.
It may be a PR exercise and as be as much fact as most Hollywood ‘historical’ films, but it doesn’t mean they’re wrong.
No comments yet.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
