Since 1982, what contribution has Film4 made to British Film Culture?

The 1970s saw a series of crises in the British Film Industry caused largely by the withdrawal of support from both Hollywood major studios and their domestic equivalents. This led to a change in the structure of the industry, with companies like Rank and EMI replaced by smaller independent production companies such as Goldcrest, Palace and HandMade. Thanks to the declining cinema audiences, which hit an all time low in 1984, British Cinema was increasingly reliant on secondary markets such as video and television, and Channel Four became a crucial part of the funding equation. By the end of the 1980s, it was arguably the single most important player in the British Film Industry, not only providing valuable support of various kinds, but also making a considerable contribution to what looked like a full-scale cultural revival.

Although the idea of film funding wasn’t directly discussed in the Annan Report, which led to the creation of Channel Four, it was a passion of the channel’s first Chief Executive, Jeremy Isaacs, who was inspired by the examples set in Germany and Italy. Isaacs was noted by the vast majority as the biggest and most important player in Channel Four’s history, it was he who oversaw the channels launch period and set the channel's original 'high brow' style. In his work, The Making of Channel Four (1998), Catterall offers his inside opinion on the icon by stating that his decision to pour substantial resources into Film on Four was of ‘major cultural importance’ and that his intelligence, warmth, production skill and experience, along with the respect he earned made him an ‘outstanding figure’. (pp.58-59).

Film4 was launched in 1982 as Film4 Productions, a film production company owned by Channel Four Television Corporation and has been responsible for backing a large number of films made in both the United Kingdom and around the world. The original aim of Film4 was to commission around fifteen to twenty films a year, with films being co-financed and produced in partnership with other companies, and many which would give opportunities to new and existing British directors and writers. Between 1982 and 1998, Channel Four directly funded over 270 film productions, which provided a major boost to the British Film Industry and created an unprecedented bridge between television and film. There was great financial success during the period between 1992 and 1997, with The Crying Game (1992) taking $62million in the United States, Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994) taking $240million worldwide and Trainspotting (1996) taking over $12million in both the United Kingdom and United States. This rather affluent period also saw the introduction of lottery money funding and the UK film production level reach a new high, not seen since the 1970s.

Led by David Ankin in the 1990s, an increasing number of these productions enjoyed theatrical release, yet it was the channel’s broadcast sessions of ‘Film on Four’, defined by Catterall as ‘admirable and a credit to Channel Four’ (1998, p.8) that affably established the distinctive identity of its contribution to British Film Culture for a generation of television viewers.  In 1998, the outfit was rebranded as ‘FilmFour’, to coincide with the launch of the new digital television channel of the same name. Four years later, in 2002, Channel Four had to significantly cut their budget from $30million to $10million and fifty staff. This was due to the mounting losses, which forced them to reintegrate FilmFour as division of its TV operation so it could continue to invest in new film. The cuts were an unfortunate consequence of FIlmFour’s rather unsuccessful attempt to compete with Hollywood by attempting to adapt the studio model in the UK. The cuts were described by many, including David Thompson, head of BBC films as ‘a very sad day for the British Film Industry’, going on to say that the British Film Industry needed confidence at that point ant that particular move did not inspire confidence at all.

Some have disputed that Channel Four has been genuinely effective in its efforts to revive our seriously feeble industry. At the very least with Film Four, it has refrained from withering on about a ‘non-existent British Renaissance’ and simply proved its point with a ‘put your money where your mouth is’ attitude. The majority of films have come in with between 30 and 80 percent Channel Four funding, however, money is not everything when it comes to trying to define a body of work. In terms of box office performance, small screen audiences’ statistics and artistic achievement, the results have been as contrasting as the financing strategies the company has implemented.

Aesthetic originality was never a clear priority of Film4 Productions, with the company playing it safe for the most part, with the dramatically conventional. A large number of these films never actually made it onto a cinema screen, with the majority performing poorly, yet others did some astonishing business. FilmFour may not have necessarily produced a ‘renaissance’ but it has been involved in a major part in the assurance of the continuation of a British Film Industry, by commissioning and helping to finance work that might not otherwise find sufficient funding in these hard times.

In her 2014 article in the Journal of British Cinema and Television, Laura Mayne draws attention to the considerations of cultural value that were ‘enshrined in Channel Four’s defining remit to cater to unpresented communities’ and how they looked to give airtime to the minority voices and how to offer alternatives to the dominant television culture (p.462).

A strong way of reviewing the established Film4 canon is by focusing on the film4 ‘best of’ seasons aired in January 1993 and November 2012 respectively, which provide an element of great historical insight. As part of the ten-year anniversary in 1993, Channel Four screened a season of Film4’s ‘Greatest Hits’. Out of approximately 160 Film4 productions screened through their channels up to that point, only thirteen were selected that were recognized to be ‘the most popular and successful ‘Film on Fours’ to have emerged over the past decade’ which went someway to prove just how closely Channel Four has been associated with the biggest recent successes of the British Film Industry.

The selection of films for this particular film season reveal an effort to be representative of Film4’s output, and besets films from each type of genre and filmmaking style that was strongly associated with Film4 throughout the 1980s, contemporary social issues, experimental art cinema and both the avant-garde and heritage British historical film. It is also worth noting that this particular anniversary fell within a period of transition for the Channel Four Corporation, between the less commercially orientated Channel Four of the 1980s and the more competitive environment that it entered in the 1990s.

In November 2012, Film4oD ran a thirteenth anniversary celebration season entitled ’30 films for 30p’. According to a report into Channel Four’s impact on the British Film Industry by Olsberg SPI, the channel has a ‘clear and distinctive brand, built over a 25 year period of commitment and innovation, a brand which is highly important to the British Film Industry because it is widely recognized. Film4 is also important to Channel Four’s own brand identity. Consequently, one would expect that the films chosen for this particular promotional season would, to some extent, mirror how the channel wants to be seen in terms of its perceived impact on British Cinema itself.

The films chosen also spearhead the importance of particular styles and directors to the channel’s reputation for knowing and understanding the alternative taste. Overall, the ’30 films for 30p’ anniversary promotion projects FilmFour’s role as a producer involved in risky, alternative, innovative and above all contemporary filmmaking. It can lastly be argued, that Channel Four’s output in the 1980s demonstrated the risk taking innovation with the freedom to experiment, which is not axiomatically as evident in the filmmaking of today.

As Dobson states in her text Channel 4: the early years (1989) ‘FilmFour revitalized the film industry’ (p.38), which is strengthened by Maynes’ opinion that since 1982, Channel Four’s film funding practices have ‘changed the landscape of the British Film Industry’. Now, aside from its mass contribution to film production, Channel Four also made significant contributions to film culture through its policy on contemporary social issues and the minority. Though, as a whole, Britain was quick to adapt video as a genuine mass medium, relatively few independent and foreign language films were made available on British channels. So to compromise, what with the imminent death of the repertory cinema circuit, Channel Four introduced new digital channels, which saw its impressive, if somewhat uneven success rate set an example that was quickly followed by the likes of the BBC.

Despite the fact that most commentators would agree that the film side to the Channel Four Television Corporation has had an ascertainable impact on British Film Culture, certain findings do illustrate that the Film4 canon is far from entirely ingrained and can be contested on a number of levels. There have been several rumors that Channel Four have been considering the possibility of reducing its future commitments to FilmFour production, which is worrying for many. Be that as it may, whether its achievements have been uneven of not, British filmmakers and their ample audiences need the continuing support of Channel Four on several different levels and since its creation in the early 1980s, Channel Four and FilmFour Productions has left a fundamentally timeless stamp on British film and television culture.

Bibliography:

(2013). Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television. (33.3)

Catterall, P. (1998). The Making of Channel Four. United States: Blackwell Publishers.

Hobson, D. (1989). Channel 4: the early years and Jeremy Isaacs legacy. London: I. B. Tauris.

Mayne, L. (2014). Assessing Cultural Impact: Film4, Canon Formation and Forgotten Film. Journal of British Cinema and Television. (11.4) pp.459-480