News Item: UK films urged to be more 'mainstream' in new report. The British film industry should back more mainstream movies, a report is expected to recommend next week. Prime Minister David Cameron said the film industry should support "commercially successful pictures".
Mr Cameron praised the UK film industry but said "we should aim even higher, building on the incredible success of recent years". He acknowledged the British film industry had made "a £4bn contribution to the UK economy and an incalculable contribution to our culture".
The report follows the abolition of the UK Film Council last year, which handed over its funding responsibilities to the British Film Institute (BFI).
It is debatable BSL films are 'mainstream' to all deaf people at present, and as far as any body overseeing that, they appear to promote on a very singular level that is mostly not topical, not accessible to all, or mainstream at all under culture, how long will Cameron let that go on I wonder ? Should we promote minority whilst the majority go without ? and should film content be more accessible and relevant to people NOT deaf so they start with a chance of getting money ?
Near all BSL films never leave the deaf communal area and not intended to do so. Art for arts sake ? maybe not much longer via the public purse. As an aside the Kings Speech an state funded film which was viewed as having little chance of making its funding back went on to do 15 times that, so how do you view WHICH film the public is going to like ? What we DO know is 98% would not bother to watch a film about deaf people ! we can hope the deaf film-maker appreciates films should get a wider audience and make MONEY too, how will we break into mainstream whilst minority BSL films are they way they are ?
They are surely still annoyed the most successful films with deaf in it, were made via TV and near NON-deaf actors. Nothing has happened since Marlee Matlin has it ?
Just want to correct some of your assumptions.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, the deaf films that have been made have rarely had government support. The BSLBT is not funded by the Arts Council or the (previous) Film Council, it's funded by a consortium of broadcasters who put all their quota for providing BSL to their viewers into one pot, so that programmes featuring BSL on screen would be made.
Of the films that have had funding from the UK Film Council, they have been short films, not features. Short films are never expected to turn a profit, and are about giving filmmakers a step up towards making a feature (where a profit is usually hoped for).
The films that David Cameron is talking about are feature films funded at a far higher level than the deaf films that have been made so far. Many of the companies who have won BSLBT commissions have made little, if any profit from the programmes they have made.
The fact is that The Kings Speech was an exception in terms of making a profit. A lot of similarly funded films have sunk without a trace, making a loss. It may be that they were too 'niche' and not commercial enough. Or it might be that they were great films, but too many people in this country would rather watch Hollywood rom-coms and action movies in multiplexes (!)
One other point - you say that a lot of deaf films aren't accessible but they are all subtitled, so actually they're accessible to all.
The point was more about content than access but really too many are aimed at a very small minority of deaf people, I'd rather see wider accessible films by the BSL sector, or it seems like the rest of the deaf who don't like the content are stuck with it anyway. It would be pointless arguing on 'art' content because art is in the eyes of the viewer. However as a deaf person I don't acquaint with BSL 'art' at any level so would rather see an wider approach in content than we are seeing from the BSL sector, in that respect I see Cameron's point re 'main streaming' out put,you don't have to deliberately make minority output given the wider message is we want out of the minority status. IN real terms BSL art filing is the domain of people in London or Manchester etc rarely anywhere else because you would never get an audience. Deaf don't make 'films' do they,just you tube and TV things that usually end up with debates about who performs in them, deaf are not topical or attempting mainstream at all. But for disability status they wouldn't get the funding they do. I find BSL TV output obscure and irrelevant mainly as a deaf person, time we had something to watch as well I think. We don't need to be a minority so why plug the point they are happy that way ? You seriously consider providing 'access', validates total lack of content for other deaf ? Sounds a con to me !
ReplyDeleteIt's the responsibility of the mainstream to be inclusive of Deaf people, not the other way around!!
ReplyDeleteIt's a dual responsibility, the issue is the will on either side to include each other. Lots of access we have does not in fact get used to interact directly on a social level with hearing, it is 'Access' to services more than people. HOW access is utilised is becoming an problem as deaf use it with each OTHER and not to access hearing. I don't count social sites because access/issues of rights is not what they are really about.
ReplyDelete