It should be pointed out that the reported remarks come in advance of a speech he is delivering today at Pinewood Studios (although clearly officially leaked), and also proceed Lord Smith’s review of Government policy that will drop next week.

The gist of it is that the government wishes to provide more help for UK producers to make “commercially successful” independent pictures without the need for significant investment from Hollywood. Lord Smith (a former Labour culture secretary) is widely expected to suggest a refocussing on National Lottery funding that will favour independent films with “mainstream” potential, and the development of an export strategy for British film. On the surface this sounds laudable, but this strategy seems to me to be based on one massive Iceberg-ahead sized assumption and is extremely deficient of comment on some of the basic building blocks required to sustain a commercially viable longterm film industry.

Let’s start with the iceberg. Here’s a quote, you will have heard it before.

NOBODY KNOWS ANYTHING!

William Goldman, from his book Adventures in the Screen Trade. The caps and exclamation mark are my addition, for like emphasis innit.

Does Cameron have a mystical palantír hidden away in Number 10 that allows him to foresee the future success of any given script in development? I think not. This is why companies like Film 4 and BBC Films (oops sorry, I shouldn’t mention the BBC. Slapped wrist) spend a significant proportion of their budgets on script development, and trying to nurture new writing talent (and, in my opinion, they don’t spend nearly enough). Did anyone hear Cameron proclaiming this time last year, then what the UK film industry needed to to was invest in a low budget spin off of a niche Channel 4 sitcom popular with young people? Anyone? No, so let’s knock the crystal ball theory on the head.

The truth is, that the British film industry is already doing this. Everyone is already chasing a hit, for goodness sakes find me a film producer who does not want their slate to be commercially successful. There are however degrees of success. I suspect that Cameron is doing what many politicians have done in the past, looking at a recent success and being blinded by delusions that if we just continue making films like The King’s Speech, then audiences will continue to flock the the multiplex to see them. Well I’m sorry, this is demonstrably untrue, The King’s Speech was a huge hit and one that continued its success out of the domestic market and into that fabled land of honey and riches AAAA-MER-EEEE-KAAA (fuck yeah!) But it also had the benefit of US distribution by The Weinstein Company, who know how to market and sell a film like this like nobody else (all the way to Oscar glory). There is nothing wrong with that, absolutely nothing, but on paper a film like, say, My Week With Marilyn sounds like just as surefire a hit. It hasn’t been.

Also going back to The Inbetweeners movie, a massive hit at the UK box office, beyond anyones predictions, hopes or expectations (including the filmmakers). The film earned £45 million at the UK box office alone. Now this is my opinion, but I do not think that the film will carry that success over to the US, I just don’t. Frankly though, who cares. This is a film that shows that making export the cornerstone of British film industry strategy is foolish. It is perfectly possible for us to make films aimed primarily at the domestic audience and for them to be profitable.

The days when an organisation like the BFI existed to foster the development of small British films aimed at the art house and without commercial considerations are long gone. Would the films of Derek Jarman get funded now? Well look at the recent output of Peter Greenaway, or the extreme problems Terrence Davies has getting a new project off the ground. The fact is, that the filmmakers that are constantly used as ammunition for the argument that the British industry does not make films that are audience focussed or commercial are most often innocent of these charges. Ken Loach and Mike Leigh (for it is they) continue to make films because they continue to receive funding. They continue to receive funding because they both have a track record of making films that reach an audience, are relatively cheap to make, and return a modest but reliable profit. It would be equally a fallacy to base industry strategy on making these kind of films alone, but no one is doing that!

The history of the defunct UK Film Council is littered with the stinking corpses of films that were absolutely made with purely commercial considerations. The Sex Lives of the Potato Men is a title that still gives me cold sweats. But these films were in the main made with the objective of being successful. How would Cameron’s vision prevent such a stinker from being made?

I applaud the government for trying to put the UK film industry on their agenda, but I would suggest that the best way forward is not to narrow the focus in favour of what seems like a safe bet. For example a few years back I was sitting in the NFT watching a preview of Sunshine. At the post screening Q&A director Danny Boyle was asked what his next project was. He replied that he was making a film about the Indian version of a popular game show set in Mumbai, that would focus on the crushing poverty of the city, and would be partly in Hindi. Yes, I admit that my brow furrowed and I thought, “no one is going to want to see THAT Danny”. Now I ask you, do you think David Cameron’s reaction would have been any different?

Now, to the stuff that is not mentioned in Cameron’s remarks.

If I were to suggest where government support and even intervention (although this is another debate that needs to happen) should go, then I would point to three crucial areas. Distribution, exhibition and support for new talent.

There are many UK distributors out there, but they have to compete with multinational organisations with far greater resources to pour into marketing and distributing their films. When you go to the multiplex, how many screens are showing Mission Impossible right now? And of those screens, how many are even half full on a Tuesday night? UK distributors face an uphill battle even getting their films into a cinema near you. Arguing for legislation for an enforced quota of British films to be shown in British cinemas is a controversial call and it is one that needs careful consideration and debate. But really, would it be so bad? France has operated such a system for years, and South Korea has seen its film industry rise to become a significant player on the international market which its own measures in this area. I think this deserves consideration even as I acknowledge that forcing cinemas to screen bad British movies could be counterproductive (so lets make good ones).

So exhibition then. Film ticket price increases have far outstripped inflation. Add in the extra gouging being done for 3D, and it is hard for the punter not to feel they are being ripped off. At the same time the experience of cinema is being devalued by shoddy presentation, and tolerance and even encouragement of ignorant practices by a portion of the audience. The multiplexes have followed the Blockbuster model of supply and demand where half the screens are devoted to the same single blockbuster so that the customer can see what they want, when they want. Just so long as it is Transformers. This is an aspect of the rise of entitlement culture. Really, is it too much even to expect audiences to check the times a film is playing now?

This is why independent exhibitors, and film societies and clubs deserve support. Instead in April last year, the government cut all funding to The British Federation of Film Societies. In rural areas such societies, almost exclusively run by volunteers who just love cinema, are the only way you can see independent films. A rum state of affairs.

Finally, Cameron says nothing about fostering new talent. Where are tomorrow’s writers and directors going to come from? By insisting on a focus on solidly commercial prospects I have serious concerns that this will lead to more films from established talents, based on established properties, and less films by first time directors and writers. Not to mention new cinematographers, editors, lighting technicians, musicians, and so on. This is a serious oversight and it needs to be addressed.

Remember the film industry is just that, an industry. Film production supports a huge network of professions, crafts, skills, and brings money into the wider economy. Film productions do that even before they hit cinemas (if they do at all). I fear that Cameron’s comments show a lack of joined-up thinking and foresight, and I dearly hope this is not reflected in next week’s Smith report.