NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LOACH
No wonder he's smiling. Wouldn't you be if, despite tepid reviews, you'd just won the Palme D'Or and with yet another FilmFour deal in the bag?
Welcome to the world of Ken Loach, in whose gritty purview aspiring young filmmakers are invisible. Which is what the industrious, illustrious Ken must have felt when he started out last century. Since the early sixties he's had a good run at it, according to IMDB, crediting him with 42 productions, arguably the most consistent output of any living British director.
Good for him, but not for us next generation filmmakers.
I'm reluctant to slay this sacred cow because it looks plain churlish, but somebody has to call it. Many filmmakers, whatever their background, are hungry for a break, yet like Ken's favoured subjects we are deprived, largely in part to him and his producers hoovering up every bit of subsidy going. Living in Scotland, I sense a terrible crisis of confidence in what passes for a film industry, a nation that has always parted company with its talent, from the genius Alexander Mackendrick to Bill Forsyth, Michael Caton-Jones and Paul McGuigan, they've all had to leave for want of opportunity. Shame on Scotland for denying their ambition while repeatedly backing Ken Loach.
Digging into the past, it seems Ken has received more subsidy than any other filmmaker in this country. Which begs a lot of questions because I wouldn't object if Ken Loach's films returned a profit back into Scotland. But they don't. And we're talking millions here. Millions that didn't fund local filmmakers like you and me. It's not like filmmaking's a good cause anyway when you can't get a doctor's appointment and people are sleeping on our streets.
From Carla's Song, My Name is Joe, Sweet Sixteen to Ae Fond Kiss, Ken's earned a fair old wage over the years at the expense of the poor, the main purchasers of Lottery tickets, the same people who would never dream of parting with six quid at the multiplex to watch other downtrodden people somehow 'overcome' or 'accept' their lot in life. Hell, for the same ticket price you can watch a zillion dollars of entertainment.
But that's only part of the problem I have with Ken Loach.
Beyond the rumours of him directing commercials, I get the sense of a man with good intentions. Politically correct and socially aware Ken may be, but when I heard him address a Scottish Socialist party rally in 2001 at the Mitchell Theatre in Glasgow, I thought to myself, here's a man patronising his audience, coming across as he did like some hectoring nineteenth century cleric or some latter-day Dickens, talking down to the people about such matters as Iraq and telling us how awful it was. Like we didn't know already? And your point being, Ken?
To make a living by portraying the lives of the working/underclass as morally flawed is a cheap thrill and an indecent racket. To make victims of the poor is a treacherous lie. We're in the 21st century now, not the 60s, 70s, 80s or 90s where folks like me and my family - decent ordinary working people - get by. In ASBO country there's many a story, but you don't have to live there Ken. Your films are not even good drama - witness the ludicrous plotting on My Name is Joe. Unless there's a point that goes beyond exploiting the disenfranchised and until Ken's prepared to be more explicit in telling us who the real antagonists are (like we don't know) all he's doing is flying the flag for victimhood and in Scotland, handing out ammo to a feeble-minded but vicious provincial press who love nothing better than put the boot up film for being miserable.
An actor friend of mine once told me about his audition with Loach, reckoning the only way to get a part in his movie was to pretend to no previous acting experience. In My Name is Joe he said the majority of actors told Ken they were plasterers or carpet-fitters to be in with a shot and what's more, he bought it.
To learn that Ken Loach has yet another film lined up just depresses me. It's not like I'll rush to the cinema to see it and nor, I suspect, will anybody else. If this sounds disrespectful I don't apologise because when I read that his next outing has been funded by the UK Film Council's New Cinema Fund, yes, NEW Cinema Fund - I think, surely this is a joke but sadly it's one made at my - and my fellow filmmaker's expense.
So get your hands off my class, Ken. Away and draw blood from your own.
posted by Leanne Smith at 8:31 AM
15 Comments:
Well slayed.
Afraid I'll not be as eloquent as you, Leanne, but here's my thoughts:
Hoo-fucking-rah! You're only saying what every sensible, film literate person is thinking.
F
he sent his own kids to private school. that doesn't sit easy with me.
Thanks for your comments, guys. I'm glad I'm not alone in thinking that for all his concern for the unrepresented in society, Ken still raids the coffers that might help new voices tell their stories.
Either this is an act of gross arrogance on his part - as if he's the only legitimate commentator on the underclass who can be trusted to tell it like it is - or - he's happy to be part of the machine, the 'Ken Loach' brand of exploitation movies.
Either way, you'd think after all this time he could find other sources of funding and stand aside and give the rest of us a chance.
If he actually made films that changed minds, I'd have less of a problem. But he doesn't.
His films are consumed by people already buying into one-dimensional socialist opinions.
And they're not entertaining. For all the bleating about the multiplexes run by capitalist evil people not showing it, there's a good reason: because no-one will want to watch it.
Tim - thanks for that. Totally agree. A few days ago my Loach piece was pulled off the front page of Netribution for being 'vicious', followed by a 'debate' that resulted in me being abused for my views. The piece was reinstated after I argued that if they don't want to put up a contrary opinion, then why should anybody bother writing?
It's interesting that Loach seems so bulletproof. By expressing a legitimate concern - that Loach consistently bags public funds -I'm suddenly turned into the whore of Babylon for saying it.
I'm sure there's a lot of filmmakers out there who despair that they can't access what little funds are available because a well-established filmmaker is favoured over lesser-known talent.
Your point about Loach's films not changing minds is absolutely right. It's classic preaching to the converted. And that's before we get started on the aesthetic merits. Loach may be well-meaning but cinematically he's in a rut. I'd rather see a flawed film by a new filmmaker than watch a Loach movie because we've seen it all before.
And for him to moan about the dominance of Hollywood is a bit hypocritical when his movies play in the same multiplexes. If you're in the game, you play by the money's rules. If he really wanted things to be different, then maybe he could take a leaf out of Robert Greenwald's (Outfoxed) book and fund and distribute his own pictures, instead of making 2-6 million quid stiffs, largely at the expense of the Lottery.
Lx
I'm going to be in big trouble tomorrow. Just spent an hour perusing your excellent blog. Some really excellent writing, I think.
Good luck with your filmmaking.
Have you thought of making 2 minutes of your new movie, and put it out with an advert for a share offer in the completed film. Make 2 minutes, and then just let it breed across the internet.
The share price would also include a free DVD of the movie.
It's easy, all you need to do now is write the best low budget script since Clerks.
Thanks for that Tim. Me, I'll try anything to get a movie made - like you say, I just need to get the script right!
Lx
You are certainly eloquent Leanne and you have an interesting opinion, but I must disagree with it most vehemently.
As a fellow Scot(I'd call myself a filmmaker but that would be a hyperbole on my behalf considering its impossible to make films here), I can certaibly understand your frustration. However it is the organisation itself which deserves your vitriol, not Ken Loach.
The are an utter abortion of an agency for whom instability is a personal motto. The constant chopping and changing and the lack of organisation lead to a lot of disillussioned filmmakers with absolutely no hope.
In regards to Ken, I love his films and agree with elements of his socialist beliefs(can't believe he supports the obsequious sycophant that is George Galloway though!), and I think he deserves money given the fact he films regularly in this country aiding employement and dealing with our social issues. And given the fact Scottish Screen and the executive mutually masturbate at the very thought of a profit, its not hard to see why they give him it!
Now, to solve the issue at hand, we as Scottish filmmakers need to take the upper hand and reclaim our failing industry from the hands of the government agencies. New Zealand can do it, Denmark can do it, why can't we. As a collective group, there is very little in the way of networking, discussion, arguments regarding style and form, the very debates that give us the kick up the arse we need.
When we actively take control over these aspects, we can start to build a film industry that supports itself, which ultimately will benefit us in the long run.
Fair enough Chris, you're entitled to disagree, just as I'm entitled to my opinion.
I agree with you about SS though - obvious if you read this blog. See my latest piece.
In the case of Denmark and New Zealand, what you find is state support being used by highly astute and talented individuals - say, Peter Aalbeck Jensen and Peter Jackson - who managed to create profitable businesses.
Sadly, Scotland is tethered to London and while Scottish films enjoy a strong identity abroad, trying to get past London, which I believe is biased against Scottish films, is almost impossible.
You're right too about a lack of debate and any sense that filmmakers can come together. I get the feeling things have to reach rock bottom before producers are forced to talk to each other. That time has come. Ken Hay has been a disaster and with the threat of Creative Scotland hanging over filmmakers, maybe in the next few weeks and months we'll begin to see some protest, although I think the Executive had its mind made up a long time ago. It might just be the wake-up call filmmakers need to come out fighting.
Lx
I think we have those astute and highly talented individuals in this country as well, the network in which to nurture this talent however does not exist and that is what is holding us back.
Denmark were united by Dogma, New Zealand by the enormous success of Peter Jackson, whilst we are united by the absolute lack of hope(its still something!).
Despite being a pessimist, I still believe that we can make a difference by building this industry again from the grass roots. It certainly wouldn't be easy, it is so fragmented and uniting it would be akin to piecing together a massive jigsaw.
Now I don't mean we need Dogma, but the New Zealand approach is well worth looking into it as its comparible in size to our country. Peter Jackson takes the money from hollywood and comes back to New Zealand and creates jobs etc which helps support the industry(makes me wish the executive had built that proposed film studio when it was being discussed).
I honestly don't even look at SS at all anymore, its a bit of a joke really. I live in a rural area where fellow filmmakers seem non-existant and its impossible to get equipment without travelling to Glasgow given the fact Edinburgh media have shut down.
But I think we need to take this anger and focus it on changing it ourself. No-one has confidence in SS yet no-one is willing to try and change it. We as filmmakers should be meeting, watching films, arguing about style, approaches to filmmaking, working with actors, mise en scene, storytelling etc etc, yet we don't. There are numerous production companies in Scotland and I have chatted about this with a few of them, most of them agreed but it ended at that. As for education, well I don't really think the courses at Uni's tend to prepare us for filmmaking(look at American Universities for comparison there), so once again, its up to us to self educate in what we need to know.
I seriously hope we change this soon, as I imagine the enthusiasm that people have for change can only last so long as we give up filmmaking in search of promotion at McDonalds(apologies to McD's workers, not meant to be an insult), and thats the biggest shame in all of this
Chris - thanks for that. I think your comment about being united by a lack of hope could provide the key to a positive change in the system.
I agree with you that we have the talent in this country. The Peter Jackson example is interesting because of the loyalty and good faith shown to New Zealand, a country that shares many of the same attributes as NZ. When you consider the talent that has left Scotland over the decades, in most cases never to return, you begin to wonder if it's because our institutions show no respect for or appreciation of our filmmakers' achievements.
There's a lack of vision in what Scottish film could become. Sadly filmmakers fail to connect with each other to form a lobby in the same way that opera and theatre does so effectively (and who'll be exempt from Creative Scotland's remit). I'm not sure what the solution is, but I'm sure there will always be individual talents here who'll get films made, in spite of, not because of, bodies such as Scottish Screen, whose aims have become skewed by chasing after strategies to suit the Executive. My complaint is their increasing links to broadcasters, which has little to do with film. The 'opportunities' offered to up and coming filmmakers have nothing to do with the cinematic - it's slot-filling on the cheap, with too many interfering voices from 'executives' who've never made films and who don't understand the distinction between film and TV. In the scrum to secure even the smallest budget, struggling filmmakers forget to have pride in what they do - as filmmakers - because they're too busy making cheap telly. It's a shame.
Lx
I fully understand why people leave, I certainly would if someone came to me offering big money and big budgets to make films the way I want to.
Its impossible to resist for people who can barely afford to live just because they want to make films here.
Despite all the criticism I aim towards Scottish Screen, I still believe filmmakers themselves have to take some blame in this, due to their laid back attitude and their belief that they should just be given money.
Where is that desire within our filmmakers to grab some college drama students, a digital camera and go and film something and experiment without spending anything.
Shane Meadows did it in England, took his shorts to a production company and suddenly had a career. Chris Nolan did it without funding as no-one would give him it, and now he is one of the brightest talents in cinema.
Its a very American system without a doubt, but its exactly what places America at the forefront of film today, with both its indie and hollywood scene.
Once again it comes back to the whole networking issue, taking our anger away from Scottish Screen and using it to rebel, to light the flame within the industry ourselves and to stop moaning about money.
It is very possible to make films on ultra low budgets given the right enviorment, America has found this out and reaps the rewards, we haven't as of yet, but we certainly could.
How to start it, well that I can't answer, as I don't have a clue. Ultimately it will end up being a cumulative effort, a few people starting it all of and the rewards being reaped by the entire Scottish film industry, we just need our own Jacksons, Rodriguez and Von Triers, our own New Wave.
I look forward to actively participating in it when it eventually comes :)
I couldn't agree more about film-makers not taking responsibility for getting films made. Recently someone wrote accusing me of only having a go at SS because I'd been turned down for funding, when in fact I've never applied for any because of their dismal track record in returning phone calls and emails to unknown filmmakers. It's just not worth the bother.
The energy you need to get a film off the ground soon gets eroded when you have to deal with agencies for months on end for even the smallest amount of support. Filmmaking here ought to be more like the American indie scene - but even in America you need to find exposure for your film, through festivals and small distributors. Chris Nolan's first feature, 'Following' was picked up by Next Wave, an American outfit. It's unlikely that a British company would have distributed it. And that's the barrier - even though the technology's there to make films cheaply - for about five grand, you can buy a decent camcorder and edit software - without a route to market, it's difficult to get noticed.
In Scotland, there's a whole network of filmmakers already doing what you suggest - they're out there - Duncan and Wilma at FinScotland with 3-4 features under their belt, Uisdean Murray with his company 'all around the world, baby' and Bryan Larkin, who got to Sundance with his short - but they're all under the radar. They're the people doing day jobs, saving money to make their films on camcorders to a reasonable standard - these filmmakers are largely self-taught at their own expense yet they're consistently ignored by Scottish Screen.
The problem's not just about money and a chance for your film to be seen, it's also about breaking down the conventional way of doing things and having the confidence - and a story worth telling. A lot of people graduating from film courses think they deserve to be directing 4 million pound features with a full crew and a name cast. And then sit and complain when it doesn't happen.
If Scottish Screen could only accept that some films can be made on very low budgets (say, 250,000) and give filmmakers the freedom to do it their way, instead of imposing rules about crew numbers and the length of shooting days, then you might see some great new work. But they won't. Schemes like New Found Film tried that, but they demanded the standard rules apply, such as three ADS and four people on camera, which you just don't need on a camcorder shoot.
A few years ago everybody got very excited about the digital thing, but only very few could see the possibilities. My guess is those who keep making films and who believe in themselves will eventually break through. It's just a pity it's so hard, when with some imagination it could be so much easier.
Lx
Agree entirely, and I have noticed those whose films you have mentioned but I shamefully admit I've not had the chance to view them yet(Student finances eh, who'd have them?)
But with a bit of organisation and a sharing of ideas, we'd be able to turn it all around. Especially if we had a better chance to view each others films, as I find it incredibly difficult to find any scottish filmmakers films showing anywhere. The multiplexes don't show them and I am pretty crap at perusing arthouses for them.
Guerilla filmmaking seems to be the best way to go in this country, and some sort of network where we can watch and critique each others films.
How else can we prosper without it
Post a Comment
<< Home