Ken Loach in pretentious tosser shocker!

[User removed 4]

Well done David Cameron for saying what most people think i.e that the british film industry should make films that people actually want to watch rather than pretentious arty farty crap.

AOL News - Error

 

[the right footed denilson]

You didn't like The Damned United or This Is England then?!

 

[User removed 4]

You didn't like The Damned United or This Is England then?!

Yes i did, i believe they fall into the category " films people want to watch ".

 

[The Large One]

Yes i did, i believe they fall into the category " films people want to watch ".

But under Cameron's ignorant edict, they would never be made.

 

[n1 gull]

Well done David Cameron for saying what most people think i.e that the british film industry should make films that people actually want to watch rather than pretentious arty farty crap.

AOL News - Error

I agree. Why we have to do 'gritty' films is beyond me. Nil by mouth - f*ck off. I'm definitely more 4 weddings

 

[Horton's halftime iceberg]

Ken Loach is a fantastic film maker, even managed to get FCUM into Looking for Eric.

Cameron is a tosser who would love us just to churn out Harry Potters and Notting Hill romps.

Bit of a naural left - right tiff.

 

[alan partridge]

I agree. Why we have to do 'gritty' films is beyond me. Nil by mouth - f*ck off. I'm definitely more 4 weddings

 

[Biscuit]

I think this is a price vs value debate. It's a cultural thing, there is a value to society by films being part state subsidised. The arts value to society is very difficult to guage in a purely financial sense.

Sounds a bit knee jerk and general by Cameron, no change there. If he thought his arguments through a little it would make for an interesting debate at least. Both sides have good points but as Hortons Halftime Iceburg says, 'Bit of a naural left - right tiff'

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Well done David Cameron for saying what most people think i.e that the british film industry should make films that people actually want to watch rather than pretentious arty farty crap.

AOL News - Error

Bit rich coming from a PM whom the electorate did not actually vote in to run the country. I guess Cameron is an expert on insufficient numbers.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I think this is a price vs value debate. It's a cultural thing, there is a value to society by films being part state subsidised. The arts value to society is very difficult to guage in a purely financial sense.

Sounds a bit knee jerk and general by Cameron, no change there. If he thought his arguments through a little it would make for an interesting debate at least. Both sides have good points but as Hortons Halftime Iceburg says, 'Bit of a naural left - right tiff'

Such a comment from Cameron just proves Loach's point perfectly. A bit dim of Cameron to fall into such a trap.

 

[Jonno]

If it's about making art that 'the people' want to watch, then I presume the government will also be cutting all funding for opera and ballet etc. Oh hold on, probably not, as the miniscule audiences for these are probably mostly posh Tory types.

 

[sten_super]

I'm with bushy on this one; it's just Ken Loach trying to cover his own backside.

I'm all for using government funds to keep entry to art exhibitions free, etc. as long as that encourages people to go and see and use them. I'm not a fan of the government handing out money so that 12 people can 'appreciate' an exhibition on a very narrow topic in the back of beyond. It's the same with cinema; I'm happy to see government money used to encourage filmmakers to work in this country, as long as their work is then going to be appreicated by a decent volume of people.

 

[CHAPPERS]

The French have got film making right, we should follow their lead really.

 

[The Large One]

How many 'blockbusters' does this country make and what value are they culturally and financially to the UK?

I'm just thinking of the independent films made in the UK that wouldn't have been made on the back of the notion that films should only be made in order to make money.

Withnail & I
The Life of Brian
Local Hero
Gregory's Girl
The Damned United
Still Crazy
Sexy Beast
Life Is Sweet
Secrets & Lies
High Hopes
etc.

 

[Gwylan]

If it's about making art that 'the people' want to watch, then I presume the government will also be cutting all funding for opera and ballet etc. Oh hold on, probably not, as the miniscule audiences for these are probably mostly posh Tory types.

Don't be daft, the Royal Opera House receives £28m of public money. That's one institution grabbing 7 percent of all the arts money. Of course, that's going to be OK, middle-class arts expenditure is ring-fenced: tough luck on everyone else.

 

[keaton]

So Bushy's now supporting money being taken out of the UK by foreigners?

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

You didn't like The Damned United or This Is England then?!

Those types of films would still be made and supported by Goverment money. It's the Art for Arts sake lobby that need to be worried.

 

[Scampi]

How many 'blockbusters' does this country make and what value are they culturally and financially to the UK?

I'm just thinking of the independent films made in the UK that wouldn't have been made on the back of the notion that films should only be made in order to make money.

Withnail & I
The Life of Brian
Local Hero
Gregory's Girl
The Damned United
Still Crazy
Sexy Beast
Life Is Sweet
Secrets & Lies
High Hopes
etc.

I think this ignores the fact that many of these films were backed by ( at least some) people that wanted a return on their money. Many of these films would have cost peanuts to make and therefore needed relatively samll audiences to break even, so despite not being blockbusters would have provided a return for the backers.

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

I think this ignores the fact that many of these films were backed by ( at least some) people that wanted a return on their money. Many of these films would have cost peanuts to make and therefore needed relatively samll audiences to break even, so despite not being blockbusters would have provided a return for the backers.

Indeed. Most of them were supported by BBC Films or Film Four. Both of these are commercial funds.

 

[Gwylan]

I don't get this knocking of Ken Loach. As far I can see, he does make films that people want to watch; Wind that Shakes the Barley took $23 worldwide, Looking for Eric took $11m (and that must have cost peanuts to make). Surely profitable films like these are exactly the sort of thing that the public sector should be funding - we'll get some return on them.

It surely rubbish like Sex Lives of the Potato Men which lost a packet (and was made partly with public money) that should be canned.