Nice antidote to ‘gritty’ shorts.
Grant Orchard has been nominated for an Academy Award for his short animated film ‘A Morning Stroll’.
This is not only terrific news cos Grant is a lovely bloke, but because it shows that good work doesn’t go unappreciated, and VERY good work it is too.
And FuNnY! Which is much underrated, and far harder to do than sad.
HERE is a bit about what it means to Grant too which makes for lovely reading.
Re: The Prime Ministers statement HERE
It’s utterly moronic that Cameron, who just days ago claimed “…If” to be his favourite film, should then aim to only filter funding into guaranteed box office fare, and the profits into the pockets of producers rather than returning it to a funding body, in the name of saving the Uk film industry.
Is there such a thing as a guaranteed box office hit in a climate where a $150 million Hollywood 3D animated family sequel to a huge hit by an established director stiffs against a critically mauled no budget horror flick made by no mark director which goes on to reign at the box office against all expectation?
Regardless of this – what is the incentive to ‘invest’ when the profits are syphoned into producers accounts rather than returned to the funding body? Given their indisputable imminent success, why do these titles even need government funding?? Surely that’s the studios job? Is not the point of funding to give opportunity to those films that would otherwise not get made, or to those crews that would otherwise not get the opportunity to work in the industry? … this being also warranted by the fact that should they find the small audience they believe they have – regardless of scale – that the funding will be returned. And why apparently blame, and turn your back on the small scale, low risk, independent films that have been the saving grace of a limping uk industry for nigh on twenty years? It’s an irony that the majority of funding for the award winning, critically feted and homegrown work of our ‘auteurs’ is largely sourced from elsewhere in Europe, with their work awarded with critical plaudits and healthy returns, whereas we’ll soon be laying claim to credit for an endless production line of good natured teen bromance vampire comedy flicks by Working Title and watching the profits go to the far larger US contributors.
Given his admission that the uk film industry has been hugely successful of late, returning £4bn annually and establishing directorial talent as diverse as Andrea Arnold, Richard Ayoade, Ben Wheatly, Joe Cornish, Gareth Edwards, Edgar Wright, Paddy Considine and Chris Morris, why is Camerons focus on films subject matter anyway?
Why not tackle instead the major Distributors and Exhibitors who can make or kill a film at launch by their indiscriminate decisions as to what gets shown, where and for how long? All the above, to varying degrees, make what could be considered niche movies but that all turn healthy profits, but if they’re released on one screen, for a mid afternoon showing for a week at Finchley Road they’re unlikely to prove more lucrative propositions than the movie at Leicester Square with the 200foot hoarding on eight screens all day every day for two months. There’s a reason DVD sales of these types of film are where their main revenue comes from, and it’s because while there is an audience, there simply isn’t the opportunity to view the feature in the context it was originally intended to be seen.
Relying on small independent ‘arthouse’ cinemas to cater to this market only serves to mark these films out as being ‘special interest’ and to divide what ought to be a united industry.
Dedicating one small screen in each of the main multiplexes to films that would otherwise not get broadly screened, even subsidising the ticket sales of these smaller films to encourage an audience, could only increase the visibility of these films, giving them the opportunity to return on their investment, and opening up the cinemas to a potentially larger market.