Talk:Cinema of the United Kingdom/Archives/2012

UK cinema categories
I've listed everyone in the Noted Directors section under Category:British film directors, and replacing the section with a ref to the category. If the category ever gets too large we could create a separate Notables article. I suggest we do the same for: Noted actors section, List of Black British actors, List of Asian British actors, Studios section. Actors can be listed under Category:British actors and Category:Cinema actors (and one of Category:English actors, Category:Welsh actors, Category:Scottish actors and Category:Northern Irish actors). Studios go under Category:Movie studios. Jihg 12:59, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, it seems I misunderstood the current policy on categories: one should not put something in both a category AND its parent category. So we shouldn't use Category:British actors directly, just combinations of the more specific categories. Jihg 20:31, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * See also Category:Black British actors, Category:Asian British actors and Category:British film studios. Jihg 13:24, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * One issue with having sub-categories though is that it can 'make invisible' those people who are placed in them. We now have asian and black but I'm not aware that we have white (for example), thus someone browsing via the cat lists will get a biased view of things and those people in the subcats suffer what is, in effect, racism. This is almost certainly not the intention, but is the effect. --Vamp:Willow 13:58, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your concerns, but I think we can avoid any problems by ensuring that these British actors are not only categorised as black or asian, but also as British, English, Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish actors. This makes them as visible as other British actors.  As for having black and asian categories at all (but no white category), this reflects something many readers will be interested in, given the current realities of the film industry and British society.  This seems the most NPOV way to approach the issue. Jihg 14:44, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Missing biographies
When I removed the huge list of actors from this page, there were a few who didn't have biography pages. I list them here in case anyone feels they should: Graham Stark, Lionel Jeffries, Wilfred Hyde-White, Suzanne Packer, Martina Laird, Angela Bruce, Adrian Lester, Richard Blackwood, Steven Cole, Louis Emerick, Trevor Laird, David Harewood, Diane Parish, Kim Vithana, Pooja Shah, Ameet Chana, Paven Virk, Preeya Kalidas, Saraj Chaudhry. Jihg 10:29, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Article name
I've moved this from History of cinema in the United Kingdom to the clearer Cinema of the United Kingdom. This brings it into line with other articles, like Cinema of the United States, Cinema of Italy and Cinema of Japan. Jihg 12:27, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know why these articles are all called "Cinema of..." Cinema of the United Kingdom is a pretty ugly title. No-one will search for "Cinema of the United Kingdom", they'll probably type in "British cinema"; if you search for that though this article comes about 10th on the list of results, after Cinema of Hong Kong. It would make more sense if the articles were called "British Cinema", "Australian Cinema" or whatever. JW 13:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Many were renamed this way to avoid confusions like "Spanish Cinema" - does this mean the country or the language? "Cinema of Spain" is clearer, though I agree its not as nice.  Many articles and categories throughout Wikipedia have been named this way for the sake of consistency. Jihg 23:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Too many references
The list of references was far too long, so I removed the Sight and Sound articles etc. Are any of them paricularly relevant to the article? The list is still too long... Jihg 23:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Cox, Alex. 'Britain is Big Enough'. Sight and Sound Volume 13 Issue 1, pp 6-7
 * Gilbey, Ryan . 2002. 'Reasons to be Cheerful' Sight and Sound. Volume 12, Issue 9, p 38
 * Gilbey, Ryan . 2003. 'Written on the Body'. Sight and Sound. Volume 13, Issue 9, pp 16-18
 * Hofman, Kaja. 'Does my gun look big in this?' Sight and Sound Volume 12 Issue 3, pp 10-11
 * James, Nick. 2002. 'Nul Britannia'. Sight and Sound Volume 12 Issue 10, pp 14-17
 * McNab, Geoffrey. 2003.'Eager Beaver'. Sight and Sound. September, Volume 13 Issue 9, pp 20-25
 * McNab, Geoffrey. 2002. 'That Sinking Feeling'. Sight and Sound Volume 12 Issue 10, pp 18-20
 * Newman, Kim. 2002. 'Endurance'. Sight and Sound Volume 12 Issue 10, pp 26-28
 * Pidduck, Julianne. 1997. 'Travels with Sally Potter's Orlando: gender, narrative, movement'. Screen 38.2, Summer 1997 pp 172-189
 * Williams, Linda Ruth. 2002. 'Escape Artist'. Sight and Sound Volume 12 Issue 10, pp 23-25

Welsh-language Cinema
Hedd Wyn (The Armageddon Poet) was nominated for Best Foreign-language film (1994), as was Solomon a Gaenor (Solomon and Gaenor)- there were two versions of this film (one in English, and the other in Welsh) -which starred Ioan Gruffudd and nominated for the Oscar 2000. Other recent Welsh language films of interest include 'Un noson Ola Leuad' and 'Gadael Lenin'- which was the first film made in the former USSR by a Western film crew.

The Full Monty...?
There are an awful lot of films mentioned in the British Cinema in the 1990s section, but the Full Monty isn't. I'm far from a film buff or expert but am I right in thinking in its day it was one of (or the) highest grossing British films ever, and so is surely deserving of a mention above almost unheard of (or forgotten) films such as Enchanted April, The Wings of the Dove or Topsy Turvy. I also wonder if a paragraph on Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish films would be wise? Dogfood 16:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The Full Monty is notable, but the article is meant to be about the industry in general and not just a run-through of famous films, which is what these things are often in danger of ending up as. Topsy-Turvy and the others are mentioned because they illustrate a general trend in the industry, not because they are necessarily famous. Someone has just added a mention of The Wicker Man, which is also a notable film, but the paragraph now contradicts what the article was originally saying because its just been tacked on and not put into context. There been a lot of famous British films over the years, which could be included, but that's not really the point of the article. I don't think Get Carter is mentioned either, despite the poster at the top, or The Italian Job, The Go-Between, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, Brazil, Life of Brian or probably a hundred others. There is a List of British films which is meant to be restricted to some of the more notable ones.


 * In the past when people have just added a film, I've tended to work them into the text so that they actually illustrate a point. I even did this with Sex Lives of the Potato Men, which doesn't really deserve a mention. Maybe I'll add The Full Monty when I can think of a way of putting it into context. JW 10:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

List of British films
Does anyone know what happened to the List of British films? The article linked to it, but it seems to have been deleted. JW 12:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BridgetJonesDiaryMoviePoster.jpg
Image:BridgetJonesDiaryMoviePoster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BridgetJonesDiaryMoviePoster.jpg
Image:BridgetJonesDiaryMoviePoster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 22:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Red shoes.jpg
Image:Red shoes.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 09:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Saturday Night Sunday Morning.jpg
Image:Saturday Night Sunday Morning.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:BriefEncounterPoster.jpg
The image Image:BriefEncounterPoster.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:


 * Image:Wallace gromit were rabbit poster.jpg
 * Image:Four weddings and a funeral.jpg
 * Image:DVD-Blimp.jpg
 * Image:Chariots of fire.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --23:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

themes
The article is generally good, but rather too chronological. I think the overview at the beginning should be longer, and some attention should be given to the fact that British films over the last thirty years have tended to specialize into three categories - the "social film" about the working class, the "heritage film" about British Tradition Among the Privileged Classes, and the zany comedy. Johncmullen1960 (talk) 07:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this the Trotskyist view, seeing everything in terms of the class struggle? Even though most of us left that behind in the 1940s and 50s :) -- SteveCrook (talk) 11:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The 2000s
The 2000s section needs editing. It's full of bad grammar and the links don't need to be in italics —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.48.233 (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The 1980s
I found the 1980s section to be a structural mess, lacking required citations and seemingly more concerned with listing films instead of placing them in a coherent context. I've made some substantial edits to it, but I felt I should copy and paste the original section so as to compare and contrast and make further edits. It might turn out that I missed a point so others will want the old paragraphs back:
 * Although major American productions, such as The Empire Strikes Back and Superman II, continued to be filmed at British studios in the 1980s, the decade began with the worst recession the British film industry had ever seen. In 1980 (see 1980 in film) only 31 British films were made, down 50% on the previous year, and the lowest output since 1914. Production was down again the following year, to 24 films. Nevertheless, the 1980s soon saw a renewed optimism, led by companies such as Goldcrest (and producer David Puttnam), Channel 4, Handmade Films and Merchant Ivory Productions. Under producer Puttnam a generation of British directors emerged making popular films with international distribution, including: Bill Forsyth (Local Hero, 1983), Hugh Hudson (Chariots of Fire, 1981) and Roland Joffe (The Killing Fields, 1984)
 * When the Puttnam-produced Chariots of Fire (1981) won 4 Academy Awards in 1982 (see 1982 in film), including best picture, its writer Colin Wellanddeclared "the British are coming!" (quoting Paul Revere). When in 1983 (see 1983 in film) Gandhi (also produced by Goldcrest) picked up Best Picture it looked as if he was right. It prompted a cycle of bigger budget period films, including David Lean's final film A Passage to India (1984) and the Merchant Ivory adaptations of the works of E. M. Forster, such as A Room with a View (1986). But further attempts to make 'big' productions for the US market ended in failure, with Goldcrest losing independence after a trio of commercial flops, including the 1986 Palme d'Or winner The Mission. However, by this stage the rest of the new talent had moved on to Hollywood.
 * Handmade Films, part owned by George Harrison, produced a series of comedies and gritty dramas such as The Long Good Friday (1980) and Withnail and I (1987) that had proven popular internationally and have since achieved cult success. The company was originally formed to take over the production of Monty Python's Life of Brian, and subsequently became involved in other projects by the group's members. The Pythons' influence was still apparent in British comedy films of the 1980s, the most notable examples being Terry Gilliam's fantasy films Time Bandits (1981) and Brazil (1985), and John Cleese's hit A Fish Called Wanda (1988).
 * With the involvement of Channel 4 in film production a number of new talents were developed in Stephen Frears (My Beautiful Laundrette) and Mike Newell (Dance with a Stranger), whileJohn Boorman, who had been working in the US, was encouraged back to the UK to make Hope and Glory (1987). Stephen Woolley's company Palace Pictures also enjoyed some notable successes, including Neil Jordan's The Company of Wolves (1984) and Mona Lisa (1986), before collapsing amid a series of unsuccessful films. Amongst the other notable British films of the decade were Lewis Gilbert's Educating Rita (1983), Bill Forsyth's Gregory's Girl (1981) and Peter Yates' The Dresser (1983).
 * Following the final winding up of the Rank Organisation, a series of company consolidations in British cinema distribution meant that it became ever harder for British productions. Another blow was the elimination of the Eady tax concession by the Conservative Government in 1984. The concession had made it possible for a foreign film company to write off a large amount of its production costs by filming in the UK — this was what attracted a succession of blockbuster productions to British studios in the 1970s.
 * Following the final winding up of the Rank Organisation, a series of company consolidations in British cinema distribution meant that it became ever harder for British productions. Another blow was the elimination of the Eady tax concession by the Conservative Government in 1984. The concession had made it possible for a foreign film company to write off a large amount of its production costs by filming in the UK — this was what attracted a succession of blockbuster productions to British studios in the 1970s.

Cbennett1989 (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The article generally requires more citations and work, however care needs to be exercised in making changes which force factual descriptions of events into highly POV (even if cited) narrative descriptions of events.
 * On a more basic level when citations are used the text should actually reflect what they say. Your new text states that "Nevertheless, these various factors prompted a sea-change in the industry as British films became "increasingly reliant on secondary markets such as video and television, and Channel 4 became a crucial part of the funding equation.”, yet the cited source actually states something completely different ("Thanks to declining cinema audiences (which hit an all-time low in 1984) British films were increasingly reliant on secondary markets such as video and television") - declining audiences are not mentioned at all in the new text. Rangoon11 (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Rangoon! I didn't realise I did this, so I'll edit my edit. And anyone else can work on other spotted mistakes of mine, of course.

Ealing Studios.
Good article but I don't think Ealing is the oldest continuously working film studio in the world. Gaumont is 7 years older, Pathé is 6 years older and maybe there are others I don't know about. If no one can find a proof that Ealing is the oldest studio, we should maybe erase the sentence about it. Eleventh1 (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The claim uses "studio" in the sense of "production facility" rather than "production company". I've edited it to make it clearer. Barnabypage (talk) 12:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Cinema of the United Kingdom
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Cinema of the United Kingdom's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "death": From UK Film Council:  From Terry Gilliam:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)