Can Brit flicks reel back into favour?

RUMOURS of the death of the British film industry have been greatly exaggerated. It's been very poorly but there are signs of recovery. It's small but it's hardy, despite losing out to the big boys with more money and power across the Atlantic.

Unable to beat Hollywood at its own game, British producers may have to be content to be small and kid themselves that size doesn't matter. No one doubts we have the talent. Our writers, directors, actors, studios, facilities and technicians are recognised as some of the best in the world - which is why so many are invited to go and work in America rather than fight the constant battle for finance in their own country.

A new British Film Institute (Bfi) information service publication with the snappy title, Producing The Goods? British Film Production Since 1991, sets out to deal with the questions: Should government help film production? Should films stay local or aim global? And what is a British film anyway? All good questions, and ones that have been asked for decades and which the industry has constantly failed to answer conclusively.

National Lottery money was seen as the saviour of the home-grown industry, but the way the Film Council spent the cash, often on movies that were barely released, has led to consistent criticism. The three Lottery franchises awarded after the council was set up failed to produce hits and change the face of the UK film business as promised.

The simple fact is that a big budget movie can't hope to make its money back in this country alone. It needs to be a hit in the US too. That's where many a production company comes unstuck as an element of compromise is introduced to try to please both markets.

Film Four was closed after several of its key movies, including Charlotte Gray with Cate Blanchett as the wartime spy, failed at the highly-competitive US box-office.

Ironically, it was Channel 4, Film Four's parent company, that gave fresh hope to the British film industry in the mid-1980s. My Beautiful Laundrette was such a hit on the festival circuit that it was given a cinema release and prompted Channel 4 to set up a film arm.

Granada also toyed with movie-making too but it too shut up shop last year. BBC Films continues to invest in films, to the tune of £16.6m a year on six to eight modestly-budgeted movies.

It backed Billy Elliot, a hit on both sides of the Atlantic and, as a bonus, attracted 11 million viewers when shown on TV. One of this week's new films, The Mother, was financed entirely by BBC Films, although the budget was no more than for a TV-only drama.

Mostly, the relationship between British films and TV is an uneasy one. Film Council research last month showed that just 2.6 per cent of films shown on terrestrial channels last year were recent and British. Yet these are the channels that depend on big movies to get them out of a ratings hole. How often has ITV played a Bond movie, certain in the knowledge it will pull in plenty of viewers no matter how many times it's been screened already.

Satellite broadcaster BSkyB, with its pay TV channels, spent more money than ever on film licences last year, although most went to the US studios. British independents found it difficult to get a look in. By contrast, broadcasters in many foreign countries are obliged to support their film industries.

Last year, 115 films were shot in Britain or with British involvement, attracting £566.9m to the country. The figure was slightly up on the previous year, and four times the level of investment a decade ago.

Much of this boost was down to two big budget British-based movies, the James Bond adventure Die Another Day and the Lara Croft Tomb Raider sequel.

There are tax incentives to help film-makers recognise that the UK is one of the best places in the world to make a film, although the Government is getting tough with those who take tax breaks and then don't spend enough over here.

The bad news is that the trend is towards fewer pictures with bigger budgets and fewer UK based films, with more money going into co-productions.

Film Council head Alan Parker has said that the industry would die slowly "like a frog in a saucepan" unless the British Government offered bigger tax breaks to Hollywood studios. They weren't the only ones he criticised, as he added that the UK film business needed to shake off its "little England mentality".

Every so often a British film will do well in the US and encourage the thought that writer Colin Welland's Oscar night claim that "The British are coming!" in 1981 was finally coming true. Our film-makers have done well from time to time. Chariots Of Fire, for which Welland won a best screenplay Academy Award, was one of the most notable commercial and critical hits. Richard Attenborough's Gandhi, The Full Monty and A Fish Called Wanda were others.

The complications of financing and distributing means many films the world regards as British are nothing of the sort, but made with foreign money. Calendar Girls is seen as a hit British films, although the company that made it is part of the American Disney organisation. New comedy School For Seduction, filmed in the North-East, seems British until you learn the backers included a German company.

The link between the latest British successes in the US was picked up by John Woodward, the Film Council's chief executive. Zombie movie 28 Days Later, soccer hit Bend It Like Beckham and Irish nuns drama The Magdalene Sisters were seen as alternatives to the summer blockbusters. "The films that make a hit tend to be left of field. They're different, not alien," he says.

The results were certainly impressive. Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later cost only $8m but passed the $40m mark at the US box-office. The other two low budget films scored equally well financially.

Whether British film-makers would welcome being restricted to making low budget, offbeat pictures is unclear. But it's some sort of progress. At one time only Merchant Ivory costume dramas and Hugh Grant romantic comedies seemed capable of breaking out in American cinemas.

The blame for the struggling British industry can't be pinned entirely on the Americans. A few years ago Lock Stock actor Nick Moran complained that distributors were unwilling to gamble on original productions after his film, Christie Malry's Own Double Entry, failed to get a release. Sour grapes, maybe, but he still had a point. The multiplex-dominated distribution set-up ensures that big budget Hollywood movies get precedence over home-grown product.

While British movies have a tough time in Hollywood, our actors do considerably better. Hugh Grant moves easily between British and American productions. Others are set to follow his example. Orlando Bloom, after this summer's biggest hit, The Pirates Of The Caribbean, is destined for Hollywood stardom, along with co-star Keira Knightley.

Grant is leading the latest assault on the US box-office, heading the ensemble cast of Richard Curtis's rom-com Love Actually. The film achieved a modest, $6m opening in the US last week, but is expected to rake in the dollars once it expands into more cinemas.

There is, of course, nothing quirky or original about this romantic comedy from the makers of Notting Hill, Four Weddings And A Funeral, and Bridget Jones's Diary. It's typical of the so-called British picture that American cinemagoers like - films that are British in everything except money.

Love Actually (15) previews in some cinemas tomorrow and goes on general release on November 21.