Last night I watched No Blade of Grass (1970), which is about a family killing everything in sight as they fight their way across the English countryside to reach the family farm. Cornel Wilde directed and the leading lady was Jean Wallace. Both were Americans but if I were asked I would have said No Blade was a British movie.
A year after No Blade of Grass, Sam Peckinpah directed Strw Dogs which is about a family killing everything in sight as they defended their farm house, which is in the middle of the English countryside. Both Peckinpah and his The leading man, Dustin Hoffman were and are American. However, the rest of cast were either British are Irishmen playing Britons. Even so, I consider Straw Dogs to be an American movie.
The question is, have my irrational prejudices any rational basis, or are they irrational prejudices?
I consider them both British but couldn't provide concrete proof why that should be so; maybe I'm influenced mostly by the fact they were shot in the UK and the subject matter isn't American (tho Dogs touches on Nam, and No Blade has a global issue). It might be interesting if you applied the current 'cultural test' to them and see if they pass.
This is an interesting question. I guess I've always thought of both of them as American films, primarily because of their directors.
I'm happy to accept Jo Losey's UK-based films as British because he was domiciled here at the time, but Sam certainly wasn't and as far as I know, Cornel Wilde wasn't either.
I note that IMDB lists No Blade of Grass as 'US' and Straw Dogs as 'UK/US'. But when I looked up the production companies were all American. The company that made No Blade of Grass was earlier responsible for classic films like The Big Combo (US 1955).
Under the current UK Film Council definitions both films would be classed as 'Inward investments' in British film. (i.e. they would be British, but made with US money)
What is the Vietnam connection in Straw Dogs?
name='Mr Dean']
What is the Vietnam connection in Straw Dogs?
The social disturbances surrounding it was Hoffman's characters reason for coming to England.
The African Queen I've always regarded as a co-production but some classify as British.
name='merryowen']Last night I watched No Blade of Grass (1970), which is about a family killing everything in sight as they fight their way across the English countryside to reach the family farm. Cornel Wilde directed and the leading lady was Jean Wallace. Both were Americans but if I were asked I would have said No Blade was a British movie.
A year after No Blade of Grass, Sam Peckinpah directed Strw Dogs which is about a family killing everything in sight as they defended their farm house, which is in the middle of the English countryside. Both Peckinpah and his The leading man, Dustin Hoffman were and are American. However, the rest of cast were either British are Irishmen playing Britons. Even so, I consider Straw Dogs to be an American movieThe question is, have my irrational prejudices any rational basis, or are they irrational prejudices?
.Your question merryowen really interests me.According to the IMDB which I use as my Bible, "NO BLADE OF GRASS "is an american film,It's obviously set in England and is based on an English authors novel,with an american influence in the cast,and an American director
"STRAW DOGS" according to the IMDB is a UK film set in england and based on a novel by a Scottish author,with an American influence in the cast and an American director.
Now here is where my knowledge ends and I am looking to my learned friends on this forum to supply us with the answers.I think the question should be what criterion(criteria ?) is used to establish the nationality of a film? I for all my love of film can honestly say I don't know but look forward to finding out (another part of my education on the Brit movie forum)
With regard to your prejudice Merryowen I'm not sure what your prejudice is,do you think they should both be American or British?all the best
Thanks for the reference.
It is crazy really, but African Queen is more or less completely British as it was made by Romulus. I guess it actually feels like a British film, whereas Straw Dogs doesn't?
name='smiffy'].
"STRAW DOGS" according to the IMDB is a UK film set in england and based on a novel by a Scottish author,with an American influence in the cast and an American director.
Now here is where my knowledge ends and I am looking to my learned friends on this forum to supply us with the answers.I think the question should be what criterion(criteria ?) is used to establish the nationality of a film? I for all my love of film can honestly say I don't know but look forward to finding out (another part of my education on the Brit movie forum)
With regard to your prejudice Merryowen I'm not sure what your prejudice is,do you think they should both be American or British?
The IMDb uses the nationality of the main production company to decide the nationality. They are the ones who paid for it.
Steve
The Encyclopedia of British Film by Brian McFarlane uses the production team as the main criteria for the country of origin.
'Straw Dogs' is as British as fish n' chips.
Simon
It's appropriate that the last post was from THIRD MAN, as this ties in with my query about WHAT IS A BRITISH FILM?
It has bugged me for a while that although both THE THIRD MAN and I WAS A MALE WAR BRIDE/YOU CAN'T SLEEP HERE WERE shot at the same time in Europe and a British studio (Shepperton I believe) had mixed American, European and British casts, the former is classed as British and the latter as American. The only difference is that one has a Britisg director and the other American. This also affects the correct/primary title of the latter!
Can Anyone explain?
I have to admit the claims of THIRD MAN as a Brit Film tugs at my logic. Are Trevor and Brit unis all that's needed? (Obviously not in this case. If so, then FATHER GOOSE could lay the same claim - there are quite a few Brit Naval unis on the opening pier scene and in the radio room later...)
About STRAW DOGS, I wonder if they were remaking THE QUIET MAN early on, and when John Wayne said, "Sorry, been there, done that", they took their second choice in leading man (and we all know Dustin and the Duke were often up for the same role - "So yer tryin' to lasso - er, seduce me, eh, Pilgr - er, Mrs Robinson?").
And since those weren't Teddy Roosevelt's Rough Riders saving Cornel's fat from the African fire in THE NAKED PREY, does that film end up being American, British or African? When Lauren Bacall writes of her AFRICAN QUEEN experience, she never mentions American or British influences, only the African bugs.
But I'm glad for the Brit Movie Industry to lay claim to any film they can for any reason as long as it keeps money and attention pouring in. Here in Texas, every other year there is a touted 'boom' of Texas films, like Florida does, like Oregon, some Iowa cornfield that's plowed under for a baseball diamond, etc. Those are all anti-Hollywood movements, and I cheer the efforts to keep films from being geographically monopolized by one smoggy venue.
You can use my point system if you want:
It never fails to come up with your instinctive choice.
- Nationality of director - 1 point
- Nationality of scriptwriter (original screenplays) - 1 point
- Nationailty of scriptwriter (adaptations) - 1/2 point
- Nationailty of author - 1/2 point
- Geographic location of production - 1 point (split points if filming is split between location and studio contributing to more than one third of film)
- Source of main financier - 1 point (split point if there are two sources putting in more than one third each)
- Cultural viewpoint - 1 point (i.e. film is set in one country but made in another e.g. Superman - US; or if characters are of one nationality but in another country then split points e.g. Tarzan - UK/Africa)
The BFI Film and Television Handbook 1999 has six ‘UK Film Categories’
Category A
Films where the cultural and financial impetus is from the UK and the majority of the personnel are British.
Category B
Majority UK Co-Productions. Films in which, though there are foreign partners, there is a UK cultural content and a significant amount of British finance and personnel.
Category C
Minority UK Co-Productions. Foreign (non US) films in which there is a small UK involvement in finance or personnel.
Category D
American films with a UK creative and/or minor financial involvement.
Category D1
American financed or part finance films made in the UK. Most films have a British cultural content.
Category D2
American films with some UK financial involvement.
Simon
name='ChristineCB']I have to admit the claims of THIRD MAN as a Brit Film tugs at my logic.
I'll use Wolfgang's point system for 'The Third Man'.
Nationality of director - 1 point Carol Reed UK
Nationality of scriptwriter (original screenplays) - 1 pointGraham Greene UK
Nationailty of scriptwriter (adaptations) - 1/2 point Graham Greene UK
Nationailty of author - 1/2 point Graham Greene UK
Geographic location of production - 1 point (split points if filming is split between location and studio contributing to more than one third of film)Austria and UK
Source of main financier - 1 point (split point if there are two sources putting in more than one third each)Three Brits one of Hungarian origin in charge of London films and an American for US distribution.
Cultural viewpoint - 1 point (i.e. film is set in one country but made in another e.g. Superman - US; or if characters are of one nationality but in another country then split points e.g. Tarzan - UK/Africa)Austria
Overwhelmingly British, you agree?
Simon
This topic links to another thread on ownership and copyright. The ownership goes with who paid for the film.
The UK Film Council has now replaced the BFI's categorisation of 'British films' that Third Man lists.
UKFC now has just three categories:
1. Domestic feature (money, creative talent, cultural content usually all UK)
2. 'Inward' (effectively American films made in the UK with some UK money, creatives or cultural content)
3. Co-productions with other countries (i.e. not American – most often Canada, France and other European partners). At least some part of the production must occur in the UK or be financed from the UK.
There are various considerations on how much UK money is involved and where the money is spent. We might not be too bothered about whether a film is British or not under the UKFC definition, but it is important for producers since various tax allowances and loans/grants from UKFC and Europe might depend on it.
The biggest anomaly at the moment is that nobody takes any notice of the Hindi films that are increasingly being shot in the UK. Bollywood might not be quite as important as Hollywood yet, but Indian filmmakers are keen to spend money in the UK.
name='Third Man']
Overwhelmingly British, you agree?
Simon
Certainly, it's a British film shot abroad, in a similar way to the Ealing features shot down under with Chips Rafferty. Many sudios relied on US finance in the shape of distribution deals but this had little effect on the feature - apart from the occasional demand a US star be added to the cast.
name='howard 65']It's appropriate that the last post was from THIRD MAN, as this ties in with my query about WHAT IS A BRITISH FILM?
It has bugged me for a while that although both THE THIRD MAN and I WAS A MALE WAR BRIDE/YOU CAN'T SLEEP HERE WERE shot at the same time in Europe and a British studio (Shepperton I believe) had mixed American, European and British casts, the former is classed as British and the latter as American. The only difference is that one has a Britisg director and the other American. This also affects the correct/primary title of the latter!
Can Anyone explain?
By the IMDb's rules, where they were shot, who was in it, who directed it etc. etc. all makes no difference. The only thing that determines it is "who paid for it?".
The Third Man - London Film Productions. So it's a British film
I Was a Male War Bride - 20th C. Fox. Si it's an American film
It does simplify tghings, even if you don't always agree with the results.
Steve
name='Third Man']I'll use Wolfgang's point system for 'The Third Man'.
...
Source of main financier - 1 point (split point if there are two sources putting in more than one third each)Three Brits one of Hungarian origin in charge of London films and an American for US distribution.
...
Overwhelmingly British, you agree?
Simon
The distributors shouldn't really count for anything. A film can have hundreds of distributors. There may have been a person of Hungarian origin in charge of London Films but he was British and it was a British company.
Who claims The Third Man isn't British?
Steve
Sometimes though you get ghost companies that are set up just for one particular production, so on IMDB you get spurious results like Kubrick's films being categorized as British. With something like Superman, Warner financed it but are just listed as distributors. Giving nationality over to production companies does make categorizing clean and convenient, but if you go down that path I think you have to check they are real companies.
I didn't mean to imply that it's a perfect way of doing it. But it does help to have some rules and that is a very simple and mainly effective rule.name='Wolfgang']Sometimes though you get ghost companies that are set up just for one particular production, so on IMDB you get spurious results like Kubrick's films being categorized as British. With something like Superman, Warner financed it but are just listed as distributors. Giving nationality over to production companies does make categorizing clean and convenient, but if you go down that path I think you have to check they are real companies.
So why shouldn't Kubrick's later films be classified as British? Or at least as UK / USA joint "nationality"? He did move here in 1962 because he couldn't get the films he wanted made in the States.
Steve
Lolita maybe, but all his subsequent films were fully funded by Hollywood studios. 2001 is about as British as Harry Potter.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
