Vastly rich cow demands more subsidy

I will admit that I like her acting. This demand from Julie Walters rather less so:

Julie Walters has called for more government backing for the British film industry, saying homegrown movies such as the Harry Potter series show “how great we are”.

The actress, who played Molly Weasley in the film adaptations of the JK Rowling books, criticised the “lack of backing for our film industry”.

“British films bring a lot of revenue into this country and should be supported,” she said, in an interview with Yours magazine.

“Our special effects are the best in the world, thanks to the Harry Potter films, which we made in Britain with a British cast and crew.

“They weren’t Americanised and are total proof of how great we Brits are at film.”

Excellent, the Harry Potter movies have made vast sums of money, indeed they have. So, the evidence of vast private profit is evidence of the need for State subsidy now is it?

What’s that line about the privatisation of profit and the socialisation of losses?

“Art should reflect society but that’s not going to happen if there’s no funding for working class kids – like I was – to follow their passion,” she said.

“In acting, I certainly think we could end up with too many posh people, the only people who can afford to go to drama school, and that all the working class roles will be taken by posh people pretending to be working class, like it used to be before the Sixties.

“Not that there will be many new working class roles because there won’t be any working class writers and the society we’ll live in won’t be represented.

“If I was starting out today, I would never have been able to afford to go to drama school.”

And I’m absolutely certain that Ms. Walters, as with other associated successful luvvies, have decent personal fortunes which could be applied to scholarships to RADA. As and when they are then I’ll be happy enough to listen to the calls that we taxpayers should be adding to them. Until then, fuck off.

9 comments on “Vastly rich cow demands more subsidy

  1. The Harry Potter films were not “home-grown”, they were American produced and financed films based on books by an English author, using English actors, largely filmed in England.

    It appears that as a result, they did get some film tax credits, but that is a separate issue. It’s not like they would have filmed it in Canada using Canadian “talent” just because Canadian tax breaks are even more generous (assuming they are).

    Also, profits from films are taxed the same as anything else, so what the subsidies and tax system do is actually indirectly encourage people to make crap films.

  2. The government could help in one way, and at no cost: by granting planning permission for the proposed expansion of Pinewood studios.

  3. The cast was British because it was a condition of JK Rowling selling the rights to Warner Brothers. And when you add in the requirement for old architecture, you’re then going to be shooting it here.

    This whole idea of “British films” is a ridiculous throwback to the era of Powell and Pressburger movies. Film is globalised. Gravity was directed by a Mexican, with an American cast with filming and CG done in Britain.

    The irony of the “British film” thing is that the bit that we’re really good at, the technical stuff, is in the non-subsidised field, like making films like Gravity and Bond films, not the sort of shit that luvvies think should be made.

  4. ““In acting, I certainly think we could end up with too many posh people…”

    Ok, maybe it’s me, and I’ve just totally misunderstood the whole ‘acting’ thingie, but couldn’t they just, y’know, play non-posh people?

  5. I’d take people like Julie Walters more seriously if she admitted the biggest barrier to working class kids getting on in the acting profession is the acting profession getting so much preference given to its own kids.
    Two girls I remember.
    One was lass absolutely enthralled by the profession. Held down a job but put every moment she could into the Cannonbury Tower theater. Did anything. Costume. Stage manage. Lighting. Damned fine actress & a looker. But never quite making the break because when it came to choosing, the resident luvvies looked to their own in the matter of parts, Equity cards etc before anyone else.
    And then there was the daughter of a TV producer. RADA of course. She was already getting work at 16. Wrote a sitcom for the Beeb in her twenties ran to two series. Married a well known actor, unfortunately died. Lost touch with her years ago but no doubt, if any of her kids fancied a career in the business, they’d be sliding on vaselined rails.
    Our first.lass stuck with it until her late twenties. Gave up the UK & went to the States. Managed to get some film work & carved out a small but useful career for herself. But US seems to favour talent as much as family. And gets its money by selling product not picking pockets.

  6. It’s just the same as those dreary and predictable “transgressive” chancers bleating for taxpayers’ money that David Thompson is so good at chronicling, except about two orders of magnitude more expensive. That art which is good enough to stand on its own will be made anyway and requires no subsidy; that which is not should not be made and requires no subsidy.

  7. The lesson, well, one lesson, I learned from my theatre career, one of the things that set me on the road to libertarianism, was that the single worst thing you can do with public money is give it to luvvies. There is probably no particular class that more desperately needs the harsh discipline of the free market in order to be productive.

  8. She is, of course, talking complete bollocks about “not being able to afford” drama school today.

    Students are given funding by local authorities (LAs) to attend DramaUK-accredited schools: the only special exception to the normal student loan system in England, ie students are given state funding to attend private institutions.

    Naturally, if you want to go to somewhere like Buckingham, SAE Institute or any other privately-run, specialist institute, you must jolly well fuck off and pay your own way there.

    Virtually all performing arts students have a reasonable idea, during Higher Education, that they’re not going to be making a good living out of their chosen interest, let alone a successful and life-long living. So what it is that makes the exceptionally successful ones demand that the rest of us plebs pay for their dressing-up hobby is – inflation of egos aside – a mystery to me.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>