The British Film Industry in the 1970s

From scholarly and historic accounts to cultural and cinematic studies, the same clichés about the 1970s as a decade of decline and as a time of crisis abound. It has been too easy to limit explorations of British culture to selective considerations of obvious examples. Some of these accounts actively celebrate the low-culture appeal of the 1970s, while others lean towards the autobiographical. There is, of course, an important place for personal historical accounts and anecdotal history, but that place is not here. The limitations of the existing material open up a space for a rigorous cultural investigation of the 1970s. This account has emerged from the archival sources and combines the methodology of the cultural historian with the approach of the film scholar. Its aim is to definitively map the legislative and economic constraints on the British film industry in the 1970s.

Cinema and film form an integral part of the culture of any period of the 20th century. The thematic preoccupations of film, music, fashion, art and literature can all offer important contributions to our understanding of any given historical period. Just as the film historian must strive for a rigorous methodology which acknowledges issues of historical research, the political and social historian should not ignore important cultural indicators. However, despite their importance as social and cultural texts, all film must be interpreted cautiously. Anyone can interpret a film and see within it relevant themes, political motivations, ideological messages and easily identifiable characters and narrative. It is also easy to ally particular films with particular social moments. Yet the relationship between film and culture is rarely as straightforward as it first appears. Any study of film must consider carefully the experiences of audiences and the implications of popular taste. Box office figures, letters to popular magazines and critical reviews all allow an insight into popular taste, but recovering the experiences of audiences is difficult and many of the surviving sources of material which can be used to document popular taste are frequently sparse and uneven.

Although frequently overlooked, the 1970s was a pivotal decade in postwar British history. As with histories of its visual culture, most historical accounts fail to consider the cultural, social and political diversity of the decade, focusing instead on significant events or broader trends. Conventional histories focus on issues such as the economic instability partially caused by the oil crisis of 1973, and the massive rise in inflation which peaked at 24.2% in 1975.¹

The following chapters will explore the cultures of production which shaped, influenced and impacted upon filmmaking in the 1970s. They focus on methods of funding, key personnel, important production companies and crucial industry organisations and institutions. They also consider the influence of the unions, the increasing popularity of television and Britain’s decision to join the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1973 and how all of these factors impacted upon film production. The purpose of these chapters is to suggest the link between, for example, the streams of funding and the texts which emerged, and the attitude of successive governments and the impact this had on the films which were funded and produced. Each chapter will shed light on a different aspect of production and suggest how an exploration of these contextual factors can develop our knowledge of the visual texts which emerge in this specific decade.

While the 1960s was a prosperous era in British film production, the end of the decade saw great uncertainty in the film industry. Hollywood companies had been investing heavily in British film, creating an inflated level of economic and cultural prosperity, which could not be sustained. Estimated figures suggest that by 1968, 90% of British production capital was American, yet by the start of the next decade, economic retrenchment and new funding strategies caused American companies to withdraw much of their investment.¹

The lack of funding for the film industry from conventional and government sources prompted parts of the industry to embark on new ventures, creating an adventurous and ad hoc culture of production. Harper and Smith have identified a range of key players in the 1970s film industry and have drawn attention to work by John Woolf, Ken Russell and John Boorman. As they note, it is significant that in this period, many of the well-established British directors from the previous decade produced only one or a few significant works or else worked solely in television. David Lean produced Ryan’s Daughter (1970), Lindsay Anderson made O Lucky Man! (1973), while Ken Loach made Family Life (1971) and Black Jack (1979). The output of these filmic heavyweights was limited due to the financial shakeups in the wider industry and in their absence new directors, screenwriters and producers moved to the forefront of production. The lack of conventional funding opportunities required a particular way of thinking and working and many of the existing organisations and personnel within the industry were poorly suited to new ways of working and the unconventional alliances required. This is not to say that the output of a wide range of individuals was not crucial to the 1970s film industry but my purpose here is to link the approach of a few key players to the specific contexts of production.

It would be misleading to posit a cohesive British film industry in any period, but the 1970s were characterised by factionalism and polarisation. As well as internal opposing factions, the film industry faced competition not just from the Americans who were poised to take advantage of the weak domestic industry but also from television, which had become the leisure activity of choice for the British public.

The 1970s has consistently been considered a genre-dominated decade with studies of its horror films, saucy comedies and exploitation fare contributing to popular narratives. According to Denis Gifford, the most popular genres of films produced in the period were comedy, crime and sex and between them, these three genres comprised over 40% of all British films produced in the 1970s.¹ Yet what about the other 60%? In addition to the highly visible trends already mentioned, there were some new production trends which suggest a diversity and innovation not usually associated with this period. The pie chart below (Figure 7.1) is based on figures from Gifford and reveals a large range of genres, suggesting a much more interesting and diverse culture of production than usually acknowledged.

Confessions of a Window Cleaner (1974) was one of the most popular films of the sexploitation genre, and its backing by a major studio ensured that it became part of the commercial mainstream, rather than remaining on the grubby fringes more commonly associated with films of this genre. Loathed by critics, the film was dismissed as tawdry and vulgar, yet its massive popular appeal makes it an important indicator of popular taste. As Hunter has recognised, such films offered ‘valuable insights into the tastes, values and frustrated desires of ordinary filmgoers.’¹ The film cannot be dismissed on the grounds of its quality, for as Andy Medhurst has recently pointed out in relation to the Carry On films, ‘texts which are abysmal by most conventional aesthetic standards can nonetheless have significant importance when considering the complicated dynamics of identity and belonging.’² The massive popularity of the film makes it significant in terms of audience preferences and reveals the uncertain and complicated nature of popular taste in the period, with a particularly acute contradiction between popular taste and notions of ‘quality’ and critical approbation.

As the sequel to the popular That’ll Be the Day (1973), Stardust (1974) documents the rise and fall of the pop star through school dropout Jim Maclaine. The film reunited producers David Puttnam and Sandy Lieberson with writer Ray Connolly, art director Brian Morris and stars David Essex, Keith Moon and Rosalind Ayres. But there were some important changes; Tony Richmond joined the project as cinematographer, replacing Peter Suschitsky and director Claude Whatham was replaced by Michael Apted. Sandy Lieberson remembers that Apted was chosen to direct Stardust because, ‘we wanted a very different feel and look to the movie. Apted came from a background of documentaries that fit into the style we wanted.’¹ Although Stardust does not have a typical documentary style, it is interesting that the project was initially conceived with this intention. Perhaps the biggest change was the refusal of Ringo Starr to reprise his role as Mike which led to the part being offered to 1960s pop star Adam Faith.

In 1976, the BBC commissioned a television drama, Scum, about a borstal, from a script by Roy Minton, to be directed by Alan Clarke. However, the completed film was deemed too shocking by the BBC and was subsequently shelved. In 1979, a new version of Scum, again written by Minton and directed by Clarke, was released as a feature film which followed the incarceration of young offenders including Carlin (Ray Winstone), Banks (John Blundell) and Richards (Phil Daniels) within a borstal.

With its creative cinematography, innovative set designs and sublime costumes, Derek Jarman’s The Tempest (1979) is one of the most distinctive and exciting 1970s visual texts. Filmed entirely on location at Stoneleigh Abbey in Warwickshire and Bamburgh Castle in Northumberland and financed by Don Boyd for £150,000, The Tempest was an innovative and evocative adaptation. Though lauded for its beauty and vision, some considered that Jarman’s film lacked coherence as much of Shakespeare’s dialogue and narrative were sacrificed. Jarman’s decision to cast non-Shakespearian actors was also heavily criticised, one reviewer termed this decision ‘audacious’ and the performances of magician and poet Heathcote Williams as Prospero, punk rock singer and actress Toyah Willcox as Miranda and blind physical actor Jack Birkett as Caliban were heavily scrutinised.¹

The 1970s is not the cultural wasteland which previous studies have suggested. The fragility of an industry which created an uncertain and unstable film culture was brought about by industrial changes and allowed for exciting innovation. Fostered by the entrepreneurial culture of the 1960s, the 1970s film industry permitted relatively inexperienced producers to flourish. The working practices adopted by entrepreneurial producers and financiers passed benefits on to filmmakers who may not have otherwise secured funding. I have highlighted Don Boyd’s work with Alan Clarke and Derek Jarman, but other important partnerships were forged in the period, which directly contributed to this eclectic film culture. David Puttnam and Sandy Lieberson collaborated with Ken Russell on Mahler (1974) and Lizstomania (1975), and also offered feature film opportunities to Alan Parker, Ridley Scott and Terry Gilliam. The activities of Michael Klinger throughout the 1970s also demonstrate how crucial it was to secure alternative methods of funding. Similarly to Klinger’s work with independent financiers to fund the Confessions series, the Monty Python team also drew the funding for their first feature film from investments made by bands Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin. Such innovative production methods were the direct result of the failure of existing forms of financial support from the American studios, Rank, EMI and the NFFC.