Unit 26: Film Studies - Part 1, Task 2: Differences Between British and Hollywood Filmmaking (Updated)

Typically, when people think of the film industry, their mind thinks of Hollywood, big names and stars in blockbuster movies. People think of Marvel, Disney and Leonardo DiCaprio, because of how much money and publicity this can generate. A lot of people fail to think of other countries involvement in the industry, such as the British film industry and what comes out of the UK to contribute to filmmaking in general. For example, when you think of the most recent Star Wars, you think of the big names like Harrison Ford who are famously American, or the American JJ Abrams directing it, while the movie is classed as a British movie due to the amount of British people starring in and working on the film. The reason this is often overlooked is because of how small the British industry is in comparison to the US industry in Hollywood. There are many differences between them, and they vary greatly in how they function, as they are very different industries in general.

A notable difference is simple - There are 6 major companies that operate in a lot of trade, production and management of the entirety of the media industry, including film. All 6 of these companies originate, or at least operate, in the US, causing them to focus largely on the American markets and prioritising it as a more important distribution and production platform due to the accessibility and convenience of operating and managing production in a more local location than would be necessary in crossing the ocean to get to the UK, which would be seen as an unnecessary inconvenience from the behalf of the production companies due to the fact that it’s simply too far to operate.

Of course, this isn’t the only reason, but a lack of accessibility or convenience in operating in the UK causes the industry to rely more on the US due to it simply being a reliable platform of production for film. A large contributor to making it more convenient, other than locality to production companies, is facilities available. The reason we think of Hollywood when it comes to the movie industry is because of the sheer size and scale of the Hollywood industry in comparison to the industry in the UK, there are larger studios in which to produce the movie due to the large amount of space available for construction, an ideal weather and climate for production of film, a large city scape, as well as local access to places such as desert, jungle and ocean, only one of which is accessible from the UK, which lacks any desert or jungle, and a more traditional design in its city structure and layout, causing the facilities available in Hollywood to be more usable for the industry in general.

Despite the lack of location or funding in Britain, this does not mean the the industry is non-existent. Instead, the industry in Britain is simply a more adaptive market. While America has the ability to fund large scale movies like the Marvel Cinematic Universe or DC’s recent efforts at competing, Britain has a much more interesting and varying approach. Rather than trying to produce constant blockbusters, the British industry focuses more so on the British public; For example, some of the largest films in Britain will be comedies, people like Edgar Wright who creates a film that keeps you invested not for it’s deep characters or emotional interest, but because you want to see the next joke or the next reference in the film. The market in Britain is a lot smaller, so they need to focus on the British audience and their interests in order to sell a movie.

The British film industry will prioritise on using British locations and themes within a movie. The most popular British movies would be the Harry Potter and James Bond franchises. While very much influenced by Hollywood, the themes tend to refer to Britain - In Harry Potter, they feature London often, getting on trains, walking through the countryside, even when Harry’s just walking in a footpath tunnel in a random field, the area is dim and generally not a lot to look at, something relatable to a lot of parts of Britain (unfortunately), because we see locations that are dark and generally ‘unpretty’ fairly often. In Bond, it relates to a more upper class part of British culture, the cool cockney man with a great suit, a great car and a cocky attitude that women seem to magnetise to. Take Bond as he is, a spy, going undercover to do a job that other people can not. When we look at an American movie about spies, you see something different - instead of the suave, sophisticated hero, you get a more relatable character to the American audience. Instead of being in a dark, dingy field in North Yorkshire, he’s stood on a beach or by the Statue of Liberty, because these are places that Americans are familiar with, causing them to relate to the underdog character and empathise with his struggles, while also relating to the location. The audience wants to see something they can understand, and the British audience understands the North Yorkshire more than they understand the Statue of Liberty, causing them to be more interested in a film about North Yorkshire because it is relatable to them, hence why Harry Potter and Bond are more popular in the UK than the US (although the US audience is still probably larger, it is proportionally a lot smaller) and it is because the UK can understand it more, due to it being created with them in mind.

However, like previously mentioned with Star Wars, some American films strive to be classed as British, and there are a few reasons this may be done. One reason is to simply expand the audience. Audience again is one reason, as the British audience is more interested in the British film, but there is another more financially significant reason behind opting for a British production - A film is an expensive endeavour, potentially costing millions to produce 2 hours of entertainment, and a lot of this money is unrelated to the costs of necessary equipment. While the cost of cameras, lighting, sound and actors vary, one thing will consistently add up, and that would be the cost of tax, added money on to the cost of something to provide money for government investments. In America, you would pay all of your taxes during your production, adding on a large amount of unnecessary cost. In Britain, the tax still needs to be paid to fund the NHS and other such British liberties, including funding to go back into the British film industry and support indie film makers, but you pay considerably less tax, exactly 75% of what would be paid, to be exact - the reason for this is that there is 25% of tax refunded in British films, more than enough incentive for JJ Abrams to seek out turning George Lucas’ American franchise into a British production, so that 25% of that film industry return pot money can be turned into paying the cast and crew more money for their services, allowing the industry to have more available money to continue to fund other films by that company or films by other companies produced in Britain (which will also receive 25% less tax to fund other movies), whether American or British. This is done through a series of funding bodies for UK film production, companies such as the BFI (British Film Institute), Creative Skillset or Into Film, which are a small number of many different companies this 25% tax could be funded into to help support more independent film makers intending to kickstart their career. Because of this, the British industry is a lot larger than it would otherwise be because there is a larger demand for film production in the UK, due to an extra incentive to create here, as well as allowing the promotion and production of other British films, whether through the same company or not.

Another useful feature of film production in Britain is a unique building and location design. While L.A. and New York have a certain look that can work well for a large variety of movies, they have a different appearance to that of London, which has an older appearance and a more stereotypically British look, allowing for a film that incorporates Britain into its narrative to be able to feature London and achieve an authentic look, giving it use in some contexts, and allowing more use for the British industry to provide.

The Hollywood industry will also be more inclined to use vertical or horizontal integration in film creation. Vertical integration relies on each part of the production of a film being done by different sectors of a company. Imagine Disney creating and funding a film, and they have a subsidiary (Marvel, for example) create and produce the film, while Disney's distribution companies will handle selling the film to retailers (which may also be owned by Disney). Horizontal integration would be different, with a Marvel film using other Disney brands such as music licensed by another company to help promote one another on equal terms. This is a very similar concept to Synergy, which is when two or more companies may work together on a product to make something larger in scale, another practice more common in an expensive industry like Hollywood, but could be applied between a smaller and a larger company to provide publicity for a British film.

Hollywood has a tendency to make a film franchise as opposed to a single film. Some of the biggest American films have been franchises, including classics like Die Hard or even things like Nightmare on Elm Street, to more recent films like the ever expanding Marvel franchise. This is a lot less common in Britain, with a lot of films being one or two films in a series, such as Trainspotting, which is only now in talks of getting a sequel, with the only notable examples of large British franchises being Harry Potter and James Bond. This is an example of the scale of Hollywood to Britain once again, with Hollywood having the time, money and talent to produce such large franchises constantly without problem, as it's more difficult for a British product to get the same publicity.


Stereotyping in the industry is a very common occurrence. America has their own stereotypes, the rich guy, nerds and other such stereotypes. The two main stereotypes associated to British film are that of the upper class and the lower class. Take, for example, Kingsmen: The Secret Service, a fantastic film about a lower class man who joins an organisation to become a spy, learning how to be a stereotypical posh and upper class character. He goes from being a commoner, such as in Trainspotting, to being a suave, sophisticated gentlemen like James Bond, because these two types of people are the most common assumptions and stereotypes of British culture, allowing their representation in the film to demonstrate the use of this small range of stereotypes to make a fulfilling plot, while a lot of American stereotypes may be irrelevant to a plot, instead.