Posted:
The Guardian has an article in which they define what makes a film 'British'. Harry Potter is referenced as a film funded by the US but made in the UK.
It is also highlighted that last year (2004) the British went to the cinema more frequently than at any time since 1972. They also note that British films were 49% more popular at the cinema in 2004 than in the previous year, according to a report from the UK Film Council. This is partly due to the 2004 release of 'Prisoner of Azkaban' and the fact that there was no Potter film in 2003.
It is also highlighted that last year (2004) the British went to the cinema more frequently than at any time since 1972. They also note that British films were 49% more popular at the cinema in 2004 than in the previous year, according to a report from the UK Film Council. This is partly due to the 2004 release of 'Prisoner of Azkaban' and the fact that there was no Potter film in 2003.
Quote:
| Harry Potter comes into the fourth category: those part financed by the US but made in the UK, and with British cultural content. A spokesman from the Film Council said: "It depends on your politics on film. You could be brutal and say that Harry Potter is made by Warner and all the box office revenue goes back to the US. On the other hand, looking at the upcoming Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, it has a British cast, crew and director, and is shot in the UK, and every penny spent during its making is spent in Britain. It is a Hollywood picture but is quintessentially British in its cultural content." |
Pyaar Kii Ye Ek Kahaani
Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi 2
17