UK film policy, cultural capital and social exclusion

Hill, John

doi:10.1080/0954896042000267134

Cited by 35 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This context is in marked contrast to the one that prevails in Europe. Whereas in the United States film production is governed primarily by commercial imperatives, in Europe cultural and aesthetic imperatives are given far greater importance (Hill, 2004;Putnam, 1997). This has implications for the relationship between contemporaneous and retrospective consecration that we propose to explore in this paper.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Classics foretold? Contemporaneous and retrospective consecration in the UK film industry

Lampel

Nadavulakere

2009

Cultural Trends

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Consecration of cultural products occurs both contemporaneously and retrospectively. This paper examines the influence of contemporaneous consecration on retrospective consecration in the UK film industry. We first examine the impact of professional and popular consecration on retrospective consecration using the list of "best films" compiled by the British Film Institute to gauge retrospective consecration. We then examine the impact of international film festivals on retrospective consecration. We show that experts and peers will have a differential effect on the process of retrospective consecration.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Classics foretold? Contemporaneous and retrospective consecration in the UK film industry

Lampel

Nadavulakere

2009

Cultural Trends

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Of course some segments may be more important to institutions or their funding bodies. For example, governments may wish to see greater cultural inclusion, thereby being more supportive of programs targeting migrant communities (Hill, 2004). Thus future research needs to explore different segments bearing in mind the priorities of institutions and funding bodies.…”

Section: Research Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The high degree of public financial support for these institutions also places increased pressure on these institutions to ensure they are servicing a diverse cross-section of society. Low visitation is a problem for several reasons: 1) these institutions are publically funded so there is a desire to ensure that they provide 'value' to the widest segments of the community (Brooks, 2001(Brooks, , 2003Kim et al, 2007;Lewis and Brooks, 2005), 2) cultural attractions are designed to enhance community engagement and as such increased attendance will develop broader social capital (Hill, 2004;Howard, 2001;Upright, 2004), and 3) cultural industries are important sectors of the economy and without visitor support these sectors will not develop (Madden, 2001, Stoddard et al, 2006. The problem of low visitation or non-attendance by some market segments affects cultural institutions globally.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Marketing cultural attractions: understanding non‐attendance and visitation barriers

Kay

Wong

Polonsky

2009

Marketing Intelligence &Amp; Planning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to draw together the previous academic and industry research on non-attendance of cultural attractions, followed by qualitative indepth interviews to identify commonalities or gaps in the previous research on barriers, constraints and inhibitors, as well as to propose linkages between these.Design/methodology/approach -A multi-method approach is used -where barriers, constraints and inhibitors are identified by means of thematic content analysis of the literature. A set of probing questions is developed based on these themes and is then examined in in-depth interviews with individuals that had not visited cultural attractions in the past two years, in an attempt to triangulate data, as well as to identify connections between barriers.Findings -From the literature, eight interconnected barriers to visitation are identified -1) physical access, 2) personal access, 3) cost, 4) time and timing, 5) product, 6) personal interest and peer group, 7) socialization and understanding, and 8) information. The indepth interviews generally support these, although it is also identified that there are complex interrelationships between the issues.Originality/Value -This paper addresses the neglected question of why people do not attend cultural attractions by triangulating thematic findings from the content analysis of diverse literature with in-depth interview responses from one non-visitor segment. This results in an interconnected model of barriers that can be used to assist managers to develop strategies addressing low visitation rates within targeted segments.

show abstract

“…A number of earlier studies consider the history of film and film policy in the UK (Dickinson and Street, 1985;Hill, 1996Hill, , 2004Murphy, 2009;Street, 2009). Nowell-Smith and Dupin (2012) provide an extensive history of the BFI -one of the UK's oldest cultural institutions and the predominant support body for film prior to the arrival of the UKFC -from 1933-2000.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The imperatives that drive film policy are varied (Hill, 2004) but typically they centre on widening audience access to locallymade and promoting the competitive position of local producers in an industry that, in Europe and beyond, is generally heavily dominated by the Hollywood-based 'majors'. The impetus to support film has resulted in the formation of a variety of models of intervention and of agencies dedicated to implementing film policies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Film Support and the Challenge of ‘Sustainability’: On Wing Design, Wax and Feathers, and Bolts from the Blue

Doyle¹

2014

Journal of British Cinema and Television

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Doyle, G. (2014) Film support and the challenge of 'sustainability': on wing design, wax and feathers, and bolts from the blue. Journal of British Cinema and Television, AbstractIn recognition of the importance of film in generating both economic and cultural value, the UK Labour Government set up a new agency -the UKFC -in 2000 with a remit to build a sustainable film industry. But, reflecting a plethora of differing expectations in relation to the purposes behind public support for film, the UKFC's agenda shifted and broadened over the organisation's lifetime (2000)(2001)(2002)(2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009)(2010)(2011). Apparently unconvinced by the UKFC's achievements, the coalition Government which came to power in May 2010 announced the Council's abolition and reassigned its responsibilities as part of a general cost-cutting strategy. Based on original empirical research, this paper examines how the UKFC's sense of strategic direction was determined, how and why the balance of objectives it pursued changed over time and what these shifts tell us about the nature of film policy and the challenges facing bodies that are charged with enacting it in the 21 st century.

show abstract

UK film policy, cultural capital and social exclusion

Cited by 35 publications

References 3 publications

Classics foretold? Contemporaneous and retrospective consecration in the UK film industry

Classics foretold? Contemporaneous and retrospective consecration in the UK film industry

Marketing cultural attractions: understanding non‐attendance and visitation barriers

Film Support and the Challenge of ‘Sustainability’: On Wing Design, Wax and Feathers, and Bolts from the Blue

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About