"Stop putting a dollar (pound) sign in front of everything"...said Bill Hicks during one of his stand up gigs. David Cameron by contrast decided that he would deploy the ying to the Bill Hicks' yang, when he stated that the BFI should fund more "commercially successful pictures".
Sometimes poshos like Cameron present policies so ridden with holes, that 50 Cent feels inadequate only being shot nine times. The pursuit of "commercially successful pictures" seems reasonable enough, "fair play Dave", "good one lad", "can't argue with that", we may instinctively utter during our internal monologue. Yet in instances like this, you gain real insight in to the floored ideology such people hold, in ways we can all clearly understand and relate to.
Similarly, if Dave announced the necessity for men nationwide pursuing the contraction of Orchitis for its economic benefits, many without question may assume it to be sound economic policy: "Orchitis you say Dave?...hmm...not sure what it is...but if you say it's necessary for economic prosperity my leader, then I'm there standing tall with you".
But if we were informed that the pursuit of Orchitis, actually medically translated as men suffering excruciating ball ache for weeks on end, then would we feel so positive towards the idea? Surely instead we would all be dazed by horrific flash backs of falling off bikes on to the cross frame, or footballs entering sacred male territory at high velocity.
What Mr Cameron is suggesting is far more dangerous than testicular inflammation. Testes are relatively safe, what is at stake is our very culture and the integrity of British film. Dave is suggesting we all suffer movies like Transformers: Dark side of the Moon (Admittedly this example was used by Charlie Brooker in a similar article, but it simply must again).
As a person who knows the guilt and suffering one can go through after partaking in infidelity, I know guilt, I know internal suffering and strife. But nothing compares to the hollow void in my soul that rapidly manifested whilst viewing that film...which was filled with nought but robot blood and jizz. I came out feeling like the time I heard my parents having sex combined with the clichéd vision I hold of a war veteran, who's come home and claims to have "seen too much man...". I'll be damned if I live in a world where the Dark Side of the Moon prevails.
They say that to make a good person do terrible things takes religion, Camerons religion is the market. That holy mother of a market, all knowing, all seeing, pure, wise...
The religion can be essentially explained thusly: Anything that makes lots of money is a good thing. Studios with the most money therefore make the best films. Consumers are utilising there god given capitalist gift to choose superior products over the inferior, through the films they pay to watch, and this in turn decides quality adjudicated by purchasing consensus. A 'moneyocracy' if you will.
The problem with this, as we all know, is it's bullshit. The reality with few exceptions is simple; film studios over the years have become more and more concentrated in ownership and power. Ever pursuing profits, such studios choose 'commercially successful' projects. This is jargon for "pump out any old shite, play it safe, blow some shit up, get out a tittie or two, and watch the money flow in". Quality is second to profit. This may be high-minded pomposity, but I feel no shame in saying it, it's true, and those that would accuse me of this are the enablers of corporate sponsored mediocrity. But further yet, what is this choice we hear about for consumers at large multiplex cinemas? We watch what we are offered, we choose the limited choices we are given, "you are free to do as we tell you" - B.Hicks (again)
Culture and film is not merely about making money. Those of us with a respect for the arts see it as an unfortunate detriment to an otherwise essential human pursuit. What Cameron forgets is that the UK Film industry he nostalgically invokes to bolster his argument, is riddled with small films, many which may not have been commercially successful (many were) but were critically acclaimed and therefore live long in the memory. Harry Potter is fine, but it's a one off franchise, an easy sell, which often was poor. The ultimate fallacy Dave indulges is that commercial success is predictable; who would of thought The Full Monty, Shaun of the Dead, or the Kings Speech, Trainspotting or This is England would be commercial hits? They succeeded because people took chances on small projects with heart. That is what we do best, and to "compete" with Hollywood is neither necessary, nor desirable.
This represents the fundamental battle of our generation, between those that see an intrinsic value to life and the creative actions within it, and to those who just want to "put a dollar sign in front of everything".