This Is Why We Never Get Our Economics From Actors
Tho' many try
D’ye recall back when Bill Nighy became the online video champion of a financial transactions tax? Or when Emma Thompson flew first class from LA to London to take part in a no carbon emissions demonstration then flew, first class, back to LA?
Good Times, Good Times, eh?
Now, that screaming narcissists have the intellectual capacities of a pair of black framed glasses is not exactly news, I know. They’re known for being able to emote the scripts of others, not for their knowledge of the world off the treaded boards.
But even with that this is precious, very precious:
US streaming giants should pay a “Netflix tax” to help pay for more high-quality British TV shows, MPs have urged.
We’re in that Monty Python world of the perfect tax, no? I would tax foreigners living in foreign?
In a report published on Thursday, the culture, media and sport committee called on American media giants such as Netflix, Disney, Amazon and Apple to “put their money where their mouth is” by paying a 5pc levy on their UK revenues.
The takings would be channelled into a new cultural fund, administered by the British Film Institute (BFI), to support high-end British dramas.
My word. A fund that is not democratically controlled. That those paying into it have no control over. That, in fact, gets to be disbursed, with no controls whatsoever, by those lucky enough to run it. Blimey, I just can’t think of why that would be attractive to those who would get to control it. Nope, blindsided.
It follows demands from high-profile industry figures including Peter Kosminsky, the creator of Wolf Hall, and Patrick Spence, the former ITV executive who produced Mr Bates vs The Post Office.
They warned that surging costs meant the UK’s public service broadcasters were struggling to fund quintessentially British programmes, while US streaming services were less willing to fund co-productions and were prioritising shows that had broad international appeal.
But why are costs surging? Eh, eh?
In addition to the proposed tax, the committee called for an extension of existing tax breaks to match the “game-changing” incentives rolled out last year for independent film productions.
Oooh, squeal for piggie! We’ve all got to pay *as well*.
Dame Caroline Dinenage, chair of the committee, said: “Big box-office blockbusters made in Britain have showcased the UK’s world-class film and high-end television industry like never before. But the boom in inward investment of recent years now risks crowding out our many talented, independent British producers.
“While streamers like Netflix and Amazon have proved a valuable addition for the industry and economy, unless the Government urgently intervenes to rebalance the playing field, for every ‘Adolescence’ adding to the national conversation, there will be countless distinctly British stories that never make it to our screens.”
Ah, yes, well, you’re not a proper fuckwit until you’ve been given a title. See above about Dame Emma.
The actual argument being made is that British actors, tax breaks, directors, scriptwriters, lovely Cotswold villages (and in the case of Bridgerton, the street outside my flat) are just such wonderful places to film, film with, that prices are rising. Therefore we’ve got to subsidise all this.
The only reason we listen to fuckwits like this is because they’re pretty. Now, honestly, hands up. Who has ever known a pretty bird, handsome man, who can actually think? Even, actually has the base data to be able to think with?
No, no, it’s not that the leavening of IQ and looks equals out over genes. Quite the opposite. Dullards in the sense of actual cretins and morons tend not to look good either. But the good looking have never had to think now, have they? So, they don’t.
I do actually know - fairly vaguely but all the same - a stunningly handsome man. As in, you know, globally known for it. Got movie parts from those looks - famous ones. He’s a lovely, lovely, bloke. Can’t fault ‘im in the slightest. Proper gent too. I’d not have him on the pub quiz team all the same.
As a general rule we should not take our economics from those who get the job of telling us what our economics should be just because they look good. The proof of this is what their industry is proposing. The British film and TV industry requires subsidy because it’s successful.
Rumour has it that not all of these people remember to breathe without regular reminders. Like, you know, every few seconds?
"The actual argument being made is that British actors, tax breaks, directors, scriptwriters, lovely Cotswold villages (and in the case of Bridgerton, the street outside my flat) are just such wonderful places to film, film with, that prices are rising. Therefore we’ve got to subsidise all this."
The thing is it's all utter rot. There's the bit of British film making that does the production side. Like assembling sets, makeup, costuming, rigging, VFX. That side is very successful. We're some of the best in the world at it. There's also some people in this country who make films very successfully, like Christopher Nolan, David Heyman and so forth.
The problem is the sort of movie crowd, who not only want to do something "important" that almost no-one wants to see but also want to be well rewarded for it, and also, to not innovate technically to cut the cost.
Let's assume just for a moment that this won't turn into a slush fund distributed to the politically favoured... no I just spat coffee all over my keyboard.