End Of The Line For The British Film Comedy?

My Top 3

Three and Out’s makers thought their film was something special. It turned out to be a dismal flop. How did they get it so wrong? Owen Gibson reports

Friday May 9, 2008
The Guardian

Since it first crept on to our screens seven years ago, it has entered the canon of classics that have revolutionised television comedy. Those who appeared in it have been showered with awards, praise and leading film roles. But there is one aspect of The Office’s legacy that is less than sparkling - the British films that used its actors as their selling point. The presence of Martin Freeman (Tim), Mackenzie Crook (Gareth) or Lucy Davis (Dawn) in the cast list has helped secure funding for a run of movies that at best were sporadically amusing (Confetti) and at worst downright terrible (Sex Lives of the Potato Men). Now that the latest, Three and Out, has hit the buffers, it could spell the end for this curious British film-making subgenre.

It is one that its ultimate Godfather, Ricky Gervais, has repeatedly tried to dissociate himself from. Although he would never criticise his former Office co-star Crook directly, Three and Out was surely precisely the sort of movie he was talking about when I interviewed him following the success of Extras. "After the second episode of The Office went out, I was offered the lead role in a film," he recalled at the time. "I hate it when a British comedian [becomes popular], the first thing they do is appear in four films and they’re all terrible, lottery-funded, tacky shit. They’re on the side of buses for one week and then they go straight to DVD. That goes into your goodwill pot. I see all these people that release stats about how much money they made and I think, good luck to you if that’s what you’re here for."

Now you might think Gervais is being sanctimonious, or even that he is setting himself up for a fall, given that he’s currently directing his first feature film in the US. You might even, recalling his appearance in Night at the Museum and given his expression of similar sentiments since, think he is being a tad two-faced. But you can’t deny that he has a point.

When the backers of Three and Out, the latest in a less than proud lineage of British comedy turkeys starring names who made their reputation on the small screen, dreamed of causing an industry buzz with their first feature, this probably wasn’t exactly what they had in mind. The quote from TV and radio presenter Eamonn Holmes that headlined the second wave of its advertising blitz declared Three and Out was "the film everyone is talking about". Sadly for its makers, it was for all wrong reasons - and it was also the film that no one was actually going to see. In its first week of release, it didn’t trouble the box office scorers, taking just £189,454. To add insult to injury, the No 1 film that week was Forgetting Sarah Marshall - the latest in a production line of US comedy hits aimed at a similar audience and one that managed to succeed in making a bona fide star of a UK TV name in Russell Brand.

Three and Out didn’t dent the top UK’s box office top 10 despite a huge marketing spend and a widespread release. That failure may just have sounded the death knell for the breed of Britcom it represents. Others were disappointed because a film that could have established a new force in British film-making outside the usual funding routes - the new production and distribution companies behind it are both bankrolled by money raised by Aaron Gershfield, brother of the film’s director, Jonathan Gershfield - appears to have faltered at the first hurdle.

Worldwide Bonus Entertainment, a new entrant into the cutthroat world of independent movie distribution, had been hoping the movie would kick off its new integrated company. It has signed a five-picture deal with Rovinge Motion Picture Company (also apparently funded by Gershfield), the first fruit of which is Three and Out. The company boasts on its website that a "generous P&A budget" is a vital ingredient for success. P&A - prints and advertising - refers to the amount distributors spend on the prints distributed to the cinemas themselves and the amount they pour into marketing.

Filmgoers, particularly those in London, are unlikely to have been unaware of the film’s existence. For weeks they have been bombarded with ads. From the moment they stepped out of the door, Crook’s distinctive hollow-cheeked visage stared at commuters from billboards and the sides of buses. As they opened their morning paper, they could expect to be confronted with huge press ads covered in endorsements from such noted film critics as Giles Vickers Jones of Love It magazine ("Putting British comedies back on track") and Justin Matlock of North London Newspapers ("Loved it! Three really is the magic number").

A glossy website, which also attempted to tap into the controversy engendered by the charges of insensitivity made by the train driver’s union Aslef ("Join the debate!"), was the icing on the cake. Meanwhile, armies of enthusiastic amateurs were recruited to ram the message home online in forums and on fansites. None of this is unusual for a new movie. What was surprising was the sheer volume, and the amount of money it cost, for a film of its size.

Some industry sources estimated the film had spent more in a short period of time than some blockbusters would burn through in their entire UK runs. Others close to the production insist it was nowhere near that much, but concede it was far more than necessary and insufficiently targeted. "It fell between several stools," said one.

Despite the spend, the film was poorly received. The Independent on Sunday found it "lamentable", the Times said it "starts falling apart the moment you locate a seat" and the Guardian found it "just another depressing, mediocre, muddy-looking British film that wastes an awful lot of talent". If that wasn’t enough to put you off, it also features an ill-advised cameo from Kerry Katona.