Is the British film industry in crisis? Of course not. British films merely continue to lose money, as they always have done. That’s not a crisis, that’s normal. You’re either happy with it, or you’re not.

The strange thing though is the number of people who do seem content, people deep in the industry. Stranger still is the sense that the reasons for the losses are so obvious that no one dares mention them.

Much of the British film business is modeled on Hollywood practice, and that’s where the buck starts; British films are not American movies. Only US films are American movies. It’s that simple. The world loves America, and there is no competition. Friday night is America night.

That said, in the States, most pictures lose money too. The difference is that US companies make many pictures, setting losses on five against profits on one; they have a slate in production, not just development. Play for long enough and your number should come up. Here, at home, that’s not how it works. The bulk of producers run with just one picture. If it fails they fold. Or they would do, if not for subsidies.

Public money fills the gap between expenditure and returns. That might be fine if the declared aim of each successive support scheme was not to create a self-sustaining industry. In other words, over time, with increasing success, subsidy could be withdrawn. However, not only has this not occurred, but the reverse appears to be true. Year upon year the level of public investment has risen, culminating in the extraordinary lottery franchises and the largesse available to the agglomerated Film Council.

More seriously, subsidy discourages risk taking. With the cushion of subsidy there is no pressure to innovate and innovation is essential to survival. For 80 years the US has taken 80% of the UK box-office. British films will always be niche products, and niche products succeed by stealth, exploiting novelty and adaptability. In other words, the very measure designed to support the UK industry is undermining it. If one must borrow from America, borrow from the bottom not the top.

Taking the view from Scotland, which is not as far from UK experience as London might have us believe, the majority of pictures have failed to recoup, let alone go into profit. If, however, they had cost half as much they would have earned everyone a return. There is only one conclusion to be drawn. It is a conclusion so obvious and so embarrassing that many would rather it was never stated.

We must make movies cheaper. There’s no avoiding it. If the industry is to have any kind of legitimate future, where it exists outside the public sector and pays everyone back, then costs must be cut. And, with the advent of new technologies, not only is this possible but our pictures will be the better for it.

In August 2000, Elemental Films’ One Life Stand received its UK premiere at the Edinburgh International Film Festival. Produced for less than £100000, with everyone properly paid, it was the popular and critical hit of the fortnight. Shot on miniDV it was consistently acclaimed as a cinematic triumph, when too many British contenders appeared only as over-extended television.

But the success of One Life Stand is not a five-figure budget, which is not a way ahead. It is the discovery of new ways of working. Shooting on tape liberates every part of the process, affording smaller crews, more flexible schedules, higher shooting ratios, and simpler post-production routes.

At heart, with simplification, the cast interact with the script and the director in the most intimate way, creating the movie in the moment, and not blindly following a schedule fixed in pre-production and a script eviscerated in development. The resultant honesty and complexity delights an audience; they appreciate a movie written with sincerity and produced with vitality, offering respect to them as paying customers.

Most importantly, these freedoms are adaptable upwards, with the conclusion that digital features, equivalent to those shot on film for £3M, can be made for £1M. This is a three-fold gain; fewer investors so fewer compromises, lower risk so greater risk-taking, lower costs so faster turnarounds and higher returns.

The question is not, as independent producers, can we do it, but will we be allowed to do it? The financiers, the distributors, the marketers wouldn’t be in business if they didn’t know best. Or would they? I don’t underestimate the resistance to change, the fear of novelty, the feelings of security that come from working in a traditional way. There are a lot of people out there happier to lose money safely than make money dangerously.

But we had fun making One Life Stand, and it is a good movie, and we owe nobody nothing.