Letter: The films we don't get to see
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.THE continuing growth in cinema attendances is to be celebrated ("Record high for cinema", 3 May), but is the 39 million audience provided with more choice? Hardly. Film magazine (September 1996) pointed out that Glasgow had three cinemas in a three-mile radius offering a total of 23 screens, yet 11 of those were occupied by just three films. How many of the 128 British films produced in 1996 did the multiscreens show? How many foreign-language films? And for how long? Apart from the handful of Regional Film Theatres, the only outlet for such films are the 250 film societies in the UK. From Shetland to Jersey these deliver an annual audience of well over 1 million.
If film is about culture as well as commerce then it will be the subsidised and voluntary sector that will continue to take risks. And (at last) it seems that the BFI and the new government are beginning to recognise this.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments