“Wolf Hall” director Peter Kosminsky is sounding the alarm about the state of U.K. high-end television, writing in evidence submitted to a parliamentary committee that the series’ second part, “The Mirror and the Light,” nearly didn’t get made.
In a submission to the culture, media and sport committee’s inquiry into British film and high-end TV, Kosminsky said that “were we to try to make ‘The Mirror and the Light’ today, we would not succeed.”
“Wolf Hall,” which debuted in 2015 on BBC Two, stars Mark Rylance as Thomas Cromwell in an adaptation of Hilary Mantel’s first two novels in the trilogy of the same name. It earned international acclaim, receiving eight Emmy nominations and winning best miniseries or TV film at the Golden Globes. Despite this, Kosminsky said that when he pitched final chapter “The Mirror and the Light” to streamers, “they all turned it down.”
“It was only possible to begin production when the producer, the writer, the director and the leading actor all gave up a significant proportion of their fees,” Kosminsky continued. “We had shepherded the series through a 10-year development process but, in the end, it was necessary for us to work for very
little to get the show made.”
“The Mirror and the Light” eventually aired on BBC One last year. Since the BBC is a public service broadcaster, Kosminsky explained that “the financial contribution a PSB can offer, together with a sales advance and the U.K. tax break, are insufficient to make high-end TV drama in 2024/5 — in the inflated cost environment created here by the streamers.”
As Kosminsky pointed out, U.K. screen trade body Pact has identified 15 more TV dramas that have been greenlit by U.K. PSBs but are unable to proceed. A submission from the BBC to the committee echoed this, stating that many of its series are “now stuck in funding limbo and are not progressing to production.” As a result, the BBC said production companies have been forced to close, citing Fremantle’s Euston Films, which laid off its entire staff just days after the premiere of its highly successful “Nightsleeper” on the BBC.
“What do all these programs have in common?” Kosminsky asked. “Their subject-matter is of particular
interest, perhaps of particular cultural significance, to a U.K. audience. But they are not seen to have ‘legs’ — not likely to appeal, in particular, to an American audience.”
He continued that streamers “have little or no interest in making the minority of high-end dramas that are of specific interest to a U.K. audience. And we need to ensure that, in pursuing their entirely legitimate business model, they don’t drive U.K.-skewed, public service drama out of existence.”
“The U.K. is not the 51st state,” he said. “We have our own culture, and public service drama is a part of that heritage, as well as being an important manifestation of free speech. We can’t afford to lose it.”
So, what’s the solution? Kosminsky proposed that 5% of streamers’ U.K. subscription revenue should go toward a cultural fund, “to be used exclusively for high-end drama of specific interest to U.K. audiences but which doesn’t necessarily have cross-border appeal.”
Kosminsky pointed out that 17 European countries already employ a similar model. Netflix had fought it in Germany and France, but lost on both counts.
“As the streamers’ success with our audience grows, this independent creative fund will simultaneously grow,” Kosminsky wrote. “And with it, the number, (always a minority), of programs of special interest to our audience that we can make using it.”
The evidence will be heard by Parliament on Tuesday in its final session of the inquiry. A full report is set to be released in the spring.
