Many people prefer to watch foreign films than locally produced films. Why could this be? Should governments give more financial support to local film industries?
Sample Response
It is true that foreign films are more popular in many countries than domestically produced films. There could be several reasons why this is the case, and I believe that governments should promote local film-making by subsidising the industry.
There are various reasons why many people find foreign films more enjoyable than the films produced in their own countries. Firstly, the established film industries in certain countries have huge budgets for action, special effects and to shoot scenes in spectacular locations. Hollywood blockbusters like 'Avatar' or the James Bond films are examples of such productions, and their global appeal is undeniable. Another reason why these big-budget films are so successful is that they often star the most famous actors and actresses, and they are made by the most accomplished producers and directors. The poor quality, low-budget filmmaking in many countries suffers in comparison.
In my view, governments should support local film industries financially. In every country, there may be talented amateur film-makers who just need to be given the opportunity to prove themselves. To compete with big-budget productions from overseas, these people need money to pay for film crews, actors and a host of other costs related to producing high-quality films. If governments did help with these costs, they would see an increase in employment in the film industry, income from film sales, and perhaps even a rise in tourist numbers. New Zealand, for example, has seen an increase in tourism related to the 'Lord of the Rings' films, which were partly funded by government subsidies.
In conclusion, I believe that increased financial support could help to raise the quality of locally made films and allow them to compete with the foreign productions that currently dominate the market.
IELTS Writing Correction
- 1. Avoid repetition Original: domestically produced films Suggested revision: domestic productions Why it matters: The replacement avoids repeating “films” while retaining the contrast with foreign productions.
- 2. Choose precise wording Original: promote local film-making Suggested revision: support local filmmaking Why it matters: “Support” states the purpose of the proposed subsidy more directly.
- 3. Use concise wording Original: the most famous actors and actresses Suggested revision: leading actors Why it matters: “Leading actors” conveys prominence more concisely without an unnecessary gender distinction.
- 4. Avoid an absolute claim Original: the most accomplished producers and directors Suggested revision: highly accomplished producers and directors Why it matters: “Highly accomplished” preserves the point without making an unnecessary absolute comparison.
- 5. Choose precise wording Original: talented amateur film-makers Suggested revision: talented aspiring filmmakers Why it matters: “Aspiring” better describes people seeking an opportunity to establish themselves professionally.
- 6. Remove unnecessary emphasis Original: If governments did help Suggested revision: If governments helped Why it matters: The simple past is sufficient in this hypothetical conditional.
- 7. Make the wording direct Original: There could be several reasons why this is the case Suggested revision: Several factors may explain this preference Why it matters: The revision replaces a vague construction with a direct reference to the stated preference.
- 8. Reduce repetition Original: more enjoyable than the films produced in their own countries Suggested revision: more enjoyable than films produced domestically Why it matters: The revision expresses the comparison more concisely and avoids repeating “their own countries.”
- 9. Avoid an absolute claim Original: their global appeal is undeniable Suggested revision: they appeal to audiences worldwide Why it matters: The revision makes the global-audience point directly without an absolute evaluative statement.
- 10. Remove wordiness Original: just need to be given the opportunity Suggested revision: need an opportunity Why it matters: The concise active phrase communicates the same idea more directly.
- 11. Clarify the reference Original: they would see an increase in Suggested revision: this support could increase Why it matters: The revision replaces the ambiguous pronoun “they” with the policy action that produces the stated outcomes.
- 12. Sentence rewrite Original: Firstly, the established film industries in certain countries have huge budgets for action, special effects and to shoot scenes in spectacular locations. Suggested revision: Firstly, established film industries in certain countries have substantial budgets for action sequences and special effects, as well as for filming in spectacular locations. Why it matters: The rewrite makes the three uses of the budgets grammatically parallel.
Suggested Rewrites
- domestically produced films domestic productions
- promote local film-making support local filmmaking
- the most famous actors and actresses leading actors
- the most accomplished producers and directors highly accomplished producers and directors
- talented amateur film-makers talented aspiring filmmakers
- If governments did help If governments helped
Why this response received Band 8.5
The essay’s strongest feature is its direct, complete treatment of both questions, with specific examples linking production quality to foreign-film popularity and subsidies to employment, revenue and tourism. The main limitation is minor: the case for financial support assumes that funding will produce these gains without explaining how it should be targeted. To refine the argument, specify conditions such as competitive grants or accountability for funded productions.
IELTS Writing Criteria Scores
Task Response
Both questions are fully answered through well-developed reasons, a clear position, and specific, highly relevant examples.
Refine the funding proposal by explaining briefly how governments could select promising projects and ensure subsidies improve quality.
Coherence and Cohesion
The response is skilfully organised into focused paragraphs, and cohesive links guide the reader naturally through causes, policy, outcomes, and conclusion.
Make the conclusion marginally more comprehensive by briefly recalling the production advantages that explain foreign films’ popularity.
Lexical Resource
Vocabulary is wide, precise, and natural, with effective control of film-industry and economic language and only very minor lapses.
Use fully parallel phrasing in the list about budgets, for example “action sequences, special effects, and spectacular locations.”
Grammatical Range and Accuracy
A wide range of complex structures is used accurately and flexibly, with only rare minor issues in parallel construction or punctuation.
Refine parallel structure in the sentence about production budgets and hyphenate compound modifiers such as “poor-quality filmmaking.”
Write this task while it is fresh
Try the same task now. It helps you remember the feedback and write better next time.
IELTS Writing Task 2
Many people prefer to watch foreign films than locally produced films. Why could this be? Should governments give more financial support to local film industries?
Your response
Write the task yourself, then compare your choices with the annotated response.