Thursday 2 December 2010
Wednesday 24 November 2010
What is the examiner looking for from my evaluation?
Level 2
8–11 marks
There is basic understanding of the forms and conventions used in the productions.
There is basic understanding of the role and use of new media in various stages of the production.
There is basic understanding of the combination of main product and ancillary texts.
There is basic understanding of the significance of audience feedback.
There is basic skill in choice of form in which to present the evaluation.
There is basic ability to communicate.
There is basic use of digital technology or ICT in the evaluation.
Level 4
16–20 marks
There is excellent understanding of the forms and conventions used in the productions.
There is excellent understanding of the role and use of new media in various stages of the production.
There is excellent understanding of the combination of main product and ancillary texts.
There is excellent understanding of the significance of audience feedback.
There is excellent skill in choice of form in which to present the evaluation.
There is excellent ability to communicate.
There is excellent use of digital technology or ICT in the evaluation
8–11 marks
There is basic understanding of the forms and conventions used in the productions.
There is basic understanding of the role and use of new media in various stages of the production.
There is basic understanding of the combination of main product and ancillary texts.
There is basic understanding of the significance of audience feedback.
There is basic skill in choice of form in which to present the evaluation.
There is basic ability to communicate.
There is basic use of digital technology or ICT in the evaluation.
Level 4
16–20 marks
There is excellent understanding of the forms and conventions used in the productions.
There is excellent understanding of the role and use of new media in various stages of the production.
There is excellent understanding of the combination of main product and ancillary texts.
There is excellent understanding of the significance of audience feedback.
There is excellent skill in choice of form in which to present the evaluation.
There is excellent ability to communicate.
There is excellent use of digital technology or ICT in the evaluation
Y13 ANCILLARY TASKS - DEADLINES
Deadline for first ancillary task - Wednesday 1st December
Deadline for second ancillary task - Wednesday 8th December
REMEMBER ! Show as many stages of the process as you can. All drafts are useful to show progress and how/why you changed your mind.
Deadline for second ancillary task - Wednesday 8th December
REMEMBER ! Show as many stages of the process as you can. All drafts are useful to show progress and how/why you changed your mind.
Tuesday 2 November 2010
More examples of Opening Sequences
Take a look at this collection of opening sequences and think about ideas for your own
Then answer these questions:
Then answer these questions:
- what are director’s aims?
- What are the audience thinking, wondering, feeling, asking?
- How does this engage the audience?
- What are your favourite bits in these clips? Why?
Finally post your answers and the clips as 'Research' on your own blog.
Tuesday 19 October 2010
SCRIPT DEADLINES
Tuesday 19th Nov , 4pm- The script you wrote in pairs which was assigned to you in class today
Weds 20th Nov, 4pm - The group script which you will work on in class on Weds Lesson 1 with annotations from the whole group
Weds 20th Nov, 4pm - The group script which you will work on in class on Weds Lesson 1 with annotations from the whole group
Wednesday 13 October 2010
YEAR 13 - Introduce your character
TASK 1 : Finalise your tag line, pitch and treatment and make sure it is on your blog. REMEMBER : You are being assessed individually for the presentation of your blog
TASK 2: Research and present some findings on the topics/issues covered in your story idea.
TASK 2 :Using a slug line and screen directions (but little or no dialogue), in
about 200 words, create and introduce a character in your screenplay.You should make sure that you convey information about:
● The impression they create (their appearance);
● Their attitude (personality, temperament);
● The world they inhabit (where and how they live).
TASK 3 : When you can visualise the character and their world, consider the
following questions:
● What would this character do if her husband was kidnapped and a
ransom was demanded?
● What would this character do if a homeless man had a heart
attack in front of him?
● What would this character do if he were mugged?
● What would this character do if she were offered a bribe to betray
company secrets?
● What would this character do if he had a chance to cheat on his
girlfriend?
TASK 2: Research and present some findings on the topics/issues covered in your story idea.
TASK 2 :Using a slug line and screen directions (but little or no dialogue), in
about 200 words, create and introduce a character in your screenplay.You should make sure that you convey information about:
● The impression they create (their appearance);
● Their attitude (personality, temperament);
● The world they inhabit (where and how they live).
TASK 3 : When you can visualise the character and their world, consider the
following questions:
● What would this character do if her husband was kidnapped and a
ransom was demanded?
● What would this character do if a homeless man had a heart
attack in front of him?
● What would this character do if he were mugged?
● What would this character do if she were offered a bribe to betray
company secrets?
● What would this character do if he had a chance to cheat on his
girlfriend?
Monday 24 May 2010
TARKOVSKY
">
Tarkovsky was, according to Shavka Abdusalmov, a fellow student at the film school, fascinated by Japanese films. He was amazed by how every character on the screen is exceptional and how everyday events such as a Samurai cutting bread with his sword are elevated to something special and put into the limelight. Tarkovsky has also expressed interest in the art of Haiku and its ability to create “images in such a way that they mean nothing beyond themselves.”
In 1972, Tarkovsky told film historian Leonid Kozlov his ten favorite films. The list includes: Diary of a Country Priest and Mouchette, by Robert Bresson; Winter Light, Wild Strawberries and Persona, by Ingmar Bergman; Nazarin, by Luis Buñuel; City Lights, by Charlie Chaplin; Ugetsu, by Kenji Mizoguchi; Seven Samurai, by Akira Kurosawa, and Woman in the Dunes, by Hiroshi Teshigahara. Among his favorite directors were Luis Buñuel, Kenji Mizoguchi, Ingmar Bergman, Robert Bresson, Akira Kurosawa, Michelangelo Antonioni, Jean Vigo and Carl Theodor Dreyer.[20]
Read more here
Tarkovsky was, according to Shavka Abdusalmov, a fellow student at the film school, fascinated by Japanese films. He was amazed by how every character on the screen is exceptional and how everyday events such as a Samurai cutting bread with his sword are elevated to something special and put into the limelight. Tarkovsky has also expressed interest in the art of Haiku and its ability to create “images in such a way that they mean nothing beyond themselves.”
In 1972, Tarkovsky told film historian Leonid Kozlov his ten favorite films. The list includes: Diary of a Country Priest and Mouchette, by Robert Bresson; Winter Light, Wild Strawberries and Persona, by Ingmar Bergman; Nazarin, by Luis Buñuel; City Lights, by Charlie Chaplin; Ugetsu, by Kenji Mizoguchi; Seven Samurai, by Akira Kurosawa, and Woman in the Dunes, by Hiroshi Teshigahara. Among his favorite directors were Luis Buñuel, Kenji Mizoguchi, Ingmar Bergman, Robert Bresson, Akira Kurosawa, Michelangelo Antonioni, Jean Vigo and Carl Theodor Dreyer.[20]
Read more here
Wednesday 19 May 2010
Tuesday 18 May 2010
Tuesday 11 May 2010
Monday 19 April 2010
Success of YouTube
Click on the link below for a useful analysis of YouTube's success. Even though design-wise it may not win awards, why do so many people engage with it? And how does it create a sense of collective identity and what does this identity 'look' like?
Why is YouTube successful?
Why is YouTube successful?
Thursday 1 April 2010
YEAR 12 EASTER HOMEWORK
Use the articles and the videos posted on this blog as a starting point to build you case study for Film 4 ('Slumdog Millionaire'), 20th Century Fox (Avatar) and Working Title.
OBJECTIVE: To gather relevant info about each Media Institution and compare their practices with each other.
Remember to do well in Section B you need to know and remember key facts, figures and issues to do with PRODUCTION, DISTRIBUTION AND EXHIBITION.
TASK:On a large A3 sheet make separate notes on each production company with relevant examples (quotes, fact, figures, names of people involved) under these headings.:
OBJECTIVE: To gather relevant info about each Media Institution and compare their practices with each other.
Remember to do well in Section B you need to know and remember key facts, figures and issues to do with PRODUCTION, DISTRIBUTION AND EXHIBITION.
TASK:On a large A3 sheet make separate notes on each production company with relevant examples (quotes, fact, figures, names of people involved) under these headings.:
- Media Ownership
- Production
- Distribution & Marketing
- Funding
- Technology
- Convergence
- Synergy
- Audience
Sample exam questions are below.
Please be aware that the exam question is unseen and could relate to any aspect of a media products production, distribution or exhibitions. In the exam you will not get a choice of question. So you need to know enough about each Media Institution.
The following questions are taken from past exam papers and from the Long Road Media blog.http://www.longroadmedia.com/
1) How important is technological convergence for institutions and audiences?
2) To what extent is multi-platform publication beneficial to media institutions and audiences?
3) With reference to your chosen case study consider how important interactivity is to media institutions?
4) What has the impact of increased connectivity been on the media production, distribution and exhibition process?
Wednesday 31 March 2010
Tuesday 30 March 2010
How are movies distributed
Today I find myself feeling especially Irish, buoyed by the news that one of my favourite books, Round Ireland with a Fridge, has been made into a feature film with the author Tony Hawks in the main starring role. This is especially excellent having developed a teenage crush on the main character when I first read the book: India, November 2006 (I was not a teenager then, just the crush was).
I won’t tell you what happens in the book – needless to say it involves a fridge and Ireland.
But I can say this. I recommend the book highly especially if you find yourself relaxing on some faraway beach as I was in Kerala way back when. If the book doesn’t make you laugh out loud at least once then take a deep look at yourself. And again. And try and locate a sense of fun.
What is less funny is that currently, the team who created the film, don’t know if it will ever be seen by a wide audience. Which would be no less than a tragedy.
Incase you’re not familiar with the art of movie distribution, here’s a very quick lesson – and special thanks to Jeff at HowStuffWorks for the inspiration behind this list:
1. Someone has an idea for a movie – writes outline, uses it to try & get interest in the idea.2. A studio or independent investor decides to purchase rights to the film.3. Screenwriter, producer, director, cast, crew come together – to help make the film.4. The film is completed and sent to the studio.5. The studio makes a licensing agreement with a distribution company.6. The distribution company determines how many copies to make.7. The distribution company shows the movie to prospective buyers representing the theaters.8. The buyers negotiate on which movies they wish to lease.9. The theater shows the movie for a specified number of weeks.10. You & I buy a ticket and watch the movie. And eat popcorn loudly if you’re one of those annoying cinema go-ers (I am not). Infact, don’t get me started on anti-social foods that are sold in movie houses…
Simple. In theory at least.
Obviously a lot of people in the world have ideas for movies (step 1) but few of them make it all the way seamlessly from 1-10. The film industry is ruthless. Money, more often than not, outweighs the creative process. The studios won’t commit without the big Hollywood names attached, the names won’t sign until the money is secured. Funding makes the movie world go round. Not excellent.
So the Round Ireland with A Fridge team, it appears, find themselves stuck at step 5,6 & 7 with no official distribution yet in place. Steps 8,9 and 10 probably seem somewhere over the rainbow right now.
Hawks (not to be confused with Tony Hawk, the pro American skateboarder), ever the quirky comedian, has instead opted to turn his back against the traditional model and is taking the film-making road less travelled. Planning to go on the road with the fridge and visit film festivals (“to see which doors open”), he plans to generate buzz around the film until it has a life of its own. And with the potential force that can be harnessed today using social media, digital PR and internet campaigners – power to the people – everyone loves an underdog (think Rage Against the Machine making Christmas Number one back in December, the successful digital campaign to get Cadbury to bring back the previously extinct Wispa bar…), I am confident he will succeed.
Whatever the movie release strategy that is ultimately deployed this autumn, watch this space. It almost certainly won’t be with a mainstream distributor. And it’ll likely be quirky, entertaining and highly innovative.
Back to today, happy St Patrick’s Day.
I’m off to have a pint of Guinness. And in true Irish fridge fashion, perhaps a second – “one for the road” whilst (and if you’ve read the book, you’ll get the reference here) being careful to avoid, in Tony’s words, ”granting the road too much respect”…
http://www.synergy-sponsorship.com/blog/20100317/around-the-movie-industry-with-a-fridge/
Film on Four - Fall and Rise
The British film industry was for a long time considered little more than a cottage industry. Truffaut is famously quoted as saying that 'Britain' and 'Cinema' were a contradiction in terms. Its steady decline, reaching its nadir in the seventies, has often been blamed on competition from television and video.
Towards the end of the century there were encouraging signs of a resurgence in British film production. A steady increase in the number of films Britain produced is evident since 1985. With major successes in the recent years of films such as Four Weddings and a Funeral and Trainspotting there seems to be an emerging trend for British cinema's international kudos to finally start translating into a profitable and (relatively) stable industry. Ironically it would seem that television, so blamed for the death of British cinema, is now perceived in some corners as presenting a positive contribution to this trend, in particular the efforts of Channel Four's Film on Four.
Click here for read more about the rise and fall of the British Film Industry.
Towards the end of the century there were encouraging signs of a resurgence in British film production. A steady increase in the number of films Britain produced is evident since 1985. With major successes in the recent years of films such as Four Weddings and a Funeral and Trainspotting there seems to be an emerging trend for British cinema's international kudos to finally start translating into a profitable and (relatively) stable industry. Ironically it would seem that television, so blamed for the death of British cinema, is now perceived in some corners as presenting a positive contribution to this trend, in particular the efforts of Channel Four's Film on Four.
Click here for read more about the rise and fall of the British Film Industry.
An Assessment of the Work of Working Title and It’s Effect On The British Film Industry (and some comparisons to Film Four)
Working Title films was founded in 1984 by Sarah Radclyffe (Who would later leave the company to be replaced by Eric Fellner in 1992) and Tim Bevan. The company’s first notable success was the 1985 film My Beautiful Laundrette, a story of a young Asian man’s battle to ‘make it’ in London during the Thatcher years. The film stars Saeed Jaffrey and features a breakthrough performance by Daniel Day Lewis and was both a critical and commercial success for the fledgling studio, picking up two BAFTA nominations, and an academy award nomination for best screenplay. The success of My Beautiful Laundrette enabled Working Title to establish themselves as a serious production company and attract the attention of backers Polygram in 1992, and also the attention of the major American studios who were interested in distributing Working Title’s projects internationally.
Working Title Followed up My Beautiful Laundrette with a number of successful films during the late 80’s and early nineties, films such as: the BAFTA award winning A World Apart (1988), Drop Dead Fred (1991) and most notably, the Coen brothers’ 1991 film Barton Fink. This film is especially interesting as it is the first high profile example of Working Title’s ability to strike deals with the large American studios (in this case Twentieth Century Fox) in order to secure international distribution for its products, and in this essay I intend to assess the success of Working Title in relation to its collaboration with the major American studios, and the effect which this collaboration has had on not only Working Title, but the British film industry in general since 1980. In addition to this I also plan to discuss the effect which Working Title’s policy of hiring international stars to play roles in their films has on the national identity of the company’s output.
It has always been a great ambition of the British film industry to build itself to a level at which it can compete with the likes of Universal and Warner Brothers, this ambition is evidenced by the rise and eventual fall of the Rank Organisation, which attempted to vertically integrate itself in the style of the American majors by purchasing the Odeon cinema chain (1938), Amalgamated studios of borehamwood (1939) and the Gaumont-British picture corporation in 1941. This formula was extremely successful for a period, but eventually even the Rank organisation could not stand up to the American majors. Working Title has perhaps come closer even than Arthur Rank’s massively funded corporation to achieving the same amount of financial and critical success as the American studios, by not competing with them but collaborating with them. This policy has enabled many British filmmakers such as Richard Curtis to secure the funding necessary for their projects, (after many years spent writing Working Title’s most successful films, Curtis was rewarded with a £30 million budget to make his debut as a director, Love Actually in 2003) through the high profile status the company has enjoyed as a result. This system however, has also had some negative effects. In particular on the way British films are distributed, because of the success of Working Title’s formula of distribution, other similar companies have followed suit, meaning that there are no fully integrated British companies, this calls into question the true Britishness of Working Title films such as Notting Hill (1999) which was distributed by Working Title’s parent company Universal Studios. The presence of Universal Studios as a distributer is somewhat problematic because of its obvious ties to the American film industry, and although it is not fair to say that the distribution of a film does not determine its national credentials, the sight of a Universal logo at the start of a film immediately brings associations of Americana.
Although this system has attracted criticism, its success and its necessity cannot be denied, given the lack of British distribution companies with a global reach. In an April 2005 interview, Tim Bevan explains the financial difficulties of being an independent producer: “It was very hand to mouth. We would develop a script that would take about 5% of our time; we’d find a director, that’d take about 5% of the time and we’d spend 90% of the time trying to juggle together deals from different sources to finance those films. The films were suffering because there was no real structure and, speaking for myself, my company was always virtually bankrupt.”2 With this in mind it is clear that in order to achieve the kind of success Bevan wanted to in the British film industry, pursuing funding from abroad (particularly America) was the only feasible option for the company if they were to gain any kind of financial success. This need for outside funding lead to Working Title becoming a subsidiary of the American Giant, Universal Studios; Despite having such a high profile and powerful parent company, Bevan and Fellner have managed to successfully maintain a high degree of autonomy over Working Title, this is demonstrated by the fact that the pair have “The power to commission films with a budget up to $35 million without even consulting their pay masters.”3 This is a testament not only to the faith which Universal have placed in both Bevan and Fellner but also to the impact which Working Title has had on the contemporary British film industry. This kind of access to funds (although American) is difficult to see as anything other than a great thing for the British film industry at large.
However, it is important to note that Working Title is not just a home for big budget British films such as Notting Hill; the company also has a strong commitment to funding low budget British films featuring up and coming talent. In 1999 the company set up WT2, in order to support these lower budget projects. The secondary company, run by Natascha Wharton and Lucy Guard has enjoyed some success stories of its own, most notably Billy Elliot (2000), and Ali G In Da House (2002). However, the company has also had its fair share of failures, most notably The Calcium Kid (2004) starring Orlando Bloom. In addition to funding low budget British cinema, WT2 has also made a commitment to developing and harnessing young British talent with initiatives such as the New Writers Scheme. This commitment is underlined by Lucy Guard in a 2004 interview with Film Four online:
“When I was at Working Title we set up a New Writers Scheme to develop new talent. Normally we do not accept unsolicited material (scripts that do not come from an agent or producer) but for the scheme we had to relax a bit and open the doors. The problem was that at Working Title, smaller films would inevitably get less attention than the bigger budget projects so we decided to set up WT2 to give proper attention to those smaller films. Quite a few of the writers we were developing on the Scheme we are now working with us at WT2 while others have set up their projects with other companies, which is great.”4
The schemes discussed by Guard, which were set up in order to help low budget British cinema would not have been possible had Working Title not entered into an arrangement with Universal Studios. Working Title has made great use of the idea of importing American stars in order to make the films more marketable to a global audience, as evidenced by Phillip Seymour Hoffman being given top billing in The Boat That Rocked (2009), despite the fact that he played only a supporting role and the film’s lead, Will Adamsdale was not so much as mentioned in the film’s promotion. The presence of such international stars as these certainly makes the films more marketable internationally, particularly in the United States. It is easy to criticise Working Title for this policy, to accuse the company of courting the American audience too much and compromising the national identity of the films which they produce, and to an extent this argument is reasonably valid, as the presence of big name actors such as Julia Roberts, does to an extent bring associations of Americana into the film. The presence of these American actors however, does not weaken the British identity of Working Title’s output to the point that it compromises the British film industry as a whole with its big budgets and high production values. In fact in many ways the opposite is true, as the success of films such as Four Weddings and a Funeral has provided Working Title with the financial clout and respect within the international film industry to really allow British cinema to produce at the level of their American counterparts, albeit with funding and support from Universal. In addition to this, Working Title’s success using American stars has allowed the company to commit more finances to up and coming British filmmakers and writers through WT2. Surely securing solid funding for up and coming filmmakers and writers to make their projects come to life is more important than some kind of misplaced sense of national pride and misty eyed romantic vision of what a purely British film could and should be. It is also important to note that the presence of American stars is not a new development within British cinema, this fact is accurately pointed out by Robert Murphy; “British producers, for reasons both commercial and cultural, have always been tempted to bring American stars across the Atlantic: As far back as 1922 Michael Balcon persuaded the Hollywood actress Betty Compson to star in his first production, Woman To Woman, to ensure its commercial success.”5
In many ways Notting Hill is the quintessential example of what Working Title offers the British and international film industries, almost all of the elements inherent within the companies output are present in the film. From the romanticised vision of British life, on this occasion represented by the Notting Hill area of London, which is given an extremely favourable treatment, to the presence of an a-list Hollywood star in order to make it easier to promote the film in the international market. In this case Julia Roberts. The romanticised vision of Britain depicted in the film is commented on by Nick James in May 1999. With regard to the closing sequence in the secret garden, James comments: “Anyone versed in the iconography of the English immediately thinks of The Secret Garden with its ‘little bit of earth’, of The House At Pooh Corner, of Peter Pan, of Kipling and all the other literary touchstones of Empire contentedness – things we all enjoy, but keep the inhabitants of these islands half in love with their now distant past.”6 This notion of Working Title presenting a rose tinted view of Britain, which is marketable to the international (particularly American) audience is countered to a certain degree by Robert Murphy; “It’s plot premise – what would happen if a beautiful Hollywood movie star began a romance with a very ordinary Englishman? – might look like a cynical attempt to produce a sugary romance designed to flatter American sensibilities, but in practice the film makes cheekily few concessions to Hollywood. It is not just the way in which the film industry is represented as crass, cynical and superficial – this counts as affectionate mockery in comparison to the venomous expose of Robert Altman’s ‘The Player’.”7 This notion of the film poking fun at the industry which is in part designed to be sold to, is an extremely interesting one and is best represented by the character of Anna’s boyfriend Jeff, played by Alec Baldwin in the way he behaves and treats her, sympathy for Anna is also elicited by this representation of Hollywood. The subversion of the Hollywood studio system which is represented in the film could also be seen as a retort by Curtis and Working Title to those who have criticised the national identity depicted, and the concessions made to appeal to an international audience in the company’s output. With this in mind perhaps it is fair to say that Notting Hill is not as much of an attempt to pander to an American audience as it appears to be, but perhaps it is at least in part a tongue in cheek parody of the very industry and audience which it is attempting to reach. However, this argument is still somewhat floored as it does not explain or indeed account for other apparent compromises made in order to appeal to an American audience. The most notable compromise being the way in which the Notting Hill area itself is represented. This idealistic, romantic depiction of an area of London which, in reality is somewhat run down, is extremely problematic and does call into question the legitimacy of the film with respect to its national identity and integrity. Perhaps the depiction of Notting Hill is also a sly mockery of the expectations of the American audience, and of the expectations of the British cinema purists who rail against Working Title’s style of cinema.
The success of Working Title’s formula (Notting Hill grossed $374,089,678 worldwide) of using slightly romanticised depictions of Britain and British life coupled with the use of international stars such as Julia Roberts and Renee Zellweger to appeal to an international audience has, in some ways both being of great benefit and great detriment to the British film industry. The company’s success has lead to Working Title being able to invest more money into British film production, at both high and low budget level with the creation of WT2. This has lead to young British talent such as Lee Hall (writer of Billy Elliot) being able to get more of their projects off the ground. However, the success of the Working Title formula has distorted the amount of revenue coming into the British film industry at large. Far too much money is making its way to Working Title, and many other British production companies are struggling to survive as a result. Working Title’s commitment to funding larger scale projects has had an effect on the company’s commitment to its lower budget productions, WT2 in particular has suffered greatly as a result of its parent company’s funding policy, to the extent that WT2 has produced only one film since 2004’s ‘Inside I’m Dancing’. However, other factors, such as Britain’s economic downturn have also had a negative effect on WT2’s funding. The fact that in the last five years Working Title has only produced one film through the production arm which the company claims gives the British film industries finest young talent the opportunity to bring their visions to life, is a terrifying situation for the British film industry’s largest production company to find itself in, and is an extremely worrying state of affairs for any young British talent trying to get a project off the ground, without the presence of an international star attached to the project. This is supported by the fact that WT2’s last project Gone, had no recognisable names attached to it, and the film was barely even noticed. Working Title’s lack of commitment to WT2 in recent years has worrying implications for the British film industry in general.
Given Working Title’s size and influence on the British film industry it is perfectly plausible that other major British film producers such as BBC Films and Film Four may also cut back on their output, especially in the low budget production area, and given the current gloomy economic climate in Britain it is perfectly plausible that these cutbacks could have a catastrophic effect on the funding of projects involving young, British talent. Although this situation is clearly not all Working Title’s fault they, as Britain’s biggest film production company, have to take their fair share of the blame, and have to help spearhead the recovery of the British film industry at the base level, and help the filmmakers and writers of the future make their dream projects become a reality.
Since its formation in 1984, Working Title has enjoyed unprecedented success in Britain, and particularly abroad. A feat which has very rarely been achieved by a British production company. Working Title has achieved this level of success by developing an extremely marketable formula of depicting a romanticised vision of Britishness and casting recognisable international stars. This success has both benefited and damaged the British film industry in various ways. Working Title’s success has benefited the British film industry by making large amounts of money which have been re-invested in young British talent through WT2. Other benefits include the exposure and international attention which this success has brought to the British film industry at large; because of the success of films such as Four Weddings and a Funeral the eyes of the filmmaking world were on Britain, especially in the 1990’s. However, Working Title’s success has also brought problems for the British film industry. Because of the success of the Working Title formula, it is now more difficult than ever for a low budget British film, without star names in the cast, to make any kind of impression in the international market, and indeed the British market. The gulf in spending power between Working Title and the rest of the British film industry is also becoming a greater problem in the current economic climate in Britain, with less and less money available to British producers, Working Title in particular, are playing more and more safely with their money and as a result of this are much less likely to invest in projects by less experienced filmmakers as they were in the mid-1990’s.
Working Title’s success since its formation has, in many ways been of great benefit to British cinema, but the company’s success has also started a worrying trend within the British film industry of attempting to squeeze as much profit as possible out of the American market by making a number of filmic concessions aimed at this audience. Although this approach has made record profits for the British film industry, it has also diluted the national identity of its product, and alienated many young filmmakers and writers with its increasing reluctance to fund their projects. In 2010, the British film industry appears to be on a knife edge because of the ongoing recession, and its direction in the next five years will certainly have a profound effect on the young filmmaking talent of this country.
http://www.bombedoutinspace.com/2010/02/08/an-assessment-of-the-work-of-working-title-and-its-effect-on-the-british-film-industry/
Working Title Followed up My Beautiful Laundrette with a number of successful films during the late 80’s and early nineties, films such as: the BAFTA award winning A World Apart (1988), Drop Dead Fred (1991) and most notably, the Coen brothers’ 1991 film Barton Fink. This film is especially interesting as it is the first high profile example of Working Title’s ability to strike deals with the large American studios (in this case Twentieth Century Fox) in order to secure international distribution for its products, and in this essay I intend to assess the success of Working Title in relation to its collaboration with the major American studios, and the effect which this collaboration has had on not only Working Title, but the British film industry in general since 1980. In addition to this I also plan to discuss the effect which Working Title’s policy of hiring international stars to play roles in their films has on the national identity of the company’s output.
It has always been a great ambition of the British film industry to build itself to a level at which it can compete with the likes of Universal and Warner Brothers, this ambition is evidenced by the rise and eventual fall of the Rank Organisation, which attempted to vertically integrate itself in the style of the American majors by purchasing the Odeon cinema chain (1938), Amalgamated studios of borehamwood (1939) and the Gaumont-British picture corporation in 1941. This formula was extremely successful for a period, but eventually even the Rank organisation could not stand up to the American majors. Working Title has perhaps come closer even than Arthur Rank’s massively funded corporation to achieving the same amount of financial and critical success as the American studios, by not competing with them but collaborating with them. This policy has enabled many British filmmakers such as Richard Curtis to secure the funding necessary for their projects, (after many years spent writing Working Title’s most successful films, Curtis was rewarded with a £30 million budget to make his debut as a director, Love Actually in 2003) through the high profile status the company has enjoyed as a result. This system however, has also had some negative effects. In particular on the way British films are distributed, because of the success of Working Title’s formula of distribution, other similar companies have followed suit, meaning that there are no fully integrated British companies, this calls into question the true Britishness of Working Title films such as Notting Hill (1999) which was distributed by Working Title’s parent company Universal Studios. The presence of Universal Studios as a distributer is somewhat problematic because of its obvious ties to the American film industry, and although it is not fair to say that the distribution of a film does not determine its national credentials, the sight of a Universal logo at the start of a film immediately brings associations of Americana.
Although this system has attracted criticism, its success and its necessity cannot be denied, given the lack of British distribution companies with a global reach. In an April 2005 interview, Tim Bevan explains the financial difficulties of being an independent producer: “It was very hand to mouth. We would develop a script that would take about 5% of our time; we’d find a director, that’d take about 5% of the time and we’d spend 90% of the time trying to juggle together deals from different sources to finance those films. The films were suffering because there was no real structure and, speaking for myself, my company was always virtually bankrupt.”2 With this in mind it is clear that in order to achieve the kind of success Bevan wanted to in the British film industry, pursuing funding from abroad (particularly America) was the only feasible option for the company if they were to gain any kind of financial success. This need for outside funding lead to Working Title becoming a subsidiary of the American Giant, Universal Studios; Despite having such a high profile and powerful parent company, Bevan and Fellner have managed to successfully maintain a high degree of autonomy over Working Title, this is demonstrated by the fact that the pair have “The power to commission films with a budget up to $35 million without even consulting their pay masters.”3 This is a testament not only to the faith which Universal have placed in both Bevan and Fellner but also to the impact which Working Title has had on the contemporary British film industry. This kind of access to funds (although American) is difficult to see as anything other than a great thing for the British film industry at large.
However, it is important to note that Working Title is not just a home for big budget British films such as Notting Hill; the company also has a strong commitment to funding low budget British films featuring up and coming talent. In 1999 the company set up WT2, in order to support these lower budget projects. The secondary company, run by Natascha Wharton and Lucy Guard has enjoyed some success stories of its own, most notably Billy Elliot (2000), and Ali G In Da House (2002). However, the company has also had its fair share of failures, most notably The Calcium Kid (2004) starring Orlando Bloom. In addition to funding low budget British cinema, WT2 has also made a commitment to developing and harnessing young British talent with initiatives such as the New Writers Scheme. This commitment is underlined by Lucy Guard in a 2004 interview with Film Four online:
“When I was at Working Title we set up a New Writers Scheme to develop new talent. Normally we do not accept unsolicited material (scripts that do not come from an agent or producer) but for the scheme we had to relax a bit and open the doors. The problem was that at Working Title, smaller films would inevitably get less attention than the bigger budget projects so we decided to set up WT2 to give proper attention to those smaller films. Quite a few of the writers we were developing on the Scheme we are now working with us at WT2 while others have set up their projects with other companies, which is great.”4
The schemes discussed by Guard, which were set up in order to help low budget British cinema would not have been possible had Working Title not entered into an arrangement with Universal Studios. Working Title has made great use of the idea of importing American stars in order to make the films more marketable to a global audience, as evidenced by Phillip Seymour Hoffman being given top billing in The Boat That Rocked (2009), despite the fact that he played only a supporting role and the film’s lead, Will Adamsdale was not so much as mentioned in the film’s promotion. The presence of such international stars as these certainly makes the films more marketable internationally, particularly in the United States. It is easy to criticise Working Title for this policy, to accuse the company of courting the American audience too much and compromising the national identity of the films which they produce, and to an extent this argument is reasonably valid, as the presence of big name actors such as Julia Roberts, does to an extent bring associations of Americana into the film. The presence of these American actors however, does not weaken the British identity of Working Title’s output to the point that it compromises the British film industry as a whole with its big budgets and high production values. In fact in many ways the opposite is true, as the success of films such as Four Weddings and a Funeral has provided Working Title with the financial clout and respect within the international film industry to really allow British cinema to produce at the level of their American counterparts, albeit with funding and support from Universal. In addition to this, Working Title’s success using American stars has allowed the company to commit more finances to up and coming British filmmakers and writers through WT2. Surely securing solid funding for up and coming filmmakers and writers to make their projects come to life is more important than some kind of misplaced sense of national pride and misty eyed romantic vision of what a purely British film could and should be. It is also important to note that the presence of American stars is not a new development within British cinema, this fact is accurately pointed out by Robert Murphy; “British producers, for reasons both commercial and cultural, have always been tempted to bring American stars across the Atlantic: As far back as 1922 Michael Balcon persuaded the Hollywood actress Betty Compson to star in his first production, Woman To Woman, to ensure its commercial success.”5
In many ways Notting Hill is the quintessential example of what Working Title offers the British and international film industries, almost all of the elements inherent within the companies output are present in the film. From the romanticised vision of British life, on this occasion represented by the Notting Hill area of London, which is given an extremely favourable treatment, to the presence of an a-list Hollywood star in order to make it easier to promote the film in the international market. In this case Julia Roberts. The romanticised vision of Britain depicted in the film is commented on by Nick James in May 1999. With regard to the closing sequence in the secret garden, James comments: “Anyone versed in the iconography of the English immediately thinks of The Secret Garden with its ‘little bit of earth’, of The House At Pooh Corner, of Peter Pan, of Kipling and all the other literary touchstones of Empire contentedness – things we all enjoy, but keep the inhabitants of these islands half in love with their now distant past.”6 This notion of Working Title presenting a rose tinted view of Britain, which is marketable to the international (particularly American) audience is countered to a certain degree by Robert Murphy; “It’s plot premise – what would happen if a beautiful Hollywood movie star began a romance with a very ordinary Englishman? – might look like a cynical attempt to produce a sugary romance designed to flatter American sensibilities, but in practice the film makes cheekily few concessions to Hollywood. It is not just the way in which the film industry is represented as crass, cynical and superficial – this counts as affectionate mockery in comparison to the venomous expose of Robert Altman’s ‘The Player’.”7 This notion of the film poking fun at the industry which is in part designed to be sold to, is an extremely interesting one and is best represented by the character of Anna’s boyfriend Jeff, played by Alec Baldwin in the way he behaves and treats her, sympathy for Anna is also elicited by this representation of Hollywood. The subversion of the Hollywood studio system which is represented in the film could also be seen as a retort by Curtis and Working Title to those who have criticised the national identity depicted, and the concessions made to appeal to an international audience in the company’s output. With this in mind perhaps it is fair to say that Notting Hill is not as much of an attempt to pander to an American audience as it appears to be, but perhaps it is at least in part a tongue in cheek parody of the very industry and audience which it is attempting to reach. However, this argument is still somewhat floored as it does not explain or indeed account for other apparent compromises made in order to appeal to an American audience. The most notable compromise being the way in which the Notting Hill area itself is represented. This idealistic, romantic depiction of an area of London which, in reality is somewhat run down, is extremely problematic and does call into question the legitimacy of the film with respect to its national identity and integrity. Perhaps the depiction of Notting Hill is also a sly mockery of the expectations of the American audience, and of the expectations of the British cinema purists who rail against Working Title’s style of cinema.
The success of Working Title’s formula (Notting Hill grossed $374,089,678 worldwide) of using slightly romanticised depictions of Britain and British life coupled with the use of international stars such as Julia Roberts and Renee Zellweger to appeal to an international audience has, in some ways both being of great benefit and great detriment to the British film industry. The company’s success has lead to Working Title being able to invest more money into British film production, at both high and low budget level with the creation of WT2. This has lead to young British talent such as Lee Hall (writer of Billy Elliot) being able to get more of their projects off the ground. However, the success of the Working Title formula has distorted the amount of revenue coming into the British film industry at large. Far too much money is making its way to Working Title, and many other British production companies are struggling to survive as a result. Working Title’s commitment to funding larger scale projects has had an effect on the company’s commitment to its lower budget productions, WT2 in particular has suffered greatly as a result of its parent company’s funding policy, to the extent that WT2 has produced only one film since 2004’s ‘Inside I’m Dancing’. However, other factors, such as Britain’s economic downturn have also had a negative effect on WT2’s funding. The fact that in the last five years Working Title has only produced one film through the production arm which the company claims gives the British film industries finest young talent the opportunity to bring their visions to life, is a terrifying situation for the British film industry’s largest production company to find itself in, and is an extremely worrying state of affairs for any young British talent trying to get a project off the ground, without the presence of an international star attached to the project. This is supported by the fact that WT2’s last project Gone, had no recognisable names attached to it, and the film was barely even noticed. Working Title’s lack of commitment to WT2 in recent years has worrying implications for the British film industry in general.
Given Working Title’s size and influence on the British film industry it is perfectly plausible that other major British film producers such as BBC Films and Film Four may also cut back on their output, especially in the low budget production area, and given the current gloomy economic climate in Britain it is perfectly plausible that these cutbacks could have a catastrophic effect on the funding of projects involving young, British talent. Although this situation is clearly not all Working Title’s fault they, as Britain’s biggest film production company, have to take their fair share of the blame, and have to help spearhead the recovery of the British film industry at the base level, and help the filmmakers and writers of the future make their dream projects become a reality.
Since its formation in 1984, Working Title has enjoyed unprecedented success in Britain, and particularly abroad. A feat which has very rarely been achieved by a British production company. Working Title has achieved this level of success by developing an extremely marketable formula of depicting a romanticised vision of Britishness and casting recognisable international stars. This success has both benefited and damaged the British film industry in various ways. Working Title’s success has benefited the British film industry by making large amounts of money which have been re-invested in young British talent through WT2. Other benefits include the exposure and international attention which this success has brought to the British film industry at large; because of the success of films such as Four Weddings and a Funeral the eyes of the filmmaking world were on Britain, especially in the 1990’s. However, Working Title’s success has also brought problems for the British film industry. Because of the success of the Working Title formula, it is now more difficult than ever for a low budget British film, without star names in the cast, to make any kind of impression in the international market, and indeed the British market. The gulf in spending power between Working Title and the rest of the British film industry is also becoming a greater problem in the current economic climate in Britain, with less and less money available to British producers, Working Title in particular, are playing more and more safely with their money and as a result of this are much less likely to invest in projects by less experienced filmmakers as they were in the mid-1990’s.
Working Title’s success since its formation has, in many ways been of great benefit to British cinema, but the company’s success has also started a worrying trend within the British film industry of attempting to squeeze as much profit as possible out of the American market by making a number of filmic concessions aimed at this audience. Although this approach has made record profits for the British film industry, it has also diluted the national identity of its product, and alienated many young filmmakers and writers with its increasing reluctance to fund their projects. In 2010, the British film industry appears to be on a knife edge because of the ongoing recession, and its direction in the next five years will certainly have a profound effect on the young filmmaking talent of this country.
http://www.bombedoutinspace.com/2010/02/08/an-assessment-of-the-work-of-working-title-and-its-effect-on-the-british-film-industry/
The Hollywood Effect
A quick historical guide, comparing the British Film Industry to Hollywood.
Despite a flourishing global film industry, Hollywood remains the movie capital of the world because, American cinema has an overwhelming effect on the rest of the world. If you really think about it, revenue generated from box-office sales all over the world come from mainly movies made by US film studios, in particular, studios from Los Angeles, California. So in this regard, is it safe to consider that Hollywood productions form one of North America’s main exports? Why do I think that is? The answer is simple. From childhood to old age, everyone likes a good story. From late night camp fires, high school plays, amateur theatre productions to high grossing block-busters, there is always a story teller and there is always an audience. For an in-depth study into this topic, we have to go way back to the infancy of film making.
Although still a subject of intense debate, the first moving pictures to be projected on a screen were from the British film Incident at Clovelly Cottage in 1895. The film was made with a 35mm camera and celluloid film using a technique invented by William Greene in Hyde Park, London in 1890. Right after the success of this film, several British film companies started to flourish, capitalizing on the basic economics of supply and demand. A few years later across the Atlantic, D.W. Griffith filmed the first ever American short film titled In Old California, in a small village called Hollywood. This was soon followed by the first feature film in 1914 called The Squaw Man. Within a year, various studios started popping up like mushrooms, making mainly gun slinging westerns. By the 1920s, Paramount, MGM, Warner Bros. and Columbia were founded and went on to become major production and distribution studios.
During this silent era of films, British studios saw major losses due to heavy competition from their American counterparts. Until, that is, the emergence of one of the biggest names in cinema history, Alfred Hitchcock. Not only did he produce and direct the first British film with sound, Blackmail in 1929 was the work of pure genius and would revolutionize the art of story telling for decades to come. Within five years, Hitchcock made The man Who Knew Too Much and The 39 Steps, establishing himself as the “master of suspense”. He made another British film called The Lady Vanishes in 1938 before moving to Hollywood. Although the rest as we know is history, Hitchcock maintained strong ties with the British film industry while going on to become one of the first and greatest legendry film makers in the world. The Master of Suspense, British filmmaker and producer, Alfred Hitchcock
The point I am trying to make is that Hitchcock could have easily continued his work in the UK and still would have become the greatest British film maker ever. What lured him to Hollywood? Was it fame and fortune? Or was it a profound film making phenomenon emerging in the form of Hollywood productions?As both British and US film industries continued to boom, a third emerging market was the Indian film industry. Incredibly, the first Indian motion picture was a silent film called Raja Harish Chandra released in 1913, which historians confirm was just a few years after the US venture into film making. Believe it or not, with a post-production figure of over 10,000 titles, India independently stands shoulder to shoulder with major film producing regions like North America, Europe and Far-East Asia. But quantity does not always mean quality.
While American and British films were undergoing a technological renaissance during the 1960s, Indian films were just breaking out in color. And while the West were diversifying into the various genres of drama, action, comedy, horror and epics, Indian cinemas were a vivid celebration of color, song and dance revolving around a singular theme of romance. Fast forward to the 1980s and it was still the same story. But the popularity of these Bollywood movies, as it is now being referred to, extended from the entire Subcontinent to other Asian countries like China and the former USSR, even reaching the shores of Africa. Then the accusations started; fingers were pointed from the West alleging Indian film makers of plagiarism in screen writing, costumes, sound track and even cinematography. Yet production from the subcontinent continued to escalate despite these claims. At the same time British cinema started losing out to the American competition again with the advent of color TVs and home videos in the form of Betamax and VHS cassettes. But this was considered a temporary set back when the industry bounced back in the 1990s with typical British humor, optimizing a unique flavor in the comedy genre. Some of these were instant hits like Four Weddings and a Funeral, Notting Hill, The Full Monty and the Bean franchise. Almost a decade into the new millennium and Britain’s consistency with high grossing films is on the rise. Some of these include the Bridget Jones saga, The Harry Potter series, biopics like The Queen and The Last King of Scotland and most recently the multi award wining Slumdog Millionaire.
The famous Hollywood sign perched atop the hills near Mount Lee in Griffith Park.
During all this time, Hollywood movies were becoming a household name and a must-see factor was rising all over the globe. Box-office sales were going through the roof and the top grossing films were called Blockbusters. Star-power, mind numbing special effects, original and innovative screen writing and the use of computer generated imagery (CGI) all contributed towards a film's critical reception. These techniques were soon adopted by other film producing nations. But Hollywood productions continued to stand out in originality and innovativeness making a phenomenal impact in almost all genres, not excluding horror, action and sci-fi. Shark attacks on humans were unheard of until the movie Jaws. The Exorcist had quite a few atheists believing in a higher power. Star Wars and Star Trek viewers later called themselves "Trekies." Ruthless and controversial was the story telling about immigrants pursuing the American dream in the Godfather series as well as Scarface. The whole world witnessed in shock how 1500 souls were claimed by the icy depths of the Atlantic Ocean in Titanic, just after struggling to comprehend the brutality of war in Saving Private Ryan. Anyone associated with casting and auditions in Hollywood will tell you that one of the pre-requisites of becoming a successful actor is the ability to sing. While Singin' in the Rain (1952), West Side Story (1961) and The Sound of Music(1965) are considered the greatest musicals of all time, it just goes to prove that film making is not just a science but an art. That said, there is simply little or no comparison between the ingenuity of Hollywood musicals and scores with competition elsewhere.
Sure, various film producing nations today continue to thrive in this highly competitive market, even promoting their films through prestigious film festivals. But curiosity has no bounds when every year, more than a handful of American movies sweep the planet like a ripple effect. While British, French, Canadian, Australian, Japanese and Indian cinema continue to exhibit a high level of competency in film making, Hollywood has its place cemented as the undisputed film making capital of the world.
But hey, don’t take my word for it. Basic accounting will tell you how much time and money you spend on movies in a year, either at the cinemas or renting at home. Relate that figure to anything out of Hollywood and I may have just made a point.
Lloyd Bayer
http://www.franksreelreviews.com/shorttakes/reelrant/ranthollywoodeffect.htm
Despite a flourishing global film industry, Hollywood remains the movie capital of the world because, American cinema has an overwhelming effect on the rest of the world. If you really think about it, revenue generated from box-office sales all over the world come from mainly movies made by US film studios, in particular, studios from Los Angeles, California. So in this regard, is it safe to consider that Hollywood productions form one of North America’s main exports? Why do I think that is? The answer is simple. From childhood to old age, everyone likes a good story. From late night camp fires, high school plays, amateur theatre productions to high grossing block-busters, there is always a story teller and there is always an audience. For an in-depth study into this topic, we have to go way back to the infancy of film making.
Although still a subject of intense debate, the first moving pictures to be projected on a screen were from the British film Incident at Clovelly Cottage in 1895. The film was made with a 35mm camera and celluloid film using a technique invented by William Greene in Hyde Park, London in 1890. Right after the success of this film, several British film companies started to flourish, capitalizing on the basic economics of supply and demand. A few years later across the Atlantic, D.W. Griffith filmed the first ever American short film titled In Old California, in a small village called Hollywood. This was soon followed by the first feature film in 1914 called The Squaw Man. Within a year, various studios started popping up like mushrooms, making mainly gun slinging westerns. By the 1920s, Paramount, MGM, Warner Bros. and Columbia were founded and went on to become major production and distribution studios.
During this silent era of films, British studios saw major losses due to heavy competition from their American counterparts. Until, that is, the emergence of one of the biggest names in cinema history, Alfred Hitchcock. Not only did he produce and direct the first British film with sound, Blackmail in 1929 was the work of pure genius and would revolutionize the art of story telling for decades to come. Within five years, Hitchcock made The man Who Knew Too Much and The 39 Steps, establishing himself as the “master of suspense”. He made another British film called The Lady Vanishes in 1938 before moving to Hollywood. Although the rest as we know is history, Hitchcock maintained strong ties with the British film industry while going on to become one of the first and greatest legendry film makers in the world. The Master of Suspense, British filmmaker and producer, Alfred Hitchcock
The point I am trying to make is that Hitchcock could have easily continued his work in the UK and still would have become the greatest British film maker ever. What lured him to Hollywood? Was it fame and fortune? Or was it a profound film making phenomenon emerging in the form of Hollywood productions?As both British and US film industries continued to boom, a third emerging market was the Indian film industry. Incredibly, the first Indian motion picture was a silent film called Raja Harish Chandra released in 1913, which historians confirm was just a few years after the US venture into film making. Believe it or not, with a post-production figure of over 10,000 titles, India independently stands shoulder to shoulder with major film producing regions like North America, Europe and Far-East Asia. But quantity does not always mean quality.
While American and British films were undergoing a technological renaissance during the 1960s, Indian films were just breaking out in color. And while the West were diversifying into the various genres of drama, action, comedy, horror and epics, Indian cinemas were a vivid celebration of color, song and dance revolving around a singular theme of romance. Fast forward to the 1980s and it was still the same story. But the popularity of these Bollywood movies, as it is now being referred to, extended from the entire Subcontinent to other Asian countries like China and the former USSR, even reaching the shores of Africa. Then the accusations started; fingers were pointed from the West alleging Indian film makers of plagiarism in screen writing, costumes, sound track and even cinematography. Yet production from the subcontinent continued to escalate despite these claims. At the same time British cinema started losing out to the American competition again with the advent of color TVs and home videos in the form of Betamax and VHS cassettes. But this was considered a temporary set back when the industry bounced back in the 1990s with typical British humor, optimizing a unique flavor in the comedy genre. Some of these were instant hits like Four Weddings and a Funeral, Notting Hill, The Full Monty and the Bean franchise. Almost a decade into the new millennium and Britain’s consistency with high grossing films is on the rise. Some of these include the Bridget Jones saga, The Harry Potter series, biopics like The Queen and The Last King of Scotland and most recently the multi award wining Slumdog Millionaire.
The famous Hollywood sign perched atop the hills near Mount Lee in Griffith Park.
During all this time, Hollywood movies were becoming a household name and a must-see factor was rising all over the globe. Box-office sales were going through the roof and the top grossing films were called Blockbusters. Star-power, mind numbing special effects, original and innovative screen writing and the use of computer generated imagery (CGI) all contributed towards a film's critical reception. These techniques were soon adopted by other film producing nations. But Hollywood productions continued to stand out in originality and innovativeness making a phenomenal impact in almost all genres, not excluding horror, action and sci-fi. Shark attacks on humans were unheard of until the movie Jaws. The Exorcist had quite a few atheists believing in a higher power. Star Wars and Star Trek viewers later called themselves "Trekies." Ruthless and controversial was the story telling about immigrants pursuing the American dream in the Godfather series as well as Scarface. The whole world witnessed in shock how 1500 souls were claimed by the icy depths of the Atlantic Ocean in Titanic, just after struggling to comprehend the brutality of war in Saving Private Ryan. Anyone associated with casting and auditions in Hollywood will tell you that one of the pre-requisites of becoming a successful actor is the ability to sing. While Singin' in the Rain (1952), West Side Story (1961) and The Sound of Music(1965) are considered the greatest musicals of all time, it just goes to prove that film making is not just a science but an art. That said, there is simply little or no comparison between the ingenuity of Hollywood musicals and scores with competition elsewhere.
Sure, various film producing nations today continue to thrive in this highly competitive market, even promoting their films through prestigious film festivals. But curiosity has no bounds when every year, more than a handful of American movies sweep the planet like a ripple effect. While British, French, Canadian, Australian, Japanese and Indian cinema continue to exhibit a high level of competency in film making, Hollywood has its place cemented as the undisputed film making capital of the world.
But hey, don’t take my word for it. Basic accounting will tell you how much time and money you spend on movies in a year, either at the cinemas or renting at home. Relate that figure to anything out of Hollywood and I may have just made a point.
Lloyd Bayer
http://www.franksreelreviews.com/shorttakes/reelrant/ranthollywoodeffect.htm
Friday 26 March 2010
SECTION B - VIRAL MARKETING - CLOVERFIELD
A Monster of a Marketing Campaign!
Constructed specifically as a ‘monster movie for the YouTube generation, Cloverfield built a viral marketing campaign – and its own audience – through an enigmatic teaser-trailer, word of mouth and a widget. Its innovative uses of an alternative reality, games and videocam techniques involve audiences in new and interactive ways. Steph Hendry explores the Cloverfield universe.With a very low production budget in Hollywood terms (£15m), Cloverfield became an instant financial success making £22 million in its opening weekend. It is a recent example of the power of viral marketing (sometimes called user-generated marketing) to create audience interest before a film’s release and, most importantly, to get people into the cinema. Whether or not Cloverfield is a good film is up to you to decide (critics are divided); but it stands as a great example of the way modern marketers are using a range of methods to attempt to reach their audience and sell a film.The film’s media language choice of an ‘eye-witness’ presentation of the story using a hand-held camera acts as a representation of our current technological age. Cloverfield’s marketing also makes use of recent developments in technology and changes in audience activity and behaviour to create and sustain interest. The director (Matt Reeves) called the film ‘a monster movie for the YouTube generation’ indicating that the producers of this film were specifically aware that their target audience were internet-literate young people. It is these people who have been the targets for the marketing campaign and have also been encouraged to be a part of it.The first glimpseThe first anyone knew of the film was a teaser trailer shown before the 2007 summer blockbuster Transformers. The trailer did not name the film and only gave a release date after showing glimpses of an apparently home-made video of New York being attacked by ‘something’, culminating in the shocking image of the head of the Statue of Liberty crashing through a New York street. By creating memorable images and using an unconventional method to present the events, the filmmakers were using a tried-and-tested marketing device, the creation of enigma (mystery). Creating audience curiosity is a great way to generate interest in a product. Those who saw the trailer would have been left wondering what they had just seen: What genre was the film alluding to (Sci-Fi/Disaster/Monster)? Why was the footage they had been shown more like their own home-movies rather than a slick Hollywood production?The trailer’s placement gives an indication of the target audience, one which is a difficult market for advertisers at the moment: teens and, more specifically, young adults. These groups are becoming hard to reach for advertisers who rely on conventional methods. Young adults tend not to watch TV on a predictable, regular basis and often have access to multi-channel cable television which fragments the audience across a range of channels. Devices like Sky+ mean they can record television programmes, watch them when they choose and fast-forward through any advertising. Alternative methods of viewing television programmes also make this audience hard to find. ‘On demand’, downloads and YouTube split the audience further and this is the generation that is likely to wait to buy television programmes and films on DVD rather than watch them in traditional settings surrounded by advertising. Alternative advertising methods were needed if Cloverfield was going to be able to attract the attention of the group of people who could be used to help make the film a success in the cinema. A specialised online and computer savvy audience was specifically targeted as their interaction with the marketing was vital in the film generating interest from another valuable audience group, the mainstream movie-goer. The story of Cloverfield’s marketing shows how the online audience was used to create a buzz about the film to support a more traditional marketing campaign.Building the campaignThe teaser trailer provided one piece of important information, the name of the producer JJ Abrams. This would have created a number of genre expectations. Abrams is the creator of Alias and Lost and so the audience could expect an element of Sci-Fi/Horror within this film and might anticipate a narrative that was complex, fragmented and laden with ‘clues’ rather than explanations. Web searches after the teaser trailer led the audience to a website named only as the date of the film’s release (www.1-08-08.com). This site slowly released photos which were time and date stamped to allow the audience to build up chronological glimpses into the narrative of the film.The enigma and the slow release of information were both constructed to encourage discussion online in blogs, social networks and chat rooms, which was how the real marketing took place via ‘word of mouth’. Web-chatter was heightened on the release of a poster showing a decapitated Statue of Liberty, a devastated New York and the release of a second, more detailed trailer. Still maintaining the mystery, the trailer’s exposition contained a chilling geographical marker identifying the location of events to be in the ‘area formally known as Central Park’. For the first time the film’s title was identified and the trailer was released online along with an official movie website (www.cloverfieldmovie.com) which eventually provided links to MySpace and Facebook pages ‘created’ by some of the characters from the film. These regularly updated pages created a real-time story which showed the characters moving towards the eventful night and provided a back-story to the film itself. The MySpace blog was where the film’s protagonist announced he was moving to Japan to take a new job at Slusho!, a Japanese soft drinks company, which explains why the film begins with a going away party.In addition a widget was available for download from the website. This piece of software could be attached to MySpace pages, blogs etc. and contained the first five minutes of the film with an introduction by JJ Abrams. To download and use the widget people needed to register their contact details. This registration immediately entered people into a competition based on who managed to distribute the widget to the most people; a direct encouragement of more ‘word of mouth’ marketing.Adverts were sent to mobile phones, traditional posters and TV slots were also used and the culmination of all these events was an increasing public and mainstream press awareness of the film. The campaign was creating a deep curiosity as so much information had been held back and the only way for the audience to gain answers to the questions the marketing raised was to go to the cinema to see the film. As the character Hud said in the second trailer, with this much interest it was almost inevitable that ‘people are gonna want to know how it all went down’.But that’s not all...Parallel to this campaign, a related story was being told through an ARG (alternative reality game). The ARG centred around a fictional Japanese company called Tagruato and its subsidiary Slusho! and only a few direct connections were made to the Cloverfield plot. Home pages for Slusho! and Tagruato were put online. The former ran a competition for audience members to create adverts for the frozen soft drink whose USP was its addictive nature (‘You can’t drink just six’) and the happiness it would bring its consumer. (Remember, Slusho! was the company the character Rob from the film was taking a job with.)Tagruato‘s corporate homepage looks like a conventional business website – even down to experiencing hacks by ‘eco-terrorists’. It appeared that Slusho’s key ingredient, ‘seabed nectar’, might not be entirely safe. The site reported that a drilling rig in the Atlantic Ocean had been mysteriously destroyed. ‘TV reports’ based on mobile phone footage showed huge chunks of debris being hurled from the sinking rig although there was no explanation for this phenomenon. Pictures from the scene were added to www.1-01-08.com.There’s more...A Manhattan couple, ‘Jamie and Teddy’ set up a website to post video-blogs to stay in touch after Teddy had gone to Japan to work for Tagruato. Jamie assumed she had been dumped as she hadn’t heard from Teddy for over a month when she received a package containing a Tagurato baseball cap, something wrapped in tin-foil (which she was instructed not to eat) and a recorded message indicating Teddy was in some sort of trouble. Interpreting this as a sick practical joke, she assumed he had a new ‘skanky’ girlfriend and decided to eat the gooey product she received. Almost immediately she appears to become extremely intoxicated. Jamie makes a brief appearance in Cloverfield where the audience can glimpse her passed out on the sofa at Rob’s leaving do in the opening scene of the film.Marketing + movie = more mysteryThe addition of a number of back stories to the Cloverfield tale, without giving clear ideas of ‘cause and effect’ encourages the audience to attempt to build a story for themselves; first of all to attempt to make sense of the promotional material and, after watching the film, to supplement the limited information provided by the film’s highly restricted narration. The marketing has created a ‘Cloverfield universe’ bigger than the events of the 90-minute film, but has held back on providing enough information to give resolution to all the mysteries. The film’s story is told from the point of view of people who (just like the target audience) have very little information as to what is occurring around them; the characters just catch snippets of information in news reports and in conversations with the military (just like the audience). The viral marketing, the ARG and then the video-cam style presentation all enhance audience identification with the characters and this heightens the shocking nature of the events we witness with them in the film. The desire to make sense of the events unfolding within the film has been played on for both the interactive and mainstream audience but the filmmakers are still holding back vital pieces of information: What does Slusho! have to do with all of this? Where did the monster come from? Do the military manage to destroy the monster? Do any of the characters from the film survive?Cloverfield 2Could the actual film Cloverfield be just another element in a complex marketing campaign? Is the film an expensive advert for yet another product still to be made? There are online rumours already about a Cloverfield 2 with theories ranging from the sequel being told from another ‘victim’s’ perspective (plenty of people can be seen filming events in the film) or from a military or reporter’s point of view. Maybe Cloverfield 2 will be a standard blockbuster movie with omniscient narration and a solid resolution. At this point the ‘truth’ is irrelevant. What is important is that people are talking about a potential second film and so the viral campaign has already begun.
Definitions
ARG – alternative reality game: A set of interlinked sources, mostly websites, along with voicemails, scavenger hunts and even novels, which shed light on a hidden story. ARGs challenge players to make connections and solve puzzles to piece together a ‘distributed narrative’.
Widget: A piece of software that can be used to embed content into a web page.
Steph Hendry is an advanced lecturer and course leader at Runshaw College, Letyland. She is an examiner for AQA Media Studies, and a freelance trainer.
First published in MediaMagazine 24, April 2008.
Thursday 25 March 2010
SECTION B - FILM DISTRIBUTION IN THE 21ST CENTURY PART 1 & 2
In this episode of "Behind the Screen," independent producer Andrew Silver joins Tim Jackson to discuss the innovative ways filmmakers are getting their movies seen in the 21st century.
">
">
SECTION B - CONVERGENCE
Talks about the theory of technology convergence, and how it is more likely to happen than technology divergence
">
">
SECTION B - DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY AND IMPACT ON FILM INDUSTRY
In the world of cinema, the future is now. Digital technology is revolutionising not only what we see at the movies, but also how it is made. Europe's computer animation business is booming, and mass distribution is getting easier, and cheaper. This is an important Youtube video for understanding how digital technology (technological convergence or simply 'convergence') is changing the ways in which films are being produced, distributed and consumed. This willbe useful to help you discuss how digital technology is changing how films are produced and consumed.
">
">
Wednesday 17 March 2010
Sunday 21 February 2010
Gordon Brown's "British Jobs" speech 2007
How does this speech represent 'britishness'? Think about the speaker as well as the content of the speech.
That among the British people there is a deep-seated instinct for fairness, and among the British people a widespread sense of responsibility too.
And the last year has shown that people want a fairness that gives opportunity as a reward for effort, hard work and enterprise; not something for nothing but something for something. What people definitely do not want is the sort of responsibility that expects them to do their best and do their bit but offers ‘anything goes’ for other people, whether they’re a banker taking risks or a claimant cheating benefits.
And so fairness and responsibility are part of a two way street; that a Britain where everyone has the opportunity to develop their talents, but also one where each of us has a responsibility to ourselves and to our neighbours.
YouTube - Gordon Brown's "British Jobs" speech 2007
That among the British people there is a deep-seated instinct for fairness, and among the British people a widespread sense of responsibility too.
And the last year has shown that people want a fairness that gives opportunity as a reward for effort, hard work and enterprise; not something for nothing but something for something. What people definitely do not want is the sort of responsibility that expects them to do their best and do their bit but offers ‘anything goes’ for other people, whether they’re a banker taking risks or a claimant cheating benefits.
And so fairness and responsibility are part of a two way street; that a Britain where everyone has the opportunity to develop their talents, but also one where each of us has a responsibility to ourselves and to our neighbours.
YouTube - Gordon Brown's "British Jobs" speech 2007
Rebranding puts black marks against UK flag
Britain's national flag - the union jack - has been given the makeover treatment, in the hope of reflecting a more modern society.
BBC NEWS | UK | Rebranding puts black marks against UK flag
BBC NEWS | UK | Rebranding puts black marks against UK flag
Y13 - BRITISHNESS IN 'ONLY FOOLS AND HORSES'
">'Only Fools and Horses' as a representation of Britishness? Don't forget to read the comments from viewers below the clip, especially by Bankclerk. How is this an example of a mediated reality?
Thursday 4 February 2010
Wednesday 3 February 2010
Tuesday 2 February 2010
Saturday 30 January 2010
AVATAR INTERVIEW - INTRO TO THE 3D MOVIE
Watch an introduction to some behind the scenes interviews with James Cameron
James Cameron (on the impact of new technology): "Even when we were doing Titanic twelve years ago, you know, the shot at the bow where they kiss, we waited two weeks for the right sunset to get that shot,” says Cameron. “Now we'd just shoot it in front of a green screen and choose the right sunset later, you know, digitally."
James Cameron (on the impact of new technology): "Even when we were doing Titanic twelve years ago, you know, the shot at the bow where they kiss, we waited two weeks for the right sunset to get that shot,” says Cameron. “Now we'd just shoot it in front of a green screen and choose the right sunset later, you know, digitally."
Wednesday 20 January 2010
Wednesday 13 January 2010
SKINS - Exam Style Answer for G322 with clip
Skins
Watch the clip here and then read the exam style response below:
Age is represented well in the Skins clip by the use of cross cutting between the adults in the pub and then the teenagers walking in. the camera shows what seems to be a normal average pub with young adults around their 30’s and 40’s. The camera then cross cuts to seeing the teens walking in laughing, this showing that they are kids and they are out out to have fun. The camera then cuts back to the adults with what looks like scornful looks glaring back towards the teenagers. The representation of the Adults contrasts completely with the teen agers. The teenagers are first shown to be laughing and enjoying themselves, full of confidence. Then to contrast, shown parallel to this are Adults playing pool and looking very envious of the kids and the way they act. Age is represented to be free and enjoyable in this clip, this may not be the case but this programme has decided to shown people in their teens this way. As the clip progresses We see that the representation soon changes to show them as violent and destructive. One shot that is shown frequently is the adults shot from a lower angle with the teenagers below, this creates the feel that the adults are looking down on them and as though they feel they are better then them. Another thing that’s sits in contrast with this is the music and Non- diagetic music played over the top, the music creates a very retro feel to the scene. Its more like 70’s 80’s music, this might be an atempt and showing the representations of teenagers and their tastes, the fact that we feel like we seem to be inventing everything, when really its all been done.
Sexuality Isn’t represented clearly in this clip, the costume of all the characters looks young and ‘in’. None of the characters are dressed as though they want to appear gay. One of the first shots shows the character Effy with her arm around a male, this creates the impression straight away of a close relationship as friends or partners. Freddies character is shown with a female in the toilets. This creates the representation that he straight and sexually confident with this. The location makes the characters representation look trashy and very ‘Sleazy’. The appearance of the males and females are very obvious and fairly cliché but not for this age group, You expect to see this behavior shown in older characters. The males are shown as sexually confident and very bold, cocky and arrogant. The mise en scene used when Cook lights a flare shows the lighting and colour theme as red, this can represent the character and the group as well. It shows then as passionate and violent, red has a strong connotation of violence and blood. His stance also adds to the representation of the character being cocky, he is standing on a table over people as though he feels he is on another level and better than the others. Females from the very first shot are shown as easy by the way we see Effy slumped over JJ.
Ethnicity
The Representation of the characters in terms of Ethnicity are very minimal, the majority of the characters are shown as English and slightly cockney at that. There’s one boy in the group who is from African decent and has a very strong accident. Also Freddy’s mother in the series was from Indian decent which is clear in the story. There is a diverse set of characters in the show, but in my clip none of the Ethnic representations are highlighted. One thing i did pick up on was a shot of a dark skinned male glancing over towards the group of kids, then a shot joint on after of the Character tomas who also looks as though he was from African decent. I’m not to sure whats meant to be shown or represented by this series of editing, but obviously with most media texts it is polysemic and can be read differently by different audiences. But my in opinion i see this as an attempt to create more of a racial contrast in the programme and so that we don’t focus on the
Class and Status
The class and status are shown clearly by the use of camera angels and framing. As the group of teenagers enter the pub we see a series of jump shots cutting between the group and the people in the pub. we always see the older group on in the pub looking down on and giving scornful looks towards the teenagers. the use of Low camera angles when showing the adults creates the impression of a class divide and that they are better then the teenagers. Camera angles play a key part in the representation of class and status the acting also acts key in this, the scornful looks as though they are disgraced shows a divide between the two cultures, divided by age. the editing helps create this Opinion by the way we see happy laughing kids then stern looks on on adults, the quick cuts between the 2 makes you think they have done something wrong.
Physical Appearance
Costume, hair, props.
The costume is very typical for the teenagers they are wearing hoodies with hoods up, this again creates a bad representation by what we are feed by the news papers and media. hairs long one some characters and the female are well made up with makeup. Each characters costume is designed around the character them selves. Freddy for example has the dark skin ‘topman’ cliche look to him, the long hair fringe style. this creates the ladies man impression which fits with the part were we see his with a female in the bath room making out. All the main characters are good looking and healthy, this is done to make the audience idolise the characters for looks, making people want to be or be like these characters.
Regional Identity
None represented
Disability
None shown in clip
Camera Shots, Angle, Movement and Composition• Shots: establishing shot,master shot,close-up,mid-shot,long shot,wide shot,two-shot,aerial shot,point of view shot,over the shoulder shot, and variations of these.• Angle: high angle,low angle,canted/dutch angle.• Movement: pan,tilt,track,dolly,crane,steadicam,hand-held,zoom,reverse zoom.• Composition:framing,rule of thirds,depth of field –deep and shallow focus,focus pulls.
EditingIncludes transition of image and sound – continuity and non-continuity systems.• Cutting: shot/reverse shot,eyeline match,graphic match,action match,jump cut,crosscutting,parallel editing,cutaway;insert.• Other transitions,dissolve,fade-in,fade-out,wipe,superimposition,long take,short take,slow motion,ellipsis and expansion of time,post-production,visual effects.
Sound• Diegetic and non-diegetic sound; synchronous/asynchronous sound;sound effects;sound motif,sound bridge,dialogue,voiceover,mode of address/direct address,sound mixing,sound perspective.• Soundtrack: score,incidental music,themes and stings,ambient sound.
Mise-en-Scène• Production design:location,studio,set design,costume and make-up,properties.• Lighting;colour design.
Watch the clip here and then read the exam style response below:
Age is represented well in the Skins clip by the use of cross cutting between the adults in the pub and then the teenagers walking in. the camera shows what seems to be a normal average pub with young adults around their 30’s and 40’s. The camera then cross cuts to seeing the teens walking in laughing, this showing that they are kids and they are out out to have fun. The camera then cuts back to the adults with what looks like scornful looks glaring back towards the teenagers. The representation of the Adults contrasts completely with the teen agers. The teenagers are first shown to be laughing and enjoying themselves, full of confidence. Then to contrast, shown parallel to this are Adults playing pool and looking very envious of the kids and the way they act. Age is represented to be free and enjoyable in this clip, this may not be the case but this programme has decided to shown people in their teens this way. As the clip progresses We see that the representation soon changes to show them as violent and destructive. One shot that is shown frequently is the adults shot from a lower angle with the teenagers below, this creates the feel that the adults are looking down on them and as though they feel they are better then them. Another thing that’s sits in contrast with this is the music and Non- diagetic music played over the top, the music creates a very retro feel to the scene. Its more like 70’s 80’s music, this might be an atempt and showing the representations of teenagers and their tastes, the fact that we feel like we seem to be inventing everything, when really its all been done.
Sexuality Isn’t represented clearly in this clip, the costume of all the characters looks young and ‘in’. None of the characters are dressed as though they want to appear gay. One of the first shots shows the character Effy with her arm around a male, this creates the impression straight away of a close relationship as friends or partners. Freddies character is shown with a female in the toilets. This creates the representation that he straight and sexually confident with this. The location makes the characters representation look trashy and very ‘Sleazy’. The appearance of the males and females are very obvious and fairly cliché but not for this age group, You expect to see this behavior shown in older characters. The males are shown as sexually confident and very bold, cocky and arrogant. The mise en scene used when Cook lights a flare shows the lighting and colour theme as red, this can represent the character and the group as well. It shows then as passionate and violent, red has a strong connotation of violence and blood. His stance also adds to the representation of the character being cocky, he is standing on a table over people as though he feels he is on another level and better than the others. Females from the very first shot are shown as easy by the way we see Effy slumped over JJ.
Ethnicity
The Representation of the characters in terms of Ethnicity are very minimal, the majority of the characters are shown as English and slightly cockney at that. There’s one boy in the group who is from African decent and has a very strong accident. Also Freddy’s mother in the series was from Indian decent which is clear in the story. There is a diverse set of characters in the show, but in my clip none of the Ethnic representations are highlighted. One thing i did pick up on was a shot of a dark skinned male glancing over towards the group of kids, then a shot joint on after of the Character tomas who also looks as though he was from African decent. I’m not to sure whats meant to be shown or represented by this series of editing, but obviously with most media texts it is polysemic and can be read differently by different audiences. But my in opinion i see this as an attempt to create more of a racial contrast in the programme and so that we don’t focus on the
Class and Status
The class and status are shown clearly by the use of camera angels and framing. As the group of teenagers enter the pub we see a series of jump shots cutting between the group and the people in the pub. we always see the older group on in the pub looking down on and giving scornful looks towards the teenagers. the use of Low camera angles when showing the adults creates the impression of a class divide and that they are better then the teenagers. Camera angles play a key part in the representation of class and status the acting also acts key in this, the scornful looks as though they are disgraced shows a divide between the two cultures, divided by age. the editing helps create this Opinion by the way we see happy laughing kids then stern looks on on adults, the quick cuts between the 2 makes you think they have done something wrong.
Physical Appearance
Costume, hair, props.
The costume is very typical for the teenagers they are wearing hoodies with hoods up, this again creates a bad representation by what we are feed by the news papers and media. hairs long one some characters and the female are well made up with makeup. Each characters costume is designed around the character them selves. Freddy for example has the dark skin ‘topman’ cliche look to him, the long hair fringe style. this creates the ladies man impression which fits with the part were we see his with a female in the bath room making out. All the main characters are good looking and healthy, this is done to make the audience idolise the characters for looks, making people want to be or be like these characters.
Regional Identity
None represented
Disability
None shown in clip
Camera Shots, Angle, Movement and Composition• Shots: establishing shot,master shot,close-up,mid-shot,long shot,wide shot,two-shot,aerial shot,point of view shot,over the shoulder shot, and variations of these.• Angle: high angle,low angle,canted/dutch angle.• Movement: pan,tilt,track,dolly,crane,steadicam,hand-held,zoom,reverse zoom.• Composition:framing,rule of thirds,depth of field –deep and shallow focus,focus pulls.
EditingIncludes transition of image and sound – continuity and non-continuity systems.• Cutting: shot/reverse shot,eyeline match,graphic match,action match,jump cut,crosscutting,parallel editing,cutaway;insert.• Other transitions,dissolve,fade-in,fade-out,wipe,superimposition,long take,short take,slow motion,ellipsis and expansion of time,post-production,visual effects.
Sound• Diegetic and non-diegetic sound; synchronous/asynchronous sound;sound effects;sound motif,sound bridge,dialogue,voiceover,mode of address/direct address,sound mixing,sound perspective.• Soundtrack: score,incidental music,themes and stings,ambient sound.
Mise-en-Scène• Production design:location,studio,set design,costume and make-up,properties.• Lighting;colour design.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)