Wednesday 1 May 2013
Wednesday 27 March 2013
"Broken" Case Study
Broken is a British drama starring Tim Roth and Cillian Murphy, that had an official budget of £2.2 million.
Media Ownership
In terms of finance, Broken was funded by a few different companies; BBC Films, BFI, Bill Kenwright Films and LipSync productions.
The BFI, British Film Institution turned the film down three times, at which point Linder told them she was going to give up trying to get them on board; however, she wrote a further time, as did the director, and they finally relented.
Initially the film had included Colin Firth playing Skunk's dad Archie, meaning that the film was part funded by an American company; however, he pulled out and took roughly £2million out of a potential budget with him, as the American financier lost faith.
It was difficult to attain funding initially, Linder tells us, because of the fact that it was the director, Rufus Norris, would be creating his first film; he had originally been a theatre director.
It was difficult to get the funding for Broken, Linder says. She talks of how they had to go to Everton boss Bill Kenwright in order to get the last amount of funding - they got the money on the Friday and started filming on the Monday.
Another method of funding which the film used was the use of tax credits; the fact the film is British means that the company get back some money to use in the film. Also, they used a deferral of money in order to pay a lot of the actors and distributors - this is where the actors charge a reduced fee and then get money back alongside the films success. This is a method of getting low-budget films with recognised actors off the ground.
Cross Media Convergence and Synergy
There was a soundtrack released alongside Broken featuring the songs from the film. They were in fact sung by main actress Eloise Laurence, who played Skunk, and Electric Wave Bureau - an outfit featuring Damon Albarn of Blur. However, the production side of the company do not actually make any money off this. Linder told us that it is likely that this is because EWB did not take much money from the budget, and likely looked to profit off royalties.
Eloise Laurence and Damon Albarn performed together at one of the film festivals which the film was shown at, which helped to generate more of a buzz around the film as it emphasised Albarn's role within the film.
Technology
The film was shot on 35mm film despite the film that this was a more expensive method of shooting, predominantly due to the fact that is was much more aesthetically pleasing and created the right effect that the director wished to convey in the film; for instance, a slightly grainy effect.
They used shortdated film to help reduce the costs of shooting. This is film which is close to it's "use by date" and hence cannot be kept for long, thus meaning it is sold as if in a clearance. It was tested before use for peace of mind.
They used DCP in order to reduce some costs. This is the Digital Conversion Process, where film is converted to a digital format in order to be shown in cinemas. This makes it a lot cheaper for cinemas and hence makes it a little easier for the studio to sell the film.
Technological Convergence
The studio used Twitter to help them to market the film to a younger market. Icon Stephen Fry tweeted about the film to his 5.5 million followers, which was supposedly helpful in marketing the film, due to the fact that it is essentially word of mouth publicity; however, Linder has her reservations as to how much this actually helped to promote the film.
They also relied on reviews in less modern forms of media; for instance, Tube newspaper Shortcuts gave the film a very good review, promoting to 700,000 people. Heat magazine's editor Charles Gant writes a popular column about the "winners and losers of British film", and included Broken as a winner, boosting awareness of the film to 1.3 million readers.
The Guardian did not like the film and wrote it a very poor review. This has stuck with Linder, who believes this to be down to the fact she expects British newspapers to support the British Film Industry, rather than be harsh about it.
Targeting of Local & Global Audiences
Linder indicated that there was definitely targeting of audiences in terms of the actors they cast; for instance, Tim Roth attracted an older audience looking for a gritty, British film. Irish star Cillian Murphy attracted an audience for more independent films.
They carried out marketing through things such as Tim Roth's appearance on the Jonathon Ross show. He is a popular actor with an older audience and this kind of marketing was extremely cheap compared to having adverts run at prime times, or for instance showing the trailer in the ad break for the show; Linder told us that there was very little money available for marketing and that the budget was stretched as far as it could go anyway.
Research showed that the film was most popular among women in their thirties.
Proliferation of Hardware and Content
Broken competed with other films but it was shown in the cinemas for a considerably shorter period than films such as Les Miserables.
Wednesday 20 March 2013
The Cinema Exhibitor's Association - Annual Report 2011
Why have attendances increased?
Cinema attendance was high in 2011 for one main reason - films were very good that year. The cinema benefited from releases of films such as The Inbetweeners Movie, Harry Potter:The Deathly Hallows Part 2, and The King's Speech. These were all hugely successful films which also encouraged group outings; be it for the nostalgia of a bygone monarch, the mutual enjoyment of a crude teen television series or the end of a series many had followed for years.
The update of Orange Wednesdays offering 2 for 1 cinema tickets on Wednesdays meant that 7.5 million free admissions had occurred as price conscious customers looked for cheaper forms of entertainment.
Technological developments such as 3D meant that many people were enticed to the cinema; the success of Avatar and Toy Story 3 meant that many people decided to give 3D a chance when going to the cinema, in the hope that they would be watching the 'next big thing' in 3D cinema.
What is the DFP and the VPF?
DFP stands for Digital Funding Partnership; it is a partnership which offers to help secure finance to allow small and medium sized UK cinema operators to purchase digital cinema equipment to help them keep up with modern times and not fall behind their massive competitors.
It comes from the recognition that many operators simply cannot afford to make the change from physical film to digital projection on their own.
For many small and medium sized cinema operators, the DFP is the only way to help secure this funding.
VPF, on the other hands, stands for Virtual Print Fee, which is the name given to a type of subsidy paid by a film distributor towards the purchase of digital cinema projection equipment for use by the operators in order to present their films.
What may happen to those who don't use the DFP?
The funding of the DFP is very helpful to many small and medium sized UK cinema operators such as Merlin Cinemas. Digital projection equipment is very expensive and takes up a lot of room in a projection room too; this could lead to them having to carry out building work in order to facilitate the equipment. It is these expensive costs which the DFP can help to manage.
There is not really an option when it comes to switching to digital projection; in the long run it is far cheaper for the operator as the device a film is stored on costs only about £150, compared to a £1500 set of film reels which requires a skilled projectionist too.
Also, films distributed in this way are slowly being phased out, meaning that the small cinemas would be unable to show certain films.
What problems face 'alternative content'?
In 2012, the Cinema Exhibitor's Association (CEA) recognised an issue that had arisen in relation to the fees charged by the BBFC for the classification of 'alternative content' events. These are events such as live theatre, ballet and sporting events. There is some evidence available that shows that producers of this content were deliberately choosing not to show their events in the UK because of the incredible burden facing them in terms of BBFC classification fees.
Cinema attendance was high in 2011 for one main reason - films were very good that year. The cinema benefited from releases of films such as The Inbetweeners Movie, Harry Potter:The Deathly Hallows Part 2, and The King's Speech. These were all hugely successful films which also encouraged group outings; be it for the nostalgia of a bygone monarch, the mutual enjoyment of a crude teen television series or the end of a series many had followed for years.
The update of Orange Wednesdays offering 2 for 1 cinema tickets on Wednesdays meant that 7.5 million free admissions had occurred as price conscious customers looked for cheaper forms of entertainment.
Technological developments such as 3D meant that many people were enticed to the cinema; the success of Avatar and Toy Story 3 meant that many people decided to give 3D a chance when going to the cinema, in the hope that they would be watching the 'next big thing' in 3D cinema.
What is the DFP and the VPF?
DFP stands for Digital Funding Partnership; it is a partnership which offers to help secure finance to allow small and medium sized UK cinema operators to purchase digital cinema equipment to help them keep up with modern times and not fall behind their massive competitors.
It comes from the recognition that many operators simply cannot afford to make the change from physical film to digital projection on their own.
For many small and medium sized cinema operators, the DFP is the only way to help secure this funding.
VPF, on the other hands, stands for Virtual Print Fee, which is the name given to a type of subsidy paid by a film distributor towards the purchase of digital cinema projection equipment for use by the operators in order to present their films.
What may happen to those who don't use the DFP?
The funding of the DFP is very helpful to many small and medium sized UK cinema operators such as Merlin Cinemas. Digital projection equipment is very expensive and takes up a lot of room in a projection room too; this could lead to them having to carry out building work in order to facilitate the equipment. It is these expensive costs which the DFP can help to manage.
There is not really an option when it comes to switching to digital projection; in the long run it is far cheaper for the operator as the device a film is stored on costs only about £150, compared to a £1500 set of film reels which requires a skilled projectionist too.
Also, films distributed in this way are slowly being phased out, meaning that the small cinemas would be unable to show certain films.
What problems face 'alternative content'?
In 2012, the Cinema Exhibitor's Association (CEA) recognised an issue that had arisen in relation to the fees charged by the BBFC for the classification of 'alternative content' events. These are events such as live theatre, ballet and sporting events. There is some evidence available that shows that producers of this content were deliberately choosing not to show their events in the UK because of the incredible burden facing them in terms of BBFC classification fees.
Monday 18 March 2013
Key Concepts and Skills for Media Studies
Activity 2.4 - Analysing camerawork in a drama
For this task I analysed a short piece of action sequence from a youth drama series called Waterloo Road. The sequence is from series five and shows two schools engaging in some conflict. The use of camerawork in the sequence helps to build up tension and it implies that there is going to be a big event about to happen through the length of the pan shots. They track around the scenario, giving a wider image of what is going on. The shots are unremarkable in length; they are neither long nor short, but this creates an effect of both sides being evenly matched.
The action is emphasised by the length of these shots. The end of the sequence has much shorter scenes and the camerawork is from unusual angles which helps to suggest chaos and utter confusion.
There is one long establishing shot which helps to show the location of the setting as well as show that there are a lot of people involved in the fight. It suggests somewhat of a mob mentality which is an idea that gets reinforced when the fight actually breaks out.
The camerawork does not necessarily emphasise the importance of the setting; it shows the setting to a great degree. The showing of the field on which the characters fight could be seen as showing that this is where the fight is going to take place but apart from that it seems to have no real significance.
Activity 2.5 - Analysing camerawork in television documentary
For this task I watched Meet The Ancestors, a documentary about the excavation of a 5000-year old burial tomb in Orkney.
This documentary featured a multitude of camerawork techniques. Some of these were more generic techniques found in most types of shows, such as two-shots of people talking and establishing shots that help to show the location in more detail.
A high angle was used when showing the entrance to the burial tomb, which made it appear ominous and very isolated. This effectively has the audience a little entranced by the object on the screen. Low angles are used to show the 4x4 driving along the road. The low angle of the shot means that it looks very powerful in it's surroundings and combined with the sound, it seems to be very important to the show so far.
There is an aerial shot used to establish the general location; showing Orkney in a much more broad sense.
There is a point of view shot used to look out of the front of the car when driving, and although this is short is conveys the sense of there being an important, personal journey going on.
Pan shots are used and show relationships between certain things; for instance there is one when the 4x4 enters the site where the excavation will take place. There is a reverse zoom in the title sequence which shows a carved face, suggesting that this is the sort of discovery the show is aiming to find at the end.
The camerawork definitely adds authenticity to the show, giving it a classical documentary type feel through the multitude of establishing shots as well as close ups. The documentary does not specifically draw the audience's attention to the presence of the camera operator, although it is clear that one is there, for instance when presenter Julian Richards is talking as he drives. This helps to reinforce the idea that the show is in fact a documentary.
Activity 2.9 - Analysing sound in television documentary
For this task I watched five minutes of Walking with Beasts, a documentary from 2001 about the planet and it's inhabitants millions of years ago. First, I watched it without sound. Then, I watched it with sound and found that it aided me hugely in understanding what was going on.
Without the sound, it appeared to me that there was simply a series of images showing the beasts moving or something. However, the voice-over means that I was told about how interesting and spectacular these beasts being represented are. This voice-over is very effective in a documentary, and especially so when the subject matter is so unfamiliar to us.
With the main feature of the documentary being animated beasts, most of the sound heard is a sound FX; this is of course only a representation of the noises made.
The sound FX and the incidental music play a big part in the show. Incidental music is the use of music to punctuate a specific event or action, or to provide a sound background; which is exactly what the soundtrack to Walking With Beasts does. It is fast paced and edgy in a scene where a small mammal is being chased, and it is grand and spectacular when talking about the splendour of beasts.
It helps us to see the images on the screen a certain way; for instance, when the small mammal seen to the right of here is shown, we see that it is in danger; our interpretation is aided by the incidental music.
2.11 - Analysing special FX in television drama
Thursday 14 March 2013
Hollyoaks
I watched this episode of Hollyoaks, broadcast on the 11th March 2013. Within the first few minutes we see an example of what Ian Pike, Hollyoaks scriptwriter, says about the nature of the show - that they "often cut from something very heavy and thought-provoking to something utterly silly and lighthearted in a way that no one else does".
Certain effects are created through the transition between the more serious story line and a much more carefree one about family life. The serious story line shows two women in a maternity ward in a special facility, although it is not revealed what the facility actually is. The less serious story line shows a family eating dinner on Christmas Eve at a restaurant and joking about Christmas songs.
The transition between the two scenarios is shown through the jump cut to an out of focus scene in the restaurant, consisting of an obscure, relatively neutral background with lights twinkling in it. The shot pans/tracks from the right, where the out of focus portion is, towards the left, where we see the family momentarily out of focus. The camera then pushes focus onto them as it passes the section which was previously shown in the out of focus manner.
The quick movements before the shot transitions helps to show a more complicated story line that requires each character to fully explain themselves. In contrast, the section with the family is one long shot that does not transition as each character talks, showing a much more simplistic scenario despite the fact there is almost three times as many characters.
The women in the first scenario are placed in the shot in a way that abides the rule of thirds, whereby the main focus is slightly off centre. This makes it look more appealing to the eye, but also makes the character appear bigger in the environment as minimal screen space is wasted this way.
There is not much editing in this piece, mainly due to the realistic nature of the soap as well as the fact that neither of the situations call for it.
The dialogue in the shot helps to create tension in the first scene. The way that the dark haired character asks the blonde woman about what "[she] didn't do" leaves a very weighted question hanging unanswered as the focus of the show changes. The conversation that we then join in the restaurant is much more lighthearted and essentially we forget momentarily about the other scene.
There is only diegetic sound used in this piece. In the scene in the restaurant, we can hear the clinking of cutlery, the hub-bub of patrons and light piano music in the background, most likely playing through the speakers in the location. This creates a warm, almost safe environment which takes our minds away from the seemingly hostile, near enough silent location in which the mothers are talking. It sounds comforting and this big difference is effective in helping us to put aside all our emotions for the women in order to focus on the cheerful family.
In terms of mise-en-scene, there is not much. Perhaps the character's in the first scene are emphasised by their clothing; they are both dressed in drab, dreary clothes and they look unhappy, which is uncommon of a maternity ward. This suggests that this is not a normal facility and that there is something we should be aware of when considering these characters.
The lighting of the hospital location is dim and looks as though it is mainly natural light from the windows. This creates an almost sterile effect with the location itself and hence the difference we see as we transition into the restaurant is much more apparent - the warm, out of focus lighting is the exact opposite of what we have previously seen.
The transition between the two scenarios is shown through the jump cut to an out of focus scene in the restaurant, consisting of an obscure, relatively neutral background with lights twinkling in it. The shot pans/tracks from the right, where the out of focus portion is, towards the left, where we see the family momentarily out of focus. The camera then pushes focus onto them as it passes the section which was previously shown in the out of focus manner.
The quick movements before the shot transitions helps to show a more complicated story line that requires each character to fully explain themselves. In contrast, the section with the family is one long shot that does not transition as each character talks, showing a much more simplistic scenario despite the fact there is almost three times as many characters.
The women in the first scenario are placed in the shot in a way that abides the rule of thirds, whereby the main focus is slightly off centre. This makes it look more appealing to the eye, but also makes the character appear bigger in the environment as minimal screen space is wasted this way.
There is not much editing in this piece, mainly due to the realistic nature of the soap as well as the fact that neither of the situations call for it.
The dialogue in the shot helps to create tension in the first scene. The way that the dark haired character asks the blonde woman about what "[she] didn't do" leaves a very weighted question hanging unanswered as the focus of the show changes. The conversation that we then join in the restaurant is much more lighthearted and essentially we forget momentarily about the other scene.
There is only diegetic sound used in this piece. In the scene in the restaurant, we can hear the clinking of cutlery, the hub-bub of patrons and light piano music in the background, most likely playing through the speakers in the location. This creates a warm, almost safe environment which takes our minds away from the seemingly hostile, near enough silent location in which the mothers are talking. It sounds comforting and this big difference is effective in helping us to put aside all our emotions for the women in order to focus on the cheerful family.
In terms of mise-en-scene, there is not much. Perhaps the character's in the first scene are emphasised by their clothing; they are both dressed in drab, dreary clothes and they look unhappy, which is uncommon of a maternity ward. This suggests that this is not a normal facility and that there is something we should be aware of when considering these characters.
The lighting of the hospital location is dim and looks as though it is mainly natural light from the windows. This creates an almost sterile effect with the location itself and hence the difference we see as we transition into the restaurant is much more apparent - the warm, out of focus lighting is the exact opposite of what we have previously seen.
Media Synergy - Dreamworks
Dreamworks is a company owned by media conglomerate Viacom.
Shrek is an animated kids film about an ogre, who, in order to regain his swamp, travels along with an annoying donkey so that he can bring a cursed princess to a scheming lord so that he can become king.
The first film made $484.4 million at the box office, and was followed by three more films; Shrek 2, Shrek the Third and Shrek:The Final Chapter. There have been two short films based around the series, as well as a spin-off named Puss In Boots, which shows the life story of one of the supporting characters from the film. These films were all successful in their own right, but the last film in the main series was significantly less successful than it's predecessor by a few million dollars.
There were a lot of video games made in conjunction with the films - each film had a game released, made available on most main gaming platforms.
There were also several other games released with the game, including games featuring a whole host of Dreamworks Characters like Alex the Lion from Madagascar, where they raced, similar to the game Mario Kart.
There were also lots of games released for Nintendo DS and Gameboy Advance, such as Shrek: Ogres and Dronkeys, a game which revolved around the main character's offspring.
Shrek was made into a musical, which was first shown November 2008, on New York's Broadway. Shrek: The Musical was very successful on the stage and won eight Tony award nominations, including Best Musical. At the time, it was the most expensive show on Broadway and closed after 478 shows in January 2010 following losses.
The show was revamped and ran for another year in the US between July 2010 and July 2011. A version soon opened in London's West End. It receieved five Laurence Olivier Award nominations. Versions were soon running around the world, in countries such as Israel, Poland, Spain and France. The show is expected to soon be staged in Brazil, Italy, Australia and the Philippines.
Whilst there is not an exclusive theme park dedicated to Shrek, there are certainly some rides. At the Universal Studios park in Singapore, a full size replica of the Far Far Away Castle was erected. In Australia there is a DreamWorks Experience themed land at the Australian theme park Dreamworld, where there is an area named Shrek's Faire Faire away, featuring different rides such as Puss In Boots Sword Swing and Dronkey Flyers, a moving arm ride.
There was even a comic book series dedicated to the franchise created by Dark Horse Comics. There was one for the first three Shrek films, following the original story lines in a new format.
Soundtracks were released alongside the first three films which were all relatively successful.
This is a collection of slides to show the various games, comic artwork and other textual products created in conjunction with the film.
Wednesday 13 March 2013
Crowd Funding
How might crowd funding affect the 'big six'?
Crowdfund Films is an enterprise started by producer Bill Johnson to help create his film, Backseat Driver. It allows the public to get involved in the film, and feel that they have contributed to it, for instance through being able to talk to him via Ustream once a week to voice any concerns they have over the production of the film.
Crowd funding is not likely to affect the big six in the short term; they will go on to make big release films with their veteran writers and directors. However, it may change the game a little as time goes on, with aspiring film makers turning to sites like indiegogo.com and kickstarter.com in order to help get funding for their projects, rather than trying to get into big studios.
It is entirely possible that these conglomerates will buy crowd funding schemes in the long run, as a form of vertical integration.
Do you think this method of film financing will allow creativity to flourish or will it reduce the overall quality of film making as an art form?
This form of film financing will most likely allow for a much more creative industry. It will allow more niche films to be made on a higher budget, what with fans of the genre being able to support aspiring film makers. These film makers will be more likely to get their unusual and innovative ideas out into the marketplace, as people will be able to invest in their visions - the public have less motivation for solely profit, unlike big media conglomerates.
It is unlikely to reduce the overall quality of film making. There will be money available for better recording equipment, for example, and better editing software. Although films with poor plots and bad acting may slip through, the nature of crowd funding means that financiers are able to voice their concerns.
People can simply choose not to fund a film if they do not have faith in the creative team behind it, too.
How can a crowdfunded film appeal to global and local audiences?
Crowdfunded films appeal to audiences because it allows for them to get involved in the film, as well as allowing them choice as to what films get made - on sites like kickstarter, one small donation of $5 can be the difference between a film getting funded and not.
In the instance of Bill Johnson's Backseat Driver, the financiers of the film will appear in it, through one of seven tiled slides in the opening credits, showing everyone who contributed money to the project, with the tile size depending on their contribution. They are also given lots of perks for contributing, such as decals, digital downloads when the film is released, posters, and invitations to release parties if the donation is sizable enough.
In terms of appealing to a more local audience, these types of films are likely to appeal to local people, who will enjoy seeing their local area on the big screen, and hence will be more likely to contribute money as it is a local interest topic, essentially.
It allows an audience to help choose what sort of projects they want to see. Thoughtful, short films like Meet Me By The Lake, a short film by Galen Livingston, for example, attain funding quickly and often achieve well over what they wanted to in the first place (the film raised $6,002 of a $5,000 goal). However, some films simply do not receive funding due to their content, or maybe the way in which they audience responds to the creator of the project.
Crowdfund Films is an enterprise started by producer Bill Johnson to help create his film, Backseat Driver. It allows the public to get involved in the film, and feel that they have contributed to it, for instance through being able to talk to him via Ustream once a week to voice any concerns they have over the production of the film.
Crowd funding is not likely to affect the big six in the short term; they will go on to make big release films with their veteran writers and directors. However, it may change the game a little as time goes on, with aspiring film makers turning to sites like indiegogo.com and kickstarter.com in order to help get funding for their projects, rather than trying to get into big studios.
It is entirely possible that these conglomerates will buy crowd funding schemes in the long run, as a form of vertical integration.
Do you think this method of film financing will allow creativity to flourish or will it reduce the overall quality of film making as an art form?
This form of film financing will most likely allow for a much more creative industry. It will allow more niche films to be made on a higher budget, what with fans of the genre being able to support aspiring film makers. These film makers will be more likely to get their unusual and innovative ideas out into the marketplace, as people will be able to invest in their visions - the public have less motivation for solely profit, unlike big media conglomerates.
It is unlikely to reduce the overall quality of film making. There will be money available for better recording equipment, for example, and better editing software. Although films with poor plots and bad acting may slip through, the nature of crowd funding means that financiers are able to voice their concerns.
People can simply choose not to fund a film if they do not have faith in the creative team behind it, too.
How can a crowdfunded film appeal to global and local audiences?
Crowdfunded films appeal to audiences because it allows for them to get involved in the film, as well as allowing them choice as to what films get made - on sites like kickstarter, one small donation of $5 can be the difference between a film getting funded and not.
In the instance of Bill Johnson's Backseat Driver, the financiers of the film will appear in it, through one of seven tiled slides in the opening credits, showing everyone who contributed money to the project, with the tile size depending on their contribution. They are also given lots of perks for contributing, such as decals, digital downloads when the film is released, posters, and invitations to release parties if the donation is sizable enough.In terms of appealing to a more local audience, these types of films are likely to appeal to local people, who will enjoy seeing their local area on the big screen, and hence will be more likely to contribute money as it is a local interest topic, essentially.
It allows an audience to help choose what sort of projects they want to see. Thoughtful, short films like Meet Me By The Lake, a short film by Galen Livingston, for example, attain funding quickly and often achieve well over what they wanted to in the first place (the film raised $6,002 of a $5,000 goal). However, some films simply do not receive funding due to their content, or maybe the way in which they audience responds to the creator of the project.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)