"Broken" Case Study

On the 27th March, Broken producer Dixie Linder came into our college to speak to us; she spoke to us about the process of making Broken as well as some other features in the British Film Industry.
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.

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.

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

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.

Media Synergy - Dreamworks

Dreamworks is a company owned by media conglomerate Viacom.

In this task, however, I will be looking at the film series Shrek.

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.

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.

Hollywood Media Synergy as IMC

Abstract: contemporary marketers and brand managers can learn from the media synergy strategies developed by Hollywood studio executives in the past several decades – where media products are deployed to promote one another.

Hollywood’s penchant for sequelisation of blockbusters one form of media synergy. Theme park rides, sound tracks, novel tie-ins and videos games are important and profitable forms of convergence.

ARTICLE: After the never before seen success of Star Wars, 1977 and its sequels and prequels, Hollywood focused more attention of marketing and developing big-budget sequels and synergistic media tie ins.

Mark Crispin Miller (1990) is one of the first critics to analyse Hollywood’s move from vertical integration to horizontal integrations, and films which are easy to deploy amongst various media platforms, as well as looking at how easily they can be made into a sequel (sequelisability) and how easily they can be cross-promoted.

In Hollywood terms, a franchise films is any film that is itself a sequel, or a title that has one or more sequels that follow from it. Sequelitis (in the mid 1990s Hollywood trades began to utilise this term to describe the increasing ratio of sequels – often dubious ones).

Sequels began to account for over 25 per cent of domestic box office in 2003. David Bordwell.

Sequels tend to be thought of as “brand extensions” as they can drive revenues beyond raw box office – DVD sales, toy merchandising, soundtrack tie ins, videogame tie ins. The six conglomerates depend on “sequelised fare”.

This is a 4-S Hollywood Megafranchise model. These are ones such as Indiana Jones, Jurassic Park, Shrek, LOTR, Pirates of the Caribbean. There generally deploy four key elements to ensure their continuing success, through the four titles. They have theme park rides, videogames, books and soundtracks. The importance of videogames to contemporary media should not be underestimated. They are one of the most important forms of media cross promotion with movies.

Tim Bevan

Tim Bevan CBE is a producer with Working Title. He worked as the producer on Anna Karenina.
In the development of Anna Karenina, he and the development team watched all the previous adaptations of Anna Karenina, and they felt that there was room to make a newer, more modern version. They read the novel, which Bevan described as a "1000-page tome" and then decided that the focus of their adaptation should focus around the theme of love with the stories of Anna and Vronksy, and Kitty and Levin.
He claims that the decision not to shoot in Russia is owed to the corrupt politics and a "third world" approach to media in the country. He did admit however, that originally he did not think very much of Joe Wright's idea to shoot the film in the theatre setting.
The budget for the film was around £36 million, and it was shot in 12 weeks.
He told us that the decision making process for a film focuses a lot on the other ones that are going to be released around it. In order to make a smaller, more niche film like Anna Karenina, Bevan says, a big film needs to be in production to ensure fiscal security.
Bevan told us that it was known that Les Miserables was always going to have a big audience due to the fact that the stage show itself was viewed by 60 million people over it's time.

Is British Film Dead?

This 2005 article by Johnathan Gems states all the reasons why the British Film industry has died.
He complains about how the UK Film Council boast the success of their 'British' films, when none of the films are actually properly British, being made by four foreign studios: Pathe, Warner Bros, Disney and Universal.

Gems talks of 'Hollywood Accountancy', which is essentially a way of Hollywood companies doing things legally that would be illegal in any other business, country or industry. This is due to the fact that Roosevelt changed laws for Hollywood back in 1939, promising them that they could have financial-control exemptions if they produced anti-German movies. It has still continued to this day, meaning that money is no issue for many studios.

The British Film Industry relied heavily on the Eady Levy. This levy worked like this: in exchange for access to the domestic market in the UK, foreign distributors paid the Government a small percentage of the income they received from selling their films to Britain. This money was then passed on to British distributors. Although it was a relatively small amount, the income from the levy was often the difference between a distributor failing or staying in business. However, it was abolished.

Gems believes that the British Film Industry does not exist, despite what 'government ministers and quangos like the UK Film Council' say. He states that the British Film Industry has not existed for more than 30 years.

The main issue with reviving a British Film Industry is that the Treasury, Depart of Trade & Industry and the Office of The Prime Minister all are against protecting British films because of the commitment to a 'free market'; that is, allowing foreign companies to remain prevalent.

Gems talks of how the 'Hollywood Six' control 84% of our domestic market, and how French company Pathe controls roughly 12%. British films account for less than 4% market share, and he says that no national film industry can be said to exist if it has less than 20% of its home market.

France protects its film industry well; it is the law that foreign companies cannot own more than 70% of the domestic market. The French have a higher hit ratio, whereby 1 in 10 films is a hit. In contrast, only 50 out of 2000 films in the US industry are classed as a hit.

Gems talks about how humiliating the Harry Potter movie franchise is; J.K.Rowling wanted to sell the rights to the film to a British film studio, but there simply isn't one, which is why they got sold to Warner Bros. He says how the UK Film Council brag about the success of these movies, despite the fact that they are not British in nature. He calls this a 'humiliating demonstration of the abject failure of our industry'.

He quashes the belief that projects like Harry Potter aren't made by British companies due to the fact that there is not enough money to do so; however, British banks are investing billions of pounds a day. There is not one British company that is set up to give a film a general UK release.

Gems says that if anyone still believes that the free market is a good place for British films, they are deranged. He states that the free market is only free for Hollywood. He believes that the reason there are no official laws protecting US films is because they don't need them - they are protected by unofficial laws.

When living in LA, Gems tried to set up a project with an American star who's price was $1.5m per picture. 2 years later, he was back in England and helping to produce a film with a European distributor. He called the agent of the American Star, and the agent wanted to know if he was paying Working Title Rate, which effectively means that the price is three times more than that if he was in the US.

The 'law' is that if a foreign distributor or foreign production company wants an American star, they must pay a tariff. This tariff is the star's price mulitplied by three - known as the Working Title Rate because Working Title were the first to pay it.

Media Ownership - Does it Matter?

1. What is horizontal and vertical integration in the media industry and can you provide an example?

Vertical integration the process whereby several steps in the production and distribution of a product are controlled by a single company, and this manages to further the company's power in the marketplace. There are three different kinds of vertical integration; backward integration whereby the company aims to control the production aspects of a product, for instance if a company produces the film in a studio that they own, and forward integration where the company aims to control the distribution side of the product. There is also balanced integration, where the company uses a mix of both.
A company that uses vertical integration is Warner Bros Entertainment. They own film studios and the means to distribute their films. They also own some cinemas in which their films are shown; the company also owns factories whereby their physical product is made. This allows them to make profit at more stages in the production and distribution of their product.
Horizontal integration, on the other hand, is where a company takes over a similar company in order to gain more control over the marketplace and reach a wider audience. This is quite common and an example of this in the media is Disney merging with Pixar in order to form a strong brand.

2. What does Melody (1978) believe happens to the 'media market'?

William Melody felt that the monopolisation of the media marketplace is the greatest threat to freedom of expression in the United States, due to the private entrepreneurs having interests more based in economic efficiency and private profit as opposed to any more democratic messages.
Melody felt that the economic conditions and circumstances of these monopolies meant that the 'marketplace of ideas' was restricted to only a few privileged media owners.

3. What does Neuman (1991) believe happens to media content? Why is this a problem for the audience?

Neuman believes that the result of 'standardised production and marketing [processes]' is that most of what the audience see and hear in the mass media is very uniform in terms of it's content and world view. Anthony Giddens went further than this to say that we can solve this by 'democratising of the democracy'.

4. What does Sterling think about the level of research?

Sterling felt that 'surprisingly' little research had been carried out on the domination of the global media market, and found that only marginally more information has been discovered on companies now than what could have been found out 20 years ago. He felt that too much about this issue was 'assumed or anecdotal', and that it suggested results from the changes in ownership, but that was all.

5. What does the media reproduce according to Gomery?

Gomery believes that the mass media reproduces the 'structure of class inequalities from which they benefit', and that the media industry is said to play a very significant role in legitimating these. These inequalities may be in wealth, power or privilege. He states that when those who are in control of power control the flow of information the audience receives, the knowledge, values and images shown are all done so in the interest of others. This is a relatively Marxist theory, and hence it can be said that it helps to instill ideologies into an audience to make them believe that the messages they are shown through the media are right and that they should believe in these too.

6. The media industry and corporate power form a powerful cartel. What does it do to local cultures according to Meier?

Meier speaks of how the global interlocking of the media industry and traditional corporate power creates this powerful cartel, and that this encourages the transmission of certain generic values, such as consumerism, shareholder value, individualism and egoism. With commercial infotainment, reality shows and trivialised news programmes, Meier believes that local cultures and communities have become eroded, due to a conservative 'common sense' view on the world.

7. How have media corporations influenced the law? What impact does this have on new businesses entering the market?

The fact that media conglomerates have so much economic strength means that they have a very high position in society, which effectively means that they are powerful in terms of politics too. Bagdikian (2000) states that the largest of media giants have achieved shocking success in rewriting media laws and regulations in order to suit the interests of their corporations, rather than to appease the interests of the genera public. In Europe and the US, multiple cross-media ownership rules have either disappeared or been severely relaxed; for instance the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) once enforced stringent ownership controls for the media, and believed that programming diversification was necessary to maximise public service. However, they take a more laissez-faire approach to the diversification of messages nowadays.
This makes it very difficult for a new business to enter the market because they can easily be targeted by or swallowed up by conglomerates.

8. What issue does convergence pose for media ownership?

The problem with convergence in an industry that is becoming owned by so few people is that if the conglomerates look to purchase not only film-related companies, but also games companies, comic book companies and toy manufacturers, their generic messages will continue to be spread through and the messages in the market will become further diluted with the conservative views Meier speaks of in the article.
However, convergence may work well in terms of media ownership. A good example of this is where companies own different types of companies and then merge their intellectual property to create a new product. Although the image shown to the right is not a real media product, it is a good metaphor for the way that Disney could potentially merge their properties - the rights to the Lilo & Stitch franchise, as well as their rights to the intellectual property of Lucasfilm (Star Wars).

9. What does the FCC believe about programme diversity?

The Federal Communications Commission once believed that programming diversification was necessary to maximise the service companies could offer the public. It was said that the greater the number of independent broadcasters there was, the greater the changes of achieving the desire diversity, whereby there were messages broadcast to suit all kinds of audiences.

Projectionist

The projectionist talked to us about a few different things; he told us about how a rough edit of a film is constantly being put together as clips come in to the editors. This contributes to a "first assembly reading" whereby a version of the film, usually an extended one, is shown. For instance, the one for Les Miserables was 4 hours long and had a 15 minute battle scene. After watching this, parts end up being removed and phased out.
Once the sequence has been decided upon, it is "lock picture" and from then, no further changes are made, apart from visual effects and music.
Films can be shot on film, but are usually are transferred to digital to be shown. This is mainly because of the difference in cost; it costs £2000 to deliver film in the 35mm medium and it can be easily damaged. It takes a skilled projectionist and hence it is an incredibly costly means. In contrast, digital is perfectly secure (no one can pirate from it) and the cost to deliver is only about £30; it does not require much skill to show, either.
The projectionist also spoke to us about 3D and high frame rate (HFR). He believed that 3D conversions "are a waste of time", and made the point that Disney paid millions to rerelease Monsters Inc in 3D recently, but it was a total failure at the box office and did not even come close to breaking even.
He believes that if the initial intent of a film is for it to be shown in 3D, for instance James Cameron's Avatar, then the film benefits from it. He felt that animations always worked well in 3D as they can be drawn in order to complement the 3D effect.
Although he had not actually experienced HFR, he noted that it can make it very expensive to shoot films; also, the result tends to be that for some, the film looks "too realistic" and does not have the typical film look.
The projectionist told us that 3D tends to add between 25 and 30% onto the budget of a film. The argument for and against the use of film depends primarily on if the money can be made back.

Amelia Granger

Amelia Granger is a development executive at Working Title. Development is a department in which they come up with ideas for the films they want to make, and these can come in many forms; spontaneous ideas from writers, directors, articles about interesting people, if they read a good book, classic or modern.
They then have to track down the copyright owner of the film in order to obtain the rights to replicate it, and find screen writers and directors.
Anna Karenina was developed in a relatively short amount of time; it had been talked about for years by the development team but upon looking for a third film to add to the two previous films they had created with Joe Wright (Atonement and Pride & Prejudice) they decided on adapting Leo Tolstoy's novel. It was easy for them to set about developing the film - due to the fact the author had been dead for more than 70 years, it was out of copyright.
It was felt that there was room for a more modern adaptation of the film, as all the others had been made years before. They sent writer Tom Stoppard a copy of the book and within 8 weeks they had a script, which went through very little script development due to the prowess of the writer, according to Granger.

Amelia mentioned how the film had been cast to attract a certain audience, and in the case of Anna Karenina, the audience were an up market, literary audience (presumably in the AB social grade). Actors and actresses were drafted in to help to appeal to this audience; for instance Keira Knightley and Jude Law have both been in powerful, period, British dramas before. These well-known actors also allowed them to actors with less prowess, for instance Domnhall Gleeson who played Levin.

Sarah Jane Wright

Sarah Jane Wright is a production executive at Working Title.
She spoke to us about Anna Karenina, the latest period drama that the company had created, and talked us through the initial production process of the film.
The director, Joe Wright, had initially wanted to film the tale very realistically in the Russian cities of Saint Petersburg and Moscow, where the novel had been set. However, due to budget limitations given to them by a parent company, it was not possible, considering also the political instability and corruption in Russia.

Joe Wright then went away and over a period of 48 hours came up with the idea of setting the film in a theatre, since it was very symbolic of Russian high society at the time, where everyone was watching the lives of others.

She spoke to us about the basic production of a film. They use a software called Movie Magic Scheduling. They import the entire script, scene by scene, and then the software asks them various questions about what scene it is, where it is set, how many pages it is, to name but a few. A scriptboard is then created to give an idea of how many days and weeks it will take to film the piece; a medium sized film in the UK will cost between $750,000 and $1,000,000 a week just for the shooting crew. This figure increases when filming a period drama as the costumes and wigs needed are very expensive. In a modern film, for example, extras can wear their own clothes, but in period dramas even the most insignificant of background extras need to be properly dressed.

Anna Karenina was shot on film, with a Dior stocking over the lens of the camera, which created the soft effect on top of the scene. It was later moved onto film. Whilst Sarah Jane did not give us an exact figure of how much film was used for Anna Karenina, she told us that the adaptation of Les Miserables used over 1 million feet of film in the shooting of it.

We then spoke about the visual effects industry. 3 or 4 years ago, the visual effects world was thriving and companies could not expand fast enough in order to take on lots of big films. Sarah Jane stated that, as an industry, visual effects was "feast or famine" and that they were currently in a famine. There were lots of redundancies being made due to huge overheads and firms were constantly having to downscale.
However, visual effects companies have been benefitting recently from a 45% tax break in Montreal. Despite the distance from the UK, the digital age has made this incredibly easy to do.