Showing posts with label Revision. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Revision. Show all posts

Wednesday, 7 May 2014

Film Studies FM2 - How to revise...

General information about the UK film industry

 A major film studio is a production and distribution company that releases a substantial number of films annually and consistently commands a significant share of box office revenue in a given market. In the North American, Western, and global markets, the major film studios, often simply known as the majors (Warner Brothers Pictures, Walt Disney Pictures, Universal Pictures, Columbia Pictures, 20th Century Fox, Paramount Pictures) are commonly regarded as the six diversified media conglomerates whose various film production and distribution subsidiaries command approximately 90 percent of U.S. and Canadian box office revenue. The term may also be applied more specifically to the primary motion picture business subsidiary of each respective conglomerate.

Today, Disney is the only member of the Big Six whose parent entity is still located near Los Angeles (actually, on Disney's studio lot). The five others report to conglomerates headquartered in New York City, Philadelphia, and Tokyo. Of the Big Six, Paramount is the only one still based in Hollywood, and Paramount and Fox are the only ones still located within the Los Angeles city limits.

Most of today's Big Six control subsidiaries with their own distribution networks that concentrate on arthouse pictures (e.g. Fox Searchlight) or genre films (e.g. Sony's Screen Gems); several of these specialty units were shut down or sold off between 2008 and 2010. The six major studios are contrasted with smaller production and/or distribution companies, which are known as independents or "indies". The leading independent producer/distributors—Lionsgate Films, The Weinstein Company, and former major studio MGM—are sometimes referred to as "mini-majors". From 1998 through 2005, DreamWorks SKG commanded a large enough market share to arguably qualify it as a seventh major, despite its relatively small output. In 2006, DreamWorks was acquired by Viacom, Paramount's corporate parent. In late 2008, DreamWorks once again became an independent production company; its films are distributed by Disney's Touchstone Pictures.

The Big Six major studios are today primarily backers and distributors of films whose actual production is largely handled by independent companies—either long-running entities or ones created for and dedicated to the making of a specific film. The specialty divisions often simply acquire distribution rights to pictures in which the studio has had no prior involvement. While the majors still do a modicum of true production, their activities are focused more in the areas of development, financing, marketing, and merchandising. Those business functions are still usually performed in or near Los Angeles, even though the runaway production phenomenon means that most films are now mostly or completely shot on location at places outside Los Angeles.

How do I time myself in the exam and which questions do I answer?
Read this http://howardschoolfilm.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/some-points-for-exam.html

What typical question areas are covered by the sources in Section A?


On Hollywood's dominance over the world's cinemas

There's no question that Hollywood is the top player in the global arena of film industries, and sales confirm it. While only topped by India's movie market (dubbed Bollywood) in sheer output and rivaled in worldwide popularity, America's blockbusters remain a preferred cinema experience for most of the world. What makes Hollywood so compelling as to be dominant over any single other foreign film market?

Part of it is the long-running history and 'legacy' of America's film production and studio system. While film was created by the Lumiere brothers in France, it was directors and editors like Edwin Porter and D.W. Griffith who created sensational stories and stylistic techniques that elevated the medium to an art. Griffith went on to form the studio United Artists, one among many studios that became dynastic in their funding of increasingly ambitious, epic, glamorous movies. Many other countries in the early part of the twentieth century had little interest or desire in movies, perhaps because there was little money to be put towards films' production or exhibition when many countries were more concerned with the effects of two wars. Perhaps because the fight never hit home on U.S. soil, America's early experimentation in the first half of the century cemented their place among the the world cinemas. The sense of legacy, of Hollywood's golden age of prestigious studios, and star actors and actresses, is still perpetuated through the annual award shows and a lucrative celebrity paparazzi industry all its own.

Another factor is how much Hollywood is willing to gamble on a single, huge blockbuster. Movies are an expensive endeavor, and America has long been one of the wealthiest countries in the world. The tradition of going to the movies, started as a cheap, escapist group activity, long established a national past-time for Americans. Hollywood has long had to come up with ways to keep people coming back, though, to create spectacles and increasingly bigger more exciting experiences. The big studios have only gotten bigger, and with conglomeration, have even less rivalry from independent sources, and can provide so much funding that the only limit to a Hollywood movie is the limit of the imagination. There's so much spent that film-fans can see new product out of Hollywood every single week.

The spectacle of big action movies isn't possible in many country's markets, certainly they can't be funded as often, but is still highly desired by people the world over. As the Daya Thussu reading showed, before, a third of a Hollywood film's earnings would be made from foreign markets, and now it's closer to half; this is why many blockbusters, summer movies, and comic book movies are made with these markets in mind. The plots are kept accessible to various cultures, relatable to common shared emotions, and mostly inoffensive. As if a long-standing franchise like Lord of the Rings, X-Men, or Transformers isn't enticing enough to sell a movie, the promise of original 'experiences' like Avatar is something that excites people the world over, that people want to flock to as a shared event.

And furthermore, part of the reason Hollywood dominates in distribution the world over is the very Hollywood-ness of it. While often predictable, unrealistic, and artificial, there's clearly something almost intoxicating about the highly-polished, glamorous, bright and loud flash of Hollywood that other cultures want to share in. Movies are almost always cited as a major influencer in the globalized western culture, the spread of so-called Americanization. While it's vital for a country to maintain it's national identity, in this case namely through the medium of cinema, global audiences evidently find it desirable to partake in the unique American experience portrayed in movies like Iron Man and Indiana Jones. Like it or not, Hollywood movies often sell American values, sometimes even American products.

There are other factors like the interest in the free-trade of film products, that some Hollywood studios may almost force certain movies into a foreign market. Many blockbusters today are so expensive there's no way they could recoop and make a profit domestically, and they're made fully with the expectation the global market will put it over the top. Like those countries that didn't get an early start of their own national film industry, many still don't have a production system 'up-to-par' to meet the people's entertainment demands, and Hollywood exports fill that gap. Whatever the reason, it has further since cemented Hollywood's dominance as the world's foremost film industry.  Stephen Ferrell

  • Franchises - See Tom Hanks article.
  • Piracy - http://howardschoolfilm.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/fm2-film-piracy-useful-sites.html  http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/06/piracy-film-music-study-pay-illegal-download-damage  http://www.wired.com/2014/01/most-pirated-films-2013/
  • Independent film - See Wikipedia for a definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_film  but here is a good discussion of the topic by Tambay Obenson called "How Do You Define Independent Film?:                                                   It happens just about every year - a film that many don't consider an independent film wins an independent film award or two; while a film that many consider quintessentially indie, is seemingly looked over.
    It happened last 2 nights ago, at the Indie Spirit Awards ceremony, which saw Silver Linings Playbook dominate, while Beasts Of The Southern Wild was left wanting. I'm sure you can figure out which of the 2 films most consider the true "indie" film.
    And it didn't take very long after the Indie Spirit Awards ended for discussion on what exactly being an indie film means, to trend on social networks. But this is a conversation that the film community has been having for years now, with still no real consensus on the matter, and I don't think there ever will be one - which means, next year, expect more of the same kind conversation.
    I just don't believe the answer to that question is a simple one. The lines between what we traditionally referer to as Hollywood studio cinema, and indie cinema, are so blurred today, that the term doesn't seem to really have much significance anymore, and maybe a brand new term is needed to replace it.
    If you asked any group of people to define independent film, many would probably say something like, "any film made outside the Hollywood studio system," with considerations made for budget, source of funds, cast, story, distribution, and more. But you could find any number of films that move fluidly between "studio" and "indie" when it comes to 1 or more of those production/distribution aspects.
    An example that I think most of you should know - George Lucas financed Red Tails with his own money - a huge investment; but, as we all recall, he said that no Hollywood studio would touch it; therefore, he had to reach into his own bank account to finance the film, at a cost of $58 million!
    So is Red Tails an indie film? And if it is, would it have been nominated for an Indie Spirit Award if it were a stronger, critically-lauded film?
    And if not, the question is, why not?
    Given the ongoing conversation, especially after Saturday night's Indie Spirit Awards ceremony, I thought I'd pose the question of what indie cinema is to you folks, because I really don't have a simple answer myself, and I'd like to read your thoughts.
    But first, I searched the web for answers to that question, and found several given by artists who work in the film industry, and whose names you'll recognize, and I thought I'd share their responses here as well.
    So take a look at what they had to say on the matter, and tell us how YOU definie indie cinema.
    Screenwriter/director John August:
    Classically, an independent film was one that was made outside of the conventional studio system, be that Hollywood, Bollywood or Pinewood. But with the rise of the “independent” labels of the major studios, such as Fox Searchlight and Paramount Vantage, that distinction is pretty much moot. Also, consider that the last three Star Wars epics were made independently (by Mr. George Lucas). Any movie with fast-food tie-ins really shouldn’t qualify, in my opinion. I’d argue that the term “independent film” should be reserved for talking about the movie itself, rather than how it was financed. There’s a reason the word “independence” so often shows up in proximity to “revolution” — a shared spirit of frustration, anarchy and apple-cart-upsetting. From their conception, independent films aren’t just made outside of the studio system. They are made in opposition to the studio system, with its relentless need to round off the corners and soften the blows. And in standing against the status quo, independent films help to change it. Of course, my proposed redefinition of independent film can’t accommodate many of today’s darling indies, which mollycoddle their audiences with a careful recipe of quirk, warmth and family dysfunction. Just the very term “indie” seems to embody that spirit of fuzzy cuteness. I would call on filmmakers to start feeding their movies after midnight, and let their vicious little monsters roar.
    Director/producer Ted Demme:
    If it’s personal to a director, then it’s an independent.
    Screenwriter/director Alan Rudolph:
    Independent is a misnomer. By definition, it’s an oxymoron. If you’retruly independent, then no one can really categorize you and yourfilm can’t be pigeonholed. If you’re against the system, you’re partof the system by definition. I don’t think independent means againstthe system, but you’re always dependent on the money.
    Actress Tilda Swinton:
    Independent in my mind means free. Independent films have changed so much over the past years. For example, when I started making films with Derek Jarman in the 1980s, that was really independent film-making, going around with a Super 8 camera to make The Last of England. That was before the studios started making what I would describe co-dependent films, films that were on a leash but given the impression that they were studio-light."Independent means you are free to say what you want. It does not necessarily say you will be able to do it very easily and anyone is going to give you any money to do it. It might mean it is very uncomfortable, it might mean you work with chaos on a daily basis, though it does mean that you don't have someone breathing down your neck ... So that is what indie means to me.
    Writer/director Michael Winterbottom:
    I think from the point of view of making films, I just want to make the films I want to make. In a sense that is the best definition of independent, people making the films they want to make rather than working within the studio system and making a film for the studio.
    And now over to you... how do you define independent film?
  • Reviews - Online film reviews are discussed here  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_criticism#Online_film_reviews
  • Box-office success - http://www.screendaily.com/news/uk-ireland/camerons-comments-draw-dismay-ahead-of-film-policy-review-mike-leigh-has-no-comment/5036369.article
  • Blockbusters/ high concept films - 
The ‘high concept’ film is a response to some of the difficulties in knowing your audience. Some of its features are:
• a straightforward, easily pitched and easily comprehended story
• character and narrative are reduced and simplified
• there is a very strong match between image and music
• parts of the film can be easily transferred into other merchandising opportunities
• film is sold on ‘look’ - spectacular special effects, high production values
• the audience is to be caught up in the ‘surface’ of the film.


How do I answer the questions on the focus films? (British Horror and U.S. Comparison)
Read this  http://howardschoolfilm.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/fm2-exam-questions-common-question.html

Don't forget to use the digital files I've given you for the horror films plus the hand-outs and your class notes. Also look under the 'Horror Genre' tab on the blog.  For the U.S. Comparison use the typed notes I gave you, your class notes and the 'U.S. Comparison' tab on the blog.



Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)