AS PROMISED, FOLKS......

1.  Your exam essay title: re word it so that you can write about film producers, audiences, platforms, issues and case studies.
2.  One para per point; underline; don't highlight. You may have to COVER ALL THESE SOMEWHERE:
3. GLOBALIZATION = spread of products, people & practices from one to many countries; entails interconnectedness between a multitude of countries leading to the integration into one global economic, cultural network; e.g. the megapower Big Six companies and horizontal integration with its benefits of synergies
4. It involves global organization (companies like The Big Six with global reach) as well as global production (co-productions between national institutions to pool resources, risk & distribution as well as global consumption (proliferation of platforms with new distribution & exhibition forms [satellite TV, DVD, internet] reaching BOTH mainstream AND niche audience world-wide. I would argue that Web 2.0 also a form of globalization, but with INDIVIDUALS LIKE YOU AND ME able to access global reach through platforms like YouTube, Twitter, FaceBook
5. Hollywood & The Big 6; Dalecki (“4-S Megafranchise Model”, comprised of synergy, sequelization, story and spectacle); Hollywood’s move from vertical integration towards horizontal integration and films whose core value is their deployability across multiple media platforms, as well as their “sequelizability” and ability to be cross-promoted with other media texts. 
6. SEQUELS - dominate film production esp. Hollywood (name current ones)
7. SYNERGY - the Disney Stores promote the consumer products which promote the [theme] parks which promote the television show.
8. SPECTACLE - big sets, big action, bleeding-edge computer generated imagery (CGI) and other special effects, high production value in any form— does not simply attract and provide enjoyment to audiences, it also increases the given megafranchise’s brand value. The ultra-high-budget spectacle actualized in megafranchises provides a robust “barrier to entry” to lower-budget, would-be competition (smaller budgets can't offer CGI). Spectacular design elements developed via CGI can be leveraged directly into other media, particularly videogames. 
9. STORY - All of the big franchises invest heavily in the development of their screenplays (Lord of the Rings, Pirates, Shrek, Spider Man, Hunger Games, Avengers). The majority of megafranchises present, and then re-present, a  hero’s journey in fairytale-like fashion— an effective, simple, and reduced narrative which then is integrated into other synergistic media within the franchise.
10. As former Walt Disney CEO Michael Eisner put it : constant media synergy. 
11. Schatz (1997): 'movies, videogames and theme-park rides aren't separate entities or isolated media texts. Rather, they are related aspects or ‘iterations’ of entertainment supertexts, multimedia narrative forms which can be expanded & exploited ad infinitum, given the size and diversity of today's globalized, diversified entertainment industry. The essential UR-text within these media franchises is the Hollywood blockbuster.'
12. ISSUES ABOUT GLOBALIZATION: cultural imperialism (Team America says it all; threat to national cinemas; lack of provision for niche audiences; mainstream audiences are not the only ones to be served; disagree with Cameron & think of the loss - King's Speech did just fine, a UK Council funded film from lottery money; if 'easy appeal' is the aim, then all we'll get is stuff like The Boat That Rocked when Danny Boyle says we should be producing challenging not easy-pleasing stuff.
13.  What characterizes British films and what do global, international and national audiences want to see? BRITISH FILM INSTITUTION; what British film industry does best (identify genres: historical films [Kings Speech], literary adaptations [Salmon Fishing], social realism [Made In Dagenham], romantic comedy); we need a national film industry to serve national and local audiences and national concerns ( drugs - Shifty, ethnicity - Four Lions); small films emerge from local sources ( crowd funding: Tortoise In Love, Compton Bagpuize; niche audiences [InBetweeners (Ben Palmer, 2011) TV spinoff. How the film beat records as most successful British comedy article here on breaking box office records]
14. DIVERSITY DIVERSITY DIVERSITY is good!
15. Shifty (Eran Creevy, 2008) SlideShare here and interview with Eran Creevy here on how they came out of nowhere to win acclaim
16. Tortoise In Love (Guy Browning, 2011) How TIL (very low budget film) built its audience using social media TIL on FaceBook
17. It's a UK success story but it isn't typical (say why: Universal): Working Title: Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (Tomas Alfredson, 2011) View TTSS trailer here and Working Title website here
18. INDEPENDENT FILM PRODUCERS AND DISTRIBUTORS in Hollywood are LIONSGATE interesting because they handled both The Hunger Games and Salmon Fishing In The Yemen.  They have stakes in production companies, TV channels,digital platform Hulu, pay TV movie channel, music albums; acquired Summit (Twilight Saga) SO THEY ARE ALSO MEGAFRANCHISES
19. The Hunger Games(Gary Ross, 2012) Home page for The Hunger Games website : how are audiences engaged? Best opening weekend box office for non-sequel taking $200 million. Use Box Office Guru to compare audiences sizes click here for figures and projections and how Lionsgate involved fans all along the way with carefully scheduled marketing. Production budget relatively low ($75 million plus $45 for domestic marketing= under £76 m). Movie tie-in book here. Distopian game play Wikipedia article here
20. PLATFORMS have proliferated: (platforms= hardware used by audiences to view films) go from big IMAX to small handheld, including home cinema. Talk about how film insitutions use digital media to build audiences ( film websites, FaceBook, Twitter, two-step flow model of audience behaviour); give example of SHERLOCK (I WILL SUPPLY THIS IN TUESDAY'S REVISION) how audiences were built. CONVERGENCE CONVERGENCE! SAY WHAT YOU USE
21. ISSUES include digitalization (plusses= perfect quality, ease of distribution, proliferation of points of exchange & ease of exchange; minuses= piracy, loss of income, piracy 'haemorrages income'.
22. ISSUES include Web 2.0 = interactivity, consumers as producers Ridley Scott: Life In a Day is a time capsule that will tell future generations what it was like to be alive on the 24th of July, 2010,” said Kevin Macdonald."I hope it will be something that will open people's eyes to the possibilities of user-generated film."
23. TRENDS? Newspaper reports and trends: serials, sequels, superheroes, CGI, IMAX? CGI? 3D? Web 2.0 and user generated content? Certainly sequels....Avatar and CGI trends Read this PDF on Avatar's use of digital technology here.
24. The FDA 2012 annual report on the British film industry; the winners and losers
25. GOOD LUCK GOOD LUCK GOOD LUCK!!

TECHNOLOGICAL CONVERGENCE

Today we looked over the exam essay practice that you have done on production and distribution. We went over the term technological convergence and applied it to the film industry.

We looked at an Extranormal animation about convergence HERE and worked on how to define the term and apply it.

We critiqued the concept map below and decided how to improve on it:

Technological Convergence and Exhibition

In the film industry the number of platforms where you can view films is proliferating all the time; audiences can also watch films in a variety of ways WHEN THEY WANT TO. You can use digital technology to download a film or TV programme onto your mobile phone, laptop, I-Pad or PC; you can watch it on your flat-screen TV; you can also connect your  HD TV to the Internet and watch the film on You Tube; of course, you can see the film on Blue Ray or ordinary DVDs;  some might prefer to watch the film on Playstation or X Box; you could, perhaps, download it on Pirate Bay or other sites and consume it at a time that suits you. Of course the latter is illegal. But is this not how many students get their music these days? How do you think institutions will use technological convergence to reduce the impact of piracy?

TV DRAMA ANALYSIS

Today we look at your marked  TV Drama exam answers and focus on improving exam technique, in particular, using Pete's suggestion for organizing material on a grid during note-taking. We also revise how to write about editing.

CLICK here for Pete Fraser's mediablog with advice.

Exam tips for AS students

With just three weeks to go to the exam, here are a few tips for the OCR AS G322.

1. Practise a bit of writing on TV Drama, particularly organizing your notes. You'll find a whole presentation of tips on that part of the exam in my presentation from an earlier post on Feb 29. There I suggest that you go into the exam knowing how you will organize your notes, so that you have a structure to look out for things and to ensure that you maximize the note-taking time. After the first screening, if you draw a grid in the answer booklet, like this:

It will give you all you need for the four categories- mise-en-scene, camerawork, editing (continuity editing, at least) and sound. Down the side are the three categories P- point, D-data (or example) and Q- question (how to relate point and example to the question set). This model was suggested by Vicky Allen at Thomas Rotherham College, who gets good results every year, so she should know!

When revising for the exam, fill out a grid like this with the points you are going to be looking for on the day, then regardless of the extract, you will have things to look for. You won't be able to take one in to the actual exam, but you will have fewer things to memorize to cover!

So, under mise-en-scene, you might be looking for key examples of setting, costume, props, colours, makeup, hairstyle, lighting, posture, gesture. 
For camerawork you want to make points about angles, shot distances, camera movements, framing and focus. 
For continuity editing you want examples of the 180 degree rule, match on action, shot reverse shot, eyeline match, insert shots. 
For sound you will want examples of music, dialogue, sound effects, use of foley, counterpoint, sound bridges. 
If you have lists like this that you can then remember, that gives you plenty to look for.

Once you have watched the extract through, during the second screening you can very quickly note down    your grid and start to put in examples to support your points and then as you watch it a third and fourth time, you can start to relate the examples you find  back to the question, by asking what they contribute to the representation under scrutiny. So, for instance, how is the setting being used, how are camera angles being used, how are features of continuity editing used to help establish differences between characters. You'll have 30 minutes in total for the note-taking, so make the most of it!

Remember, the more you do in preparation for the note-taking, the better your chances in the essay itself. A well-organized answer in the 45 minutes for writing, supporting points with examples, will go a long way towards getting you a good mark!

JAN & JUNE 2011 EXAM QUESTIONS ON FILM

January 2011

The majority of candidates addressed the issue of production more than that of exchange. There was plenty of evidence of well-prepared answers. The best responses were able to show how the ownership of media companies determined the approaches that were taken to individual media texts and discussed advantages and disadvantages to all types of institutions. A few candidates misunderstood ownership to refer to audience ownership of media hardware or content which was clearly not appropriate.

Those candidates who fared less well would only produce a response which either focused on a single case study which struggled to address the question set in terms of media ownership, production and exchange or would often write ‘all I know about’ the media area that they studied.

As stated in the previous report, the advice that can be offered to centres is to refer to and use the questions posed in the specification on page 19. They should ensure coverage of key institutional concepts such as digital media, synergy, cross media, convergence, media technologies and audience consumption; this will aid candidates in their conceptual understanding of institutions and audiences. It is also necessary for candidates to address the question set, rather than offer a general address of institutional practices across the board and centres should teach at least two specific case studies for question two in their chosen media area to allow scope for all possible questions and a sense of the diversity of media case studies.

It is advised that centres ensure appropriate preparation for this section by covering audience as much as institutions. Whilst individual candidate research on their own chosen examples is encouraged, centres need to ensure that this research is supported within a framework which prepares candidates for the demands of the exam.
The following comments on each media area are a summary and not exhaustive of the range of issues that emerged in candidate responses.

This was by far the most popular media area addressed by candidates, with a significant number of candidates using Working Title & Universal as case studies.    The use of these case studies had a varying degree of success; for example, some weaker answers used a case study of Working Title films from 1994 with almost no reference to contemporary issues of production, distribution or exhibition.    Candidates seem to have far more knowledge of production than any other phase of film, but at times this led to naive answers, which ignored both the exchange of media texts the role of film audiences.
The most common approach was to compare the production processes of major studies with those of smaller UK companies. In particular, Universal and Warner Bros were common case studies, in comparison with Working Title, Film Four and Warp. Many candidates looked at the success of big US studios and their blockbusters, such as Avatar, The Dark Knight and Harry Potter, comparing them to hit formula ‘rom-coms’ or to independent productions like 'This is England'.

Candidates referred to Paramount and Universal, and the issues of horizontal integration and vertical integration, in terms of media ownership and on occasion market dominance and how this affected the types of media texts produced. Those that were equipped with a comparative study of an independent company were able to really engage with the question and consider an element of debate. ‘Slumdog Millionaire’ was a popular example of a small film reaching a global audience through differing factors rather than expensive marketing and synergy. It was noted that one centre had good success comparing Slumdog Millionaire and Avatar by extending their case studies and investigating the ownership, production and exchange of these films in detail whilst referring to other films and the effect of new technology.

Many candidates struggled with more complicated institutional issues surrounding film ownership and funding, leading to some misunderstandings and simplistic responses. In an examination candidates need the skill to adapt their case study knowledge and understanding to the demands of a specific question. Simply knowing the history of an institution and understanding its current position within a particular industry is not enough to secure a high mark. In this series some candidates ignored the question and simply regurgitated their case studies (too often around digital technologies and initiatives) without actually relating any of it to media ownership.
The logical step for this question (and one which worked well in answers) was to use a large institution and examples in conjunction with examples from an independent institution (or one which is not global). The approach of contrasting two institutions led to some very good responses. This is to be encouraged as it provides candidates with more options to formulate a response to the set question.

June 2011

The question provided suitable differentiation of candidate responses. The majority of candidates addressed the issue of distribution and marketing more than that of production or audience. The question provoked a range of responses from candidates many of whom were able to discuss the relationship between production, distribution and marketing in ensuring the success of media products. The best answers were able to create a debate around the relative strengths of production and marketing/distribution practices by institutions in engaging appropriate audiences. Frequently strong candidates were also able to draw contrasts between mainstream and independent producers, and/or mass audience/niche audience targeting.

In addition, many candidates were able to build their own experiences as consumers into their responses and were able to contextualise these through wider understanding of the relationships between producers and audiences. More candidates are able to show awareness of the trends and strategies that categorise the contemporary media landscape. A few candidates attempted to answer the question without any kind of institutional knowledge, focussing exclusively on texts, suggesting that there are still misconceptions as to the demands of this section of the specification. Strong responses from candidates were those who had a wide range of relevant and contemporary examples of marketing and distribution strategies in their chosen area and could discuss them with confidence. Those candidates that fared less well used a ‘saturation approach’ to addressing the question writing all they could remember, rather than addressing the set question. There was some confusion by candidates between convergence, synergy, horizontal and vertical integration as key media concepts.

It is advised that centres ensure the appropriate preparation for this section by covering audience in the same depth as institutions. It is also recommended that centres find a balance between giving candidates independent research tasks and modeling the kinds of material they need to produce.

The most common approach was to compare major US studios with UK production companies, often focusing on the role of budgets in determining production and marketing strategies. In the latter case, there was frequently a simplistic assumption that digital distribution is cheaper and quicker than conventional film distribution because you don't need reels of film and a white van!
There was often an assumption that UK cinema is failing because of low cinema attendance, which obviously underestimates the importance of home exhibition windows in making UK film viable. Working Title was the most frequently used case study, though many candidates tended to offer a history of the studio and their argument depended upon the relative success of films, such as Four Weddings and A Funeral or The Hudsucker Proxy, Notting Hill, and Bridget Jones Diary which clearly are not contemporary examples. Warners, Fox and Paramount were frequently used as American examples; Warp, Vertigo and Film Four were used a number of times as UK production companies.

However, many candidates seem to be prepared with a simplistic view of film production, distribution and marketing strategies which fails to acknowledge the wide range of approaches taken by studios both big and small.

Many responses failed to address the question directly and just presented their case studies. Candidates who tried to develop an argument with counter examples were more successful but the case studies often lacked relevant detail and failed to sufficiently differentiate between Hollywood and local production companies. Candidates demonstrated keen knowledge and understanding of concepts such as interactivity, globalisation, conglomerates and convergence.

Excellent answers engaged thoroughly with new media forms such as social networking sites, YouTube and blogging and how these relate to their chosen case studies. Other strong areas for discussion were in the consideration of audience consumption and distribution through digital technology such as iPhones, BluRay, downloading, iPads, and Sony PSP’s. Candidate discussion of this technology would be better supported with examples.

The advantages of digital distribution and exhibition were also sometimes discussed, but with limited effectiveness at times. Many candidates engaged with the crucial issue of piracy and illegal downloading and the implications for the media sector under consideration. Marketing and advertising was also considered with reference to extensive online campaigns, websites and viral marketing.

JAN 2012 EXAM QUESTION ON FILM

Examiners' Report on January 2012 exam

The question provided suitable differentiation of candidate responses. The majority of candidates addressed the issue of digital distribution and marketing more than that of production or audience. The question provoked a range of responses from candidates, many of whom were able to discuss the relationship between production, distribution and marketing in ensuring the success of media products. The most able candidates were clear about the changes that digital distribution and consumption were having upon the products that were produced.

The best answers were able to create a debate around the relative strengths of distribution practices and marketing strategies by institutions in engaging appropriate audiences through online media and incorporated technologies. Frequently, strong candidates were also able to draw contrasts between mainstream and independent producers, and/or mass audience/niche audience targeting. More candidates are able to show awareness of the trends and strategies that categorise the contemporary media landscape, which included the use of online technologies and distribution platforms. In this session, very few candidates attempted to answer the question without any kind of institutional knowledge or focussing exclusively on texts produced.

Strongest responses came from those candidates who had a wide range of relevant and contemporary examples of marketing and distribution strategies in their chosen area and could discuss them with confidence. Those candidates that fared less well used a ‘saturation approach’, writing all they could remember, rather than addressing the set question.
On the whole the terminology used for question 2 was good, including candidates’ discussion of convergence, synergy, horizontal and vertical integration as key media concepts. It is advised that centres ensure the appropriate preparation for this section by covering audience in the same depth as institutions.

The most common approach remains a comparison between major US studios with UK production companies, often focusing on digital distribution and marketing strategies. There was often an assumption that UK cinema is failing because of low cinema attendance, which obviously underestimates the importance of home exhibition windows in making UK film viable. There were some excellent answers that referred to the expansion of the Digital Screen Network and the issues posed and the opportunities it offers.

Working Title was the most frequently used case study, along with Warners, Fox and Paramount as American examples; Warp, Vertigo and Film Four were used a number of times as case studies. Newer UK productions such as Shifty, Monsters, Four Lions and Attack The Block were used by candidates as contemporary case studies to good effect, with some candidates attempting to address specifically the use of You Tube as a potential distribution platform for the future media in discussion of Life In A Day.

Excellent answers engaged thoroughly with new media forms such as social networking sites, You Tube and blogging and how these relate to their chosen case studies. Other strong areas for discussion were in the consideration of audience consumption and distribution through digital technology such as iPhones, BluRay, downloading, iPads, and Sony PSP’s. Candidate discussion of this technology would be better supported with examples. Sometimes these technologies tend to be mentioned without reference to specific examples of products to exemplify how films are distributed and/or marketed using such technologies, which limits access to higher mark bands.

The advantages of digital distribution and exhibition were discussed, but with varying effectiveness at times, in part because candidates see film as being freely available as a digital format online, which is often not the case. Many candidates accurately argued that digital distribution, marketing and digital practices were important for the frontloading of film marketing campaigns, for example, The Dark Knight, Avatar, Paul and The Kings Speech. Most candidates are able to show awareness of the trends and strategies that categorise the contemporary media landscape.

There still remains a number of centres that are preparing candidates with inappropriate material. Potted histories of media companies or textual studies are unlikely to be useful for the kind of questions which this paper poses. Candidates should be encouraged to take a selective approach to their case study material, concentrating on what is most relevant to the question rather than trying to get their entire case studies down. Quite a few centres are relying on case study material which is rapidly dating and there needs to be more emphasis on contemporary examples. Far too many candidates using Working Title as a case study institution are still writing about films which are at least 15 years out of date.

JAN & JUNE 2010 EXAM QUESTIONS ON FILM

June 2010

Marks for Section B are awarded according to the detail in which the argument was explored and the detail of the exemplification. The question provoked a range of responses from Candidates who were able to discuss the use of digital technology in the production, distribution, marketing or consumption of media products or a combination of these elements. The most able Candidates were able to create a debate around the benefits and drawbacks of new technology for both audiences and institutions and were also able to draw contrasts between mainstream and independent producers, or mass audience/niche audience targeting.

The best answers tended to come from Candidates who had been well prepared with detailed, contemporary case studies – not historical ones. Many Candidates were able to build their own experiences as consumers (and occasionally producers) into their responses and were able to contextualise these through wider understanding of the relationships between producers and audiences. More able Candidates are able to show awareness of the trends and strategies that characterise the contemporary media landscape and at times across different media areas.

However, there are still a number of Centres who are preparing Candidates with inappropriate material, for example with potted histories of media companies or textual studies which are unlikely to be useful for the kind of questions which this paper poses. Candidates should be encouraged to take a selective approach to their case study material, concentrating on what is most relevant to the question rather than trying to get entire case studies down into the response to question 2.
the most common approach was to compare major US studios with UK production companies, though technology at times was often interpreted in quite a narrow fashion, concentrating on 3D production and digital distribution, for example ‘The Dark Knight’ and ‘Avatar’. 

Some good answers focussed on how major studios like Fox can finance the production of cutting edge films like ‘Avatar’, and how the technology they have at their disposal can be employed in marketing via a range of new media platforms, all backed up with a range of relevant examples. The digital technology used in ‘Avatar’ was succinctly addressed as were the advances in 3D, but also characterised by some simplistic assumptions that digital distribution is cheaper and quicker than conventional film distribution because you do not need reels of film. There was often an assumption that UK cinema is not dependent upon technological advances, which obviously underestimates the importance of home exhibition windows in making UK film viable.

Working Title was the most frequently used UK case study, though many Candidates tended to offer a history of the company and their argument depended upon the relative of success of films such as ‘Four Weddings and A Funeral’, ‘Notting Hill’ or ‘The Hudsucker Proxy’, which clearly are not contemporary examples. Warners, Fox and Paramount were frequently used as US examples; Warp, Vertigo and Film Four were used a number of times as UK production companies. One Centre’s Candidates had been prepared with a comparative textual study of ‘The Cruel Sea’ (1953) and ‘Atonement’ (2007) with which they struggled to answer the question.

Histories of film studios such as Aardman or film biographies of film personnel did not address the question that has been set. Centres should keep taught examples contemporary and varied for the Candidates for future series. There was evidence that a number of Candidates focused solely on digitisation of cinema and did not have a film company as an institutional case study. Where this was the case, answers (whilst detailed in some respects) did not show enough depth, as they were tackling only exhibition.

January 2010

A significant number of candidates used Working Title & Universal as a case study. This case study had a varying degree of success, for example, weaker arguments used a case study of Working Title films in 1994 with almost no reference to contemporary issues of production, distribution or exhibition. Candidates seem to have far more knowledge of marketing than any other phase of film production, but at times this led to naive answers, which ignored the role of non-theatrical exhibition in generating revenue for film companies or drew simplistic conclusions about independent company’s lack of marketing expertise compared to those of major studios.    The most common approach was to compare the production processes of major studies with those of smaller UK companies. In particular, Universal and Warner Bros were common case studies, in comparison with Working Title, Film Four and Warp Films. More able candidates looked at the success of big US studios and their blockbusters (like Avatar), compared them to Universal backed Working Title and its output of hit formula rom-coms like 'Love Actually' and independent productions like 'This is England'.

The better responses were focused on the question set and discussed the ways in which the majors dominate film production and distribution with case studies of Avatar, The Dark Knight and Harry Potter. Candidates referred to Paramount and Universal, and the issues of horizontal integration and synergy were cited as key reasons for the dominance of the majors. Those that were equipped with a comparative study of an independent company were able to really engage with the question and consider an element of debate. ‘Slumdog Millionaire’ was a popular example of a small film reaching a global audience through differing factors rather than expensive marketing and synergy. Small British films such as ‘This is England’ were also referred to as films that fail to reach a global audience and meant that the question was well addressed.

Candidates who only looked at one media producer were often disadvantaged. Having a detailed comparison between US Major/ UK Minor (for example), often helped candidates see a bigger picture, which was not always the case with very in depth case studies, where candidates often repeated historical context data. Some candidates were clearly prepared with the case study that they presented, but they did not fully engage with the question set.
Do note that the use of factual information and statistics helped illustrate answers; however, there were instances of obviously false or incorrect data, which detracted from the answers. There was plenty of evidence that showed candidates who reproduced learnt answers could show great recall of factual material from their case studies but failed to address and apply this knowledge to the set question. This led to a number of candidates achieving much lower marks than they were certainly capable of.

Centres must teach students the skills needed to adapt their case study knowledge and understanding to the demands of a specific question. Simply knowing the history of an institution and understanding its current position within a particular industry is not enough to meet the marking criteria at the highest levels.

The logical step for this question and which worked well in answers was to agree with the statement and use a large institution and example to prove this, in conjunction with an independent institution or one which is not global plus an example to show that the statement is not the whole truth. The approach of contrasting two institutions led to some very good responses. This is to be encouraged as it provides candidates with more options to formulate a response to the set question. Only a few answers then went on to mention ‘guerrilla film making’ outside the domination of global institutions.