Friday, 4 May 2012

TV DRAMA EXAM PRACTICE 'HUSTLE' Jan 2011

Watch the exam extract HERE
Extract: Hustle, Series 1 Episode 4, written by Tony Jordan, dir. Minkie Spiro
Extract length: 5 minutes max. Timing of extract: First 5 minutes of Episode 1.
Answer the question below, with detailed reference to specific examples from the extract
only.

1   Discuss the ways in which the extract constructs representations of gender using the following:
  • Camera shots, angles, movement and composition
  Editing
  Sound 
Mise-en-scene (50)
Examiners’ Reports - January 2011
Comments on candidate responses to Question 1 – Television drama
The extract provided candidates with the opportunity to negotiate their own reading, which they could justify through analysis of the four technical codes. There were a number of different interpretations provided by candidates; most of these were entirely valid. There was a good range of technical examples for candidates to analyse.
As noted in previous series, it is important that candidates move from description of key technical areas to analysis of how representations are constructed. This enables candidates to achieve higher marks for their responses. Candidate responses which did not link the technical analysis to representation often lacked focus with a common misconception being to discuss class, rather than gender.
Candidates tend to structure their responses in one of two ways for question one. Some began by addressing the concept of representation in the extract and a discussion of the representational differences between the male sales assistant/manager and the poorer, older female character and then introduce the affluent, younger and elegant female character, comparing this further with the representation of gender in the gentlemen’s club. Candidates would then analyse these examples in a chronological approach to the extract, whilst integrating different technical aspects, for example, combining the analysis of camera composition with sound.
On the other hand, and a slightly more popular approach, would see the candidates address the technical areas one by one.    Stronger candidates could provide an integrated analysis of the extract through analysis of key examples identified. These candidates explored how the technical features could be applied using a combination of the technical features. Weaker candidates could list many technical aspects, with varying degrees of accuracy, but struggle to say anything meaningful about the representation of gender.
Candidates should be advised to keep introductions brief and to avoid theoretical introductions and/ or historical contexts to television drama; analysis of the extract itself should begin straight away. On occasion in this series, candidates offered quite general textual analysis and these responses often lacked a focused discussion of gender and thus penalised themselves from gaining a level three or four mark for EAA.
The mark scheme 
enables credit to be awarded to candidates in three different categories: 
Explanation, Analysis and Argument (20 Marks); Use of Examples (20 Marks); and Use of Terminology (10 Marks). 
Under use of examples, candidates cannot reach level 4 (16-20) when only three technical areas are discussed. This mark scheme is able to credit answers which have different strengths, and in this series, the marking of candidate papers revealed this flexibility in its application.
Representation
Most candidates were able to discuss differences in the status of gender within the sequence, though only a very small number of candidates were able to develop their answer further by showing how the audience were positioned in relation to these representations.
More confident candidates were able to analyse the ways in which the extract attempted to position the audience in relation to the sales manager and the female clientele, the second male in the shop and the cross cutting to the gentlemen’s club and as a result were able to explore the nuances of gender representation. These stronger responses showed a good grasp of the changing ambivalent nature of the representation of women and men, for example, either commenting on how the female protagonist played up to gender stereotypes or the centrality of this performance to the ongoing hustle. In relation to masculinity, candidates identified the stereotypical inability of men to multitask. Most candidates made reference to the sales manager’s character (David Walliams) as being feminised and confident candidates asserted that the second male character in the shop was able to dominate Walliams’ character as he was constructed as more stereotypically masculine – chewing gum, open shirt without tie, use of male colloquialisms – for example reference to ‘bird’ as stereotyped slang. However, many candidates formulated a much simpler version of gender representation with arguments such as ‘women like shopping’, the men in the club represent gender because ‘men like drinking whiskey and smoking’. Weaker candidates often relied on the use of binary oppositions in discussion of gender representation, rather than take this opportunity to explore a range of representations offered by the extract.
The majority of candidates attempted to formulate an argument about the representation of gender in the extract with the vast majority moving beyond the minimal descriptor for EAA. Candidates that scored less well tended to make points about the representation of gender in an isolated fashion rather than linking their points as part of a coherent analysis or argument.
Camera Shot, Angle and Composition
Overall, this technical feature was well addressed by the candidates. Most candidates used appropriate media vocabulary, commenting on shot composition, analysing the high and low angled shots in the extract and commenting on the ‘hand held’ camera techniques during the search for the ring. The tilt up of the camera on the woman’s dress was commonly misidentified as a pan but generally a wide range of terminology was accurately used. More able candidates were able to link the composition and the framing to the representation of gender by discussing the apparent significance of the hustler in the background of the frame, when the sales manager was speaking to the less affluent female character introduced at the beginning of the extract. Many candidates were able to comment on the direct mode of address by both male and female characters, commenting upon its unconventionality and function in linking the male and female hustlers. Candidates also commented on how the shots of the direct address to the audience conveyed control of the situation and therefore represented a form of dominance in character relations.
Weaker candidates were able to describe key shots used in exemplification, but would often lack explicit links to how these shots assisted in the construction of the representation of gender. These candidates would also tend to focus on just identifying the narrative flow of the extract through the naming of the shots.
Mise en scène
The majority of candidates discussed this area with confidence. The extract itself was rich in mise en scène that contributed to representation. The contrast of the affluent clothing boutique, with the gentlemen’s club was the setting most compared, at times in a sophisticated way. Candidates made most use of the accent, performance of characters and it was pleasing to see many candidates making reference to lighting with more able candidates confident in using terms such as high key, artificial and low key. Most candidates were able to discuss how the characters’ appearances linked to gender characteristics.
More able candidates could contrast the gender representation of different characters through the mise en scène and how power and status is represented. Candidates are also advised to look for the range of representations within the extract with more able candidates commenting on each character’s apparent gender and how that held some status within the scene, for example of the way in which the female hustler held equal if not more power than males in the scam. The representation of the cockney male was contrasted to the more proper sales manager, who candidates often pointed out, was well spoken, tailored and legitimate.
Weaker candidates are still wedded to simplistic colour analysis and ignore all contradictory evidence to claim that characters dressed in white must be 'pure and innocent' while characters dressed in red are either 'passionate' or 'in danger', for example. This often appeared in discussion of the representation of the female hustler. This ‘binary’ approach needs refining by centres in relation to debating how meaning is constructed in an extract and it is suggested that comparing and contrasting different elements of representation deserves more attention in the classroom.
Sound
The analysis of sound was better than in previous series; for example, candidates attempted to link music with the representation of the characters, looking at how it was used to underscore characters’ actions. The use of terminology was generally better than previously in this area.; centres seem to be heeding the advice that an analysis of the dialogue is not sufficient.
Most students were able to differentiate between diegetic and non-diegetic sound and to demonstrate that the soundtrack was closely linked to our understanding of the protagonist, though few went further by discussing how the sound mix and sound effects were used. Most candidates were also able to use terminology confidently and could describe the tempo and use of music, for example, the manic use of jazz music with the female shopper. Often weaker candidates showed confusion with technical terminology, referring to ambient sound which was not heard in the part of the sequence they referred to, or simply getting diegetic and non-diegetic sound the wrong way round.
Editing
As previous series, this technical area proved to be the most problematic for candidates and the one technical area of analysis that was often omitted in responses. Those that did cover it were able to make meaningful links to representations by showing how the editing created particular viewpoints with which we are encouraged to identify or how screen time indicated the shifting relationship between characters in the sequence, for example through the discussion of rule of thirds. Most candidates made reference to the pace of editing to reflect the frantic situation and actions of the characters in the extract, for example in describing the affluent female shopper and the confidence she exudes in the hustle. Many candidates could identify the use of transitions; shot reverse shot and cuts to aid continuity and the use of cross cutting between the two situations to enhance tension. Many candidates identified the editing transitions, though the use of the term ‘jump cut’ was not accurately applied and candidates often misidentified the wipe transition as a ‘swipe’. Only a minority of candidates interpreted the function of the wipe as highlighting the juxtaposition between a female and male environment. The most able of candidates even interpreted the editing through the comedic style imbued within the extract, highlighting that candidates can be articulate and imaginative with the analysis of editing.
More able candidates demonstrated the ability to link the use of editing to the representation of characters, such as the use of long and short takes to represent power and the use of eye line matches to reinforce a sense of dominance.
However, many candidate responses seemed to be very limited in address of the issues of editing and all too frequently editing was absent from candidate responses – which again, does not enable candidates to reach a level four on the marking criteria for the use of examples. Weaker candidates often omitted any discussion of editing or offered quite simplistic accounts of how editing was used, for example in the use of the shot reverse shot sequence between characters. Many candidates identified the types of transition without discussing how these were connected with representations, in particular the use of wipe transitions or freeze frames. There was little sense of the way in which the editing created a perspective from which the sequence made sense and most candidates confined themselves to discussing the pace of cutting.
This series has shown that with the right preparation, candidates can engage with the nuances of editing under exam conditions, with evidence that candidates are able to discuss crosscutting, eye line match and ellipsis in an extract. As in the previous report, the advice offered to centres is to encourage as much practice on the concept of editing as possible and how this assists in the construction of representation. Centres should begin by identifying editing techniques and encourage candidates to apply these to a range of examples in class and importantly, test them on this.
 

Thursday, 3 May 2012

WORKING TITLE: A CASE STUDY

Working Title: History of a Production Company

Fellner and Bevan of Working Title
Tim Bevan and Eric Fellner co-chairpersons of Working Title Productions

Introduction

The company produced a variety of films for PolyGram's London-based production company PolyGram Filmed Entertainment. An Anglo-Dutch film studio, PolyGram Films became a major Hollywood competitor. In 1999, PolyGram was sold to Seagram and merged with MCA Music Entertainment, to form Universal Music Group. PolyGram Films was merged and sold to Universal Studios in 1999. Universal Music Group is a wholly owned subsidiary of French media conglomerate Vivendi.(Wikipedia)

Although contractually allowed to produce any film with a budget of up to $35 million, on a practical basis, Bevan and Fellner consult with studio executive at Working Title's parent company NBCUniversal.[2] Working Title is located in London, and is known for having a limited number of employees. The company also has other offices located in Los Angeles, and Ireland.

 

The Co-chairpersons of Working Title  are  Tim Bevan and Eric Fellner. It has been an extraordinary British cinematic success story as the following comment notes:
They have been listed as the most powerful figures in the British industry and in 2002 Premiere magazine put them at 41st in the world-wide movie power list.( BBC News story (2004
Without well positioned and highly effective producers film makers would have an even more difficult time. Firstly this article will look briefly at the role of the film producer, it will then look in more detail at Working Title as a case study of a success story. Without good producers in the last few years British Film culture would have been much poorer.  Good producers are essential for the success of any national cinema especially given the outside pressures from the big guns. Film making is a high risk business and good producers know how / learn how to reduce risk. 
However according the the Daily Telegraph NBC Universal already holds a majority stake in Working Title Films, and has been looking to create a European TV studio in London. 
Working Title Red

Origins

Extract from Guardian interview
Bevan had founded Working Title in 1984 with Sarah Radclyffe, and in 1992 went looking for a corporate backer. Polygram was the one, and Fellner came on board, Radclyffe having left. According to Bevan: "Before that we had been independent producers, but it was very hand to mouth. We would develop a script, that would take about 5% of our time; we'd find a director, that'd take about 5% of the time and then we'd spend 90% of the time trying to juggle together deals from different sources to finance those films. The films were suffering because there was no real structure and, speaking for myself, my company was always virtually bankrupt."

What the film producer does

A film producer creates the conditions for making movies. The producer initiates, coordinates, supervises and controls matters such as fundraising, hiring key personnel, and arranging for distributors. The producer is involved throughout all phases of the filmmaking process from development to completion of a project. (Wikipedia entry 2nd Jan 2008)
Here is the blurb marketing a training course for potential producers:
The producer is at the sharp end of the film business. They are required to
keep all options open, develop networks of potential funding and talent,
identify outlets and new markets for their productions, keep a range of
projects live, ready for pitching
. This Film School will provide an
invaluable insight into the working practices and strategies, of the lives
of a variety of producers. They will range from those working exclusively in
shorts, in the UK, through to feature films and working in a global market.
It will provide essential information and tips for up and coming producers,
how to pitch a project, where to seek funding, how to maintain networks of
contacts. Everything you wanted to know about the producers’ job description and the detail of producing film will be revealed in this film School.
(My emphasis, Encounters Short Film Festival )

Films Produced by Working Title

Working Title's breakthrough hit was 1994's Four Weddings and a Funeral, a romantic comedy which made the term British blockbuster seem less of an oxymoron.
Successes 
Films which have been critically and financially successful include both British and American films:  
British films
Atonement 1
Atonement has been a great success for Working Title functioning as a film in the "heritage genre"
Four Weddings and a Funeral
Bean
Notting Hill
Bridget Jones's Diary
Elizabeth
and American films
Dead Man Walking
Fargo
The Man Who Wasn't There
O Brother Where Art Thou?
Failures  
But there are plenty of risks as this comment on Captain Corelli's Mandolin shows:
Flops include Captain Corelli's Mandolin. It was their most expensive film and, ironically, the one that seemed most likely to succeed.
This is even more ironic given that the prices in Kefalonia have risen as the tourist trade increased dramatically after the film's release.

How Working Title chooses the films to support 

How does Working Title choose which films to make? Fellner says projects get championed by individuals in the development department and these 'percolate' their way up to the top. Bevan and Fellner then both take the decision on what to greenlight (Skillset)

Recent Films Produced Include

More recently WT co-produced the successful Hot Fuzz comedy released in July 2007. See also Hot Fuzz)

Targeting Audience: The Secret of Their success?

The Working Title philosophy has always been to make films for an audience - by that I mean play in a multiplex. We totally believe in this because we know it is the only hope we have of sustaining the UK film industry. (Lucy Guard & Natasha Wharton)

Working Title 2 / WT 2: Making the Small Budget Feature

As Working Title became more bound up with larger productions it became more awkward to deal with smaller ones so WT2 was established to deal with low budget titles.  
Despite its famous name, the structure at Working Title is pretty lean. It employs just 42 full time staff, split between the main Working Title production arm and its low-budget offshoot WT2, run by Natascha Wharton, which since 1999 has produced films like Billy Elliot and Ali G Indahouse. (My emphasis, from Skillset )
WT2 has had a good success rate and clearly the whole organisation is run very effectively.
Other films it has produced are the less than well received Calcium Kid starring Orlando Bloom
Extract from a Channel 4 Film Feature
Lucy Guard, Head of Development for Dragon Pictures and Natscha Wharton (left) who co-runs WT2 share with us their secret to developing talent..
How did WT2 come about?
When I was at Working Title we set up a New Writers Scheme to develop new talent. Normally we do not accept unsolicited material (scripts that do not come from an agent or producer) but for the scheme we had to relax a bit and open the doors. The problem was that at Working Title, smaller films would inevitably get less attention than the bigger budget projects so we decided to set up WT2 to give proper attention to those smaller films. Quite a few of the writers we were developing on the Scheme we are now working with us at WT2 while others have set up their projects with other companies, which is great.

Available films produced by Working Title /WT2 include:

elizabeth_dvd_cover_special_edition.jpg Four Weddings and funeral DVD Cover Bridget Jones Bean DVD Cover

WT2 Films available include:

Inside I Billy Eliott Ali G Indahouse

Filmography 

Webliography 

BBC on Inside I'm Dancing a WT2 title (This is technically an Irish film) 
Working Title plans TV Shows:By Juliette Garside. Daily Telegraph Jan 2008
Screenonline Working Title entry + links to individuals concerned
Independent Film Producer Rebecca O'Brien. Who works with Ken Loach

SYNERGY and CONVERGENCE

'Hollywood’s penchant for the sequelization of blockbuster movies is but one form of media synergy. Other profitable and convergent forms include theme parks, rides, soundtracks, novel tie-ins, and—of ever increasing importance to the bottom line at media conglomerates— videogames. This article provides a broad overview of the various strategies utilized by the big-six media conglomerates to create a particular iteration of media synergy—what one might term “the Hollywood megafranchise".' ( Dalecki, 2008)

The big-six are Time Warner (Warner Bros.), News Corp (Fox), Sony (Sony), Disney (Disney), Viacom (Paramount), and NBC Universal (Universal and MGM).

To understand synergy a little better, view this Slideshare HERE
Read the article in class by Linden Dalecki 'Hollywood as Integrated Media Communications' (2008) in Prezi format HERE


Wednesday, 2 May 2012

TV DRAMA EXAM PRACTICE 'Merlin' Jan 2012

Today in class we go over your analysis of this extract, done for holiday prep.

Click HERE to watch the Merlin extract

Extract: Merlin Series 1 Episode 1, written by Julian Jones, dir. James Hawes.
1    Discuss the ways in which the extract constructs the representation of class and status using the following:
• Camera shots, angles, movement and composition 

• Editing
 • Sound
 • Mise en scène
Representation
Confident candidates were able to analyse the ways in which the extract attempted to position the audience in relation to the young knight, Arthur, and the young magician, Merlin, and how it used cross cutting to the elderly and concerned Gaius. As a result candidates were able to explore the nuances of status representation, in terms of the representations used:
Stronger responses showed a good grasp of the ambivalent nature of the representation of class in the form of Prince Arthur and the pauper/magician, Merlin. There was plenty of evidence that candidates understood the representation of class and status with a variety of interpretations, for example, with the armed conflict in the medieval market between Prince Arthur and Merlin and the ambivalent status that emerges. Where candidates often relied on the use of binary oppositions and generalised analytical assumptions, in discussion of class and status representation, they did not take this opportunity to explore a range of representations offered by the extract, for example that Merlin had the respect of Gaius/Prince Arthur, despite his lower status in the medieval hierarchy.
Camera Shot, Angle and Composition
Most candidates used the correct terminology and could describe shot composition, movement, framing, and angles in relation to each of the characters and their situations and to link these to the construction of class from Morgana to Merlin and Gaius. The best responses identified the use of over the shoulder shots when Merlin is talking to Morgana, giving her dominance and the composition of Prince Arthur being in the centre of the frame with his guards behind him to show his power. Candidates could also discuss the binary oppositions constructed with the use of shot-reverse-shots, which strengthened their analysis.
Less confident candidates confused high and low angles and were unclear on panning and tracking, and though able to describe key shots used in exemplification, they tended to lack explicit links to how these shots assisted in the construction of the representation of social class and status. These candidates would also tend to focus on just identifying the narrative flow of the extract through the naming of the shots.
Mise en scène
The majority of candidates discussed this area with confidence. Location, character appearance and body language were all handled well, with some excellent attention to detail on objects in all settings. Some analysis of colour symbolism was less successful as it tended to be based on assumptions which could not be substantiated from the sequence.
Sound
The analysis of sound is continuing to improve with candidates attempting to link music with the representation of the characters. Music was generally well recognised and analysed with better candidates linking the choral, mystical music to the 'witch' and her status, the majestic music to Arthur and Merlin's own theme. There seemed to more confident use of terminology in relation to soundtrack this session. Many candidates were proficient in analysing diegetic/non diegetic sound and recognising the synchronous/asynchronous sounds, the importance of the ambient sounds and soundbridges in relation to how meaning is constructed. 
Most candidates identified and analysed the jovial nature of the music during the fight to link with status – some analysing it as mocking Arthur, others as mocking Merlin. Candidates made frequent reference to the dialogue in the extract, especially the conversation between Arthur and Merlin, for example Merlin's use of the terms 'prat' and ‘ass’ and the sarcastic 'my lord' were particularly commented on showing that Merlin has lower status but does not comply with it. Many candidates also commented on Merlin's final speech as an example of his understanding of his low status. Some candidates commented on the sound of Morgana’s footsteps as a presence and the accompanying music, which added to her sense of superiority, as well as the tone of her voice.
Editing
Candidates often engaged well with the nuances of editing and the ways in which the use of long and short takes represented power and how eye line matches were used to reinforce a sense of dominance. Slow motion was identified as linking to status, either showing the power of Arthur through his skill or the uncaring nature of his class in destroying the villagers’ livelihoods.
Shot-reverse-shots were also linked very well to class/status. Many candidates referred to the use of this during the conversations between Merlin and Morgana and made references to eye- line matches to show equality between the characters. As in previous series, this technical area proved to be the most challenging for candidates and the one technical area of analysis that was often omitted in responses.

Tuesday, 1 May 2012

JAN & JUNE 2009 EXAM QUESTIONS ON FILM


Discuss the ways in which media products are produced and distributed to audiences in an area you have studied (Jan 2009)
Although the question was a wide one, many candidates still failed to focus their discussion and case study material on the production and distribution phases of media production. The best answers showed awareness of the ways in which institutions shape and distribute products in order to meet the demands of their audiences and to make profit; they were able to illustrate this with detailed reference to case study material.
 
Those candidates who could use their case studies and really focus on the question rather than simply regurgitating the whole case study, wrote some interesting and well founded answers. Overall the best candidates related closely to the focus of the question, writing about the relationship between audience and industry with particular emphasis on the production and distribution side of the industry. Centres are advised to refer to and use the questions on page 20 of the Specification and to ensure coverage of key institutional concepts such as synergy, cross media convergence, media technologies and audience consumption. This will aid the candidates’ 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.

Popular case studies included the study of UK film companies such as Working Title and Film Four, which provided plenty of promising material, particularly when their
working practices were contrasted with Hollywood equivalents. Some centres had prepared candidates for this unit with single text studies (i.e. of an individual film), which clearly did not provide candidates with sufficient knowledge of wider institutional and audience contexts to tackle the question set. Institutional questions, which dealt with a comparison of successful American institutions versus less commercially successful home grown UK industries often worked well.
The contrast of a large US studio like Time Warner versus DNA Films was useful. Candidates with an entirely British view, Working Title on its own, or Big Arty Productions and independent British film making, for example, Bullet Boy and This is England also fared very well, but would benefit with some comparison to Hollywood practice. Examiners noted that up to date referencing of the new boom in 3D films was done very well by one or two centres and candidates were able to discuss the download of movies through home communication networks and the impact of Blue Ray DVD on film consumption.
How important is technological convergence for audiences and institutions in an area you have studied? (June 2009) Examiners’ Report:
In discussion of how important technological convergence is for the film industry, more able candidates could develop an argument which could discuss and evaluate how technological convergence enables effective digital distribution, supports viral marketing campaigns, such as the Dark Knight creates media synergy and, for example, the use of Sony BMG to record the soundtrack, and merchandising tie in deals. These able candidates could also evaluate how institutions and audiences used media technology across different platforms, for example on the iPod and other mobile devices/phones and the use of social networking sites to share and offer fan comments. Candidates also discussed downloading (including the issue of internet piracy) films, but did not give specific examples of websites or how you could subsequently watch the movies. On occasion candidates could offer criticism that independent and often British film releases which do not have the budget of major conglomerate film studios had to find alternative non- convergent methods of distribution and marketing.

Centres need reminding that historical case studies of film studios, such as Hammer or Ealing film studios is not apart of the requirement for the study of film institution and audiences. At the same time if centres are using contemporary resources, such as The Boat That Rocked or Slumdog Millionaire, that they ensure candidates have an academic understanding of the film’s institution and audience and not simply rely upon the prepared reading of the text and its marketing campaign alone.
Far too many candidates seemed to have been prepared with historical accounts of particular institutions which did not address contemporary issues of institutional or audience practices - Working Title was frequently used as a case study but with little contemporary material in evidence. Popular case studies included the study of UK film companies such as Working Title and Film Four, which provided plenty of promising material, particularly when their working practices were contrasted with Hollywood equivalents, such as the Dark Knight. Some centres had prepared candidates for this unit with single text studies (ie of an individual film), which clearly did not provide candidates with sufficient knowledge of wider institutional, and audience contexts to tackle the question set. Institutional questions, which dealt with, a comparison of successful American institutions versus less commercially successful home grown UK industries often worked well, for example, Bullet Boy and This is England.
The best answers showed awareness of the ways in which institutions use technological convergence in order to meet the demands of their audiences and to make profit, widen audience demographics, target different markets, or simply cater for audience needs. Candidates could illustrate the issues that emerge with technological convergence for major and independent institutions, for example, piracy and the music industry or how the magazine industry in order to slowdown dwindling magazine sales, has developed more interactive web resources. More able candidates were able to illustrate such points with detailed reference to case study material.

Those candidates who could use their case studies and really focus on the question rather than simply regurgitating the whole case study wrote some interesting and well-founded answers. Overall the best candidates related closely to the focus of the question, evaluating how important technological convergence is.

There was a frustrating lack of awareness of audience targeting and candidates need to be more aware of the way in which target markets determine decisions in production, distribution and exhibition/exchange for all media products – there are obvious points to be made about the way in which new media and converged media contribute to all of these phases for products aimed at specific tech-savvy audiences; equally arguments could be built around the ways in which products aimed at different audiences might not be dependent upon technological trends, but more traditional production practices. Very few candidates took the latter line and this led to some naive and superficial responses in which technological convergence was credited as very important in cases where its role was clearly limited – for example, in the success of low budget films, such as This Is England.

There was some evidence that some candidates were not appropriately prepared for question two and this was evidenced by the historical biographies offered of the media institution (eg Pinewood Studios) studied or of a particular media producer or director (Shane Meadows, This is England), on occasion, candidates simply re-wrote a history of the institution they studied

CHANNEL 4 FILMS / FILM 4

Channel 4 Films

Thanks to Warwick University for this article

Introduction

When Channel Four became the fourth terrestrial channel in 1982 (the only channels you could get then were BB1, BBC 2 & ITV) it had a brief for commissioning and showing a range of cutting edge materials which were very different to what was being shown on other channels. British film became a huge beneficiary of this policy and many films were made which appealed to quite different audiences. Many of these films became some of the best known and most financially successful films in British cinema since 1982.  This shows what a powerful influence C4 has had over the long term as it has now been operating for over 25 years. By 1984 C4 had co-produced over 20 feature films for the special slot Film on Four.
Because there was a guaranteed TV premiere for these films they could afford to take more risks in terms of both their content and their treatment of this than mainstream films. Nevertheless few of the films were about contemporary Britain. Alexander Walker (2004) correctly identifies The Ploughman's Lunch (1983) as a film which was more critical of the trends within the Thatcher government of the time to which could be added Mike Leigh's Meantime (1983) which deals with a dysfunctional London based family with everybody in it on the Dole (Income support rather than gainfully employed). this had great resonance at the time given that unemployment in the UK was approaching the 3 million mark under the Thatcher government.

Channel Four Films and the Industrial Context

In terms of costs C4 films were typically £500k-£600k at the top end, this compared with conventionally funded feature films of the time which typically cost around £3-4 million. (Walker 2004). C4 films proved attractive to filmmakers and producers because until 1985 there was a generoius system of tax write offs against production costs in which costs could be written off against profits straight away whilst films not initially targetted at TV had their cost written off over several years. This meant that in terms of risks and returns for investors funding C4 films was much lower risk in a high risk business. The Nigel Lawson budget of 1985 was to reduce this tax shelter as the government sought to ensure it got its share form the film-making business.
Whilst film-makers enjoyed the tax write offs they wanted to have their cake and eat it by having the films given a theatrical release in the cinemas first of all. Many wanted an 18 month to two year window for cinema release however David Rose the commissioning editor for fiction at Channel 4 correctly felt that this wouldn't allow C4 to build up its audiences. The reality was that these films even when they did get theatrical release didn't enter into the mainstream anyway usually being released in a small number of cinemas which were identified with the Art House circuit. From the perspective of many in the audience this acted as an artificial ckoke on the market and represented greed from the investors by tryng to squeeze every last penny out of audiences. The problem for C4 was also that the freshness and sense of the contemporary would inevitably be watered down if audiences had to wait. They might even lose interest in the film.  As a result few films had theatrical release and those that did had very limited ones. At this time there was still considerable friction between the film and TV industries. Cinema was very defensive about its major circuits of distribution and exhibition which is where the real money has been made in cinema. The distributors wanted to keeep films off TV for three years and only in the case of commercial flops were they prepared to allow them onto TV inunder three years.
Channel four was badly effected by this industry restriction on trade practices. An example cited by Walker (2004) concerns She'll be Wearing Pink Pajamas (1984) starring Julie Walters. Walters had starred in the very successful film Educating Rita (1983) only the previous year a film which she is still rembered for and consequently her fees had gone up considerably.   C4 had put up all the funding for this film coming to £950k, whilst they had planned an initial theatrical release they had intended to release it on TV as soon as possible in order to recoup their very high overheads against tax. Sadly they were unable to follow this release strategy and the film didn't justify its costs.  This is a good example of the British film industry cutting its own throat when it comes to investment in genuinely British films rather than what are effectively Hollywood ones.
During the mid 1980s the costs of video recorders was coming down considerably as was the cost of films on video and by 1990 most homes had a video-recorder. The rise of video rental shops was an important phenomena and this began to undermine the distribution industries stranglehold on film release. Piracy and fear of piracy within the industry meant films became generally available to audiences much more quickly at at more reasonable prices than before. When videos were first made of Hollywood films they cost around £50-00 each at 1980 prices.
Channel Four had been established with the aim of getting many programmes either by commisioning or buying in programmes from other companies rather than producing its programmes in house which was what both ITV and the BBC did. By 1987 24% of C4 programming was externally produced and films were a large part of this 24%. C4 had an ambitious target of co-producing 20 films per year which was beyond the resources of any other film making companies in the UK. According to Walker (2004) it had a budget of £6 million to spend on fully or part financing films. It typically invested between £250k - £300k per film buyijng in the TV rights. C4 also invested £750k per year in British Screen Finance  and another £500k per year in the BFI Production Board.  One of C4 first films The Draughtsman's  Contract (1982) was a co-production with the BFI Production Board . In the case of the last two investments funds were matched by the government which provided extra stimulaus to the industry.
By the end of 1987 C4 was producing 17/28 films per year on a £9.5 million budget. Very few of the films directly recovered their costs and to all intents and ourposes C4 remained an 'art-house' producer as the films weren't reaching mass popular audiences they had on the other hand established a good rapport with more specific audiences and can be used as an example of how audiences were beginning to fragment as more media products became available. The breakthrough films for C4 were My Beautiful Laundrette (1985), Letter to Brehznev (1985) Mona Lisa (1986). A useful boost was that these films also found an alternative audience in the United States.
By 1989 the bonanza for the film industry through TV funded film was beginning to dry up. Channel reduced its financial committment to film making reducing its annual production target down to 16 films and capping its financial committment to any one film to one third of the overall costs. The head of film at Channel Four David Rose was about to retire. He had had a considerable influence on the success of C4 Film with about £50 million spent on around 160 films up until this point. Many in the British film industry were critical of the C4 approach arguing that the small scale cutting edge film that C4 had built its reputation around was dead. They further argued that C4 had not acted as the launchpad for British cinema which they had expected instead film makers still had to find a considerable amount of finance for themselves. In all honesty this sounded like the carping on of filmmakers eager to break into the Hollywood market and get themselves fame and fortune. Pure greed and overblown egos and the hubris which has seemingly beeen present in the British film industry for decades. In the first instance if the ideas for British films were so good why shouldn't they go out and sell it to find the financial backing? People in other types of business do this all the time. Rather than looking to the amazing effect that C4 had in stimulating a distincly British type of film which was representing aspects of British society greed was the driver of these criticisms.
Walker (2004) suggests that many in the British film industry including the likes of David Puttnam and Working Title (the production company which had grown dramatically on the back of Film Four) were impatient for the bigger budget more ambitious films. TV financed films were too small in their cope and their appeal so the argument went.
Despite this criticism one Film Four success of the time was Riff-Raff (1991). There was a huge debate about whether this film should receive a theatrical release at the time. Eventually the BFI arranged some limited screenings and then Palace Pictures screened it in a range of university / art house cinemas around the country. It reached around 200 screens out of the 3,000 available in the country at the time. Walker is keen to point out the problems that independent British films had in Britian compared to releases in continental Europe:
In Europe where a culture of exhibition existed and was valued, Loach's film was a popular success, ahcieved full-scale releases in several countries and won the new European Film Award in 1992 (Walker, 2004 p 122)
In 1991  C4 decided to back the Crying Game (1992) as a co-production with Palace Pictures (Stephen Woolley) along with Miramax run by the Weinstein's. it was also backed by British screen. Overall it had what Walker described as 'an anorexic budget of £2.3 million' (Walker, 2004 p 149).

Successes of the Early Years of C4 Films: Developing New Audiences

Films that were especially successful in the early years of C4 were Letter to Brehznev (1985) and My Beautiful Laundrette (1985). My Beautiful Laundrette was a seminal film of the mid 1980s for it brought the mischievous and iconoclastic scriptwriting of Hanif Kureishi into the public eye as well as proving successful for director Stephen Frears and actor Daniel Day Lewis.
These were films that touched contemporary critical audiences in the 20 something to 30 something age ranges especially. Kureishi had been brought up on the back of sixties hippiedom then the punk rebellion and then Ken Livingstone's first GLC which had promoted festivals, events and activities by the ANL, Rock Against Racism, feminist organisations and Gay Pride. The concept of cultural industries was also developed. London and young audiences especially in larger cities around the country were keen on seeing the representations and contradictions concerning hybridity and identity which people of a critical nature were keen on debating, discussing and acting out at the time. My Beautiful Laundrette was followed up by C4 and Kureishi a couple of years later with Sammie & Rosie Get Laid (1987). Again directed by Frears and scripted by Kureishi it failed to touch the cultural moment in the way that My Beautiful Laundrette had done but at least Asian identity was now recognised in British cinema. Before My Beautiful Laundrette a large percentage of the British population  went largely unrepresented in the media. There can be little doubt that C4 Film made a significant contribution in this respect.

The 1990s under David Aukin

By 1992 the succession from David rose to David Aukin had been completed. Channel 4 had increased its average contribution to the financing of films to over 40% "but only because costs had risen, not due to optimism" asserted Alexander Walker (2004 p 154). The cost of a typical Channel Four film had risen from £400k in 1982 to £1.8 million. So much for Thatcher's stance against inflation or was it the greed of filmmakers and others in the industry which caused this 4.5 fold increase over a ten year period? Walker's explanation doesn't really add up here. However by this date C4 had part-funded nearly 250 films which is an excellent record.
It was still associated with more radical and alternative film-making for it co-produced Derek Jarman's Wittgenstein with the BFI Production Board. The film was produced by Tariq Ali and the script was written by Terry Eagleton. In 1994 C4 backed Shopping which was pitched to them as a film made with the stylishness of Luc Besson. 1994 also saw C4 become involved in part backing The Madness of King George. It starred Nigel Hawthorn and Helen Mirren and was an excellent history film which also benefitted from crossing over with costume drama thus fitting the heritage genre. However the film was dealing with an unusual and turbulent period of British history and didn't simply celebrate the successes of Britain in the past. It was a much more expensive film than was usual with its budget running in the region of £13 million. It gained good distribution in the USA and turned out to be a profitable film.
The sort of films that C4 was involved with through commissioning and / or co-production deals include
Trainspotting and Four Weddings and a Funeral. Both of these films were hugely successful although appealing to very different audiences. Trainspotting was a low budget film based upon the book of the same name which had carved itself a good niche audience. It was co-produced with Working Title and backed by the powerful Polygram filmed entertainment department. Polygram put some canny marketing into the film. Knowing it would appeal to ravers and clubbers they focused their marketing on this large niche audience which proved highly successful. As a result the film gained distribution in the USA as well although it did need sub-titles there. Four Weddings and a Funeral was a clever production which played upon aspects of national identity successfully including Scotland, however moving renderings of a W. H. Auden poem provided a double theme of national and gay identity, and the film played upon the 'naice' elements of Britishness rather than focusing upon the sort of aspects of British society apparent in Shopping and Trainspotting (ram-raiding and heroin addiction respectively). With a continuing well handled light-hearted romantic comedy audiences were won over on both sides of the Atlantic by its feel-good factor making all concerned large amounts of money and providing the breakthrough film for Hugh Grant as the quintessential 'English Gentleman'.

Channel Four Films and the Representation of Cultural Hybridity

Channel Four has had a very progressive policy when it comes to helping to fund films - and guaranteeing a scrrening of these films -  representing relatively recently ethnic groupings in the UK. These films have been far more than just about separate communities which early multicultural ideas were concerned with. The films commisioned explored and developed ideas of cultural hybridity in which there was mixing and exchange of ideas and attitudes in a complex way. My Beautiful Laundrette launched this approach which was followed by Bahji on the Beach, The Wild West and perhaps most successfully East is East which was the first British film representing hybrid and ever changing cultural and social mix in Britain to make it into mainstream multiplex cinemas. Recently Film four produced the BAFTA prizewinning film Brick Lane (2007) directed by Sarah Gavron. In this respect Channel Four has played a groundbreaking role taking a lead in developing this theme for over twenty years. It also screened the film Yasmin when it failed to gain a cinema distribution deal in 2004. As well as extending the ways in which British society is represented Channel four has thus sought to develop and win over entirely new audiences who are foar mor hybrid and cosmopolitan in their world view. It is not unreasonable to suggests that out of all the  film making institutions  operating in Britain since 1982 -when the Channel Four film arm was initiated- Channel Four has been by far and away the best in this respect. In that sense its committment to the public service broadcasting ethos perhaps means that it has earned the right to gain some of TV licence fee payers money.

1999 Film Four Dominates at Cannes

The late 1990s saw many changes in the structure of the film section of Channel Four.  FilmFour separated from Channel 4 to become a stand-alone company in 1998 (Guardian July 2002). By 1999 Film Four was at the top of its game with nine films were officially selected for the Cannes Film Festival that year although some of these were American. By the late 1990s Film Four was building on its successes but also responding to changes in the structure of TV in the UK which had seen the launch of Channel Five a few years previously and increasing numbers of digital satellite channels becoming available via Sky.  This led on to more changes  in 2001 & 2003:
In 1998 FilmFour, a specialist subscription film channel, was launched.... and in April 2001... FilmFour World and FilmFour Extreme, two further film channels, available to subscribers to FilmFour. These channels were available on ITV Digital but are not carried by Freeview, a wholly free-to-air proposition. In 2003 Film Four World and Extreme were replaced by Film Four Weekly... In May 2001 Channel 4 formally launched a new incorporated company, 4 Ventures Ltd, to manage all its film, learning and other new business activities. (ITC [now Ofcom] on C4 history)

Problems at Film Four

One of FilmFour's biggest problems has been competing for cinema space with multinational film companies, whose films account for more than two thirds of UK box office takings. FilmFour blames the poor box office results on its lack of clout in the distribution market rather than the quality of its films. (BBC on Film Four Partner Search)
2001 turned out to be rather a problematic year for Film Four. Charlotte Gray contributed to a £5.7 million loss as it was one of the most expensive films thay had made and it was a box office flop. Ever since it has become remembered for causing major financial problems at Film four however the problems were more deepseated than that.
In 2001, Film Four put out 14 films, but its releases accounted for just 0.7% of the UK box office market. (ibid)
By 2006 Film four was struggling. Its business model of pay TV on a subscription basis wasn't working, Andy Duncan C4's chief Executive announced:
The people who make money in terms of pay channels tend to be the platform owners or big rights holders. The subscriber levels that we have been getting [for FilmFour] have been very low. We believe we can make money from advertising," (Guardian report)
The actual relaunch came in July as the BBC reports:
In the process it will become the UK's largest free film channel, available to 18m homes, the broadcaster says.
Around one-quarter of the films shown on the channel will come from the UK, but they will be broken up with advertisements for the first time.
Film 4 currently appears to b doing well now it has migrated to Freeview and has taken to an advrtising model to pay for it.


Timeline of Channel Four / Film Four: Films & Events

Year Event Director of Film Arm Films Produced Director
1982 Launch of Channel Four. A separate film arm Film on Four was established.
David Rose
The Draughtsman's Contract
Angel (Danny Boy US title)
Peter Greenaway
Neil Jordan
1983

Meantime
The Ploughman's Lunch
Mike Leigh
Richard Eyre
1984



1985 The Nigel Lawson buget removed the tax shelter for C4 Films.

Letter to Brezhnev
My Beautiful Laundrette
Chris Bernard
Stephen Frears
1986

Mona Lisa
Caravaggio
Neil Jordan
Derek Jarman
1987



1988 Lawson economic boom underway



1989 Beginning of downturn in TV financed film



1990

Life is Sweet
Mike Leigh
1991 Recession in UK

Riff Raff
Ken Loach
1992 Britain forced out of the ERM
David Aukin now head of Drama at C4
Bahji on the Beach
The Crying Game
Gurindar Chadha
Neil Jordan
1993

Wittgenstein
Raining Stones
Derek Jarman
Ken Loach
1994

Four Weddings and a Funeral
Madness of King George
Shopping
Mike Newell
Nicholas Hytner
Paul Anderson
1995

Shallow Grave
Danny Boyle
1996

Secrets & Lies
Trainspotting
Brassed Off
Mike Leigh
Danny Boyle
Herman
1997
David Aukin left C4 and went to Miramax Welcome to Sarajevo
Michael Winterbottom
1998 FilmFour separated from Channel 4 to become a stand-alone company in 1998 Paul Webster an ex-vice-president of Miramax was appointed in Aukin's palce in February


1999
Film 4 "dominates Cannes" (Walker 2004 p300)
East is East Damien O'Donnell
2000

Sexy Beast Johnathan Glazer
2001 FilmFour makes loss of £5.4 million
Charlotte Gray
Lucky Break
Gillian Armstrong
Peter Catteano
2002 UK distribution and international sales departments folded.  Film production budget was slashed by two thirds to £10m.  50 staff  axed Paul Webster Chief Exec loses job Once Upon a Time in the Midlands
Shane Meadows
2003

Touching The Void
Bright Young Things
Kevin MacDonald
Stephen Fry
2004



2005



2006
February 8th Film Four leaves pay TV and goes onto Freeview


2007



2008



2009



2010





Webliography

BBC: How Film Four lost the plot (Useful audio clips available here)

Monday, 30 April 2012

TV EXAM PRACTICE 'Fingersmith' Jan 2012

Today we go over your analysis of 'Fingersmith', done for holiday prep.
Remember to use the GRID form the Study Day at Rich Mix!

Extract: Fingersmith
1    Discuss the ways in which the extract constructs the representation of class and status using the following:
•    Camera shots, angles, movement and composition • Editing • Sound •    Mise en scène.

Representation
Confident candidates were able to analyse the ways in which the extract attempted to position the audience in relation to Maud and Sue and the sexual/romantic relations between the two often embedded in a discussion of desire, passion and emotion. This relationship was often juxtaposed with Sue’s relationship with Richard and how this was secretive in terms of her feelings of falling in love with Maud. The most able candidates showed maturity in terms of understanding the delicacy of homosexuality in a rather more sexually repressed era, alongside a good range of examples connecting the technical elements in a consistent and focused way.
Frequently, candidates were able to identify a ‘love triangle’, the power relationship of Richard as heterosexual with Sue’s hidden love for Maud. As a result candidates were able to explore the nuances of the representation of sexuality, in relation to the micro technical aspects used. Stronger responses also showed a good grasp of the ambivalent nature of the representation of sexuality in past Victorian times and contemporary society. There was plenty of evidence that candidates understood the representation of sexuality with a variety of interpretations, for example: homosexuality as taboo, as stereotypical/counter stereotypical and how the character Sue had desire for Maud as opposed to rejection of the heterosexual male Richard.
Those candidates that did less well with the analysis of representation focussed on a discussion of gender and power, rather than sexuality, or at times had basic or minimal understanding of the concept of sexuality, as if they were not fully prepared for the topic. Lesser achieving candidates used sweeping generalisations such as ‘most lesbians are usually quite masculine, but this lesbian was feminine’ or ‘men are dominant over women’ rather than entering into any deeper discussions about the representations presented to the audience.
Camera Shot, Angle and Composition
Most candidates used the correct terminology and could identify shot composition, movement, framing, and angles in relation to each of the characters and their situations and link these to the construction of sexuality. Better responses identified the use close up shots and framed composition of Sue’s desire for Maud, taking place in the country home and on location with the held shots of Maud in an artistic pose. Candidates could also discuss the oppositions constructed between Sue and Richard; for example, in discussion of the shot composition of Richard’s aggressive advances towards Sue, which strengthened their analysis. Common errors made by candidates with terminology included the use of the term ‘twin shot’ instead of two shot. Lesser able candidates were able to describe key shots used in exemplification, but they tended to lack explicit links to how these shots assisted in the construction of the representation of sexuality. These candidates would also tend to focus on just identifying the narrative flow of the extract through the naming of the shots. There was also a common tendency to discuss the camera zooming when in fact it is tracking or cutting closer to a particular action.
Mise en scene
The majority of candidates discussed this area with confidence. Location, character appearance and body language were all handled well. Some analysis of colour symbolism was less successful because it tended to be based on assumptions, which could not be substantiated from the sequence. There is still a tendency for candidates to treat colour palettes and lighting deterministically as if whites, reds, blacks and shadows always carry the same meanings irrespective of context. Stronger responses offered analysis in the context of the extract, for example, with the symbolism of the glove and the hovering of Sue’s hand over Maud’s body suggesting that the act itself was taboo or forbidden.
Sound
The analysis of sound is continuing to improve with candidates attempting to link music with the representation of the characters. Music was generally well recognised and analysed with better candidates linking the slow paced, stringed music to heighten the sense of desire that existed within the female character Sue, whilst painting the portrait of Maud. There seemed to be more confident use of terminology in relation to soundtrack this session. Many candidates were proficient in analysing diegetic/non diegetic sound (although at times there was a common error by candidates in getting this correct). The importance of the ambient sounds and soundbridges were analysed by candidates, in relation to how meaning is constructed, particularly in the use of change of tempo upon Richard’s dramatic actions in the rural scene where he forces Sue into declaring her love for him. Candidates made frequent reference to the dialogue in the extract, especially the use of the voiceover at the beginning of the extract. Candidates understood the voiceover technique and it’s dual function of illustrating the forbidden nature of sexuality and its use to position the audience sympathetically in relation to the protagonist defying social convention. Most candidates used this voiceover to establish the relations between the two women in the Victorian country house.

Editing
Editing remains the most challenging area for analysis, although there were some encouraging signs in that fewer candidates this session seemed to leave this area out altogether. There were some strong analyses of the ways in which the editing created perspective within the sequence, helping us to understand the privileging of the gay relationship or the contrast between the editing style depicting the softer, more romantic relationship between the women and the coercive nature of heterosexuality on show. Many candidates misnamed the dissolves used in the sequence as fades or wipes, but were able to discuss how they implied connections between the various scenes shown.
Candidates often engaged well with the nuances of editing and the ways in which the use of long and short takes represented power and how eye line matches were used to reinforce a sense of dominance, for example between Richard as dominant heterosexual male and Sue’s rejection of him. There was consistent reference to the editing transitions and the use of ellipsis editing for the narrative sequence, which unravels, and links made to soundbridges and pacing in the extract.