Film Industry



To what extent does digital distribution affect the marketing and consumption of media products?

Digital distribution has created a huge proliferation in terms of the way films are advertised within the film industry, and to how they are consumed. It is clear however that this market is dominated by the big worldwide conglomerates due to their vast budgets and the backroom team.

There is evidence throughout the industry which suggests that digital distribution plays a key role. Perhaps most notably over recent years, an example would be star trek (Directed by J J Abrahams, produced by Paramount). Released in 2009, star trek achieved worldwide fame, and quickly become one of the highest selling films of its generation. Digital distribution played a key role in promotion of film. In the early phases of distribution, the film teamed with companies such as burger king and IMDB, and used them as an outlet for marketing. Furthermore, convergence played a key role in digital distribution through social networking sites. A face book page for the film was soon created, in order to promote the film, offering screen shots and short clips for the film. This opened up the film to a whole new audience, as they attempted to widen the target audience of the film, and move away from the film, and move away from the generic ‘geeky’ audience that star trek is known to have.

A further example of convergence was the release of user interactive software. Most notably was the star trek video game, which was released shortly before the film, appealing to the video game fans. Convergence was also used in conjunction with apple, who produced an application for use on apple software, as a form of user interaction with the film.

Convergence has played a key role in marketing, and is quickly becoming the main source of digital distribution in the film market. A recent example of convergence in the promotion of film through music videos. Recording artist plan b recently released a song titled ‘il manors’ to coincide with the promotion of his upcoming feature film. The video achieved worldwide publicity, soon reaching several million views, and achieving a wide range of publicity for the film.

Digital distribution is quickly becoming the prime way in which the distribution of film is taken place. In addition to the vast available audience, digital distribution by the advantage of offering identical versions of the film to each viewer, saving millions at the phase of distributions.

The digital consumption of film through cinema has significantly changed the way we view film. Perhaps the most notably change in the cinemas has been the transition from 2D to 3D. This transition has attracted vast new audiences to the cinema, perhaps most notably due to the fact that 3D perhaps most notably due to the fact that 3D cannot be experienced through piracy, which was the main cause in the reduction of film viewing. In addition to the exhibition of film, the distribution of film was revolutionised with all introduction of 3D. The film avatar, directed by James Cameron, played hugely on the fact that the film was in 3D. Avatar was one of the first big films released in 3D, and so the appeal to it was vast, and this lead to it becoming one of the most successful films of all time.

To conclude, it is clear digital distribution is vital in terms of marketing and consuming of specific media, especially when aired at a vast global audience. Despite this however, success is still evident without the vast budget required for digital distribution, to allow the success of minor film companies, with their success more spending on free services, including word of the mouth and more specially for the kings speech – the royal wedding. 


‘Successful media products depend as much upon marketing and distributing to a specific audience as they do upon good production practices’ to what extent do you agree with this statement?
Each stage of film production plays a key role in determining the success of a film. Without each individual stage being successful, it is likely that a film will not be successful, perhaps none more so than the production and distribution.
The first stage of film creation is pre-production, which involves the original story and script being developed. This stage allows for the film to take shape. It is clear that without this process, or if this process is not partaken correctly, it is unlikely that a film will be successful. Films are often successful based on several things; the quality of film, the actors involved, and if the type of marketing used is appealing. Both the story and actors are chosen in this stage. Due to this, it is clear that this stage hails as great significance in film production.
The second stage of the film creation process is production. In this stage, the film will be recorded and made. This stage again is hugely significant because in this stage the main bulk of the film will be recorded.  The quality of this stage however is hugely significant, and this is what will often prevent films from being successful. Films cost a large sum of money to create. This fact may be considered the reason as to why many films from the BFI do not do as well as films from Hollywood. However, this does not mean that a film cannot be successful without a large budget. An example of a film which had a budget of only $15 million is the kings speech, however it is the American conglomerates which dominate this industry with films often getting budgets of over $100,000 with films such as Harry Potter and the deathly hallows, which was produced by Warner bros, albeit produced in cooperation with HeyDay films, a British company. The American industry is generally dominated by big production companies, often referred to as ‘The Big Six’ which generally allows for a larger budget and generally a more successful film.
The third stage of film creation is distribution, which again plays a huge role in the success of a film. In this stage, the film is marketed to its target audience. In this stage, money becomes even more important, which again can attribute to the dominance of American Film. An excellent example of distribution can be seen from the film Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, which began the  distribution phase prior to even production was complete. Around a year prior to its release, a teaser for the film was released. Following this, several posters began to surface, with the sell line ‘It all Ends’. The film benefitted greatly from the success of previous films in the series, instantly recognising ‘it all ends’ is related to the much anticipated finale in the series in which the main antagonist would finally meet his end, something that he been built up since the beginning of the series. A trailer was released several months prior to the film, and was originally aired prior to showings of ‘Pirates of the Caribbean; On stranger tides’, which allowed for it to be seen by a vast audience of film fans. Along with paid services the film also utilised free services. This involved the vast media coverage allocated for the film, as well as the general excitement for the finale of the film, as well as the general excitement for the finale of the film, which made the film exceptionally easy to market at a British audience. During the films creation, a harry potter theme park was also commissioned, increasing the excitement for the film, which is an example of synergy.
However a large budget does not always mean a successful film. An example of this would be ‘The Boat that Rocked’, which although had fairly well known actors and a fairly large budget, the film strugged to make any from profit from the film, which leads to its complete rebranding for the release in America.
The final stage of film creation is exhibition, which involves the actual release of this film. Harry Potter, due to its marketing campaign was an incredible success at the box office.  The film was originally going to be released in 2D, however this was later changed to 3D in order to further appeal to a larger audience, a prime example of convergence. The film opened up on the 15th of july to over 400 cinemas in the UK alone. Tickets for the midnight release were sold out after being sold over a 7 month period. This lead to a final grossing of over 1 billion dollars, and becoming the 3rd highest grossing film of all time. The kings speech ended up requiring more cinemas than originally proposed after its highly successful opening weekend. 
To conclude, it can be argued that the production of a film plays the biggest role in determining the success of a film, however I believe that if a successful marketing campaign is achieved, as in Harry Potter, the film can achieve outstanding success unlike a film such as the boat that rocked, which failure is often attributed to poor marketing campaign among other things. Although a solid production process is required in order to make a successful film, I personally think that a film can sell based on its marketing  campaign alone. 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Discuss the issues raised by media ownership in the production and exchange of media texts in film
The film production process is a long and complicated phase. There are 4 stages to this process; Pre-Production, Production, Distribution, and Exhibition. The American film industry in particular is a hugely successful industry. Universal pictures are considered one of the ‘Big 6’ competitors in the industry.  Universal is owned by GE, which is the 2nd largest company on the planet, and co-owned by Comcast, which is the largest telecommunications company in the US. Although it is not at the scale of the American industry, the British film industry is still very significant. An example of a key British film company would be The Weinstein Company. There are some key differences between the developments of films in each of the different industries.
Firstly, and perhaps the most significant of the differences in the budget that is available for film production. Often, the budget allocated for American films far out way the budget given for British films.  For example, ‘Fast and Furious’ (2009), produced by universal pictures had a budget of $85 million, and ‘Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows’ (2011) had the overall budget $125 million. This is hugely significant when compared to most British films, such as ‘The Kings Speech’  (2011) published by the Weinstein Company, which had the small budget of $15 Million, and ‘The Iron Lady’ (2012), which had a budget of $13 million. The budget of a film plays a significant part in the quality of a film. A higher budget allows for the use of much more special effects and use of higher quality equipment for the film production process, which in turn allows for a much more eye pleasing film. Perhaps the most important factor of having a large budget however that is it allows for better and better renowned actors to play key roles in the films. For example, for Johnny Depp to feature in ‘Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides’, he was paid around $50 million. The inclusion of these well known actors are hugely important for the sale value of a film, as often people will go and see a film based specifically on the actors that are playing the key roles.  It is worth noting however that higher budgets are guaranteed to make a film successful, in the same way that a low budget film cannot be more successful than a film that has a high budget. For example, even though the Kings Speech only had a budget of $15 million, it produced a total of $414,211,549 in the box office – whereas Fast and Furious, despite having a budget of $85 million, it generated less money in the box office, with a revenue of $363,164,265.            
The budget of a film does not only include the production process. It also includes the distribution and exhibition processes.  Exhibition is the process of getting the film into the cinema. A key difference between the two industries is that most multiplex cinema’s are American dominated. Most multiplexes buy mostly American films, compared to a very small proportion of British films. An example of the bi-passing of a British film was Slum dog Millionaire (2008), directed by British director Danny Boyle. The film was being shown as early as mid 2007 in film festivals around the globe; however it wasn’t until late 2008 until it was recognised as the incredible film that it was, and it was purchased by Warner Bros, that it was released in America, and it wasn’t until 2009 that it was released in America. This is a prime example of the fact that often English films are simply ignored and are stereotyped as being inferior to the creations of the American film industry. This film went on to win a whole host of awards,  including 4 golden globes, 10 academy awards, and 7  Baftas – which further signifies its success, and the mistake the multiplexes would have made if they had ignored the film.
This lack of recognition could widely be down to the lack of budget allocated and available for British film. The majority of a budget and perhaps the most important phase of film creation is the distribution phase, which involves getting the film out there and getting people interested in it. Due to the limited budget of $15 million allowed for the film, this was simply not possible. It was only down to global film festivals that the film was noticed and eventually released to the public, which is only one phase of distribution.
Distribution is perhaps the area that suffers most from a lack of budget, but at the same time, it is perhaps the most important phase of creation. The budget allocated to American films is often so great that the smaller British companies simply cannot compete and this means that they just cant get their film out there. Without the forms of distribution such as television adverts, posters, and recognition in news articles or film magazines, there is simply no way that smaller film companies can get their films out there, especially with the huge saturation seen in the current film market, even if you have something new and fresh, it is hard for it to be recognised.
Forms of distribution are one thing that remain similar between the two industries. In the case of most American films, the film will be promoted for up to a year, through the use of posters,  trailers, magazine interviews and previews/reviews, and this is then followed by the formal release of the film in a multiplex cinema, such as Odeon or VUE. If the British film has the budget, it will also take the same process, however, in some cases it may revert straight to a digital copy, as opposed to going through a cinema. If a film has been in the cinema, it will remain there for up to 2-3 months, and then after a short while it will be available for sale digitally.
There are several ways in which a film will be distributed digitally. The first and perhaps the most used is through the use of a DVD (Formally a VHS). This method is fairly simple and involves a simple purchase of a physical copy and then it can be played in a DVD player. HD  Films and Blue-ray films have over recent years become part of this process also, and they in turn offer higher quality for a slightly raised price. Post-Cinema release films may also be sold without the use of a digital copy. Companies such as Netflix and certain digital-DVD downloading websites have recently come to the foreground, offering the film digitally as opposed to physically for a set price. This copy is then saved onto your computer and you can play it whenever you want. Physical copies are generally more popular than these digital copies though, however.  Following this post-cinema release, the film may then further be released onto television. Firstly through services such as ‘Sky Box Office’, in which you pay a fee of around £3 for a viewing of a film on the television a single time. This is often used simply because it is painless and easy to do, as opposed to going to buy a physical copy. This may then be followed by a standard-TV release, in which the film is shown for free on certain TV channels, such as Channel 4. Often by this time however, the film is 3-4 years old.
Piracy has become a significant issue in the distribution of films. This is where someone will somehow get a copy of a film, prior, during or after the release of a film and post it on the internet, for anyone who should find it to be able to download it onto their computers. This has become an issue for each form of digital media, including Video Games, and more significantly – music. Piracy has a huge effect on the film industry, as a large percentage of the sales that would otherwise have been made through the sales of physical/digital copies of a film are downloaded for free, with no royalty given to the companies who created the film. Even though this service is against the law, many people still do it. It is thought to be costing the British film industry alone over £500m a year, of which could have been invested in creating higher quality film. In response to piracy, companies such as Warner Bros are beginning to set up more readily accessible websites in order for someone to digitally purchase a film over the internet.
Another difference that can be seen between the two industries is the companies that are dominating them. In the American industry, there are generally considered to be 6 main companies (Known as the ‘Big 6’), these are; Universal Pictures, Warner Brothers, Paramount, Walt Disney, Columbia Pictures, and 20th century fox. These 6 companies are the 6 that generally are renowned for making American movies, whereas most of the other companies in America cannot really get recognised, as the industry is so widely dominated by these 6. However, in the British industry, most of the companies are on an equal playing field. There is no particularly dominant company that prevents smaller ones from getting recognised.  This could be considered a positive for the British film industry, as can always have a long list of companies t hat are making films of a similar quality, whereas the American industry focuses on the ‘Big 6’. However, at the same time, the British film industry is living in the shadow of the American one, just as the smaller companies behind the ‘Big 6’ are in America, so the dominance of the American industry is still relevant.
To conclude,  there are several key issues and differences between the roles of the British and American film industries.  The distribution phase of film creation is considered the most important, and without a significant budget, this process simply cannot be done to a high enough standard, which truly prevents films getting the expose that they require, which is a significant issue within the British film industry.  Although the American industry is much more successful than the British, it has its issues too, much like Britain – many companies are getting ignored and are unable to generate the popularity that is dominated between the ‘Big 6’ – and with issues such as piracy playing a huge role in the profits films are making, it is hard to see much of an improvement in the quality of film, especially in the case of British film.


Discuss the ways in which media products are produced and distributed to audiences within a media area you have studied
Production and distribution are two of the most important stages in film creation. During  production, the video production/film is created and shot. More crew will be recruited at this stage, such as the assistant directors, picture editors, and sound editors. Distribution is  the Process in which a film is made available to the public. Generally, during this phase,  several methods are undertaken in order to gain expose for the film, such as the forms of media seen below. Cast will often also get involved, holding interviews and book signings ect in order to gain publicity for the film.
Often, two separate (or more) companies are used for each of these processes. Production is the 2nd stage of film creation. This is process in which the film is created. The production of media products differs greatly depending on the industry in which the film is being created. In the uk for example, production is very different to that in the US. The main difference between the industries production values is the budget made available for production between the two industries. Often, the budgets made available for American films are much higher than UK films. There is several reasons for this. Firstly, the actors used in American films are far superior to that of English industries and any up and coming English actors that come through are being persuaded by money to go and work in Hollywood.
Prior to production being carried out, pre-production takes place. In this stage, the story and script are written out, as well as a list of actors and settings are decided.  In addition, many of the background staff are employed during this stage. Often much of this work is done by the director. In the case of my case study, The Boat that Rocked, the director, Richard Curtis,  wrote up the original story and script, as well as using a popular production British film company, working title films, to produce the film.
Perhaps the main portion of production is the shooting of the film. In this stage, the selected setting is used and often, if a setting cannot be found in the real world, it will be re-created in a studio, using Gimbals.  Often there can be many problems with recording, such as lack of props. In the boat that rocked, it took the producers over 6 months to find an appropriate boat to use. Production can also be difficult due to issues during filming. Many scenes had to be deleted from The boat that rocked due to them being recorded outside, and so it is hard to account for natural changes, such as shade caused by the sun, or general shade movement, which can cause key issues
Following production, distribution takes place. This is the process of getting the film out there to the public. This is the most important stage of film making, and often the stage that most of the budget is direct towards. Forms of promotion like trailers, posters, teasers and articles are some of the main forms of distribution, and it is in this stage that the distributor will aim to build hype for the film. This can be the make or break stage for a film. If a film has not got the budget to successfully attract attention, it will not do well at the box office. This is another key difference as to why British films are not as successful compared to America n films. Budgets for American films are much higher than British films (EG; Sherlock Holmes $130 Million), and for this reason, much more of their budget is available for distribution.
 Again, the boat that rocked can be used as an example for the change in success between the two industries, and truly highlights the power of distribution. The boat that rocked was released on April 1st in the UK. It made around £10 million in its opening 3 months in the cinema. Due to this, the film was considered a failure in the UK, as they were expecting a much higher profit especially after the effort put into the film, in finding specific locations rather than only using a studio.
7 Months later, the film was released in America. It had been completely rebranded, under the title ‘Pirate Radio’. The distribution rights had been sold to American company Focus Films, and budget was added to re-distribute the film in America. Feedback was taken from the failings of the UK film, and over 30 minutes of the film were deleted in order to shorten the films duration. Following its re-branding and re-distribution the film was released in North America, and it made $36 million in its opening weekend, a huge improvement on what was seen in the UK box office.  This was all in addition to the huge piracy problem the film had, after it was leaked online just following its UK release
Due to this evidence, it is clear that both processes are very important. Without either process, a film would be unable to succeed. Each industry has its own methods of producing and distributing, and The boat that rocked is a prime example of the success both sections can have if done correctly.























































What's wrong and what's right with the British film industry? 

In my opinion, there are both positive factors to take out of the British film industry. An example of a positive factor is that there are films being produced that are successful Over recent years especially, several films have been produced that in some cases have gone on to be the most popular and highest profiting films of the year. An example of this would be The Kings Speech.  The Kings Speech ended up making over £250 million at the box office. This is an example of the fact that the British film industry is still producing quality films, from a range of different companies . This again, I see as a positive. In America, there is a ‘Big 6’, to which most films are created by. Differently however, in the British film industry, no one film company takes precedence over the rest.  This is a positive because this allows for all film companies to have an equal chance to get recognised and be formally released in the box office.

This however, could be considered a negative. The lack of dominant companies means that each of the companies are equally unknown. There is no standout company which people can recognise when discussing the British film industry that can be considered to always produce great films. Where America has companies such as Warner Bros. And universal studios, the British film industry has a number of unknown companies. This dominance of American companies also has a huge impact on budget. Budget is the most important factor of weather a film is going to be successful. Without a strong budget, it is very hard for a company to distribute a film, and allow for it to be recognised in the industry. Differently, in America films can have huge budgets. For example, the kings speech, although it was successful, it had only an £8 million budget, something which is common for British film, and this films story was fairly low budget, and this was an exception to the norm of British film. This is different to the American film industry, as films such as Sherlock Holmes have budgets of $140 million, far out waying that which can be afforded by the British industry. This budget is also hugely affecting the actors that are available to us. Actors such as Orlando Bloom and Kiera Knightly, are not featuring in British film, because of the idea of huge budgets and pay-outs for appearing in American film, which the British cannot afford to compete with, especially with the disillusion of the British film council.

To conclude, I think that there are some serious issues with the British film industry. The lack of budgeting plays a huge part in its quality of production, as well as the efficiency of distribution, which plays a huge part in the profit that can be made for the film. Although it is worth noting that there are some key exceptions to the success of the majority in the industry, It is still clear that the American industry and bollywood far out way the English


The UK’s leading film organisations respond to the Film Policy Review chaired by Chris Smith.

BFI

Against the backdrop of a record year for British film and film talent, we welcome this report which rightly places audiences at the heart of future UK film policy. The BFI has enjoyed a fruitful dialogue with Chris Smith, the panel, and with the industry, as we have all engaged with the development of this report which looks at the film sector completely in the round. We share the exciting ambition to drive a vibrant and prosperous future for British film and offer audiences excellence and choice. We look forward to considering the recommendations in the report and the Government’s response to it. The recommendations will help inform and define the BFI’s forward plan in support of the whole film sector.

BRITISH FILM COMMISSION

Adrian Wootton, chief executive of the British Film Commission and Film London, said: “I welcome Lord Smith’s report and look forward to working with the DCMS and the BFI to fully consider and implement its findings. I am delighted to see the report recognises the important work of the British Film Commission in attracting inward investment films to the UK and firmly recommends that this should be sustained and developed. And with regards to international strategy, I believe this is an area with much scope for growth and I relish the opportunity to work with our partners the BFI and the industry to drive it forward.”
Iain Smith, chair of the British Film Commission, said: “The recommendations in the Film Policy Review show an understanding that ambitious, big budget, international movies choosing to shoot in the UK play a significant role in supporting our domestic industry as well as helping to build a world-class skilled workforce, while also generating vital income for the economy. I believe that if the UK successfully services the international industry, it plays an important role in helping to develop our home grown talent and supporting a healthy and growing domestic industry. Quite simply the UK’s highly skilled film-making talent represent some of the best in the business; they are one of the UK’s greatest assets and something we must value and ensure we support and maintain.”

SKILLSET

Skillset’s Chief Executive, Dinah Caine, said: “We are delighted the panel has acknowledged that ‘skills and talent provides the backbone which underpins the success of the entire film sector in the UK’. We also welcome the recognition that a strategy for skills will ensure that our skills base continues to act as ‘a powerful incentive for inward investment, and that the indigenous film sector is able to maximise benefits to audiences’.”
The report acknowledges the successes of Skillset’s work since 1997, responding to recommendations from the previous film policy review, ‘A Bigger Picture’. Through the industry training levy, the Skills Investment Fund (SIF), and the UK film skills strategy, A Bigger Future, Skillset has achieved fundamental changes within the industry, supporting the development of accessible and affordable training and education and encouraging greater transparency.
As well as praising a ‘gold standard’ film skills strategy, the panel recognises Skillset’s role and successes working with the wider Creative Industries, where it enjoys strong industry engagement and support. In addition, the panel acknowledges the significant co-investment that Skillset has secured and the quality of their delivery.
“Today’s report makes a clear recommendation for the BFI and Skillset to build on the solid foundations of our work to maintain our industry’s competitive position in a digital age,” Caine said. “We look forward to working with the BFI, industry and all our partners to respond to all of the recommendations and develop the next phase of our UK film skills strategy.”

FILM EXPORT UK

Stephen Kelliher, the chair of Film Export UK and co-founder of Bankside Films said: “We congratulate Lord Smith and his review group for creating a comprehensive and forward-thinking policy document. Film Export UK is glad that the review acknowledges the vital role that sales companies perform in relation to the international success of British films. It is unfortunate that export is not the subject of any specific conclusions but we do welcome the recommendation that the BFI “produces and implements a robust, cohesive international strategy” and we look forward to fully engaging with it. Areas that we feel we can meaningfully inform include digital innovation, joint-ventures, piracy and the expansion of audiences through the development of new distribution platforms. As “the bedrock of this export sector” our view is that the role of our twenty-nine member companies will be absolutely integral to ensuring the success of British film with global audiences.”

PACT

The proposals will help UK companies and creatives to share in the success of UK produced films giving them access to much needed revenues which can be re-invested in UK originated feature films. This will in the long term lead to a more economically sustainable independent sector who will be not only be able to attract some of the worlds best talent but also new sources of investment.
Pact calls on then Government to support these proposals and on the BFI to move quickly to implement them and work with the industry to ensure it’s long term future.
John McVay, Pact chief executive, said “Creating British businesses that can invest in British films benefits everyone – producers, writers, directors, actors and crews, and, ultimately, provides a richer, more diverse range of films for British audiences.”

FILM DISTRIBUTORS’ ASSOCIATION

Lord David Puttnam, president of the Film Distributors’ Association: “Chris Smith and his Film Policy Review team have produced an important and well-rounded report at what is a critical time for the film industry, and we at the FDA very much welcome their recommendations for the future growth and development of UK film. 2011 was a high water mark for British films, not just because of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2, The King’s Speech and The Inbetweeners, all of which broke records on their UK theatrical releases, but also because of the range and quality of British films in distribution throughout the year from Senna to Johnny English Reborn, We Need to Talk About Kevin to Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Submarine to Arthur Christmas, and many more.
“While this success should be celebrated and built upon, the film business is risky, and there are no guarantees for distributors or the producers they are representing - hence the importance of a public film policy that emphasises and examines the conditions needed to nurture and stimulate growth for film. The audience is clearly at the heart of the review and we welcome the key strategic recommendation that the BFI should balance the needs of distribution with those of production when prioritising the investment of Lottery funding for initiatives such as the proposed Joint Venture Fund, and the R&D Fund for digital innovation.
“This is smart, joined-up thinking which should stand UK audiences in good stead.  We further welcome the acknowledgement that the P&A Fund has been effective at connecting break-out films with British cinemagoers, and how important it is that this Fund be extended. We very much look forward to working with the BFI to ensure these recommendations are fully and comprehensively realised.
“’Digital’ offers new opportunities for film makers and their audiences, as well as a whole set of new challenges for the industry. 
“We welcome the review’s acknowledgement of the fundamental issues for film distributors that arise, in particular, on break-out or limited releases, where the costs of keeping films on digital screens can be higher.  If the audience for film is to grow and develop, it is important that there is sufficient flexibility in the digital value chain to maintain and develop the hugely diverse range of films that are brought to market - today and in future. 
“Finally, I hope the review will trigger a series of bold new steps in embedding the role of film in education. The Report’s clear message that everyone should have the opportunity to engage with film, and that watching, exploring, understanding and creating film is important for young people and the audience as a whole, is as admirable as it is welcome.”

BRITISH VIDEO ASSOCIATION

Lavinia Carey, Director General of the British Video Association: “The Review is an important first step in assuring the future of the British film industry. If the industry is to continue to play its role in the country’s cultural life it is essential that the Government acts to create the right conditions such as encouraging the roll out of superfast broadband and investing in British skills.  Most importantly, it is imperative that the Government’s current review of copyright does not weaken copyright law and inadvertently introduce uncertainty in a market where raising investment for British productions is already a challenge for independent film makers by reducing the value of video entertainment – so important to the financial eco-system of our film industry.
“British films dominated the UK video entertainment chart in 2011. Without being able to rely on this income, those films would not have been made.  BVA research shows that on average 47% of the revenue generated for film in the UK comes from video entertainment. We therefore welcome Lord Smith’s recommendations to ensure the sustainability of the UK’s film industry.”

CREATIVE ALLIANCE (PACT, DIRECTORS UK and WRITERS GUILD OF GREAT BRITAIN)

[We] welcome the Film Policy Review report’s emphasis on growth and its recognition of the crucial importance of producers, writers and directors to sustain a plural and commercially viable film economy.
We welcome the review’s clear intention to move film funding towards the creative entrepreneur, incentivising success across a range of British films, and serving a wide variety of audiences and tastes.
Much work is now needed – this is a transformational point and will require all stakeholders to be prepared to think creatively and radically about how to shape the future. To that end, producers, directors and writers have joined together in the Filmmakers’ Alliance to jointly move forward on the opportunities presented by the Report, and in particular how funds earmarked for reinvestment in future film development and production should be accessed and deployed.
Finally we thank Lord Smith and the entire Review panel and support team for their hard work and urge a fast track route to the adoption of the key proposals. To that end we look forward to working with the BFI to put these dynamic proposals into practice.

CHANNEL 4

Channel 4 welcomes any recommendations that support the British film industry, so it is positive to see detailed recommendations emerging across the spectrum of film sectors and disciplines in the Film Policy Review.  
With an annual budget of £15 million Film4 continues to be one of the major investors of the British film industry, with a remit to invest in high quality films with cinema audience appeal and to support the development of creative filmmaking talent. The past year has seen investment in a wide range of titles, from mainstream box office successes such as The Inbetweeners and The Iron Lady; to critically-acclaimed debut features from exciting new talent such as Tyrannosaur, Submarine and Attack the Block; and new films from some of our most distinctive British filmmakers including Danny Boyle, Kevin Macdonald, Steve McQueen, Andrea Arnold and Terence Davies. 
Channel 4 also has a commitment to showcasing British films; broadcasting them on Channel 4, the dedicated Film4 channel and on-demand service 4OD. We are also committed to sharing film knowledge to our audiences through specialist programming such as Film4’s recent British Connection season and More4’s The Story of Film: An Odyssey series, and through our dedicated film website Film4.com.
We look forward to reading the report’s recommendations in detail, and continuing to play our part in the future of this thriving industry.

FILM: 21st CENTURY LITERACY

[A group of film education organisations that works across British Film Institute (BFI), Film Club, Film Education, First Light and Skillset]
Kate O’Connor, Chair of Film: 21st Century Literacy said: “The importance of supporting and developing film education is central to many of the report’s recommendations for developing and sustaining a successful UK industry and film culture.  
“Film is already playing a crucial role in education within and outside of the curriculum in helping young people to learn about film, as well as from film, and to develop a range of skills which will help them gain employment in many different industries as well as film and the creative sector. 
“We welcome the review’s proposal that the work of Film: 21 Century Literacy should be developed further to deliver a 10-year vision for film education linked into audience development, and to coordinate the work of the film education organisations into a single offer which brings together making, watching and learning about film.  In addition, by being able to provide a one-stop destination, film education services and resources will be more widely accessible to schools, teachers and young people, the next generation of audiences, filmmakers and citizens. We look forward to working closely with the BFI to realise these recommendations.”

FILMCLUB

FILMCLUB welcomes the importance placed in the Review on education and the recommendation that a curated engagement with film be made available in every school. FILMCLUB has found that a regular weekly interaction with film helps young people interpret the world around them and represents memorable learning. Our evaluations have found it also increases communication skills, literacy, confidence, engagement with school and motivation to learn. 
The current infrastructure of a digital platform to support film clubs in schools has proven to be a low cost method of delivering cultural engagement at scale.  We would like to see the recommendation for a coordinated approach to explore and enjoy film build on activity that has been proven to be effective. 
There is firm evidence that if young people are encouraged to engage with film on a regular basis they will become consumers of film in adult life. FILMCLUB - which currently has close to 250,000 young people meeting each week to watch, discuss and review film – has seen a dramatic impact on audience development. The recommendation in the Review, which calls for the widest possible range of audiences to have access to a broad and rich range of film, is therefore welcomed. 
Mark Higham, FILMCLUB chief executive, said: “We are excited about the opportunity the Review presents for the role of film in education and the recognition that this should be available in every school in the UK. FILMCLUB is nurturing a new generation of passionate film-hungry young people who will act as vital consumers and audiences contributing to the positive health of the UK film industry and exhibition sector. We look forward to working with the BFI and other industry partners to deliver the goals of the Review.”

CREATIVE ENGLAND

Creative England welcomes the findings of the Film Policy Review and its view that good strategy for the film industry must start with the audience, which is to say the public. 
We welcome the Review’s recognition that British audiences want the chance to see more British films and its recognition that the brilliant creative talent that drives our industry can be found in every part of the country, not just London.
We welcome the Review’s recognition of Creative England’s role in building new talent and new businesses for the future.
We welcome the recognition that talent and diversity of talent are best served when strategic and funding decisions made as close to the beneficiaries as possible - an acknowledgment of our role in connecting what happens locally with what happens nationally.
Finally, we welcome the recognition that partnership and innovation must be encouraged and that we need more research, better analysed, if the British film industry is to thrive in the multi-platform future.
Creative England Chairman John Newbigin said: “These are solid and practical recommendations to Government that will be good for creative talent and good for audiences in every part of the country, not just London.  We look forward to working in partnership with the BFI to make them happen.”
Creative England CEO Caroline Norbury said: “We are encouraged to see so many of the suggestions that Creative England made to the Film Policy Review reflected in the independent panel’s report and recommendations to government. Many of these views were expressed to us by the regional film industry during our own consultation in 2011; for example the importance of supporting a diverse range of talent at a local level, wherever it comes from, and the need to balance Lottery spend across the country.
“We are heartened to see recognition of best practise demonstrated by key regional initiatives that Creative England is now seeking to build on, such as provision of local mentoring and expertise,  microbudget initiatives such as iFeatures, support for cross art venues and creative networks, and the achievements of the Screen Heritage UK initiative. We look forward to working with the BFI and key partners across the UK to put these recommendations into practise.”

WOMEN IN FILM AND TV

WFTV Chief Executive, Kate Kinninmont, said: “We are excited by the panel’s review and look forward to seeing how the government and BFI respond. It was reassuring to see the panel acknowledged that only 12% of writers and 13% of directors of British films are female and we look forward to working with industry partners to continue to address this.”

WFTV also finds it encouraging that the panel highlighted the importance of training to ensure that the UK’s workforce continue to be amongst the most highly skilled in the world. Kinninmont added: “with women still a minority in many of the craft and technical roles, such as sound, camera and lighting, we hope that the report’s recommendations may lead to more initiatives to encourage women to enter these fields.”

THE CHILDREN’S MEDIA FOUNDATION

In particular the CMF welcomes the new focus on children’s films, support for animation and the invigoration of the film education policy and practice.
Anna Home OBE, Chair of the Childrens’ Media Foundation, formerly CEO of the Children’s Film and Television Foundation and Head of Children’s Programmes at the BBC, said: 
“A Future for British Film” stresses the importance of the children’s and family audience, and recognises that it is underserved by the tiny proportion of British independent children’s films produced in recent years.  We endorse its recommendation that the BFI recognises the ‘unique challenges of animation development’ and supports ‘the development and production of independent British family films for children and their parents or carers’.
The Smith Report refers to the power of film in promoting social cohesion.  The Children’s Media Foundation agrees that screen experiences are vital contributions to young people’s development as rounded individual and engaged members of society, connected to their own culture.  
The Report also places a value on film education, which is something the Children’s Media Foundation fully supports.  
We look forward to working with the BFI and other interested parties in film production, distribution and education on a comprehensive plan for children and film, which recognises the cultural and social importance of both archive and contemporary film and which makes them accessible to all children and young people.”

CINEMA EXHIBITORS ASSOCIATION

Chief Executive Phil Clapp said: “On behalf of cinema operators across the country, the CEA welcomes the hard work and thought that has clearly gone into the Panel’s comprehensive report.
In particular we are pleased to see the Panel’s recognition of the economic, social and cultural importance of the UK cinema sector, and the crucial role that many cinemas - both multiplexes and smaller independent operators – play in their local community.
The report rightly concludes that the way forward in supporting British film is primarily through greater efforts to increase the supply of high quality homegrown productions making their way to the big screen.
As the report acknowledges, the success of The King’s Speech, The Inbetweeners Movie and the final Harry Potter film, 2011clearly demonstrates that there is an audience for well-made and engaging British films. The challenge now is to stimulate and meet that demand.
The potential for greater flexibility of programming offered by the ongoing digitisation of UK cinemas should benefit audiences for all types of film, but we look forward to working with Government and the BFI to ensure appropriate support for the report’s recommendations around promoting and showcasing British films in particular as part of that transformation.
We are particularly delighted to see the Panel confirming its support for proposal to make the recording of a film in a cinema theatre a specific criminal offence. Given the importance of cinemas as a source of stolen film content his is something the industry has advocated for more than a decade, and which during that time has been a frequent call from both industry and Government working groups. It is very much hoped that Government will now action this as soon as possible.”

SECRET CINEMA/FUTURE SHORTS

Fabien Riggall, Founder and Creative Director of Secret Cinema and Future Shorts said: “We welcome the Film Policy Review’s recommendation to start with the audience. Since 2003, Secret Cinema, Future Cinema and Future Shorts have built an audience of nearly 200,000 people, to bring back a sense of wonder, community and cinema culture, without any government or institutional support.Secret Cinema’s current production has seen over 19,000 people attend a secret film in a secret London location to view what’s widely regarded as the greatest British film of all time. Our emphasis has been on the collective experience of film-going and cinema culture alongside production and distribution.”

FILM AGENCY FOR WALES

Suzanne Alizart, Interim Chief Executive of the Film Agency for Wales said: “We warmly welcome the focus of the report on making the connections and partnerships in the sector more effective for private and public investment alike. We take heart in the recommendations that recognise the critical role Nations and Regions will have to play alongside the BFI to deliver on the report’s ambitions and look forward to sharing our expertise and knowledge to help realise them.
“Placing the audience at the heart of policy, focusing on talent development and ensuring the broadest range of audiences have access to the best of cinema is at the heart of the Film Agency’s activity, and we look forward to reflecting on its content with our industry and policy partners.
“The report highlights film as a powerful way to build social inclusion and creative skills: it suggests a universal education offer enabling all schoolchildren to benefit from engaging with film. We look forward to deepening our relationship with Film Club and Welsh Government in this respect and to continue to support the development of film literacy and enjoyment in Welsh schools.
“We look forward to continued work with our funding partners in Welsh Government, the Arts Council of Wales and the BFI to highlight Wales’ contribution to the UK film industry, and facilitate the emergence of a viable and sustainable Welsh film sector.”

Source:http://www.screendaily.com/news/uk-ireland/updated-film-policy-review-official-responses-from-uk-organisations/5036539.article

The Creation of Sherlock Holmes 2 and The Kings Speech


UK films urged to be more 'mainstream' in new report


Ahead of a visit to Pinewood Studios on Wednesday, Prime Minister David Cameron said the film industry should support "commercially successful pictures".
His comments come before the publication of Lord Smith's review into the government's film policy on Monday.
The review was commissioned to find out how the industry could offer better support to UK film-making.
Mr Cameron praised the UK film industry but said "we should aim even higher, building on the incredible success of recent years".
He acknowledged the British film industry had made "a £4bn contribution to the UK economy and an incalculable contribution to our culture".
Lord Smith, the former Labour culture secretary, is also expected to recommend developing an export strategy to increase the profits of British films.
Speaking to the BBC, director Ken Loach said it was important to have a diverse film industry with a wide range of films to choose from.
"If everyone knew what would be successful before it was made, there would be no problem," he said.
"What you need to do is fund a lot of different, varied projects and then you'll get a really vibrant industry."
Loach added he would encourage more independent cinemas, saying: "The market does not provide choice if you don't intervene."
Oscar-winning screenwriter Julian Fellowes, who was a member of Lord Smith's panel, said it was necessary to support mainstream films.
"There has been the thinking in the past that public money should only go into films that can't get any investment anywhere else," he told Sky.
"When you actually analyse that it means it should only go into films that nobody could conceivably want to see and there's no logic in that - you want to make a film-friendly, audience-friendly industry.
"It's not a question of not having minority films, it's just opening it up so we're also getting behind films that people might want to see."
Grassroots support
Mark Herbert, chief executive of Warp Films, which has made films including This Is England, Submarine and Tyrannosaur, said it was impossible to predict which films would be commercially successful.
He said the company's biggest commercial success had been Four Lions, a comedy about inept suicide bombers.
"It took £3m at the box office, won festivals, did brilliant business in Germany and France and is up there with big studio films in terms of DVD sales.
He also pointed out that black and white silent film The Artist was making more money per screen than any other film currently on release in the UK and is favourite to win best picture at the Oscars - but would not have looked like a hit on paper."Yet nobody backed that. There was no public money in that. When I was trying to raise the money, I had very experienced funders and producers saying 'Nobody will go and watch this film.'"
"You can imagine people saying 'Who's going to watch a black and white silent film?' But they are, and people are loving it," he said.
Mr Herbert added that independent regional film-makers must continue to be supported as well as major film studios, and that new talent must be nurtured by supporting low-key, low-budget films.
"For talent to get to the stage where they can pull off [making] a blockbuster, they need to support the grassroots. It's like having an elite England football team and not supporting any young players."
Speaking at the announcement of this year's Bafta rising star shortlist, nominee Adam Deacon, who wrote, directed and starred in Anuvahood said: "2011 was a great year and our films like Attack the Block and The Inbetweeners were competing against America.
"It shouldn't all be about The King's Speech and these sort of films. We need fresh talent and fresh ideas."


Film critic Mark Kermode, at the same Bafta event, said it was "impossible" to judge what was going to be a commercially successful film.
He said that independent cinemas and adventurous programming were an important factor.
"There are loads of great British films made every year and only a fraction of them actually find a foothold in cinemas. If you really want to address the way the British film industry works address exhibition and distribution - that's the answer."
The British Film Commission welcomed the prime minister's recognition of the economic impact of the movie industry.
Chairman Iain Smith said: "It is reassuring to hear the Government understands the role big budget, international movies shooting in the UK plays in building a world-class skilled workforce, while boosting the UK economy."
The report follows the abolition of the UK Film Council last year, which handed over its funding responsibilities to the British Film Institute (BFI)

What’s wrong with the British film industry?
In my opinion, there are several things that are wrong with the British film industry. Prior to the 00’s, Britain was filled with new and innovative technology. The film industry was the most visible component of this revolution. However since this pinnacle in our film industry, it has appeared to retract. What went wrong?
Overall, the films since this period have continued to generate huge income, and some of gone on to moderate success. The main issue lies however with the originality of the films we produce. Often, the films produced are compiled of parodies of generic films. Although these are often very successful, there is a lack of new and exciting content coming to our cinemas. I think the main issue is that well known directors and producers are getting the same exposure for each generic film they produce, however, small film companies, of which the UK is filled with, are not receiving the recognition they deserve. This is highlighted by the vast range of films available in many of the UK film festivals around the country.
I think the main reason for why there has not been an influx of smaller film companies gaining the exposure that they require is due to the fact that all the funding made available to films is spent on huge blockbuster films. Although these are often huge successes, there are some hidden gems out there that are not being recognised, due to the lack of funding and support for independent film companies.
Another issue that can be seen in the UK film industry is the lack of new technology. More specifically, the lack of investment in 3-D films. Hollywood has seen a huge boom in the number of films that are being re-created in 3-D, in fact, most blockbuster films coming out from this point are also in 3-D. It appears that 3-D is the future, however the British film industry appears to still be unaware of this change, and appears be more focused on getting films out, rather than focusing on their quality, which is another problem with having an industry built up of mainly blockbuster films. (Often films sell based solely on their title)
However, I do recognise that there are some positives about the UK film industry. There are some very successful films that have come out recently, that have broken records, (Black Swan, The Kings Speech), and this highlights the potential of our industry. It also highlights the fact that there is not a requirement for 3-D and other technology for a film to be successful, but these two films were perhaps the two most well known of the last few months, and they were a pick of 2, out of the hundreds of UK films released that were not successful in the box office.
To conclude, there are very key issues with the british film industry, issues that are preventing it from developing it towards something that can compete freely with the likes of Hollywood, however, these issues are not representative of the success that the industry has had over the last few years, and will continue to have in the coming years, however – with the introduction of new technology, such as 3-D, it may soon be able to compete with Hollywood, and we may see a new revamped UK film industry in the coming years. 


Javier Bardem Confirmed as Villian for James Bond 23

This article is talking about Bradd Pitt and that it wont be long before he has to stop acting, like many older actors. This is significant because Brad helped to revolutionise the film industry, and is often considered one of the best actors of the modern day

This article talks about how, after a long delay, they have finally determined the actor who would be playing the villian in the next james bond film. This matches with the other articles I have found, as James Bond is distributed by MGM, so it was unclear wether there would ever be another James Bond Film. However, as I fond out 2 weeks ago, MGM have been given a cash injection and are once again in buisness.


Black Swan Sued
The Oscar winning film 'Black Swan' is being sued for violating minimum wage and over-time limits. This is significant, because you would expect a film that is so successful and known world-wide to do everything the right away, but it would appear even this is cutting corners.


MGM Emerge from Bankruptcy
This will be my last piece of film research relating too money issues regarding MGM studios. This article reveals how MGM have emerged from bankruptcy, with $500 million to spend on improving the stuidos. It just goes to show how quickly things can change in the film industry.


MGM Bankruptcy Cont. 

This article is continuing on from the previous research I did for the previous week. It talks of how MGM have filed a report for bankruptcy, with large debts and a lack of blockbuster films being released, after failing in its bid to sell the company. Next week I will do some research into finding out what became of this file for bankruptcy, and to see how the company is doing today.




MGM file for Bankruptcy
This will be the first in a weekly addition to my blog, that will involve some form of recent news article from the film industry. For this week, I chose to research the recent collapse of MGM studios. As the article discusses, it revolved heavily on the lack of funding and money surrounding the company. This will effect the film industry greatly. Films such as the James Bond series cannot be continued until the issues are resolved, which means even less income will be made for the company, causing them to move deeper into debt. How will they resolve this issue? Will these films that we were expecting ever get finished? Only time will tell...



Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)