Monday 12 May 2014

The Star System

The star system

How do you decide what films to watch?


  • There are many reasons as to why the audience would go see a film. Normally its because who makes the film ( Director), sometimes its because of the story itself and how it is sold to the audience ( trailers, posters).

  • Another reason would be because of who the film has starring in it and Star theory considers this issue.

Christine Gledhill

Fundamental in developing 'Star Theory'

Four key points.....

  • Stars as capital value
  • Stars as Construct
  • Stars as Deviant
  • Stars as Cultural value

1) Stars as Capital Value

  • i.e they make money for the film companies
  • Films with stars will make more money than films without stars ( even if they're the same film)
  • How much are they worth? How much can they make for the studio?
  • They add monetary value to the film and reduce the risk of loss

2) Stars as Construct

  • They are very much involved in there mythification. How might they be involved?
  • Christine Gledhill wrote that stars reach us 'through their bodies'
  • We want to know the 'real' and 'reel'. If we go to the film we will learn who they really are ( real person, reel person - persona i.e a combination of both)

3) Stars as Deviant

  • They live their lives to excess, outside the normal rules of behaviour
  • This adds to our interest ( identification, wish fulfilment)

4) Stars as Cultural Value

  • 'Stars signify moral, social and ideological values'.
  • i.e they tell us what they think, what is right and wrong, how to behave and even how we should look and what our culture should be like


Appeal of Hollywood stars


  • Certain stars can be an indicator as to the type of film you're about to see ( i.e Hugh grant - typical romcom)
  • Typecasting - Johnny Depp, Stranger roles such as Willy Wonka, the mad hatter ect.
  • Sam Worthington - archetype hero, blockbuster film, good v evil
  • Some stars are an indicator of a films quality - some will only appear in the best
  • Some stars help to increase publicity of a films release by doing interviews and press junkets; raise awareness and excitement surrounding the film. Constantly in the media promoting.

British Stars

  • If it is an appeal of a star that attracts an audience, British films use British stars.
  • Colin Firth, Helena Bonham - carter, Bill Nighy, Alan Rickman and Christopher Lee ect
  • Why don't these films appeal as much? - Not as common, cinema is dominated by Hollywood films, therefor Hollywood stars.
  • Some. such as Robert Pattinson, cross over into Hollywood.


Hollywood Domination


  • Most films are made by Hollywood as the main distribution companies are Hollywood based such as Universal studios, Paramount, Warner Bros and will feature American stars.
  • As a result of this there is a wider choice of American films with American stars rather than British films, therefore, Hollywood films attract a wider audience.
  • There is less opportunity for British films/ stars to achieve recognition.





Online film distribution

 Pro's and Con's of Online film distribution


In reality, there are two types of independent or low budget filmmakers. There's either a) the type who lurk in anonymity because they are so indie that they don't even tap into the small audience of “mainstream” independent filmmakers or b) mainstream independent filmmakers waiting for their big break. In this scenario, the common denominator is that they're both waiting for the man to make their next move.


Advantage: Money

Traditional distribution is expensive and often doesn't receive a lot of gain. If films do get picked up, they do so in a small number of theatres, receive too little attention to marketing and are generally not accessible to a majority of the general public. Taking control with digital distribution ensures some money back into the independent filmmaker's pocket. Oftentimes, the money will be vastly more than most filmmakers would make in a small theatrical release.


Disadvantage: Money

Let's think in realistic terms. Digital distribution might make you money, but it won't make you much. Filmmakers including documentarian Morgan Spurlock have spoken loudly about how unprofitable the medium is today, but have also spoken promise about its future delivery. The method (as an exclusive means of distribution) is still new and untraversed. Audiences are still having to adapt their mind set of the internet being a free service to paying for online content. For films especially, it is not popular to pay for a film online when there is so much free content. It will get there, but it's certainly not there now.


Advantage: Range

In limited releases, it's difficult to reach a wide array of audiences. There's no telling that in these small releases that your film will even find the target audience. Digital distribution eliminates this worry. By submitting your film online for viewing, you allow your audience to find you. If you've sufficiently and effectively marketed your film online, your tech savvy audience will have no trouble finding you online. Between two clicks your film will not only be viewed, but also shared among their communities.


Disadvantage: Marketing

Marketing in digital distribution is as, if not more, important than marketing for traditional distribution. The online world is extremely competitive and, as they say in the biz, noisy. There are multiple interferences between your film and its viewer related and unrelated—it's overwhelming to try and consider it all. A strong marketing strategy has to accompany any digital distribution strategy. In fact, the two should parallel. This doesn't necessarily mean shelling out the big bucks, but it does mean being creative with your resources (i.e. money and film content). Your audience will find you, but they have to know to look for you.


Advantage: Keeping up with technology

It would seem that the internet were a lurking demon in the film industry. There's a nearly obsessive fear of films leaking online or being spoiled by bloggers. Digital distribution is a way of fighting back. Online distribution takes a jab at these would-be pirates by making their services irrelevant and redundant. It recognizes the format the audience wishes to view films and how – free, in their personal space and whenever it suits them. Digital distribution is certainly miles away from eliminating piracy but it does pose a valiant threat. Your audience is certainly busy and you have plenty of competition for their attention, but you can't win if you're not in the fight.


Disadvantage: Destroying Art

Depending on how loyal you are to the idealized art form of film, digital distribution can be seen as a contribute to the slow death of theatre-style viewing. Audiences are preferring to see films on their computers, on their iPod's while they're on the go and to an extent, on their televisions. If people are willing to pay for films, they aren't willing to pay for the inconvenience of going out to the theatre to do it. Digital distribution plays right into this hand and exclusive use of it actively condones this behaviour. It's not a problem if you're not too attached to the traditional cinematic experience. If you are, then I suppose it's all down from here and you can't beat the good ol' days.
 



 

Thursday 8 May 2014

9 tech innovations

9 Tech innovations that changed the film industry ( through the ages)


One industry that has been expansively affected by technological changes is film. Both mechanical and digital innovations have influenced everything from equipment to distribution, changing how films are made and the manner in which we consume them.

With the medium being just around 120 years old, we take a look at the biggest tech innovations that, through time, changed film for the better.

Movie cameras - Late 1800's

The movie camera – a camera that could capture a sequence of photographs onto filmstrip in quick succession – was a late invention of the 1800s, and without it we wouldn’t have the visual medium that we all love to enjoy while in dark rooms chomping on popcorn and answering our cell phones.

Synchronous sound – 1920s

Before sound could be captured simultaneously to picture, there was the golden age of silent films.
This era was famous for over the top (slapstick) acting, the use of intertitles (titles between shots), and live-music accompaniment to films in theatres. Even early projectionists are credited to have done live sound effects for films too (surely one of the most fun jobs in the last century).
But it all meant there were narrative limitations.

The process of synching sound had been achieved in 1914 with The Photo-Drama of Creation, in which slides and phonograph records were synched up. But it was Warner Brothers’ “Vitaphone” that took the system to feature films.


Colour -1939
There’s nothing wrong with a good black and white film, regardless, colour changed film for the better. Not only because it gave the medium the ability to mimic life more realistically than ever before, but it also led to more narrative possibilities, with the prime example being The Wizard of Oz (1939) which famously depicted Dorothy’s Kansas in black and white, but then brought Oz to magical life in Technicolour.

Film was never the same again… until The Artist of course

Green Screen - 1940

Early digital compositing started in the 1940s with the ‘traveling matte’ – a process that was used to superimpose backdrops with actors performing against a blank, coloured wall. These screens’ colours have changed throughout the decades, but the process and effect have remained the same.

It is a time-consuming technique in which a scene is filmed against the coloured (green) screen, then re-filmed with a filter on the lens that removes all the coloured (green) areas of the film.

Lastly, the layers are composited together in a final recording by laying them over each other one frame at a time. You can’t help but respect the technique.
It allowed for actors to be ‘anywhere in the world’ and also create optical illusions, all the while saving on production costs. Lightweight/portable equipment - 1950's - 60's
Hollywood was famous for building huge studios and sets in its early days. Film always had a larger than life mystique about it. However once lightweight cameras and smaller sound recording devices became available, there was a shift in the style and themes explored in film.

The most famous movement to make use of this tech change was the French New Wave starting in 1950. The revolutionary movement made use of the new equipment that could capture images on location, and a new grittier, documentary visual-style emerged that allowed filmmakers to explore social issues where they happened… on the streets

Camera rigs the dolly (1907) the steadicam ( 1976)

The dolly and steadicam are inventions that signify benchmark camera techniques. You’ll be hard pressed to find a major motion picture that doesn’t make use of either or both of these inventions.
The dolly, to put it simply, is the placing of the camera on wheels that move along tracks.


The steadicam was the solution to many a cameraman’s problem – getting the smoothness of a dolly system, but with the freedom of hand-held shooting.
Effectively a rig that places the camera on more than one point on the human body,  the steadicam utilises the cameraman’s back, shoulders and chest/stomach to support the camera as well as his hands.
The result is famous shots such as the boy riding his scooter in The Shining(1980),
  
Digital single lens reflex cameras

The move from film and celluloid to digital cameras was a big one in cinema history, especially for amateur and budget filmmakers.
The ability to record onto memory cards and internal storage, and not use chemicals, saved on production costs and time. The compact nature of these cameras was also a plus for aspiring filmmakers, because setup times were reduced.

Computer Generated Imagery (CGI) - 1973

It’s hard to believe that there were once films with absolutely no CGI, but you have to go back 40 years to 1973, and the sci-fi Westworld, to find the first use of computer-generated imagery in film. Aptly it was a 2-D digital rendition of a robotic-cowboy’s vision… we wouldn’t want it any other way.
Pixar created the first feature-length computer-animated movie in Toy Story (1995) and nowadays it’s more and more uncommon for films not to make use of CGI in one way or another, as it often saves on production costs



The internet - 1990's

The internet has to make this list because it has changed, and is changing the manner in which films are consumed and distributed, not to mention the types of films we watch and who is making them.
Instant access, worldwide distribution and everyone with a cell phone are now all players in the video-creation game. What was once a medium of the few – those who could afford the equipment – is now the most democratised (and sought-out) medium available. We all want video, and we want it now.

New formats (web shows, podcasts) and new ways of accessing video (streaming, downloading) means that the power has shifted from the industry to the consumers. It’s all very Romantic, and it pisses off the powers that be to no end


The future....


The industry has to realise that the medium is moving into an age of digitally made, and digitally distributed movies.
Not only must the industry adapt to find new ways of monetising digital consumption so that the legal ways of accessing films becomes more appealing than piracy, so must filmmakers, old and new, otherwise they run the risk of being left behind.
Technology is arguably having its most profound and pronounced effect on film in this day and age. It’s an exciting age in film history — the digital era.


SECTION A CASE STUDY - US BLOCKBUSTER

Wolf of Wall Street




2013 American Black Comedy


pre production


This is the story of New York stockbroker, Jordan Belfort. From the American dream to corporate greed, Belfort goes from penny stocks and righteousness to IPOs and a life of corruption in the late 80s. Excess success and affluence in his early twenties as founder of the brokerage firm Stratton Oakmont warranted Belfort the title "The Wolf of Wall Street." Money. Power. Women. Drugs. Temptations were for the taking and the threat of authority was irrelevant. For Jordan and his wolf pack, modesty was quickly deemed overrated and more was never enough.

 
 
Budget: $100 million                    Box office: $389,600,694

 Directed By: Martin Scorsese ( Oscar winner)
 Produced By:Martin Scorsese
                        Leonardo DiCaprio
                        Riza Aziz
                        Joey McFarland
                        Emma Tillinger KosKoff

Screen play By:Terence Winter
Based on: The wolf of wall street by Jordan Belfort
Rating: 18
Running time: 179 minutes

Distributed by: Paramount Pictures
                         Universal Pictures
                         Roadshow entertainment ( Australia and New Zealand )

Starring

Leonardo DiCaprio

Leonardo DiCaprio is an  American actor and film producer. He has been nominated for five Academy Awards and ten Golden Globe Awards. He won the Golden Globe Award for Best Actor in a Drama for The Aviator (2004) and the Golden Globe Award for Best Actor in a Musical or Comedy for The Wolf of Wall Street (2013). He has also been nominated by the Screen Actors Guild, Satellite Awards, and the British Academy of Film and Television Arts.

Films DiCaprio starred in: 
  • The Wolf of Wall Street            
  • Titanic                                      - The Great Gatsby
  • The departed                            - Inception
  • The Aviator                              - Romeo and Juliet
  • What's Eating Gilbert Grape     - Orphan
  • Gangs Of New York


 

 Jonah Hill

Jonah Hill is an American actor, producer, screenwriter, comedian, and voice actor.  He is a two-time Academy Award nominee, for his performances in the films Moneyball(2011) and The Wolf of Wall Street (2013).
Years Active - 2004 - present .

Films Hill Starred in:
  • Superbad
  • Get him to the Greek
  • Moneyball
  • 21 Jump Street
  • The Wolf of Wall Street

Jonah Hill WonderCon, 2012.jpg
                              

 Margot Robbie

 Margot Robbie is an Australian actress. She is known for her role as Donna Freedman on the soap opera Neighbours, which earned her two Logie Award nominations. In 2011, Robbie began starring as Laura Cameron in the ABC drama series Pan Am. Following Pan Am's cancellation, Robbie has appeared in the feature films About Time and The Wolf of Wall Street.
 Years Active: 2007 - present

Films Robbie has starred in:
  •   The Wolf of Wall Street
  • About time
  • Pan Am
  • I. C. U
  • Neighbours
  • Vigilante



Why did Martine Scorsese (director) take on the project of The Wolf of Wall Street?

'I WANTED TO MAKE A FEROCIOUS FILM' - Martin Scorsese


Martin Scorsese says the 2008 collapse of the financial industry  drove him to make “The Wolf of Wall Street.” “The film came out of frustration over the unregulated financial world,” the director said at Saturday’s “Meet the Nominees” panel at the DGA theatre. “I kept saying that I wanted to make a ferocious film".



Production

What happened during the production phase?

where was the film shot?
It was a movie we feel didn't belong in the studio because of the way we hoped Marty and Leo would push the envelope. Little did we know how far they would push it. And so he took a chance on us, we took over the underlying rights and then circled back to Warner Bros, and got into the negotiations of the actual screenplay because it was living in the shelf on there, and as everyone knows, its not easy to extract a script from a studio. ( The film was shot in mainly New York and some scenes in the Bahamas.)

Distribution

The film was distributed by Paramount Pictures and Universal pictures. It is historically significant as the first major film to be distributed entirely digitally, three hour 18 certificate comedy might be considered a distribution challenge.But Martin Scorsese's The Wolf of Wall Street stormed  past any such concerns, posting a sensational UK opening of £4.66 million. That's the third biggest debut for an 18 certificate film.

What happened during the marketing and distributing phase?

Martin Scorcese’s big Christmas film “The Wolf of Wall Street” is a three-hour plunge into a cinematic cesspool of excess that has generated ten times more pub and debate than any other holiday release — including far better offerings.

There are several reasons for the buzz, contrived hype and effective selling among them. Others include...
  • A-lister Leondardo DiCaprio stars and is featured prominently in nearly every scene.
  • The film sets a world record for “f-bombs” (544 or so), which appeals to younger ticket buyers.
  • The film has been (and is still) hyped on digital media everywhere we turn.
  • It is loud and pushes the boundaries of good taste — which young men also pay to see. Dozens of naked girls.
  • Scorcese’s reputation . To casual film goers, “If Scorcese made it, it must be good.

Important Factors in the success of the film

  • Marketing Campaign
  • Viral Marketing
  • Wall street- the history and connection with the audience
  • Casting
  • Directors portfolio
  • Distribution - most cinemas to date
  • Online ticket sales

Marketing. No one loves the film but some say they like it and try to defend it. Viewers overall rate it a “C,” which makes it one of the worst holiday releases. Paramount’s marketing strategy ignores the film’s bad word of mouth, advertising it prominently on every conceivable medium to its target audience — Leo fans and young people with money to burn. Despite its advertising saturation, Paramount is faced with more work to do. The film cost $100 million to make and probably at least that to market. Domestically its take to this point (worldwide) is less than half that.  To add to that the film was also marketed in a way where there was an issue for debate which kept the uses and gratifications for the film going because people were constantly talking about the film.