production cycle

In filmmaking and video production, pre-production formally begins once a project has been greenlit. At this stage, finalizing preparations for production go into effect. Financing will generally be confirmed and many of the key elements such as principal cast members, director and cinematographer are set. By the end of pre-production, the screenplay is usually finalized and satisfactory to all the financiers and other stakeholders.

During pre-production, the script is broken down into individual scenes storyboards and all the locations, props, cast members, costumes, special effects and visual effects are identified. An extremely detailed schedule is produced and arrangements are made for the necessary elements to be available to the film-makers at the appropriate times. Sets are constructed, the crew is hired, financial arrangements are put in place and a start date for the beginning of principal photography is set. At some point in pre-production there will be a read-through of the script which is usually attended by all cast members with speaking parts, the director, all heads of departments, financiers, producers, and publicists.

Even though the writer may still be working on it, the screenplay is generally page-locked and scene-numbered at the beginning of pre-production to avoid confusion. This means that even though additions and deletions may still be made, any particular scene will always fall on the same page and have the same scene number.

Pre-production is the process of fixing some of the elements involved in a film, play, or other performance. There are three parts in a production: pre-production, production, and post-production. Pre-production ends when the planning ends and the content starts being produced.

Production

(funded by production company)

• Principle photography takes place, in studios and/or on agreed locations (on average this takes 3 months). Hollywood has the advantage as vertical integration means access to studios, equipment etc. Also, they can afford to spend longer on shoots.

post production. 

This includes tasks such as the editing of raw footage to cut scenes, insert transition effects, working with voice and sound actors, and dubbing, to name a few of the many pre-production tasks. Post-production is the third and final step in film creation. It follows the pre-production and production phases.

finance2

Major USA Production/Distribution Companies

As Hanseen (2007) summarised, 'The Hollywood studio system era' of vertical integration that impacted production, distribution and exhibition (because the major companies owned the cinemas) came to an end in 1948; "when the USA Supreme Court issued its famous Paramount decision. The Paramount consent decree required the divestiture of affiliated cinema chains and the abandonment of a number of vertical practices" (Hanseen, 2007)

What this meant, in theory, was that the five major conglomerates (Fox, MGM, Paramount, RKO and Warner Brothers) and the partly integrated companies (Columbia, Universal and United Artists - N.B MGM have now bought out United Artists) who had made up the Hollywood studio system had to compete on a more level playing field with other companies. However, these companies did still have an advantage over independent studios because vertical integration could still take place at production and distribution levels - the court only ruled against cinema ownership (exhibition).

Distribution Companies

As McDougall (2008) summarised, five major distribution companies dominate the UK film industry:

- United International Pictures

- Warner Brothers

- Buena Vista

- 20th Century Fox

- Sony

None of these distribution companies are British, approximately 9/10 films seen in UK cinemas have been distributed by these Hollywood companies. In the majority of cases, these companies are either the same company who produced the film or are directly linked to the Hollywood production companies who made the film (vertical integration). Although the Paramount 1948 Supreme Court ruling now prevents these companies from owning the cinemas used for exhibition, films distributed by these Hollywood companies are still prioritized (for reasons of long term and short term profit) over films produced/distributed by independent companies e.g. Hollywood films generally gross more than a independent film and also because they make more films than independent companies cinemas can make more each year through supporting Hollywood films than they would if they started prioritizing independent films over Hollywood releases (doing this might prompt Hollywood to stop using this chain which would obviously impact profit for the cinema).

The fact that multiplex cinemas are often owned by American companies also has an impact here because they obviously have deals with the Hollywood distributors in the USA and UK that makes it easier/more cost effective for them to secure Hollywood blockbusters than it is for independent cinemas (it is basic business that works in the same way to Tesco's v independent stores).

Distribution is also expensive, Hollywood distributors can afford to spend millions on marketing and distribution while smaller independent companies struggle to compete. Aside from advertising, one of the biggest costs in prints (every film shown in a cinema is a separate 'print'). Each reel cost approximately £1000-£2000. When you multiply this by the number of cinemas in the UK, for example, it is easy to see why Hollywood companies can afford to 'blanket release' their products in the majority of cinemas while smaller companies struggle to do this.

In theory, this problem should be a thing of the past because we live in the 'digital age' and it would be straight forward for companies to simple digitally release their films to cinemas on the release date. This has a number of potential advantages:

1) Image quality could be improved. Have you every noticed 'scratches' on the screen at the cinema? The reason why you sometimes notice this is because the reels we get in the UK are the ones that have already been used in the USA cinema. Changing to digital distribution would solve this.

2) Piracy could be adverted if the film was released at the same time throughout the world.

3) It would cut costs dramatically and make it possible for British distributors to compete. Cutting cost could also mean more profits for production/distribution companies that they could then put back into films. 

The British Film Council even took steps to via the 'Digital Screen Network' to help equip independent cinemas with digital facilities. This has lead to more British films being shown in independent cinemas but the multiplex cinemas are not following this example because Hollywood films are still made on reels.

Why? Again, this links to economics and business - Hollywood distribution and production companies known they have a massive advantage over independent companies because they have more money. Through making films on reels they are ensuring they keep this advantage because it makes it harder for smaller companies to gain any market share without teaming up with Hollywood companies (to make D/E Category films) because they simply cannot afford to shoot 35mm pictures and print hundreds/thousands of reels without the financial backing from bigger companies. 

Finance 1

My British and American case study

British film history

http://www.britishcinemagreats.com/cinema_history/new_wave/page_3.htm


Slumdog millionaire ( 2009 ) 

• Lower budget than Avatar 
• Social difficulties
• not much CGI/ Special Effects
• Just set in India 
• Dev Patel 
• lower box office than avatar 
• set in the modern day ( 2008 ) 
• Very much like a Bollywood film.

Avatar ( 2009 ) 

• Sci-fi 
• high budget 
• high box office 
• loads of CGI
• James Cameron 
• futuristic 
• 3D cameras - that would have cost millions 
• Pandora 

The cameras on the avatar film was very expensive and better equipped than the cameras and equipment on the film, Slumdog millionaire. the colours in avatar is blue and darker lighting. in contrast to this, slum dog millionaire


American 
1970's

Star wars EP 4 ( George Lucas )
Jaws (Steven Spielberg )
The excorsist


1980's

E.T
Star wars EP 6
Ghostbusters
Back to the future

British 

1970
- The railway children
- The tales of beatrix potter



1980 

- the awaking

what is a British film?

What is a British Film?
As critic McDougall (2008) states there are various 'official' ways of categorising British films. The most common is through using the following categories defined by the BFI (British Film Institute):

Category A: Films made with British money, personnel and resources.

Category B: Films co-funded with money from British and from foreign investment, but for which the majority of finance, cultural content and personnel are British.

Category C: Films with mostly foreign money (but non USA) investment and a small British input either financially or creatively.

Category D: Films made in the UK with (usually) British cultural content, but financed fully or partly by US companies.

Category E: US films with some British involvement.  

Ethnicity (race)

Ethnicity in the u.k 

Main 

- Caucasian 

- Gypsy

- Asian or asian British: Indan 

- Asian or asian British: Pakistani 

- Asian or asian British: Bangladeshi 

- Asian or asian British: Chinese 

- Asian or asian British: other Asian 

Ethnicity in the U.S.A 

Main 

- Cauasian 

- Latino 

- Black 

- Mexican 

- Native American 

- Inuits 

THE FUNCTIONALIST Vs THE MARXIST VIEW

Broadly speaking, there are two key attitudes towards depictions of race in the media: 

1)    The functionalist view, argues that program makers ‘cater for what the public wants’ and simply reflects attitudes, tastes and opinions on ethnicity;

2)     The other (the Marxist view) is that those in control of media output shape how audiences view race.

The functionalist view, like the ‘reflectionist’ view, argues that the media are merely a window on the world, implying that the media are inert industries which simply mirror real life. It overlooks the social construction of images in the cultural field, and the fact that a medium, such as television, constructs a reality and world of its own (Malik, 1998).

The Marxist view relies on the assumption that the ruling elite deny space and access for competing ideologies and images. Their argument follows that the media merely reproduce the ‘dominant ideology’ as a means of enabling the ruling class to maintain dominant over less powerful groups in order to establish a common consensus in society. Thus certain images of Black people as deviant trouble-makers, for example, are perpetuated by the media in order to encourage the mass audience to view blacks in a certain way. This, in turn, ensures that Black people are categorized as such and reinforce a dominant ideology that suggests that Black people pose a threat to civilized status quo.

The FUNDAMENTAL difference between the functionalist and Marxist viewpoints is the DIFFERING opinion as to whether the media alter or merely reinforce behaviour and attitudes. Of course, there are many whose views on media portrayals of race rest somewhere between the two or that cannot be said to neatly ‘fit’ into either category. (Malik, 1998). 

Malik argues: “Many feel that Black and Asian audiences are still not sufficiently catered for and that insensitivity towards issues of race and ethnicity still exist. The reality of a lived multiculturalism is not represented on British Television and the media in general can by no means be seen as ethically neutral.