Tuesday, 6 May 2014

Question Planning

January 2010
Media production is dominated by global institutions, which sell their products and services to national audiences”. To what extent do you agree with this statement?

Topic - Global Institutions
Aspect - Media Production
Viewpoint - Agree
Instruction - What

June 2010
What significance does the continuing development of digital media technology have for media institutions and audiences?

Topic - Media Institutions and Audiences
Aspect - Development of Digital Media Technology
Viewpoint - Significance
Instruction - What

January 2011
Discuss the issues raised by media ownership in the production and exchange of media texts in your chosen media area?

Topic - Media Ownership
Aspect - Production and Exchange
Viewpoint - Issues
Instruction - Discuss

June 2011
“Successful media products depend as much upon marketing and distribution to a specific audience as they do upon good production practices”. To what extent would you agree with this statement, within the media area you have studied?

Topic - Film Industry
Aspect - Marketing, Distribution and Production
Viewpoint - Agree
Instruction - What 

January 2012
To what extent does digital distribution affect the marketing and consumption of media products in the area of media you have studied?

Topic - Film Industry
Aspect - Digital Distribution Affecting the Marketing and Consumption
Viewpoint - Extent
Instruction - What

June 2012
"Cross media convergence and synergy are vital processes in the successful marketing of media products to audiences." To what extent do you agree with this statement in relation to your media area?

Topic - Film Industry
Aspect - Cross Media Convergence and Synergy
Viewpoint - Agree
Instruction - What

January 2013
What impact does media ownership have upon the range of products available to audiences in the media area you have studied?

Topic - Film Industry
Aspect - Media Ownership
Viewpoint - Impact
Instruction - What

Thursday, 12 December 2013


Stereotypes of a Chav

The appearance of a chav would include greasy, slick-back hair, large jewellery e.g. gold round hoop earrings (for girls), gym like clothing such as tracksuits, trainers and a hoodie. The greasy hair enforces that chav's are unhygienic. The large jewellery emphasises that it might be a call for attention as large jewellery is eye-catching. The tracksuits and trainers enforce that chav's perhaps do not have a good fashion sense and lastly the hoodie could emphasise that they are unsociable.

Behaviour and attitude
Chav's are represented to be opinionated, have a lack of common sense, lazy through speech and actions, dysfunctional, foul mouthed and violent.
Chav's are represented to be opinionated as they cause a lot of problems in society due to their rudeness. 
Chav's are represented to have a lack of common sense because they tend to do wrong things in society. Some examples would be underage drinking, underage smoking, having children at a young age and taking drugs. 
Chav's are seen to be lazy through their speech and actions. Their speech comes across lazy and slurred; they shorten words in order to save them time e.g. Instead of 'home' they say 'ome'. Their actions come across lazy because they cannot be bothered to do things such as get a job and go to school.
'Dysfunctional' would be another word to describe them. This is because they seem to all come from bad backgrounds e.g. Lost a family member or their family members are in prison or they live in a children's home etc. 
Chav's are seen to be foul mouthed as they are rude in society.
Lastly, chav's are seen to be violent because they also cause problems in society e.g. Cause issues in the workplace. 

List of characters who are chav's
Vicki Pollard (Little Britain)
Lauren Cooper (The Catherine Tate Show)
Frank (Shameless)
Cook (Skins)
Kelly (Misfits)
Bianca (EastEnders)
Ste Haye (Hollyoaks)

Wednesday, 11 December 2013

Representation Of My Age And Gender

Misfit's Nathan Young Immortality Scene

This whole scene revolves around teenagers doing community service as a punishment for doing something bad in public life. 
The clip relates to my age, gender and race as we are all similar. The genders of us both relate as some of the characters in the clip are female. By using both male and female ganders allows the programme to appeal to a wider range audience. The female and male roles could perhaps represent that they are stereotypical teenagers.
The races of the characters vary. However, one of the characters is a teenage white girl. This actress was chosen to represent a teenage chav, maybe implying that a lot of teenagers in England are seen by the public eye this way. Her slick back hair, big jewelry, heavy makeup and lazy accent implies this.
Many teenagers in the UK are stereotyped by older ages as cocky, chavvy and they are all negative. Although this is a wrong interpretation, it allows the audience to know this is a programme about teenagers. The cockiness of the main character in the clip could highlight teenagers' behavior towards older ages. The idea of including different races and genders in the clip could portray that the creator wanted the audience to know that every teenager is different and not to judge them. The characters are wearing matching orange jumpsuits. This could imply that they are not seen by the public as individuals. The idea that the characters are doing community service too highlights that they are stereotyped characters and that's the way we are seen by older ages. 
Howard Overman was the creator of 'Misfits'. He read up about ASBO teenagers and was inspired. This could have been one of the ideas to why he created a 'uniquely British' drama. The creator understood that being a teenager is a challenging time, therefore he could relate to the characters. All of these links helped portray the stereotypical characters and fantastic drama.

Thursday, 5 December 2013

Tuesday, 26 November 2013

Case Study - The Kings Speech

'The Kings Speech' is a 2010 British historical film by the United Kingdom. 

Director: Tom Hooper
Producers: Iain Canning, Emile Sherman, Gareth Unwin
Starring: Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush, Helena Bonham Carter etc.
Studios: See-Saw Films, UK Film Council, Bedlam Productions
Distributed by: Weinstein Company, Momentum Pictures
Country: United Kingdom, Britain
Budget: £8 Million
Box Office: $414,211,549

What makes 'The Kings Speech' British?

The King's Speech (TKS) relates to many aspects of being a British film as it includes a setting in the UK, a British cast and has a story line about some aspect of British life (in the past).

Exhibition Issues
TKS was not expected to do so well in the film industry. The guardian claimed that 'The UK's mainstream media doesn't usually pay much attention to cinema box office, but a likely exception is the inspiring performance of The King's Speech'. Although this was expected, their suggestion was wrong. TKS hit the box office with £255,923,090. The film managed to loose some Saturday showtimes at the cinema, however, this did not matter as they grossed a lot over huge cinema's such as London's Chelsea cinema (they made over £40,000) and much more in other cinema's such as the Leicester Square's Odeon (£106,000) and Westfield's Vue (£51,000). These are just a few examples. The film was nominated for 14 BAFTA's and 12 Oscars, meaning the film had hit it's potential and success for the next few months as people could identify the film through these awards.
Reviews in 'The Guardian' said that the film did well for itself one week into being at the cinema's, implying the film was earning a lot of money. They also said that Monarchy films 'are a godsend for the British film industry' meaning that they make a lot of money as they're going into the deep history of the country.
The website 'Rotten Tomatoes' mainly reviewed the film in a positive way. Top critics have reviewed the film as a 'masterpiece', 'major achievement', 'intriguing' and 'majestic'. This suggest's the film did successful in a variety of ways including the story line and the characters. 

The film was successful due to it relating to Britain's early Monarchy. This is stereo typically British, allowing a lot of people to know about it. As a lot of the US enjoy watching stereotypical British films, this appealed to them very well. By the film including a well known actor such as Colin Firth suggests that the film did well for this reason as well as other reasons. The actor attracted and appealed a lot of fans to come and see this film.

Production Issues
During the production of TKS, they faced the problem of Geoffrey Rush. They had the problem of trying to get Geoffrey Rush to be in the film. A problem occurred because his agent declined a number of times for Rush to have a role in the film, however, as he was desperately wanted, one of the organisations (See-Saw Productions) wrote a letter to Rush asking for him to play a role in the film, and fortunately he accepted.
Traditionally, the film was created to be a play, however, after many rejections from theater companies and producers they had to reconsider and decided to convert it into a film. Finally, the script was given to a member of Bedlam Productions and they loved it. The production company saw the potential in a film adaptation, and we now know that the potential he saw came real when the film did so well.

Financing of the film was easier when the UK Film Council contributed a large amount of money to back the film, along with along with Prescience films and Harvey Weinstein from the USA (they had a share in this), and this helped the film a lot financially as they then had a wider range of what they could do. Weinstein and Co had created most of the backing up for TKS although Prescience had noticed the films potential. The co-producer of the film Ian Canning wanted the film to be independent and he rejected many offers from company Fox Searchlight to fully fund it. Another co-producer told viewers that Prescience were a 'key element' of their financial plan. He said 'without their commitment, the film would not have happened'.

Distribution and Marketing Issues
Synergy marketing was produced as See-Saw Films and Bedlam Productions created and produced the entire film. Once marketing was needed in order to sell the film, they faced a problem. The British Board of Film decided to certificate the film as a 15, as the language used in a certain scene wasn't great. However, after much protesting by the director Tom Hooper, the board reclassified it as a 12A. In January 2011, the distributor and executive director of the film Harvey Weinstein was considering re-editing it to allow it to be lowered in the classification, however Hooper rejected his obligation.