Prelim exam

THE BRIEF

Your mission is to carry out the following brief:

Preliminary exercise: Continuity task involving filming and editing a character opening a door, crossing a room and sitting down in a chair opposite another character, with whom she/he then exchanges a couple of lines of dialogue. This task should demonstrate match on action, shot/reverse shot and the 180-degree rule.
Main task: the titles and opening of a new fiction film, to last a maximum of two minutes.
All video and audio material must be original, produced by the candidate(s), with the exception of music or audio effects from a copyright-free source.

The coursework is worth 50% of the AS (same at A2) and the marking (detailed later) is divided into 3 sections:

RESEARCH AND PLANNING: 20%

PRODUCTION: 60%

EVALUATION: 20%

Your work is marked partially on my observations of your approach and level of organisation, but fundamentally its a DVD and your blog that are marked.

EVALUATION

Even before you start shooting (let alone planning) your production, you need to keep this final stage in mind. If you start (b)logging notes on this now it will save you a lot of stress as the final deadline (in May!) approaches. You are tasked with answering these questions (see below for details on how this is marked):

• In what ways does your media product use, develop or challenge forms and conventions of real media products? 

• How does your media product represent particular socialgroups?

• What kind of media institution might distribute your media product and why? 

• Who would be the audience for your media product? 

• How did you attract/address your audience? 

• What have you learnt about technologies from the process of constructing this product? 

• Looking back at your preliminary task, what do you feel you have learnt in the progression from it to the full product?

HOW ITS ALL MARKED [ie THE ASSESSMENT CRITERIA]

When I'm marking all this, I've got to write a paragraph for the exam board justifying the marks I've given you. The grid embedded below summarises the criteria I have to follow, and so you're advised to occasionally re-read this and ask yourself where you think you'll fall within the marking scheme!
For each section there are key components of the work which I have to assess as being one of the following:

MINIMAL
BASIC
PROFICIENT

EXCELLENT

If you think you're currently at the 'minimal' or 'basic' level for any of these, ask yourself (and me!) what you can do to jump up to at least proficient

Blog Improvements

Actions I am going to take to improve my blog:

Check Spelling 

Change font and collar of text

Add context to films analysed 

Highlight key terminology

Break down paragraphs

Prims

Underpinning this blog is a comparison between two companies that, to some extent, exemplify different positions within and approaches to the film industry: the 'powerhouse' WT, a subsidiary of NBC-U with one eye always on the international market, and Indie Warp, with a clearer focus on domestic (UK) box office. WT is seen as compromising the Britishness and artistic quality of its output in order to maximise box office potential, though its recent slate may challenge that perception. Multiple award-winning Warp is seen as producing auteur films with a strong British identity (very widely defined: She, A Chinese...) generally with limited mainstream appeal - or, at least, opportunity to win major distribution and marketing backing/spending.

Preliminary exercise: Continuity task involving filming and editing a character opening a door, crossing a room and sitting down in a chair opposite another character, with whom she/he then exchanges a couple of lines of dialogue. This task should demonstrate match on action, shot/reverse shot and the 180-degree rule.

Gants Rule - Working Title

 It doesn't work absolutely precisely, but the general principle can be clearly seen...
Into the Woods (Rob Marshall, 2014)
$50m budget, global box Office by end January 2015: $165m. US box office: $125m. UK box office: £7.3m.
IMDB; the-Numbers; BoxOfficeMojo; Wiki; Charles Gant's UK column late January 2015; Ben Child's US box office analysis;

There is a greater multiple than x10 when comparing US and UK box office, but the general point of the vastly larger scale can be seen. There may seem a bit of a mystery then as to why there is less than x10 the screens, but this reflects the much higher ticket prices typically charged in the US (2800 screens v 500). The film is unusual in one regard though: around 75% of the global take is from the USA alone; this has been typically around 50%, but recently has been declining to nearer 40% as China's cinema industry in particular grows in scale.

This article shows us that Gants rule is used in many ways that gants rule is used throughout the working title industry. Gants rule is basically explaining that the US box office will always earn 10x as much as the UK box office for example 'Into The Woods' was a $50m was the budget. The US box office was $125m and the UK was £7.3m. There are many reaons for this. Working title for example have a larger box office in the US because the films generally use major american actors and actresses. Also the US is a vast space therefore it is pretty ovbious that the box office will be alrger than the UK's nearly every tiume.

Pride And Prejudice

Pride And Prejudice is a working title film set in the upper class Britain. The characters are all posh white and live in a large family home. The main character, Elizabeth Bennet is one of 9 sisters all looking for marriage of a 'well off husband'. It was released in 2005:

• The main character is Elizabeth Bennet, white upper class looking for love.
• Keira Knightly is playing Elizabeth.
• The plot clearly states that Elizabeth is looking for the love in the relationship instead of the economics in which the rest of her family (and the white upper class nation of the 1800's) were looking into. 
• The film is based on a Jane Austin novel. The novel is the second best selling novel in British history. This gives the movie a pre-audience. 
• The film had a gross of $38 million.
• Pride And Prejudice is a satire and a novel of manners. The fact that the movie is based in white upper class is very appealing to foreign countries, such as america.
• Pride and Prejudice may be of these genres however it is also a love story therefore aimed at Jane Austin fans, which are mainly of a female audience. This is why there is Matthew Macfayden. There is large build up evening the trailer.
• It is a PG rated film. Production companies involved were Universal and CanalStudios. 

...

prelim - september

Prelim - First time using final cut

I worked with Niamh filming the prelim, this is the clip from her Youtube.
We used one camera.
The first shot was from behind Alex. We then shot to a close shot of his hand opening the door. Then  a continued shot from the front, showing continuity.  Close shot of him pulling the chair out and then sitting down.
We then did a shot reverse shot to show the two people making conversation. This was the first time that i had filmed a short clip and used Final cut pro.
- What i earned from the prelim

• How to put different shots together to show continuity throughout the prelim. Using the trim tool to edit the length of clips.

• I also learnt how to create a new project or event helping me to section off different task in final cut pro. You go to; file, new the pick library for a new subject or creation.

• Once you had finished the prelim you had to export it to Youtube, enabling you to upload to blogger. I learnt out to export/share for final cut. Then from youtube you click the share button and the embed. You copy the link and embed to your blog.

• Then the stage of Youtube.

Gants Blog comparing Warp and Working title

Working title and warp Blog analysis

1) A few key points from Gants blog is that;

• The working title earned £3.16 in opening time. 
• Everest is the eighth number one for universal this year, StudioCanal have scored one with Legend.
• Legend earned just short of £10 million in 12 days.
• In the past year StudioCanal have raised over £10 for another six films.

2) Charles Gants analyses box office hits in the UK alone. He often gives a positive review. For example 'Inside out gives nothing but joy for disney'. Grants headings are explaining and admiring the working title and then the indie class. 'The winner: Working title'. Then 'Second Place: Legend', we can connote from this that Grant is telling us that working title will always beat the indie films. There are many examples to Grants reviews on this link -  http://www.theguardian.com/profile/charles-ganthttp://www.theguardian.com/profile/charles-gant
Charles Grants rule is basically saying hat the US box office will always out rule the UK box Office. However he analysis the UK box office in detail but to get the information across he compares the two too show the true scale.

3) Gant makes many useful points throughout all his reviews on box office hits. All his reviews have things in common:
Minions make millions - http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/jun/30/uk-box-office-minions-makes-millions-jurassic-world-biggest-hit-since-skyfall - In this column Gant again states 'The Winner: Minions' and then 'Second Place: Jurassic World'. Again (in comparison too the Everest blog) the winner is working title once again and the warp title is 'Second'. Warp titles never have as much money to put into the film production therefore are never going to get as good as a box office in comparison to the working titles who have many famous actors.

4) Grant is talking abut how box office release on rom-coms because they all usually have large very famous actors being filmed in them. For example in the film 'Miss You already' this has Drew barymore in it. She is very famous therefore more people are going to want to see it. Where as warp titles have less money to put into the film therefore they do not have the finances to pay for extremely famous faces. Another film that is a working title rom-com is 'Love Actually'. Love actually involves Hugh Grant, Colin firth, this film made a international gross of $250,000,000. This is a commutation test. If these famous hollywood actors were not there then the film will not have produced such masses of money in the international and national box office.  The production budget was $40,000,000. Love actually is a rom-com but also had a cinema release around christmas time. This makes the film even more romantic because often people feel even more romantic around christmas time. Another reason to why Grant states that working title film rely on a rom-com is the film is the holiday. This film is a Christmas time film yet also a rom-com. Once again released around christmas. It is now a very famous rom-com. The international box office for this film was $140,000,000.

The history of the Working title industry is vast. Working title films have been around scince the early 1800's. In the 1800's films such as 'I Wish You Were Here' and then later in the 90's 'Four Weddings And A Funeral'. Which are living and are remembered to this day by people who wewre not alive until later. Woking title is different and has always been different to indie fims. For example in the 80's one of the first working title filmed was called 'The Tall Guy'. This filmed involved an actor called Jeff Goldblum. Beofre Jeff stared in this film he was aslo in Jurrassic Park and Independace day. He had been in other films. He was known as a hollywood actor. Some might say famous. THis is how working title films often do so well. They have famous actors and actresses who are willing to work in their film. Because working title can afford to pay them more than indie films.

Analysis Of This Is England screenshots

This is England was directed and produced by Shane Meadows. It is about showing the true side to Britain which not everyone generally sees. Being an auteur he looks at serious social issues which reflect and support the documentary style of which This Is England is like.

• This is the opening shot of This Is England. The text 'This Is England' Is centre in frame, connoting that Shane Meadows wanted the title to stand out. 
• The title is in bubble font, from this we can again connote that it is from a child’s point of view. This would be a negotiated reading, depending on your age you can relate to using bubble on font word documents as a child. We can connote that there is a little boy in the left side of the shot. This could signify that not only is the movie from a child’s point of view but a young boy. Which it is. 
• The title is also white with black marks on it. White on black shows the audience that this is a serious documentation, showing the realism. The white writing is fading in some places. This looks rough much like what most parts of England are. We can understand that Meadowes wanted this to be a preferred reading. Preferred reading comes across strongly because you do not have to be from a certain era to understand that the rough spots on the writing signify the rough and worn down spots in England which not everyone sees. This connects to the fact that 'This Is England' is in the centre. It is a statement. 
• This again links to the mise-en-scene of the block of terrace flats in the background. If there was a penthouse in the background the meanings would be extremely different this is a communication test. The block of flats matter. Ancourage is the reason  this is a stament-upper case.

•  This image is a close shot of HIS dad. This is an extremely important shot. It is telling us something about the main character. Straight away we can denote that where the boy is, is clearly not a nice place. The wall paper is severely ripped and there is no proper furniture. The image and alarm clock are placed on a small red chair which also looks faded. 
• We all know that if this room was set in an upper class area the boy would have his choice wall paper and furniture however the paper is a mouldy green which has clearly been there a while.
•  From everything that we can denote we assume that this is a council house. The image is right in the centre of the shot and it is a close shot. Showing us detail. 
• The same font as in the above picture is used for the date, which is again in the centre of the shot bringing the eyes to it.

Analysis Of The opening of Nanny McPhee

Context Of Nanny McPhee
Nanny McPhee was directed by Susanna White and had a box office of $120,000,000.

This is the opening shot. It is an extreme long shot of the ‘Family house’. This is effective because it is showing the audience the overview of the house and its surroundings. Giving the audience the idea that they live in the country and not near any civilisation. Putting thoughts in the audiences mind for an example of when was this set. There is woman speaking over describing part of their lives for example how her husband is in the war so ‘we’re on our own’. The initial establishing shot lets us connote denote that they live on a farm in the country side, surrounded by fields. 

This is a low shot. The woman has stormed into the room there was a loud bang and she came in screaming. This attracts the audience and brings them into the movie. Makes them thinking about what she is shouting about. The low shot gives her power and makes her look like she is above you therefore knows what she is doing. This shot involves a lot of body language. We can connote that the film wasn't set in present day due to the semiotics. The protagonist is wear a floral dress, connoting that Nanny Mcphee was set around 1950's. Further into the film we find out that it was indeed set around the second world war, due to the protagonists husband coming home in the end.

This is an extreme close shot. You can see her eyes clearly and you can see that she is looking desperate. In this shot it is frozen. This is a mise-an-scene. She is speaking over as well. This would be non-diegetic sound. It then bursts in to diegetic sound with the protagonist shouting. Bringing the audience in into the film.‘That’s me coping’. This is because she is clearly not coping this is very effective for the audience, providing some humour in the very first minute. This is a strong focus on the emotion of the face (a CU).