“Media production is
dominated by global institutions which promote their products and services to
national audiences.” To what extent do you agree with this statement?
I agree
with this statement to a massive extent because, despite a Business Standard
article claiming that “film production in Britain last year [2016] earned a
record-breaking $2 billion”, Hollywood grossed $38 billion that same year,
showing that despite Britain making some advances into the global market
Hollywood, because of massive financial resources and an established industry,
still dominates all aspects of production and distribution. My research has shown
a number of factors may however mean Britain can start to compete more equally
such as the Hollywood writers’ strike and changes in technology.
I’m
going to explore this question by discussing two case studies- Dawn of the Dead
and Shaun of the Dead, both of which were released in March 2004. Dawn of the
Dead is a thriller produced by Strike Entertainment and New Amsterdam
Entertainment (both American), and Shaun of the Dead is a category D/E British
comedy film, and was produced by StudioCanal (French), and Working Title Films and
Big Talk Productions (both British). Both films were distributed by Universal
Pictures (American). I figured that this, along with the fact they were both
inspired by a 1978 film called Dawn of the Dead (my US film was a remake), and
that they were released two weeks apart makes them good to compare.
In terms of
audience appeal, as a Forbes and Streets article in 2000 summarised, the
majority of spectators just want to be entertained by “deliberately escapist”
cinema, and they go on to argue that Hollywood provides this with simple
narrative. In the case of both of my case studies, unlike some harrowing social
realism films Britain produced in the 1990s, provide potential escapism. I
personally feel that Shaun of the Dead had a much better script, and it scored
a better rating on rotten tomatoes than my US film which SHOULD have meant it
made more money, but sadly this wasn’t the case. Age rating was not a factor in
this either, as both were rated R in the US, but in the UK Shaun of the Dead
was given a 15 and Dawn of the Dead was given an 18 (necessary due to the fact
some people are easily influenced) meaning Shaun of the Dead should have had a
bigger advantage as MacDougal (2008) argued 15-24 year olds spend the most at
the cinema. This should have meant that my US film would make less as a big
chunk of this group couldn’t see it in cinemas. Genre was not the reason behind
the UK not beating Hollywood film in box office profits either because both
films were zombie/horrors and if anything, as Shaun of the Dead was a comedy
hybrid it should have done better because comedy is the 4th most
popular genre in the US. This means my British film should have done well
overseas and in the UK where comedy is also popular. So why did my British film
not do better?
Sadly, I
think the answer to this is money as unfortunately, for the British film
industry, Hollywood has set a standard which means most high grossing films
cost $150+ million to produce and $10+ million to market and distribute. What
this means is if, like my British film, Britain doesn’t want to team up with
Hollywood, they often end up having to make a film on a lower budget and this
puts that film at a disadvantage to Hollywood films.
My British
case study’s production budget was £4.1 million, which was provided by the
three production companies I mentioned earlier. Despite having the same genre
requirements in terms of zombie related special effects and make up, my
Hollywood case study had a much larger budget of $26 million (roughly £20
million). This is further evidence that proves how uneven the playing field is,
as Hollywood’s domination in the global market provides them with more money to
spend on cast, crew, locations, costumes etc. Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, the
two principle cast members in Shaun of the Dead are both recognised in Britain
specifically for comedies so were used as a selling point. Dawn of the Dead
surprisingly went against the idea of using A-list celebrities, but bought a
larger cast and spent more on extras. This contradicts the idea that Hollywood
typically stands the advantage with the use of bigger names. Dawn of the Dead
was directed by Zack Snyder, produced by Richard P. Rubinstein, Marc Abraham
and Erin Newman, the cinematography was done by Matthew F. Leonetti, edited by
Niven Howie, written by James Gunn, and the music provider was Tyler Bates.
Shaun of the Dead was directed by Edgar Wright, produced by Nira Park, the
cinematography was done by David M. Dunlap, edited by Chris Dickens, written by
the director and main actor, and the music providers were Pete and Daniel
Woodhead. Neither used particularly big names but my Hollywood films could
afford more producers. My British film stood the advantage with the use of the
UK’s capital, London, as it’s globally recognised. My Hollwood film was shot in
a number of locations and they even had a mall renovated, which required a much
higher budget that my British film just didn’t have. Shaun of the Dead had 9
weeks to film and Dawn of the Dead had 11. Despite both using good quality
cameras (Shaun of the Dead using arriflex cameras, and Dawn of the Dead using
moviecam cameras) and both using 35mm film, I for one know that longer shooting
equals more potential for higher quality footage.
Even so,
I personally believe that recent advances in technology have already helped
level the playing field and will continue to do so. The existence of cheaper,
but high quality cameras such as the Canon 6D that has even been used to film
Black Swan and an episode of House, helps low budget films. As filming, editing
and exhibition can now be done digitally (thanks to a shift away from
non-linear editing methods, and Avatar leading to all cinemas finally going
digital in 2009), British filmmakers can now spend less and get the same
results as Hollywood. Also as The Guardian summarised in an article I read a few months back [March 2017] audience’s tastes are changing and now they want more
freedom to consume films how they want- such as downloading and streaming
online, and as companies such as Netflix and Amazon don’t seem as biased
towards Hollywood as multiplex cinemas this could make a real difference for
British cinema nationally and internationally.
However,
we aren’t at this point yet and Hollywood seems to be clinging onto its advantage
especially when it comes to distribution and marketing. Interestingly, both of
my films were distributed by Universal Pictures in 2004, but my British film
was given a smaller budget of $1-2 million, compared to $10 million received by
Dawn of the Dead. This is a clear example of how unfair the industry is, along
with the fact my British film’s release date was pushed back 2 weeks because my
US film was due to be released at the same time. Dawn of the Dead was
distributed in the standard manner of many posters and trailers, and it used
people recognising the title as a remake (which it would have also had to pay
for the rights to). Shaun of the Dead had few posters and trailers made, but
UIP cleverly planned their campaign with the young male focus in mind and had
their posters in pubs, helping it reach their target audience. They also
marketed using radio stations Xfm. Kerrang!, Virgin and talkSPORT, as well as
press ads in Zoo Weekly, Nuts, Bizarre and NME- they were tactful, rather than
relying on a budget. US distributors can use synergy across a range of media
platforms they either own or have ties with, promoting to a mass audience more
cost effectively. However, as I briefly mentioned earlier, new technology has
created the potential of viral marketing. Plunkett’s 2008 quote supports my
opinion by stating how people are now “going straight to their audience via the
web”. A successful example of this is The Blair Witch Project. Despite this,
distribution companies are still spending around ½ of what the production
budget is.
In conclusion, I think that my case studies show that the
industry is not a level playing field because although, in my opinion, my
British case study had a much better narrative and advantages in aspects such
as star vehicles, location and genre, Shaun of the Dead grossed $30 million
worldwide, whilst Dawn of the Dead grossed $120 million. This shows how unfair
the industry is as they both grossed a similar amount in the UK ($10-12
million) but Dawn of the Dead grossed a significant amount more in the US. If
my British film hadn’t been distributed by a US company, it would have suffered
a greater loss. Overall, it seems that Hollywood has the funds for larger films
which, in turn, bring in a larger profit. To top it off, American distributors
also dominate distribution in the UK. I believe that, unfortunately, Hollywood
will continue to dominate the industry, as it’s too far ahead for the playing
field to ever be truly equal.
