CMNS 230
Film
Lecture Nov. 20 2006,
David Newman
In the beginning…
» First Lumiere Brothers film screening
in Paris, December 1895
» However, there were screenings
prior to this
» Demonstrated very rapid diffusion of
new technology
Diffusion of motion pictures
•
Dec. 1895
Diffusion of motion pictures
•
May 1895
••
•
Dec. 1895
Diffusion of motion pictures
••
•
Dec. 1895
June 1896
•
•
May 1895
1896
• May
•
•
Jan. 1896
•
Sept. 1896
August 1896
•
•
Feb. 1897
Oct. 1896
August 1896
•
•
Today’s lecture
» First half - historical overview
» Hollywood and non-Hollywood movies
» Canada, with New Zealand as a
comparison
» Institutional structure and policy
environment for the film industry
» Discussion of Assignment 3
Origins of Hollywood
» Film industry in the USA began in
New Jersey and around New York
» Motion Picture Patents Trust - 1908
 Edison
 Biograph
 Vitagraph
Origins of Hollywood
» Problems for companies outside the
Trust - harassment, legal threats
» Needed an alternative environment
» California came into the picture
» The first “runaway” productions and
establishment of Hollywood as a
production venue
Origins of Hollywood
» Why California and Hollywood?
 Various theories
»
»
»
»
Escape Motion Picture Patents Company
Proximity to the Mexican border
Physical environment / climate
Later - distance from head office and the
financiers
Origins of Hollywood
» Development of 3 main sectors
 Production
 Distribution
 Exhibition
- manufacturing
- wholesaling
- retailing
» Industrial terminology used initially along
with attempts to make the process and
studios as similar as possible to
manufacturing in a factory
Early Hollywood
» Post WWI
 The war had created a vacuum in European
production
 Dominance of Hollywood globally
 Aided by US government
 “Trade follows film”
 Star system in place to provide branding
Early Hollywood
» Scandals in early Hollywood
» Fear of government regulation at
both Federal and State levels
» Politically, industry self-regulation
preferred approach
» Will Hays and MPPDA
(Motion Picture Producers and Distributors Association)
Hollywood studio era
» Fordist approach to production
» Introduction of sound
» Decrease in importance of
international markets
Hollywood studio era
» The majors
1926
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
Paramount
Warner Bros
Fox
Loew’s/MGM
RKO
Universal
Columbia
United Artists
Hollywood studio era
» The majors
1926
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
Paramount
Warner Bros
Fox
Loew’s/MGM
RKO
Universal
Columbia
United Artists
2006
»
»
»
»
»
»
Paramount
Warner Bros
20th Century Fox
Universal
Disney
Columbia/Sony
Pictures
» MGM/United Artists
Hollywood studio era
» Source of Hollywood’s strength?
 Finance capital v. industrial capital
» New York-based bankers
Hollywood studio era
» 1948 Paramount case
» Television
Rise of the independents
» Change in production style
» Move to post-Fordist approach
» Studios adapted - focused on
distribution
» Runaway productions in Europe
Rise of the blockbuster
» Jaws 1975
» Star Wars 1977
Steven Spielberg
George Lucas
Blockbuster revenues
»
»
»
»
»
»
Theatrical releases
DVD / video releases
Cable and broadcast TV rights
Product placements
Ancillary merchandise
Musicals / theme park rides
Directors of top-10 grossing films
Worldwide
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
James Cameron
Peter Jackson (2)
Gore Verbinski
Chris Columbus (2)
George Lucas
Steven Spielberg
Mike Newell
Andrew Adamson
Canada
New Zealand
USA
USA
USA
USA
England
New Zealand
Source: www.imdb.com
Situation today
» Hollywood movies - continuing to
dominate
» Independents and films from other
countries obtaining about 10-15% of
the North American box office
Centre-Periphery model for Hollywood /
non-Hollywood industries
Peter Jackson
Canada & New Zealand
» Both former British Dominions
» Both dominated by Hollywood
productions
» Both with relatively small populations
making it difficult for a domestic
production industry to be commercially
viable
» Population
 Canada
 New Zealand
32 million
4.1 million (excluding sheep)
Canada
» Essentially two cinemas
 Quebec & non-Quebec, or
 English-language & French
» Quebec interesting exception
» An example of a regional, ethnic or
sub-national cinema
» Success in recent years very
different
Canada institutions
» TeleFilm Canada
» National Film Board
» Provincial level agencies
Telefilm mandate
“… cultural investor… supporting
Canada’s audiovisual industry to
create cultural works that reflect and
celebrate the diversity of Canada
and are widely appreciated in
Canada and abroad.”
Canada - policy tools
»
»
»
»
»
Policy institutions
Direct investment (Telefilm, NFB)
Tax credits
Co-production treaties
Location support (at local/provincial
level)
New Zealand institutions
»
»
»
»
»
New Zealand Film Commission (NZFC)
Feature Film Fund
New Zealand Screen Council
New Zealand On Air
Film New Zealand
NZFC mandate
“To contribute to New Zealand’s
cultural capital through the
development, production, financing
and marketing of audience-focused
feature films; and to grow the film
sector within the larger screen
production industry.”
Source: NZFC Fact Sheet 2005
New Zealand - policy tools
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
Policy institutions
Investment (NZFC, FFF)
State sales agency (NZFC)
Co-productions
Accelerated tax write-offs
Large Budget Screen Production Grant
Location support
Culture v. economic
» Different policy goals
 Culture - national or ethnic identity
 Economic - economic activity and jobs
Results
New Zealand feature
production
14
13
12
Excluding Peter Jackson productions
10
US$m & #
10
9
8
8
8
6
7
4
2
$4.5m
Average budget
excluding Peter Jackson
$2.1m
$1.1m
$1.3m
$1.5m
$2.1m
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
Financial year ended
2004
2005
Canada feature production
100
90
80
83
Number
70
60
70
86
76
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2001
2002
2003
Financial year ended
2004
2005
Feature production by million
population
Features produced per million population
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
2000
2001
2002
2003
Financial year end
New Zealand
Canada
2004
2005
Feature production
expenditure per capita
Per capita feature production expenditure (US$)
12.0
11.07
10.0
9.38
8.79
8.03
8.0
6.946.81
5.86
5.59
6.0
4.98
4.58
3.66
4.0
8.12
7.46
5.49
4.19
3.34
2.37
2.20
2.0
0.0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Financial year ended
Per capita production value - New Zealand
Per capita production value - English-Canada
Per capita production value - French-Canada
% of local box office
23.3%
14%
12.7%
12%
% of box office
10%
12.4%
9.7%
8%
6.3%
6%
4%
2%
7.9%
6.9%
4.0%
1.0%
4.3%
1.4%
0.7%
0%
1999
2006
projection
6.0%
2000
1.7%
0.3%
2001
1.1%
1.6%
0.9%
1.1%
0.9%
0.1%
2002
4.8%
3.8%
2003
2004
2005
2006 1Q
Year
NZ film share of box office excl. LOTR & King Kong (%)
NZ film share of box office w/ LOTR & King Kong (%)
Canadian film share of English-language Canadian box office (%)
Telefilm budget for feature
production by language
50
43.5
45
40
33.1 33.2
35
28.9
C$m
30
25
21.5
19.2
20
15
13.8
11.3
18.9
15.3
12.0
7.8
10
5
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Financial year ended
French-language feature support English-language feature support
Development expenditure
per capita (US$)
0.350
0.300
0.250
0.200
0.150
0.100
0.050
0.000
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
2003-04
New Zealand development investment per capita US$
Canadian development + SA P (E ng) per capita in US $
2004-05
Number of projects receiving
development (per capita)
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
NZ devlpmnt. projects per 100,000 pop.
2003-04
2004-05
Telefilm dev lpmnt projects (SAP & non-SAP ) per 100, 000 pop.
Avg. US$ development
per project
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
2003-04
NZFC av g. US$ per devlpmnt project
Telefilm dev lpmt. US$ per project (non-S AP)
Telefilm dev lpmt. US$ per project (SAP )
2004-05
Box office for select top local
films since 1999 (US$)
New Zealand
Canada - English
»
World’s Fastest Indian * $4.74m
»
Bon Cop/Bad Cop 1
»
Whale Rider *
$4.61m
»
Resident Evil: Apocalypse *
»
Sione’s Wedding
$2.73m
»
What Becomes of the
Broken Hearted
$10.4m
$3.75m
»
Mambo Italiano
$3.69m
$2.14m
»
Trailer Park Boys 1
$3.2m
»
In My Father’s Den *
$1.20m
»
White Noise *
$2.8m
»
Scarfies
$840,000
»
Men with Brooms
$2.44m
»
River Queen *
$670,000
»
Bollywood/Hollywood
$950,000
* co-production
1 as of November 2, 2006
New Telefilm policy -2007/08
» Asymmetrical model
» Instead of 5% overall target
 2% for English language
 20% for Quebec (significant that they are using
the term Quebec rather than French-language
» Different policies for funding with lower box
office targets for English-language films
» Still reviewing French-language funding
problems as they have insufficient
resources for the demand
Service productions
» Also known as “runaway
productions
» Productions filmed in a different
geographic location from the
control and funding
» Worth C$821m to British Columbia
last year (feature films only)
Coming to a nearby theatre
soon (hopefully)
References & further reading
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
Gomery, Douglas (2005), The Hollywood Studio System: A History,
BFI Publishing, London
Miller, Toby, Nitin Govil, et. al., (2005), Global Hollywood 2, BFI
Publishing, London
Wasko, Janet (2003), How Hollywood Works, Sage Publications,
London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi
Wexman, Virginia Wright (2006), A History of Film, 6th ed., Pearson
Allyn & Bacon, Boston
www.imdb.com
New Zealand Film Commission Annual Reports & website
TeleFilm Canada Annual Reports & website
Movie posters from Wikipedia, www.imdb.com and NZFC
Assignment 3
» Outline is (or will be) on the class
website
» Due 3pm, December 8 at the main
School of Communications office
» Will be graded by Professor Murray
Assignment 3
» Select an existing cultural product or text,
preferably Canadian in origin
» This might be a television series, film, book,
magazine, CD or videogame
» Make sure you are familiar with it
» Talk to us if you want to do something
outside of what is listed above
Assignment 3
» Product pitch
 Create a brief description of the text in
the form of a pitch or outline
 Maximum of 100 words
 Provide the essence of the story or
format with something to grab or
interest the audience
 This isn’t as easy as it sounds. Give
yourself plenty of time to develop this
Assignment 3
» Target audience
 1 paragraph outlining the specific
audience or audiences along with their
demographics that this text is targeted
towards
 Be specific… maybe compare with
other cultural texts
Assignment 3
» Funding
 Identify the sources of funding for the
creation of the product and possible
constraints
 Try to identify the likely cashflow (use
Backend Money and The Movie
Business (on Reserve) to help you
 What impact do funding constraints
have on the creation of the product?
Assignment 3
» Audience reception
 Evaluate the aesthetic and popular
success of the text/product
» Do you think it is good?
» Do others think it is good?
» How has the audiences received it?
 What could be changed to enhance
its market success nationally and
internationally?
Assignment 3
» Relationship to policy
 How has cultural policy made a
difference to the production of the
text?
 Has it impacted the content or
meaning at all?
Assignment 3
» Prose format using the headings
listed as section headings
» This is intended to be a synthesis and
application of what you have
learned from this course. Think
about the lessons learned and apply
them.
» Be creative; be original