Section B Exam Question

How far does the platform on which they are consumed determine the construction of media products in your cross-media study? Support your answer with reference to a range of products from THREE media platforms. (32 marks) 

I will be discussing how the construction of a media product differs based on the platform in which they are mostly consumed in. I will be using the examples of three films: Ill Manors, A Field in England and The King's Speech. Codes and conventions are used to promote films and to get the correct target audience, this is evident in all three films. They would target this audience using print, broadcast and e-media techniques in order to make the film successful. 

The first film I will talk about is Ill Manors as it's been promoted through a variety of ways particularly using print through magazines and newspapers. The director Ben Drew who is more known as Plan B appears on a magazine called NME which is mainly targeted at a young alternative audience. He is shown to have two middle fingers up with a cigarette in his mouth. This gives him a very strong, urban and street look in which the youth can easily relate to. The target audience for this magazine are mainly young people so this gesture and attitude would appeal to them greatly. This reinforces the dominant stereotype of that young people are rebellious and this sometimes causes a moral panic as this isn't an image or figure that parents would want their kids looking up to. Plan B is used to promote the film because he doesn't have much experience in on the film industry as this is his first time directing and making a film. He is a lot more popular in the music industry and has a big fan base which would also watch a film if he made it. He is the unique selling point of Ill Manors. 

A similar technique is used with the film A Field in England as the director, Ben Wheatley is written in big bold font on the print poster for his film. He is very successful and very known in the film industry, he is used heavily to promote the film as he's made previous ones therefore he is a trustworthy film maker unlike Ben Drew with Ill Manors who is very inexperienced. 

Moreover, Plan B also appears on the cover of Men's Health but the target audience is significantly different from NME just by the name of each magazine. In terms of Blumer and Katz's Uses and Gratifications theory, the main aim of Men's Healths editors would be the surveillance of Ben Drew as they ask him and write about his dieting and weight loss program. This Ben Drew is a lot different than the one in the NME magazine because in this one he is dressed in a suit which makes him look very classy and is often referred to as objectifying himself because he makes himself appear urban and street in one magazine and then classy and sophisticated in the other.  

As Men's Health have very strong ideologies with health, lifestyle and fitness, Plan B is not necessarily promoting the film , he is almost just talking about his own lifestyle however when readers read about him they might be interested in searching about him and they would then find out about the film he is making. That helps to create exposure for his media products and also gather a wider audience to consume his media products. This again shows how different platforms change the way in which the media product is constructed because of a difference in target audience and the nature of the platform itself. 

A Field in England uses codes and conventions to appeal to it's main target audience of the upper-class demographic. This target audience is very different from the Ill Manors mainly due to the historical context which is involved within the film. The film poster contains a 16th century England with a very warm sepia look with blacked out silhouettes of people who are the main characters. The poster is very important when it comes to identifying the genre of the film and it is appealing to the correct target audience. Although the old, traditional worn out colour, the audience can easily make out the assumption that the film is a historical drama

The King's Speech is also similar to A Field in England as it has a very traditional and conservative poster with the royal colours and faded out sepia look. Just from the background colour of the film, the audience would be able to understand more about the film. The microphone is used as the main iconography in The King's Speech and it is also used to signify the genre of this film and the fact that it is a historical movie due to the authenticity of the microphone. However the iconography in Ill Manors is a lot different as it's a gun which is held by the protagonist which also then also captures the genre of the film as an urban film with a lot of social realism. The use of film poster conventions helps the audience to understand the genre of the film as the construction of these film posters help to emphasise the genres.  

The broadcast platform is quite different and unique for Plan B because he sticks to his original ideologies and values but the way he delivers the message is quite different. This is evident when he is presenting himself to a very well educated TEDx lecture audience and he changed the way he spoke so he can make himself more understandable and relate to the audience in a way for them to understand him. However the audience for the film would be very different to those in the TEDx lecture.  The audience in the TEDx lecture would mainly be middle classed ABC1 demographic and the most fitting psychographic group would be succeeders and aspirers. The audience might not watch the film or even knew it existed beforehand but this speech creates exposure for Plan B to a whole new audience. Plan B delivers his strong moral values and political views and beliefs very powerfully. It also creates synergy through this platform as the director of the film is able to promote his soundtrack and he is able to construct the way he speaks to promote himself as a brand too. This helps the audience understand Plan B as a brand and this would cross-promote himself and his film.  As the audience in the TEDx lecture are middle classed and perhaps more conservative and traditional, Plan B stays true to himself and is informal and he spoke in a very colloquial way. The reason for this is perhaps it shows that he holds strong ideologies by being true to himself.

He also appears on SBTV who's audience is almost the same as the audience Plan B is familiar to. The young working class demographic would be the predominant viewers of SBTV and therefore may already know who Plan b is and therefore promote his film through himself once again. However because Plan B's background of being a political rapper, it has already gained a wide fan base for him therefore creating exposure through his soundtrack which creates synergy and therefore widens the audiences that utilises his media products. 

A Field in England decided to use a very simultaneous release strategy in order for a wider audience consumption. Therefore due to the film being released across all platforms on the same day, it had the risk of decreasing the overall profit. Also as the film is an arthouse film, it targets a very niche market and therefore the people who go to these arthouse cinemas would most probably not mind spending the money on watching the film in the cinema to have the theatrical experience. The people who go to arthouse cinemas and watch arthouse films would mainly fit the succeeders psychographic category as it shows that they have money and status. The film was therefore released on DVD, on demand etc. all on the same day as the theatrical release, this therefore allowed a wider audience to have this type of media product easily accessible. 

 Also similar to both Ill Manors and A Field in England was The King's Speech strategy as the protagonist Colin Firth helped promote the film through themselves as brand images just like Plan B promotes himself to promote the film. Colin Firth had an interview with the BBC and this was almost a match made in heaven because the BBC is a public service broadcaster and promotes positive brand values and very conservative and traditional British ideologies and therefore as the King's Speech reinforces these positive ideologies as the film is about the monarchy, they gather a very precise target audience and would then be consumed by a much larger audience. 

Ill Manors proves to be the best example of featuring interactivity and communication within the platform. The Tag London Twitter campaign was a great way to promote the film through social media, using hashtags and allowing user generated content to be shared online and throughout London. This campaign allowed London passers-by to consume the media products and this therefore creates synergy across all media platforms. The campaign would particularly appeal to the young adult and youth demographic as they are the most consumed by e-media and social media, therefore this is a seriously beneficial and advantageous strategy to promote the film through the target audience themselves. The users could promote the film to their friends and stimulate discussion through their own user generated content as there are no gatekeepers, therefore all the content is first hand - this could be seen as beneficial as positive reviews would be promoted and consumed by a large audience but it could also be seen as a disadvantage as a bad review can similarly be seen by a large audience and could potentially promote a negative impact for the film rather than a positive one. 

A Field In England's distribution strategy was simultaneous, therefore was released online too. This would allow the younger generation to perhaps come across the film through the internet and be exposed to it and perhaps watch it as they are consumed by the media. This idea of the dependency theory would be applied here as young people are dependent on the media and the internet.

The Ill Manors brand is clearly themed on the website, through the use of the urban colours and the overall gritty feel it has, which relates to the genre of the film. The logo itself for Ill Manors is consistent and appears across many media platforms, which helps the audience to recognise the brand. Also the use of Ben Drew being iconic as the director is part of the brand and appears as the unique selling point of the brand and the most iconic part of the film. 

The website for A Field In England similarly embodies cross-promotion through all media platforms and captures the essence of the film as a period drama movie. The similar layout and aesthetics from the film poster is used within the website. The branding is clearly themed on the website just like in Ill Manors, which makes the brand of the film clear to see. The colours are very washed out and traditional, which shows the authenticity of the film.

In addition to this, The King's Speech website also has codes and conventions to help capture the brand of the film. The fact that the genre of the film is a historical period drama would explain the historical picture used as the heading of the website. It embodies the film as a whole as it is based on real life historical events. The website aesthetically is very simple and captures the seriousness of the film and would appeal to the target audience. The website, unlike the Ill Manors website, does not have any direct links to social media, similar to A Field In England, providing no synergy between the social networking platform. There are also no e-media campaigns for either film, however this is not particularly surprising as the core target audience would be middle class and mature, therefore they would not particularly be interested in e-media campaigns as they probably would not be associated with many social networking platforms.

MEST1 Section B: Independent Case Study

The Basics

1) I will be researching about The King's Speech which was directed by Tom Hooper. He's also directed a season of EastEnders and the films Les Miserables and The Danish Girl, which were all very successful. Iain Canning was the producer for The King's Speech in which he's won an Academy Award for best Picture and BAFTA awards for Best Film and Best British Film. It also consists of very notable stars such as Colin Firth who plays King George VI who also starred in Kingsman Secret Service. Geoffrey Rush who played Lionel Logue in the film and also makes a notable appearance in the Pirates of the Caribbean. Helena Bonham Carter who has a very dominant role in playing Queen Elizabeth. She also previously worked with Tom Hooper in Les Miserables and starred in the biggest franchise of all time, Harry Potter. Michael Gambon is also featured in this film however he is more known for playing Albus Dumbledore in Harry Potter. It is worth noting that nearly all the actors starring in The King's Speech are British except for Geoffrey Rush, he's from Australia but the success of the film would be due to the actors being British which means that they would understand the context and be able to act it out in a brilliant way. Evidence of this is that it's won 4 Oscars, 98 other awards and a total of 183 nominations. 

2) The King's Speech was released to the cinemas and theatres on the 7th of January 2011 in the UK but had an initial release on the 6th of September 2010 in the US. It was ultimately released in over 2,534 theatres worldwide in which it was playing for over 18 weeks.   It is also now released and available to watch on Netflix as of the 23rd of March 2015. It is also available to buy and watch from Amazon Video for £2.49. The DVD was released on the 19th of April 2011. 

3) The main genres are Biography, Drama and History. It is a true story as King George did need a speech therapist to overcome his stammering. The King's Speech is very dramatic and involves a lot of cultural understanding within the background of what was happening. It is very precise to put The King's Speech in the bracket of Historical Drama because it is a film genre in which the stories are based upon historical events and famous people. It attempts to have an accurate portrayal of a historical event or a biography to the degree that the available historical research will allow. 

4) The King's Speech received a high rating amongst all platforms of film critics. For example it received an 8/10 on IMDb in which 482,923 critics have voted in. It's received a Metascore of 88 in which top magazines, newspapers and opinion leaders vote in. It's popularity has fallen down to 781 on the all time list but that's understandable as it's been released for nearly 5 years now. On Rotten Tomatoes, it's hit a very high 95% approval rating which gives it a certified critically acclaimed title. It also has a 92% audience score which further proves that this film is not only very popular amongst professional critics but also the mass audience all around the world. Surprisingly the domestic gross only accumulated to 33% of the total lifetime grossing which was $138,797,499. On the other hand, the foreign intake was a lot larger at 66% which was $275,414,100, this might be due to the foreign audience wanting to know more and are more interested in British royal heritage than the local audience who already know a lot about their own monarchy.  

Broadcast

1) The denotation of the trailer is royalty and authority because it's about the king and the monarch. However when you look deeper, you see that the king is struggling with his speech and has a really bad issue with stammer and stutters a lot in his speech which shows that he's not as authoritative when he needs to be and when his country needed him the most so that would be the connotation for the trailer. 

There isn't much colour when it comes to the trailer, its gloomy but is very significant and effective in creating a suspenseful feeling to the film because the audience see that there's a problem with the king and it gives it that sense of dramatic and thrilling feel. Most of the shots in the trailer are close ups and that is effective because it makes the audience familiar with the actors and actresses. There's also close ups of buildings and microphones which will further emphasis that this film is about a speech that the king is working towards for making. 

The subject matter is mainly focused on the King himself and his problem with this stammer which is very important because it lets the audience know what the film will be about. There is also emphasis on his wife and the speech therapist because they are the ones who help him out the most out of anyone. 

The setting of the trailer is usually all indoors which might suggest that his problem with speech is affecting him greatly therefore he stays out of public sight because he's insecure about it. The whole mood of the trailer is dramatic and they are wanting to help him out for this one speech where they need his help. The signifier in the trailer would be the characters and they are using posh English to do this and it creates very clear speech throughout the whole trailer. 

The institutions and companies that helped in contributing and producing this film consist of See-Saw Films, The Weinstein Company, UK Film Council, Momentum Pictures, Aegis Film Find and Bedlam Productions. Most of them are British which further emphasises that The King's Speech is British, alongside British actors and cast. 

The genre of The King's Speech is most definitely Biography and Historical Drama because It attempts an accurate portrayal of a historical event of biography to the degree that the available historical research will allow. It requires a cultural understanding into the background and having knowledge of the context would further make the movie more enjoyable. 

2) This is an interview of Colin Firth with CBS News which is an American channel. It gives a brief insight and context around the film. He says that the character King George was very hard to play and his terrible speech impediment was catastrophic on his life, he says that 'No one would want to be in his shoes'. Which are very strong words because he was the King after all. He wanted the audience to focus on the historical aspect of the film and how things were different back then as there wasn't the high end technology to help people suffering. He also emphasised about the importance to take notice into people who suffer from stammer conditions and how they should be helped out to build confidence. On a funnier note, he said that when he went home from each filming day, he would still act the stammer out to his wife and they would share jokes and laughs. 

This is a Questions and Answers live show in front of an audience where Colin Firth and Tom Hooper were answering questions asked by members of the audience. Hooper explains how hard it was to make this film because there were many contradictions into the understanding and interpretation of the history behind King George and they had to get every little detail correct. He also explains how it was difficult managing the cast members and camera crew as he wanted very clever and unique shots and angles to make the film different than other historical dramas. Colin Firth answered a question about how he was able to pull off the stammer, he thanked the member of the audience who asked the question and explained that he spent two months trying to master the acting of it. 

This a more recent clip of The King's Speech cast at the BAFTA Awards red carpet event and it is mainly focused on Tom Hooper and he explains the story of the film. He emphasises how incredible that an Australian speech therapist helped the King through his speech impediment where radio was the new medium of communication in England, they still had an empire of 57 countries and World War II was only 3 years away. He emphasised how the world has changed ever since with technology growing ever so quickly and the radio is rarely in use now other than cars for transport. 

3) The broadcast promotion doesn't necessarily use any stars to create hype or as a means of promotion because the director himself, Tom Hooper, is very renowned and there are many well known household names like Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush, Helena Bonham Carter and Michael Gambon. In the trailer, they only appear at the end which means that the producer isn't looking to use the stars of the film to promote it, the storyline is more important and he is trying to sell that to the audience. 

Print

1) The first review I read was a user submitted one on IMDb. It is significant because it is a reliable source as that person is just normal and went to watch the film at the same time everyone else did when it released. The title of the review is "One word; Brilliant" which sums it all up really. One interesting point is that they weren't particularly grabbed by the name of the film because it wasn't that catchy. However they end it by saying "Certainly a film I would recommend to friends and family." 

This other review isn't particularly fond of the film and Peter Bradshaw who was writing for the Guardian. He was very critical of Colin Firth and the fact that he couldn't really pull of the acting role of King George VI. The criticism was that he had a very modern and strong featured face that didn't reflect like King George VI and the stammer according to history books was a lot more fierce than how he made it out to be. The whole review can be summed up one sentence he used " Some films are known as "game-changers". This is not one of those films." An interesting fact about Peter Bradshaw is the fact that he supports the Labour party and is a republican which means he doesn't support the idea of a monarchy and his review might be affected by that. 

Last but not least, Sukhdev Sandhu who is representing The Telegraph. His review was also critical of the film as he claims it was very "Sugar-coated" and is a historical drama which is "constructed like a contemporary makeover narrative".  He says that it is desperately trying to make it as dramatic as possible and wasn't successful in doing so. He wasn't very fond of how the director Tom Hooper opted for Oscar glory and had many orchestral music playing which he disliked but I think they were effective as the film was about royalty and very important people. 

2) To the right is the first example of print promotion and it's a poster which stands out a lot as it contains a close up of Geoffrey Rush with very big and positive quotes on him which makes sense as the producer would want the best reviews to make the film look much better. It also contains the two most popular names on the poster which are Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush however this poster in particular focuses on Geoffrey more because he is the helper of the King therefore he has a very powerful role in the film. The facial expression that Geoffrey is giving out is a little smirk and a look away from the camera so there is no direct address. He is wearing a suit which makes him look very professional and classy. The colour scheme is very dull and subtle which is very effective as the title of the film is in shiny gold which helps it stick out and memorable to the audience. At the very bottom, there is a very important piece of information which is the date of the release of the film, this is key to the audience as they'd want to know when and how to plan their time out when going to watch this film. 

This is a billboard advert for the King's Speech which demonstrates two of the characters who are the King and Queen who are played by Colin Firth and Helena Bonham Carter. It has an establishing shot of Regent's Park which is one of the royal parks in London. This is in the public in 2011 just before the film came out so it can attract a hype and audience. The advert contains a very dominant photo of both Colin and Firth dressed in a very smart and professional attire. The colour scheme is again dull and subtle but the title of The King's Speech stands out a lot as it's in shiny gold. The names again stand out because they are famous actors. The actors are definitely used to promote the film as they are popular. There is a quote overlaying the establishing shot of Regent's Park which says "Colin Firth gives the performance of his life". They couldn't chosen any actor who's done a really good job however the producers chose the most famous actor because that way they will attract a bigger audience as they would be more likely familiarised with Colin Firth than the other actors and also because he is the main character, he is the protagonist therefore it only makes sense if a quote about him was displayed on the massive billboard. 

3) This advert print poster carries a very strong message with it as it only has an image of a microphone which was King George's worst enemy and fear. The microphone communicates a lot to the audience because as the title of the film is The King's Speech, the striking image of the microphone signifies something very important about it. The names of the actors and cast is all listed under the title of the film and they are all in the same font and size which means that they are all as equal in terms of fame and popularity. The microphone is not modern at all which again emphasises the classical point of the film. The yellow is again reflected from the original title colour which is a shiny gold. They kept the theme of the shiny yellow gold because it demonstrates the royalty and importance of the people who are being acted in the film, the royal family. The title is obviously much bigger than the rest of the text and it stands out the most because it's a very bold statement, The King's Speech, it's not something you would hear everyday but when you do, it does stand out because a king is a very prominent role in society and has a lot of respect. The rest of the text is all in the same size and font which again shows that they all play an important role in this film. However the directors' name is at the top which is normal as he is basically the maker of the whole film. 

4) The branding for The King's Speech is very simple but unique. There is a lot of synergy because they use the brand title in every piece of their print, broadcast and e-media work. There's heavy use of royal colour which makes sense and is necessary because it is a film about royalty and a royal family therefore it only makes sense if a matching theme colour was used. There is heavy use of the microphone because the microphone is the King's biggest fear and enemy. Propp's character theory can be applied to the stammer as it is the villain  that stops the hero which is the King from performing and reaching his goal which is to make this speech to his nation. This stammer seems to be a lot stronger than the King because it causes him to stay home and away from the public as he has zero confidence when going out to speak and as a King you would need to be strong and confident in order to look powerful and people would see him as a leader. The hero is very self explanatory because his name is on the title of the film, it's the king. There are a few things that the branding of The King's Speech teaches us, first is that to rule, you must stand up and speak up. Second is speaking directly to your audience makes you a great leader and this is shown in the most powerful scene when King George VI is preparing to address Britain in his first war-time speech. After a lot of rehearsal, he is led into a tiny room, just big enough for himself, Logue and the microphone in which he will give his speech. In that moment, Logue was his only audience and he was the only person who mattered.

E-Media 

1) Since the film was released, there was a Twitter page but as of 2014 it's been removed and the tweets aren't available to view. However, by word of mouth, the film had a tweet reach of 40,000,000 which means that it reached that many users at it's peak. On Facebook, it was less distinctive as their official page only has 255,315 people liking it which obviously doesn't reflect on the film's popularity because if you put Facebook and Twitter into context, although Facebook has more users, Twitter is used more often by social media users because it's more accessible and easier to write posts on. Their last update on Facebook was them changing their cover photo to the photo below. If you look closely towards the top, you can notice 'The Weinstein Company Presents and below are four different films in which they produced. This shows that the main institution company which produced The King's Speech are using it's success to promote other films they made. 

They did not set up an Instagram account which is interesting and I personally don't see the point in films having their own Instagram accounts because it's just useless. However, the hashtag #TheKingssSpeech is still being used with the most recent post being in February 2016 and it is the top left of the 'Top Posts' in the image which is one of the producers holding her Oscars award and thanking the cast and everyone who worked on The King's Speech. Many other people have posted their tickets and friends selfies on them going to watch the film. Other posts are of people buying books of The King's Speech, many in foreign languages which further emphasises my point of more foreigners enjoyed and wanted to watch this film than domestic local people. An example of this is the bottom right post in the 'Top Posts' section is a cover of the book in Polish. I was a bit surprised seeing that there is still interest in this film as it was released in 2010 which is 6 years ago. Another interesting point is that Colin Firth features in eight of the total 12 posts in the screenshot which again shows that he was used to promote this film as he is the most popular actor and figure amongst the whole cast. 

2)  The website for The King's Speech was taken down however I was able to find a screenshot of what it used to look like. Firstly, Colin Firth takes over almost half the of whole front page in his very royal and professional attire. He looks very serious and down to business but also there seems to be a sense of fear and a lack of confidence which is supported by the tag line under the title 'It takes leadership to confront a nation's fear. It takes friendship to conquer your own.' This is a very strong tag line because it shows that there are two types of fears and one is more personal than the other and it can affect your whole life and it most certainly does here. The website also contains a video clip which I presume is the trailer because it is only 02:24 minutes long and it is understandable as the producers would want the first thing a visitor to this website to see is the trailer so get a sense and feel for this film. It also contains important information such as when it will be available in theatres which is right above the big title 'In select theatres November 26'. More importantly, down under it has links to separate websites which directs the user to go buy tickets to watch the film. There are also social media websites which creates synergy as it confirms that they have an official page for each website and it helps the user connect all along. 

3) Interestingly, they did not and the reason for that is because the film is probably targeted at an older audience who have an interest in history and most probably know about King George VI's stammer issues. This older target audience might not necessarily have all the social medias which might also be the reason why they did not set up an Instagram account because Instagram is quite recent.  

4) It was difficult to track down tweets from celebrities and journalists because the film is relatively old however there was a lot of user generated promotion because people still post about The King's Speech, all positive. Mainly on Twitter because not many people post that often on Facebook as it's been on a decline past few years amongst the younger generation.  

Audience

1) The main target audience for The King's Speech is most certainly the older viewers because the film is a historical drama and that is very hard to associate with a younger audience because they would not be interested in that sort of stuff. I would say the target audience is 35-59 year old middle classed people with an equal proportion of 50/50 males and females. 

2) They spent less money on setting up social media accounts which further proves that they had an older audience and more money on billboards and posters. They had their institutions accounts post images and videos about the film just to have that area covered. I would assume they had physical billboard adverts on London buses, shelters, on the roads, big signs. They also had a few advertisements on newspaper websites because an older audience is more likely to access those than a younger one. They were very precise with their promotion as they wanted a niche and compact audience.  

3) This is a historical drama therefore it brings a sense of enjoyment and drama. There are a few Uses and gratifications, one would most certainly be pure entertainment as it brings an element of catharihism to the audience. Another would be Personal identification as the film is very personal and emotional. 

4) The most similar film to this is Belle because it also talks about problems within royal families. Another similar film would be Suffragette as it portrays problems within the British society. Last but not least, Elizabeth: The Golden Age because the protagonist defies the odds and overcomes stereotypes and fears to become a great leader. Another one would be Les Miserables which is interesting because the The King's Speech share the same director in Tom Hooper. 

Institution

1) The King's Speech received a lot of funding from all sorts of different companies but the film was produced by The Weinstein Company. They produced a lot of iconic films, most notably: Django Unchained, Southpaw, The Hateful Eight and Inglorious Basterds. These films were all directed by Quentin Tarantino which shows that The Weinstein Company is a very renowned production company in the film industry. 

2) Again, it's The Weinstein Company, they are an international company which is based all around the world. They distributed The King's Speech in the UK. They also distributed the films mentioned above. 

3) They had produced and distributed films of all different genres and these genres have different target audiences. However, mainly an older more cultural aware audience is targeted. 

4) The budget for The King's Speech was 15 million USD which is quite low compared to other films which have a budget in the hundreds of millions. 

5) It was very successful financially as it grossed 414,458,583 USD which is 28 times it's original budget. 

6) It was a lot more successful in the US as it got 66% of it's total gross income from there which was 275,548,342 USD. 

7) It received an MPAA Rating of R which means it's restricted and a certification of 12A which is understandable because there is not a whole lot of violence. It was given 0/10 for nudity, 3/10 for violence but still PG and a profanity level of 5/10. 

Representation

1) It most certainly represents the royalty and the monarchy, that is without a doubt as the film is titled 'The King's Speech' and the protagonist is the King. It also has a huge representation on the British culture. 

2) It shows a lot about the British culture as it talks about the King and also how the whole country needed someone to be a leader, it shows that they need that. It shows a lot of the upper class of Britain as the whole movie is mainly set in Buckingham Palace or other royal venues, this itself has a very positive representation of Britain for the foreigners. 

3) There is a huge difference to the representation of Britain from The King's Speech to Ill Manors. Even though they are both set in totally different times, they still show a very different side to each other. I would say Ill Manors shows a more honest side of the British culture because it goes deep inside the streets of London however The King's Speech only shows the royalty and the monarchy in the most positive view. This could be explained due to the fact that The King's Speech was released globally so the production companies and the director wanted the rest of the world to see a positive view of Britain. However as Ill Manors was predominantly viewed in the UK, it is easier for the locals to understand the context behind the stories and the language. 

4) The King's Speech is extremely patriotic, pro-monarchy and nationalist. It has very royal ideologies. It shows an honest view of how also kings can suffer from things that a common man can too. 

Case Study Comparison

1) The main similarity between all three films is that they are all British. A Field in England and The King's Speech are more closely related than Ill Manors because they both stem from the monarchy. Ill Manors is more urban and hood. They are also all produced in England. They also all had similar relatively low budgets. 

MEST1 Section B: index

1) The British film industry: Media Fact sheet questions
2) Institutional context of the British film industry: Fact sheet questions
3) Ill Manors: film review
4) Ill Manors: trailer analysis
5) Ill Manors: music video
6) Ill Manors: TEDx lecture
7) Ill Manors: broadcast platform concluded
8) Ill Manors: print platform (newspaper interviews)
9) Ill Manors: print branding
10) Ill Manors: e-media Tag London campaign
11) Ill Manors: e-media social networking research
12) Ill Manors: official website analysis
13) A Field In England: reading, research and questions
14) Ill Manors & A Field In England: institution research

BFI Notes

Arthouse cinema- Small independent cinemas which show art films.

Multiplex- Blockbuster and mainstream entertainment for mass audience.

Crossover- nominations and award related films, prestige films. 

Information: Historical/literary figures, contemporary celebrities

Social Interaction: Crowd pleasers, Oscar nominations.

Personal Identification: solidarity with marginalised groups rarely represented in mainstream cinema

Pure entertainment: spectacle, escapism, adrenaline, emotional intensity.

Kingman: Secret service

A Royal Night Out

The Selfish Giant

The Woman In Black

MEST1 Section B: Institution research

Ill Manors: Funding and production budget

1. The estimated budget for Ill Manors was £110,000. 

2. The money used to help contribute to the funding of Ill Manors was from Plan B's savings and money generated from his music career. However, as it to be produced by BBC, they funded Ill Manors with £4 million. After the film was given the go ahead to Film London in 2010, it was then sold to the distributor Revolver Entertainment, which the added to the funding. The films total box office concluded to 4 times of the films budget, of £550,000. 

3. The budget for Ill Manors was minuscule and a lot cheaper than Skyfall. It was estimated that the budget for Skyfall was £250 million, which is much more than the budget for Ill Manors. Generally, Hollywood movies are usually more expensive due to the location and use of well known established actors.

A Field In England: Funding and production budget

1. The estimated budget for Ill Manors was £380,000. 

2. A Field in England was able to secure a higher budget than Ill Manors because Ben Wheatley is a slightly more established director than Ben Drew. 

3. Ill Manors was Ben's first film and he was viewed as a inexperienced director, whereas prior to A Field in England Ben Wheatley had directed films such as Sightseers, Kill List and Down Terrace.

Film London and Microwave Film

1. Film London is the capital's film and media agency and developing London as a major international film-making and film cultural capital.

2. The purpose of Microwave Films is that it doesn't just fund films; it offers the next generation of film-makers a proven programme of training-through-production, as well as distribution support. For the first time they will be offering development funding for successful projects, and offering distribution support to green-lit films. 

3. Ill Manors and Borrowed Time have a few similarities and differences between them. Firstly, the location is the same as there is a shot in the trailer of Borrowed Time where the Olympic Stadium is seen. Also, the genre is about social realism.

Vertigo Films and Warp Films

1. Many of Vertigo's films have been extremely successful some of the most successful include: The football factory, It's All Gone Pete Tong, London to Brighton.

2. I think that the films produced by Vertigo were successful because it took a unique and fresh ideas and turned them into something for all audiences to enjoy.

3. Crime, drama, sport and comedy.

4. Warp films started out as a off shoot electric music label, Warp was already established as Warp X developing low budget films.

5. Two of the films Warp produced were extremely successful some of which include: Dead Man's Shoes and The Last Panthers

6. Warp Films have helped to develop new talent by running on a bedroom producer ethos. They look out of the amateur film makers know how to support creative people and deliver visionary TV drama.

7. A film that Vertigo and Warp have produced which is similar to Ill Manors would be '71. I would consider this to be similar in terms of the genre being crime and violence related. Then, '71 is set at the time of the troubles in northern Ireland and was telling people about what happened at the time. 

Certification: BBFC

1. The BBFC has various age rating used in order to keep the content for the audience appropriate. These make sure audiences cannot purchase a cinema ticket or watch a film without identification of age.

2. In an 18 rated film, sexual content and violence is permitted. The difference between 18 and 15 is that full nudity is not prohibited and the use of any sort of harmful substance is not permitted. Also the audience for 18 rated movies would be more mature compared to a 15 rated audience.

3. Ill Manors was given an 18 certificate because the film contained over thirty examples of uses of very strong language, many of which are delivered with aggression or accompanied by violence. There are a number of scenes of drug use, including the snorting of cocaine, the smoking and injecting of heroin and the smoking of crack and cannabis. This might have affected the Ill Manors target audience and commercial success as Plan B was hoping for his ideal target audience to start from 15 as a lot of the youth were involved who were under the age of 18, also the film was indicating reasons why the youth were involved in the riots which also included youth under the age of 18.

4. It is rated 15 for strong language, one use of very strong language, strong violence and gory images. There are over 30 uses of strong language as well as single use of very strong language. The film contains scenes of fighting, including shootings with historical pistols. In one scene a man is shot in the leg, resulting in a spurt of blood and brief sight of a bone shattering.  Although these images are strong, they are also very brief with no dwelling on the infliction of injuries. Because the film is shot in black and white, the gory detail is less vivid than it might have been. There are also some crude sex references and male genital nudity in a non-sexual and comic context.

5. Films given a 18 certificate could limit the interest in it significantly particularly while it is only released in cinemas. Therefore, the success and profitability of the film would be largely affected and people are unlikely to take a interest in any other films released with the assumption that they could end up with the same certification rating.

A Field In England: The Appeal of Arthouse Films

There is clear emphasis that an arthouse film and an arthouse cinema is not made for pure entertainment. There is always a deeper message into every film and if you are someone who goes to the cinema for just entertainment purposes, chances are they you won't enter an arthouse cinema. The reason being is that arthouse films are difficult to understand because there are no sets of rules for it and the director, producer and screenwriter has absolute freedom over what to do in the film. The mainstream audience for a mainstream film usually have a certain expectation such as an equilibrium where the hero and the whole story is balanced and set. Then there is a disequilibrium where the hero usually falls in deep trouble with the villain and then the new equilibrium where the story is balanced again and a 'happily ever after'. However, in arthouse films that is not always the case, sometimes the hero would die and there is no new equilibrium. The point is that there is no rules and arthouse films are made for an artistic and deep cultural understanding. Not for the entertainment and money that a mainstream film in a mainstream cinema would generate. 

Certain audiences fail to grasp and have interest in arthouse films because there is an inter-textual understanding which they simply fail to understand. Ultimately, arthouse films are not for everyone. Firstly, they cost a bit more to go watch than a normal mainstream blockbuster at a multiplex cinema. Secondly, the films that get shown are not the usual and don't usually follow certain rules which are abided by mainstream Hollywood films. Last but not least, these arthouse films are like art galleries but in moving pictures, they are simply there for the aesthetic and beauty of it. The director and production team aren't looking to generate huge amounts of profit or money. For them, getting good ratings and a niche audience and awards is the main aim. 

Arthouse films are for older and more middle classed audiences because they are there for the pure aesthetic of it and like how they also probably love going on wine tasting adventures and bet on horse races. It's part of their cultural and upbringing. They also don't mind spending a few extra to go have a theatrical experience watching a film because they have that extra disposable income rather than the lower classed people who might not have much and would be forced to go to a multiplex cinema which would end up a lot cheaper since they would take their families out too. However, audiences of arthouse films are usually in pairs, partners or "just friends". Also, arthouse cinemas don't usually focus on food and confectionery because the cinemas themselves usually have a waiter/usher in the cinema and more elegant food gets handed out rather than microwaved popcorn and powdered coke. 

A Field in England would have the average audience of any arthouse cinema and film because it again is about a deep topic. A psychedelic trip in the English Civil War. This topic would never interest a teenager unless they are also on a trip themselves. An old niche audience probably interested in history. Maybe professors who studied the English Civil War their whole life. Definitely people keen on art and the future for film because the type of editing done in A Field in England is very impressive and very different to the usual sorts of editing. The fact that Ben Wheatley and the board for the film decided to release the film on every single platform shows that they are targeting a very trustworthy set of audience because after the release dates, there's not much of a way to make money again but then again arthouse films are not looking to make profit, they are just there for artsy purposes and aim to have a deep cultural and inter-textual understanding which a normal audience looking for entertainment will never understand. 

A Field in England - Media Magazine Summary

The Media Magazine article is mainly about the distribution of films and how not only about putting films in cinemas in order to make box office sales. It mainly discusses the distribution of A Field in England compared to more high-budget Hollywood blockbuster films, and goes on to say that the distribution method for A Field in England was an "audacious approach". The distribution of A Field in England generated a lot of media interest as it was released in one go in the space of a day on all major media platforms.

On TV it drew a combined audience of 400,000 after the film had aired on TV for a few days. A Field in England was trending on Twitter in the UK which would've helped in the promotion of the film through opinions on the film which were conveyed through tweets. Sales of DVDs from retailers to nearly 2,000 copies. On the Film4OD and iTunes platforms there were a total of more than 3,000 purchases.

The release of A Field of England was different to a normal film release. The film was released on all platforms one after each other, on the same day. The film was released in cinemas, aired on national television, released on DVD and on-demand services. This is different than a typical film release as a film is usually in cinemas first, then sold on DVD and available online to purchase and download.

Releasing the film on all platforms on the same day is beneficial as it raises awareness about the film and enables it to reach a larger audience. As an arthouse film may not have the highest of budget, enabling the film to be released on all platforms as once will make it a more beneficial marketing campaign and will enable viewers to enjoy the nature of the film. 

However, a disadvantage to releasing A Field in England on all major platforms on the same day is that it may result in less revenue as people may wait for the film to be released on TV so they can view it for free instead of paying to go and watch it in the cinema. This may result in the film not making its investment to make the film back in box office sales. However, an arthouse film is not made to make huge box office sales, but is made to capture and convey the art of making a film and its narrative.

A Field in England's ideal target audience would be equally split between males and females at a 50/50 percentage. Age groups would be from 25-40 year olds who are from more higher paid jobs and fit into psychographic groups of succeeders and reformers. Clerical groups would be from AB1 and would be in secure jobs with a good educational background. As arthouse films are typically screened in small cinemas, they would be more traditional viewers and would enjoy embracing art created using moving images.

I think it was a great idea the way they released the film on all different platforms because it eliminates piracy. I think that more arthouse films may start using this technique, but high-budget Hollywood films would not use this as it would affect their sales and may not make back their high budgets.