English AS – Fra Lippo Lippy Section Ab Question

Section Aa:

Write about the ways Browning tells the story in lines 1-80 in Fra Lippo Lippi

In the poem Fra Lippo Lippy, Browning uses various methods to convey the narration to us, such as the use of creating a poem in the style of a dramatic monologue. Using this method constructs a first person narrative which helps create a more personal tone, helping us to connect to Fra Lippy more, however it also makes the poem extremely unreliable as we only have one viewpoint from one source, making us question whether Fra Lippi is speaking the truth or not. However Fra Lippi openly admits; “And here you catch me at an alley’s end”, proving he was up to know good, conveying he knows he was doing wrong as he is “caught”, which would be unnecessary if he were doing nothing wrong. The fact that he admits to this crime along with “zooks, sir, flesh and blood, that’s all I am made of”, makes us believe that this dramatic monologue is rather reliable as he admits to his wrong doings and explains it to us using “zooks” a blasphemous word which is extremely frowned upon in during this time period in Italy, along with the declaration: “flesh and blood, that’s all I am made of”, acknowledging that he is only human and that he has given in to temptation. Browning has created a blank verse poem as there is no rhyme scheme present within the narration, linking with the comic tone used; together creating a drunken imitated narration conveying Fra Lippi’s drinking hobby. This is also supported through Browning’s use of italics, “If I’ve been merry, what matter who knows?” symbolising a chatty, informal speech reminiscent of a drunken man. Due to the informality of certain parts of the poem, we also see a colloquial tone, again resembling a drunken man with a conversational manner – unusual for a monk who has just been caught doing wrong. There are over twenty exclamatory sentences in lines 1-80 to portray a loud mouthed, chatty, over the top monk, again supporting the idea that he is drunk. This theme is maintained through Browning’s use of hyphens, dashes and ellipsis “Master – a….,  “a monk you say – the stings in that” portraying disjointed speech, mimicking speech from a stereotypical drunken man.

Browning uses the setting “the streets are alive” to draw attention to Fra Lippy’s willpower and present to the audience the pace at which he gives in to temptation. Rhetorical questions are included by Browning to show the monks confidence as he challenges the guards “Who am I?” “You know them and they take you?” “Come what am I a beast for?”, this confidence suggests he is indifferent to his status as a monk and has no feelings towards maintaining this status.

Throughout lines 1-80 we are presented with several semantic fields such as the semantic field of art “I’m the painter since you style me so”, highlighting the subtitle “Florentine Painter 1412-69” prefiguring what Browning is referring to in later events within the poem such as his views on painting and the monasteries views on painting. We are also shown a semantic field of religion as he breaks many of these guidelines “zooks” is used throughout the poem many times, a blasphemous phrase meaning the nails used during the crucifixion – in other words “gods hooks”. This blasphemy is extremely wrong for the status of a monk to use which illustrates his feelings towards the law, religion and his attitude to being a monk on the whole.

Media A2 – The Studio Star System

The Studio System

The studio system is an arrangement of film production and distribution dominated by a small number of “major” studios in Hollywood. Although the term is still used today to refer to the organisation and output of the major Hollywood studios, historically the term refers to the practice of large motion picture studios between the 1920s and 1960s of producing movies primarily on their own filmmaking lots with creative personnel under often long-term contract, and which dominated exhibition through vertical integration, i.e., the ownership or effective control of distributors and exhibition, guaranteeing additional sales of films through manipulative booking techniques.

The studio system was challenged under the anti-trust laws in a 1948 Supreme Court ruling which sought to separate production from distribution and exhibition and ended such practices, thereby hastening the end of the studio system. By 1954, with television competing for audience and the last of the operational links between a major production studio and theatre chain broken, the historic era of the studio system came to an end.

The period stretching from the introduction of sound to the court ruling and the beginning of the studio breakups, 1927/29–1948/49, is referred to by some film historians as the Golden Age of Hollywood. (Many modern film historians dispute that this age was so golden in an artistic sense, due to censorship and the mediocrity of many films made by the studio “moguls.”)

During the so-called Golden Age, eight companies constituted the so-called major studios that created the Hollywood studio system. Of these eight, five were fully integrated conglomerates, combining ownership of a production studio, distribution division, and substantial theatre chain, and contracting with performers and filmmaking personnel: Fox Film Corporation (later 20th Century-Fox), Loew’s Incorporated (owner of America’s largest theatre circuit and parent company to Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer), Paramount Pictures, RKO Radio Pictures, and Warner Bros. Two majors—Universal Pictures and Columbia Pictures—were similarly organized, though they never owned more than small theatre circuits. The eighth of the Golden Age majors, United Artists, owned a few theatres and had access to two production facilities owned by members of its controlling partnership group, but it functioned primarily as a backer-distributor, loaning money to independent producers and releasing their films.

Sound and ‘The Big Five’:

The years 1927 and 1928 are generally seen as the beginning of Hollywood’s Golden Age and the final major steps in establishing studio system control of the American film business. The success of 1927’s The Jazz Singer, the first feature-length “talkie” (in fact, the majority of its scenes did not have live-recorded sound) gave a big boost to the then midsized Warner Bros. studio. The following year saw both the general introduction of sound throughout the industry and two more smashes for Warners: The Singing Fool, The Jazz Singer’s even more profitable follow-up, and Hollywood’s first “all-talking” feature, Lights of New York. Just as significant were a number of offscreen developments. Warner Bros., now flush with income, acquired the extensive Stanley theater chain in September 1928. One month later, it purchased a controlling interest in the First National production company, more prominent than Warners itself not long before. With the First National acquisition came not only a 135-acre (0.55 km2) studio and backlot but another large string of movie theaters. Warners had hit the big time.

The last of the “Big Five” Hollywood conglomerates of the Golden Age emerged in 1928: RKO. The Radio Corporation of America (RCA), led by David Sarnoff, was looking for ways to exploit the cinema sound patents, newly trademarked RCA Photophone, owned by its parent company, General Electric. As the leading film production companies were all preparing to sign exclusive agreements with Western Electric for their technology, RCA got into the movie business itself. In January, General Electric acquired a sizable interest in Film Booking Offices of America (FBO), a distributor and small production company owned by Joseph P. Kennedy, father of the future president. In October, through a set of stock transfers, RCA gained control of both FBO and the Keith-Albee-Orpheum theater chain; merging them into a single venture, it created the Radio-Keith-Orpheum Corporation, Sarnoff chairing the board. With RKO and Warner Bros. (soon to become Warner Bros.–First National) joining Fox, Paramount, and Loew’s/MGM as major players, the Big Five that would remain for thirty years were now in place.

Although RKO and Universal were exception, the heads of studios on the west coast, the ‘movie moguls’, had mostly been in place for some years: Louis B. Mayer at MGM, Jack Warner at Warner Bros., Adolph Zukor at Paramount, Darryl F. Zanuck (at 20th Century Fox from 1935), and Harry Cohn at Columbia.

Reign of the majors:

The ranking of the Big Five in terms of profitability (closely related to market share) was largely consistent during the Golden Age: MGM was number one eleven years running, 1931–41. Paramount, the most profitable studio of the early sound era (1928–30), faded for the better part of the subsequent decade, and Fox was number two for most of MGM’s reign. Paramount began a steady climb in 1940, finally edging past MGM two years later; from then until its reorganization in 1949 it was again the most financially successful of the Big Five. With the exception of 1932—when all the companies but MGM lost money, and RKO lost somewhat less than its competitors—RKO was next to last or (usually) last every year of the Golden Age, with Warners generally hanging alongside at the back of the pack. Of the Little Three, United Artists reliably held up the rear, with Columbia strongest in the 1930s and Universal ahead for most of the 1940s.[1]

Hollywood’s success grew during the Great Depression, possibly because films helped audiences escape their personal difficulties. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said of Shirley Temple, “When the spirit of the people is lower than at any other time, during this Depression, it is a splendid thing that for just fifteen cents an American can go to a movie and look at the smiling face of a baby …” By 1939 there were 15,000 movie theaters in the United States, more than banks; the number of theaters per capita was twice that of the mid-1980s. The cinema industry was larger than that for office machines or supermarkets. While only the 14th largest by revenue, it was second in the percentage of profits that its executives received. Top stars like Bing Crosby and Claudette Colbert were paid more than $400,000 a year ($6,601,914 today).

The end of the system and the death of RKO:

One of the techniques used to support the studio system was block booking, a system of selling multiple films to a theater as a unit. Such a unit—five films was the standard practice for most of the 1940s—typically included only one particularly attractive film, the rest a mix of A-budget pictures of lesser quality and B movies.[4] As Life magazine wrote in 1957 in a retrospective on the studio system, “It wasn’t good entertainment and it wasn’t art, and most of the movies produced had a uniform mediocrity, but they were also uniformly profitable … The million-dollar mediocrity was the very backbone of Hollywood.”[5] On May 4, 1948, in a federal antitrust suit known as the Paramount case brought against the entire Big Five, the U.S. Supreme Court specifically outlawed block booking. Holding that the conglomerates were indeed in violation of antitrust, the justices refrained from making a final decision as to how that fault should be remedied, but the case was sent back to the lower court from which it had come with language that suggested divorcement—the complete separation of exhibition interests from producer-distributor operations—was the answer. The Big Five, though, seemed united in their determination to fight on and drag out legal proceedings for years as they had already proven adept at—after all, the Paramount suit had originally been filed on July 20, 1938.

However, behind the scenes at RKO, long the financially shakiest of the conglomerates, the court ruling came to be looked at as a development that could be used to the studio’s advantage. The same month that the decision was handed down, multimillionaire Howard Hughes acquired a controlling interest in the company. As RKO controlled the fewest theaters of any of the Big Five, Hughes decided that starting a divorcement domino effect could actually help put his studio on a more equal footing with his competitors. Hughes signaled his willingness to the federal government to enter into a consent decree obliging the breakup of his movie business. Under the agreement, Hughes would split his studio into two entities, RKO Pictures Corporation and RKO Theatres Corporation, and commit to selling off his stake in one or the other by a certain date. Hughes’s decision to concede to divorcement terminally undermined the argument by lawyers for the rest of the Big Five that such breakups were unfeasible. While many today point to the May court ruling, it is actually Hughes’s agreement with the federal government—signed November 8, 1948—that was truly the death knell for the Golden Age of Hollywood. Paramount soon capitulated, entering into a similar consent decree the following February. The studio, which had fought against divorcement for so long, became the first of the majors to break up, ahead of schedule, finalizing divestiture on December 31, 1949. By this time, there were 19,000 movie theaters in the United States.[6] The Golden Age was over. Through Hughes’s deal with the federal authorities, and those by the other studios that soon followed, the studio system lingered on for another half-decade. The major studio that adapted to the new circumstances with the most immediate success was the smallest, United Artists; under a new management team that took over in 1951, overhead was cut by terminating its lease arrangement with the Pickford-Fairbanks production facility and new relationships with independent producers, now often involving direct investment, were forged—a business model that Hollywood would increasingly emulate in coming years. The studio system around which the industry had been organized for three decades finally expired in 1954, when Loew’s, the last holdout, severed all operational ties with MGM.

Hughes’s gambit helped break the studio system, but it did little for RKO. His disruptive leadership—coupled with the draining away of audiences to television that was affecting the entire industry—took a toll on the studio that was evident to Hollywood observers. When Hughes sought to bail out of his RKO interest in 1952, he had to turn to a Chicago-based syndicate led by shady dealers without motion picture experience. The deal fell through, so Hughes was back in charge when the RKO theater chain was finally sold off as mandated in 1953. That year, General Tire and Rubber Company, which was expanding its small, decade-old broadcasting division, approached Hughes concerning the availability of RKO’s film library for programming. Hughes acquired near-complete ownership of RKO Pictures in December 1954 and consummated a sale with General Tire for the entire studio the following summer. The new owners quickly made some of their money back by selling the TV rights for the library they treasured to C&C Television Corp., a beverage company subsidiary. (RKO retained the rights for the few TV stations General Tire had brought along.) Under the deal, the films were stripped of their RKO identity before being sent by C&C to local stations; the famous opening logo, with its globe and radio tower, was removed, as were the studio’s other trademarks. Back in Hollywood, RKO’s new owners were encountering little success in the moviemaking business and by 1957 General Tire shut down production and sold the main RKO facilities to Desilu, the production company of Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz. Just like United Artists, the studio now no longer had a studio; unlike UA, it barely owned its old movies and saw no profit in the making of new ones. In 1959 it abandoned the movie business entirely.

The studio system in Europe and Asia:

While the studio system is largely identified as an American phenomenon, film production companies in other countries did at times achieve and maintain full integration in a manner similar to Hollywood’s Big Five. As historian James Chapman describes,

In Britain, only two companies ever achieved full vertical integration (the Rank Organization and the Associated British Picture Corporation). Other countries where some level of vertical integration occurred were Germany during the 1920s (Universum Film Aktiengesellschaft, or Ufa), France during the 1930s (Gaumont-Franco-Film-Aubert and Pathé-Natan) and Japan (Nikkatsu, Shochiku and Toho). In Hong Kong, Shaw Brothers adopted the studio system for its wuxia films throughout the 1950s-’60s. India, which represents perhaps the only serious rival to the U.S. film industry due to its dominance of both its own and the Asian diasporic markets, has, in contrast, never achieved any degree of vertical integration.

For instance, in 1929 nearly 75 percent of Japanese movie theatres were connected with either Nikkatsu or Shochiku, the two biggest studios at the time.

Star driven system:

In the 1950s Hollywood faced three great challenges: The Paramount case ending the studio system, the new popularity of television, and post-World War II consumer spending providing many other leisure options. The industry lost its captive audience, and United States box-office revenue declined. The scale of both successes and flops grew, with what Life magazine described in 1957 as a “dangerous market” in between consisting of films that in the previous era would have made money. A filmmaker stated that “[t]he one absolute disaster today is to make a million-dollar mediocrity. One of those you can lose not only your total investment but your total shirt.” By that year Hollywood was only making about 300 feature films a year, compared to about 700 during the 1920s.

The powerful movie moguls that had led their studios with unchallenged authority were no longer present by the late 1950s.[5] Darryl F. Zanuck, head of 20th Century Fox, had no direct involvement with the studio from 1956 to 1962, and Louis B. Mayer, sacked in 1951 from MGM, died in 1957. The last old-fashioned studio head was Harry Cohn of Columbia, who was reportedly “aghast” at the changes occurring in Hollywood. Cohn informed investors in the studio’s 1957 annual report,[5] the year before he died, that:

We find ourselves in a highly competitive market for [stars, directors, producers, writers]. Under today’s tax structures, salary to those we are dealing with is less inviting than the opportunity for capital gains. We find ourselves, therefore, dealing with corporations rather than with individuals. We find ourselves, too, forced to deal in terms of a percentage of the film’s profits, rather than in a guaranteed salary as in the past. This is most notable among the top stars.

Financial backers increasingly demanded star actors, directors, and writers for projects to reduce risk of failure. The shortage of such talent increased their salaries, while fewer contract players were available because studios had failed to renew many contracts during the 1950s because of declining domestic revenue. The growing importance of the overseas market—40 to 50% of Hollywood’s total revenue by 1957—also emphasized stars’ names as box-office attractions. With their new power, the once-rare “working for nothing”—receiving a percentage of profit instead of a salary—became a status symbol for stars. A top actor could expect 50% of profit, with a minimum guarantee, or 10% of gross revenue. Cary Grant, for example, received more than $700,000 from his 10% of the gross for To Catch a Thief (1955), while director and producer Alfred Hitchcock received less than $50,000. In one extreme case, Paramount promised Marlon Brando 75% of the profit of what became One-Eyed Jacks (1961). (Because of Hollywood accounting, studios still received much of the revenue before any profit sharing; thus, they preferred 50% of profit to 10% of gross.) The larger paychecks also increased the power of talent agents such as Lew Wasserman of MCA, whose office was now nicknamed “Fort Knox”.

By 1957, independent producers like Hal Wallis made 50% of full-length American films. Beyond working for others, top actors such as Brando, Gregory Peck, and Frank Sinatra created their own production companies and purchased scripts. Top independent directors like George Stevens, Billy Wilder, and William Wyler also saw their paychecks increase, to about $250,000 to $300,000 by 1957, in part because their involvement attracted star actors. Studios increasingly provided funding and facilities to independent producers as opposed to making their own films. Hollywood had once viewed television as its enemy, but TV production companies like Desilu and the film studios’ own TV divisions helped save the industry by using otherwise-unused facilities, and executives expected that television would eventually become more profitable than film. While some studios like Paramount had long worked with outsiders, former leader MGM adapted to the new business climate slowly and experts believed that its survival was uncertain. A possible model for the industry was United Artists, which focused entirely on financing and distributing independent productions.

Syndication, television, recession, and conglomerate Hollywood:

At the beginning of the 1960s the major studios began to reissue older films for syndication and transformed into mainly producing telefilms and b-movies to supply TV’s demand for programming. Between 1969 to 1971 the industry underwent a severe recession, due in part to big-budget flops, but soon recovered artistically with such films as The Godfather (1972) and Chinatown (1974).

The onset of George Lucas’s Star Wars (1977) became the prototype for the modern blockbuster. The release of films at hundreds of venues became the norm with hits such as the sequels to Lucas’s Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi, Spielberg’s back-to-back successes with Raiders of the Lost Ark and E.T. The Extra Terrestrial, and the development of home-video and cable television. Meanwhile, the uncontrolled budget of Heaven’s Gate (1980), and its limited box-office revenue, led to the sale of United Artists.

From 1990 to 1995, New Hollywood turned into more of a conglomerate Hollywood and quickly dominating the global entertainment industry. As of 2007, five of the Golden Age majors continue to exist as major Hollywood studio entities, each as part of a larger media conglomerate: Columbia (owned by Sony), 20th Century Fox (owned by News Corporation), Warner Bros. (owned by Time Warner), Paramount (owned by Viacom), and Universal (owned by Comcast/NBC Universal). In addition, The Walt Disney Company’s Buena Vista Motion Pictures Group has emerged as a major, resulting in a “Big Six.” With the exception of Disney, all of these so-called major studios are essentially based on the model not of the classic Big Five, but of the old United Artists: that is, they are primarily backer-distributors (and physical studio leasers) rather than actual production companies.

Sony, in addition to ownership of Columbia, also has effective control of the relatively small latter-day incarnation of MGM and its subsidiary UA; under the Sony umbrella, MGM/UA operates as a “mini-major,” nominally independent of but closely associated with Columbia. In 1996, Time Warner acquired the once-independent New Line Cinema via its purchase of Turner Broadcasting System. In 2008, New Line was merged into Warner Bros., where it continues to exist as a subsidiary. Each of today’s Big Six controls quasi-independent “arthouse” divisions, such as Paramount Vantage and Disney’s Miramax Films (which originally was an independent studio). Most also have divisions that focus on genre movies, B movies either literally by virtue of their low budgets, or spiritually—for instance, Sony’s Screen Gems and Buena Vista’s Hollywood Pictures brand. One so-called indie division, Universal’s Focus Features, releases arthouse films under that primary brand. Both Focus and Fox’s arthouse division, Fox Searchlight, are large enough to qualify as mini-majors. Two large independent firms also qualify as mini-majors, Lionsgate and The Weinstein Company. They stand somewhere between latter-day versions of the old “major-minor”—like Columbia and Universal in the 1930s and 1940s, except Lionsgate and The W.C. have about half their market share—and leading Golden Age independent production outfits like Samuel Goldwyn Inc. and the companies of David O. Selznick

A2 – The Star System

The Star System

The star system was the method of creating, promoting and exploiting movie stars in Classical Hollywood cinema. Studios would select promising young actors and glamorise and create personas for them, often inventing new names and even new backgrounds. Examples of stars who went through the star system include Cary Grant (born Archie Leach), Joan Crawford (born Lucille Fay LeSueur), and Rock Hudson (born Roy Harold Scherer, Jr.)

The star system put an emphasis on the image rather than the acting, although discreet acting, voice, and dancing lessons were a common part of the regimen. Women were expected to behave like ladies, and were never to leave the house without makeup and stylish clothes. Men were expected to be seen in public as gentlemen. Morality clauses were a common part of actors’ studio contracts.

Just as studio executives, public relations staffs, and agents worked together with the actor to create a star persona, so they would work together to cover up incidents or lifestyles that would damage the star’s public image. It was common, for example, to arrange sham dates between single (male) stars and starlets to generate publicity. Tabloids and gossip columnists would be tipped off, and photographers would appear to capture the romantic moment. At the same time, a star’s drug use (such as Robert Mitchum’s arrest for marijuana possession), drinking problems, divorce, or adultery would be covered up with hush money for witnesses or promises of exclusive stories (or the withholding of future stories) to gossip columnists.

Beginnings of the Star System:

In the early years of the cinema (1890s–1900s), performers were not identified in films. There are two main reasons for this.

Stage performers were embarrassed to be in film. Silent film was only considered pantomime. One of actors’ main skills was their voice. They were afraid that appearing in films would ruin their reputation. Moguls such as Adolph Zuckor, founder of Famous Players in 1912, brought theatre actresses such as Sarah Bernhardt into the movies however audiences wanted movie stars. Early film was also designed for the working class. Film was seen as only a step above carnivals and freak shows.

Producers feared that actors would gain more prestige and power and demand more money.

Thomas Edison and the Motion Picture Patents Company (MPPC) forced filmmakers to use their equipment and follow their rules, since they owned the patents of much of the motion picture equipment. The MPPC frowned on star promotion, although, according to research done by Janet Staiger, the MPPC did promote some stars around this time.

The main catalyst for change was the public’s desire to know the actors’ names. Film audiences repeatedly recognized certain performers in movies that they liked. Since they did not know the performers’ names they gave them nicknames (such as “the Biograph Girl,” Florence Lawrence, who was featured in Biograph movies).

Producer Carl Laemmle promoted the first movie star. He was independent of the MPPC and used star promotion to fight the MPPC’s control. Laemmle acquired Lawrence from Biograph. He spread a rumor that she had been killed in a streetcar accident. Then he combated this rumor by saying that she was doing fine and would be starring in an up-coming movie produced by his company, the Independent Moving Pictures Company (IMP).

The development of film fan magazines gave fans knowledge about the actors outside of their film roles. Motion Picture Story Magazine (1911–) and Photo play. They were initially focused on movies’ stories, but soon found that more copies could be sold if they focused on the actors.

The creator of the star system in any form of entertainment was P. T. Barnum in the mid 19th century, a system of promotion he developed for his Museum of Freaks and later his Greatest Show on Earth circus. Barnum’s biggest stars were Jenny Lind, Tom Thumb and Jumbo.

Also, precedents set by legitimate theatre encouraged film to emulate the star system of the Broadway stage. Broadway stars in the late 19th century were treated much like film stars came to be treated by the middle of the 20th century. The main practitioner of the star system on Broadway was Charles Frohman, a man whom Zukor, Laemmle, Mayer, Fox and the Warner Brothers emulated and who later perished in the Lusitania sinking.

Star System in American cinema:

The cinema operates from three eyes: the eyes of the director and the cameraman, the eyes of the protagonists, and finally, the eyes of the audience. The secret of the star system comes with the second one. In movies, the most efficient way to show the emotions of a certain character is by inserting a shot of him reacting to a specific action (generally, the action is placed just before or after). This is what is called a reaction shot.

The reaction shot is a substitution; a mimetic transfer of the spectator’s feelings that brings him to identify himself in the star. It is like a mirror or a double, but with a sublimated image. Marilyn Monroe is a great example of the use of the reaction shot. In many of her films, the audience can appreciate many long close ups of her face reacting. At this point, the spectator has a privileged relationship with her; something even better than being her friend or a member of her family: for a moment, the viewer is Marilyn Monroe. In the Hollywood system, an actor can never really become a character: he is a star, no matter the quality of his performance.

Myths and Dreams of a society:

Another important aspect of the Hollywood star system is the stars’ ability to convey the myths and dreams of their society, such as the myth of the “self made man”, which for many viewers represents the belief that everyone has a chance of happiness in America. For a consumer of the star system, looking at these stars is a way to continue believing that anything is possible, regardless of class or money. Thus, the star system creates hopes and preserves the ideals of a still young country. The film industry is more than aware of this, and puts all of its power into the stars.

 

 

Decline of the Star System:

From the 1930s to the 1960s, it was somewhat regular for studios to arrange the contractual exchange of talent (directors, actors) for prestige pictures. Stars would sometimes pursue these swaps themselves. Stars were becoming selective. Although punished and frowned upon by studio heads, several strong-willed stars received studio censure & publicity for refusing certain parts, on the belief that they knew better than the studio heads about the parts that were right for them. In one instance, Jane Greer negotiated her contract out of Howard Hawks’ hands over the limp roles he had been foisting on her. Olivia de Havilland and Bette Davis both sued their studios to be free of their gag orders (Davis lost, de Havilland won). After completing The Seven Year Itch, Marilyn Monroe walked out on 20th Century Fox and only returned when they acquiesced to her contract demands. The publicity accompanying these incidents fostered a growing suspicion among actors that a system more like being a free agent would be more personally beneficial to them than the fussy, suffocating star system. The studio-system instrument Photoplay gave way to the scandal-mongering Confidential. In 1959 Shirley MacLaine would sue famed producer Hal Wallis over a contractual dispute. This suit was another nail in the coffin. By the 1960s the days of the star system were numbered.

The conspiratorial aspect of the studio system manipulating images and reality, eventually began to falter as the world and the news media began to accept the dismantling of social boundaries and the manufactured virtue and wholesomeness of stars began to be questioned; taboos began to fall. By the 60s and 70s a new, more natural style of acting (“the Stanislavski Method”) had emerged, been mythologized and enshrined; and individuality had been transformed into a treasured personal quality. With competition from TV, and entire studios changing hands, the star system faltered and did not recover. The studio system could no longer resist the changes occurring in entertainment, culture, labour, and news and it was completely gone by 1970.

Contemporary stardom:

The phenomenon of stardom has remained essential to Hollywood because of its ability to lure spectators into the theatre. Following the demise of the studio system in the 1950s and 60s, the star system became the most important stabilizing feature of the movie industry. This is because stars provide film makers with built in audiences who regularly watch films in which their favourite actors and actresses appear.

Contemporary Hollywood talent agencies must now be licensed under the California Labour Code, which defines an agent as any “person or corporation who engages in the occupation of procuring, offering, promising, or attempting to procure employment for artist or artists.” [8] Talent agencies such as William Morris Agency (WMA), International Creative Management (ICM), Creative Artists Agency (CAA) and many more started to arise in the mid-1970s. CAA represented the modern agency, with new ways of marketing talent by packaging actors, agencies are able to influence production schedules, budgeting of the film, and which talent will be playing each particular character. Packaging gained notoriety in the 1980s and 1990s with films such Ghost Busters, Tootsie, Stripes, and A League of Their Own. This practice continues to be prominent in films today such as Big Daddy, Happy Gilmore, Waterboy, and Billy Madison. The ease of selling a packaged group of actors to a particular film insures that certain fan groups will see that movie, reducing risk of failure and increasing profits.

Media A2 – The Golden Age

The Golden Age

Between late 1928, when RCA’s David Sarnoff engineered the creation of the RKO (Radio-Keith-Orpheum) studio, and the end of 1949, when Paramount divested its theater chain—roughly the period considered Hollywood’s Golden Age—there were eight Hollywood studios commonly regarded as the “majors”. Of these eight, the so-called Big Five were integrated conglomerates, combining ownership of a production studio, distribution division, and substantial theater chain, and contracting with performers and filmmaking personnel: Loew’s/MGM, Paramount, Fox (which became 20th Century-Fox after a 1935 merger), Warner Bros., and RKO. The remaining majors were sometimes referred to as the “Little Three” or “major minor” studios. Two – Universal and Columbia (founded in 1924)—were organized similarly to the Big Five, except for the fact that they never owned more than small theater circuits (a consistently reliable source of profits). The third of the lesser majors, United Artists (founded in 1919), owned a few theaters and had access to production facilities owned by its principals, but it functioned primarily as a backer-distributor, loaning money to independent producers and releasing their films. During the 1930s, the eight majors averaged a total of 358 feature film releases a year; in the 1940s, the four largest companies shifted more of their resources toward high-budget productions and away from B movies, bringing the yearly average down to 288 for the decade.

Among the significant characteristics of the Golden Age was the stability of the Hollywood majors, their hierarchy, and their near-complete domination of the box office. At the midpoint of the Golden Age, 1939, the Big Five had market shares ranging from 22% (MGM) to 9% (RKO); each of the Little Three had around a 7% share. In sum, the eight majors controlled 95% of the market and all the smaller companies combined had a total of 5%. Ten years later, the picture was largely the same: the Big Five had market shares ranging from 22% (MGM) to 9% (RKO); the Little Three had shares ranging from 8% (Columbia) to 4% (United Artists). In sum, the eight majors controlled 96% of the market and all the smaller companies combined had a total of 4%.

1950s–1960s

The end of the Golden Age had been signaled by the majors’ loss of a federal antitrust case that led to the divestiture of the Big Five’s theater chains. Though this had virtually no immediate effect on the eight majors’ box-office domination, it somewhat leveled the playing field between the Big Five and the Little Three. In November 1951, Decca Records purchased 28% of Universal; early the following year, the studio became the first of the classic Hollywood majors to be taken over by an outside corporation, as Decca acquired majority ownership. The 1950s saw two substantial shifts in the hierarchy of the majors: RKO, perennially the weakest of the Big Five, declined rapidly under the mismanagement of Howard Hughes, who had purchased a controlling interest in the studio in 1948. By the time Hughes sold it to the General Tire and Rubber Company in 1955, the studio was a major by outdated reputation alone. In 1957, virtually all RKO movie operations ceased and the studio was dissolved in 1959. (Revived on a small scale in 1981, it was eventually spun off and now operates as a minor independent company.) In contrast, there was United Artists, which had long operated under the financing-distribution model the other majors were now progressively shifting toward. Under Arthur Krim and Robert Benjamin, who began managing the company in 1951, UA became consistently profitable. By 1956—when it released one of the biggest blockbusters of the decade, Around the World in 80 Days—it commanded a 10% market share. By the middle of the next decade, it had reached 16% and was the second-most profitable studio in Hollywood. Despite RKO’s collapse, the majors still averaged a total yearly release slate of 253 feature films during the decade.

The 1960s were marked by a spate of corporate takeovers. MCA, under Lew Wasserman, acquired Universal in 1962; Gulf+Western took over Paramount in 1966; and the Transamerica Corporation purchased United Artists in 1967. Warner Bros. underwent large-scale reorganization twice in two years: a 1967 merger with the Seven Arts company preceded a 1969 purchase by Kinney National, under Stephen J. Ross. MGM, in the process of a slow decline, changed ownership twice in the same span as well, winding up in the hands of financier Kirk Kerkorian. The majors almost entirely abandoned low-budget production during this era, bringing the annual average of features released down to 160. The decade also saw an old name in the industry secure a position as a leading player. In 1923, Walt Disney had founded the Disney Brothers Cartoon Studio with his brother Roy and animator Ub Iwerks. Over the following three decades Disney became a powerful independent focusing on animation and, from the late 1940s, an increasing number of live-action movies. In 1954, the company—now Walt Disney Productions—established Buena Vista Film Distribution to handle its own product, which had been distributed for years by various majors, primarily United Artists and then RKO. (Disney’s 1937 Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, released by RKO, was the second biggest hit of the 1930s.) In its first year, Buena Vista had a major success with 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, the third biggest movie of 1954. In 1964, Buena Vista had its first blockbuster, Mary Poppins, Hollywood’s biggest hit in half a decade. The company achieved a 9% market share that year, more than Fox and Warner Bros. Though over the next two decades, Disney/Buena Vista’s share of the box-office would again hit similar marks, its relatively small output and exclusive focus on family movies meant that it was not generally considered a major.

1970s–1980s

The early 1970s were difficult years for all the majors. Movie attendance, which had been declining steadily since the Golden Age, hit an all-time low in 1971. In 1973, MGM president James T. Aubrey Jr. drastically downsized the studio, slashing its production schedule and eliminating its distribution arm (UA would distribute the studio’s films for the remainder of the decade). From fifteen releases in 1973, the next year MGM was down to five; its average for the rest of the 1970s would be even lower. Like RKO in its last days under Hughes, MGM remained a major in terms of brand reputation, but little more. MGM, however, was not the only studio to trim its release line. By the mid-1970s, the industry had rebounded and a significant philosophical shift was in progress. As the majors focused increasingly on the development of the next hoped-for blockbuster and began routinely opening each new movie in many hundreds of theaters (an approach called “saturation booking”), their collective yearly release average fell to 81 films during 1975–84. The classic set of majors was shaken further in late 1980, when the disastrously expensive flop of Heaven’s Gate effectively ruined United Artists. The studio was sold the following year to Kerkorian, who merged it with MGM. After a brief resurgence, the combined studio again declined. From the mid-1980s on, MGM/UA has been at best a “mini-major”, to use the present-day term.

Meanwhile, a new member was finally admitted to the club of major studios and two significant contenders emerged. With the establishment of its Touchstone Pictures brand and increasing attention to the adult market in the mid-1980s, Disney/Buena Vista secured acknowledgment as a full-fledged major. Film historian Joel Finler identifies 1986 as the breakthrough year, when Disney rose to third place in market share and remained consistently competitive for a leading position thereafter. The two contenders were both newly formed companies. In 1978, Krim, Benjamin, and three other studio executives departed UA to found Orion Pictures as a joint venture with Warner Bros. It was announced optimistically as the “first major new film company in 50 years”. Tri-Star Pictures was created in 1982 as a joint venture of Columbia Pictures (then owned by the Coca-Cola Company), HBO (then owned by Time Inc.), and CBS. In 1985, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation acquired 20th Century-Fox, the last of the five relatively healthy Golden Age majors to remain independent throughout the entire Golden Age and after.

In 1986, the combined share of the six classic majors—at that point Paramount, Warner Bros., Columbia, Universal, Fox, and MGM/UA—fell to 64%, the lowest since the beginning of the Golden Age. Disney was in third place, behind only Paramount and Warners. Even including it as a seventh major and adding its 10% share, the majors’ control of the North American market was at a historic ebb. Orion, now completely independent of Warner Bros., and Tri-Star were well positioned as mini-majors, each with North American market shares of around 6% and regarded by industry observers as “fully competitive with the majors”. Smaller independents garnered 13%—more than any studio aside from Paramount. In 1964, by comparison, all of the companies beside the then seven majors and Disney had combined for a grand total of 1%. In the first edition of Finler’s The Hollywood Story (1988), he wrote, “It will be interesting to see whether the old-established studios will be able to bounce back in the future, as they have done so many times before, or whether the newest developments really do reflect a fundamental change in the US movie industry for the first times since the 20s.”

1990s–present

With the exception of MGM/UA—whose position was effectively filled by Disney—the old-established studios did bounce back. The purchase of Fox by Murdoch’s News Corp. presaged a new round of corporate acquisitions. Between 1989 and 1994, Paramount, Warners, Columbia, and Universal all changed ownership in a series of conglomerate purchases and mergers that brought them new financial and marketing muscle. Paramount’s parent company Gulf+Western was renamed Paramount Communications in 1989 and was merged with Viacom five years later. Warners merged with Time Inc. to give birth to the conglomerate Time Warner. Coke sold Columbia to Japanese electronics firm Sony also in 1989. And Universal’s parent MCA was purchased by Matsushita. By the early 1990s, both Tri-Star and Orion were essentially out of business: the former consolidated into Columbia, the latter bankrupt and sold to MGM. The most important contenders to emerge during the 1990s, New Line, the Weinsteins’ Miramax, and DreamWorks SKG, were likewise sooner or later brought into the majors’ fold, though DreamWorks and the Weinstein brothers are now independent again.

The development of in-house pseudo-indie subsidiaries by the conglomerates—sparked by the 1992 establishment of Sony Pictures Classics and the success of Pulp Fiction (1994), Miramax’s first project under Disney ownership—significantly undermined the position of the true independents. The majors’ release schedule rebounded: the six primary studio subsidiaries alone put out a total of 124 films during 2006; the three largest secondary subsidiaries (New Line, Fox Searchlight, and Focus Features) accounted for another 30. Box-office domination was fully restored: in 2006, the six major movie conglomerates combined for 89.8% of the North American market; Lionsgate and Weinstein were almost exactly half as successful as their 1986 mini-major counterparts, sharing 6.1%; MGM came in at 1.8%; and all of the remaining independent companies split a pool totaling 2.3%.

Only one of the major studios changed corporate hands during the first decade of the 2000s, though it did so three times: Universal was acquired by Vivendi in 2000, then by General Electric four years later, and finally by Comcast in 2011. More developments took place among the majors’ subsidiaries. The very successful animation production house Pixar, whose films were distributed by Buena Vista, was acquired by Disney in 2006. In 2008, New Line Cinema lost its independent status within Time Warner and became a subsidiary of Warner Bros. Time Warner also announced that it would be shutting down its two specialty units, Warner Independent and Picturehouse. In 2008 as well, Paramount Vantage’s production, marketing, and distribution departments were folded into the parent studio, though it retained the brand for release purposes. Universal sold off its genre specialty division, Rogue Pictures, to Relativity Media in 2009. Disney closed down Miramax’s operations in January 2010, and sold off the unit and its library that July to an investor group led by Ronald N. Tutor of the Tutor Perini construction firm and Tom Barrack of the Colony Capital private equity firm.

The eight Golden Age majors

The eight major film studios of the Golden Age have gone through the following significant ownership changes (“independent” meaning customarily identified as the primary commercial entity in its corporate structure; “purchased” meaning acquired anything from majority to total ownership):

Columbia Pictures

• independent as CBC Film Sales, 1918–1924 (founded by Harry Cohn, Joe Brandt, and Jack Cohn)
• independent, 1924–1982 (company changes name as Columbia Pictures Corporation; goes public in 1926; changes name in 1968 to Columbia Pictures Industries after merging with TV subsidiary Screen Gems)
• Coca-Cola, 1982–1987 (purchased by Coca-Cola; Tri-Star Pictures, a joint venture with HBO and CBS initiated in 1982—CBS drops out in 1985)
• independent as Columbia Pictures Entertainment (or Columbia/Tri-Star), 1987–1989 (divested by Coca-Cola; also in 1987, HBO drops out of Tri-Star, which merges with Columbia)
• Sony, 1989–present (purchased by Sony)

20th Century-Fox

• Independent, 1935–1985 (founded by Joseph Schenck and Darryl F. Zanuck; fully purchased by Marc Rich and Marvin Davis in 1981; Rich’s interest purchased by Davis in 1984; half of Davis’s interest purchased by Rupert Murdoch‘s News Corporation in March 1985)
• News Corporation, 1985–2013 (purchases the remainder of Davis’s shares in September)
• 21st Century Fox, 2013-present (renamed conglomerate on Jun 28, 2013)

 

 

 

Warner Bros.

• independent, 1923–1929 (founded by Jack Warner, Harry Warner, Albert Warner, and Sam Warner; Sam Warner dies in 1927)
• Independent as Warner Bros.–First National, 1929–1967 (acquires First National Pictures; syndicate led by Jack Warner, Serge Semenenko of First National Bank of Boston, and Charles Allen Jr. purchases controlling interest in 1956)
• Warner Bros.–Seven Arts, 1967–1969 (purchased by and merged with Seven Arts Productions)
• Kinney National Company, 1969–1972 (Kinney purchases Warner Bros.–Seven Arts)
• Warner Communications, 1972–1989 (Kinney spins off non-entertainment assets and changes name)
• Time Warner, 1989–present (Warner merges with Time Inc.; from 2000 to 2003, the parent company was known as AOL Time Warner, following merger with AOL)

Paramount Pictures

• Independent as Famous Players–Lasky, 1916–1921 (founded by Adolph Zukor and Jesse L. Lasky)
• Independent, 1922–1966 (company adopts distribution division’s name)
• Gulf+Western Industries, 1966–1989 (purchased by Gulf+Western)
• Paramount Communications, 1989–1994 (Gulf+Western changes name after selling non-entertainment assets)
• Viacom, 1994–2005 (Viacom purchases Paramount)
• Viacom, 2006–present (Viacom splits into two companies: “new” Viacom—with Paramount Pictures, MTV, BET, and other cable channels—and CBS Corporation—which includes CBS Television Studios; both companies are controlled by National Amusements)

Universal Pictures

• Independent, 1912–1946 (founded by Carl Laemmle, Pat Powers, Adam Kessel, Charles Baumann, Mark Dintenfass, William Swanson, David Horsley, and Jules Brulatour)
• independent as Universal-International, 1946–1952 (merges with International Pictures)
• Decca, 1952–1962 (purchased by Decca)
• MCA Inc., 1962–1990 (MCA purchases Decca)
• Matsushita Electric, 1990–1995 (Matsushita purchases MCA)
• Seagram, 1995–2000 (purchased by Seagram from Matsushita)
• Vivendi, 2000–2004 (Vivendi purchases Seagram)
• General Electric/Vivendi, 2004–2011 (jointly owned by GE (80%) and Vivendi, S.A. (20%) and merged with NBC to form NBC Universal)
• Comcast/General Electric, 2011–2013 (Comcast purchases 51% of redubbed NBCUniversal)
• Comcast, 2013-present (Comcast bought the remaining 49% from GE)

 

 

 

Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer

• Loew’s Incorporated, 1924–1959 (founded by Marcus Loew; controlling interest in Loew’s purchased by William Fox in 1929; Fox forced to sell off interest in 1930; operational control ceded by Loew’s to studio management in 1954)
• independent, 1959–1981 (fully divested by Loew’s; purchased by Edgar Bronfman Sr. in 1967; purchased by Kirk Kerkorian in 1969)
• independent as MGM/UA, 1981–1990 (United Artists purchased by Kerkorian and merged into MGM; purchased by Ted Turner in 1986; repurchased by Kerkorian seventy-four days later; purchased by Giancarlo Parretti in 1990)
• Crédit Lyonnais, 1992–1997 (foreclosed upon by bank after Parretti defaulted)
• Tracinda Corporation, 1997–2005 (repurchased by Kerkorian)
• MGM Holdings
• Sony/Comcast/4 private equity firms, 2005–2010 (purchased by Sony, Comcast, and private investment firms—Providence Equity Partners, in fact, currently owns the greatest number of shares—and privately held as a minor media company independent of Sony/Columbia)
• Credit Suisse, JPMorgan Chase, other former bondholders (2011-present) including Carl Icahn (2011-2012)

United Artists (merged into MGM)

• independent, 1919–1967 (founded by Charles Chaplin, Douglas Fairbanks, D. W. Griffith, and Mary Pickford; operational control by Arthur Krim and Robert Benjamin from 1951; fully purchased by Krim and Benjamin in 1956)
• Transamerica, 1967–1981 (purchased by Transamerica)
• MGM/UA, 1981–1992 (purchased by Kirk Kerkorian from Transamerica and merged into MGM; see above for further detail)

RKO Radio Pictures (defunct 1960–80, dormant 1993–97)

• RCA, 1928–1935 (founded by David Sarnoff)
• independent, 1935–1955 (half of RCA’s interest purchased by Floyd Odlum, control split between RCA, Odlum, and Rockefeller brothers; controlling interest purchased by Odlum in 1942; controlling interest purchased by Howard Hughes in 1948; Hughes interest purchased by Stolkin-Koolish-Ryan-Burke-Corwin syndicate in 1952; interest repurchased by Hughes in 1953; fully purchased by Hughes in 1954)
• General Tire and Rubber, 1955–1984 (purchased by General Tire and Rubber—coupled with General Tire’s broadcasting operation as RKO Teleradio Pictures; production and distribution halted in 1957; movie business dissolved in 1959 and RKO Teleradio renamed RKO General; RKO General establishes RKO Pictures as production subsidiary in 1981)
• GenCorp, 1984–1987 (reorganization creates holding company with RKO General and General Tire as primary subsidiaries)
• Wesray Capital Corporation, 1987–1989 (spun off from RKO General, purchased by Wesray—controlled by William E. Simon and Ray Chambers—and merged with amusement park operations to form RKO/Six Flags Entertainment)
• independent, 1989–present (split off from Six Flags, purchased by Dina Merrill and Ted Hartley, and merged with Pavilion Communications; no films produced or distributed from 1993 through 1997)

Other significant, formerly independent entities

• Artisan Entertainment: Purchased in 2003 by Lions Gate Entertainment
• The Samuel Goldwyn Company: Purchased in 1996 by John Kluge/Metromedia International; purchased in 1997 by MGM
• Pixar: Purchased in 1986 by Steve Jobs; purchased in 2006 by the Walt Disney Company
• Turner Pictures: Purchased along with Turner Broadcasting System, Hanna-Barbera, Castle Rock Entertainment, New Line Cinema and Turner Entertainment in 1996 by Time Warner

 

 

 

Media A2 – How is the text constructed so that the audience sympathy lies entirely with the teenager? – Lilja Forever

How is the text constructed so that the audience sympathy lies entirely with the teenager (Lilja)?

 

“Lilja Forever” is a Lukas Moodysson, Swedish and Russian collaboration film in which tests the dystopian theme of communist Russia, conveying the isolated, derelict desolation of a society, proving the harsh way of life, due to the austere conditions and unquestionably indisputable reality of the dichotomy within the totalitarian state.

The establishing shot of the film introduces the main character of Lilja, whom is clearly a young and innocent girl, portrayed in a vexing panic, running for what appears to be her life, immediately setting up the audience’s analytical, heuristic enquires as we instantly become concerned for this young girls safety. Moodysson has captured the majority of this scene using a handheld camera, in order to create a shaky effect, allowing the audience to view this representation through the eyes of Lilja herself, thus rapidly constructing a more worrisome atmosphere as we promptly feel empathy towards Lilja. This is supported through the final shot of this scene, in which we appear to be presented with Lilja, gravely positioned on a bridge, provoking the audience’s horror as a response to her possible contemplation of executing her own self destruction.

An alarming choice of non-diegetic music is delivered, dramatizing the scene perilously, due to the connotations it occupies regarding danger and adrenaline, conveying a menacing uncertainty, sustained through Lilja’s facial expressions of desperation and her body language of vulnerability; arguably prefiguring the lack of hope in which she is encompasses, due to the final shot of the scene, holding undertones of an ostensibly fatal atmosphere. This is where the scene ends, transitioning to a simple black screen, generating the audiences desire to continue watching the film in urgency, in order to answer their essential perturbed queries regarding Lilja’s survival.

Moodysson then presents a littered, categorically conclusive low income society through the use of the dull colour palette, connoting a negative atmosphere, using the grainy, almost greyscale hue to intensify the isolated surroundings, in order to increase the contemporary audience empathy felt towards the characters living in the neglected, barren location.

The first paramount landmark event we are presented to in the film is the abandonment from Lilja’s mother as she leaves Lilja due to the lure of a promised “better life” in America with her current boyfriend, immediately shocking the audience as we are made aware that the character of Lilja is only 15 years of age, in which her mother is illegally dismissing her underage daughter, consequently breaking the trust in which Lilja had for her mother.  The occurrence of this incident is hard hitting upon a contemporary audience, in turn directly constructing the sorrow in which we feel towards Lilja, for the clear lack of love in which her mother obviously felt for her, drawing the audience in through the heightened emotion within the scene. Although Lilja acts languid and temperate before her mother’s desertion, once the realisation hits her, she races towards her mother whom remains uncaring and unemotional, detaching herself from a distraught Lilja, proving to the audience her mother’s callousness. Moodysson deliberately presents Lilja as an inconsolable young girl, in order to convey the height of vulnerability in which Lilja is facing, proving that this unloved underage girl is not ready to be on her own.

Despite her mother’s promises to write and send money, this does not happen; prefigured to the audience through the lack of respect her mother has for her as she carelessly has sex in the room next to Lilja’s soon after a betraying talk regarding Lilja and her lack of a future in America, although Lilja has previously told her friends about her move, consequently crushing her dreams. Lilja in range then tears up a picture of her mother, making the audience feel empathy as she has been betrayed, then in order to construct a sense of hope, she glues the picture back together, creating a sense of hope for her mother’s return within the audience too.  Her mother then abdicates from her parental role, renouncing all her maternal duties in which she owes Lilja, where upon Lilja burns the photograph she carries of her mother, proving to the audience that her mother is never returning, foreshadowing her lonely and unsafe life in which she must live on her own.  This creates a huge sense of empathy in which the audience feels for Lilja as her mother is meant to be the one character within her life whom won’t delude and follow to abandon her, proving her collapse of trust within the adult figures in her society.

The brief scene involving Lilja at school carries some thematic significance also, in that the teacher is another adult who has little regard for Lilja, dismissing her poor test results with sarcasm and mockery. The point here, as in many representations of teenagers, is that delinquency contributes to vulnerability, as even the most apparently trustable adult figure within authority will undoubtedly let you down in this dichotomy of a society, which, married with her mother’s neglect, portrays a dystopia in which all adult characters are insensitive and unloving. Moodysson subverts the natural stereotypes and expectations regarding a schooling atmosphere, conveying Lilja’s school as an oppressive, adverse location of authority where upon they offer no prospects for Lilja’s future, whilst the alleged trusted adult abuses her power through the use of malevolent mockery upon Lilja, constructing a contemporary audience’s sympathy towards Lilja’s struggles. The lack of a parental role in Lilja’s life constructed by Moodysson proves the scarcity of her incentive to attend school; conjoined with the teacher’s lack of respect for Lilja thus creating the delinquency of an abandoned hopeless girl, amplifying a sense of audience empathy towards her, justifying her censurable behaviour.

Lilja’s low quality parental experience and sense of ridicule from her school immediately creates a means of showing a path concerning the rise in sex trafficking and prostitution of young women and girls across Europe due to the collapse of communism in Soviet Russia. Lilja is primarily pushed into prostitution by her “friend”, however upon their first outing we immediately see the difference in temperament’s between Lilja and Natasha, as Lilja acts reserved, not prostituting herself, where as Natasha clearly enjoys doing so. However after being accused of the taking part in the previous, Lilja decides that prostitution is her only option left due to her desperation to eat; emphasising the corruption of the society, and the barbarity of the economy where upon a 15 year old girl is led to violate her body, in order to pay for her basic necessities that we as the audience take advantage of. This creates an enormous sense of shock upon a modern day audience, as Moodysson employs Stanley Cohen’s 1977 theory of moral panic, deliberating around this taboo subject, breaking boundaries in which causes a horrific impact upon the contemporary viewers, amplifying the empathy we feel towards the tragically treated Lilja.

We see Lilja attempt to sell her belongings before agonisingly submitting to prostitution, proving her distaste for her loss of dignity, also supported through Moodysson’s use of a handheld camera, in order to allow the audience to feel the pain in which Lilja feels, conveying a completely unpleasant, non gratifying scene regarding a 15 year old Lilja and a complete juxtaposition of an older man, in order to emphasise Lilja’s virginity, and with this, her innocence.  This morally repugnant act continues, however Lilja dons a hair extension piece and applies makeup in order to make a physical transformation, in a bid to distance herself from girl to woman, in the hope of believing within herself that this is an essential act needed in order to live.

Although Lilja lost her virginity to her prostitution act, it is not until now where upon she loses her pride, exploited by a group of delinquent adolescents whom are only out to cause trouble due the prostitution rumours in which they look down on. The audience once again feel sympathy towards Lilja as she has again been damaged and is unsafe, due to her lack of parental or guardian figures, and is only in this position  due to her transferral of apartments as her Aunt reallocated Lilja for her own selfish gain; thus portraying another vindictive authoritative adult negatively affecting Lilja’s life.

Lilja meets a young adult male whom both the audience and Lilja immediately judge as another danger regarding her life, however after he introduces himself, appears kind and gentle, therefore a simply mild and helpful character. Andrei offers help and support towards Lilja which we originally see as a trap, however we are also enlightened into how happy he makes Lilja, therefore we feel the need to like him as we empathise with Lilja and her feelings. Lilja seems to distrust everyone for obvious reasons of her previous let downs, however she trusts Andrei due to his lack of motivation to sleep with her, as she believe she has no other incentive.

Everything appears to be running smoothly, as Lilja prepares to live her new life with Andrei, however as rapidly as it began; Andrei immediately lowers in our expectations through his admittance that he will not be joining her to Sweden until after he has ‘visited his ill grandma’, in which we all know means he will not be joining her altogether. This then creates a dangerous situation as it arises that he was a ‘false hope’, seen originally as a ‘miracle’, as he preys on her vulnerability, regardless of the fact that she takes little advantage of him and respects and trusts him to such an extent that she will do anything for him; prefiguring the later events in Sweden, when she is sold like meat.

Once Lilja is transferred to Sweden, we immediately see how it juxtaposes her life in Russia, initially making it seem superior to Russia, as she believes it will enhance her chances of an improved lifestyle. However this changes when she is locked in her new apartment by Andrei’s ‘boss’, then worsens when she is raped when he walks in on her in the bath, as we connect with the idea that we had from the beginning that this was a trap. Then it is presented that he sells her to the first ‘client’, we immediately know that he is a ‘Pimp’ and she will be forced to prostitute herself to be rewarded with a McDonald’s meal afterwards. This is completely unacceptable to a modern day contemporary audience, married with the fact that we are no longer in a dystopian society, amplifying the sense of danger for Lilja within the dichotomy.

We are presented with many shots of Lilja being sold for sex over and over again, being beaten and raped until she loses all self respect. The rape scenes are never titillating as it is always angled from her point of view, connoting a hyperbolic sense of disgust towards her boss’ actions, conveying her in many unfair situations, using gang rape to present a really overt condition in which we entirely sympathise for her. Moodysson also conveys a repulsive fantasy in which Lilja is forced to play along with between her and presumably a father, as he attempts to re-enact a father and daughter sex scene, which is inappropriate in any situation. Lilja however refuses to act submissively and go along with this scenario, instead shouting repetitively in Russian, in which the audience see as her way of protesting against her poor treatment. Although Lilja is hopeless and alone, she refuses to be silenced in a way of maintaining her dignity. Here we see Moodysson’s refusal to conform to Mulvey’s male gaze theory, through the montage of disgusting and abusive mise on scene sex scenes.

Although we see themes of imprisonment and entrapment, Lilja’s isolation forces her to be dependent on her boss, as he is her source of accommodation, consequently her supply of sleep and food, whilst being exploitative through the common of the time sex trafficking issue.

Sweden presents our view of the male gender as a collective, representing them as opportunistic and voyeuristic rapists, ensuring our complete empathy within Lilja as she has to fight for her freedom.

Her freedom however, is shown as impossible and unachievable; therefore she carries out the only task which will ensure her of her freedom as she commits suicide, in order to return to her rapidly stolen childhood. This, although appears to be a sad event, presents that her death has reunited her with Volodya, consequently returning her innocence to her, as she is clearly portrayed to be in a care free, non-vulnerable, happier place where upon she will no longer be harmed. This is a very overt and extreme form of obtaining her freedom; however this appears to be her only choice, connoting her sense of loss and lack of hope, creating a sense of audience empathy towards her as such an explicit event needed to take place in order to gain her lost freedom. We also feel sympathy towards Lilja as she seems to have been let down by every adult present in her life, consequently it seems that her short life has been wasted through abuse, proving that she never had a chance at gaining freedom whilst alive, which; to a contemporary audience allows us to feel compassion for the young girl.

Media A2 – BBC Highlights of the football match between England and France in the 2011 Women’s World Cup

BBC Highlights of the football match between England and France in the 2011 Women’s World Cup

1. Evaluate how the narrative techniques used attempt to position the audience and to create excitement –

The clip immediately introduces us to the key concept of the text being women’s football, through the initial showcase of skills during the opening sequence, portraying their abilities as equal to that of members of a men’s football team, creating a sense of synergy between the two texts. Following this sense of correlation between the texts, the BBC logo is evident throughout all of the clips in this highlights preview, similar to its involvement in the male football match and highlights, proving a sense of equality, also allowing the audience to see that BBC not only support the popular generic sports but feel that the women’s sport deserves just as much recognition.

The advertisements around the pitch allow scope for sponsors, drawing in a range of audiences, consequently increasing the audiences for the sponsored brands. They are able to work collaboratively to increase audience viewings for both markets, in turn creating a sense of excitement through the audience’s thrill of being able to view the game, whilst purchasing or exploring new brands, amplifying their cultural knowledge with important, everyday use brands.

The on screen graphics allow us to follow the narrative through a simplistic approach, constructing an easy to watch programme that educates us in an uncomplicated fashion, therefore enjoyable manner. This proves that this programme has the ability to watch on and off and still be informed on the latest scores through the efficient graphics at the top left of the screen, whilst also allowing scope to socialise either at home or in a local pub as men typically do during the viewing of male football. This then shows that the BBC want to keep it as similar as possible, in order to increase the audience desire to view the text, as it makes it exciting, consequently assembling an audience whom are keen to watch and know the latest scores.

The status of the programme is conveyed through the inclusion of a male commentator, presenting its sheer importance due to the paralleling commentator’s addition to male football, again conveying a sense of equality between the gendered split sports. Non-diegetic sensory music is overlayed in which creates a climactic atmosphere, which married with the simply ability focused camera angles creates a sense of non sexual titillation, whilst constructing audience gratification through the undemanding focal point of purely talent only. This is satisfying for not only the women in the games, but also for the audiences as they are able to view sports women for simply what they are, without the need for the objectification or dehumanisation.

The commentator appears to treat football as a whole, leaving the gender split unreferenced, presenting a sense of unity between the male and female sports personalities, providing his opinion on the impartiality of the games, creating a fair and reasonable concept. This is shown through the referencing of England’s loss, “lost again”, “we’re used to it”, linking both the male England team’s losses in the past with the female’s present loss, whilst using “we’re” to involve us as the audience, and make us feel connected to the two England teams, creating audience excitement and gratification.

2. How has digital television transformed the viewing behaviour of audiences? You may also refer to other media products to support your answer –

Digital television has soared ever since the analogue signal was abolished, allowing channels to be organised by genre, permitting audiences to watch specific channels via categories such as food, home, religion, music and sport. This is a way to collect a wide variety of niche audiences, as there are features involved in which cater for audiences in order to allow them to fit their television viewings around their lifestyle choices. This is possible through the advanced elements of plus one channels, record, catch up, on demand and live pause, ensuring you never miss a programme, therefore able to watch at your leisure, proving that work or other commitments and responsibilities do not veil the audience’s chances of viewing what they desire. Consequently the digitalisation of television has led to audiences being able to watch whatever they want, whenever they wish, supplying the specialist features for audience’s enjoyment, in order to fit in with their viewing needs.

Other forms of catch up are available from different platforms, for example BBC iPlayer, ITV Player and Sky Go, accessible on laptops, tablets and smart phones through the contemporary advance of device ability. This connotes that audiences can watch what they want, wherever they want, for example on the train, bus, car, work, school and the home, catering for the audiences viewing behaviour.

The three platforms of media allow a large amount of audience interaction, using the television show ‘hashtags’ to increase audience interaction as they have the ability to take this show viral, using twitter to trend top topics to increase the popularity of the programme, using the internet and the broadcast collaboratively to all audiences to choose what they watch.

Facebook also increases the popularity of a broadcast as the programme or channels specific Facebook page contains news, videos, pictures, spoilers etc… This is what the audience demands when interested in a show or channel, proving that new media, digitalisation and viral marketing occupy a large part in catering for the specific audiences viewing behaviour.

Digital television follow the notion that quantity should be deemed as more important than quality, therefore this is the reasoning behind more contemporary programmes being dumbed down. This is because the televisions shows are more accessible, and with this more demand for these shows, therefore more channels are in need for more production. Television programmes are being produced at an alarming, hence the programme complexity lessening, proving the dumbing down of programmes. This shows that digitalisation cater for audiences viewing behaviour, choosing to broadcast less complex shows in order to increase their popularity and demand.

3.  Is the media able to challenge traditional representations of femininity? You should refer to other media products to support your answer –

This text completely breaks the stereotypical traditional roles of femininity, stepping out of the view that women are domestic, passive and dependent, consequently proving their central role within Laura Mulvey’s male gaze theory regarding the female objectification and sexualisation, presenting the ideology in which they should be used for pleasure by the male audience, instead of creating their own pleasure through their involvement in this breakthrough sport. A typical traditional role of a woman would be a complete juxtaposition to their involvement in a contact sport, proving that the concept of the games breaks the stereotypical boundaries, verifying the advance of morals in a contemporary society, therefore the modern role of women and their ability to play a game in which would be impossible in the past.

The BBC sports coverage highlights the young and stereotypically sexy females within sporting society, in which could be viewed through Mulvey’s Male Gaze theory due to the sexual attraction in which viewers may feel towards these women, however the camera subverts these stereotypes, using angles in which only showcase their skills, without the inclusion of changing room footage. This proves that the BBC willingly challenge the popular demand for the stereotypical female, providing the audience with a complete subversion of their desires, presenting the contemporary media platforms in a way in which doesn’t give the audience what they want, in order to increase a variety of audience interest and change the way women are seen as simply sexualised objects.

Generally in films, television programmes and soaps, women are portrayed through the ‘heavily made up’ stereotype, in demand for a male character in their lives, proving the progression of society as the BBC are challenging what we as a culture deem as ‘correct’. Commonly, in terms of films, the need for sex appeal is lessened if the film is good, proving that a good film can portray its strengths using independent women whom are superfluous to a gratifying look, however the films in which are poor use Mulvey’s male gaze theory in order to veil the films weaknesses, sexualising women in order to increase their viewings. BBC follow the path of a good film, proving their dismissal of sexualised women as their real talent is the topic in which not only is central, but is the only subject that matters when regarding ability, paralleling actor’s ability in successful films. This connotes a sense of the independence of women, verifying the notion that they can be successful through conveying only their abilities, whilst aesthetics are unimportant; establishing the idea that men are weak and need a sense of sexual gratification from viewing such a programme, however the BBC challenge their needs and allow women to be seen for their pure talent.

Media AS – To what extent do the media products in your case study do more than just entertain your audience?

The Vampire Diaries

To what extent do the media products in your case study do more than just entertain your audience?

The Vampire Diaries (TVD) is a CW network television production, originally a book written by LJ Smith, directed by Mark Williamson and Julie Plec. It is a hybrid genre of fantasy, drama, romance and horror targeted at 14-39 aged women, beating 90210 in the most popular TV show. TVD uses all three media platforms; print e-media and broadcasting which allows their reputation and popularity to increase and widens their audience knowledge.

E-media plays a huge part of raising the shows views through the use of viral marketing. In total, there are seven twitter accounts all fan made and one official account controlled by a member of the CW network, ranging from 52.8 thousand to 508.5 thousand followers. Fans or operators have been known to upload videos, images, tweets and links to other websites which hint cast, crew, plotlines, and spoilers, likewise there are 30 Facebook accounts with a majority of 13,968,330 likes, whom also upload the same types of hints. The point in this is to create viral marketing that spreads like a disease throughout the internet reaching many fansites and news forums in order to involve the audience, entice new ones and keep dedicated fans keen and ready for more. Most of the cast and crew own a twitter account where they too include information, spoilers and teasers. Julie Plec, Mark Williamson, Paul Wesley, Ian Somerhalder, Nina Dobrev, Steven R McQueen, Michael Trevino, Candice Accola, Kat Graham, Joseph Morgan, are only some of the team whom own an account that responds to the audience involvement theory through the use of regular updates and narrative hints.

TVD had also gained many news forums and blogs which dedicate all or most of their site to, such as tv.com, wetpaint.com, tvfanatic.com, digitalspy.com and buddytv.com all of which are fan operated, this helping the audience to reference reviews, add their own opinions and hint other spoilers or teasers to keep the readers wanting to know more. Fans in America will see the show one week before fans in England which gives the American audience one week to post reviews and teasers for the English audience to see before watching that said episode, likewise with shows such as Arrow and True Blood. There are also many websites that are specific to TVD for instance; vampirediaries.wikia.com, vampire-diaries.net, vampirediaries.alloyenteratinment.com, vampirediariesweb.com, the-vampirediaries.com and thousands more. All these websites are initiated by fans as well, which again helps the reader refer and relate to opinions and views. These types of websites also include reviews and blogs about latest episodes but mainly include character information such as Damon Salvatore (played by actor Ian Somerhalder), which incorporates the characters height, weight, eye colour, love interest even information such as favourite books and colours etc… This can be seen as a little excessive but many fans like knowing this sort of information about their favourite characters. Within these sites there is also usually a merchandise section which consists of many items seen on the show such as the ‘lapis lazuli’ rings, the famous ‘moonstone’ and the ‘Gilbert rings’ which to fans, these items are desired and purchase these products which helps the trend of marketing TVD increase further. There are also products available on these fansites but also on eBay and Amazon like t-shirts and bags and even phone cases with novelty writing or pictures such as ‘Mrs. Salvatore’ or ‘Forget Prince, I want a Vampire!’ These are all products targeted to the female audience of TVD for obvious reasons and help market the show physically as passersby may see the said t-shirt and research what it means or why its novelty and perhaps get into the show.

The TVD creaters use the print platform to visually engage their audience through the use of aesthetics. They take into account their colour palette, therefore rarely use bright colours that can have connotations towards happiness, instead using darker colours suggesting mystery and drama, along with the blood reds to symbolise both danger and romance along with the obvious link that vampire’s equal blood.

Furthermore TVD uses sexual aesthetics to create attraction such as male gaze, using females in a sexually desired position which allows for their target audience to broaden into some male age ranges too. Similarly, the males are designed to attract the women through the use of their sexually desired positions, intimidating yet attracting gazes and overall linking to the genre of the show. This is conveyed in the print poster for the show where we are introduced to the three main characters, which are all situated on a bed, bearing looks of mischief and mystery which have implications to previous or preceding sexual activity. Within this poster we are presented with two males and a female all of whom are very attractive and sexually desired, the male typically attracting the female audience and the female attracting the male audience. This sense of visual pleasure is important within a show that contains attraction and romance with a coming of age story targeted at 14-39 year olds but also enticing possibly older audiences as they may ‘relive’ their past. This idea informs and educates viewers on the troubles some youths and adolescents can face, obviously on a glorified scale due to the fact that this show also focuses on vampirism and fantasy, however the message behind growing up and facing relationships remains the same and educational and informative for the demographic of young adults.

 If young female and male audiences bond with the cast then they are almost definitely going to be a fan and weekly watch this show however, if the cast is not always appealing it can put the audience off, which means they have to rely on the materialistic audiences to be interested in the plotline, which is why aesthetics are crucial thanks to modern day media.

The colour palette also helps to give clues towards the shows plotline and genres, and the positioning of the cast within the print advert helps the audience determine the characters personality and the relationships between the characters.

TVD have released many trailers for upcoming series such as the latest season 4 promo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBsDuHurZSs which aired three weeks before the new season started. The use of this allowed TVD to advertise for the next season to the fans of the show whilst also making it eye catching and entertaining for newer audiences and makes sure that both existing and newer fans do not forget about this show and informs them the time and date of which the new season will air.

Some teaser trailers are also made by fans such as http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5t0GVUIHm0 which contains old clips from previous episodes only telling us the bare minimum and sometimes telling us lies which intrigue us more and encourage audiences to watch the new season. This type of broadcasting not only entertains the audience but keeps them involved in the show and captivates new and older audiences from various viewing categories.

TVD is aired in the evening on a weekday due to its informative and educational purposes. TVD doesn’t just entertain its audience but is a coming of age story henceforth attracts teenage audiences and it showcased when teenagers would be viewing television. Likewise, the trailers for this show are shown on an evening on all ITV channels as it is an ITV performance and is shown on an evening due to the viewing demographic that watches television at this time.