Case Study and Feedback from audience on rough cuts/recordings

Graph to show feedback on our first recording based on initial ideas

1)    Has the recording been done properly?

2)    Is the camera moving a lot?

3)    Has the 180-degree rule been used properly?

4)    Is there a variety of shots?

5)    Would it be more effective if there was sound?

My first question which I had carried out was pleasing, as the recording had been done properly and the majority people I had asked felt it had been done properly. My second question was about holding the camera properly and to see whether it was moving a lot. More than half the people said yes, my camera was moving a lot which was quiet disappointing; however, it helped my group realize the importance of keeping the camera in position and not moving it around a lot. My third question was based on one of the most important rules which must be conducted properly to insure your recording is done properly, the 180 degree rule. As we are all aware the 180 degree is to insure the camera is kept on one side and doesn’t cross over the angle of 180, unless the camera moves along with the camera person to make the 180 degree rule go on the opposite side. Approximately 20% people had said the 180-degree was not done properly. My fourth question was based on the variety of shot we had used, only 10% of the people felt that we had used a variety of shots. As this was a rough cut from our initial ideas it was a way of making us familiar with the camera and how it works. It would have been great to score top marks on each question. But as we did not we are now aware on what we need to improve through analyzing this graph. My last question was about sound (non digietic and digietic) and every single person who had taken this questionnaire felt that our opening scene would be much better if there was input of sound. In conclusion, as a group we are aware of what we need to improve, input and output in our opening scene to make it as effective as possible.

Case study: Working Title Films (Bridget Jones Dairy)

Working title films

Working Title Films was co-founded by producers Tim Bevan and Sarah Radcliffe in 1983. In 1992, PolyGram became the company's corporate backer. Working title films had their major break through on the release of four weddings and a funeral. Working title films and the British film council had realized that not many films had been produced for the ethic groups and for specific target audiences. Therefore, working title two was abolished and had many breakthroughs such as; Billy Elliot, Love Guru, Ali G In Da house etc.

Distribution and Marketing

The use of synergy in the film Billy Elliot was beneficial for the song and film, they both benefited each other. Whereas Bridget Jones dairy was marketed well and by having an American actress Reene Zellweger it brought across huge controversies on whether an American actress will be able to carry out a British role. However it was conducted out very well and Reene is yet still renowned for it. Working title films distributed Bridget Jones through Universal pictures. Also the male characters in this film are also very renowned actors and the use of well known actors is another way of distributing and marketing the film. As many of the other WTF Hugh Grant, was also casting in this film. However, this time he was not the innocent guy, he was seen to be the ‘play boy.’ The reason for this could be due to the controversies with having affairs with other women; this would help the audience relate to him better. Another way through which WTF distributes their films is through posters, newspapers, magazines, trailers etc. They even have a website now therefore people are able to access their website to see the latest WTF films.

As the first part of Bridget Jones dairy was such a success it made it easire for part two. In comparison to part one the second part of bridget Jones was not advertised as much as the first one, however, it was just as successfull.