Discuss the issues raised by media ownership in the production and exchange of media texts in your chosen media area. The impact of media ownership is significant within the film industry. In this essay I am going to examine the impact that ownership has on aspects of the film industry through the case studies of StudioCanal, Working Title and Universal, looking primarily at the impact on production, before looking at Cinema City, a local independent, and the impact of ownership on exhibition/ exchange. The conglomerate Vivendi and the relationship between its subsidiaries StudioCanal, Universal, Working Title and Optimum Releasing (now known as StudioCanal) demonstrates how ownership can affect the kind of films that are produced by an institution. StudioCanal are part of a global conglomerate (Vivendi) and are seeking to become a pan-European studio and to dominate this market. The company are a good example of vertical integration, owning production and distribution companies within the European film industry. Over the last 15-20 years StudioCanal have bought Optimum Releasing (a UK distributor), Kinowelt (a German distributor) and a large share in Working Title (a UK productioncompany) as part of their aim to dominate the market for European films. The ownership affects the films they produced and the way they are distributed. The recent Working Title release Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy was funded entirely by their parent company StudioCanal and produced as a European film (European director, cast, locations, and also the aesthetic style was more European than Hollywood films). The film was also distributed first to Europe through the Venice and Stockholm film festivals, and the release schedule meant it was distributed in the UK and Europe 3 months before America. The film can be considered an example of synergy: it was funded by StudioCanal, produced by Working Title, distributed by Optimum (although this was the first film to be released under their new name of StudioCanal). In America, meanwhile, the film was distributed by Focus Features, a subsidiary of StudioCanal’s sister company (and Working Title’s other parent) Universal. In this way we can see that StudioCanal’s ownership of Working Title and Optimum Releasing influenced the production, distribution and exhibition of Tinker Tailor. Whilst Tinker Tailor is an example of how StudioCanal’s ownership of Working Title affects the films they produce, Universal’s ownership of Working Title also affects the films they produce. Contraband was produced by Working Title in 2012 and was funded and globally distributed by Universal. The film is distinctly different to Tinker Tailor: Contraband is a genre film (action) that is clearly more targeted to a mainstream Hollywood audience (the star Mark Wahlberg is evidence of this). Universal’s ownership means that Working Title are producing some films that are aimed at a global mainstream audience (as well as the European-targeted films such as Senna and Tinker Tailor), and in this way we see a further example of the impact of media ownership on production. Contraband is a mid budget film ($25m), and Working Title’s ownership by Universal and StudioCanal restricts them to such budgets. They specialise in films that do not seek to compete with big budget blockbusters. Because of their strength and size, however, Universal
can afford to create such big budget films. Battleship is the company’s tentpole film for 2012, costing over $200m. The film is marketed as a genre film, targeting mainstream audiences in a way that is distinctly different to Tinker Tailor, and the distribution and marketing for the film are globally co-ordinated. In this way we can see the impact that ownership has on the productions that Universal release. So far I have focused on the issues around media ownership and production, but another of my case studies reflects issues of ownership and exhibition. Cinema City are an independent cinema in Norwich with 3 screens whose exhibition programme reveals the way ownership can affect exhibition. The cinema target niche audiences through specialist programming that includes local and archive films, foreign language and arthouse films, and low budget British and American films. The independence of the cinema gives them the freedom to tailor their programming to their local audience, and the cinema also programmes in a way that targets niche groups such as screenings for families with autistic children, older audiences, students, and gay audiences. This targeting of niche groups sets them apart from the chain cinemas in the city (Vue and Odeon) who, due to ownership, do not have the opportunity to tailor their programming so specifically. Also, the independence leads the cinema to run strong educational schemes, again reflecting how ownership affects exhibition and programming. A third way that ownership affects exhibition at this cinema is that, due to the independence the cinema struggled to invest in digital screens and so accessed such investment through the Digital Screen Network and the Europa scheme. These schemes enabled Cinema City to invest in digital technology but with the requirement to exhibit a quota of specialist (archive/ local interest/ documentaries/ foreign language film). This is a further example of how ownership affects exhibition. Underlying all of the case studies I have discussed are two central issues that relate to ownership. The first is competiton: Cinema City’s strategies to compete with chain cinemas, and StudioCanal’s strategy to develop a European alternative to Hollywood dominance. The second is targeting specific audiences and developing a ‘niche’, and this is something that the different institutions are addressing in very different ways as a result of their ownership and institutional structures.