Film Piracy

The movie industry excels in selling dreams. But since the dawn of the digital revolution, there is one narrative they've consistently and conspicuously failed to sell: that piracy is theft and consumers who indulge ought to feel guilty about it. Recent research by Ipsos suggests that almost 30% of the UK population is active in some form of piracy, either through streaming content online or buying counterfeit DVDs. Such theft costs the UK audiovisual industries about £500m a year.

LINK to rest of article

Hypothetically, two movies come out on the same day: The Wolf of Wall Street and the new Transformers. You are allowed to see one in an IMAX theatre and you will illegally download the other one online. Most people would choose Transformers over The Wolf of Wall Street due to the fact that there are robot dinosaurs and everyone else is going to see it in theatres. Those robot dinosaurs will look a lot cooler in a theatre rather than on a laptop. Many people then realized how lacking the movie really was after walking out of their local theatre's showing of Transformers: Age of Extinction. Meanwhile, many of the same people went on to watch The Wolf of Wall Street online to realize that it was actually a really good movie. Most people don’t realize that this is at all a problem, and at first glance it’s not. However, after more in-depth research, the problem soon becomes apparent. Transformers: Age of Extinction only gained an 18% rating on Rotten Tomatoes (Transformers, Rotten Tomatoes), one of the most critical and most trusted film-review sites online. The Wolf of Wall Street, however, gained a 77% rating on the same site (Wolf of Wall Street, Rotten Tomatoes). It was also nominated for five different Academy Awards. The Wolf of Wall Street is clearly the better film. Yet, besides the fact that Transformers was clearly not a great film, it somehow managed to be named the highest grossing film worldwide of 2014 and earned over one billion dollars in the Box Office (2014 Worldwide Grosses). The Wolf of Wall Street went on to be the most pirated film of 2014 with over 30 million illegal downloads (Spangler, 1) and didn’t even gross $117 million, giving the producers and the studio under $17 million after the production cost, which is not a much of a profit at all for such a high-budget film. Piracy has become more of a problem in the past decade than it ever has before, specifically movie piracy. In fact, a study from Columbia University came out recently that said at least 45% of US citizens pirate movies actively, but that number bumps up to 70% if you include the younger demographics as well (Mick, 2). This act of pirating is growing more and more common every year and most people do it mindlessly, not realizing what it costs. Everyone has seen the text at the beginning of movies saying “Piracy is not a victimless crime,” and this is completely true. Piracy is extremely harmful to the movie industry and its effects are larger than anyone could imagine.

But Where Do These Pirated Movies Come From?

There are many different ways that people pirate movies. One of the most classic ways people pirate is by “leaking” them. This involves a person going into a movie theatre with a camera or a phone and recording the movie as it plays. It is usually a poor quality, but many people still download these recordings anyways instead of going to see it in a theatre. This usually occurs when it is only in theatre since that is the only version most people are able to see. Sometimes these leaks occur before the movie is even premiered, often because it is filmed during a special premier before the opening night. This is referred to as a pre-release, and they tend to result in a 19% decrease in how much the movie makes at the Box Office (Hart, 2). Many people defend pre-releases because it gives a movie more publicity so more people would want to see it, but the facts state otherwise. Leaking a movie that’s in the theatres always tends to decrease how much the movie makes regardless of when it is released and sometimes even leads to the movie not even making as much as there was put into it.

One of the other common ways for a movie to be pirated is for it to be digitally hacked. This one has become more common lately as technology improves. One of the most extreme and recent examples was the Sony hacking. Though some people will claim that Sony faked the hacking, evidence shows that they were legitimately hacked. During this hacking, many of Sony’s movies were released illegally online, such as Annie and Fury (Note: Annie had not even been released yet). A hacking involves someone digitally cracking into the studio or company’s computer system and taking the movie from their files. This logically would actually decrease a movie’s Box Office revenue by even more than someone’s recording of the movie would because it’s a better quality.

There are more ways to watch a pirated movie other than just downloading it online. In fact, some people tend to start their own pirating businesses. It’s very inexpensive and easy for a person to start one of these businesses. More recently, people only need to buy a bunch of blank DVD’s, the same amount of DVD cases and a computer that can burn a DVD. From there, they must find a source to get the pirated movies from. Sometimes they will personally film them in a theatre, or find a hacked or leaked version online and download it. After that, all they need to do is download the stolen films onto their blank DVD’s and sell them to anyone who is willing to purchase it. Within a short amount of time, this person has made a great deal of money that should have gone to the movie studios.

What Kind of Effect Does it Have?

Most people would just say that pirating has a small effect on the industry and that the studios already have enough money. They believe watching a movie online isn’t going to hurt anyone. The Motion Picture Association of America looked into this belief and discovered that piracy costs around $20.5 billion annually in the United States alone (Plumer, 2). In fact, a study back in 2005 estimated that a 10% decrease in worldwide piracy, including both film and music, over the course of four years would add 1.5 million jobs, $64 billion in taxes and $400 billion in economic growth (Kai-Lung). That, however, was ten years ago and is outdated. Those numbers are likely to be much higher today due to inflation and an increase in popularity of the film industry. This means that the studios are making much smaller amounts of money than they should be making from their films due to piracy.

Quit Talking Numbers. How Does it Effect My Movie Experience?

The decrease in money from studios will often decrease the quality of other movies and even sequels, but more often it will decrease the quantity. A studio is much more likely to throw all of their money into the next big franchise sequel than give half of it to the franchise and the other half to a movie like Twelve Years a Slave simply because Twelve Years a Slave won’t sell as well in theatres as the franchise movie will. Movie studios and production companies don’t look at reviews and DVD sales nearly as much as they look at the Box Office Revenue, or how much it makes in the theater.

In many cases, piracy of a film will even damage the likeliness of a franchise sequel. For example, the Kick-Ass movies came to an end due to lack of funding from piracy. According to Chloë Grace Moretz who stars as “Hit-Girl” in the series, Kick-Ass 2 was one of the most pirated films of 2013 despite having an extremely low Box Office Revenue (Highfill). Because of this, the plans for the third movie in the series have been cancelled. Whether or not you like the Kick-Ass series, it is clear that piracy has become a serious problem and will only continue to damage the film industry.

What About New Movies That Aren't Franchises Yet?

It is not franchise movies that need to be worried about, though; it is the movies by the independent filmmakers. Due to the increase in film piracy, production companies and movie studios are now much less likely to loan money out to an independent filmmaker with an idea than they are to a team of writers and producers working on a Harry Potter spin-off. When people think of the term ‘independent filmmaker’, they think of a man in his 20’s with an Associates Degree in Theatre that wrote a screenplay in two weeks. Though these people are independent filmmakers, I refer to the higher kind of independent filmmakers that actually make Oscar nominated films, but take out enormous loans to do so. Now, due to piracy, no matter how many Oscars their movie is nominated for, many filmmakers are having to foreclose their houses or take out further loans from a bank to make up for the losses in the Box Office for their film due to piracy. It also means that the studios do not get their money back that they invested with and therefore stop funding films without promises of success like Birdman or The Theory of Everything, both of whom won Oscars this year.

Now Let's Think More Economically...

The loss of money affects more than just the filmmakers and studios, however. It helps the entire economy grow due to tax and job increase. Pirating less films will mean that the studios will get more money, which leads to more movies, which employs people like hairdressers, electricians, actors, costume designers and countless other occupations. This will add more jobs to the United States and will also add more tax money to help the country.

But Is It Really Stealing?

Many people argue that piracy is not illegal because they are not technically stealing anything. Though they are not physically taking away anything from anyone, they are stealing intellectual property. Just because you can’t hold a movie file in your hands does not mean that it is not someone’s property. Downloading a film online is the equivalent of stealing a movie from a movie store. It may not come in the same fancy case as a movie at the store, but it still carries the same contents. By pirating a film, you are stealing the money that should have been paid had you watched the movie legally. You do not have a right to watch whatever movies you want to watch without having to pay for them just as I do not have a right to walk into the local Dollar General and eat their candy bars without paying first. As much as people may argue it, film piracy is stealing. It is not your property, so it is not yours to take without paying for it first.

Going Back to my Original Example at the Beginning of All of This...

The Wolf of Wall Street was 2014’s most pirated movie with over 30 million piracies worldwide. Let’s do the math to see how much money piracy actually robbed this movie of had these people gone to see it in a theatre instead. In 2014, the average price of a movie ticket in the United States was $8.17 (Linshi, 1). When a person goes to see a movie in the theatre, the money spent on the ticket goes to two different places. It is split between the movie studio and the movie theatre, with more going to the theatre the longer the movie has been out (Campea). For the purposes of now, let’s average that overall the theatre and the studio would each get 50% of the ticket price. Now for the part with the actual math. If each illegal download of The Wolf of Wall Street, which more specifically evens out to around 30,035,000 downloads (Spangler, 1) equals one movie ticket that costs $8.17, and the movie studio only gets half of the amount from each movie ticket, that results in about $122,692,975 that was robbed from Paramount Pictures for just that one movie. That amount stolen was more than the movie actually made in the Box Office, and that is assuming that only one person watched each illegal download. Several of those downloads were most likely copied onto multiple different blank DVD’s and given out to others to watch illegally. That is even more money that was robbed from The Wolf of Wall Street. In the Box Office, the movie barely broke even out of how much they spent making the film. These numbers would have helped the studio, the filmmakers and the crew a lot more in order to make even more Oscar nominated movies. Unfortunately, these thirty million people seemed to overlook that.

Now the Real Question: How Do We Stop Piracy?

It all starts at home, just like it takes a spark to start a fire. Many people argue that “everyone is watching movies illegally online, so why is it different if I do it?” Well the same argument could again go for people that steal candy bars from a store. It may cost more than you like and others may do it, but it is not your property to steal. Like voting, if just one person takes a stand against piracy it will make a difference. Simply quit pirating movies or watching them online. There are many different excuses people use about watching movies online illegally, but it does not override the fact that it is illegal. Even streaming movies online is illegal if it is not authorized by the studio that made the film. If you aren’t willing to pay to watch the film, you aren’t allowed to watch it. This is the way the industry works.

What Can The Theaters Do?

A way for movie theatres to prevent piracy is to change their types of projectors. In the past, the government came up with a way to prevent the filming of a movie in the theatres. They did this by projecting an infrared spectrum over the projected film. This infrared image was not visible to the audience, but it would make the video on the camera someone brought into film the movie into a very low quality that would make the video almost unbearable to watch. Since then technology has improved to attempt to improve the quality of the filmed video regardless of the infrared. Though this has worked to an extent, film pirates have not yet fully recovered from the addition of the infrared. Only more research will be able to help improve the projectors so that this does not happen anymore.

What Happens if Someone gets Caught?!

When it all comes down to it, one of the major reasons you should avoid pirating movies is that its an enormous risk. Since it is illegal, there are certainly punishments for those that choose to break this law. These punishments are severe. For example, if a person is convicted of a misdemeanour in piracy, as in they only downloaded or uploaded a small amount of movies without the owner’s consent, the person would be punished with up to a year of prison time and would have a fine of up to $100,000, depending on the extent of the piracy. That, however, is just for a small offense. For someone that downloads or uploads movies illegally without the owner’s consent in large amounts will be charged with a felony. The punishment of this crime is up to 5 years of imprisonment and up to $250,000 in fines. The fine, though, can be more. In some cases, the fine is set as double what the person gained for pirating the films if they made money off of it, or it set as double the amount of money the person cost the studios he or she stole from (AlanS). In any of these cases, it is clear that movie piracy is not worth the risk.

Piracy is Clearly an Enormous Threat

Filmmakers are in danger of losing their jobs and the movie theatres are in danger of only showing films like Transformers sequels and Terminator reboots. Helping the film industry does not just entail not illegally watching a movie, it also entails going to see those movies in a theatre to reverse the mistakes made by those who don’t realize the consequences. Some of the greatest films do not get the proper credibility in the theatres because people are too distracted by other films or because people would think it’s smarter to illegally watch it on their computer than paying to see it in a theatre. As stated earlier, this has many more consequences than these people would think, such as taking away jobs, taking over $20.5 billion from the US film industry and decreasing both the quantity and quality of the very movies they are downloading. In addition, is it really worth spending five years of your life in prison just because you didn’t want to pay to watch a movie? It’s time to stop pirating and to stop making excuses for watching a movie illegally online. Film is a form of art. People use it to tell their stories.

LINK to original source

The Big Six

Major Film Studios

A major film studio is a film producer and production company that releases a substantial number of films annually.

The Big Six film studios are:

1. Warner Bros. Pictures. Comprising a whopping 19.7 percent of the US/Canadian market share (2007 figures), Warner Bros. Pictures is the biggest player in the film industry. Securing the rights to major films like Harry Potter, Superman, Batman, The Matrix and Star Wars have made Warner Bros. the No. 1 name in the business.

2. Paramount Pictures. With 15.5 percent of the US/Canadian market share (2007 figures), Paramount Pictures continues to be one of the most successful film production companies in the world. Star Trek, War of the Worlds, the Mission Impossible series, Transformers and Tropic Thunder are just a few of the popular films produced by Paramount Pictures.

3. Walt Disney. One of the most renowned film production companies in the history of the business, Walt Disney now holds 15.3 percent of the US/Canadian market share (2007 figures). With highly successful movies like Pirates of the Caribbean, National Treasure, Meet the Robinsons and Enchanted, there's no doubt that Disney will continue to play a key role in the industry for years to come.

4. Columbia Pictures. Comprising 12.9 percent of the US/Canadian market share (2007 figures), Columbia Pictures remains a big player in the business. Some of this company's recent successes include Casino Royale, The Da Vinci Code, the Spider-Man series and Step Brothers.

5. Universal Studios. 12.2 percent of the US/Canadian market share (2007 figures) belongs to Universal Studios, which continues to make millions for the film industry. With major hits like the Bourne series (Bourne Identity, Bourne Supremacy and Bourne Ultimatum), The American Pie series, Knocked Up, American Gangster and The Incredible Hulk, it's very clear that Universal Studios knows what it takes to make money in this industry.

6. 20th Century Fox. Also known as "Twentieth Century Fox," this highly successful movie production company makes up 11.9 percent of the US/Canadian market share (2007 figures). Some of the biggest and most successful movies from this empire include the X-Men series, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, Star Wars Episodes II and III, and the Fantastic Four.

Roughly 9/10 films in the UK are seen as a result of these distributors

Ex Machina research

director: Alex Garland

 producer: Andrew MacDonald and Allon Reich 

distributor: universal studios

cast: Alicia Vikander, Domhnall Gleeson, Oscar Isaac, Sonoya mizuno

budget: $15 million

locations: Norway and pinewood studios

technology: Visual effects company Double Negative worked on the creation and production of Ava using advanced motion tracking technology.

number of screen - opening weekend: 1255 screens

number of screens - peak number 2,004 screens

box office figures: $36.9 million

the issues raised by media ownership in contemporary media practice; The films production companies were film 4 productions and DNA films, these are relatively small production companies  so this proves that small production companies can make successful films as the box office made over double the amount of money it cost to make the film. Good marketing and distribution would have helped to contributed to the overall success of the film. 

the importance of cross media convergence and synergy in production, distribution and marketing; 

 Universal studios used their size and popularity to advertise and publicise the film, they used trailers, posters and social media to promote the new film. For this film they worked with an internet dating site 'tinder' to match users with the main character Ava, Ava would then send a link to the films Instagram page. This is a new type of advertising that got people talking about the film.

the technologies that have been introduced in recent years at the levels of production, distribution, marketing and exchange; 

They way we buy films has changed as films are available to rent, download, blue Ray and internet streaming. This has influenced the way films are being made. For example Ex Machina is available on Blu-Ray which means the film has been made to look high quality when viewed via DVD. 




the significance of proliferation in hardware and content for institutions and audiences: The way we watch films has changed as audiences no longer need to got to the cinema to see the latest blockbusters, because of this change it has lead to changes in the way film companies make and release their films. Some people don't go to the cinema due to the high ticket prices, therefore most film companies make their films available to download or stream. This is so they can get the highest amount of revenue as possible by making it available to a wider range of different audiences. 




the importance of technological convergence for institutions and audiences; (can you think of examples of how different technologies have come together to help the film industry?)  Consider, amongst other things, the many ways that the film was marketed. the film companies would have had contacts with marketing companies, this way the film would have has lots of advertising in major cities. advertising included trailers and posters. The way Ex Machina was distributed over social media could be a reason why ex machina did so well because many people have social media accounts so advertising would have clearly been seen by users.

the issues raised in the targeting of national and local audiences (specifically, British) by international or global institutions;  To appeal to audiences in different countries, they release the trailer in a variety of different languages for different countries to get as many to watch the film. This method worked for Ex Machina as the film doubled the budget ($15 million). In the UK and USA posters, social media largely contributed to the films marketing campaign.

the ways in which the candidates’ own experiences of media consumption illustrate wider patterns and trends of audience behaviour. (what is your opinion on the above? Do you see the developments as a good or bad thing?) I think these developments are a good thing in the film industry as these developments are making films available to a wider range of audiences.

Ex Machina review

Ex Machina review

Oscar Isacc, Alicia Vikander, Domhnall Gleeson played the three main characters for this film. Ava (Alicia Vikander) is an artificial intelligence machine made by the head of a company who runs the world’s largest search engine.(Oscar Isacc). A worker for the company called Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson) wins a prise draw which allows him to spend a week with the head of the company in a remote location to complete a Turing test which tests a machines ability to determine if the machine can convincingly pass itself off as human to another human. The film was written and directed by Alex Garland who is a novelist, screenwriter, producer a director. He has worked on films like Dread and 28 days later. The film was produced by Andrew Macdonald and Allon Reich who are both successful film producers who have worked on many films.

I think that the special effects were excellent for the budget they had, ava looked convincing and realistic which I think added to the films overall success. Alicia Vikander played the role perfectly with her soft spoken voice and smooth movements. Motion tracking technology was used to create Ava and I think it worked perfectly. In most AI films the machine is stiff and slow moving whereas Ava is so life like the audience forgets that she is not human.  

Caleb’s job is to be the human side of the Turing test; they ask Ava a series of questions to determine whether the Ava has a consciousness and does everything she says mean anything or is it just a series of codes and commands telling her what to say. The main question is: what makes humans human? If ava can speak, interact and feel emotion why isn’t she a human? Caleb is lead to believe that she does have emotion which then leads him to form a relationship with her without Nathen knowing. However this is something Ava does to make Caleb trusts him but in the end she was just using him as an escape route. However, the main aim of the Turing test is to see if a human knows if it is interacting with a machine, so why did Nathen tell him that ava was AI? Why didn’t Nathen dress her up so Caleb didn’t know she was a machine? Near the end of the film Caleb realises that it was not just Ava that was being tested on but it was a test on both characters.

Overall I think this film was a success, many feel like the ending was disappointing as we don’t find out what happened to Caleb. I think this is was makes the film good because you don’t find out what happens, it keep you guessing and wondering whether Caleb escaped or if he couldn’t find a way out. I think what is different about this film is that usually films follow a main character throughout the film from beginning to end whereas in Ex Machina we never find out what happens to Caleb instead we switch to Ava and we see how her story ends. I think the overall story was excellent as it gets you thinking about whether AI could really work in modern society.

Marketing and distribution essay

“Successful media products depend as much upon marketing and distribution to a specific audience as they do upon good production practices”.

To what extent would you agree with this statement, within the media area you have studied

 

The film I have studied is Star Wars: the force awakens and was released into cinemas in December 2015. The film was directed by an ‘A-list director’ J.J Abrams. I agree with the statement because I think having good production practices and successful marketing and distribution are both important factors when making a film. The force awakens had both good production practices and good marketing, for example they made the audience feel nostalgic by using actors from the original films. Harrison ford, mark Hamill and Carrie fisher all made an appearance which would make it appeal more to those who grew up watching the films, but also appealing to younger audiences by adding some unknown actors to play new characters such as Daisy Ridely as Ray and John Boyega as Finn.

For marketing and distribution, they advertised online using social media which is a good way promoting a new film to a range of different audiences but mainly under 25s.To ensure that Star Wars appealed to a range of audiences they made sure it was a four-quadrant picture, meaning it would appeal to both men and women over and under 25. It attracts bot parents, children, men and women so it would bring in huge amounts of revenue. Star Wars was mainly above the line marketing as this is also a way of targeting larger and more general customers, advertising will appear on TV, posters and souvenirs. They also had many tag ins and joined in with other franchises for example they released Star Wars cereals, posters, water bottles, sweets and colouring books this helps to make a film more appealing to much younger audiences. They also released a Star Wars Lego set which would have got children interested and talking about the film.

Star Wars is a successful media product and is available to watch on blue ray, DVD and download, this is so they can still generate profit once the cinemas are no longer showing the film. This links to distribution of films. The force awakens was filmed on both film and digital and Walt Disney studios were the official distributers. The film was also available to watch on Imax which would have made it appeal to a wider audience. Walt Disney studios motion picture have had experience with marketing and distribution of successful films which could be why the force awakens had one of the most successful and biggest marketing campaigns.

The trailer for the force awakens was not also gripping but was released in many different languages, widening the audience. This was an important part of marketing for this film as to create profit it needed everyone to be interested in viewing the new film. The marketing and distribution for this film was clearly successful as it made $2.6 billion. The revenue from this film meat they could pay the main cast members (Harrison ford, Daisy Ridely and John Boyega) large amounts of money for example Daisy and John received $450,000 each while Harrison got around $23 million. Even though John and Daisy have been in other films, people will start to associate them with the Star Wars franchise from now on.

 The film had good production practices which helped to make the films as successful as it was. They had a $306million budget which meant they could film in various locations such as Abu Dhabi and spend money on quality special effects and filming sets. Another way that they improved the nostalgic was by researching the original film to find out what made them so successful. When they found what made the originals so good they tried to recreate techniques that they used for example using real explosions rather than making them all using special effects, which is a good example of good production practice. Also, technology has advanced dramatically since the first films and as a result it made the force awakens a successful film because of high quality special effects.

In conclusion, I believe that marketing and distribution is equally as important as having good production practices. Both are vital components for successful film productions because if a production is lacking in one of the 2 areas it could mean the film is unsuccessful. A film could have good production practices but not so good marketing and distribution, which would mean the film would be lacking advertisement so therefore the film would get little publicity and result in no revenue. Productions heavily rely on both marketing and distribution and good production practices to make a successful film.  Overall I strongly agree with the statement as I think if a film needs to be successful, marketing and distribution need to be equally as good as the production practice.

Regional identity

Discus the ways in which the extract constructs the representation of regional identity using the following (50 marks)

• Camera shots, angles, movement and composition
• Editing
• Sound
• mis-en-scene

EAA: Explanation, analysis, argument 20 marks                                                                                            EG: Use of example 20 marks                                                                                                                             T: Terminology 10 marks                                                                                                                       

The establishing shot is of an outdated doctor’s surgery, lacking many of the modern items one would expect to see, this cultural code immediately positions the audience to regard the countryside as ‘behind’ in terms of technology and other advancements- this is a common stereotype of the countryside. The use of a wide angle allows the audience to see the contrast between the suit wearing Doc Martin (who represents the city) and the two boiler suit wearing tradesmen (who represent the countryside) Doc Martin is positioned higher in the frame, which could connote power and authority, whilst one of the two workers appear lazy; he is seated, overweight and eating. The room appears uncared for, it is lit using natural soft key lighting and through the use of mis-en-scene we can see that there are boxes piled up.

An insert shot shows an old fashioned police office where a police officer is hovering, which could infer that there is little or no crime in the country side and therefore the officer has nothing to do. Through the mis-en-scene the audience can see that the computer is off meaning there is no work to be done in the countryside, additionally the computer is outdated which could mean there is no need for new and modern computers as there is nothing for the officer to do.  This is a stereotypical assumption that there is no crime in the countryside and everything is slow and calm. A mid- close up is used on the police officer and it shows his surprised face, his surprised face could indicate that is rare for someone to enter the station.


The medium close up shot is of Doc martin and a woman who is trying to get his attention and talk to him. The Doc is closer to the camera and the woman is further away, also the doc takes up most of the screen which could mean that he has more power than the woman, the doc clearly does not want to talk to this woman as he keeps on walking away. Through the use of mise en scene we can see that the woman drives a car even in a small village, this could imply that she is lazy as usually everything in the countryside is a short distance away. During this scene you can hear seagulls in the background which is another stereotypical view that there is a constant sound of seagulls.

The next medium shot cuts to show the Doc helping out his aunt carry her vegetables; in this case the woman is closer to the camera which could mean that she has the most power in the situation. In this scene the woman talks to the doc about a teacher, the woman knows everything about the teacher which suggests that everyone in the countryside knows everyone as they live in a close community. The mise en scene suggests that most people who live in the countryside live in small cottages as this is what we see the aunt walk into, this is another stereotypical view of people who live in the countryside. Another stereotypical view point is that the aunt is carrying vegetables which would suggest that she works on a farm, this is a common stereotypical thought about people who live in the countryside which is that all people are farmers and grow vegetables.

I have under analysed the sound and editing in this clip, and I have also not mentioned Roland Barthes narrative codes. I should have explained more about the cuts that were used in the clip and explained why certain camera angles were used.

Ethnicity on TV

Ethnicity on TV

1) Can I identify what ethnicities people are?

This screenshot shows a mixture of different ethnicities, because theses ethnicities are easy to identify it makes it easier for the viewer to watch as they don't have to think about what ethnicities people are. For example, the doctor who helped the diabetic woman had a African accent making it easier for the audience to understand.

2) Are people from different ethnic backgrounds shown as having different interests, personalities, attitudes, behaviours?

In TV different ethnicities are usually have stereotyped behaviours. Some characters from different ethnicities do show some of these stereotyped interests and behaviours, for example: this screenshot shows an Asian woman at her desk, Asian people are often shown as having an interest in technology, due to stereotyping, which could be why she is sat in front of a computer.

3)  Is their ethnicity represented as being important in their life? 


This clip would suggest that they do care, they care because they are trying to hide themselves because of their ethnicities. Near the end of the clip people from different ethnicities are all sitting at their different tables and on group pray before they eat meaning it is important to them. It is also represented when a worker pulls out a 'tribal' photo out of their locker, suggesting that their ethnicity is important to them. A reaction shot has been used in this scene so the audience can see what reaction she has had to the situation.

4)Are people from particular ethnicities portrayed as being better, more 
 powerful, than others?

yes in this case the white receptionist seemed more powerful as she was the one who was ordering everyone around, this also applied to the immigration officers when they had to grab Abraham. Also the white people in the film had better jobs such as being the managers or the receptionists whereas the people from different ethnicities have the lower paid jobs such as cleaning and cooking. A pan was used in the dinner hall. it pans across from one table to another where we see 2 characters praying before they eat.

5)Are people from particular ethnicities portrayed as being abnormal /weaker/ 
 more pathetic than others?

The immigrants are portrayed weak in this clip as they are the ones who are having to hide, and the immigrants are usually the ones from different ethnic backgrounds. They hide because they cant stand up to the immigration officers making them seen week and pathetic. A close up has been used in the scene that involves the receptionist, it was used because she is an important character who was about to be spoken to.

6)How do other characters in the clip treat the characters from different ethnic backgrounds?

All the hotel staff are working together and treat each other with respect.The white receptionist is trying to help the immigrants to hide and the immigrants are all trying to help each other. However, the white immigration officers are clearly against them. However the people of ethnic backgrounds have been given the lower paid jobs, suggesting that their employer was being unfair. A close up shot was used to zoom in on the woman face to see her reaction. 

7)What is the message the clip is trying to portray about ethnicity?

I think that the message in this clip from hotel Babylon is about how immigrants living in fear of being sent back to where they were originally from. It also highlights how people of different ethnicities can be treated in the workplace. In this scene a point of view shot has been used so we could see what the woman is looking at from the woman viewpoint.