Loving (2016)

Film Maker Jeff Nichols.

Loving is the latest film from American writer/director Jeff Nichols. It tells the true story of  Richard and Mildred Loving, an inter-racial couple whose marriage in 1950’s Virginia led to the repealing of archaic and racist laws forbidding such a union.

Nichols has repeatedly shown himself to be a masterful film maker. His understated style, portrayal of people as authentic and refusal to delve into melodrama in both dialogue and direction give his films a genuine feel and tension. Dialogue is used sparingly, he trusts his actors to portray the story emotionally, not verbally. He trusts his actors because he knows them, repeatedly using the same cast members in each of his films. Nichols talent as a film maker has seen him crossing genres with ease: Shotgun Stories (2007), a tense drama telling the story of a family feud, Midnight Special (2016) a sci-fi tale in which a gifted child, protected by his father, is pursued by the FBI and a religious cult, and now the period biopic Loving. Add to this the coming of age drama Mud (2012) and the critically acclaimed Take Shelter (2011) and you have a formidable movie portfolio. This man does not make bad films, he makes great ones.

Loving is a beautifully shot film, with characterisation reminiscent of Shotgun Stories. Joel Edgerton plays Richard Loving, and his performance is phenomenal. This is a man who struggles to communicate, who deeply loves his wife and children, and desperately wants to be left alone. Ruth Negga is perfect as Mildred, her understated dialogue and awkward posture capturing the character that should, but probably won’t, make her 2017 Oscar win for best supporting actress a formality. Mildred’s courage is never forced, never staged. It just happens. There are no big speeches in this film, no epic words to slap on the poster. There is truth.  Edgerton and Negga are so good, that at times it feels as though you are watching some kind of impossible surreal documentary; beautifully shot in colour in 50’s America. Nichols not only avoids the cliches of the modern biopic, he gives us a new take: Just tell the story of the people, ignore everything else, ignore the big picture, the political and legal ramifications, ignore the historic change: Tell the story of Richard and Mildred, of their simple, powerful love for each other. That is the greatest truth, and the one we can all connect to. We can’t identify with airbrushed heroes changing the world, we can identify with real people, flawed, doing their best by each other, while history seems to happen around them.

Jeff Nichols is one of the most important film makers working today. His films have a space in them. They are not crammed full of stuff. They allow reflection, like a loving friend, they don’t demand attention like a spoiled child. To release Midnight Special and Loving over a two or three year period would have been impressive. To release both in one year? I’m tempted to use the word ‘genius’.

 

New York, New York (1977)

Scorsese and De Niro on the set of New York, New York.

I don’t know why, but until a few weeks ago I had never seen this movie. This makes no sense: Scorsese, De Niro, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Goodfellas, Casino, The King of Comedy. So many masterpieces of film. So many iconic performances. It’s not even that I’d heard that New York, New York was a bad movie, it’s just a movie that no one seems to talk about. And it’s a musical. Scorsese? De Niro? A musical? And Liza Minelli. What the hell is Liza Minelli doing in a Scorsese film? Maybe the film was just a result of Scorsese’s own excesses during this period. One of those crazy things that happened but is best not to be spoken of. After enjoying the recent phenomenon that is La La Land (2016), I heard BBC film critic Mark Kermode mention in his glowing review of the 14 time Oscar Nominated film, the “very underrated” New York, New York. Intrigued, I took the plunge.

I first watched the original theatrical release of the film. Hmmmm. Two undiscovered artists, trying to breakthrough, struggling to balance their own career ambitions with their relationship. Sound familiar? Set in post World War II NYC, the film tackles many of the themes of La La Land, but has a much darker tone.  I thought it was an interesting film. I enjoyed it, but the character of Johnny (De Niro) was a stumbling block for me. He is so unlikable. For most of the film, his behaviour towards Francine (Minelli) is quite despicable. Then, two incredibly powerful scenes in the third act give the character depth, and we feel compassion for him. On first watching this came too late for me. I spent the next few days talking to people about this “interesting” film. I didn’t say it was a good film, I thought it was flawed, and thought Scorsese sometimes really gets his female characters spectacularly wrong. The conflict of super-real acting against a background of old Hollywood, sometimes stylised studio sets also troubled me. I wanted to see New York, not a studio set. Despite all of this, something called me back to the film, so I gave it another try.

This time I watched the extended version. I loved it. The knowledge of what was to come for Johnny  in the third act enabled me to better understand the character. De Niro is phenomenal in this film. He is funny, scary, intense, flippant and unpredictable all at the same time. Minelli is unbelievable, matching the heavyweight De Niro punch for punch. You cannot take your eyes off the screen, their presence is magnetic, their dysfunctional relationship as painful as it is addictive. The music in the film is beautiful. All of the big musical numbers belong to Minelli. No one else could have played this part. Her transformation from uncertain, vulnerable wall flower to powerhouse performer is transfixing. The emotion in some of her performances brought tears to my eyes. I then watched the extended version again, and loved it even more. It’s one of my favourite films, and certainly my favourite musical. An undiscovered modern classic.

Scorsese himself has said that he is conflicted about the film. Obviously proud of the piece, he states that he made mistakes by not allowing enough time for improvisational rehearsals before shooting key scenes. He believes that had he not made New York, New York, and learn the lessons he did in the process, then  he would not have been able to make Raging Bull (1980). Strange as it is to disagree with the film maker, I would put both films in the same category of masterpiece.

New York, New York was a box office flop on its original release in 1977. It was released one week after Star Wars, and must have seemed so dated and irrelevant compared to George Lucas’s genre defining sci-fi epic. Following the success of the title song, made popular by legendary crooner Frank Sinatra, and in an attempt to recoup some of the bloated budget, the extended version was given a cinema release a few years later. A forgotten phenomenon, the extended version of New York, New York is essential viewing for any film fan.

Ghostbusters (1984), Ghostbusters 2 (1989), Ghostbusters (2016)

Ghostbusters (1984) is one of the first films I saw at the cinema. Culturally, it is one of the most significant films in my life. Repeatedly watched and constantly referenced by myself and my friends, it occupies a similar space to Star Wars in terms of the creative influence it has had on me. So, after over 30 years, how does it hold up? Not bad. Still very funny. Now it feels much more like a film starring Bill Murray than the ensemble piece it seemed to be in my youth. A great script with very talented improvisational actors make for some superb comic sequences. Having said that, this also feels like an action movie, there do seem to be stakes, it is not just a bunch of SNL’ers doing a string of comedy skits. Any film set in NYC has already practically won me over, and Manhattan plays a big role in this movie. On the downside, while I can accept the VFX for what they were, it would be interesting to see what younger audiences would make of them. Also, with so many films of a different generation, attitudes and outlooks have changed. While Peter Venkman  (Murray) may have been viewed as a lovable rogue back then, now his advances on Sigourney Weaver look a little creepy.

Ghostbusters 2 (1989) is almost a beat for beat retelling of the original. The original cast return, as does director Ivan Reitman. It is again written by Dan Aykroyd and the sadly missed Harold Ramis. Characters that do not return are replaced with comparable archetypes. Whilst there is an argument that the climax of the film is an inversion of the original, the fact that the spectacle is almost identical is unavoidable. There are some very funny moments in the film, especially the first half, but the laughs get fewer and fewer as the film goes on. Narratively there are questions that go unanswered, and it’s almost as if the film makers viewed this as a comedy that did not need to be taken too seriously, so plot disparities were acceptable. This seeming lack of care means that we never believe that any of the characters are in jeopardy. As the rules of the world the film creates are inconsistent and unexplained, it feels like anything can happen at anytime, to suit the needs of the plot. And it does. Another problem is Winston Zedmore (Ernie Hudson), the 4th Ghostbuster, whose character seems to drift in and out of the story without explanation. Sometimes he’s with the team, sometimes he’s not. Ghostbusters 2 is worth watching, but feels like a TV movie, rather than a cinematic experience.

I first saw Ghostbusters (2016) last summer, and given the misogynistic internet rage surrounding the film, was desperate for it to be a success. I came out of the theatre satisfied that it was an ‘okay’ summer blockbuster, and while haters gonna hate, it was certainly not terrible. On a recent re-watch, however, it is the weakest of the franchise, and suffers from almost all of the problems of the 1989 sequel to the original.  Director Paul Feig again gives us exact same story, with the exact same protagonists and antagonists, and a laser show in NYC as the finale, just like the other two films. The comedy is fairly hit and miss, some notable highlights being Chris Hemsworth as the Homer-esque receptionist and Andy Garcia as the Mayor. The re-boot falls into the trap the original managed to somehow avoid; this is a string of SNL’ers doing improvisational sketch comedy, with no sense of stakes or peril. Clearly the cast is talented, but they seem to feel the weight of the 1984 film on their shoulders, inhibiting them. There are some cringe inducing moments where you feel you are watching people desperately ‘trying’ to be funny. There are a few cool VFX scenes, and an attempt to do something slightly different with the ending, but this film is stifled by its determination to tell a story thats already been told. All female leads was not different enough, we needed all female leads in a new story. I’d love to see this cast in a sequel, free from the apparent need to give us the same origins story again, but I believe the scheduled follow up has been cancelled. Worth watching only for completeness, ultimately, Ghostbusters (2016) feels like a missed opportunity.

 

It’s a Wonderful Life (1946)

its-a-wonderful-lifeThe most I’d ever seen of this movie are the brief moments in Gremlins (1984), when the Mother is watching the final scenes on TV. Other than that I knew that it was a Christmas movie and that James Stewart was in it. Recommended to me by friend and fellow film student, Jacob Topen, I settled down with my wife amidst  our freshly tinsel festooned living room to get into the old Christmas spirit. I expected a fairly good festive film, what I did not expect was to laugh, cry and applaud my way through this masterpiece of cinema.

Put simply, this film is breathtaking. Director Frank Capra seemingly effortlessly takes us on a journey of joy, despair, social commentary, ambition, frustration, love and redemption. James Stewart is mesmerising as he plays a role spanning three decades. This acting masterclass is something to behold. We engage with Stewart immediately, and our emotional attachment to the character of George Bailey deepens as the film progresses. His comic timing is impeccable, as is his ability to hit and communicate every emotional beat of the character.

Capra’s direction is frighteningly contemporary. The film is essentially a clever inversion of A Christmas Carol. It’s not the Scrooge of the piece (Henry F. Potter, brilliantly  played by  Lionel Barrymore) that requires a heavenly intervention here, it’s Bob Cratchett.

I’ll be going to see It’s a Wonderful Life at the Grosvenor Cinema in Glasgow later this month. I strongly suggest that you take the opportunity to check your local cinemas listings and see if this film is showing over the Christmas period.

If the swimming pool scene doesn’t have you grinning like an idiot, then I’ll eat my hat.

 

CMN4200.1: Comparative Discussion Paper – “Apple and Amazon: What can iTunes teach Amazon Video Direct about ensuring a quality brand image?”

SAE Institute – Glasgow

“Apple and Amazon: What can iTunes teach Amazon Video Direct about ensuring a quality brand image?”

Ibrahim Clayton
93959
FDHE0916
CMN4200.1
25 November 2016
2,255 Words

I hereby declare that this my own work and does not use any materials other than the cited sources and tools. All explanations that I copied directly or in essence are marked as such. This work has not been previously submitted.

Introduction

Amazon Video Direct enables film makers to upload content for distribution on Amazon Video. Amazon have invested a significant amount in acquiring and producing content for their video on demand service, and the decision to open the doors to amateur film makers can be seen as a risk to the quality of their established brand image, and incongruent in terms of their current rivalry with video on demand competitors Netflix. The purpose of this essay is to examine what, if any, lessons Amazon can learn from Apples iTunes with regard to allowing content providers to upload content, while maintaining a high-end brand image.

I will provide background on the history of Amazon Video Direct and iTunes to give context, and examine the Amazons current position in the market place. I will look at both iTunes and Amazon Video Directs models for uploading content, and the quality of this content. Finally I will conclude whether Amazon Video Direct is a potential risk to the Amazon brand, and what lessons, if any, Amazon can learn from Apple regarding brand management.

Amazon and Amazon Video Direct

Founded in 1994, Amazon is the worlds largest online retailer. Selling everything from books to homewares to high end electronics, the diversity within the Amazon Marketplace is astounding (Blake and Berger, 2013). In 2015 Amazon had total worldwide net sales of $107 billion (Revenues & Profits, 2016) with US annual e-commerce sales of $79,268 and a US market e-commerce share of 74.1% (WWD, 2016).

Described as “quirky, brilliant and demanding” (Brandt, 2011, p. 167), Amazon Founder and CEO Jeff Bezos is undoubtably an exceptional leader. Reportedly worth $67 billion, the Seattle born self-made man views failure and invention as inseparable twins (Forbes.com, 2016). He can also be “ruthlessly competitive with rivals” (Stone, 2013, p. 8).

In 2006 Amazon responded to the consumer cultural shift from hardcopy DVD products to electronic downloads by launching their video on demand service, Amazon Video. Amazon Video was originally launched as part of the Amazon Prime package, a premier service for Amazon customers, who pay a yearly subscription for faster shipment of goods and other benefits. However, in April 2015 Amazon, in a direct challenge to video streaming rivals Netflix, made Amazon Video available on a monthly subscription, independent of the yearly prime package, and undercutting their rivals most expensive package by $3 per month (Forbes.com, 2016). While Netflix remain the video streaming service of choice globally, with the video on demand service boasting 33.15% of all downstream traffic during peak evening viewing hours, Amazon Video comes in a respectable third-place, behind YouTube, with 4.26% (GeekWire, 2016).

Interestingly, although Netflix may have more download power than Amazon Video, Netflix use Amazon computers to distribute their content. Netflix do not have the technological infrastructure to independently support the scale of their operation and rent computer space from their competitor to do business (Brandt, 2011, p. 177).

There are many similarities between Amazon Video and Netflix; Both are video on demand online service providers; both offer their products for a monthly subscription; both acquire content for distribution and produce their own high-end content. Indeed, Amazon is believed to have spent over $3 billion on content for their music and video platforms in 2015, and this figure is expected to grow by $1 billion annually (Business Insider, 2016). Amazon Original Shows, available on Amazon Video include Bosch (renewed for a third season) and The Man in the High Castle (renewed for a second season) (Amazon, 2016).

Amazon Studios have a novel approach to producing some of its content. In addition to the regular commissioning route, twice a year, a round of pilot episodes are made available to Amazon Video subscribers. Subscribers are asked to vote on which pilots are to be commissioned for a full series. Of the original 2013 batch, all but one of these ‘pilot pickups’ were renewed for a second season, demonstrating the value of this innovative approach to content creation (Signature Reads, 2016). A thorough examination of this method of selecting and developing content is outside of the scope of this paper. What this demonstrates, however, is that Amazon Video place a high value their customer feedback and the quality of their content highly.

While there are pros and cons to both services, and their business models differ, that Amazon Video and Netflix should be direct competitors is obvious (the Guardian, 2016). Given this approach it is reasonable to assume that a less likely battle for Amazon to pick would be one with YouTube. This is why many people by were surprised by Amazons April 2016 decision to launch Amazon Video Direct (AVD), touted by many as Amazon’s possible “YouTube Killer” (International Business Times UK, 2016).

AVD allows film makers to post content online, and monetise this content by distribution in one of four ways:

  1. The video can be free to anyone and feature ads that will be sold by Amazon in exchange for a 45 percent cut.
  2. The video can be available for digital purchase or rental, in which case Amazon will keep 50 percent of the money.
  3. The video can be made available only to people who pay for a special add-on subscription through the Streaming Partners Program (a Prime add on subscription programme, available for an extra fee).
  4. The video can be made available exclusively to Prime subscribers with creators earning 15 cents per hour streamed.

(Vox, 2016)

While the fanfare associated with the launch of AVD suggested this move was to compete directly with YouTube, this seems a strange decision and out of step with Bezos ongoing commercial war with Netflix. While option one looks like a YouTube model, option four potentially opens the door for creative individuals and groups to provide quality content and monetise that content outside of a the conventional studio system (Vox, 2016). Innovators potentially have a direct way in that could benefit both Amazon and artist.

In addition to the above payment method is the AVD monthly $1 million Stars Programme. In this, a share of $1 million is divided amongst the top 100 AVD titles for the corresponding month.

In theory AVD is the ideal platform for low budget film makers. However, is there a risk that YouTube ‘cats in a box’ type of video will flood AVD? How are/can Amazon protect their quality brand image while having an open door policy to content providers, and what lessons can they learn from other major players that have a similar business model?

Apple and iTunes

Often cited as the man who dragged the record industry out of the dark age, Apple and iTunes founder Steve Jobs (1955-2011) is a man who seems to have passed (at least partially) into the realm of myth. The pre-iTunes record industry was flailing, and, despite the massive success of Napster, was sceptical about the profitability of the online music industry, and reluctant to expand into this new technology. Jobs was ahead of the game with iTunes, and ready to ‘save’ the industry with his online platform when they needed him most, and by 2010 iTunes downloads exceeded 10 billion (Telegraph.co.uk, 2016).

Apple, originally founded as a personal computer company in 1976, has grown into a multinational technology company worth $1 trillion (the Guardian, 2016). Apple products have entered into the global lexicon; iPhone, iPod and MacBook are brandnames synonymous with quality and it is not surprising that Apple regularly tops Forbes list of the worlds most valuable brands, with Amazon coming in at number 12 (Forbes.com, 2016).

In 2000 Apple purchased SoundJam MP, an online media player, and renamed it iTunes. At this time online music piracy was rife and the profitability of an online music platform was doubted. The Apple iPod was popular, but getting content was haphazard. This changed with the launch of the iTunes Music Store, an online music store built into the software. Critically, iTunes Music Store had the all the major record companies on board, meaning that Apple had control over the hardware, the software and the content (The Verge, 2016).

Podcasts are an iTunes staple, and uploading content is relatively straight forward. Although iTunes does not pay podcast creators directly, offering artists and broadcasters a platform enables them to earn through other means, advertising or subscriber pay services such as Kickstarter or Patreon (Forbes.com, 2016).

Unless you are an established Music artist with a substantial back catalog than it is unlikely you will be able to distribute your music directly through iTunes, and you will need to go through a third-party (Mashable, 2016).

In 2015 Apple launched Apple Music, an online music streaming service available for a monthly subscription. This is viewed as the beginning of a migration from the iTunes model of purchasing individual downloads to a subscription based access to the entire Apple music catalogue (the Guardian, 2016). After an initial three month trial period, subscribers will pay $9.99 per month for the service. Approximately 70% of revenue will be paid to the music owners, though, as stated above, how much of this the artist receives is dependent on their individual contracts (Business Insider, 2016).
Although in some ways Apple Music is closer to the Amazon Video model, for the purpose of scope, in this case Brand Quality, I will be focusing on a comparison between Amazon Video Direct and iTunes.

As consumer choice grows, the importance of brand management becomes ever more important, with business strategy, creativity and leadership critical aspects of this (van Gelder, 2005).

Comparison
Audio content uploaded to iTunes is either a podcast or music. The process for uploading a podcast to iTunes is relatively simple; an Apple ID is required, an original title for the podcast, original artwork and the podcast itself in a suitable format (Blubrry Podcasting, 2016).

Musicians wishing to distribute their content on the iTunes store face a more difficult challenge and will most likely need to work through a third party – an Apple approved Aggregator. The Aggregator contracts vary, though they will generally charge artists per single (approximately $10) or album (approximately $60) published on iTunes. Artists are then entitled to all royalties from iTunes, approximately $0.70 per single track and $7.00 per album, though how much the artists themselves will receive is dependant on their contract with distributers and publishers (Mashable, 2016).

Like iTunes, an Amazon account is required to upload content to AVD. The film itself must be High Definition (HD), and a HD Trailer must be provided. Two versions of formatted art is required for thumbnails and backgrounds. Closed Caption subtitles must be included and Metadata for details of cast and crew (No Film School, 2016). The process is technical enough to deter casual posts, but not prohibitive enough to exclude amateur or low budget film makers.

In terms of content, the current United States top 50 iTunes podcasts (as of 10 November 2016) are made up of mainly Society and Culture, News and Politics, Technology, Arts, Professional, Comedy and Personal Journal related shows. Tell Me Something I Don’t Know, an educational panel show ranks first on the list, with TED Radio Hour in fourth place and Freakonomics Radio at number six (Okihika.com, 2016).

Information on top AVD movie titles proved more difficult to access, and only one Variety article listed the August statistics. 48 of the top 50 AVD titles for August 2016 were studio productions from Amazons ‘Digital Partners.’ These studios include Samuel Goldwyn Films and Alliant Content. Indeed, 10 of the top 50 are by Samuel Goldwyn Films, Including Bad Ass 2012 (5.5 IMDb), Tortilla Soup 2002, (6.5 IMDb). Many of these are re-issues of older productions, a HD version of Little Big Man 1970, makes number 7 (Spangler, T. 2016).

Two independent productions did make the top 50 AVD titles: In Memorium 2005, directed by Amanda Gusack (Number 22), and The Break-In 2016, directed by Justin Doescher (Number 33). Both films are low-budget found-footage style horror movies, both score less than 5 on IMDb, and less than a 2.5 out of 5 average customer reviews on Amazon.com (IMDb, 2016). That they are of the found footage horror genre is not surprising. There is a market for them, and films of this type are cheap to make and technically not challenging to produce (No Film School, 2016).

Unfortunately I was unable to find statistics for the top aggregated music on iTunes so am unable to make comparisons with content in this area.

Conclusions

In terms of Amazon learning from Apple, in one way the iTunes and AVD models are already very similar. iTunes uses aggregators as a barrier between themselves and the artist. This is in effect a filter. Only professional or semi-professional artist are likely to make the financial commitment to use an aggregator. AVD may not officially be using aggregators, they have two filter systems in effect:

The technical requirements needed to upload video to AVD will prohibit many ‘just for fun’ hobbyists. People taking videos of birthday parties are extremely unlikely to add closed caption to them, make a trailer, make artwork for them and upload them to AVD.

Amazons Digital Partner Studios occupy almost all of the top 50 AVD movie positions. This ensures a sort of ‘quality control’ of the content on behalf of Amazon. Although some of the productions may be perceived to be of poor taste (Fart: The Documentary holds the Number 13 position on the August 2016 chart), there are at least studios behind these productions. Studios with experience of producing marketable content.

In the ways Amazon and iTunes are similar: Operating a kind of gateway system. However, iTunes podcasts seem much more high-brow than the AVD content. This may be an audio medium versus visual medium issue, and many podcasts are specifically designed (or at least marketed) to make the people that listen to them more intelligent (Culver, 2016).

While Amazon Video Direct was launched with some fanfare in May 2016, website articles after this date, with data on AVD or the top performing titles are difficult to find. As are some of the titles themselves. There are certainly no instances of AVD titles ‘polluting’ the Amazon Video welcome screen. In this respect the Amazon brand is in no danger of being affected by the content of AVD.

The question as to why Amazon launched AVD remains a mystery. It provides an alternative in-road for Amazons Digital Partners, but seems to do little else. It is possible that Amazon felt they had to be perceived to open their doors to content providers, or at least be seen to, as part of an open and inclusive image.

References
Amazon.com. (2016). Amazon Originals. [online] Available at: https://studios.amazon.com/amazon-originals/series [Accessed 30 Oct. 2016].

Blake, L. and Berger, K. (2013). ‘Amazon Kindle Fire Claims an Important Market Position’, Journal of Case Studies, 31(2), pp.91-97.

Blubrry Podcasting. (2016). Publish a podcast to iTunes. [online] Available at: https://create.blubrry.com/manual/podcast-promotion/submit-podcast-to-itunes/ [Accessed 10 Nov. 2016].

Brandt, R. (2011). One click. New York: Portfolio/Penguin, p.177.

Business Insider. (2016). One simple reason why Amazon is spending over $3 billion on music and video content. [online] Available at: http://uk.businessinsider.com/amazon-is-spending-over-3-billion-on-video-and-music-for-prime-retention-2016-1?r=US&IR=T [Accessed 30 Oct. 2016].

Business Insider. (2016). Here’s how much Apple Music is going to pay artists. [online] Available at: http://uk.businessinsider.com/apple-is-going-to-start-paying-artists-per-stream-after-launch-2015-6 [Accessed 2 Nov. 2016].

Culver, H. (2016). Profit from podcasts – why listening to podcasts makes you smarter, richer, better. [online] Available at: http://hughculver.com/how-to-profit-from-podcasts/ [Accessed 10 Nov. 2016].

Forbes.com. (2016). Worlds most powerful brands. [online] Available at: http://www.forbes.com/powerful-brands/list/#tab:rank [Accessed 2 Nov. 2016].

Forbes.com. (2016). Podcasts are back — and making money. [online] Available at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelwolf/2014/02/10/making-money-with-podcasts-no-longer-just-about-the-ads/#18e2aa8f103c [Accessed 2 Nov. 2016].

Forbes.com. (2016). Amazon splits off prime video offering to compete directly with netflix. [online] Available at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jaysomaney/2016/04/18/amazon-splits-off-prime-video-offering-to-compete-directly-with-netflix/#2f1e07b484ae [Accessed 30 Oct. 2016].

Forbes.com. (2016). Forbes 400, No.2 Jeff Bezos. [online] Available at: http://www.forbes.com/profile/jeff-bezos/ [Accessed 2 Nov. 2016].

GeekWire. (2016). Scary film shot on a phone is Amazon Video Direct’s first winner in monthly $1M Stars program. [online] Available at: http://www.geekwire.com/2016/amazon-video-direct-monthly-winner/ [Accessed 2 Nov. 2016].

GeekWire. (2016). Study: Amazon Video is now the third-largest streaming service, behind Netflix and YouTube. [online] Available at: http://www.geekwire.com/2016/study-amazon-video-now-third-largest-streaming-service-behind-netflix-youtube/ [Accessed 30 Oct. 2016].

IMDb. (2016). In Memorium (2005). [online] Available at: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0491777/ [Accessed 10 Nov. 2016].

IMDb. (2016). The Break-In (2016). [online] Available at: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4921338/ [Accessed 10 Nov. 2016].

International Business Times UK. (2016). YouTube killer? Amazon launches its own very video upload platform. [online] Available at: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/amazon-video-direct-could-new-video-streaming-service-be-youtube-killer-1559477 [Accessed 30 Oct. 2016].

Okihika.com. (2016). United States – All – iTunes Store: Top Podcasts. [online] Available at: https://podcast.okihika.com/ [Accessed 10 Nov. 2016].

Mashable. (2016). Amazon Video Direct announces first Stars program winner. [online] Available at: http://mashable.com/2016/07/27/amazon-video-direct-stars-program-winner/#RWcbuElqSaq3 [Accessed 2 Nov. 2016].

Mashable. (2016). HOW TO: Get Your Music on iTunes. [online] Available at: http://mashable.com/2011/05/20/getting-music-on-itunes/#nCxzFyoNSkqk [Accessed 2 Nov. 2016].

No Film School. (2016). How ‘The Blair Witch Project’ Changed Horror with Cheap Shaky Cameras & Genius Marketing. [online] Available at: http://nofilmschool.com/2014/10/how-blair-witch-project-changed-horror-cheap-shaky-cameras-marketing [Accessed 10 Nov. 2016].

No Film School. (2016). Why I Chose Amazon Video Direct to Self-Distribute My Film. [online] Available at: http://nofilmschool.com/2016/05/why-i-chose-amazon-self-distribute-my-film [Accessed 10 Nov. 2016].

Revenues & Profits. (2016). Amazon Revenues and Profits Analysis 2015 – Revenues & Profits. [online] Available at: http://revenuesandprofits.com/amazon-revenues-profits-analysis-2015/ [Accessed 30 Oct. 2016].

Signature Reads. (2016). The Amazon Studios Pilot Program: Does It Work?. [online] Available at: http://www.signature-reads.com/2016/06/the-amazon-studios-pilot-program-does-it-work/ [Accessed 30 Oct. 2016].

Spangler, T. (2016). Amazon Video Direct: E-Commerce Giant Reveals Top-Performing Content Partners. [online] Available at: http://variety.com/2016/digital/news/amazon-video-direct-top-studio-digital-partners-1201878900 [Accessed 2 Nov. 2016].

Stone, B. (2013). The everything store. London: Transworld, p.8.

Telegraph.co.uk. (2016). Steve Jobs ‘single-handedly’ created the digital music market. [online] Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/steve-jobs/8811311/Steve-Jobs-single-handedly-created-the-digital-music-market.html [Accessed 2 Nov. 2016].

the Guardian. (2016). Apple soon to be worth more than $1tn, financial analysts predict. [online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/mar/23/apple-company-worth-1tn-market-value [Accessed 2 Nov. 2016].

the Guardian. (2016). Apple Music launches to take on Spotify – and traditional radio. [online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/30/apple-music-launch-spotify-radio [Accessed 2 Nov. 2016].

the Guardian. (2016). Netflix v Amazon: who will win the streaming wars?. [online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/feb/27/amazon-versus-netflix-streaming [Accessed 30 Oct. 2016].

The Verge. (2016). iTunes Store at 10: how Apple built a digital media juggernaut. [online] Available at: http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/26/4265172/itunes-store-at-10-how-apple-built-a-digital-media-juggernaut [Accessed 2 Nov. 2016].

van Gelder, S. (2005). ‘The new imperatives for global branding: Strategy, creativity and leadership’, Journal of Brand Management, 12(5), pp.395-404.

Vox. (2016). Amazon Video Direct is a bigger threat to Netflix and HBO than to YouTube. [online] Available at: http://www.vox.com/2016/5/10/11649494/amazon-video-direct-youtube-netflix [Accessed 2 Nov. 2016].

WWD. (2016). Amazon, Wal-Mart Lead Top 25 E-commerce Retail List. [online] Available at: http://wwd.com/business-news/financial/amazon-walmart-top-ecommerce-retailers-10383750/ [Accessed 30 Oct. 2016].

Film Reading Exam – Scene Analysis: Panic Room (2002)

Intruders break into the house.

We see Jodie Foster in a medium shot. She wears glasses, as all people seem to in films if they are reading a book or using a computer. It shows she is concentrating. It also hints that she is a professional person. She manages to switch on a bank of monitors. This is her new security system. It shows her massive house, she is a professional person.

The fact that several monitors show room after room and staircase after staircase gives a sense of her isolation in the house. Though there is no sense of threat yet.

She gives up on the instruction manual, hinting that she does not know how to use the system, or it is not fully functional yet. She tosses her glasses down, and we get a close up of her glasses and some water.

Another character observation from the scene in isolation is the photo of her daughter, who we see later in the scene. Also an empty wine glass next to the bed, which may be why she is drinking water.

Director David Fincher has given the scene a very green tinge, which hints at a documentary style, while the cinematography and choice of shot is very fluid and high tech, which is an interesting juxtaposition.

The rain pours down outside, which, with the green tone, gives a sense of greyness and loss. An almost clinical feel. This is a house, not a home. The minimalist decor hints at a ‘just moved in’ look.

We get our first elaborate tracking shot, zooming out from Foster in the bed, going down two floors and looking out onto the street. Suspicious music and suspicious characters outside. Looking in through the window. We follow one to the front door where the camera zooms into the lock, the break-in attempt fails and the camera moves to the front of the house. As we speed through a coffee maker handle we see the house is laden with boxes, Foster has indeed just moved in.

We track to the back of the house where another would be intruder tries a jimmy in the patio doors. This also fails. We track up through the floor and look through more windows, the intruders are taking stairs and ladders to climb up the house. There is the feel of insects swarming and crawling over a carcass as they move around the outside of the building, and the tension begins to ramp up. It is clear that these people are not chancers, they are determined to get inside this building.

We briefly see Fosters bed, but not her, clever sound design means that we hear a sleepy breath and know that she is still in there.

The insect metaphor is fully realised as we track up to the skylight: A spiders web. Foster is caught in the web. Forrest Whittaker walks around the skylight and looks down. He can see her, he has the position of power and the low angle of the shot confirms this.

This is followed by a clever mis-direction, we appear to be heading through the open door, and all of the tracking shots have flowed up to this point, instead we take a quick turn and head into the partially open storage room. We witness the hatch being forced. A quiet bleep and a the flash of a digital display shows us that Section 19 has been disabled, but no alarm is triggered. Jodie really should have read those instructions. Instead we see her sleeping.

Whittaker walks through the house, going down the stairs his eyes are drawn to the child’s bathroom nightlight. They are drawn to it because it is red and everything else is green. It stands out. It is clear that this is not part of the plan from his surprised reaction, and there is clever use of shots to communicate this, without resorting to him speaking on a radio to the rest of his crew. We also see that Foster is awake at this point, taking a swig of water. He looks almost fatherly as he opens the door of the daughters room.

The fatherly-ness disappears however as he stands framed, but out of focus in Fosters bedroom doorway, Foster looks the other way and her eyes are open as the camera rotates ninety-degrees going from a horizontal to vertical shot of her close up as she lies in bed. She looks like she has something on her mind. If she looked the other way she would have. The tension is rather dampened in this scene by the fact that Whittaker has already looked in on the daughter, and not harmed her.

There is a sense of the camera as character, especially during the fluid and flowing tracking shots. We can see whats going on, the shots are showing us that, but is the camera benign? It it watching indifferently? There is also a sense of the house as a character. More so than the camera. It does not feel protective or nurturing, and is as cold and grey as the weather outside.

Film Reading Exam – Scene Analysis: The Shining (1980)

“All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.”

We see the open expanse of the halls of the Overlook Hotel. Wendy (Shelly Duvall) looks small in the space. There is a sense of the surreal as she walks, calling out the name ‘Jack’, whilst carrying a baseball bat. Her footsteps and her voice echo, emphasising her alone-ness in the enormous hall. There is the occasional sound of orchestral instruments almost tuning up. This adds an edge to the uneasy scene. There are no sounds from outside. The hotel is isolated. At this point in the film we also know the hotel is physically cut off from the outside world due to snow storms.

As with all of Kubrick’s work, there is a tremendous amount of symmetry. The tracking shot of Wendy ending at the desk gives us a view of her underneath the balcony, dead centre of the twin staircases.

The huge windows of the hotel let in a hazy light, which gives a dream like quality to the scene. The mise en scene is one of order. Everything in the hall is meticulously arranged. The sofas, the tables, the photos on the wall – all perfectly straight. This contrasts with the disorder and insanity of the character Jack (Jack Nicholson), and the growing terror of Wendy, his wife. The colours at this point are extremely apparent, the tone is brown, beige and grey, desaturated. Like the life has been sucked out of it. It is ordered and symmetrical, but lacks any vibrancy. It has a morgue like quality.

After the long tracking shot of the frightened Wendy we come to the typewriter. Wendy is framed in a medium shot behind the typewriter looking down at the type-paper. We cannot see what she is reading, but her growing sense of terror tells us that it is not good. Strings begin to build, adding even more suspense.

We switch to a close up of the typewriter, again, perfectly symmetrical. Wendy’s POV. This shot answers the ‘What was Wendy looking at?’ question. The strings come in at higher notes.

There is a zoom in on the manuscript, a shot that seems of its time and slightly unnecessary now, and can appear comical.

Again we have first person POV as Wendy goes through the manuscript. The music at this point is bizarre orchestral hits, mimicking the insanity of what Wendy is reading. This is a long take, and necessary to show just how far Jack has gone. All the time he has been ‘writing’ this is what he has been doing. The whole point of taking the winter care taker job at the hotel was to allow him to write, now, Wendy falls to pieces as her world comes apart. She knew Jack was crazy, she now knows just how crazy. There is a sense of denial as she claws her way through the manuscript. Almost as if she thinks she will find some real work, and she does not want to believe this is what her husband has been doing all winter. Wendy looks like she is about to vomit, which is a much underused realistic shock reaction in films.

And so we switch to a pseudo POV long shot, peeping out from behind a pilar, then seeing Wendy hunched over the desk from behind. The shot is voyeuristic and creepy. A normal person would not walk up behind someone without saying something. Jack looms into the frame in the foreground, a huge silhouette looming over the much smaller Wendy. A not so subtle metaphor for the power dynamic in that situation.

The intensity of the music drops at this point.

Jack strides, confident and relaxed. He drapes a hand over the chair and puts the other in his pocket. He nonchalantly flicks through his manuscript. He comes across as calm and composed, asking Wendy ‘How do you like it?’, Wendy is terrified. She’s the one that looks insane, when the opposite is true.

The contrast in costume is also interesting. Wendy fits in to the rest of the mise on scene, beige, grey and creams. Jack is more vivid, a striking red jacket and blue jeans. He thinks he’s the cool cat. To Jack, Wendy just isn’t hip.

And now a masterpiece in editing, a tracking shot alternating in both characters POVs. Jack moves towards Wendy as she backs away. Not true POV, as they are not looking directly into camera, but almost POV mid shots of each character. Jack is powerful and dominant, advancing on the hysterical Wendy, mocking, patronising and mimicking his wife. She seems on the verge of collapse. It’s difficult not to mention Kubrick’s  alleged treatment of both Duvall and Nicholson at this point. Nicholson becomes extremely agitated and manic, which is how Kubrick wanted him, and Duvall seems on the point of collapse, the bat very heavy in her hands, which is how Kubrick wanted her.

As they mention Danny we cut to their son. Clever use of sound (their voices seem ‘underwater’) and a close up of Danny in a trance like state shows us that he can hear them but he is not there. The famous REDRUM and Lift shots are briefly cut to. Things are not looking good for Danny and his family.

Wendy begins to back up the stairs, this is the first time since the desk that they are both in shot. Jack is now manic, his ranting about order and responsibility is reflected in the grey, dour but perfectly organised hotel. His talk about order also contradicts his current mental state, which is somewhat disorganised.

We get an OTS shot behind Wendy as she swings the bat at Jack, the angle of the shot gets higher and higher as they head to the top. Again the symmetry of the twin staircases behind Jack is impossible to ignore. The light at the top of the stairs is orange, and gives Jack a demonic red tint. When we cut to Wendy, the light fitting behind her head forms a sort of halo. Though I think by this point we know who’s side we are on.

The brutal thud of the bat hitting Jacks head and the clever cut to the stuntman falling down the stairs is as seamless as it is horrific. This scene viewed in isolation could leave the viewer with the impression that Jack is dead, if be didn’t cut immediately to Wendy dragging her babbling husband into the freezer.

Bad choice. She should have finished him off with the bat. At least it would have saved that psychic Chef. Psychic? He didn’t see that axe in the chest coming.