Exhibition Questions

1) Why are there no viable arts/independent cinemas in many areas? Why/how is Southampton able to sustain the Picturehouse (Harbour Lights).
Picturehouse cinemas show films that are programmed to the "response to its local audience". So, if the people of Southampton wanted, say, more action films, that is what they would try and get. However, movie-goers from Brighton might want more romantic films, and that is what they would get as Picture house show films that are tailored to each location's audiences. They are also built particularly in university cites, such as London, Brighton and York - maybe their is more of an audience in such locations, and this could be why independent cinemas are not frequent to every city.

2)What is the relationship between movie going and video/dvd/blu-ray hire/sales?
There is defiantly more convenience to watching films on DVD/blu-ray as it can be done anytime, so long as you own the film. They are so easily commercially available in shops, online and for rental and are far cheaper than cinemas, along with snacks so that the cinema can be 'recreated' at home. This is where rental sales would be generally higher. Many cinemas in the UK had planned to boycott the release of Tim Burton's 'Alice In Wonderland' due to Disney saying that they would bring out the film on DVD after 12 weeks instead of the traditional 17 in an attempt to increase the declining DVD sales.


3) What does the programming of the Sky movie channels and Film Four respectively say about the relationship between pay television, niche marketing and consumer behavior?
Sky movies often run promotional programmes on upcoming films, such as the most recent film in the 'Harry Potter' franchise. their website also shows trailers for films that are soon to be released in cinemas. This hype could draw consumers into thinking that the cinema will be a better experience. This is because a service that offers films for FREE is making such a fuss about something that people will have to pay for. People may not want to wait a few months to see a film for free on a smaller screen - they hype marks a better viewing. Film 4 also produced a lot of 'homegrown' material, such as 'This is England' and has since ran it on their channel.

4) What is the most appropriate response contemporary British cinema can make to Hollywood dominance?
An ideal response here would be something along the lines of 'Producing, Distributing and exhibiting a film that has 100% British financing and has a 100% British cast and crew and release it to huge international success'. However, I think it depends on what audiences that filmmakers are trying to reach - are they trying to reach British audiences or American/international audiences? Hollywood industries have this figured out from an early stage as American culture/humor is well-known across the globe. British culture/humor however, may only appeal to British audiences (wit) and this could be why some British film may not be successful overseas.

5) Should British films be distinctive at the expense of profitability or profitable at the expense of distinctiveness?
British films could be very distinctive and profitable if international companies were to invest in the film's production and marketing. However, this is not always the case. Many successful films may seem 'British' in terms of culture and character, but often the production comes from American/international financing. Examples of this include 'The Full Monty' which was financed by Fox Searchlight, 'Notting Hill' which had production support from Universal, and 'Billy Elliot' which was distributed by UIP, the largest Hollywood distributor in Hollywood. Overall, I think British films should be distinctive, but the filmmakers will have to decide if they want to risk profits or not.


6)Is it possible for British films to be both distinctive and profitable?