Magazine Project- Sacrilege

Cover 1:

Cover 2:

Inside Cover / Index:

Page 1 / Article:

Coke V.S Pepsi

Coke are now trying to market itself as a homely, classic, family brand. Just like ma used to make. Share it with you loved ones. Pepsi however, are currently trying to market more to the youth generation. With its use of imagery from the current times and celebrities, in its advertising. Very modern.

Advertisers can use internet data to easily target their market. This is done by finding the people most likely to be interested in the product based on the data of what they have looked at, liked, or searched for online.

The use of this personal data is a positive thing because it gets people who are looking to find something, and can advertise these to them along with similar products. However It can be misused because it can target weak people and kind of abuse the system. Like targeting Whisky ads at people who have been searching for help with alcoholism.

BARB (Broadcasters’ Audience Research Board), is the organisation that gathers television ratings in the UK. However they are arguably becoming more irrelevant in the current market place because many people are experiencing their TV and their advertising in many other ways that aren’t

The ‘Just Do It’ campaign was different because it put a large focus on achieving the best that the individual can, and having the motivation to do this or start to make a change.

This campaign subtly taps into the human issue of needing motivation and encouragement to do something, especially when people lack to confidence to do it. The phrase, Just Do It is a simple statement saying to get it done, and having the determination to do this. This gives it impact and also it looks good in print.

The target audience of this campaignis larger than that of the previous sections, as those were specificly only for people interested in comparing insurance. Which doesn’t apply to everyone. But the Nike campaign is targeting anyone and everyone. It’s applicable to all people.

The company was sued over their ‘Revolution’ campaign but this actually just increased their sales. Showing how, no publicity is bad publicity.

The tagline was thought of by Dan Weider, based upon the last words of Gary Gilmour, a mass murderer who was executed.

It was the first of its kind to do this sort of black and white emotional, artistic type of ad. With imagery of determination and champion horses.

It was largely inspired by the nature of the drink, Moby Dick and Roman Mythology.

The Harp logo was copyrighted by Guinness so when the New Irish Free State wanted to use this in their flag, they had to flip it.

Jonathan Glazer Used to create music videos and continued to Direct with feature films. So he experienced previous success with videos for artists such as: Jamiroquai, Blur and Radiohead.

The central themes were really that of power, legacy, as well as good things come to those who wait and when the moment is right is when to strike for greatness.

The Go Compare ad campaign tried to lodge itself in the pop culture psyche, through irritating its way there, and Nike tried simplicity plus motivation to sell itself. The Guinness ad tried to use it’s artistic merit and a sense of awe in the audience.

The first rule of advertising: Get the audiences attention.

The Dove ad was revolutionary due to it trying to take the focus off super models and perfect looking women, and onto more ordinary people.

It potentially was negative and it could make a lot of woman feel insecure, with a poor self-image.

2% of 3,000 women when surveyed, said they considered themselves beautiful.

Some critics think these ads are dishonest as it is still saying that you need the product to be beautiful.

Feedback:

Talking is fast hard to understand

Claud could have been more menacing

Funny

Very good

Very Impressive

Hard to understand curtain cast

Accent of Ricky was good

Good acting from some cast

A little strange of the clown to have the name John

Overall I think it’s a decent piece. Most of the problems I have with it, I’m willing to overlook as I believe it was the best we could do. There is one huge issue I have with the piece that is discussed later.

Just as a list of my contributions to the project:

Director

Editor

Producer

A member of the cast

Script supervision

Storyboards

Visual effects on badge

I was the director for the project too. So most creative decisions like cast members, what props/costumes we needed, the location and so on, ran through me first, with strong connection to the writer as well for his opinion. As director this means I had to decided on the shot types and such, I wanted, amongst many other decisions during the shoot. I also handled the audio as we had tried using a Mic, boom, and Zoom recorder, but we found it a lot easier and just as affective to simply place a Zoom just out of shot, on a table in front of the cast. For many of the shoot I was behind the camera and operating it too, so I could make sure it was perfect and tweaked just right. However as I was also in the cast I obviously couldn’t be behind the camera for these scenes, outside of setting up the shots framing. Due to this though, my biggest issue and problem with the film arose. We shot a few takes of my monologue which is understandable, but when I took this footage into the editing bay, It had turned out every take of this scene was out of focus. To fix this would require another day of shooting, putting the make up back on and potentially having to redo every scene with me. This was too much hassle for the time and would require to meet back up with everyone in the cast and crew, which would have been impossibly difficult at this time.

To work around this I had got the clip in premier and added a sharpen effect, to it. This helped hide the problem as much as possible, but is still very noticeable. Other than this though a few important things I had to do in the edit were: Sync all the audio and video up, find the best take of each line, compile these together in order, find and add all the music, match the sound levels of this and the dialogue together so it was not drowned out, apply scaling the clips when needed, apply light colour grading to some shots, and manually track a batch with motion tweens and key framing.

When I label myself as a producer for the project, this is mostly because I financially contributed to the project. I bought the fake weapons for props and the food on days of shooting. Other than that I helped with a few aspects of production like scheduling and communication with cast and crew.

I was a member of the cast aswell and this was fine. It required me to get in make up which was okay. It did lead to the awkward situation of do I stay at college and wash off as much as possible from the sink or throw a hood over my head stay hidden until I get home to shower. The biggest issue was the hair spray. It definitely was the worst to wash off. We had the problem of expecting to shoot one day only to find out the room was busy and we had to postpone. Now this is no issue usually. It would just require some rescheduling, However I was midway through the application if the make before being told of this. Later we scheduled whole days too shoot and did scenes of everyone else first, then applying the make up and shooting my scenes after. I also came up with the way the make up should look. Thankfully that first time we applied it but didn’t shoot, gave use a chance to try it and meant we were able to get it looking much better the second time. I knew I didn’t want the makeup to look like The joker from the Dark Knight, but wanted the design a little more simple and cartoony. I believe this is a good way to look at the difference between the two attempts.

While in the pre production I would take a copy of the script home to work on story boards and while I’d do this, I would be sure to read it and make sure it was as perfect as it could get. So I provided general supervision of the script, like making sure every line had a pay off leading to a punchline, avoiding some aspects not going anywhere. Also I gave mild advice and suggestions towards my character, such as really pushing for him to be written into being a clown.

I will definitely say, I was not the best artist in the group, as I believe Lucy in particular would have done visually better storyboards, but I do like to create my own storyboards when I work on a project. This is because, while it is more work, I like to use them not just as something that shows the progression of events in a scene, but also to help me understand and explore what I want from the shot. For example I knew I needed a horror opening but doing the storyboards helped me actually plot out how it should go and creatively decided the shots to use.

A brief history:

In the beginning all footage was on real film and edited with scissors and tape. Including at the turn of the century when the first motion picture to use video editing techniques was made. This is analogue editing.

In 1895 the Lumiere Brothers pioneered film when they invented the Cinematographe, a three in one device that recorded, captured and projected motion picture.

In 1901 Edwin S. Porter used footage to tell a different story, unrelated to what the footage originally was meant to portray. Thus starting the concept of a piece fiction with a narrative.

In 1908 D.W Griffiths used the first ever continuity cut in his film “For Love of Gold”. He learnt that emotions could also be portrayed through different camera angles and pace of editing.Griffiths was given credit for the narrative of a film, the production of the first American feature film and the discovery of the close up.

The 1915 film ‘The Birth of a Nation’ includes camera techniques including: Panoramic long shots, iris effect, still shots, cross cutting and panning shots. There techniques are widely used today to create films. The use of sound allowed the film to be more interested and to make the audience feel more involved. Which is why it is still seen as an important film despite the controversial subject matter.

The Kuleshov effect was a montage effect on a film which Lev Kuleshov believed would make the audience have more of a response because the film montage could create ideas different from the average film.

Digital Editing, with a computer is much faster and more efficient than analogue was. Many different programs can be used such as Sony Vegas and Adobe Premier. Footage is put onto the timeline then cut into an order and then the effects are added. This is different from analogue editing where the film negative, when completed was cut down and pasted into an order. It then went through a machine such as Moviola or K.E.M

New Techniques of editing are now easy to use. Like, transitions, jump cuts and fades. All these have an important role within editing allowing the film to move at a quick pace in order for the film to stay interesting to the audience, or the reverse if necessary.

Just as some examples of techniques, lets look at these:

180 Degree Rule

Montage sequences

split edits (L-Cuts)

Multiple points of view

Cutting to the soundtrack.

The 180 degree rule is where in a scene, the camera stays one side of the action the whole time to avoid disorientation and to keep visual consistency in the composition. Just for an example if you have two characters having a conversation and you film this as just a shot reverse shot, you need to keep visually consistency of what side the camera is on and hence, what side of the frame they are also on.

Montage sequences show a progression through time and often ability. It is used to show that curtain things are happening without bypassing them completely because this would be bad for the pacing and continuity of the film, while also not showing too much of this happening for the same reason. It gives you glimpses into what is happening just to indicate the characters are doing something for a time without having to show everything. Also they can be used occasionally in horror films because of their fast, and frantic cuts. Like when they are used in Saw.

Split edits or J and L cuts, are when a piece of audio or sometimes video continue on after a cut. So for example, you could have someone be saying a sentence, and start with a shot of them, then while they are saying this sentence, cut to a different shot of something else, as that same audio continues.

Multiple points of view is where the film is shown whilst alternating and changing the character that the audience is experiencing the film, through. This could be where one event or story is occurring and we see this happening from one characters perspective, then afterwards see the same event from another perspective. Or this could be done similarly to how it is in the film, The Blair Witch Project, where it tells the one story in a linear fashion, but swaps between characters as it is presented like they all are filming the event.

Sometimes the piece cuts to the soundtrack. So on a beat of the music, is where you’d cut the video. This can give it a very powerful punch. There is a real sense of satisfaction and importance when something in the action or a cut, syncs up with a drop in the music. They can also be used for a comedic purpose or to add even more of a jarring effect to a small cut.

The Writer of a piece of media is one of the most integral and important people in the production. They are often there from the start of the idea and so are frequently involved in the pre-production, but they can also be hired much later into the project. It all really depends how involved the writer is to that idea. Sometimes the idea can actually start and come from the writer. But they are also very possible only hired later on, if the idea was from someone else and they just wanted to hire a writer to produce a script. But a writer can also be an auteur, which basically means a filmmaker that is so involved in their project that they practically its author, often this is when the writer also directs the picture or vice versa. So the writers primary contribution is to write a screen play/script for the piece but they can also be more involved in the project depending on who as control of the concept.

So a writer can have many forms of employment. Largely you’ll find alot of writers being mostly freelance. Meaning they aren’t hired with a contract but are more likely commissioned for a piece at a time. So while this gives a nice variety to what they write about and what medium they write it for, it definitely lacks job security. If you’re, say, hired to frequently write for, or even run, a television series, you have assurance that you will have work, but as a freelance you are often paid, practically, a piece at a time, and whenever you’re needed.

As a script writer there are a few things, around the job, that you should know of. First let’s talk about an Agent. An agent is more for professional writers, and their basic role is get the writer work. This can be through selling their work to a producer, so their script will get made, or through finding the writer someone looking to commission a writer. The reason an agent is more for a professional writer is obviously their services are hired and can cost a writer, who hasn’t me a profit from this work, a lot of money.

Next, there are script editors. They are someone who takes the script from the writer and makes notes on it of things to change. They are there to make the script as tight and flawless as possible. They also help tell the writer about creative changes that they belive will make the piece as successfully as possible. For example adding or changing a character to appeal to a certain demographic.

A Showrunner simply is someone in charge of a series. This is often a writer who is responsible for writing or supervising each script for every episode. They are there to keep the show consistent in tone and style aswell as moving forward. A good example would be Doctor Who, which each episode has a different writer that is comissioned for that story, while the series has a show runner like Steven Moffat who makes the episodes link together and stay in the outline needed.

Now through this whole essay I’ve discussed commissioning. So as an explanation of what a commission actually is we can look at it here. A commission is where you want something created so you hire someone to do this, and pay them for that one piece, without say, hiring them as a contract. Or as it applies to a writer, when a series or company or anyone, come to you and pay you one script at a time, for as many as they want.

Pitching on the other hand, is where a write has an idea, writes a script, then has to sell this script to a producer or director that might want to make the script into a piece. It is the presentation and marketing of your idea and creation. The purest sense of this would be a writer showing this off to a producer but obviously with the medium of a script and how simple just explaining an idea can be, it is possible to just say to a producer when they have a few moments to spare.

Development money is where a writer has an idea but no script, and yet it is already selling the script to a producer or series. And so they will give money to the writer, so they are being payed for their work, while they are actually developing and writing the work. It is to help the write produce the work but also to make sure they have money to live on while still working on a, not yet finished, project.

Now, as a writer, there are a few concerns you must always be considering, in terms of the Legal and Moral side of creating a piece of work. Just from the one side you have to be curtain that nothing you write is going to land you and the people affiliated with you or your work, in the trouble of legal battles. This could result in: poor public perception of the piece and people involved with it, large repercussions on you’re career, damages to your likely hood of finding more work, and especially, Lawsuits. You must be sure that anything offensive in the piece does not go to far, as to upset people and cause any legal or moral issues. You have to make sure that your script is original. Not just for the quality of the piece or making something fresh, but to avoid this legal drama. If your script is too similar to another, or has a character that is too similar to a real person, or the scripts story/premise is too close to another, especially if the other was told to you directly by the person who claims to originate it. Any of the above can result in a lawsuit by someone who feels their likeness or interlectual property is being stolen.

However you can obviously inspire the story and Characters off real people or events. This is the nature of creative work and how a large about of famous fictional characters and plots were created. For example, Matt Groening loosely baised all the members of the Simpsons family off himself and his own relatives and Dan Castellaneta created his voice for Homer Simpson with inspiration from the Character Mr. Magoo. But this can also be an area where you must worry about any legal issues and especially moral or ethical concerns. Is it obvious that the characters is distinct and different from the person? Is it parody or inspiration or mockery? Are you representing what you’re writing fairly? Are you being respectful of the person or the event? If it is about a tragedy or someone who has died, you need to think about the victims or their families. All this and more should and will be, in the back of a writers head.

I am supposed to look at an example of a writer to study them for a further analysis of them and their work. So for this I have decided to have a look at two writers. Reece Shearsmith and Steve Pemberton. Now I have chosen to look at these two writers as they have worked together on a large number of projects that I feel show a very interesting and nice variety.

They’re probably most famous for The League of Gentlemen which they wrote, with Mark Gatiss and Jeremy Dyson. Just this property alone, took many forms and showed the pair’s tendency to try many different mediums. It was to started out and later returned to being, a stage show. With them writing a large cast of characters and each member of this group, playing many of them, each. All with various different characteristics, costumes and wild personalities.

This property then grew and bacame a television series. The show was mainly a sitcom, told in a sort of linear fashion, and primarily hopped around to different characters, to have a sketch with them which would more often than not, have continuity between each appearance of that character and sketch. It also featured a laugh track for the first two season, and kept the formula of the stage show but locked it to taking place in one village. After the second series of this, they also did a Christmas special, where you had a story following one character, as a number of others came to speak with them, All of whom then have their own story which we see before cutting back to the first story. This was a way of them experimenting with more of an anthology style story structure, while cutting back to a nice wrap around segment. Anthology being a structure they would later return to.

After this they went on to the third season of this show. Which actually experimented a lot and tried to make some serious changes to the formula. It was more solidly story driven. Each episode would follow a character and tell a singular story around them. Then all these stories would collide in a final scene of each episode. This format of linear stories that collide would be something they’d tackle in later Work. Finally this property also had a feature film created around it. Just to show that the team could still keep their writing ability regardless of what format they are working in.

A few years later Shearsmith and Pemberton would continue without the others. Their first major project on their own was a heavily story baised serial, called Physcoville. It had a cast of main characters that it bounced between, just like the early seasons on The league of gentleman. But these characters had their own stories that were always moving forward and the characters from the very start of the series are obviously linked. All the stories intersect and form together into one solid story from the end of season one to the end of the series. There was also a Halloween special which followed the same format as their previous specials. And a special episode that was writen to be shot in one long take. This show was their biggest experiment with linear, narrative baised story telling.

The pair went on and were hired buy the BBC to creat their new antholoy series, Inside number nine. Which includes episodes that when it comes to genre, I can only describe as such: Suburban Tragedy, Gothic mystery, silent comedy, non-linear day dream and even a meta Shakespeare re-telling. Outside of the pair’s usual tendances as well as writing quirks, every episode is completely stand alone. I believe a lot of anthology series’ end up having a linking theme that link them all together. For example Twilight zone is often ironic, tragedies that say something about human nature. Black Mirror is always disturbing speculative fiction designed to show us a dark reflection of what we could become. And Inside Number Nine, I think is: The normal and the absurd with horror and comedy, then smashing them all together into an interesting story with a fun or disturbing twist. Whilst this still seems like the usual thing for the pair, I feel this show isn’t afraid to go too far one way without the other. You can have one episode that is entirely comedy with only a punch of the other side at the end to add impact or an episode that is pure horror with humour only used for the false sense of security. Basically this show gave them the perfect opportunity to experiment with story, format and complimenting tone. Where as their other shows were about mixing the tones together and trying to succeed in one structure.

I admire this pair as I believe they are a perfect example of not being afraid to try something new or experiment while also not being afraid to find your own style and having the confidence to be able to stick with that style to write what you want.