Comments for MEA - The Media Education Association Resource Network http://themea.org The Media Education Association Resource Network Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:35:09 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 Comment on Volume 3 – issue 1 MLC Conference Special by POV Volume 3 no.1 MLC conference special | MEA - The Media Education Association Resource Network http://themea.org/pov/volume-3-issue-1-mlc-conference-special/comment-page-1/#comment-39 POV Volume 3 no.1 MLC conference special | MEA - The Media Education Association Resource Network Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:35:09 +0000 http://themea.org/#comment-39 [...] 11 January…see the videos! download the presentations! read the comments. It’s all here and ready to go! VN:R_U [1.8.8_1072]Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)POV Volume 3 no.1 MLC conference [...] [...] 11 January…see the videos! download the presentations! read the comments. It’s all here and ready to go! VN:R_U [1.8.8_1072]Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)POV Volume 3 no.1 MLC conference [...]

]]> Comment on Volume 2 – Issue 2 + 3 by Literacy…two steps back? | MEA - The Media Education Association Resource Network http://themea.org/pov/volume-2-issue-2-3/comment-page-1/#comment-32 Literacy…two steps back? | MEA - The Media Education Association Resource Network Tue, 23 Nov 2010 17:09:33 +0000 http://themea.org/#comment-32 [...] gathered in the MEA’s Persistence of Vision project (see three articles in PoV Vol 2 nos2/3, at http://themea.org/pov/volume-2-issue-2-3/) – indicating that it’s literacy teachers’ neglect of pre-children’s audio-visual [...] [...] gathered in the MEA’s Persistence of Vision project (see three articles in PoV Vol 2 nos2/3, at http://themea.org/pov/volume-2-issue-2-3/) – indicating that it’s literacy teachers’ neglect of pre-children’s audio-visual [...]

]]> Comment on Global and Local Hollywood – by Ben Goldsmith, Susan Ward and Tom O’Regan by Ben Goldsmith http://themea.org/2010/global-and-local-hollywood/comment-page-1/#comment-30 Ben Goldsmith Thu, 18 Nov 2010 21:10:43 +0000 http://themea.org/?p=1005#comment-30 Thanks for your comment, Roy. At no point do we suggest that international production is solely developing within the Hollywood model. Of course there are other models of both production and distribution, as you note. And yes, the international market is very important in terms of world box office. What we are trying to do in this article and in the book from which it comes is to account for the contemporary phenomenon of globally dispersed 'Hollywood' (large budget, English language) production. The reason that we call it international production (without implying that this encompasses all forms of production involving partners from more than one country) is to contest the commonly (mis)used term 'runaway production' which implies that production is running from somewhere (California) to other places. This is the sense in which 'runaway production' is used within the US, but it does not acknowledge the fact that many projects are 'born international', that is, from conception they involve people, places and industries beyond Hollywood, and for economic, creative or practical reasons would not be made in Hollywood even if the opportunity arose. As far as not seeing industries in Asia or parts of Europe formulating themselves as 'Local Hollywoods', I would respond by saying: look at the history of production in Prague since the mid-1990s, or Malta, or the purchase of studio facilities in Bulgaria by the American production company Nu Image/Millennium Films, or the many, many tax incentives and financial inducements aimed at international producers that have been introduced in countries such as France, Hungary, Singapore or Indonesia. The reference to India is also significant: for many years parts of Indian films have been made outside India, usually fantasy dance sequences. Scotland and Switzerland have been favourite locations. Over the last few years, in terms of simple numbers there have been more Indian films shot in Australia than films from any other country. It would certainly be instructive to chart the flows of Indian production around the world, but this is neither our expertise nor the focus of our book. It would also be fascinating to chart international French production, and the various schemes in France that have long existed to support production by international filmmakers. Many French films and television programs have been made at Mosfilm Studios in Moscow, for example. But once again, this is neither our expertise nor the focus of the book. It would be wonderful if other scholars took on these challenges. Our book describes a contemporary phenomenon that has not previously been fully addressed - the measures that are being taken in many places around the world to attract international production. It does not claim to be comprehensive, or exhaustive. And finally, as for teachers and students reading this and thinking that the Hollywood model is the only game in town: this is not what we are describing or suggesting, and it is rather unfair to hold this against our work. Even a cursory reading of books about production cultures in, say, the UK, Australia, Ireland, France, South Korea, China etc. etc. will be enough to indicate to students and teachers that there are different models of production around the world, and that even in those places where international production is a significant or majority part of total production, it exists alongside and often symbiotically with other modes and models of production. So unless our book is the only one that students and teachers read and use (fantastic for our egos and perhaps our bank balances, but also a fantasy), then I cannot see that Roy's scenario will ever eventuate. Thanks for your comment, Roy. At no point do we suggest that international production is solely developing within the Hollywood model. Of course there are other models of both production and distribution, as you note. And yes, the international market is very important in terms of world box office. What we are trying to do in this article and in the book from which it comes is to account for the contemporary phenomenon of globally dispersed ‘Hollywood’ (large budget, English language) production. The reason that we call it international production (without implying that this encompasses all forms of production involving partners from more than one country) is to contest the commonly (mis)used term ‘runaway production’ which implies that production is running from somewhere (California) to other places. This is the sense in which ‘runaway production’ is used within the US, but it does not acknowledge the fact that many projects are ‘born international’, that is, from conception they involve people, places and industries beyond Hollywood, and for economic, creative or practical reasons would not be made in Hollywood even if the opportunity arose. As far as not seeing industries in Asia or parts of Europe formulating themselves as ‘Local Hollywoods’, I would respond by saying: look at the history of production in Prague since the mid-1990s, or Malta, or the purchase of studio facilities in Bulgaria by the American production company Nu Image/Millennium Films, or the many, many tax incentives and financial inducements aimed at international producers that have been introduced in countries such as France, Hungary, Singapore or Indonesia. The reference to India is also significant: for many years parts of Indian films have been made outside India, usually fantasy dance sequences. Scotland and Switzerland have been favourite locations. Over the last few years, in terms of simple numbers there have been more Indian films shot in Australia than films from any other country. It would certainly be instructive to chart the flows of Indian production around the world, but this is neither our expertise nor the focus of our book. It would also be fascinating to chart international French production, and the various schemes in France that have long existed to support production by international filmmakers. Many French films and television programs have been made at Mosfilm Studios in Moscow, for example. But once again, this is neither our expertise nor the focus of the book. It would be wonderful if other scholars took on these challenges. Our book describes a contemporary phenomenon that has not previously been fully addressed – the measures that are being taken in many places around the world to attract international production. It does not claim to be comprehensive, or exhaustive. And finally, as for teachers and students reading this and thinking that the Hollywood model is the only game in town: this is not what we are describing or suggesting, and it is rather unfair to hold this against our work. Even a cursory reading of books about production cultures in, say, the UK, Australia, Ireland, France, South Korea, China etc. etc. will be enough to indicate to students and teachers that there are different models of production around the world, and that even in those places where international production is a significant or majority part of total production, it exists alongside and often symbiotically with other modes and models of production. So unless our book is the only one that students and teachers read and use (fantastic for our egos and perhaps our bank balances, but also a fantasy), then I cannot see that Roy’s scenario will ever eventuate.

]]> Comment on Global and Local Hollywood – by Ben Goldsmith, Susan Ward and Tom O’Regan by Roy Stafford http://themea.org/2010/global-and-local-hollywood/comment-page-1/#comment-29 Roy Stafford Sun, 31 Oct 2010 13:19:05 +0000 http://themea.org/?p=1005#comment-29 This is a very useful piece in bringing together research and theoretical work on Hollywood in a global context. However, I've read through it several times and there is something about it which makes me feel uneasy. Possibly I'm getting a sense that it is trapped in the conception of international film production as developing only within the definition of the Hollywood model. I have two thoughts on that. First, my understanding is that 'Hollywood' effectively means the six majors and how they control distribution (rather than production) within the domestic and international film markets. Second, there are other models of both production and distribution. The 'International' market represents approx. 65% of worldwide box office (probably more given the difficulty of compiling statistics in some territories) and local production is reviving in several key territories. The result is the development of several 'contra-flows' of product that are not controlled by Hollywood. The conception of 'Local Hollywoods' in the piece above seems problematic to say the least. I'm not arguing that the MPAA doesn't still have clout in trade agreements (e.g. I'd love to know what convinced the Koreans to reduce quotas ensuring distribution of their own product in their domestic markets), but I don't see industries in Asia or parts of Europe formulating themselves as 'Local Hollywoods'. I'm also struck that there is only one reference to India in the piece. Perhaps I'm paranoid but I worry that teachers and students reading this will think that the Hollywood model is the only game in town. This is a very useful piece in bringing together research and theoretical work on Hollywood in a global context. However, I’ve read through it several times and there is something about it which makes me feel uneasy. Possibly I’m getting a sense that it is trapped in the conception of international film production as developing only within the definition of the Hollywood model. I have two thoughts on that. First, my understanding is that ‘Hollywood’ effectively means the six majors and how they control distribution (rather than production) within the domestic and international film markets. Second, there are other models of both production and distribution. The ‘International’ market represents approx. 65% of worldwide box office (probably more given the difficulty of compiling statistics in some territories) and local production is reviving in several key territories. The result is the development of several ‘contra-flows’ of product that are not controlled by Hollywood. The conception of ‘Local Hollywoods’ in the piece above seems problematic to say the least. I’m not arguing that the MPAA doesn’t still have clout in trade agreements (e.g. I’d love to know what convinced the Koreans to reduce quotas ensuring distribution of their own product in their domestic markets), but I don’t see industries in Asia or parts of Europe formulating themselves as ‘Local Hollywoods’. I’m also struck that there is only one reference to India in the piece.

Perhaps I’m paranoid but I worry that teachers and students reading this will think that the Hollywood model is the only game in town.

]]> Comment on Film clubs: where we came in . . . – by Terry Bolas by Sarah Mumford http://themea.org/2010/film-clubs-where-we-came-in/comment-page-1/#comment-25 Sarah Mumford Thu, 28 Oct 2010 21:37:52 +0000 http://themea.org/?p=690#comment-25 And what future for the Film Education Strategy now with the impending abolition of the Film Council.....? And what future for the Film Education Strategy now with the impending abolition of the Film Council…..?

]]> Comment on A Tribute to Roy Stafford – from his colleagues by Cathy Poole http://themea.org/2010/roy-stafford-a-tribute/comment-page-1/#comment-23 Cathy Poole Tue, 21 Sep 2010 13:34:32 +0000 http://themea.org/?p=1088#comment-23 fully concur fully concur

]]> Comment on Persistence of Vision: Animated Learning – by Joy Simpson by John Potter http://themea.org/2010/persistence-of-vision-animated-learning/comment-page-1/#comment-22 John Potter Tue, 14 Sep 2010 21:50:19 +0000 http://themea.org/?p=1038#comment-22 Hello Joy Really fascinating account of some great work... Brought back memories of privilege of visiting POV project in Devon earlier in the year. Hope all is well, John Hello Joy
Really fascinating account of some great work…
Brought back memories of privilege of visiting POV project in Devon earlier in the year.
Hope all is well,
John

]]> Comment on Volume 2 – Issue 2 + 3 by MEA - The Media Education Association Resource Network | Blog | New Issue of PoV http://themea.org/pov/volume-2-issue-2-3/comment-page-1/#comment-21 MEA - The Media Education Association Resource Network | Blog | New Issue of PoV Tue, 14 Sep 2010 08:34:48 +0000 http://themea.org/#comment-21 [...] first online issue of the Media Education Association’s magazine PoV is now available online to everyone who has registered on this site. This is a special “film” issue which [...] [...] first online issue of the Media Education Association’s magazine PoV is now available online to everyone who has registered on this site. This is a special “film” issue which [...]

]]> Comment on Film clubs: where we came in . . . – by Terry Bolas by Cary Bazalgette http://themea.org/2010/film-clubs-where-we-came-in/comment-page-1/#comment-10 Cary Bazalgette Wed, 28 Jul 2010 12:57:18 +0000 http://themea.org/?p=690#comment-10 It's bizarre that Terry Bolas wasn't allowed free access to schools running Film Club. I wonder why he had to go through Film Club to negotiate this? We have a free press in this country don't we? It’s bizarre that Terry Bolas wasn’t allowed free access to schools running Film Club. I wonder why he had to go through Film Club to negotiate this? We have a free press in this country don’t we?

]]> Comment on POV Volume 1 – Issue 3 Editorial by admin http://themea.org/2010/pov-volume-2-%e2%80%93-issue-1-editorial/comment-page-1/#comment-9 admin Tue, 27 Jul 2010 13:58:49 +0000 http://themea.org/?p=837#comment-9 yes about a now defunct blog - so it's been trashed. yes about a now defunct blog – so it’s been trashed.

]]>