Working Title

Working Title Films

         http://www.workingtitlefilms.com/
Working Title Films is a British film company based in London(although it also has offices in Los Angeles and Ireland). It was set up in 1983 by Tim Bevan and Sarah Radclyffe. In 1992 Radclyffe left Working Title, and Eric Fellner joined.Tim Bevan was also appointed the chairman of the UKFC in 2009. Universal now own 67% of the company, this is a major benifit for Working Title as on the more mainstream funds, theire marketing budget is supported by universal, making it a lot bigger. It is a film production company, however it also dabbles in producing TV series. financially they have a high end production budget of up to $25 million, the owners (Bevan and Fellner) consult with the studio executive from its parent company; NBC Universal. Working Title is known for having few employees. It's a profitable organisation, who use their profits to invest in new films. Working Title produce both major blockbuster hits along with smaller less public successes. It works with films of all genres-from Atonement to Mr Bean's holiday. However, it mainly produces films of a rating of PG or above. The reason for this could be due to competition. Dreamworks and Disney are 2 of the biggest production companies around- these both specialise is U and PG films, so if Working Title produced films in this category too, they would not have as interest as the main demography would be viewing other, bigger production companies films. Working Title work in convergence with the UKFC. Many UKFC funded films for instance One Wish and Blood Oil are distributed by Working Title.

An example of a well known film produced by Working Title is Love Actually. Released in 2003, this Rom-Com Drama was nominated for 2 Golden Globes and many other awards. It was directed and written by Richard Curtis and it contained some very well known actors; such as Bill Nighly, Colin Firth, Kiera Knightley and Gregory Fisher. With so many famous actors/actresses the budget of this film is consequently high; it was estimated for £30 million. [With using famous faces it costs a lot more, however more people are likely to view the film, making a higher profit and consequently being able to make a net profit: this can work just as well using the opposite idea. Less well known faces cost less money, there for needing fewer people to view it in order to create a profit.] In the opening week, Love Actually was released onto 126 screens, taking in a profit of over a million dollars. Because it was predicted to be such a hit, it was translated into 3 languages:English, Portuguese and French. Over all, it came out with a Gross profit of around 59.3 dollars, which is roughly 38 million pounds. Love Actually has 4 production companies; Universal Pictures, Studio Canal, Working Title Films and DNA Films. Due to the fact that it was released in so many countries, there are 9 different distributing companies; such as Universal Pictures and RTL Entertainment. Although Working Title is an English production company, Love Actually was filmed in both England and France.

An example of a less well known film which was produced by Working Title is Long Time Dead. This was released in 2002 and was directed and written by Marcus Adams. This was a low budgeted film and was rated a 15 in the UK by the BBFC. As it was not a major mainstream film, it was only produced in English. In its opening week it was released into 233 screens, and it made just over £580,000; its overall gross profit was £1.5 million. It has a running time of 94 minutes(which is considerably less compared to Love Actually's 135 minutes). The production companies for this film are; Working Title, Film Council, WT2 Productions, Midfield Films and Studio Canal. It was distributed by United International Pictures and Focus Features. Because it was only released in England, and because it was a low budget film, fewer and less well known companies were used. However, also due to its length and its nature of being a first time low publicity film it was granted £1,000,000 from the UKFC from the 'Intermin Production Fund'.

A further, well known film, produced by Working Title is Hot Fuzz. Written and directed by Edgar Wright, Hot Fuzz was released on the 14th of February 2007. This- coincidental is valentines day (and although its not the typical loved up valentines day film, it's a funny genre that is bound to be enjoyed), the following week is the school half term holidays- this mainstream, well publicised film was perfectly position, as it would get more viewings due to the kids being off from school. Like Love Actually, Hot Fuzz had many famous actors/ actresses for example; Simon Pegg, Martin Freeman, Bill Nighly and Nick Frost. Hot Fuzz is of an action, comedy, mystery genre. Due to some graphic images and vocabulary it was certified by the BBFC as a 15. Filmed only in England, it was released on 825 screens, making just under $6 million in its opening weekend. Its overall gross profit was $23 million. This was exceedingly good, as it was budgeted for $16 million. The production companies involved are; Big Talk Productions, Ingenious Film Partners, Studio Canal, Universal Pictures and Working Title Films. There were 17 different distribution companies for example; Paramount Pictures, this is because of the amount of countries it was released in. Due to this being a more mainstream film, more well known companies are involved, because the demography will notice them on the film and subconsciously remember them.

For each film there is likely to be more than one production company. From the case studies i have looked at, it would suggest that some production companies have a tendency to work on the same films. In the case of Working Title, the production company that appear to be the most connected is Studio Canal. The main reason for companies converging together is to get more productions. this is because if Working title is asked to produce a film, they could suggest that Studio Canal is another good production company to hire as well. This 'favour' could work both ways.

Working Title Films website

The website has a theme of dark, duck egg blue running through it. The whole page has a blue  border, surrounding a white background on which the text and pictures lie. This border aids the eye to focus on the main part of the page, and it help to keep the eye on the page. The general lay out, colour scheme and text is very sophisticated. Moving graphics are used, but not in a childish, in-your-face way. Down the left hand side, there is a column of the contents, this denotes organisation, which connotes easy navigation of the site. Under the moving graphic banner at the top the page is split into two columns. Each column has a main picture on the left, sided by smaller pictures on the right. Each picture has anchors, enabling the audience to be clear and precise on each topic. Overall the website looks very slick and clean. It would appeal to a demography of around 15-36 year olds (this is the 1st and 2nd most popular cinema going age); both genders, as the blue is stereotypically a male colours, but the metallic, soft finish appeals to females also; and the middle and higher end of the hierarchy, this is due to the connotations of blue which are associated with royalty and wealth, also the formal, neat lay out would encourage a 'brighter' more academic demography- this could be the aspect which is intended for people to see and then choose them as their production company. This website has many different aspect to it, it shows trailers, new releases, archive, downloads, on release and many other aspects. This synergy of information is what makes it so concise and practical. A wide range of genres of films is represented on the opening page of the website. It shows children orientated films for example Nanny McPhee and also action films like Green Zone. The aspect of this website that I don't feel meets the required standards for its demography is its history, and information about itself. There is no where which says what it aims to do- no mission statement and in general there is no 'personal' aspects, leaving the audience to feel slightly alienated and estranged by the website.





Since i last looked at the Working Title website (prior to the October holidays- 2010) it has been updated to be more interactive, appealing and to synergise more. The main aspect that has changed is the size of the rolling images. Previously there was solely a band going across the top with rolling images on, now as soon as you go to the website, the whole of the visible page is a rolling image. This instantly gains more attention as it is bold, moving and fills the whole screen.