Introduction
My chosen specialism for module F16 is TV & Film. I have chosen to research into the background of this particular industry as I hope to pursue a career as an actress, taking on the responsibility of playing various characters in TV programmes and films. There are many actors who have inspired me over the years, including Jodie Comer, Ryan Reynolds, Andrew Garfield, David Tennant and Matt Damon, all of which have featured in a wide range of films which has motivated me to try to start following in their footsteps, hopefully allowing me to have a future in this incredible industry. To be able to connect with an audience through a screen and to become someone else’s idol/inspiration has always been a dream of mine since finding my enjoyment in acting, which is why I don’t want to give it up. My passion for acting had sparked from a very young age, and I’m glad to say that my interests for performing arts have remained with me to this day. In TV & Film, there is a large amount of history which I am looking forward to exploring in more depth to discover aspects such as the origins of TV & Film, job roles within the industry, etc.
The Origins of TV & Film
WHO INVENTED MOVIES?
According to the Video maker website (https://www.videomaker.com/how-to/shooting/film-history-the-evolution-of-film-and-television/), there were several important people who were involved in what we think of today as movies. I would say that with the amount of people involved in the creation of this industry, not all would have been credited despite them potentially having a part to play, so I don’t doubt that some people have not been recognised for their involvement. Some of the well-known people who have been involved in the industry from the beginning include:
- ‘George Eastman, an American Entrepreneur who founded the Eastman Kodak Company’-Source (L1, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Eastman)
- Lumiere Brothers-A source has told me that the Lumiere Brothers were ‘ regarded as the inventors of cinema—the projection of moving photographic pictures on a screen for a paying audience.’ Despite this, the source also informs me that they were most likely not the first to do this, as the ‘Latham brothers in New York were screening boxing films to paying audiences from 20 May 1895.’ (Source-https://blog.scienceandmediamuseum.org.uk/the-lumiere-brothers-pioneers-of-cinema-and-colour-photography/)
- I also found on the Video maker website which I previously linked, that ‘Thomas Edison’ was the first person who ‘projected film and built an early studio.’ Contrastingly, another source (www.filmsite.org/pre20sintro.html) written by Tim Dirks, has stated that ‘pioneering inventor Charles Francis Jenkins’ was the first person to project a motion picture onto a screen ‘in 1894’.
- The Video maker source also said that ‘Eadweard Muybridge’ used cameras to take photos ‘a fraction of a second apart’. As shown in the image below, taken from (https://fliptomania.com/did-you-know/), this was supposedly the ‘first moving image’ ever created.
However. this source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_film) claims that the first ever moving picture was created on an even later date, in 1888. The film is known as the ‘Roundhay Garden Scene’, a film that lasted ‘1.66 seconds’, created by ‘Louis Le Prince.’
THE SILENT ERA (1880s-1920s, According to the Video maker website)
TV and Film has gone through many changes that has transformed the industry over time, allowing it to become what it is today. From silent films that lacked colour, to the high quality, coloured films we see today, there has been a large amount of development. According to the ‘history of film’ website (http://www.historyoffilm.net/), the history of films began in the late 19th century. In the first few decades, it was silent, black and white movies which were becoming increasingly popular. Prior to the ‘advanced technology’ which enabled films to be in colour and sound, ‘The Silent Era’ made up the roots of the modern film industry we know of in the present day. Despite one source (https://www.videomaker.com/how-to/shooting/film-history-the-evolution-of-film-and-television/) claiming it began in the 1880s, another source (https://www.zedemanimations.com/news/history-animation-silent-era/) suggests that the Silent Era began in the early 1900s.
THE SOUND ERA OF MOVIES
Sound entering the industry of film allowed ‘countless filmmakers to express themselves in the way it was not possible before’, according to this ‘history of film’ website which was previously linked. I retrieved some information from this source: https://www.videomaker.com/how-to/shooting/film-history-the-evolution-of-film-and-television/. In 1927, ‘The Jazz Singer’ was released, ‘synchronizing sound and images for the first time.’ Directed by Alan Crosmand, its release ‘effectively marked the end of the silent era’ . It was produced by the Warner Bros, and featured six songs.
THE STUDIO SYSTEM-1927-1948 (Source–https://www.videomaker.com/how-to/shooting/film-history-the-evolution-of-film-and-television/)
The main reason that ‘Classic Hollywood’ has been so successful is because of ‘The Studio System’. This system was used to make sure that large studios located in Hollywood had full control of the films that were made and distributed. Some of the studios that practically controlled the film industry included:
- MGM
- Paramount
- RKO
- Columbia
- Warner Brothers
These studios were known as ‘The Big Five’.
Source-https://www.classichollywoodcentral.com/background/the-studio-system/
When these large studios ruled the film industry in this era, it was known as ‘The Golden Age of Hollywood’. One source (https://theknowledgeburrow.com/why-is-it-called-the-golden-age-of-hollywood/), stated that “The Golden Age of Hollywood is so called because of the enormous amount of money the movies produced and the images of the glittering and glamorous movie stars that filled the movie screens.”
‘Television kneecaps the studios-1950’-Source-https://www.videomaker.com/how-to/shooting/film-history-the-evolution-of-film-and-television/
In the 1950s, television sets were being introduced into American homes, and by this time ‘TV stations were widespread’. I found this image with a timeline on the evolution of television:
According to Steve Wiegand’s “U.S. History for Dummies”, there were roughly about three million TV owners at the star of the 1950s, and there was 55 million by the end. I learnt that the prices of television sets decreased from around $500 to $200, which would further increase the number of TV owners.
OVERVIEW
To conclude this introduction, overall I have successfully retrieved information from multiple different sources enabling me to explore the depths of TV & Film, including where and how it began, and how it has developed overtime. What interests me are the number of people who were involved, and how long it took for TV and film to develop into what it is today, as technology was developing at the same time and they almost went hand in hand and they became reliant on each other. I’m looking forward to continue my research into this incredible industry.
Technology
HOW HAS TECHNOLOGY CHANGED TELEVISION?
Technology has heavily impacted to development of the TV & Film industry, and it has drastically changed overtime, making it increasingly easier for people to watch their favourite TV shows and films. The television set invented in the 20th century makes at least one appearance in 95% of UK homes, and it is evident that television has in fact evolved alongside the improvement of technology, as they basically rely on each other.
To start with, the remote control was the first step of development for the invention of TV’s. According to this source (https://www.thoughtco.com/history-of-the-television-remote-control-1992384#:~:text=The%20Zenith%20Radio%20Corporation%20created%20the%20very%20first,on%20and%20off%20as%20well%20as%20change%20channels.), the first television remote was invented in the 1950s, around 20 years after the first TV was invented. Remote controls can be used to pick and choose which TV shows/programmes you would like to watch. Previous to this, you would turn on your television and watch whatever was on, not giving you a choice on what you want to watch. As the number of channels increased, the remote control became essential to the use of televisions allowing users to switch channels whenever they fancy. Nowadays, a remote control would be considered an essential part of owning a television set, and one that viewers couldn’t live without.
Another way in which technology has changed television is the rise in social media. Through the invention of social media platforms such as YouTube, TikTok and Instagram, viewers have been able to state their opinions on the latest TV show they watched, and depending on their opinions it might cause an increase or decrease in people who want to watch that particular show. Social media also allows people to discuss shows in real time. For example, if their is a football game on TV, each team may update their social media with the score throughout the match. Many shows have integrated social media into programming and advertising. As well as this, social media has given people the ability to live-stream on certain platforms, allowing people to watch something in real time, which emphasises how much technology has developed overtime.
Another way that technology has changed television is the invention of what is described as ‘OTT (Over The Top) technology.’ This includes portable devices such as phones, tablets and laptops. Nowadays, video content can be delivered directly to these devices, making it increasingly easier for people to watch their favourite TV programmes and films all from their convenient devices. It also means that, with the right data connection, people can watch what they like on the go, such as on aeroplane/train journeys. This creates a ‘direct link between broadcasters and consumers’, meaning these OTT devices have made it so much easier for the consumer.
‘Internet TV’ is another way in which technology has changed television. Technology such as Apple TV and Google TV have ditched the use of HDMI cables to stream videos to a TV. Instead, they have made it so that you require internet access to stream these videos which means that it is much faster to view TV programmes and films. Internet access is a key part of the development of technology as it has made everything easier for the viewer, making watching your favourites much more enjoyable.
Another way technology has changed television, is the competition that it has been faced within the past decade. Mediums such as Netflix, Amazon Prime & Disney Plus have become increasingly popular. According to a survey that was completed by 2,500 U.S adults, Netflix is now officially more popular than traditional broadcast television. This information was retrieved from this source, (https://screenrant.com/netflix-popular-broadcast-cable-tv-viewing/), and it stated that ‘Netflix came in at the top, with 27 percent of those surveyed choosing the streaming subscription service platform. In comparison, YouTube only came in at 17 percent, with basic cable at 12.6 percent and broadcast TV at a measly 7.5 percent. Hulu came in next to last at 7.6 percent…Adults 18-34, though, showed an overwhelming preference for Netflix with nearly 40 percent of respondents choosing Netflix over other platforms.’ These platforms have almost taken over traditional telly, which is a large factor in how television has changed.
Another way in which technology has changed television is the development of YouTube, a video-streaming platform created in 2005, founded by Jawed Karim, Chad Hurley, Steve Chen, Eric Skaggs and Mauricio Jimenez (According to Wikipedia- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_YouTube). The first video posted on YouTube was titled ‘Me at the zoo.’ created by Jawed Karim. Over the years, YouTube has continued to grow in popularity, with there currently being more than 2.3 billion users. YouTube has allowed people to produce their own unique content for others to watch and enjoy, and depending on the size of your YouTube channel, you can make money from it, and it is many peoples job. For example, KSI (https://www.youtube.com/%20KSI) , also known as Olajide Olatunji (JJ), is one of the UK’s biggest YouTube sensations, with his subscriber count on his main channel totalling to a whopping 23,600,000 (Source-https://socialblade.com/youtube/user/ksiolajidebt/realtime). YouTube has given the opportunity for people to create more relatable content for their viewers, and the comment section in the videos allow the youtubers audience to connect with them and give them feedback on what content they want to see. You can now stream YouTube videos on your television in a variety of ways, such as using an Amazon Firestick.
I found all of the information from this source, unless stated otherwise: https://www.electronicworldtv.co.uk/blog/6-ways-technology-has-changed-television
PROS AND CONS OF TECHNOLOGY
There are multiple pros and cons within the use of technology in TV and Film. One of the pros of the use of technology is how fast it has made accessing TV programmes and films. For example, as discussed before, the use of internet to stream videos instead of using a HDMI cable is much quicker and more efficient, making it easier for the viewer to watch what they like without experiencing as many technical difficulties. Despite this, a con could be the expense of having to pay for Wi-fi connection, and depending on where you are, the connection could be limited which prevents people from being able to watch what they like just by relying on internet connection. For example, people might want to stream something on a television in a hotel, but the internet connection may be too weak to achieve this, therefore a HDMI cable is necessary.
Another opportunity that technology development has created has both pros and cons. Social media allows anyone to voice their opinion on a particular film or programme that they have watched. If they thoroughly enjoyed what they’ve watched, they will therefore have an overall positive opinion on it, and other social media users may see this and make them want to go and see it themselves. However, if someone doesn’t enjoy what they’ve watched but they still feel like they want to voice their opinion, social media users will see this and it may put them off from seeing it. Despite this, either a positive or negative opinion on a film or show may make people want to go and watch it to see if they have a different opinion from others just out of curiosity.
Another pro of technology is that it has made it so that TV programmes and films have become more accessible to people, as they are not only streamed on televisions, but they can most likely be viewed on more portable devices such as phones and tablets, allowing people to watch what they like on the go providing they have some sort of data connection. Easy accessibility means that more people are going to watch that particular film, for example, which then means there will be more people to voice their opinion, which I said before has both pros and cons in itself.
As well as this, the development of technology has made viewers feel more connected to what their watching, as through the creation of YouTube, people have been able to produce their own content specifically for others, and it typically offers something for everyone. Also, YouTube allows people to comment on the videos that have been created which means they can have connections with the content creator.
Another pro would be that technology has allowed for watching films more enjoyable, through the creation of cinema. Watching films on a large, high quality screen with incredible sound quality is often the preferred way to watch a film, and it provides the audience with a more memorable experience, compared to watching a film on a device.
As well as the con of negative opinions on films and shows made on social media, there is also a con of streaming services taking over traditional TV broadcasting, as on mediums such as Netflix, there is greater variety of things to watch and you can watch them at any time, however with TV although there are various channels, there isn’t always something on that you want to watch. Netflix becoming increasingly popular has meant that there has been less people watching the TV which could not only be a con for the productions of these TV shows, but it could also negatively affect TV sales if one chooses to watch films on streaming services on their ‘OTT devices’ instead of a television.
Another con of the technology development in the TV & Film industry is that social media often provides many unwanted spoilers for new films and programmes that have been released. As there are so many social media platforms, these spoilers become very difficult to avoid, to the point where one may have to stop using social media if they haven’t watched it yet and don’t want spoilers. For example, the recent 2021 release of ‘Spider-Man: No Way Home’, meant that people were visiting the cinemas to watch it, and then through voicing their opinions on social media they have either intentionally or unintentionally spoiled the film for everyone else, which may even prevent people from even watching it at all as they already know what happens. This could then have a knock on effect which would lead to less cinema attendances when a film has been newly released.
Another con which leads on from my last point, is that cinema attendances may be reduced as films are often released on streaming services very soon after they are released in cinemas, which means some people would just rather wait so they can watch it on their own devices in the comfort of their own home. I watched a video titled ‘Netflix: Is streaming killing the cinema industry?’ (Source-https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/business-47336214), and I discovered that ‘analysts estimate that the company spent $13bn on titles like ‘Narcos’ and ‘Bird Box’ on 2018.’ I learnt that this would be enough to make Titanic, one of the most expensive films ever made, 65 times which shows that its efforts really seem to be paying off. Netflix has been criticised by only showing films in only a small number of cinemas and only for a limited time before streaming them on their own site, leading to the suffering of cinemas.
Another con would be that as technology has developed, it has obviously increased in cost, as streaming services cost money, Wi-Fi costs money, and devices in which films and programmes are watched on also cost a lot of money and the prices continue to grow every year as products increase in quality. Some would say that the expense makes it unfair, as some people might be jealous of those who watch Netflix, but they can’t watch it themselves as they can’t afford it. While it is good that technology is developing, the cost is increasing with it which could be quite worrying for the future as more and more people may have to stop using streaming services and revert back to watching television broadcasts as they will become so expensive that some people won’t be able to afford them by then.
Overall, there are lots of pros and cons involving the evolution of technology. In my opinion, I don’t believe that the cons outweigh the pros, and I think that technology needs to continue to develop as it will allow for continued development within the TV & Film industry, creating more opportunities for companies to explore with. As technology becomes more advanced, despite the expenses that will come with it, the quality of these productions will improve, causing more people to find TV programmes and films more enjoyable.
Industry Structure
There are various different areas that form parts of the Performing Arts Industry Structure, and I’ll be focusing more specifically on the industry of TV & Film.
NATIONAL AND GLOBAL TV & FILM COMPANIES:
One area of the TV and Film industry structure would be national and global TV and film companies. National and Global TV and film companies create and produce TV programmes and films for all over the world. These companies help in various film making processes, including budgeting, casting, scripting, and scheduling. The production company oversees the full production process from the time a film is just an idea through to completion. (Source-https://www.musicgateway.com/blog/how-to/the-best-film-production-companies-in-the-uk)
Global production companies create content that aims to please everyone, allowing them to increase in popularity which then means they will be popular in the media in order to make more money, compared to indie companies that are lower budget and cover more realistic and challenging storylines. Examples of global production companies include Disney, Warner Bros., Columbia Pictures and Universal Pictures.
National production companies, such as companies in the UK include Aardman Animations, Archery Pictures and Eon Productions. National film companies often create films and TV programmes that become so popular that they are viewed all over the world, such as the creation of the James Bond Films by Eon Productions.
Feature film production began in 1927, with Graham Cutts , Manning Haynes and Jack Raymond as directors. The Pathé name was lost in 1931 when the Warner Brothers-First National company was formed, only to re-emerge in 1933 when Pathé was absorbed within Maxwell ‘s ABPC group. (Source-http://www.screenonline.org.uk/film/id/461241/index.html#:~:text=Feature%20film%20production%20began%20in,within%20Maxwell%20’s%20ABPC%20group.)
The industry has been impacted massively by the many now famous films created, not only nationally but also internationally, as it generates massive amounts of income for the industry. It also impacts other parts of the industry like influencing a number of Indian film productions both nationally and globally. £1 billion was invested into the UK in 2020 from Hollywood Studios to produce more blockbuster films that impact the industry. (Source-https://www.thecreativeindustries.co.uk/site-content/industries-tv-film-tv-film-why-the-uk)
INDEPENDENT TV & FILM COMPANIES:
Independent film companies are always separate from the bigger movie studios in the film industry, like 20th Century Fox or Paramount Pictures. These independent movie companies tend to offer lower budgets when financing movies, as opposed to the larger movie companies. Despite this, it is possible for some indie movies to gain a higher budget from some of the more successful indie movie companies. Independent movie companies work hand-in-hand with directors, considering a lot of what makes a production an “indie” movie is the director’s complete control over the creation and art of the final piece. Independent movie companies, therefore, tend to work more on the funding, budget, and distribution of the movie. A lot of people also recognize independent filmmakers and movie companies produce a different type of movie. These indie movies deliberately do not have the stereotypical feel many mainstream movies have. A lot of filmmakers are rejected by major movie studios if their film is too “different” or does not hit the fields and stories for which they are looking. This does not mean that the filmmaker’s story or movie is bad – it just does not fit the requirements major movie studios are willing to invest in at the time. (Source-https://www.filmproposals.com/independent-film-companies.html)
The Gaumont Film Company, the first and oldest film company in the world, beginning in 1895. The company produces, co-produces, and distributes films all over the world, often collaborating with other companies like Pathé. Most of Gaumont’s film catalogues containe French language cinema. The logo is the ox-eye daisy. (Source- http://philranstrom.com/oldest-film-companies/ )
Film companies have had a major impact on the TV and Film industry. Even independent TV and Film companies have made cinema successful by the fact that they bring more people to watch films. Film companies like Disney put a lot of money into their films and tv shows, money such as $260 million (spent on the movie Tangled), whereas independent tv shows/films don’t have that money to spend. The average amount of money that independent tv has to spend on a production is between $10,000 and $25,000.
ROLE OF DRAMA SCHOOLS:
A drama school is a specialized school based on training drama and theatre arts, such as acting, design and technical theatre, arts administration, and related subjects. (Source-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drama_school). Entry to drama school is usually through a competitive audition process. Some schools make this a two-stage process. Places on an acting course are limited (usually well below 100) so those who fare best at the audition are selected. Most academies state that applicants must be over 18 years of age. Auditions usually involve the performance of monologues and group workshops, and may also include a singing activity. Here are some examples of Drama schools in the UK:
- Royal academy of dramatic art (RADA)
- London academy of performing arts (LAMDA)
- Guildhall school of music and drama
- Bristle old Vic school
- Liverpool Institution for Performing Arts (LIPA)
- Italia Conti Academy of Theatre Arts
The Royal Academy of Dramatic Art (RADA), is a state-subsidized school of acting in Bloomsbury, London. This is the oldest drama school in England, and one of the oldest in the world. It has a formidable reputation as it is classed as one of the best drama schools even today, as outstanding actors such as Alan Rickman graduated from this particular drama school. It was established in 1904 by actor-manager Sir Herbert Beerbohm Tree, who soon moved it from Haymarket to its present location on Gower Street and set up a presiding council of other leading actors and producers.
Drama schools have most definitely had an impact on the Tv and Film industry, as actors that have graduated from Drama Schools are more professional, dedicated and better trained as drama schools full prepare actors to go into the industry. This makes an actor look more qualified and professional, and increases a performers chances of getting a role, because as well as a good education, these actors probably have more techniques, training and development than other people.
RISE OF FORMAL QUALIFICATIONS WITHIN THE SECTOR:
A formal acting qualification is a course or training in performance. There are various acting qualifications which are available to most people, and they give people some sort of access into the industry, as it allows them to learn the skills needed to have a job in this sector. Some of the formal acting qualifications that are available are:
- GCSE Drama
- BTEC Performing Arts
- A-Level Drama
- TV & Film Degree
- Theatre Degree
- Masters in Acting
Acting qualifications have impacted the industry in various ways as they’ve targeted specific individuals who are talented and creative, and those that are interested and passionate about performing arts. With numerous acting qualifications being available, it has meant that people who are interested in the industry have been able to study acting, which means they learn a variety of skills which are required to become a professional actor. More skilled actors means that the quality of acting in TV and Films improves, making it a better watch for the consumers.
PRODUCERS & IMPRESARIOS:
An impresario is a word that comes from the Italian language, mainly founded and used in Italian Opera as in 1800-1830 the Impresario was a key figure in organization of Opera and Musical Theatre, often finding and hiring composers, musicians and singers whilst sometimes managing costumes and decoration. This usually meant they had to take a huge financial risk. A Producer is a person who oversees and aids in development, planning, execution and marketing of a film or theatre piece. A producers job can change depending on what they are working on, for example the differences between theatre and film is that you need to advertise differently and try and reach out to theatre company’s and adjust shows depending on stage size etc.
The word and role of an impresario originated in Italian Opera in the 1800-1830 and was a key role to making a performance work and even be created. The oldest record of an Impresarios that I could find is Johann Peter Salomon according to https://www.classicfm.com/lifestyle/culture/impresarios-history/.
Producers and impresarios have heavily impacted the TV & Film industry. They have provided the basis for some of the most popular TV programmes and films, and have made sure that everything has gone accordingly. With the stress that the job brings, they need lots of patience and it is a talent to be either a producer or an impresario.
PRODUCTION COMPANIES:
A production company is a business that provides the basis for works in the fields of performing arts, film, television, radio and video just to name a few. (Source-Production company – Wikipedia) Production companies have to take lots of things into consideration. This includes producing content, scripting, hiring, planning & logistics, and casting. Source (http://What Does a Production Company Do? – The Film Fund)) Some examples production companies which are extremely well known include Warner Bros., Disney, Universal Pictures, Dreamworks, Columbia and 20th Century Fox. (Source-http://The Top 10 Movie Production Companies of All Time – ReelRundown))
Hollywood’s first major film company was created on December 22nd 1913 by the Tinseltown pioneers, and it was called the Jesse Lasky Feature Play Company. The company produced DeMille’s film The Squaw Man, the first feature film made entirely in Hollywood, a feature film being one long enough to be the only or main item in a cinema programme. (Source- Hollywood’s First Major Film Company Created | History Today)
Production companies have had a huge impact on the TV & Film industry, as they have provided a basis for the most popular TV programmes and Films to be created. For example, the production company ’20th Century Fox’ have created some incredible films which are popular all over the world, including The Martian, Die Hard, Star Wars, The Sound of Music and Alien. (Source-20th Century Fox: The 10 Best Movies The Studio Ever Made | Cinemablend)
CASTING AND TALENT AGENCIES:
Casting agencies are connected with casting directors and therefore have access to job opportunities actors otherwise wouldn’t be able to find on their own. “A good acting agency advocates for its actors to land more auditions, negotiate higher pay for acting jobs they book, and give actors access to opportunities that they would not be able to find on their own. As an actor, signing a contract with the best acting agency requires research, training, networking, preparing a resume, reel, and headshot, as well as interviewing with agents themselves.” (Source-https://www.thebalancecareers.com/best-acting-agencies-4847219)
There were no real talent agencies before the 1920s in Hollywood. The first casting agency ever made was 1898 in New York City, United States. The first casting and talent agency made in the UK was the William Morris Agency made in 1898.
Casting agencies have impacted the industry, as when agencies are searching for acting job roles it is easier as the access from the internet. As from in earlier years it was harder to find acting roles as there was no internet to access. Without these agencies it would be much harder for actors to find the television and film roles so they have made a large impact as they find the work to suit the actor and with casting agencies they know exactly the right roles for the actor’s needs. These casting agencies can also help with finding specific jobs the actor is actually interested in, and jobs that will be able to get them somewhere.
FREELANCE & SELF-EMPLOYED PERFORMERS:
Self-employed people are people who work for themselves, which means that they aren’t employed by anyone else. This means that they have quite flexible lives, as they aren’t being controlled by anyone. It means they can take things at their own pace, and have breaks when necessary. It does require you to sort out your own taxes and it may also require you to find your own work, which may make being self employed quite unreliable if no work is found. However, you can still have an agent if you are self-employed, and so they can help with this if necessary. Freelancers will tend to do multiple short term roles for lots of different productions, giving them plenty of experience in the industry, as they can try out different things and see what they like best.
Freelance dates back to the early 19th century, and since the 2000s began. they has been an unprecedented surge in self-employment. This is most likely because of how flexible it is, so it can fit around people with already busy lives.
This has impacted the industry as Self-employment allows aspiring actors to be independent and work on their own. Self-employment is normal for performers and some technicians. They need to be proactive, approaching venues or putting together ensembles. Freelance allows actors to build up there acting portfolio and get as much experience as they can which might be beneficial to them when they audition for future bigger roles. With the amount of experience that can be gained, it means that there are more actors out their with enough experience to take on large roles in TV programmes and films. The advantages include the title of independence, not being fixed in a certain role, there not being any financial limits, success belongs to you alone, you can decide how you plan your life and how much you work, as well as being able to learn a lot.
EQUITY:
Equity is a Union of more than 47,000 performers that fight for fair terms and working conditions. Equity has begun to bring together performing arts professionals to ensure that there is a voice for performers and that decent pay along with health and safety demands are met. They also strive for equal opportunities for performers regardless of sex, sexuality, disability, race, class, age, gender identity, relationship status.
In 1930 a group of artist started ‘The British actors equity association’ which later became known as just equity and is still running today. Equity was created by a group of West End performers, including Godfrey Tearle, May Whitty and Ben Webster.
Equity has impacted the industry as it has meant that it has actors are able to have a voice and they are able to fight for what they want. For example, if an actor signed a contract to work for a company for 6 months, but 2 months in they find someone better who could replace them, the company could just tell them that they’ve found someone better so they don’t want to work with them anymore, despite there being a contract. Without equity, that person would just have to accept it and move on, but with equity, you could report the problem to you and they will be able to argue with the company about how they still have four months left on their contract, so they should stay in work for 4 more months, and the company would have to allow that.
THE ARTS COUNCIL:
“We are the national development agency for creativity and culture. We have set out our strategic vision in Let’s Create that by 2030 we want England to be a country in which the creativity of each of us is valued and given the chance to flourish and where everyone of us has access to a remarkable range of high quality cultural experiences. We invest public money from Government and The National Lottery to help support the sector and to deliver this vision.” (Source-https://www.artscouncil.org.uk/about-us-0)
The Arts Council was founded in 1946 in an era of increased opportunity for all, following the Second World War. For 70 years, they have worked closely with Government and partners to give more people opportunities to enjoy and benefit from great art and culture. The Arts Council has gone through many changes over its history from its original remit as the Arts Council of Great Britain to today. (Source-https://www.artscouncil.org.uk/about-us-0)
The Arts Council has impacted the industry by giving people the opportunity to flaunt their creativity and the government has given people more opportunities to benefit from the art and culture.
PROS & CONS OF INDUSTRY STRUCTURE:
There are many pros and cons within the areas of industry structure. Some pros of the national and global tv and film companies include the entertainment it provides. These TV and Film companies will provide lots of content aimed at people for certain age categories, and people with certain interests, and with the amount of entertainment it provides, the companies will earn a lot of people from the amount of people watching on either streaming services or in cinemas. Some of the cons are that they may kill other competitor’s due to their popularity which will mean that these other companies will fail and lose money, although this is only a con for the other companies and not a con for the particular company which is thriving. Another con would be how expensive it is for the production that is involved and it can be expensive for the consumers especially if they decide to watch on streaming services such as Netflix, or watching in cinemas. Overall, I think the pros outweigh the cons in this particular area, as other companies failing isn’t a con for the company that is thriving, and it actually benefits the thriving company. Also, production may be expensive but as it is also expensive for the consumer, it means that in most scenarios they will get more money in return which is an overall pro.
Some pros of independent TV & Film companies include that they target specific audiences. This means that what they produce cater for specific interests of people. They are also more creative and unique, providing lots of entertainment for its consumers, and they’re also cheaper for the consumer and the production would be cheaper compared to national and global TV & Film companies. The cons would be that they don’t make as much money as global and national TV & Film companies which means that the whole production is less as there is a tighter budget. Also, it is very difficult for independent companies as they have to compete with the bigger companies, and some independent ones may be taken over by the bigger companies. Overall, I would say the cons outweigh the pros. I think this because being in competition with companies that are bigger than them is a massive con because it means they don’t get as much recognition and what they produce may not get the credit they deserve, as more people are interested in watching TV and films which are created by the global and national companies.
There are many pros for drama schools. One of which is that they provide a gateway for talented people to have a successful acting career. They also provide it’s leanest with key skills that are required to become a successful actor, and it would give them a feel of what it’s like to work in that industry as they would be given the chance to be exposed to other professionals who they can learn from and take inspiration from. The cons would be that they can be extremely difficult to get into, as so many people want to get into drama schools, and there is so much talent that it’s difficult to be better than someone else. Drama schools often require skills of singing, dancing, playing an instrument and acting, which may not be suitable for those who just want to act and that’s it. They are also very expensive, which makes it hard for people to afford it. Overall, I think that they role of drama schools in their industry is more of a pro than a con, as they are able to train young talents into professional actors who can go on to play major roles in the biggest TV programmes and Films for the biggest companies. Companies want actors who are professional and disciplined, and these traits can be acquired from going to a drama school, which means that they acting in programmes and films is to a high standard.
A pro or producers & impresarios in their industry is that there is a large possibility that a piece they have produced becomes really successful. As well as this, with more success, they can earn more money. Producers can also take some stress of the actors, and gives them one less thing to deal with or think about. The cons would be that being a producers requires a lot of patience, as if things don’t work, it can take some time to make it work and requires more effort. You also have to be very flexible as it can be very time consuming and may require some out of hours work for everything to run smoothly. Overall I would say that it’s overall a pro to the industry and producers are what provide their basis to some of the best TV programmes and Films, and they are a very necessary part of the process. When things go to plan, they are able to produce content that provides great entertainment for its consumers, who may share their opinions on social media causing more people to watch what they’ve created.
Some of the pros of casting agencies are that they do all the hard work for the actor, as they help them find a job in their industry that would be suited to them. Casting agencies can also refer to large companies which may be interested in you, giving you a chance of fame. A con of casting agencies is that they take a percentage of what you earn and they can be very expensive. A well as this they may not be able to find you a job that suits you. overall I would say that despite casting agencies being a good gateway into the acting industry I think that it is overall a con as they can be hard to find it and it may take a while for them to find you a job that suits you as well as this you may not have the talent to impress bigger companies looking for actors which means that casting agencies may not work for you and they might be a waste of money.
A pro of production companies is that they can provide a lot of entertainment for its consumers and they can become popular all over the world producing films and TV programmes that are very well known. A potential con of production companies would be that they are often competing against each other. When production companies produce a successful film it’s me over shadow other films created by these other production companies. However in saying this, this is only a con one other companies are creating films that are doing really well. Overall I would say that the pros of production companies outweigh the cons of production companies in the industry because they provide lots of entertainment for its consumers.
The pros of being freelance or in other words self employed is that you are provided with the freedom of changing jobs as you have no loss due to you being your own boss. When you are dealing with everything on your own it can be quite busy for you and it also means that you have to do your own taxes which may be quite stressful and hard to manage. Overall I would say that being self-employed is a con. Whilst being freelance may suit some people, I think that’s the cons outweigh the pros as it can be more difficult for you to deal with, and it may just be easy to be employed under someone so you don’t have to deal with your own finances and you have a solid, reliable income.
The pros of equity would be that it ensures performance have a voice, and make sure they are being treated fairly and ensures they’re being respected. It also ensures health and safety being part of this union and it provides fair working conditions. A con of equity is that it can be expensive and sometimes they may not be able to deal with your problem. Overall I would confidently say that equity has more pros than cons so it is an overall pro as it is a great way to be supported as an actor and it is reassuring to know that you are being treated fairly all of the time and that you always have a voice.
A pro of the arts Council is that it gives people the opportunity to enjoy art and culture and it also gives people the opportunity to be creative. another pro is that it provides flexible working for those who want to fit it around their busy lives. they also offer a 25 day annual leave and they have good sick pay.
To briefly summarise over the pros and cons of different areas in the industry structure I think that it is an overall pro as these areas are what make up this incredible industry.
Case Study
My group has researched different areas of the backgrounds one one contemporary practitioner, and a historical practitioner. We decided that out contemporary practitioner would be Tom Holland, and our historical practitioner would be Charlie Chaplin.
BACKGROUND:
TOM HOLLAND: Thomas Stanely Holland was born on 1st June 1996, and he was the eldest of four children. He grew up in Kingston Upon Thames, England. He attended the Roman Catholic Preparatory School in Wimbledon, and he attended two colleges: Wimbledon College and then the ‘School of Performing Arts & Technology in Creyton. Holland’s television debut was in 2009 when he appeared on the ITV 1 show, ‘The Feel Good Factor.’ He met the prime-minister Gordon Brown at 10 Downing Street in March of 2010, along with four other actors that played Billy Elliot. This was to celebrate the 5th anniversary of ‘Billy Elliot the Musical.’ At the fifth anniversary show on March 31st, 2010, Holland was chosen for the main role, and his regular rotation as Billy Elliot with the three other performers ended on May 29th, 2010. When Holland was 7, he was diagnosed with dyslexia. (Source-https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/actors/tom-holland-net-worth/)
CHARLIE CHAPLIN: Charles Spencer Chaplin was born in London, England, on April 16th, 1889. His father was a versatile vocalist and actor; and his mother, who’s stage name was Lily Harley, was an actress and singer, who gained a reputation for her work in the light opera field. Charlie was thrown on his own resources before he reached the age of ten as the early death of his father and the following illness of his mother made it necessary for Charlie and his brother, Sydney, to look after themselves. They had both got their talents from their parents and decided to stage act as it was the best career option for them both. Charlie’s first chance to really act was when he was 12 years old as he got involved in a stage show. He appeared as ‘Billy’ the page boy, in support of first H. A. Saintsbury and then William Gillette in different productions of ‘Sherlock Holmes’. (Source-https://www.charliechaplin.com/en/articles/21-overview-of-his-life)
TRAINING:
TOM HOLLAND: Tom Holland gained the majority of his acting experience from attending the ‘School of Performing Arts and Technology’. After 2 years of training and 8 auditions. Tom made his West End debut June 28th 2008, more specifically, Billy Elliot the Musical.’ The first role he took on was Billy’s best friend, Michael, and his first performance in role as Billy himself was September 8th, 2008, which lead him to receive very positive feedback. !0 year old Tom began taking ballet lessons in his garage, and later on started taking dance classes at the Nifty Feet Dance School in Wimbledon. He performed with his dance class at the Richmond Dance Festival in 2006. This was when dance choreographer Lynne Paige spotted Holland, and thought that he would be brilliant in a stage play. Tom Holland was 10 when he started attending Donhead Wimbledon College School. 2 and a half years of extensive training and 8 auditions later, Holland made his Billy Elliot made his debut. When it came to training for Spider-Man, Marvel wanted to send Holland to a high school so he could gain a further understanding of his role as the teen Peter Parker. But because Parker is a brilliant tech whiz at the fictional Midtown School of Science and Technology, there was only one place Holland could go: The Bronx High School of Science. (Source-https://slate.com/business/2017/07/tom-holland-went-undercover-at-bronx-high-school-of-science.html)
CHARLIE CHAPLIN: Charlie Chaplin was very much a natural when it came to acting. He had obtained his skills from his parents, so acting from just the age of 5 wasn’t considered too young for him. As a result of this, he didn’t undergo much training, as in Chaplin’s era the performing arts industry was no where near as developed as it is today, and so getting into the industry was much easier. Charlie Chaplin did in fact learn to perform on stage and his debut was age 5, and he became a professional entertainer at age 8 as a clog dancer. (Source-https://www.britannica.com/biography/Charlie-Chaplin)
NETWORTH:
TOM HOLLAND: According to the source (Tom Holland Net Worth | Celebrity Net Worth), Tom Holland, an English actor and Dancer, has a net worth of $18 million. Tom earned $250,000 to briefly appear as “Spiderman in Captain America: Civil War”. He then earned $500,000 base salary for “Spiderman: Homecoming, with his eventual pay check topping $1.5 million with bonuses. He earned $3 million for his appearance in 2018’s “Avengers: Endgame.” Today his standard base salary for a single film appearance is $4-5 million.
CHARLIE CHAPLIN: According to the source (https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/actors/charlie-chaplin-net-worth/?amp=1), Charlie Chaplin, an English composer, filmmaker and actor, had a net worth of at least $100 million. That is the same as around $400 million today in dollars. When Charlie was working for the production company ‘Keystone’, he was earning $175 per week. That’s the same as around $4,400 per week in today’s dollars, around $230,000 per year. In 1915 he signed a new deal with the ‘Essanay production company’ which increased his weekly salary to $1,250. That’s the same as around $30,000 per week in today’s dollars or $1.5 million per year with inflation. In 1916 he signed a deal with a company called ‘Mutual’ that paid $10,000 per week. That’s the same as $250,000 per week with inflation. Roughly $13 million per year. In 1918, First National paid him $1 million to appear in 8 films. That’s the same as $16 million total, $2 million per film with inflation.
EXPERIENCE:
TOM HOLLAND: At just 25 years old, Tom Holland has already had an extremely successful career so far in the Performing Arts Industry. He has had lots of different experiences working in various genres and settings. At just 12 years old, Tom Holland made his debut as the titular character in ‘Billy Elliot the Musical’ in September 2008.
After Billy Elliot, Holland starred in the 2012 movie ‘The Impossible’. He starred alongside Ewan McGregor and Naomi Watts and portrayed Lucas, a young boy whose family encountered a tsunami while on a vacation. In December of 2015, Tom Holland appeared alongside Chris Hemsworth, with Holland playing Thomas Nickerson and Hemsworth portraying Own Chase in Ron Howard’s 2015 drama, ‘In the heart of the sea’. Tom Holland has dreamt of becoming Spiderman from a young age, and in June 2019, the star said that he ‘did what he could’ to help Tom Holland nab the Spider-Man role. Hemsworth told ‘Entertainment tonight that, “As they were casting him for Spider-Man, I did what I could do and made a call and said he’s one of the most talented people I’ve worked with and has such a big heart and appreciation.” “We have a great friendship, it’s a good mutual respect.”
In Hollands Wired’s autocomplete interview with his ‘Far from home’ co-stars, he said that he attended auditions in Ireland, Canada, Atlanta and LA. This audition process took five and a half months. On June 23rd 2015 it was announced that Tom Holland would be the new Spider-Man. Following versions led by Tobey Maguire and Andrew Garfield, Holland became the youngest to be cast in the role. The actors first appearance in the MCU was in ‘Captain America: Civil War’.
His first stand-alone superhero movie was ‘Spider-Man: Home-coming’, which hit the theatres in July 2017. In 2018, Holland starred in ‘Avengers: Infinity War’. He reprised his marvel role in 2019’s ‘Avengers Endgame.’ In 2019, Holland starred in another Marvel movie, ‘Spider-Man: Far from home’, a movie that directly followed the events of ‘Endgame’.
Tom Holland has also voiced characters in a few movies such as Dolittle, Spies in Disguise and Onward.
In 2020, Holland starred alongside Robert Pattinson in Netflix’s ‘The Devil All the Time”, and the marvel star claimed that he a fan of Pattinson due to the actors work in ‘Twilight’. The actor teamed up again with the Russo brothers for “Cherry,” based on a book written by Nico Walker. He also used his fame to help others through an organization called The Brothers Trust, which his parents founded in 2017. Holland hopes he can direct some day after his acting career. For now, he is working hard on upcoming movies.
Source-https://www.insider.com/tom-holland-career-bio-life-2019-6?msclkid=a2309b44b1c311ecb84f01945dd38814
CHARLIE CHAPLIN:
Charlie’s most popular film, according to IMDb, Is Modern times. This performance is about industrialization, which Chaplin believed to be the cause of the create depression. This is the tramps final appearance. ‘The Tramp’ is Charlie Chaplin’s most memorable on-screen character and an icon in world cinema during the era of silent film:
- He’s one of the eras most iconic characters ever created
- He’s one of the funniest characters ever created
- He walks funnily, most likely due to how he dresses
- He used this character as a way to express his own political beliefs
- Most of the Tramp’s films address some major social injustice in that time but in a humorous way
- His appearance and outfit is ideal for comedy, e,g. his small moustache
- Chaplin is able to portray emotions for the Tramp without speaking out loud, which makes it enjoyable for everyone all over the world as it avoids language barrier issues
- Portrayed as a ‘punching bag’ in most of his films but still tries to make the best out of any situation
- Somehow sometime manages to be a hero even though he’s not trying to
- Proven to be super polite, selfless and kind-hearted
Source (https://great-characters.fandom.com/wiki/The_Tramp)
Chaplin’s last and worst piece of film he ever created was “A countess from Hong Kong” which is describe by Wikipedia as “A critical Failure”. The movie took £3,500,000 to create and only made back £2,000,000 from the US and Canadian box office. (Source-https://www.charliechaplin.com/en/articles/21-overview-of-his-life)
INDUSTRY ISSUES:
TOM HOLLAND: One of the predominant issues Tom Holland has in the industry is him not being able to keep secrets. Holland has a tendency to reveal major plot points on live talk shows and it is a miracle that he is still allowed to appear on them. His co-stars often referred to him as the least trustworthy cast member, however. Zendaya and Batlalon said that Holland has gotten better at keeping secrets. (Source-https://www.insider.com/spider-man-no-way-home-tom-holland-spoilers-talk-shows-2021-12?amp)
It doesn’t seem like Holland has ever been in a public feud with any of his co-stars, but as viewers we don’t know what could have happened behind the scenes.
CHARLIE CHAPLIN: According to some sources I explored on line, Chaplin had a few issues whilst working within the industry. Firstly, he ‘loathed’ his first film, He was appalled by his own performance as he felt like he was very stiff and he ‘took all the surprise out of the scenes by anticipating the next motion.’ He also accused the director of ‘cutting his best material out of jealousy.’ Charlie Chaplin also faced a lot of legal battles in his personal life that one might say ruined his image. (Source-https://www.history.com/.amp/news/9-things-you-may-not-know-about-charlie-chaplin)
BREAKTHROUGHS:
TOM HOLLAND: Holland’s ticket to fame was gradual, and over time he has become more and more well known. From starring in ‘Billy Elliot: The Musical’ on the West End, to becoming Spider-Man. His breakthroughs involved making his West End debut, appearing on the premier of the ITV show ‘The Feel Good Factor’, visiting prime minister Gordon Brown, and making his feature film debut in ‘The Impossible.’
CHARLIE CHAPLIN: The 1915 film The tramp was Charlie Chaplin’s big breakthrough that sky rocketed his career, and as a result of this he is considered one of the most important figures in the history of the film industry.
SIMILARITIES & DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PRACTIONERS
Tom Holland and Charlie Chaplin are both actors who are recognised to be very successful, and so there are some similarities between the two. However, they have come from different eras which creates a lot of differences between them, as the industry has completely changed overtime from when Charlie Chaplin was acting to the present where Tom Holland is acting.
One similarity between the two is that they are both British male actors. The difference, however, is the fact that they both come from different era’s, which almost directly contrast each other due to the industry structure and the changes that have happened to make it very different from what it was before. Another similarity is that both Tom Holland and Charlie Chaplin started from a young ages. Charlie Chaplin began acting from the age of 5, and Tom Holland started from the age of 12. Although there is an age difference, it is still deemed as a similarity as they both started young which built up their success over the years, and Tom Holland’s success is still growing. Another similarity is that they have both sang in their acting careers, and Tom Holland’s acting career so far. Charlie Chaplin sang in Modern Times, which was the very first time the world heard his voice, after two decades of silent pantomime. (Source-https://treehozz.com/what-does-charlie-chaplin-sing-in-modern-times#:~:text=Did%20Charlie%20Chaplin%20sing%3F%20In%201936%20the%20little,his%20voice%2C%20after%20two%20decades%20of%20silent%20pantomime. )Tom Holland. Tom Holland sang when he played the role of Billy in Billy Elliot on the West End. The final similarity my TV & Film group identified was that they both moved to America, previously living in England.
One large difference between Tom Holland and Charlie Chaplin is their net worth. Whilst Charlie Chaplin’s net worth was $100M (Which would be $400M today), Tom Holland’s net worth is $18M. This contrast reflects on how much the industry has changed, however the difference in net worth could also be a result of the amount of success they’ve had. Tom Holland’s career is no where near from over, so who knows what his net worth might end up being at the end of his career. Another difference is that Tom Holland went under a lot of training to get to where he is today, in order to develop his acting skills to bring him into success. Charlie Chaplin, however, didn’t have half as much training as Tom did. The industry has developed massively since Chaplin’s era so training is now very necessary, and it can be extremely difficult to become an actor. Another difference is that they both had different acting styles. Whilst Charlie Chaplin involved methods such as slapstick and mine, Tom Holland acts in a much more naturalistic way.
Overall, I would say that the industry has most definitely developed for the better. Although some would say the industry was better in Chaplin’s era because it was easier to become an actor, others (including me) would say that the industry is better now because with the amount of training required to become an actor nowadays, it means the quality of acting is to a much higher standard. Also, in todays era, social media exists which means that actors are getting more credited and becoming more recognised than before.
To conclude all of my findings in this blog, I would say that the development of TV & Film has been extremely successful, and I think that this success will continue to grow as time goes on. Through the research I have done, I have recognised that the development of TV and Film has been the main reason why it has increased in popularity over time, such as the introduction of social media platforms where people can voice their opinions on the most recent releases.

My Performing Arts Career-F16 
