Working Title Films began as a small independent production company in the UK that struggled to find funding until partnering with larger media companies like Channel 4 and Polygram. After Polygram was acquired by Universal Pictures, Working Title became majority owned by Universal Pictures' parent company NBC Universal. While now part of a large conglomerate, Working Title retains creative autonomy and produces films appealing to both UK and global audiences, maintaining their British identity while benefiting from Universal's financial backing and global distribution.

1. FILM INDUSTRY: USING YOUR CASE
STUDY
PART 1: The issues raised by media ownership
Some background
• the pre-war studio system was based on a principal of Vertical
Integration where the studio had ownership of all stages of a
film’s life from pre-production through production, distribution
and finally, exhibition.
• The Paramount Decree put a stop to this in 1948 but since the
mid-70s we have seen a re-assertion of Hollywood’s power as
the studios have been integrated into huge media
conglomerates (A conglomerate is a collection of diverse
companies not bound by common activity or product, but often
reinforcing – even promoting each other’s interests).
• The danger here is that a sort of oligopoly emerges (the control
of a market for a particular product by a small group of
companies in which no one company is dominant…but where the
combined of the companies makes it difficult for other companies
to enter the market).
What are the issues raised by this for:
PRODUCTION – film production is dominated by films made by the
major studios. Projects are given the green light because they:
 can reach large, global mass audiences
 have huge potential spin-offs in other areas of media (games,
merchandise etc)
• It is difficult for films made by small independent production
companies to compete against products made by huge media
conglomerates.
• Films that appeal to particular sections of the audience are
more difficult to get made (films for older people).
• Also, it is difficult to make a film that reflects local/national
themes or issues and films in a sense need to have universal
(or at least trans-atlantic appeal if they are going to be made.
DISTRIBUTION & EXHIBITION –
• Independent films have to seek a distribution deal with a
distributor to make sure their film reaches an audience. By
contrast, the major studios have their own distribution arm,
and the distribution and marketing planning of a film can
begin months (even years) ahead of release.
1

2. •What is more, the studio can bring the huge financial power to
bear on the distribution and marketing of the film to make
sure that the film is given the very best chance.
• Independent distributors cannot compete with the spending of
the distribution arms of major studios.
AUDIENCE –
• The argument here is that audiences are bombarded with
films from major studios.
• Smaller, more independent films are edged out of the
marketing spotlight, often go unnoticed and are difficult to see
(at least in cinemas).
• This raises serious questions about the range and diversity of
films that reach the cinema.
• More challenging, intelligent and artistic productions
(independent and arthouse films) are overlooked in favour of
mainstream blockbusters etc.
CASE STUDY – Working Title Films
A film producer creates the conditions for making movies. The
producer initiates, coordinates, supervises and controls matters
such as fundraising, hiring key personnel, and arranging for
distributors. The producer is involved throughout all phases of the
filmmaking process from development to completion of a project.
Working Title’s first film My Beautiful Launderette (Frears, 1985)
was part-financed by Channel 4. It is quite typical of the industry
that a small independent production company should seek co-
production deals, financial support and investment from larger
media companies. Interestingly, because the investment came from
Channel 4 it was originally intended that this would be a made-for-
TV film, but the film was highly praised at the Edinburgh Festival
and subsequently came to have a theatrical (cinema) release.
Tim Bevan of Working Title describes how they financed films in
those early days:
“In those days for me, and still now if you are an independent
producer, you get a script or project and get a bit of money
from the UK and the rest from pre-selling to distributors
around the world. This was not a totally satisfactory state of
affairs because you have no single strategy for releasing the
film and it's very hard to make your money back.”
“Before that we had been independent producers, but it was
very hand to mouth. We would develop a script, that would
take about 5% of our time; we'd find a director, that'd take
about 5% of the time and then we'd spend 90% of the time
trying to juggle together deals from different sources to
finance those films. The films were suffering because there
2

3. was no real structure and, speaking for myself, my company
was always virtually bankrupt."
After a few years, Working Title developed a close working
relationship with Polygram (a large media company that was
mostly active in the music industry). Although Working Title had a
strong independent ethic, it had to seek financial support and
investment from other media organisations. At that stage, Working
Title was what Tim Bevan describes as “a company that’s
independent in spirit but with studio backing”’
Polygram Filmed Entertainment was sold and merged with
Universal Pictures in 1999.
Universal Pictures is a division of Universal Studios
(http://www.universalstudios.com/). Universal Studios is part of
NBC Universal, one of the world's leading media and
entertainment companies in the development, production and
marketing of entertainment, news and information to a global
audience. Formed in May 2004 through the combining of NBC and
Vivendi Universal Entertainment, NBC Universal owns and
operates a valuable portfolio of
• news and entertainment networks,
• a premier motion picture company,
• significant television production operations,
• a leading television stations group
• world-renowned theme parks.
NBC Universal is 80% owned by General Electric, with 20%
controlled by Vivendi.
Universal Pictures (or more specifically their
division Universal Pictures International) own a
majority stake in Working Title Films. Essentially,
Working Title Films now make films for Universal.
Essentially, Working Title Films is now part of
Universal Pictures which is part of Universal Studios
which is part of NBC Universal: a major multinational,
multimedia conglomerate.
NBC Universal is an example of a company that is able to have a
major impact on the market partly because of horizontal
integration (it operates so many different industries which
(potentially) can all have a positive impact on each other. The ways
in which its different companies and subsidiaries might work in
combination is an example of Synergy.
3

4. What does this change in ownership mean for Working Title?
We might assume that this is a bad thing in terms of the
independent creativity of the company. However, the two co-
chairman (Tim Bevan and Eric Fellner) are keen to emphasise
that as part of their arrangement with Universal, they can still
green-light their films:
What's the difference in your relationship with Universal
than it was with PolyGram?
Tim Bevan: “Previously we didn't have the power to green-light
ourselves but now we have considerable creative autonomy and can
in fact green-light something if we want to. I should also point out
that we really try and keep our budgets as low as possible and we
won't green-light a film if we think the budget is greater than what
we think the film is worth.”
The success of their films has secured Working Title a degree of
trust from the studio bosses in Hollywood: "They are unique
because they do everything so well," says Universal chairman Marc
Shmuger: "how they work with the talent, and the incredible
responsibility with which they manage productions and costs.
What's unusual, even unprecedented, is how consummately capable
and responsible they are.”
It is significant that Working Title have stayed in England and
although they have a small office in Hollywood, their operation is
very much based in London. The core pool of talent on which they
rely is also English. Variety Magazine describe them as being
“transformed into one of the cornerstones of Universal
Pictures while remaining true to their British roots and indie
spirit.”
In writing about media ownership you can argue that
Working Title has not been completely swallowed up by
Universal and instead has simply gained the security to make
the films it wants to make.
Fellner says: "I guess technically not owning the company means
we lost control, but the way the film business works is that it's
people-driven rather than structure-driven. Tim and I are by
profession film producers, and the business of Working Title is
producing films. By dint of that we get to run it how we want.”
"The production company itself will never be a profitable company.
The value is not in ownership of the company but in part ownership,
as we ultimately have, of the rights of any film made."
4

5. Bevan says: . "We turned the whole thing upside down. We were
now part of a big structure, so we spent much less time on finding
the money and much more on developing decent scripts ... It's no
surprise that two or three years after [1992] we started to have a
considerable amount of commercial success from those movies."
According to Bevan: "When we were independents we were very
wary about the studios. But what we realised through our
experience with Polygram is that being part of a US studio structure
is essential if you want to play the long game in the movie
business. Six studios control movie distribution worldwide. The
various supply engines, like talent agencies and marketing people,
understand the studios and everyone who is playing seriously in the
film business will be part of a studio structure."
So how involved are Universal?
Universal's involvement will vary widely from project to project.
Bevan gives two contrasting examples - Pride and Prejudice,
starring Keira Knightley and with a budget of just over $20m, and
The Interpreter, a thriller directed by Sidney Pollack and starring
Nicole Kidman and Sean Penn. "With Pride and Prejudice they said
OK - they hadn't met the director, they didn't question any part of
the casting, when they saw the movie they were delighted with it.
The Interpreter is patently a huge movie, one of their cornerstone
films of the year. By the time you've taken into account marketing
and so forth, it's a gigantic investment. Collective heads are on the
line for a film like that, rather than just our heads."
In other words, if there is a lot of money resting on the film,
Universal will want to be more heavily involved. If not, they are
happy to trust Working Title to make the correct decisions.
With Universal’s backing, Working Title have considerable financial
clout and can invest in large-scale projects. It is worth noting that
“They have a bigger development production fund than the whole of
the UK Film Council.”
"If an independent producer wants to get a film off the ground then
Bevan and Fellner can make it happen on a big scale. They are
world players but have a big impact in the UK. Can they get a
project off the ground just by picking up the phone? Yes."
Being part of Universal does not mean, as some of you have
suggested in essays, that Working Title Films do not have to worry
about money any more.
Yes, they do have the security of bigger budgets for production and
they don’t have to chase around for deals with independent
distributors.
5

6. But, they still have to come up with projects that are going to work
and indeed, you could argue that there is more pressure on them to
secure the sort of box office success that Universal expects.
What can we conclude from the Working Title experience.
- Independent production companies simply cannot sustain
themselves and grow without investment from major media
organisations?
- Investment is necessary if production companies are not
going to spend all their energy chasing funding. With the
security of studio backing, they can devote their energies to
the development of the film.
- It could be argued that Working Title has managed to retain
its British identity and made resolutely British films despite its
involvement in Universal. Interestingly, however, you could
argue that the version of Britishness that it promotes is
packaged for American audiences and distorts the reality of
modern British life.
Historical/Heritage Dramas – Atonement (literary
adaptation), Elizabeth, Elizabeth: the Golden Age
White upper/middle-class rom-coms; Bridget Jones’s
Diary; Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason, Four Weddings and
A Funeral, Love Actually, Pride and Prejudice.
• Looking at it very cynically, you could even argue that
Working Title shows how it is not possible to sustain a
genuinely alternative/subversive approach to film-
making. It is ultimately necessary to ‘sell-out’ to a big
audience and ultimately ‘sell-out’ in terms of chasing
the biggest audience. It is arguable that My Beautiful
Launderette (1985) the first Working Title film was also
the most radical/controversial/political/subversive.
• It is also interesting to note that Working Title has a
very strong and long-standing relationship as producers
of films by the highly successful American film-makers
Joel and Ethan Coen. They have described their role as
very hands-off and it is difficult to see these films as
being British in any real way. Also, with films like
Sydney Pollack’s The Interpreter (starring Nicole
Kidman) Working Title are also now involved in
producing very mainstream American films and it could
be argued that their involvement is a further step away
from their British roots.
• The recent film State of Play is an interesting example
of the Americanisation of Working Title. It’s made by
a British Director (Kevin Macdonald), has a British star
(Helen Mirren) and is based on a British TV drama set in
6

7. Britain (State of Play written by Paul Abbott). However,
no doubt to appeal to an American audience, the film’s
action has been transplanted to Washington DC and the
film stars a major Hollywood star, Russell Crowe.
7