Working Title Films was co-founded by producers Tim Bevan and Sarah Radclyffe in 1983.

1985 1987 1989

Very British films, with mainly British cast. All films were successful.

To be able to explain media ownership in the film industry (level 2)To be able to analyse media ownership with reference to case studies (level 3)To be able to evaluate media ownership with reference to detailed case studies (level 4)

In 1992 Polygram becomes Working Titles financial backer and in association with Polygram Filmed Entertainment produce a string of

hits. Sarah Radclyffe leaves and Eric Fillner joins.

Polygram Filmed Entertainment became a European competitor to Hollywood.

1994Budget = $6 million

Box office = $244 million

1995

Film distributor, co-owned by Polygram

Filmed Entertainment and Universal Pictures. Distributes Polygram’s

films in the US and Canada.

Incredibly successful British film

To be able to explain media ownership in the film industry (level 2)To be able to analyse media ownership with reference to case studies (level 3)To be able to evaluate media ownership with reference to detailed case studies (level 4)

1996 1997 1998

All very British films which have an appeal to the US and all coproduced by Polygram and distributed by Gramercy.

To be able to explain media ownership in the film industry (level 2)To be able to analyse media ownership with reference to case studies (level 3)To be able to evaluate media ownership with reference to detailed case studies (level 4)

In 1999 Polygram was sold and became part of Universal Studios.

Although contractually allowed to produce any film with a budget of up to $35 million, on a practical basis, Tim Bevan and Eric Fellner consult with studio executives at Working Title's parent company NBCUniversal.

1999

Notting Hill becomes the first film to be released under the new partnership. It embodies the working model that has seen Working Title be so successful - aBritish film with American funding and an appeal to a US audience.Budget = $43 millionBox Office = $363,889,700

To be able to explain media ownership in the film industry (level 2)To be able to analyse media ownership with reference to case studies (level 3)To be able to evaluate media ownership with reference to detailed case studies (level 4)

2001Budget = $26 millionBox office = $281,929,795

2000Budget = £3 millionBox office = £72,853,509

2002Budget = $30 millionBox office = $130,549,455

WT2

In Partnership with both Universal and Studio Canal, Working Title continued to release successful British films.

To be able to explain media ownership in the film industry (level 2)To be able to analyse media ownership with reference to case studies (level 3)To be able to evaluate media ownership with reference to detailed case studies (level 4)

2003Budget = $40 millionBox office = $160,583,018

2003Budget = $45 millionBox office = $246,942,017

2004Budget = $31 millionBox office = $41,512,007

2004Budget = $6 millionBox office = $30,039,392

2005Budget = $28 millionBox office = $121,147,947

2007Budget = $30 millionBox office = $129,266,061

To be able to explain media ownership in the film industry (level 2)To be able to analyse media ownership with reference to case studies (level 3)To be able to evaluate media ownership with reference to detailed case studies (level 4)

2010Budget = $100 millionBox office = $94,882,549

2009Budget = $50 millionBox office = $36,348,784

It is not always a success story for Working Title though. There have been several cases where big budgets have been spent on films, only for them to flop

at the box office.

To be able to explain media ownership in the film industry (level 2)To be able to analyse media ownership with reference to case studies (level 3)To be able to evaluate media ownership with reference to detailed case studies (level 4)

To be able to explain media ownership in the film industry (level 2)To be able to analyse media ownership with reference to case studies (level 3)To be able to evaluate media ownership with reference to detailed case studies (level 4)

The Working Title token US star…

To be able to explain media ownership in the film industry (level 2)To be able to analyse media ownership with reference to case studies (level 3)To be able to evaluate media ownership with reference to detailed case studies (level 4)

To be able to explain media ownership in the film industry (level 2)To be able to analyse media ownership with reference to case studies (level 3)To be able to evaluate media ownership with reference to detailed case studies (level 4)

To be able to explain media ownership in the film industry (level 2)To be able to analyse media ownership with reference to case studies (level 3)To be able to evaluate media ownership with reference to detailed case studies (level 4)

To be able to explain media ownership in the film industry (level 2)To be able to analyse media ownership with reference to case studies (level 3)To be able to evaluate media ownership with reference to detailed case studies (level 4)

Over in the US…

To be able to explain media ownership in the film industry (level 2)To be able to analyse media ownership with reference to case studies (level 3)To be able to evaluate media ownership with reference to detailed case studies (level 4)

To be able to explain media ownership in the film industry (level 2)To be able to analyse media ownership with reference to case studies (level 3)To be able to evaluate media ownership with reference to detailed case studies (level 4)

Why UK/US Co-productions?

According to Bevan:

“Before co-productions 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 was no real structure and the company was always virtually bankrupt.”

To be able to explain media ownership in the film industry (level 2)To be able to analyse media ownership with reference to case studies (level 3)To be able to evaluate media ownership with reference to detailed case studies (level 4)

The British film industry dilemma:

Do you:

Make culturally specific films which appeal to a national (limited) audience?

OR

Make broader, generic films with an international (wider) appeal?

Working Title want to make European films for a worldwide audience. They want to imbue them with European ideas and influences and they can’t do these things

without the backing of a major Hollywood studio.

To be able to explain media ownership in the film industry (level 2)To be able to analyse media ownership with reference to case studies (level 3)To be able to evaluate media ownership with reference to detailed case studies (level 4)

Working Title do have a stigma attached to them. They are often seen as romantic comedy/British heritage film makers, who use American actors and stereotypical

images of Britain to appeal to a mass market. This has lead to them being labelled as mid-Atlantic producers of films and not British.

“ The Working Title philosophy has always been to make films for an audience - by that I mean play in a multiplex. We totally believe in this because we know it is the

only hope we have of sustaining the UK film industry. ”

Working Titles ideology is to make character driven films, with engaging narratives that would appeal to all, not just packaging for certain territories.

They want to work with home grown material and utilise others to distribute and market.

A different notion of British Cinema?

To be able to explain media ownership in the film industry (level 2)To be able to analyse media ownership with reference to case studies (level 3)To be able to evaluate media ownership with reference to detailed case studies (level 4)