Developments in the Cinema Distribution and Exhibition Industry

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Developments in the Cinema Distribution and Exhibition Industry Developments in the cinema distribution and exhibition industry Report to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission by Ross Jones March 1998 ii Contents Summary .........................................................................................................................v Exhibition industry structure ............................................................................................v Distribution market structure...........................................................................................vi Distributor conduct.........................................................................................................vii Recommendations ...........................................................................................................ix 1. Introduction .............................................................................................................1 2. Industry structure ...................................................................................................3 Market size .......................................................................................................................3 Market definition..............................................................................................................3 Ancillary markets .............................................................................................................5 Changes in demand and supply over time........................................................................5 Exhibition market structure..............................................................................................7 Distribution market structure..........................................................................................10 Overall performance.......................................................................................................15 3. Distribution behaviour..........................................................................................16 Film rental fees...............................................................................................................16 Minimum exhibition periods..........................................................................................20 Exclusivity and refusal to supply....................................................................................22 Joint ventures and market power — distributors............................................................25 UIP behaviour.................................................................................................................27 Roadshow behaviour ......................................................................................................28 Twentieth Century Fox behaviour..................................................................................30 Columbia TriStar behaviour...........................................................................................31 Independent distributors .................................................................................................32 Distributor behaviour and the Trade Practices Act ........................................................33 4. Changes in exhibition and impact on competition .............................................34 Suburban expansion .......................................................................................................34 Independents’ pricing behaviour ....................................................................................36 Expansion of non major exhibitors ................................................................................37 Excess capacity...............................................................................................................39 Major exhibitors — Hoyts..............................................................................................40 Major exhibitors — Greater Union ................................................................................41 Major exhibitors — Village............................................................................................42 5. The UK experience................................................................................................43 Conditions of supply.......................................................................................................43 Policy effects ..................................................................................................................44 iii 6. Conclusions and recommendations .....................................................................46 ‘No share’ and minimum seasons...................................................................................46 Misuse of market power: s. 46 issues............................................................................48 Effects of screen use restrictions ....................................................................................50 Guaranteed print access..................................................................................................52 A more flexible model....................................................................................................52 Conciliation and dispute solving ....................................................................................54 Compliance.....................................................................................................................54 Country locations............................................................................................................56 Conclusion......................................................................................................................57 iv Summary In March 1997 the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) requested a report on the developments in the cinema distribution and exhibition industries which may be having an impact on competition in the industry. The request followed a substantial increase in the number of complaints received by the ACCC from cinema exhibition interests. These complaints related largely to access to first release and conditions of film hire imposed by film distributors on small exhibitors. Exhibition industry structure The Australian cinema exhibition industry is dominated by three large companies, Hoyts, Greater Union and Village. These three groups and their subsidiaries control around 50 per cent of Australia’s cinema screens and generate around 70 per cent of total box office revenue. The Australian exhibition sector is undergoing a major expansion with rapid growth in the number of screens and continued strong growth in attendances. Box office revenues grew from less then $300 million in 1990 to in excess of $500 million by 1996. Admissions increased over the same period from 43 million to 74 million. The substantial growth in demand appears to be linked to the expansion in the number of screens. Between 1985 and 1995 the number of screens increased from 742 to 1137 and screens per million population increased from 44 to 64. This screen rate per million population compares to 106 per million in the USA leading many exhibitors and other industry participants to claim that there are still opportunities for further expansion. Between 1985 and 1995 annual cinema admissions per head increased from 1.9 to 3.9 in Australia. In the USA admissions per head have stabilised at around 5 per year, perhaps suggesting that admissions may continue to increase in Australia. Much of the expansion in exhibition has come from the establishment of multiplex and, more recently, megaplex cinemas in the suburbs of major cities. For the purposes of this report, a multiplex is considered to be a cinema complex containing six or more screens and a megaplex as a site containing 16 or more screens. Since 1988 suburban box office shares have increased from 30 per cent to 52 per cent of total Australian box office revenue. Much of this revenue growth has come from the establishment of multiplex suburban cinemas, usually owned by the major exhibitors. Until the establishment of the multiplex sites, suburban cinemas were largely operated by small privately owned groups. The major exhibitors tended to concentrate their interests in the central business districts (CBDs) of the major cities. The move by the major exhibitors back into suburban exhibition after abandoning the suburbs in the 1960s and 1970 has led to a substantial increase in competition in suburban markets. v The major exhibitors, Hoyts, Greater Union and Village dominate CBD exhibition. Apart from the Wallis group in Adelaide (in which Greater Union has some site ownership interests), the major exhibitors control almost every CBD screen in the State capitals. In the suburbs of the major cities the majors also have a significant market presence. In Sydney and Melbourne the major exhibitors have a suburban market share in excess of 75 per cent. The dominance of the three major exhibitors is greater than the market share statistics would indicate. Competition between the majors is significantly reduced by an arrangement between two of the three leading exhibitors. Greater Union and Village have established a joint venture to operate suburban multiplex cinemas, effectively reducing the competition between the major exhibitors. The Greater Union/Village joint venture (with a third partner, the US based Warner Bros film company) eliminates any potential competition between these two exhibition groups. Greater Union’s
Recommended publications
  • GLAAD Media Institute Began to Track LGBTQ Characters Who Have a Disability
    Studio Responsibility IndexDeadline 2021 STUDIO RESPONSIBILITY INDEX 2021 From the desk of the President & CEO, Sarah Kate Ellis In 2013, GLAAD created the Studio Responsibility Index theatrical release windows and studios are testing different (SRI) to track lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and release models and patterns. queer (LGBTQ) inclusion in major studio films and to drive We know for sure the immense power of the theatrical acceptance and meaningful LGBTQ inclusion. To date, experience. Data proves that audiences crave the return we’ve seen and felt the great impact our TV research has to theaters for that communal experience after more than had and its continued impact, driving creators and industry a year of isolation. Nielsen reports that 63 percent of executives to do more and better. After several years of Americans say they are “very or somewhat” eager to go issuing this study, progress presented itself with the release to a movie theater as soon as possible within three months of outstanding movies like Love, Simon, Blockers, and of COVID restrictions being lifted. May polling from movie Rocketman hitting big screens in recent years, and we remain ticket company Fandango found that 96% of 4,000 users hopeful with the announcements of upcoming queer-inclusive surveyed plan to see “multiple movies” in theaters this movies originally set for theatrical distribution in 2020 and summer with 87% listing “going to the movies” as the top beyond. But no one could have predicted the impact of the slot in their summer plans. And, an April poll from Morning COVID-19 global pandemic, and the ways it would uniquely Consult/The Hollywood Reporter found that over 50 percent disrupt and halt the theatrical distribution business these past of respondents would likely purchase a film ticket within a sixteen months.
    [Show full text]
  • RESUME 20 CONFERENCE Bucharest, 24 – 26 November 2017
    RESUME 20TH CONFERENCE Bucharest, 24 – 26 November 2017 20th Europa Cinemas Conference 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS OPENING OF THE 20th EUROPA CINEMAS CONFERENCE…………………………………………………….8 Nico Simon – President of Europa Cinemas………………………………………………………………………….……….8 Lucia Recalde - Head of Unit Creative Europe/MEDIA, EuropeanCommission……………………………...8 Claude-Eric Poiroux – General Director of Europa Cinemas…………………………………………………………..9 SESSION I – THE CHANGING CINEMA EXPERIENCE IN CHANGING TIMES…………………………10 Both directed by Michael Gubbins – Consultant, SampoMedia, UK Introduction: Keynote Interview with Cristian Mungiu (Director, Exhibitor and Distributor, Romania)………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………10 PANEL I – Entrepreneurialism & Evolving Cinema Experience…………………………………….……13 The role of entrepreneurial business thinking and practice Enhancing the cinema environment: architecture, design, sound and vision The essential role of cinema in communities across Europe Film as a vital art form in a period of disruptive change Lionello Ceri – CEO, Anteo & Producer, Lumière & Co, Italy………………………………………………………13 Heinrich-Georg Kloster – CEO, Yorck Kinogruppe, Germany…………………………………………..…….…..13 Bero Beyer – General and Artistic Director, Intl Film Festival Rotterdam, The Netherlands…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……….…14 Prof. Kazu Blumfeld Hanada & Diego Kaiser – Hands on Cinema, Münster School of Architecture, Germany………………………………………………………………………………………………………………15 PANEL 2 – Independence of Choice: Challenges & Opportunities for Cinema …………………16
    [Show full text]
  • A Producer's Handbook
    DEVELOPMENT AND OTHER CHALLENGES A PRODUCER’S HANDBOOK by Kathy Avrich-Johnson Edited by Daphne Park Rehdner Summer 2002 Introduction and Disclaimer This handbook addresses business issues and considerations related to certain aspects of the production process, namely development and the acquisition of rights, producer relationships and low budget production. There is no neat title that encompasses these topics but what ties them together is that they are all areas that present particular challenges to emerging producers. In the course of researching this book, the issues that came up repeatedly are those that arise at the earlier stages of the production process or at the earlier stages of the producer’s career. If not properly addressed these will be certain to bite you in the end. There is more discussion of various considerations than in Canadian Production Finance: A Producer’s Handbook due to the nature of the topics. I have sought not to replicate any of the material covered in that book. What I have sought to provide is practical guidance through some tricky territory. There are often as many different agreements and approaches to many of the topics discussed as there are producers and no two productions are the same. The content of this handbook is designed for informational purposes only. It is by no means a comprehensive statement of available options, information, resources or alternatives related to Canadian development and production. The content does not purport to provide legal or accounting advice and must not be construed as doing so. The information contained in this handbook is not intended to substitute for informed, specific professional advice.
    [Show full text]
  • Gravity (Cuaron, USA/UK, 2013) Introducing Some Key Points About Production, Distribution and Exhibition
    Gravity (Cuaron, USA/UK, 2013) Introducing some key points about production, distribution and exhibition Production budgets and distribution There are various ways of describing high budget, mainstream films: – blockbusters (the word journalists tend to use) – high grossing films (industry terminology) – ‘tent-pole’ films – also industry terminology, used to describe the high grossing films the industry want to ‘hang’ their other releases on (once audiences have been drawn into the cinema, the idea is that they will return) – high concept films (possibly a more academic term to describe films based on one simple idea that can be easily pitched – often accompanied by a defining soundtrack). High budget films support a studio’s other releases during the year and tend to have budgets of at least $100 million and some can exceed $200 million. The highest budget film is usually quoted asSpider-Man 3 (2007), which had a budget of approximately $258 million. It’s often useful when looking at the US and UK film industries to have a rough idea of the approximate size of films’ production budgets. Generally speaking, the lower the budget, the lower the distribution spend – which means, screening on a more limited range of cinemas and spending less on marketing. The most common ways of describing film production budgets and release patterns are: high, medium and low budget and saturation, wide and limited release. The industry does, however, use more specific categories (such as key cities, selected cities etc.). You can see some of this detail on the UK Film Distributors’ Association’s ‘Launching Films’ website’. Gravity (Cuaron, USA/UK, 2013) Introducing some key points about production, distribution and exhibition Production Distribution Approximate number of screens - USA (UK) Saturation Wide release Limited release release 50 – 2500 max 4500 (500) 3000 (300) (50 – 250 max) ‘Blockbuster’/ $100m + high grossing films Some lower budget blockbusters given wide release Medium budget Approx.
    [Show full text]
  • A Dark New World : Anatomy of Australian Horror Films
    A dark new world: Anatomy of Australian horror films Mark David Ryan Faculty of Creative Industries, Queensland University of Technology A thesis submitted in fulfillment of the degree Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), December 2008 The Films (from top left to right): Undead (2003); Cut (2000); Wolf Creek (2005); Rogue (2007); Storm Warning (2006); Black Water (2007); Demons Among Us (2006); Gabriel (2007); Feed (2005). ii KEY WORDS Australian horror films; horror films; horror genre; movie genres; globalisation of film production; internationalisation; Australian film industry; independent film; fan culture iii ABSTRACT After experimental beginnings in the 1970s, a commercial push in the 1980s, and an underground existence in the 1990s, from 2000 to 2007 contemporary Australian horror production has experienced a period of strong growth and relative commercial success unequalled throughout the past three decades of Australian film history. This study explores the rise of contemporary Australian horror production: emerging production and distribution models; the films produced; and the industrial, market and technological forces driving production. Australian horror production is a vibrant production sector comprising mainstream and underground spheres of production. Mainstream horror production is an independent, internationally oriented production sector on the margins of the Australian film industry producing titles such as Wolf Creek (2005) and Rogue (2007), while underground production is a fan-based, indie filmmaking subculture, producing credit-card films such as I know How Many Runs You Scored Last Summer (2006) and The Killbillies (2002). Overlap between these spheres of production, results in ‘high-end indie’ films such as Undead (2003) and Gabriel (2007) emerging from the underground but crossing over into the mainstream.
    [Show full text]
  • BULLETIN for FILM and VIDEO INFORMATION Vol. 1,No.1
    EXHIBITION AND PROGRAMMING in New York : BULLETIN FOR FILM AND VIDEO INFORMATION Independent Film Showcases Film Archives, 80 Wooster st. N.Y.,N.Y.10012 Vol. 1,No .1,January 1974 Anthology (212)758-6327 Collective for the Living Cinema, 108 E 64St . N.Y.,NY.10021 Forum, 256 W 88 St . N.Y .,N .Y.10024 (212)362-0503 Editor : Hollis Melton ; Publisher : Anthology Film Archives ; Film Millennium, 46 Great Jones St. N.Y .,N.Y.10003, (212) 228-9998 Address: 80 Wooster st., New York, N .Y. 10012; Yearly subscription : $2 Museum of Modern Art, 11 W 53 St . N.Y.,N.Y.10019 (212) 956-7078 U-P Screen, 814 Broadway at E 11th St . N.Y. N.Y. 10003 Whitney Museum, 945 Madison Ave . at 75St . N.Y.,N.Y.10021 (212) 861-5322 needs of independent The purpose of this bulletin is to serve the information San :Francisco : their users. The bulletin is organized around five film and video-makers and Canyon Cinematheque,San Francisco Art Institute, 800 Chestnut St., film and video-making ; distribution ; exhibition aspects of film and video: San Francisco, Ca . (415) 332-1514 ; study; and preservation . There is very little in this iddue and programming Film Archive, University Art Museum, Berkeley, Ca. 94720 due to a lack of response from video-makers . Your suggetions and Pacific on video (415) 642-1412 comments will be welcomed . San Francisco Museum of Art, Van Ness & McAllister Streets, San Francisco Ca. (415) 863-8800 DISTRIBUTION that Include Screening Work by A brief note on non-exclusive distribution Regional Centers with Film Programs Independent Film-makers.
    [Show full text]
  • A Filmmakers' Guide to Distribution and Exhibition
    A Filmmakers’ Guide to Distribution and Exhibition A Filmmakers’ Guide to Distribution and Exhibition Written by Jane Giles ABOUT THIS GUIDE 2 Jane Giles is a film programmer and writer INTRODUCTION 3 Edited by Pippa Eldridge and Julia Voss SALES AGENTS 10 Exhibition Development Unit, bfi FESTIVALS 13 THEATRIC RELEASING: SHORTS 18 We would like to thank the following people for their THEATRIC RELEASING: FEATURES 27 contribution to this guide: PLANNING A CINEMA RELEASE 32 NON-THEATRIC RELEASING 40 Newton Aduaka, Karen Alexander/bfi, Clare Binns/Zoo VIDEO Cinemas, Marc Boothe/Nubian Tales, Paul Brett/bfi, 42 Stephen Brown/Steam, Pamela Casey/Atom Films, Chris TELEVISION 44 Chandler/Film Council, Ben Cook/Lux Distribution, INTERNET 47 Emma Davie, Douglas Davis/Atom Films, CASE STUDIES 52 Jim Dempster/bfi, Catharine Des Forges/bfi, Alnoor GLOSSARY 60 Dewshi, Simon Duffy/bfi, Gavin Emerson, Alexandra FESTIVAL & EVENTS CALENDAR 62 Finlay/Channel 4, John Flahive/bfi, Nicki Foster/ CONTACTS 64 McDonald & Rutter, Satwant Gill/British Council, INDEX 76 Gwydion Griffiths/S4C, Liz Harkman/Film Council, Tony Jones/City Screen, Tinge Krishnan/Disruptive Element Films, Luned Moredis/Sgrîn, Méabh O’Donovan/Short CONTENTS Circuit, Kate Ogborn, Nicola Pierson/Edinburgh BOXED INFORMATION: HOW TO APPROACH THE INDUSTRY 4 International Film Festival, Lisa Marie Russo, Erich BEST ADVICE FROM INDUSTRY PROFESSIONALS 5 Sargeant/bfi, Cary Sawney/bfi, Rita Smith, Heather MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS 5 Stewart/bfi, John Stewart/Oil Factory, Gary DEALS & CONTRACTS 8 Thomas/Arts Council of England, Peter Todd/bfi, Zoë SHORT FILM BUREAU 11 Walton, Laurel Warbrick-Keay/bfi, Sheila Whitaker/ LONDON & EDINBURGH 16 article27, Christine Whitehouse/bfi BLACK & ASIAN FILMS 17 SHORT CIRCUIT 19 Z00 CINEMAS 20 The editors have made every endeavour to ensure the BRITISH BOARD OF FILM CLASSIFICATION 21 information in this guide is correct at the time of GOOD FILMS GOOD PROGRAMMING 22 going to press.
    [Show full text]
  • Entertainment
    ENTERTAINMENT ANNUAL REPORT 2011 PROFILE Village Roadshow was founded by Roc Kirby and first commenced business in 1954 in Melbourne, Australia and has been listed on the Australian Securities Exchange since 1988. Still based in Melbourne, Village Roadshow Limited (‘VRL’) is a leading international entertainment company with core businesses in Theme Parks, Cinema Exhibition, Film Distribution and Film Production and Music. All of these businesses are well recognised retail brands and strong cash flow generators - together they create a diversified portfolio of entertainment assets. Theme Parks Village Roadshow has been involved in theme and Sea World Helicopters; parks since 1989 and is Australia’s largest • Australian Outback Spectacular; and theme park owner and operator. • Paradise Country and Village Roadshow On Queensland’s Gold Coast VRL has: Studios. • Warner Bros. Movie World, the popular VRL is moving forward with plans to build movie themed park; Australia’s newest water theme park, • Sea World, Australia’s premier marine Wet‘n’Wild Sydney, with site development theme park; to begin in the 2012 calendar year. • Wet‘n’Wild Water World, one of the world’s VRL’s overseas theme parks are: largest and most successful water parks; • Wet’n’Wild Hawaii, USA; and • Sea World Resort and Water Park, • Wet’n’Wild Phoenix, Arizona USA. Cinema Exhibition Showing movies has a long tradition with at 8 sites in the United States and 12 screens Village Roadshow, having started in 1954 in the UK. VRL continues to lead the world with the first of its drive–in cinemas. Today with industry trends including stadium Village Cinemas jointly owns and operates seating, digital projection, 3D blockbuster 506 screens across 50 sites in Australia, 73 movies and the growth category of premium screens at 9 sites in Singapore, 59 screens cinemas including Gold Class.
    [Show full text]
  • Paramount Consent Decree Review Public Comments 2018
    COMMENTS OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF THEATRE OWNERS U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ANTITRUST DIVISION REVIEW OF PARAMOUNT CONSENT DECREES October 1, 2018 National Association of Theatre Owners 1705 N Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 962-0054 I. INTRODUCTION The National Association of Theatre Owners (“NATO”) respectfully submits the following comments in response to the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division’s (the “Department”) announced intentions to review the Paramount Consent Decrees (the “Decrees”). Individual motion picture theater companies may comment on the five various provisions of the Decrees but NATO’s comment will focus on one seminal provision of the Decrees. Specifically, NATO urges the Department to maintain the prohibition on block booking, as that prohibition undoubtedly continues to support pro-competitive practices. NATO is the largest motion picture exhibition trade organization in the world, representing more than 33,000 movie screens in all 50 states, and additional cinemas in 96 countries worldwide. Our membership includes the largest cinema chains in the world and hundreds of independent theater owners. NATO and its members have a significant interest in preserving an open marketplace in the North American film industry. North America remains the biggest film-going market in the world: It accounts for roughly 30% of global revenue from only 5% of the global population. The strength of the American movie industry depends on the availability of a wide assortment of films catering to the varied tastes of moviegoers. Indeed, both global blockbusters and low- budget independent fare are necessary to the financial vitality and reputation of the American film industry.
    [Show full text]
  • View Annual Report
    VILLAGE ROADSHOW LIMITED 1999 Annual Report Founder’s Report Contents Dear Shareholders Founder’s Report My purpose in creating Village Roadshow in the 1950s was to build a company with 2 Corporate Overview strong foundations for the long term. I have seen and been part of many difficult 4 Summary of Major Business Units periods of this industry in my career. It is pleasing that your management team has brought the Company through this tough period recently with stronger results in most 6 Financial Highlights areas other than Cinema Exhibition. This says much about the powerful foundations 8 Ten Year Financial Summary of today’s Village Roadshow– its strength in radio, distribution, film production and 10 Chairman’s Report theme parks. And its management depth of talent and dedication. These assets, with the immediate outlook of better film product, demonstrates to me that the foundations 12 Managing Director’s Report for growth are strong indeed. 14 Board of Directors As a shareholder, and as one who knows the Company well, I am confident that the 16 Senior Executive Team Company is well positioned to deliver increased shareholder value in the future; the 18 Exhibition foundations are in place to allow me to share my confidence with you. 22 Distribution Roc Kirby AM 23 Production 24 Radio 25 Theme Parks 26 Corporate Governance 29 Financial Statements 30 Directors’ Report 34 Profit and Loss Statement 35 Balance Sheet 36 Statement of Cash Flows 37 Notes to the Financial Statements 76 Directors’ Declaration 76 Independent Audit Report 77 Additional Information 78 Actual Group EBITDA by Division 79 Significant Differences between Australian GAAP and US GAAP 82 Share Register Information and Directory Front cover: The Matrix Village Roadshow Limited ACN 010 672 054 1 Corporate Overview Objectives Strategies Highlights Village Roadshow’s primary aim To achieve the Company’s Increased cinema circuit by 416 is the maximisation of long-term objectives, the following strategies screens and 85 sites since the last shareholder value.
    [Show full text]
  • Film Financing
    2017 An Outsider’s Glimpse into Filmmaking AN EXPLORATION ON RECENT OREGON FILM & TV PROJECTS BY THEO FRIEDMAN ! ! Page | !1 Contents Tracktown (2016) .......................................................................................................................6 The Benefits of Gusbandry (2016- ) .........................................................................................8 Portlandia (2011- ) .....................................................................................................................9 The Haunting of Sunshine Girl (2010- ) ...................................................................................10 Green Room (2015) & I Don’t Feel at Home in This World Anymore (2017) ...........................11 Network & Experience ............................................................................................................12 Financing .................................................................................................................................12 Filming ....................................................................................................................................13 Distribution ...............................................................................................................................13 In Conclusion ...........................................................................................................................13 Financing Terms .....................................................................................................................15
    [Show full text]
  • The Commutation Test and Chris Bacon's Score for Source Code As
    The Commutation Test and Chris Bacon’s Score for Source Code as a Framework for Film Music Pedagogy Aaron Ziegel, Towson University he cinema, whether experienced at the neighborhood multiplex or streamed at home, is arguably the medium through which today’s col- lege-age Americans are most likely to encounter newly composed sym- Tphonic music. Given the ubiquity of the film-viewing experience, students are often eager to learn the tools and methodologies that can equip them to criti- cally assess and more fully comprehend the function of music in movies. The filmSource Code (2011), directed by Duncan Jones and scored by Chris Bacon, provides a particularly effective starting point through which this process can begin.1 This article will discuss the pedagogical potential found in the film’s main titles and the impact of applying a commutation test to this sequence. Although here I address one specific example, the methodology of the commu- tation test is easily adaptable to other circumstances, as the theoretical foun- dation will make clear. While variations on the commutation test are a regular occurrence in many film music classrooms, this essay aims to present an intro- ductory primer that may be of use to instructors interested in an entry point for incorporating film music studies into their teaching. With that in mind, the appendix presents one suggestion for how to create film clips for classroom use. The value of this classroom activity extends beyond providing students with an engaging and memorable learning experience. By situating this analysis I wish to express my gratitude to the many students at Towson University whose feedback and enthusiastic classroom participation, along with suggestions from the anonymous reviewers, helped me to refine the pedagogical approach described in this essay.
    [Show full text]