Slumdog Millionaire – Representation of India
As the title suggests, Slumdog Millionaire will have some reference to the slums of India. In actual fact, as the film progresses, less and less of the slums is shown, with the film instead opting for a broader view of India.
The film begins with children from the slums playing cricket. This is the first piece of iconography of India we see; the biggest sport from the nation and a sport synonymous with an outsider view of India.
The use of cricket is a subtle reminder that the film is set in India and will portray a realistic representation of India.
Following this scene is the arrival of huge Bollywood star Amitabh Bachchan, who everyone from the slums flocks to see a glimpse of. The huge waves of people represents just how large and heavily populated the slums are, and also acts as a signifier for the aspirations for many of the population; make it out of the slums and become as adored as Bachchan. Furthermore, the fact that such a huge number of people run to Bachchan indicates the sad reality that, in comparison with the huge population of the slums, not many people do make it big, and when one does he is revered for it.
The sad representation of the slums continues when the riots break out and Jamal and Salim’s mother is killed. As if not sad enough that children have just witnessed mass slaughter, including a man being set on fire, they are then chastised for arriving late to school because of the rioting. The mere shrugging off of such an event suggests that it is the norm within the slums, and the consequences (such as Jamal and Salim having to essentially become con artists to earn money) expected and understood.
This links into the sad reality of how desperate the children of the slums become; they use their vulnerability and age as a way to make money, effectively becoming con artists trained beyond their years. Not only this, but before we see Jamal and Salim live as independent con artists, we see them work for a group of men who promise safety, shelter and food in exchange. This is a clear sign of the exploitation that is rife within and around the slums, and we get the sense that Jamal and Salim know that the life the gang speak of is full of false promises, but they go along with it for a while because there is seemingly nothing else out there for them.
The theme of minimal opportunities is reinforced here and is present throughout the film. As mentioned above, Amitabh Bachchan represents one of a small minority who successfully made it not only out of the slums, but also made it to stardom. Another person who fits this mould in the film is Prem, who we see as the villain. He is the only ‘slumdog’ to have gone on Who Wants To Be a Millionaire and won the grand prize, and he hates the idea of Jamal taking his ‘crown’ from him. Not only does this illustrate how little is achieved and expected from those in the slums, it also highlights how getting out of the slums is ‘dog eat dog’, and you need to defeat other ‘slumdogs’ in order to reach the top and stay there.
Finally, India is represented by two common movie elements; iconography and stereotyping. The cramped, run down slums are introduced early on and immediately we recognise where we are as well as getting a feel for the film’s mood through the harsh reality of the slums. As we progress, Jamal and Salim are seen exploring the area, and we see the Taj Mahal, possibly the most iconographic image of India and its majesty despite its difficulties.
A stereotypical representation of India is seen through the only legitimate and non-corrupt job we see in the film; Jamal’s occupation. He is a call centre worker, and he is ‘cold calling’ the United Kingdom constantly. This is subtle but it does represent India in a similar way to the character of Prem and Amitabh Bachchan; there are limited opportunities, thus meaning this mundane, much maligned job is possibly the best out there.
Showing posts with label Niamh Murphy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Niamh Murphy. Show all posts
Slumdog Millionaire - Narrative
Narrative in Slumdog Millionaire
The narrative structure of Slumdog Millionaire is rather unique. The film is based upon the novel Q&A by Vikas Swarup, so the film’s narrative is effectively told in chapters and stages.
At first, the narrative appears to be non-linear, as we see flashbacks and flash-forwards coexisting together. However, what is special about the narrative is the three different universes it exists in; it is suggested that the interrogation scenes are the present, and the scenes in the Slums and on Who Wants To Be a Millionaire are flashbacks (with the latter later existing as a flash-forward at the end of the film). Therefore, the film is technically perfectly linear, as the interrogation scenes run in order, with occasional interruptions for flashbacks.
These flashbacks are central to the narrative as they not only show progression in age and personality, but also explain how Jamal knows the answers. The ages of the characters move from children to teenagers quickly, but this seems organic and natural due to the nature of the narrative.
As above, the film is told in chapters and stages, with three main narratives being interwoven. This is why Who Wants To Be a Millionaire is such a good platform to base the film on, as the format lends itself well to ‘stages’; with each question being a ‘ladder’ up to the grand total. The show fits in a way no other gameshow would, as whilst Jamal is gradually reaching the top monetary prize, he is also getting a step closer to reuniting with Latika.
The narrative perfectly reflects the recurring theme of destiny, as several obstacles are thrown up to prevent Jamal from succeeding, but he always knows (through flashbacks) how to solve these problems. This allows the audience to understand that the film is told in chapters, similar to a portmanteau style of filmmaking, and not parallel narratives. The narratives may intertwine at stages, particularly toward the end where the interrogation becomes the gameshow, but as narrative strands they are separate and stand alone as the film progresses. In fact, it could be said that instead of being parallel, they interrupt each other to move the narrative on.
The fact that the film begins with an 18 year old Jamal being severely beaten, and then flashes back to a wide eyed youngster gives us an instant connection to Jamal and an understanding of his character. The narrative enables us to find the depth in the characters, Jamal in particular, as the skips through time highlight the most prominent and defining moments of their lifetimes, meaning the audience can understand the film better than they would if the story was merely set in the present with occasional flashbacks. The fact that the flashbacks form individual stories of their own, such as how the brothers escape the slum, further reinforces the idea of chapters and increases the audiences’ awareness of character and story progression.
By its definition, the film is non-linear, but as mentioned above it could technically be seen as linear. The fact that Todorov’s narrative structure is present, albeit a bit skewed to accommodate the complicated story of Slumdog, means that the film could be seen as rather typical of its genre.
Thus, for the audience, does Slumdog challenge or met expectations and conventions? Despite its episodic nature, the narrative can be seen as linear if broken up into the three strands that form the narrative, and the character arcs are easy to identify. As well as this, the loose following of Todorov’s narrative structure means that the film is rather generic of its genre (the romantic drama) meaning that the audience’s expectations are met, and conventions are not challenged too greatly.
The narrative structure of Slumdog Millionaire is rather unique. The film is based upon the novel Q&A by Vikas Swarup, so the film’s narrative is effectively told in chapters and stages.
At first, the narrative appears to be non-linear, as we see flashbacks and flash-forwards coexisting together. However, what is special about the narrative is the three different universes it exists in; it is suggested that the interrogation scenes are the present, and the scenes in the Slums and on Who Wants To Be a Millionaire are flashbacks (with the latter later existing as a flash-forward at the end of the film). Therefore, the film is technically perfectly linear, as the interrogation scenes run in order, with occasional interruptions for flashbacks.
These flashbacks are central to the narrative as they not only show progression in age and personality, but also explain how Jamal knows the answers. The ages of the characters move from children to teenagers quickly, but this seems organic and natural due to the nature of the narrative.
As above, the film is told in chapters and stages, with three main narratives being interwoven. This is why Who Wants To Be a Millionaire is such a good platform to base the film on, as the format lends itself well to ‘stages’; with each question being a ‘ladder’ up to the grand total. The show fits in a way no other gameshow would, as whilst Jamal is gradually reaching the top monetary prize, he is also getting a step closer to reuniting with Latika.
The narrative perfectly reflects the recurring theme of destiny, as several obstacles are thrown up to prevent Jamal from succeeding, but he always knows (through flashbacks) how to solve these problems. This allows the audience to understand that the film is told in chapters, similar to a portmanteau style of filmmaking, and not parallel narratives. The narratives may intertwine at stages, particularly toward the end where the interrogation becomes the gameshow, but as narrative strands they are separate and stand alone as the film progresses. In fact, it could be said that instead of being parallel, they interrupt each other to move the narrative on.
The fact that the film begins with an 18 year old Jamal being severely beaten, and then flashes back to a wide eyed youngster gives us an instant connection to Jamal and an understanding of his character. The narrative enables us to find the depth in the characters, Jamal in particular, as the skips through time highlight the most prominent and defining moments of their lifetimes, meaning the audience can understand the film better than they would if the story was merely set in the present with occasional flashbacks. The fact that the flashbacks form individual stories of their own, such as how the brothers escape the slum, further reinforces the idea of chapters and increases the audiences’ awareness of character and story progression.
By its definition, the film is non-linear, but as mentioned above it could technically be seen as linear. The fact that Todorov’s narrative structure is present, albeit a bit skewed to accommodate the complicated story of Slumdog, means that the film could be seen as rather typical of its genre.
Thus, for the audience, does Slumdog challenge or met expectations and conventions? Despite its episodic nature, the narrative can be seen as linear if broken up into the three strands that form the narrative, and the character arcs are easy to identify. As well as this, the loose following of Todorov’s narrative structure means that the film is rather generic of its genre (the romantic drama) meaning that the audience’s expectations are met, and conventions are not challenged too greatly.
Slumdog Millionaire - Production
Explore the factors which affected the production of Slumdog Millionaire
The film Slumdog Millionaire is based on the novel Q&A by Vikas Swarup, which is comprised of 12 short stories. This was the first problem encountered by screenwriter Simon Beaufoy, who took up the task of taking the novel from book to screen. Beaufoy had to weave the 12 short stories into one feature length narrative. In order to add realism to the script, Beaufoy made several trips to India before he put pen to paper.
The next stumbling block after the script was perfected was the director; Danny Boyle was reluctant to make a film based on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, and was about to turn the film down, until he read Beaufoy’s script. Beaufoy wrote the hugely successful film The Full Monty, which Boyle was a fan of. Upon reading the script, Boyle was sold on the film.
Co-director Lovleen Tandan advised Boyle that some of the film’s dialogue should be in Hindi; something Boyle agreed on, but the film’s distributors were unsure about. Boyle agreed with Tandan to translate around a third of the film’s dialogue to Hindi, but told distributors that he was only translating 10% in order to get the green light.
The film company Film 4, and in particular Tessa Ross, secured the rights to the novel Q&A before contacting Beaufoy to write the film. Film 4 was one of three companies who worked on the production of the film, alongside Celador films and Pathe Pictures International.
As with most Film 4 productions, there was a relatively low budget of $15,000,000. The low budget meant that the film would rely on Boyle’s ability as a director and Beaufoy’s script in order to tell a compelling story.
Initially, Boyle was filming using classic film cameras that gave static, more ‘old-school’ shots. However, these cameras were not easily manoeuvrable and Boyle wanted the audience to feel part of the environment, so it was key that the cameras were easy to manoeuvre. Thus, the decision was made to change to more modern digital cameras.
It was key to the film that it was shot on location, despite the difficulties this brought. Crowds would swarm upon street scenes, which made many shots unusable as people were looking at the camera, and scenes at the train stations were dangerous due to the inability to halt a train schedule, meaning the trains were always moving,
Boyle commented that filming in Mumbai was “like the sea; always the same but constantly changing”, and recounted a story where a room they had filmed in around a week before had suddenly had an extra wall built in; showing the difficulties that filming in a bustling community posed.
Despite the difficult conditions, Boyle says that the passion of the cast and crew pushed the filming along and allowed them to complete it to a high standard. Boyle was particularly passionate, working long hours, and always energetic. His hands on approach to directing meant that every actor in the film, from the stars to the extras in the slums, was treated the same and advised with everything by Boyle.
Casting was hugely important to the film, with Gail Stevens in charge of global casting. Dev Patel was the only main non-Indian cast member, and got the role as Boyle’s daughter was a fan of Skins, a show which Patel was best known for. The other main role in the film went to Freida Pinto, who was actually a model, not an actress, but those casting the film thought she was perfect for the role.
The natural choice for the quiz show host was the host of India’s equivalent to Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, Shakrukh Kahn, but he turned down the role as he didn’t want people to think his show was fraudulent. Instead, the role went to well-known Indian star Anil Kapoor; a big acquisition for the film.
Finally, to add realism all the people in the slums were real ‘slumdogs’ (a phrase coined by Beaufoy) and will be paid upon their 18th birthday, meaning they would not ‘want for anything’ after their role in the film.
The film Slumdog Millionaire is based on the novel Q&A by Vikas Swarup, which is comprised of 12 short stories. This was the first problem encountered by screenwriter Simon Beaufoy, who took up the task of taking the novel from book to screen. Beaufoy had to weave the 12 short stories into one feature length narrative. In order to add realism to the script, Beaufoy made several trips to India before he put pen to paper.
The next stumbling block after the script was perfected was the director; Danny Boyle was reluctant to make a film based on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, and was about to turn the film down, until he read Beaufoy’s script. Beaufoy wrote the hugely successful film The Full Monty, which Boyle was a fan of. Upon reading the script, Boyle was sold on the film.
Co-director Lovleen Tandan advised Boyle that some of the film’s dialogue should be in Hindi; something Boyle agreed on, but the film’s distributors were unsure about. Boyle agreed with Tandan to translate around a third of the film’s dialogue to Hindi, but told distributors that he was only translating 10% in order to get the green light.
The film company Film 4, and in particular Tessa Ross, secured the rights to the novel Q&A before contacting Beaufoy to write the film. Film 4 was one of three companies who worked on the production of the film, alongside Celador films and Pathe Pictures International.
As with most Film 4 productions, there was a relatively low budget of $15,000,000. The low budget meant that the film would rely on Boyle’s ability as a director and Beaufoy’s script in order to tell a compelling story.
Initially, Boyle was filming using classic film cameras that gave static, more ‘old-school’ shots. However, these cameras were not easily manoeuvrable and Boyle wanted the audience to feel part of the environment, so it was key that the cameras were easy to manoeuvre. Thus, the decision was made to change to more modern digital cameras.
It was key to the film that it was shot on location, despite the difficulties this brought. Crowds would swarm upon street scenes, which made many shots unusable as people were looking at the camera, and scenes at the train stations were dangerous due to the inability to halt a train schedule, meaning the trains were always moving,
Boyle commented that filming in Mumbai was “like the sea; always the same but constantly changing”, and recounted a story where a room they had filmed in around a week before had suddenly had an extra wall built in; showing the difficulties that filming in a bustling community posed.
Despite the difficult conditions, Boyle says that the passion of the cast and crew pushed the filming along and allowed them to complete it to a high standard. Boyle was particularly passionate, working long hours, and always energetic. His hands on approach to directing meant that every actor in the film, from the stars to the extras in the slums, was treated the same and advised with everything by Boyle.
Casting was hugely important to the film, with Gail Stevens in charge of global casting. Dev Patel was the only main non-Indian cast member, and got the role as Boyle’s daughter was a fan of Skins, a show which Patel was best known for. The other main role in the film went to Freida Pinto, who was actually a model, not an actress, but those casting the film thought she was perfect for the role.
The natural choice for the quiz show host was the host of India’s equivalent to Who Wants To Be A Millionaire, Shakrukh Kahn, but he turned down the role as he didn’t want people to think his show was fraudulent. Instead, the role went to well-known Indian star Anil Kapoor; a big acquisition for the film.
Finally, to add realism all the people in the slums were real ‘slumdogs’ (a phrase coined by Beaufoy) and will be paid upon their 18th birthday, meaning they would not ‘want for anything’ after their role in the film.
Slumdog Millionaire - Genre
Slumdog Millionaire – Genre
The genre of Slumdog Millionaire could, of course, be considered romantic drama, as many of the key conventions of a romantic drama film are satisfied by Slumdog. For example, the theme of chasing a lost love is overriding, prominent and essential to the plot. Furthermore, the setting of a big city makes finding the lost love extremely difficult, whilst the lost love herself (Latika) is an example of one of the key character types we see within the film.
Though the film does not use Propp’s character types as explicitly as other romantic drama films, the character types are still present. Jamal acts as our unconventional hero, Latika is the princess, whilst Prem and Salim occupy the lesser spotted roles of ‘villain’ and ‘false hero’ respectively.
Slumdog’s narrative, despite at first seeming hugely unconventional and non-linear, portrays the romantic drama in an effective manner. This is done through flashbacks, flash-forwards and montages, as we not only see just how difficult it is for Jamal and Latika to be together, but also how it was always destiny for them to end up together.
This theme of destiny propels the narrative and, in being alluded to so often, constantly reassures the audience that, like in most romantic dramas, the ‘guy gets the girl’. The film is bookended with subtitles that reinforce the theme of destiny in order to prove that the outcome was certain from the start.
In terms of iconography, Slumdog uses visual signifiers of the romantic drama genre such as close-up shots of the female character, slow motion shots and, possibly most notably, a kissing scene.
The close-up shots suggest the importance of Latika to both the narrative and Jamal, whilst the POV shots of Latika through Jamal’s eyes highlight the emotion he feels when he sees her. These shots are blurred around the edges and quite voyeuristic, with a possibility here being that the female is something to win, to achieve. She is a prize worth fighting for.
Finally, the kiss at the end of the film is what the narrative essentially builds up to. It is the only kiss featured in the film in order to highlight its importance and once again reinforce the theme of destiny. The slow-motion effect on the kiss is almost as iconic as a ‘kiss in the rain’, and is a huge visual signifier of the romantic drama genre.
However, this one kiss is also an argument for Slumdog Millionaire being of the Bollywood genre.
Set in India and featuring a mostly Indian cast, it is no surprise that some would consider the film as part of the Bollywood genre.
Typically, Bollywood films will have only one kiss (or even none) and this kiss will be cut short or interrupted. In Slumdog, we see that Jamal and Latika have their kiss, but it is obscured by passengers emerging from a train, thus cutting the kiss short.
This is one of many Bollywood conventions or influences within Slumdog. Bollywood has a list of criteria that often appear in their films and many of these appear alongside the ‘single kiss’ idea, such as the following; references to religion, family ties, dramatic changes of fortune, kidnapping, siblings separated (and reunited) by fate, use of Indian-English, corruption, a love triangle, iconography (buildings, clothing etc..), ‘convenient coincidences’ (such as Latika answering the ‘phone a friend’ call), sacrifice, and fantasy/imagination sequences.
However, possibly the biggest Bollywood influence on Slumdog Millionaire is the song and dance number at the end of the film.
This routine subverts everything we have seen prior as we don’t know if it falls until the fantasy/imagination bracket or whether it did actually happen and everyone has randomly burst into song at a train station.
Either way, the scene falls under a Bollywood title and means that possibly the most memorable aspect of Slumdog Millionaire is Bollywood one, giving strong reasoning behind arguments that the film is of hybrid genre.
Overall, Slumdog Millionaire has strong roots in both the romantic drama genre, but also Bollywood too. Neither genre appears to have more influence than the other, thus leading me to conclude that Slumdog Millionaire is a film of hybrid genre.
The genre of Slumdog Millionaire could, of course, be considered romantic drama, as many of the key conventions of a romantic drama film are satisfied by Slumdog. For example, the theme of chasing a lost love is overriding, prominent and essential to the plot. Furthermore, the setting of a big city makes finding the lost love extremely difficult, whilst the lost love herself (Latika) is an example of one of the key character types we see within the film.
Though the film does not use Propp’s character types as explicitly as other romantic drama films, the character types are still present. Jamal acts as our unconventional hero, Latika is the princess, whilst Prem and Salim occupy the lesser spotted roles of ‘villain’ and ‘false hero’ respectively.
Slumdog’s narrative, despite at first seeming hugely unconventional and non-linear, portrays the romantic drama in an effective manner. This is done through flashbacks, flash-forwards and montages, as we not only see just how difficult it is for Jamal and Latika to be together, but also how it was always destiny for them to end up together.
This theme of destiny propels the narrative and, in being alluded to so often, constantly reassures the audience that, like in most romantic dramas, the ‘guy gets the girl’. The film is bookended with subtitles that reinforce the theme of destiny in order to prove that the outcome was certain from the start.
In terms of iconography, Slumdog uses visual signifiers of the romantic drama genre such as close-up shots of the female character, slow motion shots and, possibly most notably, a kissing scene.
The close-up shots suggest the importance of Latika to both the narrative and Jamal, whilst the POV shots of Latika through Jamal’s eyes highlight the emotion he feels when he sees her. These shots are blurred around the edges and quite voyeuristic, with a possibility here being that the female is something to win, to achieve. She is a prize worth fighting for.
Finally, the kiss at the end of the film is what the narrative essentially builds up to. It is the only kiss featured in the film in order to highlight its importance and once again reinforce the theme of destiny. The slow-motion effect on the kiss is almost as iconic as a ‘kiss in the rain’, and is a huge visual signifier of the romantic drama genre.
However, this one kiss is also an argument for Slumdog Millionaire being of the Bollywood genre.
Set in India and featuring a mostly Indian cast, it is no surprise that some would consider the film as part of the Bollywood genre.
Typically, Bollywood films will have only one kiss (or even none) and this kiss will be cut short or interrupted. In Slumdog, we see that Jamal and Latika have their kiss, but it is obscured by passengers emerging from a train, thus cutting the kiss short.
This is one of many Bollywood conventions or influences within Slumdog. Bollywood has a list of criteria that often appear in their films and many of these appear alongside the ‘single kiss’ idea, such as the following; references to religion, family ties, dramatic changes of fortune, kidnapping, siblings separated (and reunited) by fate, use of Indian-English, corruption, a love triangle, iconography (buildings, clothing etc..), ‘convenient coincidences’ (such as Latika answering the ‘phone a friend’ call), sacrifice, and fantasy/imagination sequences.
However, possibly the biggest Bollywood influence on Slumdog Millionaire is the song and dance number at the end of the film.
This routine subverts everything we have seen prior as we don’t know if it falls until the fantasy/imagination bracket or whether it did actually happen and everyone has randomly burst into song at a train station.
Either way, the scene falls under a Bollywood title and means that possibly the most memorable aspect of Slumdog Millionaire is Bollywood one, giving strong reasoning behind arguments that the film is of hybrid genre.
Overall, Slumdog Millionaire has strong roots in both the romantic drama genre, but also Bollywood too. Neither genre appears to have more influence than the other, thus leading me to conclude that Slumdog Millionaire is a film of hybrid genre.
Slumdog Millionaire - Successes
Slumdog Millionaire – Successes
To decide whether Slumdog Millionaire is classed as a successful film, many aspects should be taken into account, not just Box Office draw.
At the Box Office, Slumdog took, in total, $377 million. This is an impressive figure when the budget, believed to be around $15 million, is taken into account, as it leaves the film gaining a profit of over $360 million.
However, this does not guarantee success, as those who viewed the film in cinemas – and indeed even now – will have one of three readings; the preferred, negotiated, and oppositional.
This encompasses two, possibly three points that are vital for a film’s success; the views of the audience (whether expectations were met/challenged), the taking of the preferred reading, and critical acclaim/praise.
In researching Slumdog’s successes, I found an example of each reading, either from film critics or ordinary audience members.
With the film being labelled as the summer’s “must see feel good” film, it is no surprise that the most common reading was the preferred one, which is one success for the film. However, Prairie Miller took the negotiated reading, saying that the film included a “rousing all-star Bollywood boogie finale and even a little romance tossed in, to send any problematic plot points on their way”, whilst Tony Green took an oppositional reading by saying that it “fails miserably” at being entertaining and that the “reality of the slums casts a shadow over the whole movie. It’s not uplifting, it just feels tawdry”
Despite some negative reviews and readings, which are expected of any film, the film was a resounding success with audience members and critics alike, winning the People’s Choice Award at the Toronto International Film Festival in 2008 prior to its official release. This not only created a social buzz, something else that classes the film as a success, but also led the way when it came to awards.
In total, Slumdog won an amazing 122 awards out of 184 nominations, including 8 Oscars and 4 Golden Globes. This illustrated that the film could have a mainstream appeal, and was not just limited to the ‘niche’ market of many films that have successes at film festivals prior to their release. This ‘mainstream’ appeal also influenced the global impact that the film would have. Since Slumdog’s release, a spark in interest in India and Bollywood has developed, with more projects about or set in India being made in recent years.
The influence Slumdog had on the making of newer projects shows how far reaching the scope of its success was. Although the two main stars, Dev Patel and Freida Pinto, have been in few serious roles since the film’s release, director Danny Boyle has been hugely successful, having made the Hollywood hit 127 Hours, and even being the brains behind the huge opening ceremony of the 2012 Olympic Games, seen around the world.
No one can say that this would not have happened without Slumdog, but it is likely that this would have been the case, as Slumdog was a rejuvenating piece for Boyle as a director, and opened him up to opportunities he may not have had otherwise.
What else is particularly striking about Slumdog’s success is that it was achieved without any real synergy; merchandise for the film was limited, with DVDs and CDs being the typical releases, whilst there was no sequel planned or promoted, meaning the film is a stand alone piece.
This shows the strength of the film and how it appears to have met audience expectations (of the romantic drama), whilst also reaching the target audience; one that was quite widespread, as the certificate (in the UK) was a 15, and the film would be suitable for, and was marketed in such a way that it appeals to, 15 and upwards.
In conclusion, Slumdog Millionaire was a huge success. Possibly most noticeable is the money it took at the box office; drawing around $377 million. However, the critical acclaim the film received should not be ignored. Garnering mostly positive reviews from critics, the film also received over 100 awards, including 8 Oscars, after its first taste of success at the Toronto Film Festival. This overwhelming praise from critics, other professionals and the audience alike shows just how popular the film was across each 'board', and also shows the social buzz and cultural impact that the film had, with a new interest in Bollywood being born out of Slumdog's partially traditional Bollywood approach. Danny Boyle as also tasted individual success after Slumdog, with his recent projects including 127 Hours and, iconically, the opening ceremony of the 2012 Olympics in London. It is hard to say that this definitely wouldn't have happened without Slumdog's success, but it is clear to see how Slumdog's success influenced later opportunities that came Boyle's way, and the same can be said for some of the actors, including Dev Patel.
To decide whether Slumdog Millionaire is classed as a successful film, many aspects should be taken into account, not just Box Office draw.
At the Box Office, Slumdog took, in total, $377 million. This is an impressive figure when the budget, believed to be around $15 million, is taken into account, as it leaves the film gaining a profit of over $360 million.
However, this does not guarantee success, as those who viewed the film in cinemas – and indeed even now – will have one of three readings; the preferred, negotiated, and oppositional.
This encompasses two, possibly three points that are vital for a film’s success; the views of the audience (whether expectations were met/challenged), the taking of the preferred reading, and critical acclaim/praise.
In researching Slumdog’s successes, I found an example of each reading, either from film critics or ordinary audience members.
With the film being labelled as the summer’s “must see feel good” film, it is no surprise that the most common reading was the preferred one, which is one success for the film. However, Prairie Miller took the negotiated reading, saying that the film included a “rousing all-star Bollywood boogie finale and even a little romance tossed in, to send any problematic plot points on their way”, whilst Tony Green took an oppositional reading by saying that it “fails miserably” at being entertaining and that the “reality of the slums casts a shadow over the whole movie. It’s not uplifting, it just feels tawdry”
Despite some negative reviews and readings, which are expected of any film, the film was a resounding success with audience members and critics alike, winning the People’s Choice Award at the Toronto International Film Festival in 2008 prior to its official release. This not only created a social buzz, something else that classes the film as a success, but also led the way when it came to awards.
In total, Slumdog won an amazing 122 awards out of 184 nominations, including 8 Oscars and 4 Golden Globes. This illustrated that the film could have a mainstream appeal, and was not just limited to the ‘niche’ market of many films that have successes at film festivals prior to their release. This ‘mainstream’ appeal also influenced the global impact that the film would have. Since Slumdog’s release, a spark in interest in India and Bollywood has developed, with more projects about or set in India being made in recent years.
The influence Slumdog had on the making of newer projects shows how far reaching the scope of its success was. Although the two main stars, Dev Patel and Freida Pinto, have been in few serious roles since the film’s release, director Danny Boyle has been hugely successful, having made the Hollywood hit 127 Hours, and even being the brains behind the huge opening ceremony of the 2012 Olympic Games, seen around the world.
No one can say that this would not have happened without Slumdog, but it is likely that this would have been the case, as Slumdog was a rejuvenating piece for Boyle as a director, and opened him up to opportunities he may not have had otherwise.
What else is particularly striking about Slumdog’s success is that it was achieved without any real synergy; merchandise for the film was limited, with DVDs and CDs being the typical releases, whilst there was no sequel planned or promoted, meaning the film is a stand alone piece.
This shows the strength of the film and how it appears to have met audience expectations (of the romantic drama), whilst also reaching the target audience; one that was quite widespread, as the certificate (in the UK) was a 15, and the film would be suitable for, and was marketed in such a way that it appeals to, 15 and upwards.
In conclusion, Slumdog Millionaire was a huge success. Possibly most noticeable is the money it took at the box office; drawing around $377 million. However, the critical acclaim the film received should not be ignored. Garnering mostly positive reviews from critics, the film also received over 100 awards, including 8 Oscars, after its first taste of success at the Toronto Film Festival. This overwhelming praise from critics, other professionals and the audience alike shows just how popular the film was across each 'board', and also shows the social buzz and cultural impact that the film had, with a new interest in Bollywood being born out of Slumdog's partially traditional Bollywood approach. Danny Boyle as also tasted individual success after Slumdog, with his recent projects including 127 Hours and, iconically, the opening ceremony of the 2012 Olympics in London. It is hard to say that this definitely wouldn't have happened without Slumdog's success, but it is clear to see how Slumdog's success influenced later opportunities that came Boyle's way, and the same can be said for some of the actors, including Dev Patel.
Representation of Race in This Is England
Race in This Is England
Race and racism is a predominant theme within This Is England. Shane Meadows, the director, doesn't hold back when portraying the issue of race/racism and uses a gritty sense of realism in order to portray the opinions and ideologies of the characters in question.
When discussing race and racism in This Is England, two characters seem to come to mind; Milky and Combo, both for different and contrasting reasons.
We also see the Asian-Muslim shop owner, Mr Sandhu, who also plays an important part in the film.
The two ethnic minorities portray the change that was occurring in England at the time, with Milky adopting an English culture and Mr Sandhu (as well as the Asian children we see later in the film) is taking the more multi-cultural approach. This could explain why Milky is accepted by the group (and Combo at parts), but Mr Sandhu is alienated and victimised throughout.
Milky
Milky is the only black character in the film, therefore it could be said that he is the 'voice' of his particular race. As he is the only black character in the film, he represents the fact that they are a minority, and his lack of dialogue compared to other (white) characters portrays that his minority has a very limited voice.
The fact we know him as only 'Milky', and learn little about his true origins, suggests he has adopted a new, English identity. He is quite enigmatic, and when Combo asks him if he feels 'English or Jamaican' he flatly replies "English". His race is seemingly disregarded by the group, who accept him as one of them. Only when Combo returns do we see racism toward Milky. The rest of the group are visibly shocked yet offer little opposition to Combo's racist remarks. In this scene, the audience is positioned as if they too are in the room, and the awkward atmosphere is easy to pick up on and transcends onto the audience. Combo's racist attitude is easy to spot and, despite initially apologising, he continues to use the offensive language throughout. As no one offers any opposition, he doesn't think to stop as he feels it is acceptable. Even Milky himself doesn't say anything, he just accepts it. This further illustrates how, when faced with his race, Milky doesn't have a voice.
Combo
Combo, despite being a white character, offers a lot when considering the representation of race in the film. He has a bigoted view of race, particularly race in England and what it means to be English. He has a casual attitude towards racism, with him seeing it as perfectly acceptable to threaten Mr Sandhu with a machete, and to steal a football from a group of Asian-Muslim children. Initially, we see that his time as a Skinhead has influenced his views and the reason for his racism is because he wants England to be English. However, the scene below perfectly illustrates one reason why he is racist, particularly to Milky.
Here, we gain depth to Milky's character and how Milky's large and nurturing family life gives him great gratification. As this is happening, we are constantly shown shots of Combo getting increasingly emotional, revealing to the audience that he is jealous. When Combo asks "You've got it all you, haven't you?", and Milky somewhat agrees, we realise that Milky may not fully understand Combo's jealously, mistaking Combo's sarcastic tone for a genuine question.
When Combo eventually snaps and stands up, repeatedly addressing Milky as a 'n****r', we are shown Milky smirking slightly, like he has discovered the reason for Combo's racism; he is jealous. Combo alludes to a flawed patriarchal family life, that he is from a broken home.
Race and racism is a predominant theme within This Is England. Shane Meadows, the director, doesn't hold back when portraying the issue of race/racism and uses a gritty sense of realism in order to portray the opinions and ideologies of the characters in question.
When discussing race and racism in This Is England, two characters seem to come to mind; Milky and Combo, both for different and contrasting reasons.
We also see the Asian-Muslim shop owner, Mr Sandhu, who also plays an important part in the film.
The two ethnic minorities portray the change that was occurring in England at the time, with Milky adopting an English culture and Mr Sandhu (as well as the Asian children we see later in the film) is taking the more multi-cultural approach. This could explain why Milky is accepted by the group (and Combo at parts), but Mr Sandhu is alienated and victimised throughout.
Milky
The fact we know him as only 'Milky', and learn little about his true origins, suggests he has adopted a new, English identity. He is quite enigmatic, and when Combo asks him if he feels 'English or Jamaican' he flatly replies "English". His race is seemingly disregarded by the group, who accept him as one of them. Only when Combo returns do we see racism toward Milky. The rest of the group are visibly shocked yet offer little opposition to Combo's racist remarks. In this scene, the audience is positioned as if they too are in the room, and the awkward atmosphere is easy to pick up on and transcends onto the audience. Combo's racist attitude is easy to spot and, despite initially apologising, he continues to use the offensive language throughout. As no one offers any opposition, he doesn't think to stop as he feels it is acceptable. Even Milky himself doesn't say anything, he just accepts it. This further illustrates how, when faced with his race, Milky doesn't have a voice.
Combo
Combo, despite being a white character, offers a lot when considering the representation of race in the film. He has a bigoted view of race, particularly race in England and what it means to be English. He has a casual attitude towards racism, with him seeing it as perfectly acceptable to threaten Mr Sandhu with a machete, and to steal a football from a group of Asian-Muslim children. Initially, we see that his time as a Skinhead has influenced his views and the reason for his racism is because he wants England to be English. However, the scene below perfectly illustrates one reason why he is racist, particularly to Milky.
Here, we gain depth to Milky's character and how Milky's large and nurturing family life gives him great gratification. As this is happening, we are constantly shown shots of Combo getting increasingly emotional, revealing to the audience that he is jealous. When Combo asks "You've got it all you, haven't you?", and Milky somewhat agrees, we realise that Milky may not fully understand Combo's jealously, mistaking Combo's sarcastic tone for a genuine question.
When Combo eventually snaps and stands up, repeatedly addressing Milky as a 'n****r', we are shown Milky smirking slightly, like he has discovered the reason for Combo's racism; he is jealous. Combo alludes to a flawed patriarchal family life, that he is from a broken home.
Memento as Film Noir
In the book Film Art: An Introduction, David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson describe Film Noir as "a phenomenon that is, in one way or another, aesthetically, culturally, ideologically or historically important" This quote suggests that a film within the Film Noir 'phenomenon' can be defined by its aesthetics and its tone, the social context and cultural influence it has, the ideologies of those associated, possibly the director, or its historical significance, influence and context.
In the case of Memento, the 'defining feature' that stands out is the aesthetics of the film. Overall, the film uses low-key lighting to present a dark, shadow filled world that is emphasised by the essentially dull location and the lack of bright colours on everything including clothing.
However, these features are not the only things to define 'Film Noir', as a quote from the paragraph directly after states that "various critics have sought different unifying features" This tells us that Film Noir could be subjective, a 'phenomenon' that provokes different reactions based on the consumer. Certainly, the features listed are all different, there being nine in total, however I would say that only four can be firmly applied to Memento. These are 'motif and tone', 'iconography, mood and characterisation', 'visual style' and 'narrative and iconography'.
Although some features cross over, such as iconography, they can be viewed in different ways, such as iconography within the mood of the film, or iconography within the narrative.
The opening sequence of Memento is a perfect example of some of these 'defining features'.
The scene opens with a hand shaking a polaroid photograph. This appears fine, until the photograph begins to fade instead of developing, rewinding itself. This momentarily confuses the audience but straight away introduces a narrative style that, although the film does not run backwards, will be present throughout the film. This opening scene then cuts to a black and white scene, introducing the theme of parallel narratives in the film. Black and white sequences are conventional of Film Noir pictures, as are voice-overs/narrations, which are also present within this sequence. This narration seems completely out of context in the opening scene, providing another layer of confusion, but also a basis for the parallel narrative that we see. The parallel narratives, although not typically conventional of film noir, are often used in film noir pictures to distort the story and tell more than one point of view, something that film noirs can often rely upon in order to keep the audience enthralled.
Bordwell and Thompson give a good overview on the narrative of Film Noir pictures, telling us that "narratives in noirs are typically presented in a non-chronological order" This challenges the idea that Film Noirs are typically non-linear, a challenge supported by Memento. Although the film does not follow the basis of start, to middle, to end, all three components are present. Essentially, once the film is shown completely, we see it as end, to middle, to start. This non-chronological approach as opposed to a non-linear approach satisfies Bordwell and Thompson's quote, and in an interview, director Christopher Nolan furthers this point. He tells us that "the film is not non-linear, it is linear, but reversed", continuing that "you cannot take out one scene" as they each influence the next. The film, therefore, could be seen as cause and effect despite the non-chronological order that the scenes run in.
Characterisation is a key element of film noir. Film Art: An Introduction tells us that "the characters focused on are mentally and emotionally vulnerable", whilst also highlighting the function of the female characters. Firstly, Leonard definitely falls into the bracket of being both mentally (due to his condition) and emotionally (due to his wife's death and his quest to find the killer) vulnerable, establishing an empathetic connection with the audience. The female characters can be "viewed as a function of male dilemas and male anxieties" which suggests that they serve a purpose to the male. This is easy to see within Memento, with Natalie seemingly around to help Leonard and further the story. Furthermore, the female characters can "divide neatly into two basic types" within the film noir genre. Memento is an interesting basis for observation on female characters, as there are only 4 female characters throughout the film, and only one (Natalie) has a stand out role. Film Art: An Introduction describes the female characters as either "alluring and dangerous femme fatales" or "dependable, respectable, safe and undemanding partners, wives and girlfriends". Interestingly, Natalie fulfils both of these 'types' as the film progresses. We initially see her as the 'dependable, respectable, safe' woman who aids Leonard, but later in the film (thus earlier in the story) we see that she is merely using and manipulating Leonard, rooting herself in the femme fatale category.
The lack of other prominent female characters satisfies the typical characterisation of film noir, supported by the character of Leonard, who is mentally and emotionally vulnerable. This is noted by director Christopher Nolan who, in terms of characterisation, mentions the "unreliable narrator" and how he wanted to put the "audience into the head of the protagonist", therefore he had to make Leonard vulnerable and accessible. Finally, he mentions how, as well as letting the audience access the protagonist, he wanted to create a "changing relationship with the central character (and the audience)". He achieves this by once again using the vulnerability of Leonard and the actions of the likes of Teddy and Natalie to make us empathise with Leonard, even when we realise that he is essentially fooling himself and letting himself kill innocent people.
In the scene where Leonard kills Jimmy, the longest black and white scene in the film, we are given several great examples of how characterisation, visual style and narrative can influence the film and the audience. First and foremost, we see how Leonard is being 'played' and manipulated by Teddy for Teddy's own gain, Leonard's aforementioned vulnerability once again being brought to the forefront. As well as this, the long black and white tone of the scene gives a dark, almost sinister feel to the scene, like we know something bad or damaging will happen. It is possible that this connotes Leonard's mind; it is slightly blurry and dark, unsure of everything. This is supported by the fact that the black and white scene is intercut with colour shots of Leonard's wife, suggesting that Leonard's memories are all he knows, everything else that he experiences is a blur, something that will soon become old and therefore is black and white. This supports the idea of the typical film noir 'whodunnit?', as we are literally 'left in the dark' through the uncertainties (in this case, Leonard's knowledge, or lack thereof) but are aware of what has gone before (Leonard's life before the incident).
As with every film genre, certain directors and filmmakers leave their distinctive mark upon the genre as a whole. With the 'phenomenon' of film noir, this is no different, especially seen as film noir pictures can often be a basis for experimentation. Bordwell and Thompson briefly describe film noir as "a dark quality that derived as much from the characters depicted as from the cinematographer's art"
This suggests that there is definitely an artistic influence to film noir, so the question is whether Christopher Nolan, making only his second film, had an artistic edge to stamp upon Memento. In a candid interview, Nolan divulged that the stamp he intended to leave on Memento came from his own interests as both a person and as a cinematic spectator. Overall, he says that he wanted to challenge or distort "time, narrative and audience perception" continuing that "in most films, the sense of time is incredibly distorted" essentially meaning that the audience accepted this anyway, whereas he wanted to draw attention to the sense of time and what it means to the audience. Nolan's interests also influenced the film, though he said that he was "not too conscious" of his own influences. He said he was always "interested in memory" and how it works and was eager to put his brother's screenplay into a film so he could essentially 'test' the memories and mentalities of the audience, as each person will have a different response to the film. Finally, Nolan researched Leonard's condition in great depth, ensuring that he (and therefore the audience) could easily distinguish it from the likes of amnesia, which Nolan says has made for "some great films".
Clearly, there are several conventions within Memento that see it rooted in the film noir bracket, with Christopher Nolan bluntly stating that he "definitely" saw Memento as a film noir, and more specifically a "psychological thriller". However, in chapter 7 of the book 'Memento', written by Deborah Knight and George McKnight, we are introduced to the possibility that Memento is in fact a film of 'neo noir'. This mentions how neo noir pictures are "typically located in dystopic urban settings" whilst the protagonists are of "uncertain moral virtue". This is a perfect reflection of Memento and the ideological approach to categorising it. Furthermore, the chapter states how the characters operate in a "morally ambiguous world", which is easy to see in Memento through the actions of Leonard, Teddy and Natalie, and possibly even Burt, who works at the motel and "exploits him (Leonard)" by renting him two rooms.
The setting and environment of a neo noir is clearly different to the dark, mostly nighttime setting of a film noir, and that is what stands out when deciding whether Memento is indeed a film noir, or whether it is the slightly different neo noir.
However, Memento takes several elements of the film noir genre and completely subverts them, so it is possible that the overly daytime setting is just one of the many conventions to be challenged for effect.
In the case of Memento, the 'defining feature' that stands out is the aesthetics of the film. Overall, the film uses low-key lighting to present a dark, shadow filled world that is emphasised by the essentially dull location and the lack of bright colours on everything including clothing.
However, these features are not the only things to define 'Film Noir', as a quote from the paragraph directly after states that "various critics have sought different unifying features" This tells us that Film Noir could be subjective, a 'phenomenon' that provokes different reactions based on the consumer. Certainly, the features listed are all different, there being nine in total, however I would say that only four can be firmly applied to Memento. These are 'motif and tone', 'iconography, mood and characterisation', 'visual style' and 'narrative and iconography'.
Although some features cross over, such as iconography, they can be viewed in different ways, such as iconography within the mood of the film, or iconography within the narrative.
The opening sequence of Memento is a perfect example of some of these 'defining features'.
The scene opens with a hand shaking a polaroid photograph. This appears fine, until the photograph begins to fade instead of developing, rewinding itself. This momentarily confuses the audience but straight away introduces a narrative style that, although the film does not run backwards, will be present throughout the film. This opening scene then cuts to a black and white scene, introducing the theme of parallel narratives in the film. Black and white sequences are conventional of Film Noir pictures, as are voice-overs/narrations, which are also present within this sequence. This narration seems completely out of context in the opening scene, providing another layer of confusion, but also a basis for the parallel narrative that we see. The parallel narratives, although not typically conventional of film noir, are often used in film noir pictures to distort the story and tell more than one point of view, something that film noirs can often rely upon in order to keep the audience enthralled.
Bordwell and Thompson give a good overview on the narrative of Film Noir pictures, telling us that "narratives in noirs are typically presented in a non-chronological order" This challenges the idea that Film Noirs are typically non-linear, a challenge supported by Memento. Although the film does not follow the basis of start, to middle, to end, all three components are present. Essentially, once the film is shown completely, we see it as end, to middle, to start. This non-chronological approach as opposed to a non-linear approach satisfies Bordwell and Thompson's quote, and in an interview, director Christopher Nolan furthers this point. He tells us that "the film is not non-linear, it is linear, but reversed", continuing that "you cannot take out one scene" as they each influence the next. The film, therefore, could be seen as cause and effect despite the non-chronological order that the scenes run in.
Characterisation is a key element of film noir. Film Art: An Introduction tells us that "the characters focused on are mentally and emotionally vulnerable", whilst also highlighting the function of the female characters. Firstly, Leonard definitely falls into the bracket of being both mentally (due to his condition) and emotionally (due to his wife's death and his quest to find the killer) vulnerable, establishing an empathetic connection with the audience. The female characters can be "viewed as a function of male dilemas and male anxieties" which suggests that they serve a purpose to the male. This is easy to see within Memento, with Natalie seemingly around to help Leonard and further the story. Furthermore, the female characters can "divide neatly into two basic types" within the film noir genre. Memento is an interesting basis for observation on female characters, as there are only 4 female characters throughout the film, and only one (Natalie) has a stand out role. Film Art: An Introduction describes the female characters as either "alluring and dangerous femme fatales" or "dependable, respectable, safe and undemanding partners, wives and girlfriends". Interestingly, Natalie fulfils both of these 'types' as the film progresses. We initially see her as the 'dependable, respectable, safe' woman who aids Leonard, but later in the film (thus earlier in the story) we see that she is merely using and manipulating Leonard, rooting herself in the femme fatale category.
The lack of other prominent female characters satisfies the typical characterisation of film noir, supported by the character of Leonard, who is mentally and emotionally vulnerable. This is noted by director Christopher Nolan who, in terms of characterisation, mentions the "unreliable narrator" and how he wanted to put the "audience into the head of the protagonist", therefore he had to make Leonard vulnerable and accessible. Finally, he mentions how, as well as letting the audience access the protagonist, he wanted to create a "changing relationship with the central character (and the audience)". He achieves this by once again using the vulnerability of Leonard and the actions of the likes of Teddy and Natalie to make us empathise with Leonard, even when we realise that he is essentially fooling himself and letting himself kill innocent people.
In the scene where Leonard kills Jimmy, the longest black and white scene in the film, we are given several great examples of how characterisation, visual style and narrative can influence the film and the audience. First and foremost, we see how Leonard is being 'played' and manipulated by Teddy for Teddy's own gain, Leonard's aforementioned vulnerability once again being brought to the forefront. As well as this, the long black and white tone of the scene gives a dark, almost sinister feel to the scene, like we know something bad or damaging will happen. It is possible that this connotes Leonard's mind; it is slightly blurry and dark, unsure of everything. This is supported by the fact that the black and white scene is intercut with colour shots of Leonard's wife, suggesting that Leonard's memories are all he knows, everything else that he experiences is a blur, something that will soon become old and therefore is black and white. This supports the idea of the typical film noir 'whodunnit?', as we are literally 'left in the dark' through the uncertainties (in this case, Leonard's knowledge, or lack thereof) but are aware of what has gone before (Leonard's life before the incident).
As with every film genre, certain directors and filmmakers leave their distinctive mark upon the genre as a whole. With the 'phenomenon' of film noir, this is no different, especially seen as film noir pictures can often be a basis for experimentation. Bordwell and Thompson briefly describe film noir as "a dark quality that derived as much from the characters depicted as from the cinematographer's art"
This suggests that there is definitely an artistic influence to film noir, so the question is whether Christopher Nolan, making only his second film, had an artistic edge to stamp upon Memento. In a candid interview, Nolan divulged that the stamp he intended to leave on Memento came from his own interests as both a person and as a cinematic spectator. Overall, he says that he wanted to challenge or distort "time, narrative and audience perception" continuing that "in most films, the sense of time is incredibly distorted" essentially meaning that the audience accepted this anyway, whereas he wanted to draw attention to the sense of time and what it means to the audience. Nolan's interests also influenced the film, though he said that he was "not too conscious" of his own influences. He said he was always "interested in memory" and how it works and was eager to put his brother's screenplay into a film so he could essentially 'test' the memories and mentalities of the audience, as each person will have a different response to the film. Finally, Nolan researched Leonard's condition in great depth, ensuring that he (and therefore the audience) could easily distinguish it from the likes of amnesia, which Nolan says has made for "some great films".
Clearly, there are several conventions within Memento that see it rooted in the film noir bracket, with Christopher Nolan bluntly stating that he "definitely" saw Memento as a film noir, and more specifically a "psychological thriller". However, in chapter 7 of the book 'Memento', written by Deborah Knight and George McKnight, we are introduced to the possibility that Memento is in fact a film of 'neo noir'. This mentions how neo noir pictures are "typically located in dystopic urban settings" whilst the protagonists are of "uncertain moral virtue". This is a perfect reflection of Memento and the ideological approach to categorising it. Furthermore, the chapter states how the characters operate in a "morally ambiguous world", which is easy to see in Memento through the actions of Leonard, Teddy and Natalie, and possibly even Burt, who works at the motel and "exploits him (Leonard)" by renting him two rooms.
The setting and environment of a neo noir is clearly different to the dark, mostly nighttime setting of a film noir, and that is what stands out when deciding whether Memento is indeed a film noir, or whether it is the slightly different neo noir.
However, Memento takes several elements of the film noir genre and completely subverts them, so it is possible that the overly daytime setting is just one of the many conventions to be challenged for effect.
Is Hollywood out of ideas? - Research task
This article is from the April 2013 issue (issue 44) of Media Magazine, and is written by Pete Turner.
Here, Turner simply sets out to answer the question "Is Hollywood all out of fresh ideas?"
Although this seems like a broad question and subject, it is easy to understand what Turner means by the question.
According to Turner, in recent years Hollywood has been a 'revolving door' of "franchises, remakes, reboots, sequels, prequels and adaptations". Presumably, then, Turner will use this as a basis to definitively answer the question. He does this by focusing on the following key areas -
Turner points out that where audiences once flocked to see their favourite star in the cinema, the will now be guilty of "lapping up recycled ideas", and it has gotten to the point where Hollywood may begin "cannibalising itself' by remaking its own films every decade, something that has already shown signs of beginning with the release of Spiderman (2002) and The Amazing Spiderman (2012).
Here, Turner simply sets out to answer the question "Is Hollywood all out of fresh ideas?"
Although this seems like a broad question and subject, it is easy to understand what Turner means by the question.
According to Turner, in recent years Hollywood has been a 'revolving door' of "franchises, remakes, reboots, sequels, prequels and adaptations". Presumably, then, Turner will use this as a basis to definitively answer the question. He does this by focusing on the following key areas -
- Trends; What is popular with audiences at the time?
- Remakes and reboots; What film can be brought back to life?
- Franchises, sequels and prequels; Because one film is not enough!
- Adaptations; Seeing your favourite characters brought to life on the big screen!
- Is there any originality left?; Surely there is some, right?
Before Turner can get to these points, however, he gives us a brief overview of Hollywood as the money-making machine we know and love.
He tells us that Hollywood is a "business, made up of profit-driven studios" who favour the art of money-making over the "art of film" which they 'care little' for.
Hollywood studios are seen to be careful with their money, with Turner saying that this results in a "cautious mentality that thrives on reputation". Turner also goes on to say that the public want "safe, escapist entertainment that is almost guaranteed to be popular and profitable"
This suggests that Hollywood carefully pick what films will be popular and profitable and will put more energy into fulfilling that film's potential. Furthermore, Turner says that "audience enjoy familiarity"; essentially an argument for the 're-hashing' of unoriginal ideas. If the audience's expectations are met with a well-known brand and easily recognisable conventions, then the film is almost guaranteed to be a success.
The top 20 films of 2012 are a perfect illustration of how outnumbered 'original' films are in comparison to remakes/reboots (three), franchises (nine), sequels/prequels (six, three of which are also included under the 'franchise' banner) and adaptations (two).
Only Brave and Ted rely solely on their own selling power to become a success, with Pixar and Seth MacFarlane able to sell the film to their pre-existing fanbase. The third 'original' film, Wreck-It Ralph, is a new concept, but does rely slightly on the use of pre-existing video game characters to make an appearance to boost the film's profile.
Turner points out that where audiences once flocked to see their favourite star in the cinema, the will now be guilty of "lapping up recycled ideas", and it has gotten to the point where Hollywood may begin "cannibalising itself' by remaking its own films every decade, something that has already shown signs of beginning with the release of Spiderman (2002) and The Amazing Spiderman (2012).
A 'trend' is something popular and profitable in Hollywood at a given time. It is something that has grown a fanbase and can easily be drawn out into other mediums to make money. Trends are not new phenomenons, with the 80's being dominated by futuristic sci-fi efforts such as Back to the Future, and 'slasher' horror films which led on in the 90's, such as Scream.
After the success of The Twilight Saga (an adaptation from a popular book, so not even an original film series in itself) many studios decided that the way to go was with vampires; this being through the bizarre 'Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter', the unsuccessful 'Lesbian Vampire Killers', or even the Twilight parody 'Vampires Suck'.
However, the current trend in Hollywood is superheros, something that has at least some potential for variation. The differences between Marvel's traditional approach and DC's darker approach to comic book adaptations means that fans will always have something new to look forward to, despite having known of these characters and their stories for a long time.
Other trends include teen literature adaptations, such as Twilight, The Hunger Games and Harry Potter, as well as the technological trend of 3D, arguably made famous by James Cameron's Avatar.
Remakes and reboots are successful for many reasons, but the main one is due to the pre-existing fanbase that can be tapped into using a remake or a reboot. The filmakers will tell the audience that it is a way to 'retell the story and give a different outlook', but it is merely another way to make money. Franchises are particularly popular in getting the 'reboot' treatment, with both The Amazing Spiderman and The Dark Knight franchises themselves being reboots of earlier trilogies (with Spiderman's initial trilogy only ending in 2007). Turner describes this need for remakes and reboots as Hollywood "plundering its own back catalogue in earnest", suggesting an idea of desperation around the conglomerates within Hollywood.
Turner bluntly states that Hollywood has a "complete and utter dependence" on franchises, sequels and prequels, something backed up by the top 20 films of 2012, whose top ten is dominated by the three types of movie brand. It is no surprise, however, as the audience love familiarity, something franchises, sequels and prequels give them. They get to enjoy familiar "characters, narratives, stars and genres" that can be continuously brought back in many forms, something perfectly reflected in the new Marvel universe. Each hero has their own film franchise, such as Iron Man, but can also appear in 'crossovers' such as Avengers Assemble. This ensures that the studio will never run out of ideas and ways to market their familiar franchises, sequels or prequels.
Adaptations are not just from books. Popular comics, TV shows, fairytales and even video games are all things that Hollywood target when they are "on the look out for more profitable properties to adapt". Book adaptations, however, tend to be the most successful, as their loyal fanbase will flock to see how their favourite stories play out on the big screen. The top 20 of 2012 featured The Hunger Games, The Twilight Saga and The Hobbit; three books that were aimed at teens and under, which were given a 'darker' edge to widen their appeal. The Life of Pi also featured in the top 20, showing us that even adult books can be a success with existing and new fans.
Finally, Turner asks "Is there anything original left?" As mentioned above, Turner says that Brave and Ted "emerge as the winners of the box office for films not based on existing properties". We are told it is "not all doom and gloom", which is true, as many unique films are hugely successful. The box office is not the only way to determine a film's success, either; Argo offered "more in the way of originality" and despite failing to "compete with less unique but infinitely more Hollywood fare" it was a huge success at the Oscars.
Overall, Turner gives a balanced outlook on Hollywood as a machine. He says that it seems "Hollywood is happy to give audiences more of the same", and it is easy to agree with this. Playing it 'safe' makes them money, and Turner continues "we (the audience) are happy to take what they give us".
He ends on quite a liberating note, telling us to "take a chance" when we are next at the cinema, not allowing Hollywood to "devour itself and churn out the same old stuff". Clearly, we can gage that Turner feels like Hollywood will favour 'playing it safe' over originality and the 'art of film', but only until the audience challenges this. Hollywood will make what we want to see, so if we "want to see more originality in cinema" we should find and watch a film that "needs your (the audience) box office business".
Pete Turner concludes by enthusiastically by saying: "savour something new, unique and that you have not seen before!"
Therefore, in answer to the question he posed himself, we can decipher that Hollywood aren't out of ideas, they merely rely on what is safe and what will make them the most money.
Remakes and reboots are successful for many reasons, but the main one is due to the pre-existing fanbase that can be tapped into using a remake or a reboot. The filmakers will tell the audience that it is a way to 'retell the story and give a different outlook', but it is merely another way to make money. Franchises are particularly popular in getting the 'reboot' treatment, with both The Amazing Spiderman and The Dark Knight franchises themselves being reboots of earlier trilogies (with Spiderman's initial trilogy only ending in 2007). Turner describes this need for remakes and reboots as Hollywood "plundering its own back catalogue in earnest", suggesting an idea of desperation around the conglomerates within Hollywood.
Turner bluntly states that Hollywood has a "complete and utter dependence" on franchises, sequels and prequels, something backed up by the top 20 films of 2012, whose top ten is dominated by the three types of movie brand. It is no surprise, however, as the audience love familiarity, something franchises, sequels and prequels give them. They get to enjoy familiar "characters, narratives, stars and genres" that can be continuously brought back in many forms, something perfectly reflected in the new Marvel universe. Each hero has their own film franchise, such as Iron Man, but can also appear in 'crossovers' such as Avengers Assemble. This ensures that the studio will never run out of ideas and ways to market their familiar franchises, sequels or prequels.
Adaptations are not just from books. Popular comics, TV shows, fairytales and even video games are all things that Hollywood target when they are "on the look out for more profitable properties to adapt". Book adaptations, however, tend to be the most successful, as their loyal fanbase will flock to see how their favourite stories play out on the big screen. The top 20 of 2012 featured The Hunger Games, The Twilight Saga and The Hobbit; three books that were aimed at teens and under, which were given a 'darker' edge to widen their appeal. The Life of Pi also featured in the top 20, showing us that even adult books can be a success with existing and new fans.
Finally, Turner asks "Is there anything original left?" As mentioned above, Turner says that Brave and Ted "emerge as the winners of the box office for films not based on existing properties". We are told it is "not all doom and gloom", which is true, as many unique films are hugely successful. The box office is not the only way to determine a film's success, either; Argo offered "more in the way of originality" and despite failing to "compete with less unique but infinitely more Hollywood fare" it was a huge success at the Oscars.
Overall, Turner gives a balanced outlook on Hollywood as a machine. He says that it seems "Hollywood is happy to give audiences more of the same", and it is easy to agree with this. Playing it 'safe' makes them money, and Turner continues "we (the audience) are happy to take what they give us".
He ends on quite a liberating note, telling us to "take a chance" when we are next at the cinema, not allowing Hollywood to "devour itself and churn out the same old stuff". Clearly, we can gage that Turner feels like Hollywood will favour 'playing it safe' over originality and the 'art of film', but only until the audience challenges this. Hollywood will make what we want to see, so if we "want to see more originality in cinema" we should find and watch a film that "needs your (the audience) box office business".
Pete Turner concludes by enthusiastically by saying: "savour something new, unique and that you have not seen before!"
Therefore, in answer to the question he posed himself, we can decipher that Hollywood aren't out of ideas, they merely rely on what is safe and what will make them the most money.
Photo analysis
This photo of Oscar winners Daniel Day-Lewis, Jennifer Lawrence, Anne Hathaway and Christopher Waltz is framed in a way that makes the audience perceive the group as quite close-nit. They are holding their Oscars together and are caught what appears to be mid-laugh. The photograph is probably a spontaneous shot of the four unlikely associates sharing their success. The fact that it is slightly low-angle lets us see the varying heights of the celebrities and shows us how they are leaning in close to each other, particularly Daniel Day-Lewis.
The photograph does appear spontaneous, as it would be difficult to stage such a perfectly-timed shot as we see here. The smiles of all 4 people are in sync and suggest a unity or a bond between them. The photograph is also quite symmetrical, with the two similar coloured dresses mirroring each other, and the smart tuxedos of the men on the outside of the group.
Representation of Celebrity Homework
Representation of celebrity – Taylor
Swift
This article from the Daily Mail aims to represent Taylor in
a way that we are not used to; sexy.
We all believe her to be quite an innocent artist, who sings about her experiences, yet here the article is portraying her as someone who, to show an ex “what they’re missing”, dresses ‘sexy’ and acts ‘fierce’ (if the article is to be believed).
We all believe her to be quite an innocent artist, who sings about her experiences, yet here the article is portraying her as someone who, to show an ex “what they’re missing”, dresses ‘sexy’ and acts ‘fierce’ (if the article is to be believed).
Fans of Taylor like myself will know that although she is a
fashion icon in ways, she is not really a sex symbol like Rihanna or Megan Fox.
In my opinion, the encoders (in this case the journalist, Hayley Coyle) have
written this article as it will catch the eye of fans and non-fans alike, as it
may be quite shocking to see her take on this representation.
Essentially, this ‘sexy’ persona is quite the opposite to
what we expect from Taylor, therefore is challenges audience expectations and
this could either be due to the encoders feeding us this interpretation, or
Taylor herself dressing this way deliberately in order to ‘make a point’. The
Mail would of course say it was the second option.
Because of how society is today, we almost expect every
female celebrity to be scantily clad and sexualised, whilst for Taylor Swift, a
22 year old woman, dressing quite reserved is the accepted norm because it is
part of her personality, therefore any clothing deemed to be ‘sexy’ means she
is losing her image, something several of the user comments on the article
suggests.
Although I would take a preferred reading to this, that she
has ‘vamped’ up her style and is sexier than usual, the user comments mentioned
above suggest that it is not sexy at all.
In my opinion, looking at the artist as a text, it isn’t particularly what we define as sexy. It is, however, sexy when you look at the person involved; for Taylor Swift, the high-waisted shorts and shirt as nearly as sexy as you can get.
In my opinion, looking at the artist as a text, it isn’t particularly what we define as sexy. It is, however, sexy when you look at the person involved; for Taylor Swift, the high-waisted shorts and shirt as nearly as sexy as you can get.
This is one of Taylor’s first real music videos and within it she took the opportunity, as the encoder, to present her own experiences and give a glimpse at what she felt she was actually like.
It includes the typical high school stereotypes that the target audience can relate to; the ‘shy band geek’, the ‘jock’ and the ‘mean girl’.
Taylor has mentioned that she wanted to
portray the experiences that she had in high school that are relatable, and due
to this I believe that most viewers from the target audience will take the
preferred reading to this. As well as this, the video won ‘Best music video’ at
the 2009 MTV VMA’s, which could suggest millions of people took the preferred
reading to the text.I chose this particular video as it has the commentary from Taylor giving an added insight into the video and how she helped create it. In her own words, she wanted the video to be “Funny and heart-warming” which is not only an opinion of the encoder but also an aim of what they want to portray.
In society this situation is one that happens a lot, and through the commentary we hear it happened regularly for Taylor in middle school, meaning that the ideologies of ‘young love stories’ are played up here to represent Taylor in a good light. Taylor represents various characters, showing one girl just trying to fit in; something we can surely all relate to at least once in our lives.
Although there is no way Taylor could be badly represented in her own production, the representation that comes from reviews is important, and as listed above the reviews for this video were generally positive, with it going platinum on VEVO in 2011.
I chose this print advert out of
the many she has appeared in because it is from very early in her ‘breakout’
year when she was just breaking into fame and had this rare ‘innocent’ appeal
to her. ‘Got milk’ is an advertising campaign in the US to encourage people, mainly children, to drink milk regularly to keep them healthy. The encoders (the company behind the advert) hired many of the biggest stars at the time like Miley Cyrus, the High School Musical cast and Rihanna to appear in print adverts that would appeal to the ‘tween’ market.
Having Taylor pose with her guitar and with the trademark ‘milk moustache’, as well as the accompanying writing which tells us that milk is ‘music to my ears’, gives us the impression that if you drink milk, you can become like Taylor. It is the old technique that if you do something like your favourite artist, you are alike to them and ‘closer’ to them as a result, hence why famous stars are used to advertise products and not just models.
As far as I know, ‘Got milk’ adverts are still around, so they have been a success for many years. Clearly on the most part, the preferred reading has been taken here. The promotion of health and wellbeing by stars in the modern day is seen with great enthusiasm, something which can be done subconsciously or consciously (buying milk after seeing the advert, whether you aspire to be like Taylor or not). This means that the representation of Taylor Swift here plays up to society’s belief in promoting good things, and what better way to do that than with celebrities?
4)
For my final text, I chose a review by the BBC for her new album, RED. This short review sums up Taylor’s album in just 6 paragraphs, yet manages to be convincing in doing so.
The opinion of the reviewer here is easy to see, he is not biased, yet he is clearly ‘a fan’ of the album. He includes Taylor’s beliefs and ideologies which every song and album seem to follow, and points out a few songs on the album, whether it be on their good or bad points.
Through this review, which wasn’t actually very critical, Taylor is presented in a very good light. Fraser McAlpine even comparing her to this generation’s Morrissey. Without hesitation he takes the preferred reading to the initial text, the album, and therefore as readers who haven’t listened to the album, the positive review would – for the mean time – ensure we take the preferred reading too.
“And she does this partly because she’s a
quick-witted lyricist with a sharp eye, and partly because she’s a true
romantic, just like her audience.”
The
above quote shows how Taylor aims to relate to and please her audience by
writing songs she knows they can share experience. As well as this, the
encoder, Fraser McAlpine, isn’t afraid to call out a particular track that has
only ‘one tempo’, but then gives another positive to tell you that really,
every song is good in at least one way.Media diary - Week 5
Media diary: Week 5 - Uses & Gratifications
Music-
In this instance, this week I mostly consumed media privately through my iPod. In my opinion, this fulfills the following uses and gratifications-
Escapism/Entertainment - I feel it fulfills my needs for entertainment and escapism as quite often, and in this case, I listen to music just to relax, calm and occupy myself. I listened to a variety of music as it was on 'shuffle' mode and I feel that my varied music tastes help me get a sense of escapism, as I am in my own little world, in a way, with all the music I like and my thoughts. This is good because I could be listening to one song, for instance Wide Awake by Katy Perry, that gives you both a fantasy feel and a feel of reality at the same time. The sense of escapism is obvious but so is the reality in the song. This not only gives me escapism, but also entertainment as I can really listen to the lyrics and, most if the time with songs I like, know what they mean.
Personal Identity - Music is a huge media text when it comes to personal identity. Not only can people relate to the lyrics, but they can also find a sense of belonging within the 'fandom' of a particular artist or genre. This is very true in my case; the songs I listen to most frequently are those of Katy Perry, Taylor Swift and Hot Chelle Rae. When I became a fan of their music, I immediately became a member of the 'fandom'. This, as well as listening to the songs as often as I do, allows me to feel secure and know that they're are so many other people in the world who share these same interests that I do.
Social Interaction - For as long as it's been around, music has been a huge part of social gatherings; previously the only way we could access music was through actually watching an artist live. Now however, it is on much more open social platforms. The likes of iTunes and YouTube sell and promote music to the public, whilst Twitter and Facebook can promote the artist or the songs to their fans as well as people who are searching for new music. Although in this case I didn't share my music with a group, I kept it to myself, I still enable people to know what I'm listening to, somehow subconsciously without thinking. I may tweet lyrics which lets my followers know what I'm listening to, or often a song will make me think of something which I will then share with whoever I'm with at that time. As well as this, everyone talks about music; Music awards are on many times a year; the music charts are a big talking point, as are 'which artist is better' debates which are essentially never ending. No matter how you consume it, music will always be social and shared in one way or another.
Television news-
I consume the news on television every morning before college. I don't usually pay attention but you still get some of the points through subconsciously. In my opinion it fulfils the following uses and gratifications-
Escapism/Entertainment - In a way, with modern day 'breakfast programs', we can be entertained by the news. Obviously most news makes it to the TV as it is a big event, not necessarily a good one. However, during the Olympics the news was taken up with the euphoria of winning medal after medal, the Olympians providing interviews, proving the news can be a source of entertainment; like a chat show at times. However, I don't feel it aids escapism, as we are shown the world for what it is really like during the news. It isn't fictional, we can't escape the real world when watching what is going on in it.
Social Interaction - The news is everywhere. Every minute somewhere, news is made, whether it be local or national. It's means that every minute, the news is being broken somewhere. Nowadays, using an example I used for music, Twitter can actually be better than news websites for finding the news. Millions of people all tweeting at the same time about one event means you can't not find out one way or another. Because of social networking, the news and everything surrounding it has become a much more social thing. News programs even use the likes of twitter to break news as well as take views from the public. Twitter users can talk to people from all over the world and gain their views on the matters. This actually makes news, no matter if it's good or bad, a huge stage for social interaction.
Media diary - Week 4
A media text that has changed my life is One of The Boys, Katy Perry's first studio album released to a mass audience. I say this changed my life as it determined and made me realise fully what my taste in music was.
It was released in 2008, when I was 12, and at that age I was still curious as to what music I could actually love and relate to. I'd been through many phases when I was younger, liking rock (like the Foo Fighters), pop (like McFly), and even rap (50 Cent, oops). These teenage years, or those very close to them, are a turning point in many things for young people, and one of those things is music.
I first heard Katy Perry on a trip to Florida. I Kissed A Girl had just been released and at first, I wasn't too sure about it, however, once I listened again, I realised it was actually a really good song. Especially because she wrote it herself.
When I got him, I listened to the rest of her songs from her album and was both shocked and delighted to find such a varied palet. Really edgy rock songs like Fingerprints put alongside slow, thought-provoking songs such as I'm Still Breathing, and then general love songs with a fun, upbeat twist, like Hot 'n' Cold.
Along with this love for the album, came an admiration for Katy and the way she made it to the top of the business. I won't go off topic and delve too much into her background, but she faced several struggles, as her movie Part Of Me 3D shows.
The reason I say this album changed my life is because I'd previously been a huge fan of McFly, and yet, even though they've had many albums, I was only a huge fan for two, around 2004/2005/2006. With Katy Perry, and the fact that I was older, I was entered into the 'fandom' with people who also love her. The 'Katycats', as they are known, are fans of Katy, and I'd say I was one of them.
When you enter a huge fan base like this, you feel even more love and admiration for the artist as you truly see how much they adore their fans, and how much they care for the music they produce. Katy was once quoted as saying she didn't want her songs to be 'meaningless', so she can't just bring an album out every year and rush the writing process. Although I'm incredibly excited for her next album and wish it would arrive sooner, I love that all of her songs are essentially 'hand crafted' to portray a side to her that the fans love to see. Many of my favourite artists write their own songs, and I think this is a criteria in which I go by, I stick to it subconsciously as it makes you feel closer to the artist.
Through discovering this album, I feel I discovered the type of music I love, and it influenced the many other artists I like now. I'm quite varied in my music tastes, but they have one thing in common; they write most of their songs themselves. As well as this, the artist themselves is varied in the music they produce. Taylor Swift, Christina Perri, Hot Chelle Rae, Foo Fighters etc.. They can all produce slow songs with meaning, or edgy rock songs that have an underlying meaning to them.
I was lucky enough to see Katy in concert twice last year, and they're probably the best concerts I've been to. I'd been saying since I first started liking her "If she goes on tour, I'M GOING!", and I didn't get the chance until 3 years later. It was like an epiphany moment, seen as I'd wanted it for so long. The concert was fun, energetic and essentially hysterical. People got to meet Katy and that meant they were meeting their idol. I have a few celebrities I 'idolise', Katy, Taylor Swift, Naya Rivera etc.. And so if I did get the chance to meet them, or just one of them, it'd probably change my life. I'm still waiting, I'm sure it'll happen one day.
Not only did the album itself make me realise my music tastes, but they're are some songs I can relate to, and this applies to her second album, Teenage Dream, too. I find that I love artists who write their own songs and who write songs that are relatable. It's a great feeling to know that those huge stars you look up to are, or have been, going through similar things you are. A sense of belonging in the teenage years makes this even more applicable. You're trying to find a place where you fit in, and through One Of The Boys and the rest of Katy's music, plus the other artists I like, I feel I've found that place. However, it all started in 2008 with One of The Boys.
Media diary: Week 3
This week, I have consumed FourFourTwo magazine. I chose to analyse the audience for this because I feel already, by saying this, I am going against the stereotype of who would read it.
FourFourTwo is a monthly football magazine. It is priced at £4.20, and covers everything from the top leagues to the bottom, including past and present stars. To define my audience, I will look at each audience classification model individually, using them to find out who I believe the magazine is aimed at.
Income/status
Using this model, which isn't overly reliable, I would actually suggest that anyone from class E above can and, if interests were included, would consume this media. Football is a sport that reaches out to all classes, and in some cases brings many together. With the magazine being fairly cheap, most people can afford it, and it is monthly meaning it is not too much of an expenditure. It brings together the month's football and, if education comes into it, includes vastly detailed articles, or the simpler interviews or statistics for the casual reader.
Audience profiling
For me, I would suggest the general consumer of FourFourTwo would go by the following-
Gender: Male. Age group: 16 to 45. Family: I feel any type of family person could buy the magazine. Self image: Obvious football fan, open to reading about it and taking in new information. Class: As above, any class. Nation: It is now international, but I would say mainly British, as it has the most features on English football. Ethnicity: As with class, I feel ethnicity is not important and it appeals to all classes. Education: Is similar to class in a way, I feel that, as I stated in the income/class model, all qualities of education can consume it. Religion and politics: Once again, I feel it doesn't really matter. Location: I believe England is the biggest consumer of the text, so I would say they would be located here.
Young and Rubicam's 4 Cs
Using this model, the "7 types of people in the world" idea, I would say that consumers of FourFourTwo would be
The Explorer - The explorers seek out discovery, and want to try out new experiences. Although FourFourTwo is a magazine for a popular sport in football, it highlights several things unknown to the usual football fan. It allows fans to discover new information and things such as holiday destinations near football stadia. For example, the current issue 'discovers' 20 players "on the cusp of greatness". For many football fans, keeping up to date with new things in football is key, so this magazine would be ideal for them, meaning they would be the explorer.
The Mainstream - This is pretty obvious, as football is the biggest sport in the UK, and FourFourTwo is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, sports magazine in the UK. Although it is all down to interest, those who consume FFT could be classed as mainstream because it is such a famous sport's magazine and is well-known nationwide. Although the need for security isn't necessarily fulfilled, the mainstream are secure in the knowledge that they will get a glossy, interesting football magazine each month.
Lifestyle categories
There are 12 lifestyle categories, and although this particular text is hard to classify as any of them, I would say the consumer of FFT fits into the following -
Drop-outs - I say this only because unless you are subscribed, you are not committed to any magazine in any way. There could be someone who likes the look of one article on the front cover and buys the magazine purely because of that, with no intention of buying it again in the future.
Egoists - As with the above, it partially applies. This time it's because they want to get the best for themselves out of life. Although a football magazine, FFT includes health and lifestyle tips that people interested in bettering themselves may pay attention to and be interested to. It is not the main point of the magazine, but is a sub category in a quite mainstream magazine.
Cinematography homework
Film Studies homework - Analysis of 'He Loves Me, He Loves Me Not' scene
For my film, I have chosen to analyse the final scene from the French film "He Loves Me, He Loves Me Not" (A La Folie, Pas Du Tout). This scene, without giving the film away, reveals to the audience and the characters what is actually happening.
The film itself followers a nonlinear form of storytelling, and is what I can only describe as a love story gone wrong. Your perceptions on the characters and their stories are constantly changing, and you are constantly trying to pick up on subtle hints as to what may come next. It is the perfect film to keep you guessing.
This particular scene brings together the nature of the characters and their actions. The filmmakers have clearly worked hard to create a scene that challenges expectations, even 5 minutes from the end of the film. Through the clever use of various shot types, little dialogue and a 'suitable' soundtrack, and visual techniques that give more away than dialogue would, we can see how the film comes to a perfect end.
The scene starts with Loic, the main male character, confronting Angelique, the main character overall. The use of a high-angle shot makes Angelique appear more menacing, like she is looking down on Loic. As well as this, there are several close-ups and extreme close-ups on both characters; Angelique showing her anger and emotion, partially down to Audrey Tautou's brilliant acting, making the scene intense and slightly on edge. When Angelique hits Loic with the statue, we see a close up shot, showing her emotions; She doesn't look like someone about to commit attempted murder, further signifying her mental state.
The low-angle shot following this, Angelique watching Loic fall down the stairs, is another shot that, when used normally, suggests dominance, threat and intimidation. However, Angelique looks nothing like a cold blooded killer, as above her mental state is in question. Her actions are juxtaposed with the way she looks and how the shots bring this to light.
A clever shot following this is showing the huge painting on the wall which is of a heart monitor's lines. Angelique is framed next to this, a connotation here could be that her heart beat is accelerating or the heartbeat is that of Loic's, which is slowing down. As this shot pans, we see Angelique, she is to the right of the shot, showing her isolated state, possibly implying she is isolated mentally; unaware throughout the film and in this scene what her actions mean.
This then pans to Loic at the bottom of the stairs, a high-angle shot used to look down on Loic and completely frame him as the vulnerable victim that he is. The fact that we also see Angelique looking down on him (as stated above) shows her, for once, in a threatening light, she stares at him as he lays dying. From this we get a sense of "If I can't have you, no one can", her motives clear.
The stills on the right are consecutive scenes. One second we are shown Angelique on her own, reflecting on her actions, when suddenly the sound of police sirens makes the police appear to take her away. This suggests that, in the time taken for the police to arrive, Angelique hasn't moved, frozen in time.
Outside a tracking shot shows us the audience that has gathered, leading into the police van which Angelique, clearly emotionless, is placed. We get a typical 'through the window' shot here, an interesting point to note is that the reflections of trees and lampposts appear to surround Angelique with bars, like prison cell bars, isolating her even though she is surrounded by people.
As well as these main scenes, there are also a few cutaway scenes that add effect, close-ups such as that of Angelique picking up the statue carefully, and a shot that follows the action from behind as she lifts the statue and strikes Loic on the back of the head.
This leads into a slow motion sequence which sees Loic falling down the stairs, his belongings dropping to the ground with a thud, his knees buckling slowly, Angelique just watching on as, using a point of view shot, we see Loic's vision of Angelique go blurry, and the use of shaky-cam allows us to further emerse ourselves in the scene.
Although the film continues for another 3 minutes, I have chosen to end my extract as she is driven away in the police van, because this is where the unusually cheerful soundtrack kicks in, and ties up the short scene I focused on in an unusual way, very fitting for the film itself.
For my film, I have chosen to analyse the final scene from the French film "He Loves Me, He Loves Me Not" (A La Folie, Pas Du Tout). This scene, without giving the film away, reveals to the audience and the characters what is actually happening.
The film itself followers a nonlinear form of storytelling, and is what I can only describe as a love story gone wrong. Your perceptions on the characters and their stories are constantly changing, and you are constantly trying to pick up on subtle hints as to what may come next. It is the perfect film to keep you guessing.
This particular scene brings together the nature of the characters and their actions. The filmmakers have clearly worked hard to create a scene that challenges expectations, even 5 minutes from the end of the film. Through the clever use of various shot types, little dialogue and a 'suitable' soundtrack, and visual techniques that give more away than dialogue would, we can see how the film comes to a perfect end.
The scene starts with Loic, the main male character, confronting Angelique, the main character overall. The use of a high-angle shot makes Angelique appear more menacing, like she is looking down on Loic. As well as this, there are several close-ups and extreme close-ups on both characters; Angelique showing her anger and emotion, partially down to Audrey Tautou's brilliant acting, making the scene intense and slightly on edge. When Angelique hits Loic with the statue, we see a close up shot, showing her emotions; She doesn't look like someone about to commit attempted murder, further signifying her mental state.
The low-angle shot following this, Angelique watching Loic fall down the stairs, is another shot that, when used normally, suggests dominance, threat and intimidation. However, Angelique looks nothing like a cold blooded killer, as above her mental state is in question. Her actions are juxtaposed with the way she looks and how the shots bring this to light.
A clever shot following this is showing the huge painting on the wall which is of a heart monitor's lines. Angelique is framed next to this, a connotation here could be that her heart beat is accelerating or the heartbeat is that of Loic's, which is slowing down. As this shot pans, we see Angelique, she is to the right of the shot, showing her isolated state, possibly implying she is isolated mentally; unaware throughout the film and in this scene what her actions mean.
This then pans to Loic at the bottom of the stairs, a high-angle shot used to look down on Loic and completely frame him as the vulnerable victim that he is. The fact that we also see Angelique looking down on him (as stated above) shows her, for once, in a threatening light, she stares at him as he lays dying. From this we get a sense of "If I can't have you, no one can", her motives clear.
The stills on the right are consecutive scenes. One second we are shown Angelique on her own, reflecting on her actions, when suddenly the sound of police sirens makes the police appear to take her away. This suggests that, in the time taken for the police to arrive, Angelique hasn't moved, frozen in time.
Outside a tracking shot shows us the audience that has gathered, leading into the police van which Angelique, clearly emotionless, is placed. We get a typical 'through the window' shot here, an interesting point to note is that the reflections of trees and lampposts appear to surround Angelique with bars, like prison cell bars, isolating her even though she is surrounded by people.
As well as these main scenes, there are also a few cutaway scenes that add effect, close-ups such as that of Angelique picking up the statue carefully, and a shot that follows the action from behind as she lifts the statue and strikes Loic on the back of the head.
This leads into a slow motion sequence which sees Loic falling down the stairs, his belongings dropping to the ground with a thud, his knees buckling slowly, Angelique just watching on as, using a point of view shot, we see Loic's vision of Angelique go blurry, and the use of shaky-cam allows us to further emerse ourselves in the scene.
Although the film continues for another 3 minutes, I have chosen to end my extract as she is driven away in the police van, because this is where the unusually cheerful soundtrack kicks in, and ties up the short scene I focused on in an unusual way, very fitting for the film itself.
'Whatever' album review
Hot Chelle Rae are a pop rock band from Nashville. Including members Ryan, Nash, Ian and Jamie, the group released their second album early this year.'Whatever' is a mostly feel good album that is easily related to by its target audience of teens. I came across Hot Chelle Rae accidentally one day, as Nash's brother Chord is in the TV show Glee. As soon as I heard the first single from the album, 'Tonight Tonight', I was hooked.Hot Chelle Rae are virtually unknown in the UK, their first album was only released in the USA so I was eager to learn more about this band. I bought 'Whatever' and, as you do with every album, I listened over and over, trying to find even one song that didn't live up to expectations. I couldn't. Every song on the album is either musically or lyrically genius. Sometimes both. Songs like "Whatever" are fun and upbeat, their lyrics just tell us to say "Whatever" to a bad situation and let go. However, there are songs about love too, such as "Why don't you love me?", which, as with most Hot Chelle Rae songs, include great metaphors in the lyrics and great music to accompany it.
Hot Chelle Rae's target audience are teenagers, and I feel this album appeals very well to them. Partying, letting go and experiencing love and loss are all things that teenagers face in their years of learning a way of life. The fact that Hot Chelle Rae are virtually unknown right now also increases the appeal; Teenagers want to discover and experience new things and music is definitely one of them. Having that one form of escapism that no one else knows about is an amazing feeling for some people and an album like this by an up and coming artist really allows people to escape from everything else and just enjoy the feeling that music gives them.
For me, this is just one reason why I love this album. Another reason is that, as a fan of the members themselves, I can understand how the lyrics reflect them. Also, the album is hugely diverse. There are 11 songs on the album, and 6 of these are about love and relationships, but not in the way you'd expect, they're not slow and 'soppy', they're actually quite upbeat, and reflect all different kinds of relationship. The other 5 are all about partying and having fun, one song even inspiring many Hot Chelle Rae fans to name themselves "Beautiful Freaks".
The simple denotation, at first glance, of this album is the "typical boy band with generic lyrics" idea, but if you look, or listen deeper, you'd find it was much more than that. Of course, many people won't look past it, and there will be some who, when they do, don't like what they hear. This is all simply based on opinion, and some feel their songs are generic and the lyrics are too simple. I, as stated, would disagree with this but, of course this is opinion. I have heard from some people who feel it's "Not quite pop, not quite rock" and others saying "They're trying too hard", but for me, this further adds to their appeal. They have diverse music and clearly care about their fans.
The album as a whole, in my opinion, is simply brilliant. Every song is one I'd listen to if it came up on 'shuffle', and I can't say that about many albums. It's not perfect, but nothing really is. However, it's the perfect album for me and my diverse music taste, and I love it.
10/10 is too easy a star rating for this, so I'd happily give it 8/10, maybe the drawbacks being the lack of a slow song, or too little songs on the album!!
And if you don't like it, whatever!
Below: A Hot Chelle Rae interview discussing "Whatever".
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)