I Daniel Blake is a social realism film based on a growing issue in England, the benefits system. The scandal arose in 2013 when Channel 4 starts a new TV series “Benefits Britain 1949”. It shocked the public and acted as a eye opener to many. In this TV series they exploit the benefits and show lives of people living on these benefits from the government. The series includes three episodes exploring the life of three British citizens: Melvyn, a stoic pensioner, who was made to turn down £100 a week to a now £5.49 a day; Karen, she had worked 22 years and was not assigned to sickness benefits, and lastly Craig he was born into a wheelchair. In the first episode is shows Melvyn forced to live on meagre amounts of food which do not include fruit or vegetables. It was so bad that a Gp said with this lifestyle he would have 2 years to live. The show goes on to show different aspects of this lifestyle. This series arose a lot of ignominy around the public and many articles were published on the topic as well as protests arose. I believe the film I Daniel Blake was made due to this reason as it was a major issue in england when the film started production. Due to the topic of the film being a major issue it would be popular among the audience as it would relate to them. The film industry is also a media platform on which making producing this film they can educate the public on this growing issue. The audience of this film is different from others we have looked into, as this is more of a documentary the audience would be more mature. I think the range would be from possibly some 18 year olds and above. I believe so because I feel it would attract more audience of those who either read the news or are affected by the issue. I Daniel Blake was a very emotional film which had very strong reactions from viewers, many people after the film came out, shared their own stories they were so scared to share with the community. It became a much more speaken of topic and no longer held a secret. Independant.co.uk wrote and article about the film, they had showed it to claimants, relatives and welfare rights advisors who openly stated that the film speaks the truth, and it's actually that bad. The film was about a 59 year old man who after having a heart attack becomes friends with a single mother and her two kids, they together work through the unfair benefits system in Kafkaesque. The movie has some humor, warmth and despair. i have not personally watched the movie but the reactions it received were heartfelt and full of emotion The film arose many angry as they explained how they had gone through similar situation as the main character of the film I Daniel Blake. This wasn't just one or two hundreds proclaimed being put in similar situations. So did this film actually change anything in the community? Well sort of, sadly the government cannot change in a day and it will take time, but they are trying. Theresa May is no longer the strong triumphant leader she was before, now her government is fragile and barley able to keep afloat. The new appointee for the Department of Work and Pensions promised to start a 'fresh era' but his promise was short lived as he lasted less than a year. His assessor was David Gauke who promised to continue the welfare reform, Universal Credit, even though many resisted. It may not seem big but the Universal Credit reform is the biggest change in the welfare system for over 40 years. What it will do is combine 6 benefits into one, this change would effect 8 million people, but there has been issues. Nick Forbes a council leader in Newcastle, one of the cities trying out this new programme has said that due to it they are on a verge of a renewed housing crisis. Because the benefit is now not paid directly to the landlords but to the tenants over 2,500 tenants are at risk of eviction. Not a good start. So how long will this new benefit system last and is it really helping? Well from the basic knowledge I've read it's not, but that may be because I have not experienced what was before, it may have been worse. Also as I stated before the government takes take and hopefully it will improve and find a system that actually works and will help people. It's all a work in progress.
0 Comments
I think the budget for this film doesn't need a huge overly priced budget, as I feel action movies receive less publicity than love stories generally. Though contradicting my point "fault in our stars" was quite highly publicized due to the fact that it was based on a book by John Green and it had a huge audience.
The legendary Dr. Strange was released on the 13 of October in 2016. It was rated 7.5 stars on IMDb and 90% on rotten tomato, those are some pretty high numbers. It was directed by Scott Derrickson and produced by Kevin Feige. The Dr. Strange film has actually been under development since the mid 1980’s, which is partly why it was such a big hit as so many people had been waiting for it’s release. This movie was based from a Marvel Comics character Doctor Strange, as many Marvel produced movies are. The script was dated to January 21, 1986 by Bob Gale although for some unknown reasons his film never made to production. In 1989, another movie was scripted with the same character. In this script the character traveled into the fourth dimension where he faced the villain Dormammu on Easter Island. The production was also stopped and now finally in 2016 it was released. The movie premiered in Hong Kong on October 13, 2016. In Hollywood it premiered a week later in the TCL Chinese theatre and EL Capitan Theatre. It was released on October 25, 2016 in the UNited Kingdom, along with 33 more markets in its first weekend, with 213 IMAX screens in 32 of those markets. Overall, Doctor Strange had the widest IMAX release ever globally, it was also the first film released on more than 1,000 IMAX screens. Ironically I personally haven’t yet watched it. To advertise the films coming out they made a concept art trailer in August 2015, the trailer was narrated by Derrickson. It simply includes drawn art of Doctor Strange in common outfits from the comics as well as images of the plot, including Strange’s accident, his journey of healing and other important parts. On April the 12, 2016 the first teaser trailer was released. It debuted on Jimmy Kimmel Live, which is a comedy, gossip type of talk show. It was said to be similar to the trailer for Batman Begins, but don’t most superhero movies all have similar characteristics. On October 10, 2016 15 minutes of footage from the film was screened at 11 IMAX 3D locations in North America people who came also received and exclusive IMAX poster for the film. This was all done for publicity and so the people at the event would publicise the movie to their friends and family. The audience was also given an incredible visual tour of the multiverse which features other dimensions and other realities. In addition to all these more expensive marketing idea marvel also provided Twitter stickers, giphy content, Facebook lives, Snapchat lenses, filters, Instagram special content and so forth related to the film. These large media platforms are very publicized and therefore brought a lot of quite cheap publicity to the movie. Marvel also had a promotional sponsorship of the film provided by Microsoft Surface as they used their devices whilst filmmaking. The Audience I feel is mainly teenagers as stereo typically it is them more interested in superhero movies. So possibly ages varying from 10-18. Although because this movie took so long to make and many times was nearly made possibly it would attract and more older audience. Stereotypical superhero movies are considered to have a wider male audience but because the main role is Benedict Cumberbatch who is considered quite a good looking male, although not really stereotypical, I believe this would attract more female audience. The film Dunkrik starts in silence. The first thing you see is a black screen with the text Dunkirk written in a clean, slick, white font, as white contrasts very well with black. The Opening scene is also in silence with just a slight buzz in the background building up tension, I believe they did so to allow the audience to concentrate on the moving image and emphasis the oddness of the empty roads and quietly drifting papers.. The shot starts long and using I suppose a dolly moves its way down the road along with the actors. Then another black screen comes up with similar clean slick white writing, this provides a background story for the audience about the war if they don't already have background knowledge. The sudden change may shock the audience. They continue with a close up of a soldier catching a flyer. Again they seem to use very natural sounds, so no non-diegetic sound. The some actions kicks in with shooting, but still the sound is very diegetic no background music. You can here in the background somewhat like a heartbeat that would have been added post production, but it’s not as noticeable. This nondiegetic sound grows unexpectedly for the audience.
I feel the colours are very specifically chosen. It seems almost like it has a filter on it like a tint to give is a older look. The would have done this to fit the characteristic of history war films, it may connote the tint old cameras had. I believe this film has a big variety when it comes to audience. I think it would attract males as it starts with a shooting scene and generally stereotypically war film are mostly focused on the male audience. The movie is also quite goary which stereotypically associated with males. Although it may also interest females as all male protagonists are quite attractive. They also include cameos such as Harry Styles to attract the female audience. The film is rated PG13 because it is very historically accurate film I believe it would attract a wide variety of audience. Teenage girls would be interested due to the attractive male especially Harry Styles, a known musician. The older generation would be interested to see the accuracy, as it may have affected them. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |