Sunday 29 January 2012
Pre-Production: Fish Tank Review
My review on Fish Tank, including some aspects that I will include in my opening sequence.
Tuesday 24 January 2012
Pre-Production: So you wanna make make a film...
...here's what you're going to need to know:
Inspiration is at the start of every film, books, real life events and pre-exsiting films can all act as inspiration, even an everyday conversation or object! This forms an idea, this idea is proposed to a producer, if the producer likes the idea they will need to make a treatment and pitch and so find a director. The director will visualise the idea or script to see whats feasible for production. If the director is well known this will help to get a good writer on board and even finance for the project. The writer will be found next, he or she will define and clarify the ideas, the plot and the main characters, turning it into something tangible to work with. The relationship between Producer, Writer and Director is the ket creative triangle in the film business. Once the triangle has agreed ideas the Writer will then write a treatment: A one page description to the main story and characters of the film. The treatment will assume the tone of the film, if it's a comedy the treatment will be funny. A horror, it will be scary etc. The triangle will then make a pitch, this contains all the information the producer needs in order to sell the idea to financiers to commission a script. The pitch will start with a one liner which sums up the film, then the genre will be discussed, followed by the market and audience for the film, the people attached are included alone with a rough budget and finishing off with a brief synopsis of the film. The producer then goes to production companies with the treatment and pitch and persuades them that the film will make a profit, if the producer is successful in this they will receive development money which goes towards developing the script. The producer can also offer the future sales and broadcast rights to the film in return for money to develop the script. The producer can also apply to a public funding body such as the UK Film Council for a development grant or pitch the film to private investors in the hope that they will support the project. At the end of all this the Producer will have a development deal which he or she will use to tie down a writer. First the writer produces a synopsis, then outlines the steps, from this the first draft is produced. This is sent to the financiers, who will all have their own ideas, from this the final draft is written. The final stage of the script development process is the creation of a sales treatment, which is used as a sort of advert for potential financiers of the film. With the script complete the Director and Producer decide how they want to film it and who they will employ to help them; the cast, head of department etc. A detailed budget and production schedule is written up followed by a finance plan and recoupment schedule. The final package will contain: Final draft script, sales treatment, list of attached stars and HODs, detailed budget, production schedule, finance plan and recoupment schedule. This will be presented to potential funders to get money to make the film. Filmmaking in an expensive business and the Producer must secure enough funding to make the film to the highest standard possible. With the financing secured the full cast and crew are hired and detailed preparation for the shoot begins starting with the kick off meeting, through to storyboarding, production design and SFX planning. A large film production can involve hundreds of people and it is a constant struggle to keep it on schedule and budget. Post production usually starts during the shoot as soon as the first "Rushes"(raw footage and sound) are available. While the film is still in post production the Producer is already out selling it, he or she needs to find a distributor. The Producer hires a sales agent, a trailer is made and brought to meeting with distributors to sell the film, the sales toolkit needs to stand out as the market is saturated with films. A screening at a film festival can create heat which will get attention from distributers and help secure deals. As the finishing touches are being made to the film in post production the distributors plan their strategy and begin to market it. The audience is established and advertisement is produced to appeal to this audience. Press and media coverage is needed to spread the word of the film although the Internet and new marketing models are of increasing importance in marketing. Once distribution deals have been made and the film is hot and being talked about all over the web and world it is sold to exhibitors, the cinemas that will show it. Cinema exhibition is still the primary channel for films to reach their audiences and box office success equals financial success. First theirs the premiere, attended by all the stars which builds media coverage, then it is shown in cinemas, distributors supply the exhibitors with prints of the film. The more screens the film is shown on the more prints are needed. Data is collected about the popularity of films and from this the exhibitors decide which films to cancel and which to prolong. Once the distributors have been paid the financiers can recover their investments as laid out in the recoupment schedule. Hospitality sales for hotels and in-flight entertainment can bring in millions in additional revenue, then of course the film is released on DVD and Blu-Ray of which UK audiences spend more on than cinema tickets. A while after the DVD release the television is the final source of revenue, rights are sold seperately for pay per view showings, then pay TV showings and then terrestrial broadcasting. Rights for computer games and other product licenses can be extremely lucrative sources of additional revenue. Once the film has made a profit the Producer and key creative people can reap their rewards or so the theory goes...
The final income of a film is never known as distribution continues in perpetuity. It may even be re-released in the future!
Hollywood Vs Independent.
Assassins, hitmen, secret societies of organised killers. Many a film has been made about them, all offering a different representation. In Bruges, the 2008 film starring Colin Farrell, shows hitmen in a very lighthearted, comical way with the main character being an average built, normal guy from Dublin, whereas Wanted of the same year, starring Angelina Jolie and Samuel L Jackson, is the epitome of cool. Showing hitmen (and hitwomen) as sexy, super cool and almost superhuman.
So... Let's do some comparing!
Actors and Characters.
Top billed is Colin Farrell, a fairly well known actor but not huge. The film also stars Brendan Gleeson and Elizabeth Berrington, again not hugely known or acclaimed actors. The Character that Farrell plays, Ray, is incredibly normal, his Irish accent, slight rudeness and general pessimistic attitude is very common of independent British films, especially as this character is a realistic representation of British people, which other British people would find appealing, but an American audience might not find the same appeal. The characters in general are pretty much perfect examples of average, in fact it's only when they've guns in their hands and you see that they are hitmen, that their irregular side shows. The fact that all the characters are typically British and average is what creates the comedy and drama by placing them in Bruges, where they spend most of the time moaning and insulting people and causing small petty disputes over comical things.
Sound.
There are no well known tunes used in the trailer, in fact I don't think there is even a soundtrack, just some generic music with no copyright that they could use for a cheap price. As far as dialogue goes, the first part sets the scene and starting point of the plot but everything after is merely there for comical or dramatic effect and does nothing to add to the narrative of the film. Also the accents are mainly Irish and what was the last blockbuster, box office hit that you saw with two Irish guys with strong accents as leading roles.
Camerawork & Editing.
Camerawork is pretty basic, mostly stationary shots with a couple of tracking and tilts/pans. Nothing particularly fancy, most scenes are shot on location as a result of this allowing studio costs to be cut, adding realism also. Lots of mid shots, hardly anything that would have needed cranes or expensive rigs. Editing is quite simple but energetic and fast. Lots of shot reverse shots with basic cuts, some for comical effect/timing. There are no special effects, no CGI, jaw dropping stunts or explosions. Not much technology would have been needed to film and edit, meaning it could have been done on a low budget.
Mise-en-scene.
Most of the film is shot on location, nothing was made specifically for the film, they just worked around what was already there. Little expense on props. Overall finish is quite good but not incredible.
Actors and Characters.
Top billed is Angelina Jolie, a very well known and loved actress and the better half of Brad Pitt. Also starring Samuel L Jackson, a highly acclaimed actor with scores of awards, globally known and respected. The character that Jolie plays is ultra sexy, wild and deadly. She isn't average in anyway and is almost superhuman with the way she moves and the tricks she pulls off, this would appeal to a much more broad audience as who doesn't want to see something fantastic. She is upbeat and cool, stylish and a very good assassin, this appeals to a whole range of people, from boys watching just because they think she's good looking to women who see Jolie standing up for feminism somewhere in the role. All the characters are fantastical, all cool and good looking, the people you may dream you were, doing the things you may wish you could do. Who dreams of being a moody, average, normal looking man from Dublin, I doubt very many do. Who dreams of being a sexy, cool, stylish, superhuman assassin? Yeah, not really any competition. This means that more people would be appealed by the characters in Wanted as they could imagine themselves assuming the roles of the characters on screen.
Sound.
There is a score running from the beginning to end of the trailer, which starts small and builds in volume and pace, adding dramatic choir sounds and building tension creating a dramatic and sincere tone. The dialogue reveals the narrative which everything said furthering the plot, everything said being of importance and significance to the story. Unlike "In Bruges" where the dialogue really does nothing for the narrative and bears no significance or importance.
Camerawork & Editing.
Nearly every shot in this trailer looks expensive. Cranes, helicopters and all sorts of expensive rigs would have been needed to film these shots. Also there are lots of special effects and jaw dropping stunts, a clear and vast use of CGI. This all would have been very expensive. Lots of top of the range technology would have been used and would have needed skilled people to operate it. Again raising the budget. Their would have been large studio costs as I doubt there was much on location filming. Editing wise, lots of fast cuts, short shots, adds to the excitement and adrenaline of the trailer.
Mise-en-scene.
Money, money, money. This film would have sucked the budget dry, shiny sports cars, huge looms, hi-tech weapons, explosions. Everything gets shot and blown up. There would have been a lot of money put towards props and set as most of it looks like it was made especially for them. And then they blow it up! The finish is quite superb with Wanted too, everything looks rather perfect and shiny.
Hollywood will cast the most famous and most loved actors as these have the biggest appeal, the bigger the appeal, the more people go see the film which means the more money they'll make from it. Independents will cast the actors most suitable for the roles and of course who they can afford.
Hollywood invests large amounts of money into camerawork, editing, CGI and props, the more cash they put in, the more they get out. Independents don't have the money to do this and don't need to as the financial reward really isn't as important. Hollywood only care about money. Independents care about good film and art. Unfortunately Independents have to fight over the 14% of the film market they get as the rest is taken up by money guzzling Hollywood films with no heart and no real meaning.
So... Let's do some comparing!
In Bruges
Actors and Characters.
Top billed is Colin Farrell, a fairly well known actor but not huge. The film also stars Brendan Gleeson and Elizabeth Berrington, again not hugely known or acclaimed actors. The Character that Farrell plays, Ray, is incredibly normal, his Irish accent, slight rudeness and general pessimistic attitude is very common of independent British films, especially as this character is a realistic representation of British people, which other British people would find appealing, but an American audience might not find the same appeal. The characters in general are pretty much perfect examples of average, in fact it's only when they've guns in their hands and you see that they are hitmen, that their irregular side shows. The fact that all the characters are typically British and average is what creates the comedy and drama by placing them in Bruges, where they spend most of the time moaning and insulting people and causing small petty disputes over comical things.
Sound.
There are no well known tunes used in the trailer, in fact I don't think there is even a soundtrack, just some generic music with no copyright that they could use for a cheap price. As far as dialogue goes, the first part sets the scene and starting point of the plot but everything after is merely there for comical or dramatic effect and does nothing to add to the narrative of the film. Also the accents are mainly Irish and what was the last blockbuster, box office hit that you saw with two Irish guys with strong accents as leading roles.
Camerawork & Editing.
Camerawork is pretty basic, mostly stationary shots with a couple of tracking and tilts/pans. Nothing particularly fancy, most scenes are shot on location as a result of this allowing studio costs to be cut, adding realism also. Lots of mid shots, hardly anything that would have needed cranes or expensive rigs. Editing is quite simple but energetic and fast. Lots of shot reverse shots with basic cuts, some for comical effect/timing. There are no special effects, no CGI, jaw dropping stunts or explosions. Not much technology would have been needed to film and edit, meaning it could have been done on a low budget.
Mise-en-scene.
Most of the film is shot on location, nothing was made specifically for the film, they just worked around what was already there. Little expense on props. Overall finish is quite good but not incredible.
Wanted
Actors and Characters.
Top billed is Angelina Jolie, a very well known and loved actress and the better half of Brad Pitt. Also starring Samuel L Jackson, a highly acclaimed actor with scores of awards, globally known and respected. The character that Jolie plays is ultra sexy, wild and deadly. She isn't average in anyway and is almost superhuman with the way she moves and the tricks she pulls off, this would appeal to a much more broad audience as who doesn't want to see something fantastic. She is upbeat and cool, stylish and a very good assassin, this appeals to a whole range of people, from boys watching just because they think she's good looking to women who see Jolie standing up for feminism somewhere in the role. All the characters are fantastical, all cool and good looking, the people you may dream you were, doing the things you may wish you could do. Who dreams of being a moody, average, normal looking man from Dublin, I doubt very many do. Who dreams of being a sexy, cool, stylish, superhuman assassin? Yeah, not really any competition. This means that more people would be appealed by the characters in Wanted as they could imagine themselves assuming the roles of the characters on screen.
Sound.
There is a score running from the beginning to end of the trailer, which starts small and builds in volume and pace, adding dramatic choir sounds and building tension creating a dramatic and sincere tone. The dialogue reveals the narrative which everything said furthering the plot, everything said being of importance and significance to the story. Unlike "In Bruges" where the dialogue really does nothing for the narrative and bears no significance or importance.
Camerawork & Editing.
Nearly every shot in this trailer looks expensive. Cranes, helicopters and all sorts of expensive rigs would have been needed to film these shots. Also there are lots of special effects and jaw dropping stunts, a clear and vast use of CGI. This all would have been very expensive. Lots of top of the range technology would have been used and would have needed skilled people to operate it. Again raising the budget. Their would have been large studio costs as I doubt there was much on location filming. Editing wise, lots of fast cuts, short shots, adds to the excitement and adrenaline of the trailer.
Mise-en-scene.
Money, money, money. This film would have sucked the budget dry, shiny sports cars, huge looms, hi-tech weapons, explosions. Everything gets shot and blown up. There would have been a lot of money put towards props and set as most of it looks like it was made especially for them. And then they blow it up! The finish is quite superb with Wanted too, everything looks rather perfect and shiny.
Hollywood will cast the most famous and most loved actors as these have the biggest appeal, the bigger the appeal, the more people go see the film which means the more money they'll make from it. Independents will cast the actors most suitable for the roles and of course who they can afford.
Hollywood invests large amounts of money into camerawork, editing, CGI and props, the more cash they put in, the more they get out. Independents don't have the money to do this and don't need to as the financial reward really isn't as important. Hollywood only care about money. Independents care about good film and art. Unfortunately Independents have to fight over the 14% of the film market they get as the rest is taken up by money guzzling Hollywood films with no heart and no real meaning.
Keeping it real...-ism. British social realism
This scene is a very raw and quite disturbing representation of the racism culture of 1980's skinheads, unfortunately it's a very realistic representation, the scene has not been censored or cut, it's as real as it gets. People that are familiar with the subcultures shown could identify with this representation, people victimised by these groups could also identify with it. Parents with young easily influenced children would also be able to identify with how young boy is pressured and influenced into fitting in with a certain social group, something that is still a big problem in current British society.
Guy Ritchie is well known for his rather glamorous representations of British culture, usually focused on London and the Ganster genre. Although he does a very good job of realistically representing 'Britishness' with our loves for "Fish, chips, cup'o'tea, bad food, worse weather, Marry fucking Poppins"
He also unrealistically represents London as a glamorous scene for gangsters, making their lives seem humorous and light when really London's crime is a serious, dark scene that shouldn't be glamorised.
This would appeal to a non-British audience as this is the usual stereotype that non-British people are used to, this doesn't conform to the British Social Realism genre as these gangsters are not shown in a dark, gritty, raw way. How ever a British audience would also identify with the base of the characters even though they may not be represented in a completely realistic way.
Conclusion
I think the main difference between these films is that This Is England is more a film to inform and maybe shock viewers, it's gritty representations of Britain are raw and uncut where as Snatch's main purpose is to entertain and not really worry about how realistic the representations of Britain are.
British Social Realism Timeline
A timeline through the ages of British Social Realism, contrasting and comparing the conventions of British social realism and how the different films appeal to a niche British audience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)