Shane Meadows: Auteur?

All this brings us to This is England. Shane Meadows’ latest film (now available on DVD) is by far his strongest and most complex piece of work to date. Although all of his previous films have touched on elements of the director’s past, it is fair to say that this is Meadows’ most personal work. As he has said of the 80s context of the film:
As a kid growing up in Uttoxeter, Staffs, it was a time of great music, brilliant fashion and a vibrant youth culture that makes today’s kids look dull and unimaginative by comparison. It was also a time of massive unrest when British people were still prepared to fight for the stuff they believed in. My new film, This is England, is about all of these things.
The Guardian 21/04/07
The film starts with a montage of 80s imagery, everything from Roland Rat to Duran Duran, Knight Rider and the royal wedding of Charles and Diana. Also included in this is footage of Margaret Thatcher, Conservative Prime Minister of the period – whose policies and philosophies loom large in this film. The shattering of working-class communities is a common theme in Meadows work, and in this film this is implicitly seen as a result of the Thatcherite belief in individualism and the promotion of consumerism.
The backdrop of the film is the Falklands War. In 1982 Argentina invaded the small colonial outpost of the Falklands Islands in the south Atlantic. Mrs Thatcher’s response was to send a Task Force of British serviceman to fight for the retention of the Islands’ British sovereignty. Shaun, the central character, has lost his father in the conflict and this acts as a catalyst in the film for much of his behaviour. The war was fought and won quite quickly and although there was some loss of life, the victory gave a tremendous boost to the Conservatives who had been struggling with massive unemployment at home. In turn this was seen as a key factor in Mrs Thatcher’s second General Election victory a year later.
Youth cults and a sense of belonging
This is England centres on 12-year-old Shaun (an excellent performance by newcomer Thomas Turgoose) and his induction into a gang of local skinheads led by the affable Woody (Joe Gilgun). Shaun is still reeling from his father’s death, and lives with his mother on a nondescript Midlands estate. He is bullied at school for the clothes he wears and seems lonely and disaffected. That said, he isn’t afraid to stand up for himself, despite his diminutive stature. What may not be known to many younger members of the audience is the background to the skinhead movement, what they signify in the broader context of the film.
Youth cults have always been a feature of the British teenage experience. They offer a common dress sense and a shared set of attitudes and values. These cults or movements centre on music as a key defining feature and they had existed in recent British popular culture with Teddy Boys in the 1950s, Mods and Rockers in the 1960s, Punks in the 1970s and New Romantics in the 1980s. There were of course other movements that teenagers were a part of as well; and by far the most feared and perhaps misunderstood were the skinheads. In This is England, Shane Meadows, himself a former skinhead, tries to deal with these complexities.
The rise of the skins
The first wave of skinheads came to prominence in the late 1960s. They were essentially working class youngsters, who in their communities and workplaces were for the first time encountering West Indians. There was a common bond forged here with the rude boy culture of the Caribbean and this was largely based on a love of ska, soul and bluebeat music. In terms of fashion it was relatively cheap, practical and crucially very distinctive. Fred Perry T-shirts, drainpipe Levis, Harrington jackets and Doctor Martin boots were its uniform. Extreme, closely-cropped hair gave the movement its name.
Any youth cult or movement inevitably raises fears exacerbated by the media (witness last year’s tabloid outburst on Emo). Like any group of young people there were factions of skinheads who were violent – but they were easier to label. During the mid 1970s skinheads largely disappeared, only to re-emerge at the tail end of the decade. Spurred on by a new generation interested in the ska and bluebeat of the late 1960s, this new movement centred on a record label, 2-Tone, set in Coventry. Suddenly all over Britain, young people started getting their hair cut in the distinctive suedehead style and dressing much like the skinheads of ten years previously. One famous Top of the Pops in 1979, saw the appearance of no less than four bands (The Specials, The Beat, Madness, and The Selector) on 2-Tone or associated with the ska revival. Skinheads were truly back in style and part of the mainstream consciousness.
2-Tone prided itself on its multi-racial groups and its adherence to an anti-racist agenda and it also produced some fantastic music which is still highly influential today. The late 1970s also saw massive unemployment and social disorder with riots in many of Britain’s cities. It was against this backdrop that Margaret Thatcher was elected in May 1979. At the same time far-right political parties like the National Front, who blamed the economic difficulties on immigrants, grew in popularity.
Woody in This is England represents the 2-Tone model of the skinhead in many respects. One of the gang, Milky (played by Meadows’ regular Andrew Shim) is from a Jamaican background and there is a clear love of black culture shown in the mise-en-scène, for example posters celebrating ska music adorn the walls of Woody’s girlfriend’s bedroom. The use of music in the film initially harks back to the original artists from the West Indies and it is wonderful. There is a lovely slow motion Reservoir Dogs moment set to Toots and the Maytals’ Louie Louie, where the gang emerges and walks down the street. It sums up the early feeling of the film as one of celebration, of Shaun finding something or somebody to help him. We see the gang dressing up in costume and vandalising some empty houses, kicking football and going swimming. Shaun is introduced to parties and his first kiss with Boy George look-alike Smell. The café and square where the gang hang out is lovingly recreated. Woody is a very much a surrogate father for Shaun – looking after him and encouraging him to become part of the gang by shedding his hideous corduroy flares and animal jumpers for a Ben Sherman shirt and Levis strides. The transformation is complete when Lol (Vicky McClure) shaves Shaun’s head. But there are dark clouds on the horizon.
Combo and the dark side
The emergence of Combo (an incendiary performance by Stephen Graham) in the film signifies a shift in the mood and tone of the narrative. Combo has been in prison for three years for an unspecified crime, and on his release sets about regaining the gang from his old friend Woody.
Combo is a racist, schooled in the politics of fear and ignorance. It is indicated, by some clever cutaway shots of Lol and the rest of the gang, that Combo has always been like this, that his radical and abhorrent views are not just the result of his jail sentence. He sees the economic problems as largely being the fault of ethnic minorities. His rhetoric challenges the group to either fight or to stay with the more civil Woody. For some members like Milky and Lol it is an easy choice to make; but for the weaker, more vulnerable skinheads it is much more difficult. Impressed by Combo’s ugly, rousing speech, Shaun chooses to stay with him and so begins a new chapter in the film.
What is clear to see here is that Meadows never glorifies the actions of Combo and his new acolytes. Their intimidation of young Bengali boys and Asian shopkeepers is a far cry from Combo’s ‘tactics’. In one interesting and unsettling scene, we see Combo driving his new found gang to a country pub (complete with L plates), where they are addressed by National Front members. The respectable appearance of these so-called politicians contrasts sharply with that of their audience. For Combo they are providing a voice for him and his beliefs, as wrong as they might be.
Shane Meadows has suggested in a number of interviews that Combo’s racist ideals are rooted in a lack of identity and uncertainty of what being English is all about. The immigrant communities had strong identities, a real sense of community and a clear culture as evidenced in areas such as music. Combo it seems lacks these core values and it is his xenophobic stance that is totally at odds with skinheads’ multicultural roots. The skinhead movement did suffer from a massive upsurge in racism in the early 1980s – the ramifications of this are still seen today with a number of neo-Nazi skinhead groups operating in Europe. That said Meadows does give a great deal of complexity to Combo, rather than just presenting him as a raging sociopath. There are indications of a lost past, a broken family, a missing father. He sees in Shaun a younger, purer version of himself. He is a very different patriarch to Woody, who echoes Darcy in 24.7. He is much closer to Morrell (Romeo Brass) and Sonny (Dead Man’s Shoes) in terms of temperament and their relationships with younger characters. His rejection by Lol is also pivotal in understanding his catalytic final action.
However, what is central in This is England is Shaun’s development. It is a tough rite of passage for him as he searches for a sense of belonging and very possibly a new strong father figure. In the final shots of the film, the Cross of St George flag (a present from Combo) is used to excellent effect, as Shaun throws the flag into the sea. It raises fascinating questions beyond the narrative about where he will go next and what exactly he is rejecting.

 

Shane Meadows an auteur are his use of occasional comedy, even during serious film ‘This is England’ there are moments of comedic value, such as the scene where Shaun and his friends hide to scare Gadget as he approaches them, and when Shaun and his mother go shoe shopping and she tries to trick him into buying ‘uncool’ shoes with the shop assistant. These scene I felt was rather light hearted despite the situation of the vandalism they were committing in scaring Gadget, and its different to other films of this genre because films such as ‘Fish Tank’ are very much intense throughout, therefore I think occasional comedy could be a recognisable factor for Shane Meadows.
Another point is his storytelling. When I first watched ‘This is England’ it seemed very simple yet effective, however on the second viewing I discovered it was a lot more of a real story than I first thought, as it really felt like the story wasn’t about representing a whole group of people but specifically Shaun. As you see the moments with his mother doing average things such as shoe shopping and eating in cafes that make the character so likable despite his flaws. This I feel could be another point because in Meadows work he really represents the characters themselves, and tells in depth stories.

 

 

Shane Meadows also often uses the same actors in his films such as Thomas Turgoose who plays Shaun, he was 12 when he featured in This is England as his narratives often focus on young children being pushed into the wrong crowds. He also uses Vick McClure and Stephen Graham. Meadows often creates films that link to his own personal life which makes him more of an auteur because that aspect of film is familiar with him.

His most common style is Social realism in british society. With many of the films being set in Northern England about working class people with heavy accents and in some ways unusual lifestyles but in other ways extremely common and basic, (for example, lol has an unusual lifestyle as a skinhead but a common lifestyle by working as a factory worker and then in the series a diner lady). The protagonists are usually shown as young men which have built up anger that is expressed throughout the film. However the genre itself would probably be classed as hyper-realistic which is then exagerated for comedic effect.

This realist genre is upholded through cinematography and the use of documentary-like,  hangheld shot which make the audience feel more submerged within the reality of the film.

Sound is used throughout the film in a number of ways specifically the non-diegetic scores, some complied scores are to submerge the audience within the time period and the world of the characters by playing rastafarian music which the skinheads would have listen to at the time. Meadows also uses the same composed orchestral score to create enhanced emotional effect during difficult or montage scenes.

Editing is used to create montages throughout, specifically at the start and the end. This is used to enhance the emotions of the scene whilst also giving reasonable context that sets the audience within the time period (the 80’s)
Mise-en-scene is used to create a realistic setting for the 80’s time frame. As well as having significant effect into the skinhead look aswell as the story that is told. As well a the performance which is hyper realistic. This only relates to the skinheads and is set in place in order to create reaction from the audience for their own pleasure.

Danny Boyle: Auteur?

All artists have a particular style that is unique to them and is continually expressed throughout their art. Whether it is a form of literature, a style of painting, or the way one directs a film, there will always be specific factors to any piece of art that can be identified to its creator. One such artist is the well renowned film director, Danny Boyle. Danny Boyle is among the many that add a personal stamp, of sorts, to his films. While his style is evident in all of his films, there are some that portray it more enthusiastically. Danny Boyle’s unique and captivating film style is demonstrated magnificently through his films Trainspotting 28 Days Later, 127 Hours, and Slumdog Millionaire.

Some trade marks:

  • point-of-view shots
  • high-angle shots
  • low-angle shots
  • cameras in impossible places
  • surreal sequences
  • strong use of colour
  • time-lapse sequences
  • dream sequences
  • voice-over narration

https://vimeo.com/207562501

 

 

This is England (Shane Meadows, 2006)

A young 12 yr old Shaun Field (Thomas Turgoose) is being bullied at school for his dated trousers and the fact he no longer has a father after he died in the Falklands war. Moping on the way home from school he is stopped by, much older, Woody (Joseph Gilgun) and his gang of skin heads who want to cheer him up. Through this they take him hunting, partying with much older people, drinking and introducing him to his soon be girlfriend, 18 yr old Smel (Rosamund Hanson). Among the skin-heads is Milky (Andrew Shim) and Mixed race gentleman, Gadget (Andrew Ellis) commonly mocked for being overweight, Lol (Vicky McClure) woody’s girlfriend, Trev (Danielle Watson) and Kel (Chanel Cresswell), lols friends, pukey (Jack O’Connell). After rearranging his style and taking him in as a little brother, they are interrupted by a big tattooed man holding a machete, Banjo (George Newton), then followed by fellow new wave skinhead, Combo (Stephen Graham) playing a prank on his old friends after just returning from prison. With very different nationalistic views he starts talking about his time in prison being extremely racist and attempting to force power.

After some time and apologies over the things he said he criticises the others such as woody for not sticking up for Milky against him, in another rant Combo starts talking his iconic ‘this is England’ speech where he also mentions the Falklands war and the white genocide conspiracy theory to which Shaun looses his head and starts swinging for Combo, this reveals to the gang the loss of his father. Combo uses this too light a fire within shaun and manipulate him to join his side, as well as Gadget who is tired of the comments made about his weight, and pukey who favour Combo’s less apolitical gang.

There group start going to National Front meetings and become a lot more political, Combo’s severity is proven when Pukey questions it and he is thrown out of a car and left on the side of the road to return to Woody. The gang then engages in bigoted antagonism of, among others, shopkeeper Mr Sandhu (kris Dosanjh), a Pakistani shopkeeper who had previously banned Shaun from his shop. After being rejected by Woody’s girlfriend lol, Combo asks Milky for some weed which they all get high together. During this Milky starts talking about his large family and good home life, everything that Combo lacked. Combo appears visibly envious of this and bitter to the point where he starts to get enraged and spirals into a frenzied state and brutally beats Milky unconscious.

Banjo holds down shaun, whilst Meggy (Perry Benson) stands there in shock, soon after Combo kicks Shaun out after verbally defending Milky, Banjo attempts to join in to which Combo smashes a bottle over his head and the two are also kicked out, instantly remorseful he tries to get Shaun to help him lift Milky to hospital. The film ends with shaun being reassured by his mother (Jo Hartley) that Milky will be ok and then his stood by the seaside chucking a St. Georges Flag (a gift from combo) into the seas symbolising the end of his short childhood.

My opinion

This is England has been one of my favourite films for years as I probably first watched it when I myself was the same age, or maybe even younger that Shaun. As an aspiring film production uni student I have found the type of film that interests me the most and that is social realism, especially the Brit pop ideals, as mentioned I love This is England but films such as Fish Tank, Billy Elliot and Tyranasuar are film that I love. I think I enjoy the more realistic representation of British life instead of the more common ideas that most Americans and other foreign countries believe we all live like Harry Potter and the royal family.

Trainspotting (Danny Boyle, 1996)

The story is narrated by Renton (Ewan McGregor), who will, and does, dive into “the filthiest toilet in Scotland” in search of mislaid drugs. He introduces us to his friends, including Spud (Ewen Bremner), who confronts a job interview panel with a selection of their worst nightmares; Sick Boy (Jonny Lee Miller), whose theories about Sean Connery do not seem to flow from ever having seen his movies sober; Tommy (Kevin McKidd), who returns to drugs one time too many, and Begbie (Robert Carlyle), who brags about not using drugs but is a psychotic who throws beer mugs at bar patrons. What a lad, that Begbie.

These friends sleep where they can–in bars, in squats, in the beds of girls they meet at dance clubs. They have assorted girlfriends, and there is even a baby in the movie, but they are not settled in any way, and no place is home. Near the beginning of the film, Renton decides to clean up, and nails himself into a room with soup, ice cream, milk of magnesia, Valium, water, a TV set, and buckets for urine, feces, and vomit. Soon the nails have been ripped from the door jambs, but eventually Renton does detox (“I don’t feel the sickness yet but it’s in the mail, that’s for sure”), and he even goes straight for a while, taking a job in London as a rental agent.

But his friends find him, a promising drug deal comes along, and in one of the most disturbing images in the movie, Renton throws away his hard-earned sobriety by testing the drug, and declaring it… wonderful. No doubt about it, drugs do make him feel good. It’s just that they make him feel bad all the rest of the time. “What do drugs make you feel like?” George Carlin asked. “They make you feel like more drugs.” The characters in “Trainspotting” are violent (they attack a tourist on the street) and carelessly amoral (no one, no matter how desperate, should regard a baby the way they seem to). The legends they rehearse about each other are all based on screwing up, causing pain, and taking outrageous steps to find or avoid drugs. One day they try to take a walk in the countryside, but such an ordinary action is far beyond their ability to perform.

What is Trainspotting?

shoooting up heoroin or the like. Called so because a session will leave a dark linear mark (known as a “track”) at the site of the affected vein.

 

I did enjoy this film and think the more positive and light hearted beginning is definitely needed for the darkness and depression that comes after and during the death of baby Dawn. The films a very good example of a budget made British movie in which cinematography quality isn’t in the centre priority in comparison to the social realism aspects that shine through which the poor quality probably adds the the dirty addict life that these characters are emerged in. I have probably never watched such a drug heavy movie before and at times it did feel uncomfortable but eye opening and done in a very off putting way.

Spectatorship Essay – from inter

SPECTATORSHIP AND ACADEMIC FILM STUDIES

When film studies began to establish itself as an academic discipline in the 1970s, film theorists looked to other fields, most importantly semiotics and psychoanalysis, for cues on how to best articulate the ways in which film functions as a system of language. Both semiotics and psychoanalysis are based on the understanding that larger structures or systems govern the ways in which individuals engage with the world. These structures are inescapable; individuals have no control over their position within them and are subject to their processes. Film theorists saw many parallels between the pleasurable experience of watching a film in a darkened theater and psychoanalytic discussions of unconscious states of being.

In accounting for the process of how a spectator experiences a film, theorists drew on Sigmund Freud and Jacques Lacan’s theories of early childhood development, suggesting that the process of watching a film recreates a similar dynamic between what Lacan called the imaginary and symbolic worlds. Because film language works so effectively to make the viewer feel as though he or she were enmeshed in its world, the spectator is able to relive the pleasurable state of being in the imaginary stage again. Psychoanalytic theories of spectatorship make several assumptions that raise doubts about its ability to serve as a suitable model for understanding film viewing. First, in this model the spectator is always rendered a passive subject of the film text, subject to its meaning system. This suggests that film spectators do not have control over the ways in which they view films and the meaning they take from them—that, in fact, every spectator receives the same meaning from a film. Also, because Lacan’s notion of Oedipal development is experienced only by the male child, psychoanalytic theories of spectatorship are pertinent only when applied to (hetero-sexual) male spectators. Furthermore, these theories do not take into consideration cultural and historical variants, implying that all (male) film viewers will respond to film language in the same way regardless of their historical, cultural, and political context.

Although the psychoanalytic model remains important within academic film studies and continues to produce active debates, its assumptions have been challenged by several theoretical positions that pose alternative ways of thinking about the film spectator. In her influential essay “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema” (1975), Laura Mulvey takes a feminist stance toward the implicit gender dynamics of psychoanalytic theories of spectator-ship by further interrogating the male specificity on which the entire framework rests. Like the development process, in which only the male child can enter into the symbolic world where language has meaning, she argues that film language is dictated by a male-controlled system. Film language is both controlled by men and designed for the benefit of male pleasure, which is inextricably linked with looking, voyeurism, and the objectification of the female image. Mulvey argues that, because the language of narrative cinema mimics aspects of the stage, film only serves to perpetuate a type of male-driven patriarchal language that facilitates male visual pleasure. As a result, female spectators have no access to it other than through the male gaze that consistently objectifies the female spectator’s onscreen counterpart. Therefore the only pleasure that female spectators derive from it is masochistic (the pleasure in one’s own pain). Mulvey argues that female spectators will be able to find true pleasure from films only by inventing a new type of film language that is not driven by narrative.

Mulvey’s article posited a comprehensive paradigm that was difficult to overcome. Yet the work that followed succeeded in posing alternatives to her argument or expanding its framework. One of the main paths of research in this area focused on the potential for female film spectators to establish a different type of relationship with films specifically made to appeal to them—referred to as women’s pictures, weepies, or melodramas. Because these films feature female characters and focus on female issues, theorists raised compelling questions as to whether this more feminine mode has the potential to challenge male-oriented film language. Following the lead of feminist theorists who debated (to varying degrees) the assumption that the subject or spectator implied by psychoanalysis is male, other film theorists responded to the psychoanalytic model by contesting its inherent dismissal of historical and cultural conditions, specifically those of race and sexual orientation. The emphasis of these alternative readings was both to argue for an active spectator-ship informed by one’s cultural and social position and to suggest the possibility for oppositional or alternative readings that deviate from the dominant (Caucasian, heterosexual, male) one set forth by mainstream cinema.

For instance, Manthia Diawara argues that psychoanalytic theories of spectatorship ignore the impact race has on a spectator’s reading of films, contending that viewers have the potential to resist dominant readings and establish oppositional perspectives. He argues that it is therefore possible for African American spectators to identify with and resist Hollywood’s often limited image of blacks, which Caucasian spectators do as well. In other words, a spectator’s race does not determine his or her response to a given film. The feminist film theorists bell hooks and Jacqueline Bobo augmented this discussion of race and spectatorship by arguing that even more complex readings arise for African American female spectators because of their double exclusion on the grounds of gender and race.

Gay and lesbian theorists have also made significant contributions to the “rereading” of film spectatorship. Teresa de Lauretis, Andrea Weiss, and Patricia White, among others, suggest that lesbian spectatorial desire challenges the traditional heterosexist paradigm, creating a dynamic of desire outside of previously theorized notions of spectatorship. If lesbian spectators are outside of the traditional heterosexual system of desire, then they pose a significant threat to previous theories of spectatorship.

Signifying a departure from psychoanalytic concepts, an increasingly prevalent discussion within film studies of spectatorship focuses on the historical development of audiences in the early film industry. By unearthing archival documents such as box-office records, studio files, and periodicals of this era, film historians have pieced together accounts not only of how audiences responded to early films, but also of how changing audience expectations affected the evolution of the film industry and film language.

 

 

Active Spectatorship: Stuart Hall’s Reception Theory.

According to Stuart Hall’s reception theory, a film only has meaning when it is decoded by an audience and not all members of the audience will decode the meaning in the same way.

The theory states that media texts are encoded by the producer meaning that whoever produces it puts values and messages. The text is then decoded by the audience, different spectators will decode the messages differently. A text can be produced in one of these ways:

Dominant, or Preferred Reading – how the producer wants the audience to view the media text. Audience members will take this position if the messages are clear and if the audience member is the same age and culture; if it has an easy to follow narrative and if it deals with themes that are relevant to the audience.

Oppositional Reading – when the audience rejects the preferred reading, and creates their own meaning for the text. This can happen if the media contains controversial themes that the audience member disagrees with. It can also arise when the media has a complex narrative structure perhaps not dealing with themes in modern society. Oppositional reading can also occur if the audience member has different beliefs or is of a different age or a different culture.

Negotiated Reading – a compromise between the dominant and oppositional readings, where the audience accepts parts of the producer’s views, but has their own views on parts as well. This can occur if there is a combination of some of the above e.g. audience member likes the media, is of the same age as you and understands some of the messages, but the narrative is complex and this inhibits full understanding.

Filmmakers encode meaning into their films which audiences then decode (Stuart Hall, “Reception Theory”). Audiences may come to a preferred, oppositional or even negotiated reading of a film.

Passive spectatorship: The Uses and Gratification Model.

The audiences as a heterogeneous group of different individuals who will react to the film differently and interpret the film in their own way. This theory suggests that audiences will actively use films for a range of purposes including: entertaining, self-identification, social interaction, and gaining information about the world.

This directly opposes the ideas of the Hypodermic syringe model, as it suggests that the audience decided what to do with the film and instead of being directly influenced

Needs:

  • Entertaining
  • Self-identification –        People might seek someone who can represent them in the film, or maybe take inspiration from, these people might share a common outlook as them or even an image.
  • Escapism – Watching films to distract them from their own lives and stresses, often as a form of relaxation.
  • Social interaction – A lot of subjects addressed in films can be good conversation starters as well as audience connections. with characters can be seen as a form of relationship that could hold valuable meaning to an audience member, E.g being a really big fan of a particular actor, director or celeb.

In turn the more that the audience use this theory to satisfy their needs, the more they become dependent on it and the more it influences their opinions.

Passive Spectatorship: The hypodermic Syringe Model.

Imagines the film audience as passive, homogenous mass. In this model, the messages and meanings the film are injected into the minds of members of the audiences where they are accepted uncritically.

Weakness of this is that it assumes that a film has one fixed meaning that all audiences will take on board.

This therefore percepts the film or media as powerful as they are able to ‘inject’ ideas into people who are seen as weak and passive. An example of this could be German Expressionistic films which could ‘inject’ Nazi Propaganda into people during the 1930’s, but for the most part people might look at a Nazi propagandist film and reject most of the ideas, in the same way that people might not find a comedy funny, However this theory disregards any ideas that people might have different views.

American film since 2005

Mainstream and independent.

Spectatorship –

  • how the spectator has been conceived as both passive and active in the act of film viewing.
  • how the spectator is in dynamic interaction with film narrative and film features.
  • reasons for the uniformity or diversity of response by different spectators. – some people might feel the same way whereas others won’t – e.g british watching american film
  • the impact of different viewing conditions on spectator response – people reactions influencing you – or noticing things second time.
  • the possibility of preferred, negotiated, oppositional and aberrant readings of film. – you might not get what the filmmaker wanted you to get.

Ideology –

  • what are the main messages and values of the film?
  • how are these messages conveyed through the use of key elements of film form?
  • does the film reinforce, challenge or reject dominant attitudes within the society it is made in?
  • which character(s) are the spectators encouraged to align themselves with and what is there dominant belief system?

mainstream – a film made in hollywood by a big studio to attract a mass audience and make lots of money. They take less risks? safe options, worked in the past.

independant – made on a smaller budget by several studios financing it, driven by a director who has a specific artistic vision.

 

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started