Ill Manors broadcast platform: trailer analysis

Ill Manors broadcast platform: trailer analysis

1.

Typical codes and conventions of trailer tend to lie in things like:

• Institutional information - actor/director names/studio/production companies
• Title, release date and tagline
• Narrative - Todorov's equilibrium and Propp's character archetypes
• Action sequences/dramatic moments - action and enigma codes (Barthes)
• Voiceover/text on screen/dialogue
• Music - non-diegetic
• Promotional info - websites/hashtag/social media
• Review quotes

2.

Trailers are distributed nowadays predominantly through the online platform with things like video-sharing websites and social media with their widespread usage by the masses. While they still are distributed in cinemas, the Internet seems to be their main and best way of doing this.

3.

Ill manors uses the usual trailer conventions with things such as the title of the film being presented at the end of the trailer, snippets of dialogue from the film making up a 'general plot,' a non-diegetic track in the background, promotional info (being presented at 1:40 for example) and also review quotes from 'Men's Health,' 'Q Magazine' and 'FHM Magazine' just to name a select few.

4.

The target audience for this film appears to be 15 to 25-year olds and this can be said to evident with the use of more action-oriented scenes in the trailer. With these punch-outs often being a point of appeal to the age range, and to some extent beyond that, their usage is something that could definitely be considered as a way of drawing them in. The editing of the trailer. From a narrative standpoint, the film has been presented in a way that we get a brief insight into the characters in it. An example of this are the scenes where Chris is presented, firstly of him as child with blood by his eye acting as somewhat of an enigma code in terms of how he actually obtained the cut and then when he's a adult where a scar has been sustained in the same location. Here it can be generally interpreted by viewers that the scar may have possibly contributed to the 'hard man' character we see him [Chris] as being, helping deliver a sense of narrative. The main star of the film can be said to be Aaron, however in the trailer we're presented with content that almost suggests that Kirby and Chris will be acting as the central protagonists of the film, not 100% reflective of the whole production. Information about the director Ben Drew is displayed from the Plan B logo being shown on-screen and also him being described as the 'visionary artist' that created the film. What's interesting here though is that things involving the director don't stop here though with him not only having a cameo appearance as a taxi driver, but him doing the actual narrator voice-over of the trailer. Clear by him even saying 'I am the narrator,' Drew essentially sets the scene of what 'Ill Manors' is and how certain events will all become significant in the long run of things.

5.

When the genre of social realism is concerned, the film has been represented firstly through the props presented throughout the whole trailer. Starting with the cocaine then going to the multiple guns and cigarette, it's clear that the film will borrow elements from films you usually see depicting the underworld of cities, already gravitating towards this look and feel that social realism films have. It's also however, represented through the overall setting with the portrayal of housing estates/blocks and this has deep connotations with this idea of deprivation and crime in general. With music, a song that could be referred to as a 'protest'/song commenting on modern society is used [Ill Manors]. This is effective since it's a track people are likely to know having been made by Plan B himself and peaking at number 6 on the UK Singles Chart, and has extremely close links to what the film is generally about - the disadvantaged young people in the gutter/underbelly of London. However what fundamentally comes across as the biggest thing in representing the genre are the characters themselves and through what they though. With characters like Kirby coming out of jail and then brandishing a gun at Marcel, Chris holding a gun to Jake's head and a police unit infiltrating a building, it appears that all there is within the setting of the film is dysfunction and mayhem whether it be due to drugs or just any crime in general. Amidst all this other characters are seen smoking or just attacking one another and this overall, helps to really set the tone of the film as being gritty and unforgiving in its nature.

The British film industry: institutional context

The British film industry: institutional context

1.

For a film to count as British, it must score 16 out of 31 points in the British Film Institute's Cultural Test. This includes the film being set in the U.K, the lead characters being British, having it be based on British subject matter and having the dialogue be English as being some of the major conventions of a British film, these constituting for the most points (4).

2.

The Sweeney - counts at British with it fulfilling all the cultural context aspects of the test, that putting it up to 16 points alone.

Attack The Block - also counts as British with it again fulfilling all criteria from a cultural subject since it not only has British actors playing the characters, using the English language, but also relates to the whole concept of 'broken Britain' as subject matter - gang crime being a main component of the film.

The King's Speech - definitely counts as being British with its portrayal of members of the Royal Family in terms of subject matter and naturally, the use of British actors using the English language.

We Need To Talk About Kevin - although the film has a British director, British lead actor and the use of the English language it can be also considered to be an American one since the other actors are American and the film is actually set in the U.S.

Skyfall - again similarly to 'We Need To Talk About Kevin,' although the film is British with its subject matter depicting British intelligence, having a British director and being mainly recorded in the English language, $150-$200m of funding came from the U.S so it gets put into question whether the film is actually British or not from that standpoint.

3.

The main problem facing the British film industry is the fact that they're production-led rather than distribution-led. With this, they're often referred to as the 'cottage industry' by which they can only operate on a small-scale and not in direct competition with their American counterparts who effectively are conglomerates, having thousands of people in single film companies.

4.

One of the main strengths of the British film industry is the creativity of the practitioners within with things like intellectual property in terms of things like concepts for films. Another strength is the facilities that it has to offer in terms of things like studios but also post-production houses for things like editing footage. The last strength is the fact that there a number of different funds that can aid filmmakers in the U.K, aspiring or professional, such as the Film Fund which gives the filmmakers an annual budget of £15 million.

5.

One of the things the British film industry can do in future is do co-productions with the U.S. While it would keep the industry afloat though, it's argued that elements that make a film British would be lost in the process to a more American feel in the film. The other thing the industry could do is just target the more niche, British audience with a lower budget. While this could mean that there'd be lower box office takings, it would also mean that the industry stays true to what exactly makes a film British without compromise. 

6.

In my opinion, the industry should stick to a niche audience since it would mean that it actually stays true to its values that have made it so notable throughout time. Not only this, but it would also give Britain something to lay claim to in terms of film-making instead of having to share ownership with US producers when co-producing.

MEST1 Section B: The British film industry

MEST1 Section B: The British film industry

1. A film qualifies as being British once there is a sense of 'British involvement' in it, whether that be from it being funded from Britain, it being filmed in Britain or there being British actors in it to name a few possible things it may contain that go on to make it British.
2. The difference between a British production context and a Hollywood production context is that British productions often rely on a much lower budget, character-driven plot and also the word of mouth for the film to reach people. Hollywood is the exact opposite of this, with the films often being quite high-budget and a reliance on celebrity presence to help spread the film to others.
3. The James Bond franchise began in the 1960s at a time when cultural norms were beginning to shift increasingly.
4. From a censorship and graphic content standpoint, in the 1970s what was changing was the portrayal of sexual content in which elements of it like sexual violence began to be displayed at an increasing rate. In terms of the 80s, what became more prevalent were what are referred to as 'video nasties' with productions becoming increasingly violent and gratuitously pornographic. This affected censorship in the sense that the BBFC came about in '85 which ensured all films released in the UK be rated corresponding to a certain age.
5. Groups that often feature in British films are the youth and women. Youth for example, often feature in films to do with things like opposition to establishment and violence such as 'A Clockwork Orange' and also 'Attack The Block.' In the case of women, there's frequent stereotyping such as with the presentation of them having to be at either one-end of the spectrum - whore or virgin. Examples of these are in 'Nanny McPhee' and also 'Confessions of a Window Cleaner.'  
6. The factsheet suggests that the audience appeal of British film comes from there being actual identifiable British elements in the film whether that come from actors or locations, but also and perhaps more primarily, when it focuses on classification with things like social strife and education.

January assessment: learner response

January assessment: learner response

LR:

29 = C

WWW:

• Good to see use of theory and focus on the question

EBI:

• Too repetitive...  you need a wide variety of points for each question
• Audience appeal/pleasure is a weakness to revise

LR:

• See blog

The film can be said to appeal to such a wide audience as there's the use of both adults and child actors within it. With the film presenting a close-knit (nuclear) family, both kids and adults are shown, one of the things it can actually create with its viewers is a sense of personal identity, as is one of the four gratifications in Blumer and Katz' Uses and Gratifications. This is due to the fact that with there being a child for example, other children watching the advert will be able to gain a sense of relatability more with that child actor and subsequently the production overall, making them feel that the idea of road safety applies to them as much as it does with adults. With this portrayal of different age groups, the film can be said to appeal to quite a wide audience.

Another way the film appeals to such a wide audience is with the brevity it has. Being just under a minute and a half, the film follows a narrative pattern quite familiar to the masses in the form of Todorov's equilibrium in which it begins with a peaceful 'drive' (equilibrium), not wearing a seatbelt leads to a crash (disequilibrium) and the mother and daughter forming a seatbelt to help save the father from the crash, embracing one another after (new equilibrium). This narrative, coupled with the relatively short length of the film positions it perfectly to be put on things like social networks where the message of the film can be spread effectively.   

One more way the film appeals to a wide audience is through its implementation of traditional family values. With it depicting what could be referred to as a typical family, again something the majority of people would be able to relate to, values such as everybody being responsible for one another can definitely be received from the short film. This is likely to have been derived from the 'Happy families' line of appeal from Gillian Dyer in which the producers of the film such as Neil Hopkins realised that drawing upon a value like this could make viewers feel more responsible and apart of the push towards more road safety by ensuring seatbelts were worn at all times.