Ill Manors broadcast: music video analysis

Ill Manors broadcast: music video analysis

Media forms

How is it typical of a music video?

The Ill Manors music video can be said to be quite typical of a music video, in the sense that it uses a montage sequence throughout the video. Having scenes of Plan B on his own overlooking a block of council houses, others of quite notable controversial moments in Politics particularly regarding MPs interactions with the electorate and some of interactions between young people and the police, the video has scenes don't exactly have a sense of continuity all throughout its entirety. Not only this but these events can also be thought to link into Andy Medhurst's theory about stereotypes in that they're used almost as a way to tell the audience a lot in a short space of time (shorthand). With this the audience understands that the youths have feelings of animosity towards the police and it affects their interactions with them throughout their lives.

It is also typical in terms of what other videos in the music genre do from a location standpoint. Rap music videos are known particularly for having scenes set on the streets, and the Ill Manors music video doesn't stray away from this, with 00:35 being an example of this. With rap music usually having its origins in 'the street,' the video can also be related to Tessa Perkins theory in that stereotypes of rap music mainly emanating from the street are in a lot of cases true. This is in addition to the number of dance routines shown in the video, again seen at 00:35 make it also typical of quite a lot of (rap) music videos.


Media Representations

How does it represent the London riots/rioters?

The video represents the London rioters as being menaces to society and rebels. In the video, extracts are taken out from news broadcasts of the riots as they progressed with participants throwing things at the police and burning cars. With this they are presented as being mere criminals, only reinforcing the stereotype that young, particularly lower-class, people have as being uninspiring, mischievous people rather than challenging it. However at the same time, it could be said that this is only a 'closed-outlook' on the rioters and the complexity in the aspects that mean they're doing what they're doing, is reduced to a much more simpler picture as suggested by Richard Dyer. This being said, it's made a bit more unclear as to whether the rioters are just rioting for the sake of it or have a set of different reasons as to why they're doing it.

The video also represents the rioters as being of more of a lower-class background. With the connotations that clothing items like the hoodie have and the cigarette that one is seen smoking at 0:42 of danger and disregard, the rioters can be said to belong the 'Strugglers' section of society (Psychographics). Being heavy consumers of things like trainers, alcohol and junk food, the group is considered almost as being at the bottom rung of society. Not only this but as previously stated above, a sense of animosity is definitely present between the youths and the police linking into the binary opposition theory of Levi-Strauss. This is displayed particularly in 3:04 when a physical altercation between the police and the youth ensues, helping provide a sense of conflict understandable to the audience.

Media Audiences

What audience pleasures does the music video offer?

With audience pleasures, the video provides a sense of relatability to its intended audience. Although the audience are predominantly people who enjoy or are fans of Plan B's music who would tend to be members of the C bracket in terms of social grading, the video can definitely be identified to be targeted towards people from a much more lower class background and living in council estates (D/E group) evident in things such as the setting and the plethora of young people actually in it. This links in with the personal identification aspect of Blumler and Katz' Uses and Gratifications theory, with the people in the audience that do live in that environment, seeing parts of their own life possibly reflected in it such as the range of blocks in their community.

Another pleasure that the video provides possibly lies in the fact that the video has some things related to politics in it. With a number of references to politicians including the 'union' of David Cameron and Nick Clegg under the coalition government and also John Prescott throwing a punch at a protester who threw and egg at him, the video gives people interested in that kind of thing a sense of nostalgia as they look back on things that have taken place in the political world, giving a sense of diversion (Blumler and Katz) to them or just a general sense of entertainment.

Media Institutions

How does the music video help to promote the film?

The video helps promote Ill Manors by actually having actors from the film make appearances in the video. At different points in the video appearances are made from actors in the film such as Riz Ahmed and Ed Skrein who both star as main characters in it. Whether these are as simple cameo appearances with both actors already being quite notable figures in film, one appearing in Game Of Thrones and another in Four Lions, or reprising the roles of the characters they play is unknown (the latter more likely), however them making an appearance in the video alone provides a sense of synergy with the film as the audience get an idea of who they can expect to see when watching it.

Additionally the video helps promote the film by using things that were used in the promotion of the film in the video. The most notable aspect of this is with the fact that the actual audio track, was used in the trailer towards the end of it. This again adds to this idea of synergy, with a link being established with the film and the music video here, but not only in the sense that it's the same song, but also that the video gives them an idea of what to actually expect when watching the film whether this is the council estate environment or just the life of teenagers as a whole.


Ill Manors soundtrack research

• The record company involved with the release of Ill Manors, the soundtrack album, was Atlantic Records. As an American record label and a subsidiary of Warner Music Group, the project was backed by what can be said to be quite a major record label. However at the same time while taking this into consideration, it can be said the album should have sold a lot more than it did, will be detailed below, with the backing that it had from this institution, particularly with the popularity of its parent company – WMG being the largest American music conglomerate throughout the world 
• From a sales standpoint having released in July 2012, as of November in the same year album sales for Ill Manors had stacked up to 140,100. This could be said to be quite a number, particularly for a project which had the primary purpose of cross-promoting a film. Not only this, but the album also debuted with as a number 1 on the charts which alone, can be said to have been quite a feat particularly with it getting this position in the first week. 
• In terms of reviews, the album also did quite well scoring an 83 on Metacritic. This consisted of a 5-star review from The Telegraph and also 90 out of 100 on the Independent on Sunday, both quite particularly notable publications, saying ‘On a production level, this album is cutting-edge, on a lyrical level it is brutally brilliant. It will melt your ears and your heart’ and ‘This is one of the most exhilarating albums of the year’ respectively. 
• It can be said that users generally agreed/shared the same views as the reviews from it scoring an 8.4 on Metacritic in terms of user score with some people saying 'Perfect album. The production and lyrics are amazing. The album’s message is clear. The album was made to shock and it certainly did that' and another that: 'this album was worth the risk from Plan B. This album has a lot of relevant social commentary unlike his first album where he raps from the perspective of a misguided and violent young person.'

Ill Manors: TEDx lecture

Ill Manors: TEDx lecture

1. Plan B's values/ideologies mainly revolve around the general idea that young people are victims of demonisation by the media often, if not exclusively, without any regard of the upbringing they may have had to live through with abusive families and dysfunction in general as well as just overall neglect from society. This is evidenced through him saying at 15:39, referring to a quote from a former gang member that: 'society [...] cares more about shops and businesses than the lives of young people.'

2. The target audience of this TEDx lecture is likely to be 30 to 45 year olds. This appears to be the case particularly with the fact that Drew essentially has to tell the audience not to be swayed by portrayals of the youth in the media at 18:30 and also as a whole, provide a lot of contextual information as to why they may end up doing what they do. With this in terms of psychographics, the audience could be associated with the reformers group. Having taken the time to come to such a lecture and being inquisitive on what may inform the decisions of young people and the lives that they may live through, the audience can be viewed almost as 'people who want to be aware' or enlightened on things they may be unfamiliar about themselves. This is vastly different to what the audience of the film/music is though with them not only being pre-existing fans of Plan B in terms of music, but also young people just generally looking for things that help express their lives, perhaps putting them more in the place of strugglers.

3. Plan B says in the lecture that the media can be accused of ridiculing certain groups within society, in this case a section of young people without any consideration for their situation. With the derogatory term 'chav,' describing a 'young lower-class person who displays brash and loutish behaviour and wears real or imitation designer clothes,' being used 114 times in British newspapers in December 2004 alone, Drew feels as if papers almost alienate this group of people from society as a whole. This links into to the concept of moral panic with the fact that Ben Drew is essentially challenging what is usually thought of lower-class young people, which typically relates to violence and crime, and is attempting to display them as being as typical and as much of a part of society as the next person.

iLL Manors review

iLL Manors review

'There's no such thing as broken Britain/We're just bloody broke in Britain.' This line from the lead single of the film sharing the same name, 'ill Manors', goes to speaks volumes on modern British society but also in turn set the overall scene of the film as belonging in the genre of social realism. Located in, as Empire Online refers to it, the 'poverty-stricken estates of East London' the film appears to be gritty, unapologetic and blunt in its nature throughout its entirety and one of the way it does this in quite a more notable way is through its soundtrack.

Made by Plan B himself, the album chronicles the events of the film with tracks like 'Playing With Fire' describing the narrative of Jake with lines such as 'He's kid, off the estates/They call him little Jake/Today he tried to buy weed with his little mate/Up in the bits, but he's just a kid' and 'Deepest Shame.' What's actually interesting is the way these songs play during their corresponding scenes (e.g. 'Playing With Fire' in the Jake sequence) in the film as a way of accompanying the visuals of the film and further get the audience to the point where they understand aspects of the character or what they're going through, that they might not have had at all if the songs weren't there.

The plot of the film generally bases itself around 'the lives of four drug dealers, one user and two prostitutes.' Delving into the lives of these 7 characters and arguably more, the audience is taken on a ride with them as they do what they have to do to ensure their very lives. With this what's quite admirable is the use of a multi-strand narrative where we follow each of these characters individually with their stories at certain points in the whole narrative interlinking e.g. Aaron and the Katya, the 'runaway,' coming together because of the baby she abandons on the train. While this could've been overwhelming for viewers, I feel that it was done in such a way that they could understand all that was going on in the film without fail. It can be said though that especially during the second half of the film, a lot of the momentum that carried the first along was gone as each of the storylines went on. However what truly brings this plot together are the characters within it and the actors that play them.

Being a reasonably low budget film, the film has actors that are relatively unknown to the average viewer and also debut ones to add to that. But while this could be seen as being a potential pitfall for the film, rather it helps it deliver a greater level of overall authenticity. The best example of this is evident with the portrayal of Chris by Lee Allen, who has actually dealt with aspects explored by the film with him not only having a tough upbringing as a child but also actually going to prison for drug-related offences in 2004. With this, the role he asked to play by Drew was all-too-familiar for him and so making sure that the aura of the character was conveyed correctly was essentially not a problem at all and this is something that I felt throughout the entirety of the film. From a more general standpoint though, the acting was good enough to the point where it essentially reflected the environment of the characters with the predominant use of slang coupled with frequent curse words.

While the audience of the production is clear though, the same can't be said about the restrictions for it. The film appears to target 15 to 25-year olds with its usage of reasonably young people and language normally associated with the demographic - slang. At the same time though, while it can be said to target this group, whether that was intended by Plan B or not is questionable with the film having an age rating of 18. The film does have elements that go towards making a film 18-rated such as strong violence being shown, sexual scenes and strong language, however the fact that Plan B would still go ahead with the release of the film without a lower rating being a possibility is rather odd. Perhaps having no sexual scenes and only allusions to them could've done this as well as a toning down of the violence, but either way Drew didn't decide to change this. It could be said that this was due to him wanting to really achieve the 'real' aspect of the social realism genre but regardless, this rating could have acted as a barrier from letting certain people actually watch the film. Either way though, I would recommend this film to someone around my age as I think they'd be capable of processing the upfront nature of the film as somewhat of a necessary evil. 

Overall though, I can say that iLL Manors was quite a good film. Being upfront and gritty about ongoings in London in terms of things like crime and life in general and having actors that were actually 'true to what they were portraying,' it can be said that Drew achieved what he set out to do even though the film did 'run out of steam' at some points. However while the production was generally good, there are aspects of the film that can be questioned. The first one is whether the 18 rating limited the target audience Plan B wanted to aim the film at from watching it. The second though, and perhaps more importantly, is whether the film further cements the whole ideology that the youth of London live 'under a criminal cloak.' Throughout the film, there's essentially no real aspiration of any character to really get out of the mess that they inhabit and rather the cycle just continues to go on and on.  It's questionable in that case then, whether people from say more middle-class backgrounds will take to 'iLL Manors' as being more of a reasoning behind why some of the youth do the criminal acts they do to get by or just a convoluted excuse for it all and continue to view them in the same regard that they do - menaces to society.

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.