Wednesday, 30 September 2009
Friday, 25 September 2009
Pitch for Music Video
A music video that relates to every highschool crush. A guy who has everything against him when it comes to love and has fallen for the prettiest girl in the school, everyone knows that there is one guy who never gets the girls but will it be him? or will things go horribly wrong?
Friday, 18 September 2009
Identify how 'Sense and sensibility' and 'Four weddings and a funeral' represent aspects of British society past and present
'Sense and sensibility' and 'Four weddings and a funeral' are both British films that represent aspects of British society past and present such as marriage, children and gender. The two films represent these aspects at different times with 'Sense and sensibility' being set in the 1800 and 'Four weddings and a funeral' being set in the late 1980s to early 1990s.
In both films the issue of marriage is a big part with characters in both films wanting to get married and finding the right person to marry, however the choice in the matter is different. In 'Sense and sensibility' women are expected to get married, in that time women were very disadvantaged in he way that society treated them, they didn't have job prospects and any inheritance would legally be left to a son. So the only financial stability they would have would be to get married, so they would go from living with their parents to living with a husband. However in 'Four weddings and a funeral' there is a lot more choice because there are a lot more opportunities for women, they wouldn't necessarily have to get married unless they wanted too and this is shown in the film by having two friends living together without being romantically involved.
There are a lot of things that happen in 'Four weddings and a funeral' that wouldn't have happened in 'Sense and sensibility' because of the time that the film was set in. For example in 'Four weddings and a funeral' there are a homosexual couple, which wouldn't have been accepted in the time of 'Sense and sensibility' also in 'Four weddings and a funeral' someone states that the two men were the only ones that were truly married, even though they weren't its because they truly loved each other whereas everyone else was getting married because it was what society expected of them. Another example is in the end where Charles and Carrie decide not to get married but have a child whereas in 'Sense and sensibility' it wouldn't have been acceptable to have children without being married. In 'Sense and sensibility' it was an important thing to marry off your daughters and to find them a suitable husband, with marriage being a serious thing. Whereas in 'Four weddings and a funeral' they almost take the mick out of marriage by having Rowan Atkinson as the minister, having so many weddings in a short space of time and people getting married out of desperation.
Another aspect of British society that both films represent is ethnicity and class. 'Sense and sensibility' was set in 1800 therefore it wasn't culturally diverse and resulting in all the characters being white. Whereas in 'Four weddings and a funeral' it's more culturally diverse not as much as many films now but a lot more culturally diverse than 'Sense and sensibility'. This refers to an article by Leggott(2008) about representing contemporary Britain. He said cinema now takes into consideration sexuality, ethnicity, class and gender. In 'Sense and sensibility' very beautiful women are covered up in long dresses showing barely any skin this shows that in that time women weren't used to look at and their sexuality was exploited the way they are now. Whereas in 'Four weddings and a funeral' there is a scene where two characters have just had sex and the woman is just in her underwear getting dressed This is because people have become more comfortable now with seeing sexual scenes. There is a big difference in the films in which they represent the genders. In 'Sense and sensibility' women are disadvantaged in the way society treats them, there aren't any job opportunities and all the advantages go to the dominant role of being male. Which results in the women getting married at early ages so they can be financial stable. Whereas in 'Four weddings and a funeral' the time is more modern therefore ways of life have drastically changed. Women can live on their own or with a friend and be financial stable maybe not even getting married at all. Also there is a scene where Carrie is telling Charles about her sexual partners which turns out to be over 30, and she isn't married, Whereas in 'Sense and sensibility' having a sexual partner without being married wouldn't be accepted and may go as far as the woman being disowned or isolated. Another article that can be related to one of the films is an article about Richard Curtis and the time period in cinema which was called 'Curtisland'. Curtis wrote films because he wanted people to view Britain differently and not the way they had been. He then made his films optimisitc and happy and always with a happy ending. Curtis wrote 'Four weddings and a funeral' and the film did end happily and there was a lot of love and happiness in the film because of the choices that people had at the time. whereas in 'Sense and sensibility' theres a lot of love but there is also a lot of heartbreak and this is because of the lack of oppertunities and choices that the women had. The two films represent the way British people were seen, or wanted to be seen at the different times.
'Four weddings and a funeral' and 'Sense and sensibiliy are both very British films which is why they both star Hugh Grant who was, and still is a very well known British actor. They both represent aspects of British society but at very different times resulting in very drastic changes. They go from Women being very disadvantaged to very advantaged being shown by the women in 'Four weddings and funeral' not nessacarily having to get married to be finanaicaly stable. Also the fact that there is a homosexual couple in 'Four weddings and a funeral' shows how times have changed and British society has become accpeting of homosexuals whereas in the 1800 it was never heard of. Another thing that has changed is in 'Four weddings and a funeral' they have a child without being married which people don't think twice about whereas in 'Sense and sensibility' this wouldn't have been acceptable because it shows your having sex before marriage which wasnt acceptable. If you therefore watch a British film that was written and set in the 2000s the way the characters behave, the language they use, the clothes that they wear and the apects of British society that they represent would be very different to 'Four weddings and a funeral'
In both films the issue of marriage is a big part with characters in both films wanting to get married and finding the right person to marry, however the choice in the matter is different. In 'Sense and sensibility' women are expected to get married, in that time women were very disadvantaged in he way that society treated them, they didn't have job prospects and any inheritance would legally be left to a son. So the only financial stability they would have would be to get married, so they would go from living with their parents to living with a husband. However in 'Four weddings and a funeral' there is a lot more choice because there are a lot more opportunities for women, they wouldn't necessarily have to get married unless they wanted too and this is shown in the film by having two friends living together without being romantically involved.
There are a lot of things that happen in 'Four weddings and a funeral' that wouldn't have happened in 'Sense and sensibility' because of the time that the film was set in. For example in 'Four weddings and a funeral' there are a homosexual couple, which wouldn't have been accepted in the time of 'Sense and sensibility' also in 'Four weddings and a funeral' someone states that the two men were the only ones that were truly married, even though they weren't its because they truly loved each other whereas everyone else was getting married because it was what society expected of them. Another example is in the end where Charles and Carrie decide not to get married but have a child whereas in 'Sense and sensibility' it wouldn't have been acceptable to have children without being married. In 'Sense and sensibility' it was an important thing to marry off your daughters and to find them a suitable husband, with marriage being a serious thing. Whereas in 'Four weddings and a funeral' they almost take the mick out of marriage by having Rowan Atkinson as the minister, having so many weddings in a short space of time and people getting married out of desperation.
Another aspect of British society that both films represent is ethnicity and class. 'Sense and sensibility' was set in 1800 therefore it wasn't culturally diverse and resulting in all the characters being white. Whereas in 'Four weddings and a funeral' it's more culturally diverse not as much as many films now but a lot more culturally diverse than 'Sense and sensibility'. This refers to an article by Leggott(2008) about representing contemporary Britain. He said cinema now takes into consideration sexuality, ethnicity, class and gender. In 'Sense and sensibility' very beautiful women are covered up in long dresses showing barely any skin this shows that in that time women weren't used to look at and their sexuality was exploited the way they are now. Whereas in 'Four weddings and a funeral' there is a scene where two characters have just had sex and the woman is just in her underwear getting dressed This is because people have become more comfortable now with seeing sexual scenes. There is a big difference in the films in which they represent the genders. In 'Sense and sensibility' women are disadvantaged in the way society treats them, there aren't any job opportunities and all the advantages go to the dominant role of being male. Which results in the women getting married at early ages so they can be financial stable. Whereas in 'Four weddings and a funeral' the time is more modern therefore ways of life have drastically changed. Women can live on their own or with a friend and be financial stable maybe not even getting married at all. Also there is a scene where Carrie is telling Charles about her sexual partners which turns out to be over 30, and she isn't married, Whereas in 'Sense and sensibility' having a sexual partner without being married wouldn't be accepted and may go as far as the woman being disowned or isolated. Another article that can be related to one of the films is an article about Richard Curtis and the time period in cinema which was called 'Curtisland'. Curtis wrote films because he wanted people to view Britain differently and not the way they had been. He then made his films optimisitc and happy and always with a happy ending. Curtis wrote 'Four weddings and a funeral' and the film did end happily and there was a lot of love and happiness in the film because of the choices that people had at the time. whereas in 'Sense and sensibility' theres a lot of love but there is also a lot of heartbreak and this is because of the lack of oppertunities and choices that the women had. The two films represent the way British people were seen, or wanted to be seen at the different times.
'Four weddings and a funeral' and 'Sense and sensibiliy are both very British films which is why they both star Hugh Grant who was, and still is a very well known British actor. They both represent aspects of British society but at very different times resulting in very drastic changes. They go from Women being very disadvantaged to very advantaged being shown by the women in 'Four weddings and funeral' not nessacarily having to get married to be finanaicaly stable. Also the fact that there is a homosexual couple in 'Four weddings and a funeral' shows how times have changed and British society has become accpeting of homosexuals whereas in the 1800 it was never heard of. Another thing that has changed is in 'Four weddings and a funeral' they have a child without being married which people don't think twice about whereas in 'Sense and sensibility' this wouldn't have been acceptable because it shows your having sex before marriage which wasnt acceptable. If you therefore watch a British film that was written and set in the 2000s the way the characters behave, the language they use, the clothes that they wear and the apects of British society that they represent would be very different to 'Four weddings and a funeral'
Comparing 'Slumdog millionaire' and 'Somerstown' - To what extent could they be classed as British films?
'Slumdog millionaire'(2008) is a film directed by Danny Boyle and written by Simon Beaufoy ( The full monty). The film was widley recognised and won 8 acadmemy awards .The film was distributed by two distributors, Pathé Pictures International (Europe) and Fox Searchlight Pictures, in conjunction with Warner Bros(US/Canada). Although the film was written and directed by British people and starred a British actor (Dev Patel) it has been questioned whether the film can be classed as a British film because of what it is about and where the film is set. However 'Somerstown' (2008) is a film Directed by Shane Meadows (This is England).This film wasn't as recognised as 'Slumdog millionaire'
only winning one award at the London Critics Circle Film Awards and
didn't make as money as that film did but it was set in London and is about the social enviroment of London and stars a British actor (Thomas Turgoose) better known for his role in 'This is England', also a British film. 'Somerstown' was also entirely funded by Eurostar.
Although both films are classed as films from the UK it is easier to class one of the films 'more British' than the other. 'Somerstown' was directed by a British Director and stars a known British actor, the film is also set in London, about London so it's obvious it is a British film. However 'Slumdog millionaire' Is set in a different country and its about a different country so it's easy to say the film isnt British but it is directed by a British director and stars a British actor. So one of the films is obviously British and the other is only British behind the scenes.
only winning one award at the London Critics Circle Film Awards and
didn't make as money as that film did but it was set in London and is about the social enviroment of London and stars a British actor (Thomas Turgoose) better known for his role in 'This is England', also a British film. 'Somerstown' was also entirely funded by Eurostar.
Although both films are classed as films from the UK it is easier to class one of the films 'more British' than the other. 'Somerstown' was directed by a British Director and stars a known British actor, the film is also set in London, about London so it's obvious it is a British film. However 'Slumdog millionaire' Is set in a different country and its about a different country so it's easy to say the film isnt British but it is directed by a British director and stars a British actor. So one of the films is obviously British and the other is only British behind the scenes.
Monday, 14 September 2009
Articles - 14/09/09
1st Article - The first article was about director and screen writer Richard Curtis and how his famous films became well known for being happy and optimistic with happy endings. Also his way of incorporating his view of New labour into his films made his way of making films a well known thing called 'Curtisland'. Curtis made his films in a certain way because that's how he wanted people to view Britain. Curtis's winning formula made people view Britain from the broken-home and teenage pregnancy capital of Europe to a sunny, witty, self-deprecating , charming kind of place. Curtis belived there is optimism, goodness and love in the world but it is under-represented and that's what he did with his films.
I think the way Curtis thought about his films is a positive thing. He didn't just make films because he wanted to, he made them because he wanted to change the view of Britain and British people. He did this with simple things such as having his films contain positive attitudes and optimism as well as love and happy endings, the things people crave. I think Curtis's films make people feel good and send people into a world where anything is possible because it may just end happy.
2nd article - The second article was about ways in which British cinema has represented the perspectives and expiriences of those dwelling in contemporary Britain. The aricle is also based on how British cinema has responded to the debates surrounding sexuality, class, gender and ethnicity. In then goes into more detail about those four chosen subjects the first being sexuality. The article talks about how films never showed anything to do with sexuality such as sex scenes and homosexuality whereas in Britain today you get films such as 'Billy Elliot' where they challenge the audience and dislodge any anxieties that the main character might be gay because he is a dancer and the fact that the main character in 'Bend in like Beckham' is a female football player. In the part of the article that refers to class the article talks about films mainly being revolved around middle class people when in the 1990's the representation of working class expirience reached prominence through a number of filmss which refered to issues of exclusion and unemployment films such as 'The full monty' and 'Trainspotting'. Also making a bold statement about class is the film 'Billy Elliot where in the film they refer to the miners strike in the 1980's but not saying the cause of industrial action. The artcile then talks about gender and how men mainly dominated cinema making films mainly about male expiriences. where in some films such as 'Football factory', 'Green street' and 'This is England' they show men being the sterotypical view of a man being aggressive and violent films such as 'The full monty' and 'Billy Elliot show men being creative and maybe showing their femine side. However films then started to revolve films more around just women, films such as 'Bridget Jone's diary' becoming hotly debated icon of post-feminism with Bridget enjoying the lifestyle and professional career campaigned for by feminism and in thrall to old-fashioned ideas of romanic courtship. the expression of 'dangerous female sexulaity has been a recurring theme in contemporary British cinema with women being penalised for their sexual desire or obliged to renounce it. The part on ethinicty revolves around many British films being written by white middle class people for white middle class people and many British films have been critisised, films such as 'Notting hill' for making no reference to cultural diversity and 'The full monty' being critisised for the sterotyping of its one black character through his secually-charged nickname of 'Horse'. The British fillm industry also being slammed for citing the lack of a 'black harry potter' with Ken Williams saying "why is childhood fantasy only left for middle-class white children?".
I think that films are also going to contain specific genders, classes and ethinicitys and theres also going to be someone to critise these films saying their "sterotypical" or "racist" but different films revolve around different storylines and need specific actors of a specific gender of ethnicty but as time has gone one many film-makers and writers are now taking into consideration peoples concerns and adress these concerns in their films but adressing issues such as discrimination, sterotyping or racism.
I think the way Curtis thought about his films is a positive thing. He didn't just make films because he wanted to, he made them because he wanted to change the view of Britain and British people. He did this with simple things such as having his films contain positive attitudes and optimism as well as love and happy endings, the things people crave. I think Curtis's films make people feel good and send people into a world where anything is possible because it may just end happy.
2nd article - The second article was about ways in which British cinema has represented the perspectives and expiriences of those dwelling in contemporary Britain. The aricle is also based on how British cinema has responded to the debates surrounding sexuality, class, gender and ethnicity. In then goes into more detail about those four chosen subjects the first being sexuality. The article talks about how films never showed anything to do with sexuality such as sex scenes and homosexuality whereas in Britain today you get films such as 'Billy Elliot' where they challenge the audience and dislodge any anxieties that the main character might be gay because he is a dancer and the fact that the main character in 'Bend in like Beckham' is a female football player. In the part of the article that refers to class the article talks about films mainly being revolved around middle class people when in the 1990's the representation of working class expirience reached prominence through a number of filmss which refered to issues of exclusion and unemployment films such as 'The full monty' and 'Trainspotting'. Also making a bold statement about class is the film 'Billy Elliot where in the film they refer to the miners strike in the 1980's but not saying the cause of industrial action. The artcile then talks about gender and how men mainly dominated cinema making films mainly about male expiriences. where in some films such as 'Football factory', 'Green street' and 'This is England' they show men being the sterotypical view of a man being aggressive and violent films such as 'The full monty' and 'Billy Elliot show men being creative and maybe showing their femine side. However films then started to revolve films more around just women, films such as 'Bridget Jone's diary' becoming hotly debated icon of post-feminism with Bridget enjoying the lifestyle and professional career campaigned for by feminism and in thrall to old-fashioned ideas of romanic courtship. the expression of 'dangerous female sexulaity has been a recurring theme in contemporary British cinema with women being penalised for their sexual desire or obliged to renounce it. The part on ethinicty revolves around many British films being written by white middle class people for white middle class people and many British films have been critisised, films such as 'Notting hill' for making no reference to cultural diversity and 'The full monty' being critisised for the sterotyping of its one black character through his secually-charged nickname of 'Horse'. The British fillm industry also being slammed for citing the lack of a 'black harry potter' with Ken Williams saying "why is childhood fantasy only left for middle-class white children?".
I think that films are also going to contain specific genders, classes and ethinicitys and theres also going to be someone to critise these films saying their "sterotypical" or "racist" but different films revolve around different storylines and need specific actors of a specific gender of ethnicty but as time has gone one many film-makers and writers are now taking into consideration peoples concerns and adress these concerns in their films but adressing issues such as discrimination, sterotyping or racism.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)