$1,825 (USA) (14 May 2006) (1 Screen)

Gross 

$6,013 (USA) (28 May 2006) (sub-total)
$4,048 (USA) (21 May 2006)
$1,825 (USA) (14 May 2006)

Weekend Gross 

$1,125 (USA) (28 May 2006)
$1,039 (USA) (21 May 2006) (2 Screens)
$1,825 (USA) (14 May 2006) (1 Screen)

 | Country | Date
| UK | 20 August 2004 | (Edinburgh Film Festival)
| Canada | 14 September 2004 | (Toronto Film Festival)
| UK | 1 October 2004 | 
| France | 8 October 2004 | (Dinard Festival of British Cinema)
| Argentina | 13 March 2005 | (Mar del Plata Film Festival)
| France | 10 April 2005 | (Cognac Film Festival)
| USA | 3 June 2005 | (Seattle International Film Festival)
| Denmark | 19 August 2005 | (Copenhagen International Film Festival)
| Finland | 28 August 2005 | (Espoo Film Festival)
| Finland | 16 September 2005 | (Helsinki International Film Festival)
| Poland | 7 October 2005 | (Warsaw Film Festival)
| Sweden | 9 December 2005 | 
| USA | 25 April 2006 | (Newport Beach International Film Festival)
| USA | 30 April 2006 | (Indianapolis International Film Festival)
| USA | 12 May 2006 | (limited)
| Australia | 12 October 2006 | 
| Singapore | 12 October 2006 |  

Is the director mentioned? Why is this?
No. the director isn't mentioned in the trailer I have watched, it wouldn't matter if he was/wasn't mentioned because he isn't a well known director although it would be nice to see the Director credited in the trailer. However because the Director Shane Meadows did write along with main actor Paddy Considine who is more well known than the director. So the director wasn't important because along with main actor Paddy Considine was in the trailer and they expect the audience to know who he is.

 

 As the director is not well known how does the trailer entice the audience to view the film?
The director uses Paddy Considines voice in the voice over since he more  known then his voice can be more recognisable to the audience. They constantly use his face in the trailer because he is the main star and once again he more well known, he basically the selling point of the film, Paddy Considine.

 

From the soundtrack we recognise it creates a sinister feeling of suspense with its chilling, gradual increase in loudness through out the trailer. This gives us a hint that something bad is bound to happen. I find  the voiceover to be the biggest part that gives us information about the film because Richards voice (the main star) is used as a voiceover he states "God will forgive them. He'll allow them into heaven. I can't live with that" this suggests that he wants to seek revenge, he will do something sinister

 Maybe the location of the film it makes quite realistic because an urban area that wasn't posh is where we are most likely to expect drug dealers and gangs members to reside. Secondly the director used a disabled abandoned man as a victim of drug dealers due to the fact the disabled are seen as weaker.
Most importantly the main star Paddy Considine who is a well known actor more known that the other stars, he has been used as an audience engager in the trailer.

Is the film offering the audience anything new compared to other British films?
Yes, because the main character of the film Richard, some people would see him as an hero where others would view him a villain. He's a hero because he wants to avenge his brothers death which seems like a valid reason, as an audience we sympathise with Richard for having a brother who went through bullying and torture it would seem right for him to end the life of his brothers murderers however he's a also a villain because he systematically killed 5 men cold bloodily which is what we would expect from a villain.

 

There are only two women in the film one of the gang members girlfriend and the wife of Mark. They are both portrayed as weak especially the girlfriend of one of the gang members she is forced by Sonny to have sexual contact with Anthony while he was drugged, she has no choice because she is scared of Sonny and can’t fight him back which is why she is portrayed as weak and she seems like the pass around of the group they do whatever like with her however as for the wife of Mark she seems to be happy in her marriage but she is put in the dark because she doesn’t seem to know her husbands friends or who he knows, he keeps secrets from her and she also doesn’t seem to be aware he was part of a gang. Mark may have left the gang but the gang never left him.

Why do you think Richard is not scared of the drug dealers?

 He isn't scared of them because he knows they are scared of him. He just came back from the army and has more experience than them. He has better tactics than them and can defend and fight for himself. I believe he understands that they are just a bunch of cowards who use the fact that they are gang members to terrorise everyone however when Sonny ask Richard "you're not scared of me are you?" he face does look a little as if he was scared but he did a good job hiding it from Sonny who looked shaken to the fact that Richard may not be afraid of him.

‘There’s blood on my hands, look what you made me do’

Assess why you think Richard let Mark go.
I feel Richard finally realised that he was crazy and what he was doing was wrong and meaningless because he knows they don't learn their lesson from just murdering them in cold blood. He decided to keep Mark alive to maybe make himself feel a little better he wanted to stop killing and at the end he wanted the Mark to live with the guilt that he had to kill Richard also he may have considered the fact that Mark has a wife a kids at home a whole different life from the other men and Mark didn't actually do anything to hurt Anthony physically except for watch him get tortured by the other gang members

 

 

Qualitative research assists you to truly know your audience. 

Quantitative research will assist you catch out how many readers you have but Quantitative research will tell you who they are, what they like, what they don’t, where they live, how much they earn and so on. 

There are numerous ways to get qualitative audience information. 

•        Focus groups

•        Questionnaires

•        Face-to-face interviews
Surveys, questionnaires, focus groups and interviews are primary research. It means you need to go out and actually collect data and research except a survey is being held online where you have to wait a week or longer depending on how long you wait till you receive results. Primary research is basically about observations, experimenting and market research. Interviews for primary research can be managed on phone or in person. Today people do it screen to screen through Skype or other programs that are convenient.
 Qualitative research:
Advantages
 - The researcher achieves further detail even with data in the form of broad written reports.
Disadvantages
- It takes a lot of time but also the researcher using qualitative research that is heavily involved in the process, can let their own bias defect the data made from the study which can disturb
the results obtained.

Quantitative Research:
 Quantitative research uses statistical graphs and charts to examine the data that is collected because it uses numbers and so graphs/charts makes it simpler to see and examine instead of seeing a group of numbers.

Quantitative research will get simple information from percentages. e.g. “30%” said no to liking the horror genre the most’ yet the answers won’t be detailed because you didn’t ask ‘why”?

Advantages
 - Lets the researcher to portion and examine data in a cheaper way, in lesser time

- It is improper to comprehend forms of information for example feelings and opinions

Primary research:
Interrogating participants of your target audience and using their answers to notify your preparation.

PRIMARY RESEARCH

Secondary research:
Uses audience profile data that already exists to notify your preparation.  

SECONDARY RESEARCH

Innovators
Forward thinkers – leading the charge for change

Confident, image conscious

Prefer finer things in life – Steph and Dom – posh rich, didn't’t say much about the political…they just talked about how it “has no neck”, wine cabinet in Sitting room Chris and Steven also , talk about what people look like on the television, image conscious, nice car and house.
Achievers
Motivated by achievement

Live conventional lives , politically conservative, bill Josef chess champion, they didn't’t agree with political broadcast, play safe eat tea and biscuit and formally dressed.

Stick to what they know, don’t take any risks, play safe
 Thinkers
Mature, responsible, educated and proffesional

They are informed about what is going on in the world have high income, Michael family, children go to uni, parents don’t agree with most things.
 Believers
Moderate incomes, fairly conservative

Make predictable decisons in life

Traditional , life centred on family, church, community and the nation

Sandra and… predictable, religious have a sign saying jesus save us on their tv, been n relationship for 20 years so uno they are traditional.
Strivers
Motivated by achievement, Chris and Steven “fake it till you make it” like finer things life although they are hairdressers, accent isn't as formal/posh.
Experiencers
Youthful and constantly on the go

Avid consumers, spending heavily, on clothing food -Tapper family

Chris and Steven –

They are oppositional towards the first act in Xfactor, they quite fun, bubbly

Compared to Chris and Steven you can tell their older around their early 40s, they are a bit young minded with a sense of humour, oppositional towards politics

“Alright let’s see what this dick got to say” you can see he is quite oppositional towards the oppositional political broadcast
The Michael family – 

The kids are obviously young and immature so are their mum (mum is more negotiated meaning she’s believe they are humiliating their selves for themselves but the father took it personal (oppositional0 he doesn’t agree with how xfactor humiliate them and couldn’t even watch it, middle class as they came from a quite expensive holiday, boys curses a lot

 

Technical code (camera angle, lighting)

 

The reviews make the film because they are a positive review and they persuade people to want to watch it however if the review was negative people wouldn’t really be as enthusiastic to watch it. Reputable reviewers are needed because they are more likely to be honest which also means they won’t be as biased.

In review one it doesn’t exactly make excited for the film because it doesn’t really include the reviewer’s opinion of the film, he only gives us more information about the film from this we can see this isn’t really an experienced reviewer it looks just as if it had been rushed and not put detail and effort into it however review two is way into depth at least more than review one it tells us what he thinks about the film as most people base their reasons on not watching a film on someone’s opinion especially from someone like British writer and film critic, Peter Bradshaw. He has been chief film critic at The Guardian since 1999 this is why we are more likely to take his word because he is very reputable on like the reviewer from review one who is an unknown reviewer who in the audience might be biased.

Research other marketing devices that were employed by the production company and assess whether they were effective or not. Look at magazine features, TV/radio interviews with the cast/director, fan websites, billboards,merchandise,awards won, product placement.
Due to the fact this was low budget film there was no product placement, magazine features,merchandise or any sort.

 

 

 

I felt that the director (Luis Prieto) had used Halle Berry because the storyline and plot was somehow messy it doesn’t make sense to me whatsoever but the idea of it is understandable that a mother whose son has been kidnapped would give her all to get him back. Although this film stars Halle Berry I’d still give this film a 3-star rating for multiple reasons: What could have been so simple like why hadn’t she crashed the kidnappers' car when she had the chance at the stop light or the part when the man out of the old couple came out of his car to confront her and get rid of her personally? Normally you would expect the adrenaline was pumping at that point for her to get closer to saving Frankie. Secondly it took her ages to get on the phone and rings the police while chasing the car that had her son. For real?! It was show at the beginning when she was chasing after the car that had her son that her phone dropped and she lost it but all you need to do to get the attention of the police in at least all the states of America was to crash into a bunch of cars and continue and someone would call the police for her at least if that was her only option. Despite the speed of her driving at a very high pace you would think she would crash into at least one car but then again if you looked at it again you would realize she wasn’t even driving that fast considering she’s a mother desperately trying to save her son. There was a scene where a police officer on a motorbike tried to pull her over, this was just ridiculous. Firstly, she kept screaming “my child has been kidnapped, he’s in that car” yet he still tried to pull her over and secondly, she should have just kept going so the officer can report her car so other cops can chase her instead of trying to explain to a police officer who wasn’t even listening to her this made her look very stupid. In another scene, she gives the couple money through her credit card expecting them to give her son back and she even allows the woman from the old couple to sit behind her in her car, how did she think they would keep her alive when they have not only her credit card but pin number and her son too in their own car. After how is Karla able to conquer and toss out a woman twice as big as her, seated behind her despite the fact she is driving and being choked at the same time out of a moving van like car all along with a shut door. To me this is only possible in a 007 (James Bond) film, totally unrealistic. The woman who had been tossed out of the car didn’t even have a phone to ring her partner that she has been thrown out of the car how unbelievable! 

While trying to save Frankie she had time to save a stranger from being knocked down by the kidnapper couple’s car as if she wasn’t really trying to save her son. Almost near the end of the film she finally realizes that she can crash into the couple’s car right at the time her car runs out of petrol… really!!? This really is mind boggling. The kidnapper couple have been portrayed as professional child kidnappers but weren’t able to escape the mother while she went to the police station to put an inquiry about her missing son and while she scoped the little town looking for their car. Then one question sits in my mind of how Frankie jumped from being in the car to him being in the home of the kidnapper couple how did I miss that part? Another scene which really mad me mad was when she gets into the house and sees a loaded gun on the kitchen table but didn’t think to pick it up and end everything once and for all??? The only positive thing I can say about Halle Berry’s character is that she realized that the neighbor was part of the kidnap plan with the couple. I pity Karla because she might lose custody of her son Frankie. The 

 

Unit 31: Social Action and Community Media Production 

In this project, I will be looking at social action and community media:

Social action media is an advertising or educational piece which strives to encourage and make an optimistic transformation in whether it’s nationwide or universal. The complete point of Social Action is about making an influence and change. This can be aimed at the rest of the world or it can be just nationwide or community.  If there was no Social Action, there would be things we wouldn’t have seen or heard of before because without a video being made we wouldn’t have much awareness. Social Action also assists in awareness on matters that touch the community or the world. The influence of social action media has been a topic of much debate. One upcoming problem is that people are becoming blind eyed to the media facing them, so dropping the effect it has, but as people become more familiar to Photoshop and other methods of image compositing software, people are more doubtful of how accurate these campaigns are. In addition, some social action campaigns have shown to be rather operative.
 Community media can be defined as media formed and distributed within a community. The media formed typically relate exactly to the community, and frequently encourage residential events and meetings. Community media is frequently related with Radio. Many non-profit radio stations have been set up with the purpose of giving a service to local people. Such radio stations regularly call residents to partake in the making of shows and permit them to speak on matters connecting to the area.  Their purpose is to bring about local, nationwide or worldwide change, to change attitudes, to raise awareness, to create access to media production for non-traditional groups, to challenge dominant representations and agendas, to create or strengthen community ties and to provide information and so much more.

In this documentary led and presented by Ross Kemp, we are shown the reality of a third world country Papua New Guinea where a window is opened into their daily lives and the situation in which  they live in. We are shown the violence and dangers they go through on a daily basis.

At the first 20 seconds, we are shown fade in of extreme close ups and headshots of a few citizens of Papua New Guinea while suspenseful and dramatic non-diegetic music plays in the background, I have an idea this was done intentionally to show a glimpse of their facial expressions which obviously symbolises the emotions they are feeling, and I can tell they are not happy maybe angry because of the suspenseful music. This is maybe a strategy done for the audience, so we can somehow sympathise with them, it also consumes the audience. It cut straight to the island of Papua New Guinea, we are given an establishing shot of very nice and tranquil scenery, but the message is obviously more than meets the eye. Then it jumps to a long shot of the presenter himself Ross Kemp he gives us a short introduction of what the film is about and a little background information on Papua New Guinea itself. A cutaway is given of the what the presenter placed in a middle close up is talking about New Guinea with his voice over which some way is quite authoritative as it encourages the audience to think he has professional knowledge in the background to continue what he is saying while the audience view what he is talking about which gives us a sense of realism because they can now visualise and create an image of the violence in their head for a better understanding we. Diegetic sounds of car sirens and traffic of a busy which is part of the short cut away from many scenes. The presenter walks the streets of Port Moresby and the citizens all watch the camera with a glimpse of confusion and excitement in their faces, this reaction is great sense of realism also called fly in the wall filming. Three minutes into the film the audience is shown a map to show his journey to and from where he came from, in the map we are taken to Port Moresby, so we can tag along with the presenter. The audience are shown graphics of a rapist behind prison bars being interviewed by Kemp this is to create awareness to the audience and giving them knowledge of what is happening on this part of world, the interviewee blames pornography for the high rape crime rating. For every criminal who doesn’t speak their face is blurred for privacy reasons. They are not open to western culture which is due to the lack of media outbursts and education. Presenter hops on plane leaving the capital and starts his journey to Madang. There are footages of illegal alcohol brewing, the citizens are very drunk and can barely walk as they become violent to the extent that one man is butchered with a machete to the chest, a long shot and camera movement is used to follow their motions towards each other, the movement of the man who was even slashed with a machete is followed too, a voice over is added on top of footage of the drunken men fighting one another. This documentary I believe is to bring about local change to their attitudes and to create or strengthen community ties. 

The purpose of this film documentary is to make the audience either nationwide or worldwide aware of the dangers that are faced in Papua New Guinea.

 

Violence in New guinea, headshots, middle shots.

Ross Kemp uses *fly in the wall* technique so it feels like the audience is in it with him 

He talks about New Guinea then adds a *cutaway* to it.

Shows us the map to mark his journey to and from.

Presenter led, images of land, his voice is a voiceover while he shows us the land, makes it feel real because he talks about then shows the audience which gives them a more visual intake.

*Fly in the wall* filming, its dark, certain camera shots, the rain on the window, hard to see, the sounds (suspenseful music) give it a more realistic feel (documentary feel)

He gets scared and shaky, his hands pulled up to head showing he’s nervous and stressed after being put in danger.

Even though it is *fly in the wall* filming, there is an extreme close up with good lighting and angles, so it isn’t fully realistic.

Not able to shine light on certain things (realism)

Machetes involved – Physically in danger, they can’t fully show audience the weapons because of the danger they may face or are facing. 

music bed
intertile

In this documentary led by Connor, an unknown presenter we are given a glimpse of the world of football and the little they do for the community.

Connors social action project was created with the purpose of raising awareness to the community about how the biggest football clubs don't give back to the community despite of much profit they make.
At the beginning of the documentary we are shown an establishing shot of an archive footage of footballers who celebrating their win followed by another cutaway of an archive footage of Sergio Aguero shooting a goal for his team. Then immediately we are given another archive footage of Fred Lampard from Manchester city with a simple intertitle on the bottom left corner of his name and the team he plays for. I am not clear as to whether this is an archive footage or an archive footage of Fred Lampard that was made to seem like an actual interview footage. An establishing shot of a gym filled with children on wheel chairs playing football is shown while Fred Lampard speaks. The use of Fred Lampard, I believe is a tactic used to pull in football audiences more and the use of a celebrity shows that the documentary is serious, and they want to target a wide audience especially supporters of Manchester City or Fred Lampard himself. After a minute of just archive footages a cutaway is pushed towards an establishing shot in talking head space of an unknown presenter standing in front of a football training facility then a cutaway to still images and various archive footages while a voiceover of the presenter talks about Etihad this encourages the audience to think he has knowledge of Etihad. We are shown a detailed establishing shot footage of Etihad this gives the audience a fly in wall feel giving us a sense of realism as we can visualise what the presenter is talking about. Then a cutaway back to the presenter standing in front of a better view of Etihad Campus, the camera is very shaky however, the lighting is very natural as it is based outside during the daytime giving the audience a sense of realism and again the unprofessional touch of this documentary does make it more realistic. Throughout the whole video a non-diegetic cheerful song is being played quietly in the background meanwhile a diegetic sound of the wind while the presenter is talking is quite loud and unsatisfying which shows the use of equipment is quite poor. Towards the end we are given an expert interview of someone who works in the football community and he does give his own opinion. The editing is very poor as there is too much of a use of archive footages and the lack of original footages being used which can create confusion for the audience due to the cutaway of various clips and little information. Truthfully the whole documentary is very boring nothing exciting about it as it is very predictable. I feel this clip was to bring about local change due to the fact it is aimed at Etihad, to change attitudes in the community. I do not feel much impact from this clip however I do understand the aim to create a community that everyone feels they can be a part of without feeling left out. This documentary does leave a little impact for the audience as it works towards helping others which could make the audience want to get involved too. This clip rubs of as negotiated reading to me because yes, the profit made is enough to create centres for those who are missing out but maybe their profits are being spent on other more important things and to others it should come of as a preferred reading because sharing is caring and it great to give back to the community when you have so much.

This piece hasn’t done much to inspire me for my own project as I the editing and the whole project isn’t very satisfying or convincing to me in my own opinion.

Melissa’s Story is about a girl who opens up about her faults when drinking and driving and the consequences of  her actions. 

At the beginning of the footage the it starts of as completely black background with a voice over of men trying to resuscitate a victim then some factual information pops up on the black background stating that “390 The number of 17-24 year olds killed or seriously injured to drink driving” although there is no title, this automatically lets the audience know that they are trying to spread the awareness of drinking and driving within the youths. Then after we are given a cutaway to an archive footage of an extreme close up of an injured females face, here we can see the victim is motionless and no sign of life in her eyes as it doesn’t move just constantly staring up and the mouth is opened with tubes in the mouth to keep her alive with a diegetic sound of men who are witnessing this incident talking in the background and a constant beeping sound maybe a life support or resuscitation equipment’s while the extreme close of her face is being positioned in different camera angles there is no establishing shot of where they might be but I am aware that this victim is on the ground. There is an extra white, blue and red lighting being flashed every second on the victim’s face which suggests the police are also in the background. Another cutaway to a black background with factual information in simple white font so we as an audience do not get distracted on little details and just focus on the information given, then a cutaway back to her face which slowly zooms out of her face and we can see a little of the surrounding and the ambulance checking her pulse but they state ‘still no response’ which indicates to the audience that she is dead. Finally, we are given a cutaway to black background with an intertitle of the whole clip “Melissa’s story”. Talking head space of the interviewee (Melissa) sitting on the bed explaining the situation when a cutaway to an archive footage of actors acting out what Melissa is taking about while her voiceover is being played on top of it so the audience can visual it and feel a sense of realism at the top left corner an intertitle text in white simple font pops up that says “reconstruction” to let the audience know what the scene is about or it may just be the title of this particular scene. The cutaways and archives footages of the actors continue with Melissa’s voice over still on top. In the archived footages, diegetic sounds of the actors laughing, singing and dancing along to the music being played in the car. They start panicking and they are obviously drunk but it doesn’t exactly feel real because we know it is acting. We start to see real emotion in Melissa’s eyes as she’s telling the story due to extreme close up of her eyes. The last archive footage with Melissa’s voice over playing quickly fades to a cutaway of a black background to indicate the accident has happened. Then a cutaway of another archived footage in black and white to suggest the past and to give us an idea of how accident looked like gives us a little sense of realism a we don’t have to fully wonder how chaotic it looked. A cutaway back to Melissa then a cutaway of and extreme close up of her eyes staring out the window A cutaway to black blank background with a non-diegetic sound added of ambulance and police sirens playing in the background, ten seconds later an intertitle pops up on the blank background stating what happened to Melissa after the incident along with non-diegetic piano being played as the sirens slowly fade out till it is heard no more. Over six minutes into the clip and an establishing shot is shown of Melissa and her daughter playing in the back garden which fades away with the music which ends in a still image poster that campaigns against drinking and driving. Overall there has been natural lighting through the whole interview especially with the interview with Melissa and I know this because the curtains were opened and brought natural day light into the room. I believe this clip was to bring about national global change because it is a big issue that happens worldwide. This clip does provide information and can also be used to campaign. I am encouraged to think that is is very risky to drink when you want to drive and you need to be very careful or else you will be putting yours and someone’s life in danger. The impact this clip has on the audience and I is that alcohol can increase car accidents ratings.

I really like the editing techniques as they are simple but quite effective so I may be taking this to inspire my own project.

This piece hasn’t done much to inspire me for my own project as I the editing and the whole project isn’t very satisfying or convincing to me in my own opinion.