How is the audience positioned to think about both David and Ben?
The audience are positioned to think that David is looking after Ben. The audience may also be able to tell that they have a close bond.
How is the editing conveying representations of disability?
The use of the shot reverse shot implies that Ben and David respect each other. It also contradicts the stereotype that able bodied people are more superior and capable than disabled people because they both show equality.
Who gets the majority of screen time?
Both characters get the same amount off screen time, this reinforces the counter stereotype that each character is equal.
How does the mise en scene convey representations of disability (facial expressions, props)?
Ben has a scrunched up face, when talking about sex. This implies that disabled people are unable to have mature adult conversations.
Can you find any examples in the dialogue which convey representations of disability?
Monday 21 March 2016
Friday 11 March 2016
How do UK film companies, and UK films manage to compete, exist and survive in this system?
BFI supports UK films which allows them to exist and survive in this system. The BFI will fund the company for their film. The BFI uses National Lottery Funds (NFI) to develop and support original UK filmmakers and films, and to increase the audiences who can enjoy them.
Also, they support high-quality British and independent releases, increase film choice for audiences and offer a springboard for UK film exports.
What effect does this US dominance have on UK filmmakers and production companies?
British films are usually brought by America studios which takes away the fact that its a British company as an American company own the rights to the film which implies that US dominance has a major effect on UK film makers. For example Harry Potter has a large British cast and was mostly shot in the UK. However, 20th Century Fox are the producing company and are one of the major six which are all American. What ‘screencast’ ask is can Harry Potter be counted as the ‘pride of Britain’ if it is owned by a big American Company.
Also, UK institutions cannot afford a large budget for the movie so the producers are forced to sign with American studios to pay for the film.
What effect does it have on the audience and the types of films they can see?
The big six would not like to loose audience and try to keep it safe by producing sequels such as Star Wars the Force Awakens as the film would already have a large audience due to the previous films.
They focus on action adventure / superhero movies and this is what we are constantly seeing. This prevents us from seeing content that we wouldn’t normally see such as a movie like a unique movie such as A Field In England and Frank, these are a different style/genre of film. A large American company will not want to risk wasting their money on a movie that isn't successful and will not make them a lot of money. A superhero film or a sequel is guaranteed to make them profit and that’s why they are constantly being released whereas new interesting and unique films are not. This limits us from the types of styles and genres we can watch. If all our films which were made were made by majors, we would not have any controversy of films and everything will be the same. Additionally, one could argue that major films are not actually high quality and have amazing narratives or special effects, but it is because they already have a built audience which makes their films successful.
BFI supports UK films which allows them to exist and survive in this system. The BFI will fund the company for their film. The BFI uses National Lottery Funds (NFI) to develop and support original UK filmmakers and films, and to increase the audiences who can enjoy them.
Also, they support high-quality British and independent releases, increase film choice for audiences and offer a springboard for UK film exports.
What effect does this US dominance have on UK filmmakers and production companies?
British films are usually brought by America studios which takes away the fact that its a British company as an American company own the rights to the film which implies that US dominance has a major effect on UK film makers. For example Harry Potter has a large British cast and was mostly shot in the UK. However, 20th Century Fox are the producing company and are one of the major six which are all American. What ‘screencast’ ask is can Harry Potter be counted as the ‘pride of Britain’ if it is owned by a big American Company.
Also, UK institutions cannot afford a large budget for the movie so the producers are forced to sign with American studios to pay for the film.
What effect does it have on the audience and the types of films they can see?
The big six would not like to loose audience and try to keep it safe by producing sequels such as Star Wars the Force Awakens as the film would already have a large audience due to the previous films.
They focus on action adventure / superhero movies and this is what we are constantly seeing. This prevents us from seeing content that we wouldn’t normally see such as a movie like a unique movie such as A Field In England and Frank, these are a different style/genre of film. A large American company will not want to risk wasting their money on a movie that isn't successful and will not make them a lot of money. A superhero film or a sequel is guaranteed to make them profit and that’s why they are constantly being released whereas new interesting and unique films are not. This limits us from the types of styles and genres we can watch. If all our films which were made were made by majors, we would not have any controversy of films and everything will be the same. Additionally, one could argue that major films are not actually high quality and have amazing narratives or special effects, but it is because they already have a built audience which makes their films successful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)