Unit 27: Task 1

Issues Relating To Documentary Filmmaking

Opinion:
A view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
When you create an idea in your mind about something, maybe without knowing much about the subject matter. An opinion can be either positive or negative.
You may need to consider this when making a factual film as opinions are not usually fact. An opinion is not usually a factual piece of knowledge, and would therefore ruin a factual film piece. A documentary is about facts and getting them across to a consumer, bringing your own opinion into this may break away from the facts. It is important to show the difference between fact and opinion in a factual film.

Accuracy:
The quality or state of being correct or precise.
Accuracy refers to the act of being close to the truth or exact. When you go to say something that is accurate you must know enough about it to make a precise and truthful comment.
Accuracy needs to be constantly considered when making a formal piece of media, as the entire piece is based on facts, and things can only be facts if their accurate. Accuracy is not just about being right however, it is about showing what is true in the face of differing opinions or ideals. A documentary is about getting facts across to a consumer in as accurate way as possible, and this can only be done when you move beyond opinions and bias, and attempt to make tings accurate.

Balance:
A situation in which different elements are equal or in the correct proportions.
Balance is the act of making sure there is an equal amount of both sides of a story in a piece of media. A documentary must have a balanced outlook on both sides to a story otherwise it will be an unfair piece, weighted on one side.
Balance must be considered when making a documentary as it is the entire point to show both sides of an argument. If you were to make an unbalanced factual film it wouldn’t be able to accurately show both sides of an argument, showing the film makers bias to one side of an argument. Balance must be considered because if you make an opinionated biased film it will not get the point across to everyone with differing views, making it give off a negative view or outlook on a specific topic, due to a lack of balance and showing the same amount of both sides to an argument.

Objectivity:
The quality of being objective.
Objectivity is the act of not being too much on one side of an argument, too opinionated or biased, it is the act of showing everyone’s opinions instead of just your own. This gives any kind of media a more impartial look and shows everyone’s ideas. It is the idea of making a decision on what you’ve seen or heard, rather than including emotions or prejudices.
This must be considered when making factual media as being heavily weighted to one side of an argument shows that you only care for one particular idea, rather than showing you are making an attempt to show everyone’s sides. ‘Blackfish’ is a good example of not being objective when making a factual film, it only showed one side to the orca situation at SeaWorld, rather than shining a light on the entire situation all at once, and showing both sides. It was divisive and was marred as only showing a bad side to a very complex subject. This does not mean that Blackfish isn’t a documentary, it is, but it is just a heavily one sided film that doesn’t portray the situation properly or show the right amount of both sides to the argument.

Subjectivity:
The quality of being based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes or opinions.
If something is subjective rather than objective, it means that it is based on feelings and emotion, rather than facts or figures. Emotions can sometimes get in the way of making a factual film, making the filmmakers show a specific point more than others because they feel more for it. It can however be a good thing to be subjective, it can lead to more emotional pieces if the person making it feels strongly for a specific topic.
Subjectivity must be considered a lot if you want to include it in a documentary. On one hand it can lead to some heavily emotional sequences that bring the viewer onto your side of the argument, but that can lead to you and the viewer both now being biased on one side of the argument. On the other hand it can detract from the factual nature of a documentary and begin to show a person’s bias or opinion, making the documentary look more like a soapbox show than anything factual. Again a great example of a highly subjective documentary would be ‘Blackfish’, it was made by emotional people who care very much for the orcas at SeaWorld, but this led to the film being weighed against SeaWorld from the start, because it was subjective, not objective.

Bias:
Inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group, especially in a way considered to be unfair.
Bias is when you feel heavily for one particular side of an argument or topic, and let that bias cloud your judgement. When making any kind of factual piece, bias must be thrown out the window so as to not get in the way of the facts and truths of the film. Bias is often times when something is shown to people in an unfair way because the person showing it already has an emotional feeling for the topic, so they want to show their side more than others, leading to a biased piece.
Bias must be considered heavily throughout a documentary, but must never be brought into it. Certain TV shows simply aren’t allowed to be biased, such as BBC news, which cannot be biased in any way as it is supposed to only show news, not their opinions on it. If the BBC news shows were to become biased, Ofcom (The Office of Communications) would fine them for filing to show news in an impartial and unbiased light, their opinions aren’t allowed to come into the reports. The same can be said of documentaries, if you strive to make a factual piece, and promise your audience an unbiased and impartial look into a specific topic, then only show what you want them to see, you will have broken that promise and will most likely get fined by Ofcom.

Representation:
The description or portrayal of someone or something in a particular way.
Representation is when you show a particular thing in a specific way, such as when certain films overly sexualise women, this is a misrepresentation of women, and is representing women in a poor light, rather than an empowering one. This is seem as misrepresentation in media and is immoral and can result in fines if Ofcom find it bad enough.
Representation must always be considered when making any kind of factual film so as to make sure you aren’t showing people or places in a negative light. You must make sure that you aren’t representing your main focal point in a way that contradicts your message, if the History Channel made a documentary about Adolf Hitler you wouldn’t expect them to make him sound like a great person, or if they made one about Mother Theresa they wouldn’t want to make her sound evil. It’s all about knowing who you are representing and how to properly represent them, especially in factual filmmaking. If you were to mislead your audience and then misrepresent the main focal point of your documentary Ofcom would most likely step in.

Privacy:
A state in which one is not observed or disturbed by other people – the state of being free from public attention.
Privacy in film is when one or more individuals are not having their lives invaded by outside sources, so if you make a documentary about an individual they must agree with you on what you will show. If your film is about someone’s life you must make sure that you aren’t showing to much personal information about them, without their permission.
Privacy must always be considered when making any kind of factual film. Privacy is of the utmost importance especially in documentaries. If someone in your film says that they don’t want ta specific thing being shown, and you show it, they can fine you for a lot of money. A lack of privacy is how we end up with things like candid camera footage, where you person being recorded doesn’t know they are, and it looks morally wrong and unethical, as they have no knowledge of being recorded so they can’t say whether they actually want to be recorded. True privacy can never really be achieved in documentaries, however, as you need to be at least a little bit invasive to get the truth out about a topic.

Task 1: Social Action

Whoever Controls the Media, Controls the Mind

Purpose:

The purpose of a social action campaign is to bring about public attention to a particular subject or person. An example of this would be the Trump/Hillary presidency campaign, which was massive even outside of the USA due to how intensive and important it was. They can also be used to bring about local or global change, especially in the case of voting during specific polls, as is the case with the Trump/Hillary campaign. This was used to change America as a local place, but had massively impactful meanings for the rest of the world as well. The can also be used to raise awareness in the general public to a particular subject. This was the main point in the presidency campaign as it was used by both sides to raise the polls for each side. They can even be used to change the public’s attitude towards a specific subject or person. The same way that Trump made Hillary look bad because of the FBI e-mail scandal.

Impact:

The impact a social action campaign has depends on a number of things, namely how much money is spent on it. This will bring attention from the public far more than any other point, due to how the public see wealth. They can also be impactful in the sense that they just work, as was the case with Trump’s half of the presidency campaign, as it got him elected as the new American president. A social media campaign can be quite a powerful thing, in that it can be used to almost control the media in general. When Trump was trying to become president, he would openly lie about different things to help his case as much as possible, while still managing to stay on the positive side of Americas media. Most of America saw him as a national hero in the wake of Hillary e-mail case, and this may be one of many things that pushed him to the top.

Trump’s Campaign:

The first campaign I will look at is the American 2016 presidency campaigns of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. This began near the end of Barrack Obamas presidency, when America was looking for a new president. It formally began in June of 2016, at Trumps own personal office block, Trump Tower. Trump began as the republican candidate for America and chose mike pence as his vice president running mate during the whole campaign. One of the main differences between Trump and Hillary was that Hillary decided to run for president in early 2007, when Barrack Obama was also running as the first black president. After losing to Obama, Hillary decided to continue to run and would go against Trump in 2016. This only strengthened her party and Hillary's personal standing in the Americas as it showed that she was strong enough to bounce back from losing once and go at it again. Trump almost came out of nowhere when he decided to run for presidency, making his victory even stranger. This may most likely have been due to the way the campaign was run from both sides, as this is one of the most important things about social action, how you socially act. Hillary decided to aim her presidency at the younger people in America, within the age range of 18-44, while Trump wanted the older people, of 45-65+. This may have been what decided the vote, but there where many other things involved in the final verdict, namely how each candidate aimed themselves at their target audience. The most glaringly obvious reason Trump winning was the fact that Trump actually got less votes than Hillary. Due to the way America does its presidential voting, Trump won by having control of certain states, rather than having more votes.

Donald Trump has always been a republican, and showed this heavily in his race to become American president, promising all kinds of ridiculous things, like a border wall along the Mexico - United States border. This wall was supposed to cost around 8 to 12 billion dollars, but some experts say it would cost up to 25 billion dollars, all of which Donald promised the world Mexico would pay for. The Mexican president. Enrique Pena, has said numerous times that Mexico will not pay for the wall. This was one of Trumps biggest selling points, and one of the main reasons he was elected at all. His promise to keep illegal, and some legal, Mexican immigrants out of America with this famous wall is what gave him such power in the southern states of America, places like Alabama, Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. These states already have quite a reputation for being heavily weighted against immigration and being biased against people from other parts of the world, specifically Mexico. This is because Mexicans who break in to America will likely end up in these states as they are right on the border, making these states harbour a grudge against them. Trump decided to play on this ideology of being against Mexicans to fuel the building of a wall between countries, making Trumps wall one of the most powerful media campaigns ever. Trump also used his idea of being unstoppable to fuel his opposition and therefor fuel his own party even more. His slogan ‘Can’t Stump The Trump’ was used to push his agenda of being unstoppable. Over the course of his campaign, Trump would use many slogans to his advantage. One of the biggest slogans used by Trump was ‘Make America Great Again’, or MAGA for short. This was originally used by Reagan to show that America was suffering from a worsening economy over the years, and has been used by numerous different political figures, until Donald Trump trademarked it in 2015. Some argue that it is such a powerful quote it singlehandedly won Trump the race, but others say it is a racially oriented slogan. In just the first half of 2017, Trump used the slogan 33 times on Twitter. It has been seen as being as powerful as it is because it wasn’t just a slogan used to push Trump, but rather as a movement of people to strive towards a better future for themselves and their families.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-08-21/-make-america-great-again-is-Trump-s-magic-twitter-mantra
An article on Bloomberg states that using the quote added around 51,000 re-tweets to a post, adding around 50% more re-tweets to each post featuring it. The phrase has been used many times to strengthen Trumps hold on American politics, since Hillary’s slogan of ‘I’m With Her’, was merely used to indicate she would become the first female president of America, and was used as a point about feminism in the world of politics. Trump also had the slogan ‘Drain The Swamp’, a reference to the historical attempts to drain swamps in America to cut the population of mosquitoes and combat malaria. This has led to the term being used as a metaphor for different things, and Trump used it to show his plan to fix the problem in federal governments, draining the ‘swamp’ of the government of the ‘mosquitoes’ who are infecting it. The biggest change Trump’s slogans had was obviously making people vote for him, obviously, but they have also had a massive public impact in media, namely MAGA. It garnered massive media attention, specifically comedies. Many different forms of media have taken to parodying the term, not the biggest of which was John Oliver on his talk show Last Week Tonight, when he spoofed the slogan and urged his viewers to ‘Make Donald Drumpf Again’, in reference to Donald’s ancestor’s original name. This segment broke HBO viewership records with 85 million views.
http://donaldjdrumpf.com/
This was obviously a parody of Trump’s quote, but only helped to push the original quote even harder. Any publicity is good publicity for Trump, only helping to keep him in the media longer, even without his presence, showing that Trump doesn’t even need to be present to make an impact. We can’t talk about Trump without talking about his infamous twitter account in more detail. One of the most glaring points about it is that Trump has almost double the followers that Hillary has, and almost 4 times that of Bernie Sanders. This will have been one of the main reasons that Trump won the race, his use of twitter. Hillary was targeting a younger audience when running, but Trump aimed at older people, while also hitting the youths through social media. He is, after all, a businessman, so it makes sense he would be good at hitting 2 or more audiences at once.

Hillary’s Campaign:

We can’t talk about presidential campaigns without talking about Hillary Clinton, since she went against Trump directly. Hillary was a far less surprising candidate for president than Trump, as she had already run once before. While running, there were many different ways she tried to target her many audiences, not the least of which was the younger people in America, and her impact on media and the American public will be remembered forever. When she first announced that she was running for president against Trump, in April 2015, she said she would become the people’s champion. Her main points where, of course, that she was a woman, and this was one of the main reasons she gained such popularity with women in America. Another of the many reasons she gain popularity was because she decided to focus on more local issues, such as, while in Mississippi she announced that she was worried about the lead levels in the water in Jackson, the capital, where it is a hot issue. She did this for most every state she visited, proving she was a people’s champion, instead of focusing on large extended points like Trump and his wall.  She used these issues to help push her agenda in these states in such a way that they would look good to younger people there, similar to how she tried to aim her entire campaign at the younger people. One of the main ways that Hillary hit hard with a younger audience was, strangely, being a bit of a weirdo, in the sense that she tried to hit the youths with as much of the hip modern things their into as she could to try and attract their attention. She tried to hop on the gravy train of memes on the internet to attract that kind of college youth. She also tried to make jokes during press meetings, such as when she mocked Trumps use of the fake word ‘covfefe’ in his twitter post about press coverage.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/31/politics/Hillary-clinton-covfefe/index.html
She jokes that it may have been a secret message from the Russians, which was a constant point of contention between Trump and Hillary. Hillary accused Trump of being in cahoots with the Russians and said they were funding him and his campaign, creating diversions to detract from Hillary’s campaign. She went and dabbed on the Ellen Show to show she was ‘down’ with all the cool kids, which made headlines at the fact that the potential future president of the USA was doing what amounted to a silly dance move just because everyone else was doing it, throwing her entire campaign into question. Would she just change her mind about a subject if the young people asked her to? After a few weeks of trying to lure in a younger crowd to vote for her, SUPER DELUXE, a YouTube meme channel, made a video mocking her and the way she was trying too hard to get the youths attention.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoXDe8HxHBA
on top of all of this there was the fact that she was being investigated by the FBI about deleted e-mails, a topic for another discussion, but fair to say it had none but ill effects for her campaign. Donald Trump constantly made reference to this with his slogan ‘Lock Her Up’, implying that Hillary should be locked up in prison for what she has done, while himself also being under fire from Hillary for supposedly being in with the Russians. This constant back and forth between both candidates is what made the election so entertaining in a general sense, that there was always something new going on on TV about them, something else for the media corporations to sink their teeth into. Another point Hillary kept going back to to try and strengthen her campaign was the fact that she was the only of the 2 candidates that has any actual experience in this kind of politics. Trump was coming straight from a world of business, while Hillary ad been the secretary of defence for years, and had already run for president before then. This would clearly help her attract an older audience to her side in that she has been around for longer than Trump and so would know a thing or 2 more than him. She also expressed a clear need for steady and experienced leadership, again going back to her experience in the field, and the fact that she believes that her leadership will be stronger and more stable than Trumps, so people should vote for her instead. She this will have had the impact on the public that they will have thought she was a more stable and sane person in comparison to Trump, as he has been deemed a madman or crazy over the duration of the campaign. The main impact that the Hillary campaign had was that it showed you can both aim your campaign at an older audience and a younger at the same time, as both candidates did, but with varying degrees of success. Hillary also had the most in terms of fundraising, as Trump decided against any kind of outsourcing for his campaign, deciding instead to fund it himself. This opened the door to allow Hillary to take complete control of this side of the debate, showing she was all for other businesses helping her out if she needed it, showing she was a human. This will have helped her out and shown that she is still just a human who may need help sometimes.

Comparison:

http://edition.cnn.com/election/results/president

Comparing both of these campaigns isn’t the hardest thing in the world since they both ran against each other, but they used so vastly different methods of campaigning that it’s like they were going for two separate things entirely. The first thing to look at is what the actual results of their respective campaigns where, and the obvious answer is Trump won, Hillary lost. But it goes deeper than that, Trump didn’t just win, he won in the face of slander and being called a racist bigot who had no idea what he was doing. Hillary lost despite having far more experience and reason to win. It would have made sense if Hillary had won, it made no sense for Trump to win like he did, hence Ladbrokes putting 150/1 against Trump winning. Hillary chose to target a younger more youthful audience and focused mainly on local and state-wide issues instead of looking at massive USA-wide things like Trump. She showed that she was more willing to take help from outside sources whereas Trump wanted to fund his whole campaign himself, showing his independence and wealth. Looking at both of these campaigns separately it is clear to see why Trump won like he did. He was huge down south in places like Texas and Alabama, places known for being racist and against immigration, so it is obvious he would win here with his border wall, while Hillary would struggle. The whole presidential campaign had a massive impact on the rest of the world too, with BBC news having constant coverage of the race going on at once, showing an impartial, unbiased view of the race. One massive change already being seen in America in the wake of Trumps victory is that he has signed off on the walls construction. This is a huge thing because the whole world thought that it was just bull Trump would spout at rallies to get more attention, but he actually went and did it, or will have once it’s done. The whole situation has obviously worked to strengthen certain states that are more republican and helped to squash any conservative states into submission. All in all, I think the whole race can be seen as 2 completely different social action campaigns, because they both wanted the same thing, but went at it in such vastly different ways.

 

 

Analysis of La La Land posters

Film Poster Analysis

La La Land



The second poster.

 



The first poster.

 

Previous Credits	The first poster for La La Land doesn’t actually feature all that much, there isn’t much going on with it. The only previous credits used are under the main title. It simply says ‘FROM THE DIRECTOR OF WHIPLASH’, indicating to the audience that this film is from Damien Chazelle, who, at the time, wasn’t well known aside from having made Whiplash. This is a great way to bring in an audience who otherwise may have overlooked this film as just some musical, however the credit is very small, only a little bigger than the positive quote, so perhaps Damien didn’t really care all that much for being the main attraction to the film, but rather the story or the setting or some other thing. The second poster has the same previous credit only this time with the addition of also stating that it is a film by Damien Chazelle. This further enforces who is the director and would be able to grab more attention from people who may not have seen Whiplash but might know about Damien. The choice to state essentially the same thing twice on the second poster could be to make sure people know who made it in case it becomes successful, which it did, and now everyone knows Damien Chazelle. All of these previous credits act as a form of anchorage for the poster, without the text or any previous credits it would just be an image of 2 people dancing, which does happen in the film, but isn’t a great way of grabbing peoples attention.
Positive Quote	Both posters feature the same quote, ‘Here’s to the fools who dream’, only the first poster has it almost hidden in a way, near the top of the poster and in a  very small text size, making it initially hard to find and then hard to read. The choice to do this with the positive quote could be to try and draw attention to the rest of the poster, and the rest of the features. The second poster has the same quote, but this time it is far easier to find and read, being right in the middle of the poster and in a bigger text size. Perhaps this was done in contrast to the first poster in a way to draw away from the quote in that one, but draw the audience to it in the second one. The quote itself isn’t actually heard until somewhat near the end of the film sop it would make some sense to hide it, but at the same time it would also be a smart idea do draw attention to it, as it is a powerful and moving quote. There is a lot to be said about this quote and what it means, it could be a reference to how the stars of the film are chasing a seemingly impossible dream and are therefore foolish, but it could also be used to reference that there is still hope for people who have massive reams, so it is making a toast to the people who do dream.
Film’s star	Both posters feature name drops of the 2 main actors in the film, Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone, in that order on both posters. In the first poster the names are placed above the title of the film ion the same font but a smaller text size, obviously to draw attention to both but draw people more to the name of the film rather than the actors. This can be seen as showing that who plays the role isn’t really that important, but rather the film and the story itself. It could also have been done to initially draw attention to the title of the film and then have people go ‘Oh, and they’re in it too’, which is a great way of showing who is in your film to an audience who may not have seen a trailer for the film. The second poster has the names of the actors above them at the top of the poster, this time in a regular font rather than a stylised one like the title is. This could have been done to normalize it and make it look like the rest of the text on the poster, again drawing away from who is specifically playing the characters.
The title	The first poster features the title of the film in a large bold type at the middle right of the poster, making it one of the first things you see when you look at the poster. The second poster instead features the title at the bottom of the poster, meaning you don’t notice it immediately like you would with the first poster. This could have been done to instead draw the audience to the quote in the middle of the poster, or to the actor’s faces at the side of it instead. The font type used for this title on both posters is Yasashii, while Neutraface font was used for the rest of the text. The choice to use this font for the title is an obvious call back to old age cinema where all film titles used this kind of font, especially on Broadway, which was obviously a massive inspiration for La La Land’s story. Neutraface was more than likely used to make the rest of the text easier to read against the background and colours.
Colour Saturation	Both posters feature a massive amount of blue and some white. Blue is seen as a relaxing, calming colour, so this could have been used to sort of relax the audience into the poster, as there isn’t much going on in it. The blue in the first poster is the night sky, slightly illuminated by the city of LA. The blue leads off to a slight purple at the right side of the poster, where the sun is beginning to shine for the day. There is a bright, old fashioned street light illuminating the actors as they dance, which is an obvious reference to Singing In The Rain. The 2 actors are dancing with each other under the title of the film, with Ryan wearing a white shirt with a black tie and trousers, while Emma is wearing a bright, vibrant yellow dress. This could be to draw attention to the dress and then the actors as they dance, but it could also be a distraction from the rest of the poster, as it is quite a beautiful poster in its simplicity. The second poster features only blue/purple and white, with no bright yellow dress this time. Again this was most likely done to draw the audience in with the white text and then relax them into a feeling of calm while looking at the bluish poster.
Certificate	Neither film poster features a certificate or age rating, similar to Interstellar. This was more than likely done to show the audience that it is a film for all ages that anyone can watch and enjoy, and they aren’t wrong in thinking that.
Costume, props, Iconography	The only poster that really has any props or costumes in it is the first one, with the street light from Dancing In The Rain and the bright yellow dress. The street light is an obvious reference to how the entire film is one great big reference to previous films from an age of cinema long since gone. The costumes the actors are wearing show this as well, by being slightly old fashioned, with the dress being a full body outfit and not looking too modern, while the shirt and tie outfit it very reminiscent of how people would dress back in the 50’s/60’s. Also of note is that they are both wearing tap-dancing shoes, showing a style of dance that has all but died out nowadays, again referencing an older age of cinema. There is no real way of telling what the actors are wearing in the second poster, as it is just a close up of both their faces.
Intertextual references	There is an obvious intertextual reference in the first poster to the musical Dancing In The Rain with the street light, but other than that there isn’t much going on in either poster, aside from both referencing Damien Chazelle and Whiplash. This use of the 2 actors dancing is very symbolic of a musical film, the dancing in the rain scene is an icon of the genre so using that stance in the poster is a way of immediately grabbing the audience’s attention.
Credits	Aside from the obvious telling of the names of the actors and director, there isn’t much going on in the way of credits on either poster. This could have been done to draw people away from worrying about who worked on it or which company produced it. This could also have been done to show that the rest of the poster and what is in them is more important than the credits of the film, and showing them would be just taking up valuable space, because both posters are very beautiful in their own simple way of not showing too much text and being too wordy.

 

When looking at reviews for Chazelles previous film, I found one on the guardian that simply called it 'genius' and Robbie Collin went on to say ‘Superb performances from Miles Teller and Oscar nominee JK Simmons make this jazz drum drama a dazzling success’http://www.telegraph.co.uk/film/whiplash/review/

Another review talks about Chazelles ability to turn almost any scene into a masterpiece, referencing the Oscar winning editing at the very of whiplash. ‘Perhaps Chazelle’s most remarkable achievement is the fact that he manages to turn an impromptu drum solo – that most unforgivably indulgent of musical breaks – into a tense and engrossing dramatic set piece that sets the heart racing.’https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/jan/18/whiplash-review-drummer-miles-teller-mark-Kermode

Analysis of Interstellar posters

Film Poster Analysis 1

Interstellar



The first poster.

The second poster.

Previous Credits	On the first poster for Interstellar there are no real previous credits other than simply saying ‘From Christopher Nolan’. This can be seen as enough for some people, seeing that Nolan is directing a film is a big plus as he has directed many great films in the past. The second poster features more previous credits by telling the audience that it is a film from the director of the dark knight trilogy and inception, which are all critically acclaimed films that most people will know where directed by Nolan. Even f people don’t know who directed these films they might have seen how successful they were and will want to see more form the same director. This acts as anchorage for the poster, pulling people in because it has Nolan’s name on it, acting as a bait to get people to look into the poster and the film more.
Positive Quote	The first poster for Interstellar has the quote ‘MANKIND WAS BORN ON EARTH, IT WAS NEVER MEANT TO DIE HERE’. This sets the tone of the film immediately as being about the end of the human race and an adventure to find a new home or new earth. The second poster has the same tagline indicating that that is the main plot of the film, as changing the tagline might make people think there is more to the film than just saving the human race and finding a new home.
Film’s star	The first poster doesn’t have the cast list on it apart from being mentioned in the credits at the bottom of the poster, the rest of the poster I taken up with imagery and the cast is listed halfway through the credits at the bottom. The second poster for Interstellar has the main cast listed at the top, with an ‘and’ prefix for Michael Caine, due to him appearing in most Nolan films. There could be any reason for this change between posters, but my reasoning for it is to do with the imagery used on each poster.
The title	 The title in the first poster features a stylised text, being placed over what appears to be a rocket taking off, it starts from the top of the poster and is read down to the bottom. The title uses font type Linotype Didot with some of the letters being snipped. The title is also in block capitals, which makes the title stand out more than the rest of the text on the poster. The use of this could be seen as trying to make the text seem older, making it more relatable to older people who are fans of older sci-fi films, like 2001: A Space Odyssey. Halfway through the title it changes colour from white to black so it can be read over the white trail left behind the rocket. This acts as a stark contrast to the background being a black/blue night sky filled with stars. The second poster has the same title, but this time it is horizontal rather than vertical. It has the same font type and colour, but instead of being in front of a rocket trail, it is in front of what appears to be some kind of light discharge from a planet. This can be seen by the shape of the base of the light being rounded like a planet, especially since the film is about space. This is symbolic of a rocket taking off, a prominent point of the whole film, being set in space.
Colour Saturation	The first posters colour scheme can be seen as dark and scary, but it is blue rather than black to represent that it is a dark night sky. This allows it to contrast extremely well against the white light at the bottom of the title, where a house, 2 people and a pickup truck can be seen silhouetted against the light. The second poster uses far more bright and inviting colours, possibly to show the audience that the film isn’t going to be some dark and scary film. The sky is lighter and the ground can be seen as a light dirt colour. All of these combine to make the poster seem far friendlier than welcoming than the first.
Certificate	Neither poster shows a certificate nor age rating, which could be seen to indicate that the film will be for all ages, or won’t be too adult so as to need a specific rating.
Costume, props, Iconography	 There is no way to tell what costumes or props are being used in the first poster as they are all too far away to be seen. It can be assumed that the 2 people, the house and the truck are the same as the ones in the second poster as they all look the same with the same silhouette. The second poster shows the props and costumes in far better light, allowing us to analyse them further. The male character is wearing a normal pair of jeans, white t-shirt and a leather jacket. Combining this with the house and the pickup gives us the impression he is either a farmer or a manual labourer. The younger girl is wearing a simple pair of jeans and a blue hoodie. It can be assumed that she3 is the daughter of the older man, or at least is in his care at the house. There are no real smaller props in the shot used in the poster, but the house and the pickup truck look run down so this could suggest that the people who live here are not the most well off people in the world.
Intertextual references	 The first poster has no real intertextual references aside from the labels and credits at the bottom, however, the second poster references that the film is from the director of the Dark Knight Trilogy and inception, so this can be seen as a sort of intertextuality that is trying to bring in a wider audience of Christopher Nolan fans.
Credits	The first poster has the most credits out of the 2, showing a huge list at the bottom of the poster of who is in the film, who worked on it, what companies invested in and many more. It is basically a slimmed down version of the credits roll at the end of the film. This is actually used quite well in the first poster as it is out of the way but is also used to fill a space that would otherwise just be dark road with nothing going on. This may be the reason there are no credits on the second poster as there is no real room for them since the whole poster is used to sell the film in different ways.

‘Inception grossed US $292 million in the United States and Canada, US $56 million in the United Kingdom, Ireland and Malta and US $475 million in other countries for a total of $823 million worldwide^. Its five highest-grossing markets after the USA and Canada (US $292) were China (US $68 million), the United Kingdom, Ireland and Malta (US $56 million), France and the Maghreb region (US $43 million), Japan (US $40 million) and South Korea (US $38 million).’https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inception

The producers will also have looked at psychographics of the audiences for Nolan’s previous films, such as what reviews told the producers the viewers liked the most about the films. For example, The Independent said the CGI, set design and set pieces from Inception where fantastic, so they may have wanted to focus more on this when making Interstellar.

‘Without doubt, Christopher Nolan’s Inception features some of the dizziest images ever seen in a Hollywood film – cliffs made of crumbling towers, Paris folded in half, zero-gravity fights in hotel corridors.’http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/reviews/inception-christopher-nolan-148-mins-12a-2029050.html

‘A spectacular fantasy thriller based on Nolan's own original screenplay, "Inception" is the smartest CGI head-trip since "The Matrix." The premise is so out-there, it requires not just a leap of faith but also too much screen time to explain, so do yourself a favor and pay attention.’http://edition.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/Movies/07/15/inception.review/index.html

Audience Profiles

Audience profiles

Interstellar

In this document I will be identifying and researching the audiences for 2 films released in the last 5 years. One film must be classed as a blockbuster and the other must be classified as an independent film. The first film I will be looking at is Interstellar, a 2014 science film directed by Christopher Nolan. This will be my choice of blockbuster film for how well it did. For my second film I will be looking at is La La Land, an independent film from 2016.

After looking at many different websites that document research and results about films it is clear that Interstellar is a male oriented film, despite having many references to a love story and romance in it. This is a recurring theme in science based films, from Interstellar to The Core to The Martian to Sunshine. Films that are based on some kind of world ending, scientific scenario all seem to have a more male oriented viewing profile. All of these films a have a largely male audience and are based around some kind of scientific theme, be it going into black holes or the centre of the earth. This may have something to do with the fact that science is a male dominated industry so films about these subjects would garner a more male audience in cinemas. In order to get a proper understanding of how a producer gets insight into the audience that will be watching their films, I had to go back in time and look at the directors and the producers previous films to understand why they did as well as they did. This gives insight into who will be watching a new film from the same people. For Interstellar I looked at Christopher Nolan’s previous film Inception, a film about dreams within dreams and the science behind that. You could even go on to say that when targeting a specific audience for Interstellar the producers will have looked at geo-demographics and regional identities, such as targeting people or places that made Inception successful. This would most likely be places like China, Ireland and Malta, who, outside of the USA and UK, where the highest grossing territories for Inception. Other places like France and Maghreb, Japan and South Korea were also fairly high grossing areas. These places will be have been targeted specifically for the release of Interstellar to help boost its success. The producers of Interstellar will have also looked at which class of people went to see Inception most. From the research I found on the Pearl & Dean website, it shows that almost the entire audience of Inception were from the A to C1 classes, with 82% of the audience being from these classes. This can then be seen to be the same for Interstellar after that film came out, with 75% of the audience for Interstellar being from A to C1, albeit slightly less than Inception. This can be seen as a way of saying that Nolan’s films are more aimed at an upper class audience, but can be seen by all, as shown by Interstellar getting more views from lower classes than Inception.

The producers of Interstellar will most certainly have also looked at the religious ideals of the people who watched Inception as some of the concepts used and talked about can be seen as somewhat religious, from the way it interprets death and the ‘out-there’ about space and time travel. Some people could say this is showing a negative light on belief in a higher power, especially since the ending literally references a god-like figure creating a space for the main character to alter the past and mess with time.

La La Land

 

For the second film I am analysing the audience of I chose La La Land, mainly because it is technically classed as an independent film but also because I think it is a fantastic film. Although this film was a massive blockbuster film that was nominated for 14 Oscars, drawing for the most ever with James Cameron’s Titanic, it is considered an independent film because of many different things such as; where the funding came from, who was in the film, who worked on making the film and where it was filmed. La La land was funded entirely from the USA and Hong Kong, making it, technically, an independent film. It was also produced by Summit Entertainment along with Black Label Media, Summit being a subsidiary of Lionsgate, an independent film production company. It was also directed by Damien Chazelle, who has only directed one other big screen film before, Whiplash, which was also massively positively received and is about music.

After using the same research sites and yearbooks I sued for my research into interstellar, I found that La La Land was on the opposite end of the sexual spectrum, in that it was a more female oriented film, albeit only just. This can be seen from 55% of the people who saw it being female. In order to get a better understanding of what went into targeting the audience for La La Land, I had to look back at Damien’s previous film, Whiplash.

Whiplash is a film centred on jazz similar to La La Land, only it is about a drummer rather than a pianist. This film was actually seen by more males than females, possibly due to the lack of a female lead throughout the film, or the fact that it is about drumming, which is seen as a more male musical instrument. This could have had something to do with the reason that La La land has more female viewers than male, because there is a female lead and she has to deal with real female problems in the world of acting. The socio-economic status of the audience could have had something to do with La La lands success, in that a massive 42% of people who went to see it are from the AB class. This could be because it is set in a more high class setting, Hollywood. People who work in Hollywood, or who can play an instrument are seen as higher class than those that cant, also the fact that it is a musical film, which is seen as an older style of film. This could be the reason that a vast majority of the audience that went to see it, 32%, are from the age range of 45+, and another 34% are from the 15-24 age range. La La land may have targeted a specific audience simply from the fact that it is a musical, which is an extremely niche genre these days.

There will almost certainly have been a premade audience for the film from the fact of who is in it and who is working on it. Ryan gosling and Emma stone are both big names in the film world currently, getting bigger and bigger roles every year, so for them to team up and work in a musical together would have been a really big deal, so this will Have drawn an audience to see the film. Another aspect is that Damien Chazelle directed the film, coming straight off the back of his previous success Whiplash. So any audience members who have seen this film will have immediately recognized his name and may have wanted to see la la land simply for that reason alone.