‘Fight Club’ - social, political and cultural contexts

The fight against commercialisation
Jack is a character that represents a heavily domesticated male. He himself fears that has become commercialised, asking himself “what kind of dining set defines me as a person?” - personality is something not be assessed when looking at Jack. Instead, we make our judgments on his surrounding objects. There is no emotion, he is a product on the conveyer belt. He is manufactured. However, it appears that he is not the only one.
Jack and Tyler form the Fight Club in order to deal with this outrage. They form it to claim male individuality back - as Tyler puts it himself “How much do you know about yourself if you’ve never been in a fight?”
This, ultimately, is why Project Mayhem is introduced - it’s aim is to destroy commercialisation through mass chaos. The men who take part all feel the same way. They are sick of being plain, sick of being ‘textbook’. Now that they have re-gained their masculine identities with the help of Fight Club, they are prepared to show this to the commercialised world by destroying everything that they felt had pushed their purpose and existence out of the way. While the press may have argued that a ‘good idea about male insecurity’ became lost with ‘right-wing nutters’, it is also possible that this insecurity was just a stepping stone on the path to extremism. It provides a source, a reason for their actions.

Identity and masculinity
From the early stages of the film, it is clear that the masculine identity is something that Jack is trying to re-gain. It has become buried and alluded by capitalism. What capitalism has done to this generation of men is taken away their place in the world, and the intentions of Project Mayhem is to destroy capitalism, so that these men can have a purpose once more. They can feel useful for doing what they do.
This could explain why Jack is able to view Tyler in such a fascinated way - he is everything that he wants his life to be like. This also could be why so many other men were eager to be part of Fight Club - through violence, they have the chance to cling on to whatever is left of masculinity. It is a place where they can feel like ‘men’ again.
Identity crises is also suggested at an early stage in the film - during an encounter with Robert Paulson, a member of the testicular cancer support group who has grown breasts because of his treatment. Jack tells him that ‘we’re still men’. As Robert has gained breasts, he probably feels less like a man, so this is simply an a attempt at a comforting sentence. For Jack, however, it applies that his depressed, domesticated lifestyle has drained away all masculinity from him. He wants to cling on to what he can.

How has this affected culture?
“Two schoolboys grapple with each other as bystanders look on and shout encouragement…pupils have set up their own Fight Club, based on the ultra-violent film of the same name starring Brad Pitt. In the film, disaffected young men fight each other in illegal bare-knuckle bouts.” - Daily Mail, February 2008 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-522110/Pupils-set-lunch-break-Fight-Club-post-shocking-videos-YouTube.html)

“Inspired by the 1999 film Fight Club, starring Brad Pitt and Ed Norton, underground bare-knuckle brawling clubs have sprung up across the country as a way for desk jockeys and disgruntled youths to vent their frustrations and prove themselves.” - USA Today, 2000, May 2006 (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-05-29-fight-club_x.htm)

“A 17-year-old mimicking Brad Pitt’s “Fight Club” character, who plans attacks on corporate America, was arrested on suspicion of masterminding a pre-dawn blast outside a Starbucks Coffee shop” - The Washington Times, July 2009 (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/16/starbucks-bombing-blamed-on-fight-club-fancy/?page=1)


Critical reception
‘Fight Club is a dumbed-down extremism, Extremism Lite, no-brainer extremism for the Rush Limbaugh generation, an audience that thinks the "diceman" is a really challenging philosophy’ - The Guardian

"This monstrous film brutalises men everywhere" - Daily Mail

"Fincher started out with a good idea about male insecurity, but somehow got this snarled up with a daft story about right-wing nutters. It's hard to think of another movie this year that has begun so promisingly and ended so poorly" - The Independent

“Shot in a convulsive, stream-of-unconsciousness style... Fight Club does everything short of rattling your seat to get a reaction. You can call that irresponsible. Or you can call it the only essential Hollywood film of the year" - Time Out

“It means to explore the lure of violence in an even more dangerously regimented, dehumanized culture. That's a hard thing to illustrate this powerfully without, so to speak, stepping on a few toes” - New York Times

Critical approches to 'Fight Club'

Auteur
If a wide knowledge of Fincher's other films is obtained, than a good answer will stem from a question like this. However, if not, it will probably be something to avoid.

Gender
Links with social, political and cultural context. Useful for studying masculinity and its questionability in the film.

Institution
Information gained today is more trivial than critical. Unsure if this would form a strong exam answer.

Star/performer
The speech delivered by Pitt "Movie Gods and Rockstars" poses a potential argument to spring, based on irony and weather it was deliberate or not. Another argument that could spring is the studio's original cast desires and how they ended up with the choices that they did. What changed? Why did they consider who they did?

Technology
Again, subjects raised from this area appear more trivial, and I would be unsure about creating a strong argument from this source

Social, Cultural and Political context
Interesting to see what news articles and press responses arise from watching the film. Issues of the character's place in society can be assessed, as well as subjects such as capitalism, commercialisation and extremism.

Genre
Not a good subject to form an essay or an argument on. It is difficult to make a judgment on the genre of the film.

Ethnicity
'Project Mayhem' is an organisation comparable to other extremist movements. However, this is more of a case of morality, rather than ethnicity, so this topic is probably best left ignored.

'Fight Club' reveiws

http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2000/11/14/fight_club_1999_review.shtml
Review from the BBC's Almar Haflidason, commenting on why 'Fight Club' will appear threatening and offensive to some viewers. Reasons for this involve political incorrectness and attacks on world stability and safety. However, the Reviewer also notes that viewers will enjoy the film if they thought that this review was over-pretentious and only knit-picked.

http://www.totalfilm.com/reviews/cinema/fight-club
Total film review of 'Fight Club', noting that so much can actually be said about the film, and this is the reason for it's controversy - 'there's an endless list of subtexts and viewpoints which will fuel student pub debates for years'. Nevertheless, it praises the cinematography and stresses that whatever you think of it, it is a film that simply has to been seen a somepoint in your lifetime.

Comments on 'Retrespo'

Fly-on-the-wall documentary, named after one of the medical soldiers who died in the Kornagal Vally in Afghanistan. A piece of continuallity editing shows that how dangerous the war zone really is, when a jeep is blow from the ground, dirt rising, and all sound disappears. The choice to keep filming at this time is extremely brave of the filmmaker and presents us with how far they are willing to go to the present the everyday of soldiers in Afghanistan. They cannot predict the action that will take place in the land, and the decision to keep filming shows that they are aiming to make no cuts of reality. They just want to present the landscape and people as they are. The constant use of continuallity is significant in presenting how the soldiers behave - we really get the sense that reality could never be more real. Besides the small portion at the beginning of the film, no factual information is presented in the film, it is entirely observational of what is taking place. This makes it appear that the filmmakers do not want to include anything in the film that would encourage the viewer to take a pro-democracry or anti-war side of argument. They only want to present what is actually happening, and nothing that would cause an argument to develop.

We hear or see little from the filmmakers themselves, and this enhance the anti-argument nature of the documentary that I have interpreted. Interviews of the soldiers are featured, so elements of the expository are still included, but not prominent. They share their accounts of being in Afghanistan, and I wouldn't be surprised if some viewers thought that the filmmakers have included this to gain our sympathy. Because we are only hearing what they have to say, it can be argued that the film takes a biased stance on their side. However, I think that this is not what the filmmakers are intending to do, and this makes it clear that this is not a film about war, but a film about people involved in war. They draw from their experiences of it and interperate it as they would. The spectator can argue that some of their words may be over-exaggerated, but if they were involved in war and asked to talk about it, I'm sure that another spectator, somewhere, would say the same thing about them and what they have to say.

The film also enables the viewers to understand what the lives of the soldiers are like. I was surprised to discover that the cocky, jokey, foul-mouthed behavior of U.S. soldiers exists in the everyday, and are not over-exaggerations created by the Hollywood industry, but it appears that fictional personalities do exist in the real world. It is the the reality of the soldiers. That is what they are like and how they behave. Compared to war films, however, we are only seeing the perspective of the American soldiers, and not of the Taliban. In war films, such as 'Saving Private Ryan' camera angles are placed so that we see as many different angles and perspectives of a scene as possible. However, here, we are following the Americans. This is what they see, we only have their perspective to see things from and this is key moment of reality as the camera acts as a point-of-view shot. If we were where they were, that would be the only perspective that we see from, our own. We are trusting the camera to visualize for us, and fortunately, it shows us nothing but the now.

I will leave my comments at this point, as I have noticed that throughout this post, I have been repeating myself. Because this is a fly-on-the-wall documentary, which intends to do nothing but present a reality as it is, with no political, cultural or moral twists and turns, there are less resources to form an opinion from. I am, more or less, struggling to form an opinion on the everyday, and can only draw attention to fact that the only aim of 'Retrespo' is show the life of the soldiers exactly as it is.

Comments on 'The Real King's Speech'

Largely, ''The Real King's Speech' was an expository documentary. It aims to educate the viewer on the life King of George VI, his struggle with public speaking, the technological developments of the historical period and of the speech therapist Lionel Lougue. Broadcasted shortly after the Oscar-winning motion picture 'The King's Speech', I wonder if this is simply being used as a marketing tool for the film. While the film made heavy use of archive footage and interviews with royal biographers and former patients of Logue, the re-visualizations of the rooms in which Lougue set up his practice (with no figures on-screen) appear strikingly similar to the sets that can been seen in the actual film. Also, there are moments in the film where I swear I can hear audio extracts from the actual motion picture, those of Lougue's training methods with the King. However, had I not seen the actual motion picture a few days previously, I may not have been provoked to make these accusations, and I wonder if my re-action the the documentary would have been different.

In terms of historical facts, I am confident that the documentary was accurate. the interviews with Dr. Lionel Lougue's former patients confirm that he was a man with unconventional methods, as present in the actual motion picture. With this in mind, along with the historical facts released with the voice-over, I found myself making comparisons to the actual film which I had seen a few days previously, instead of absorbing the information for my own academic purposes. Another key feature of the film that struck me was the director's decision to combine archive footage, which was in black and white, with present-day footage in colour, of the outdoors and possible re-creation of the set from the motion picture, as mentioned above. I was initially dazzled by this, and the only conclusion that I could come to as a way of explaining the director's choice was to easily distinguish the historical footage of the past with today's reality, and this included a flag of the Union Jack - a image repeated in closing half of the documentary. I couldn't understand why this was necessary, and see it only as a form of patriotic bragging. The filmmaker is trying to enforce the britishness of both the history and success of the recently successful motion picture.

Another message which I think the filmmaker is trying to present is the reality of the situation that King George VI faced public with speaking. In the archive footage of him, it is clear that he is struggling in front of the microphone, and at this point i sympathize with the King - I fear of the embarrassment and nervousness that he is feeling and the footage becomes saddening to watch. He was a figure that was forced to have a strong public duty, and he simply couldn't manage it on his own. the extreme close-up shots, in colour, of the microphones that he would have spoken into at the time, are the filmmaker's attempt, I think, to re-create to the viewer how patronized and intimated the King would have felt in front of them. This is a motive which certainly had the potential present this feeling strongly, but falls short of the inclusion of the large BBC letters imprinted on it. Again, I see this another attempt of patriotic bragging - with the camera focus on something uniquely British.

We can easily learn something about British history by watching 'The Real King's Speech'. We are presented with the troubles that King George VI faced and historical footage to back this. However, with a release date so close to the film, which is still in high popularity over the world, I wonder weather holding off the broadcasting date would have calmed my earlier speculations. Undoubtedly, this is a good lesson in history, but maybe an even better way of promoting a film.

Comments on 'Grizzly Man'

A word that comes into mind when watching this documentary is delusion. On-screen, we see elements of the poetic, personal, reflexive and expository documentary - from Timothy Treadwell's political and cultural rant against the nature preservation organisation (personal) his comments on the beauty of the bears in their natural habitat (poetic, in the sense that it is his art) and his appearence in front of the camera itself makes it reflexive. In fact, for a large portion of the film, I forget that this Werner Herzog's film - it seems so much more like Treadwell's. It is only when Herzog's voice-over steps in to narrate that I remember that this is largely a expository documentary - Herzog wants to educate us about Treadwell's life and the nature that he loved so much, with the use of recorded interviews that support his discoveries. Only then am I reminded that all of the footage of Treadwell is archive footage, and that is what makes me first instinct towards this film as delusional.

Herzog, however, is not afraid to introduce elements of the reflexive documentary, and does so when telling Treadwell's ex-girlfriend, Jewel Palovak, not to listen to the audio footage of Treadwell's death. He tells her to burn the tape as he listens to it (appearing in the film), and therefore is influencing his opinion onto her, but is it his right to do so? This women apparently knew Treadwell better than Herzog ever would have, so surely, the fate of the tape is in her decision. Towards the film's end, I was beginning to feel an unnerving anticipation, and was wondering if we as spectators would get to hear the actual audio of his murder. However, the film does not end on a downer, but more of a reflection of Treadwell's life and the positives - maybe Herzog simply wanted to stick to his word and be respectful to Jewel. It would have been hypocritical, after all, to release this footage to the world after telling one individual never to listen to it.

Interviews with Treadwell's 'friends', however, appear scripted and unsympathetic. Warren, in particular, noted as an actor and Treadwell's best friend, along with Sam Elgi, appear to express that Treadwell deserved the fate that was eventually delivered to him. Whilst I agree with the fact that he was upsetting the flow of the Bear's natural habitat by invading and recording their land, I understand that he was simply expressing his interest into sharing his love of the bears, and his case, his art. One interviewer, a doctor, expressed that Treadwell would have wanted to mutate into a bear, and another said that his work would have been more memorable if he were dead. In this sense, Treadwell has accomplished his dreams. After all, why did he need a camera in the bear habitat?

Comments on 'Man on Wire'

Prior to watching this documentary, I had heard controversy surrounding it that it appeared as more as a heist movie, rather than a documentary. After watching it, I can completely understand why this controversy has been brought about. 'Man on Wire' certainly has a large, obvious cinematic style - from the opening zoom-in of one of the Twin Towers and the close-up of the hammer hitting the nail, to the re-creations of Philliepe's (the wirewalker) wirewalking across the world. I fear that this type of footage has been put in place in an attempt to re-construct reality. However, I leave the viewing space questioning it - Is this archive footage? or a visual re-enactment? If it is the latter, then the visual aspect of the story, sadly, appears hard to believe on-screen. It is only the interview footage from those who were involved, Phillepe and his peers, that remind me that this is an event that actually happened, which make wonder weather if the story would have been more effective as an autobiography, in the sense that there is no imagery on the page to twist their words or over-exaggerate their language. What happened is exactly what happened on the page.

Phillepe makes it clear to the spectator that he wants to share a story, and I adore his enthusiasm - three or four separate frames of him have been used, which probably meant that he had a lot to say to the audience, as if he wants them to understand every single detail of his journey. He shares with us where his inspiration to walk across the Twin Towers came from - a newspaper article, where we learnt that they have not yet been built. He has a dream, but in order for it to be lived, he has to wait for reality to be constructed first. Even more believable are the trails that surround him and his peers as the event drew nearer and nearer - friends dropped out and security and stability issues were raised and drawn upon. We are reminded that no dream is simple, and of course we will be met with obstacles, and in this sense, Phillepe is just any other person with a dream. It is shame, though, that his storytelling is diluted by these possible re-enactments. The decision to film this footage in black and white also separates it from believability as a story - As a spectator, this has alienated me from entering the storyteller's perspective, and has made me aware the 'Man on Wire' is only something to observe.

Comments on 'Bowling For Columbine'

In this documentary, director Micheal Moore, who also appears in the documentary and provides a narrative voice-over at times, sets out to explore the roots behind America's involvement and obsession with guns. Through a combination of archive footage, real-life interviews and juxtaposing music and imagery on-screen, Moore makes it clear that guns and the danger they cause are something to certainly be aware of, but is his argument a single-sided one?

Moore obviously has a clear message and he is able to back this with figures and facts - one of the most striking examples of this comes from a montage of archive footage of soldiers and warfare over the past forty or so years from the film's year of release (2002), with the concluding piece of footage being from the chaotic events of the 9/11 bombings. this imagery is set to Louis Armstrong's 'What a Wonderful World' which creates a visually-disturbing piece of imagery, as the footage itself suggests quite the opposite, as if bloodshed and gunfire is in fact an ideal world for Americans. However, it is arguable that Moore has included this in the editing process deliberately, to make the situation of America appear worse than it is. Having little knowledge of politics myself, I can only imagine that a politician would be enraged by this imagery, and would complain that Moore has over-exaggerated their beliefs and twisted their policies. However, I still find this type of imagery to be very heartful, especially during the CCTV footage and 911 calls of the Columbine high school shooting, set to to a backdrop of soft guitar strings. This clip rolls on for around 10 minutes, but felt like a patronizing and terrifying eternity, so much so that I wanted the footage to stop, and the voice of the actual 911 calls dubbed over this sequence was disturbing to hear.

Parents of those who were killed in the shootings blamed Marylin Manson for these events, complaining that his music was listened to by the killers. However, I cannot help but think that they are blaming him simply because they are angry and upset, and also because rock music is an easy source to blame? In an interview himself with Moore, Manson explained that his music was simply freedom of speech which, being a musician and songwriter myself, I cannot help but agree with. being an art-form, songwriting is a source of expressional outlet for me. As Manson points out himself, the killers were also big fans of bowling, so why was that not blamed? Like rock music, it is something that is well-established and widely know, so why not blame it? Moore also brings issues of race and international values into the the documentary, editing various footage of people saying 'black guy' in association to crime, and explores the difference in guns and violence in neighbouring country Canada. The biggest shock factor, I found, was the many statements of Canadians saying that they were not afraid to leave their doors open, despite being victims of crime many times in the past. Asking for thoughts on why the U.S. has doors locked constantly and own so many guns, the Canadians comment that maybe the Americans don't even trust their neighbours. With this in mind, I found myself stumbling on a year-going philosophy - 'treat others how you want to be treated'. Do Americans want to feared of each other?

Moore sums up the history of the United States in an animated film, portraying white people as being afraid of everything around them - other races, nature and even themselves, and concludes that this is the reason behind their need for guns - fear. Archive footage of George W. Bush giving a speech on fear, but it is never clear on what the people of America should be fearing. Is he saying that they should be afraid of fear, for the sake of fear? While possessing a serious message once again, is it clear that the animation appears as a mock of American culture, and political figures, I'd imagine, would not take Moore's argument seriously because of this, creating his own flaw. His later interview with N.R.A. leader Charlton Heston is also arguably a hypcritical backlash which Moore has not realised. Heston visited both the cities of Flint and Columbine just hours after the tragic shooting events on a pro-gun rally, much to anger of those who were related to or cared about victims of the shootings. Moore attempts countless times to put in place the fact that Heston had little respect fo those lost to the shootings, to the point where Heston walks away from the interview. This is hyprocritical when compared to the earlier blames on Mnason - is Moore just blaming Heston because he is a high, well-respected figure? which makes it easy to appoint blame? Or because of this factor, is Moore attempting to put a messgae across to him which Heston could put across to the legions of fans who agree with what he stands for?

Moore wants to tell the American people that they have been brainwashed into a state of fear, thinking that guns are the only way forward. However, placing all of this negative imagery around gun ownership with no opposite argument makes the film itself appear like a political campaigne, constantly opposing and criticizng the opposition, with the aid of historcal facts and figures that make it's reputation appear devastating - the opposition, in this case, being guns. Morally, I agree with what Moore has to say - I too feel that guns, under the wrong hands, are in fact no way forward, as under the ownership of them, we give ourselves and others a reason to fear. However, I fear that his film was set out to brainwash audiences in the U.S. - ironic, considering that the film itself aimed to make people aware that they had been brainwashed into fearing everything around them.

How is power and conflict conveyed in 'The Class'?

I will begin by pointing out and exploring a factor where power and conflict are obvious on-screen - through the creation of characters. Already in the classroom we can see a wide range of races brought together into one compressed space. Students are African, Asian, Latino and White, amongst other races. A social divide is clearly obvious and, thanks to director Laurent Cantent's decision to film documentary-style shots from the inside of the class-room, I feel as if I am sitting in the class myself. The tension has made it's way from the screen and connected with me. Also, the decision to include no non-digetic sound at these points enhances the power of the classroom setting - it is raw. Anything can be heard, and when it is, questions and judgment can be fired from any direction. The focus is purely on what will happen in this small space.

For nearly the entirety of the film, we see nothing of the outside world. The only thing we see are the grounds of the school, be it the classroom, the staffroom or the playground. Whenever we see the characters, it is always within the school. We hear about their lives outside, but never actually see them for ourselves. With this in mind, I found myself split between two decisions: one would be to care little for the moans and groans of the students. For example, Souleymane, from Mali, is said to have 'issues' at home and a problem with temper which, during one scene where he leaves the classroom in a fit a of rage, is clear, but what isn't clear is what 'issue' at home would have provoked this. Other students explain that he is on a final warning to be sent back to Mali permanently, which poses the question as to why he would let himself react so violently in the first place. Something visual of his life outside of the school would aid in providing reasons for their rage and sympathy from me (much like in Richard LaGravenese's 'Freedom Writers'). On the other hand, we can simply imagine their home-lives. the Dialogue is descriptive enough to make me question as to what happens outside of the school. I am curious and eager to know more about these characters.

During an early scene in the staffroom, we learn that some of the teachers are so familiar with the students that they feel they can pigeonhole them. One of them lists all of the students as either being 'nice' or 'not nice', which signified that they felt not a trace of hope for those labeled 'not nice'. They know that there is no point in trying to educate them, and the fact that this has become a familiar tactic for the teachers, I find, is very disheartening. At the same time, however, this presents the form of power that the teachers in the school have - the power of experience, not just of teaching, but of the world that they live in. Because of this, a generation gap is clearly put in place. François Bégaudeau, our leading teacher who's autobiography provides a backdrop for the film's action, experiences this gap. He comments that two girls were behaving like 'skanks', to which they took much offence, thinking that he was calling them prostitutes. The issue grows quickly and surrounds Bégaudeau which shows that, despite sharing the same the language, the developments of generations has led to different interpretations of the most basic sentences. He confronts the two girls with the issue in the playground, and the low-angle shots at this point are extremely effective, drawing attention to every word that is said between them. Bégaudeau can fight for his cause, he can justify and defend his choice of wording and why he used it. But at the end of the day, it is one thirty-something against half a dozen teenagers, who all share a taste of slang. He is alone, and cannot find external, supportive justice. Times have changed.

The playground itself, when seen on-screen, is shot from a high-angle, looking down on the children playing their games, conversing or so be it, as if they were animals in the wild. Fights break out at unpredictable moments, enhancing the feel that this is their natural habitat. However, we, as an audience, cannot get involved. We can only watch, just like a documentary on television, that is all that it is. We observe who is dominant and we see who is week. We see what territory belongs to who, which, in a documentary, clearly presents who the power belongs to. The only thing missing is the commentary. There are rare occasions when we get a closer view of this location, and one of them I have mentioned above. When this happens, I feel as if I have to be weary of any comment or action made. Because of what we have seen from a birdseye view, we know the dangers that the area presents, and to be in this presence is daring of the director.

Creative project outline

For my creative project, I have chosen to write a screenplay based at a music festival. In an attempt to re-create the festival atmosphere, I will be using my own experience to shape the location description and sound, as well as an extent of the dialogue. I have chosen to do this as recently, I have felt that too many music festivals are being attended by punters so that they can get what they think is 'the festival experience' as seen on broadcasts by the BBC, where they present live coverage and highlights from the likes of the Glastonbury, T in the Park and Isle of Weight Festivals. These programmes, I feel, show nothing more to the viewer than snippets of audience members having 'fun' (i.e. bopping along to bands on-stage) and the presenters deal with incidents, such as lateness, casually, revealing no nature of the actually atmosphere in front of the stage. For example, at 2010's Reading Festival, headline act Guns'n'Roses took to the stage an hour late, during this time thousands of punters began booing, shouting and chanting a number of foul language soaked comments. Does the BBC chose to broadcast this? No.

Coming back to my point about people attending festivals for the wrong reasons, I used this thought to create my central characters, Gary, Andy, Will and Dave. Gary is a festival novice, while Andy, Will and Dave have a few years worth of festival experiences under their belts. Here, I found the opportunity to add elements of comedy to my screenplay. E4's hit comedy series 'The Inbetweeners' was an ideal influence for my novice character as I based him on the show's Will McKenzie, a character who easily loses his temper when something does not go as he has planned it to (series 3, episode 6, in particular). With this in mind, I hope to create a character who's dialogue and actions trigger comic applause form an audience, while at the same time presenting a teenager having a miserable time. He does not enjoy the atmosphere of the festival campsite (loud chants throughout the nights, burglary from tents, heavy fires, the toilets, mud ect. - again based on my own personal experience of festivals) and thought it would be something quite different, as shown by the BBC's coverage of festivals in the past.

Another influence on this project will be Kevin Smith's 1994 debut film, 'Clerks'. This is because of it's tagline - 'Just because they serve you...doesn't mean they like you.' To me, this suggests that customers in any form of shop think nothing more of the people who served them than, well, the people who served them. Little do they know, however, is what the shop assistants are really thinking and what really goes on while no customers are around. While my screenplay will not be set in a shop, the subtext of this tagline will have a heavy impact on my screenplay. As I mentioned above, broadcasters such as the BBC present little of what actually takes place at a music festival, so my idea is to present the truth, based on my own experiences, once more. A day in the life of a festival goer, more or less.

Hows does 'Persepolis' represent politcal and social messages?

Because of the film’s graphic novel-based style, some of the scenes appear comic on-screen, which I find, to be worrying. I say this as one scene depicts a group of young children, led by Marjane, chasing a boy down a road with nails and chains in hand, shouting ‘poke his eyes out’, after hearing about a series of torture methods that Mjarjane’s uncle experienced in prison. This represents how easily children can be influenced by what adults have to say. I don’t think it would have mattered if young Marjane understood why that was happening to her uncle or not: It is the action that is provoked upon hearing this story that is important to pay attention to Does. Her uncle was placed in prison in the first place because of his decision to take action for something he felt strongly about (he decided to express his favours towards communism) and because the government didn’t like it, they put him in prison, expressing a corrupt scheme of government because he is being locked away for expressing his viewpoint.

Another thing that I noticed while watching this film was the large disrespect towards females. The story takes place over three decades, and this horrible and offensive attitude towards women remains the same throughout. Just before the film’s episodic transition occurs to take us into 1983, a man viciously comments that he takes women and ‘bang them like whores’. What this viewpoint represents is that some men of the decade strongly felt that women were no more than objects: there are many of them to go around so it is no problem if one goes missing: this man can find just another ‘whore’ anytime he wants. Even a decade later, in 1992, where Marjane arrives back from Vienna, she is told by on-street officers to wear her headscalf correctly: it is as everything has a correct place to be, and that variety is prohibited. The soldiers themselves all appear identical to each other, wearing the colours and same generic shape of body that suggests they have fallen to a dictatorship. Even more worryingly, some of the soldiers are very young (one was around the age of 16) which shows how much of an impact the Islamic fundamentalist government had had on the shape of society. However, Marjane is not afraid to take this issue into her own hands, and in one scene, during a school assembly addressing students of how to wear their uniforms (another victim of the new government’s ways), she confidently expresses her rejection to the idea of making women’s dresses appear shorter, while there was already an issue of women’s clothing appearing too short and skimpy. They have been drive to a losing state of field and she has the guts to speak against it.

As I have just mentioned above, a new police force consisting of the Iranian society was put in place by the new government, attracting a number of young men. There is one scene in particular where I think editing was used in order to represent the tension they create among the people around them. Alcohol had been outlawed during the start of there reign over Iran, and during a party, the cross-cutting sequence between the soldiers charging towards the apartment and the nature of the party really show how hard the government wanted to clamp-down on all wrong-doers. It appears on-screen as such a heavy tension builder, showing one state as a jolly atmosphere, where no one has a care in the world about what is happening outside (the party) and the corrupt authorities pacing rapidly towards a problem that they feel can only be delt with in an aggressive sense of attitude. In the end, they are able to drive one the attendees to death (he attempts to shift from roof to roof but misjudges his jump and falls) and they didn’t even have to shoot him down. This character I sympathise with heavily - he simply had no other way of escaping the problem at hand, created by this restrictive government.

As I have already mentioned, the film’s graphic novel style is what is most striking about the messages and themes addressed in this film. Political corruption, animated expressionism on faces and the influence upon children all occasionally appear comic at stages in the film, and what is worrying about this is that these are seriously relevant issues to today’s society that need addressing. I see this as a wake-up call, as by presenting these horrifying issues in this style, maybe audiences will take notice about what is happening in the Eastern world. Because the graphic novel obviously appeals a lot more to what is happening elsewhere in the world to the typical Westerner, maybe by sharing a story in this fashion will make the whole issue a lot clearer.

Comments on 'Persepolis'

'Persepolis' tells the story of Marjane Satapri, an Iranian women, and spans three decades. Conflict is present throughout the story, from the protests against the Shan of Iran (which her family are heavily involved in) and the Iran-Iraq war, to later fighting for her own beliefs during a university assembly. What is most striking, but obvious, is the use of graphic-novel style used to prevent this imagery. As a viewer, I was tricked into noticing some comic moments. I say tricked as a high volume of these images really should not have been found comic, including Marjane and a group of young children chasing a boy with a nails in their hands so they can 'poke his eyes out' after hearing of torture methods that Marjane's uncle experienced in prison (it shows how easily influenced children can be) and the desperation to hide alcohol after almost being raided by Iranian soldiers. Maybe this is why, however, that the filmmaker has decided to use this graphic novel style (the film itself is based on a graphic novel). These are serious issues that need to be addressed, so what better way to present it to a Western audience by showing it in a way that they at first think would be 'comic'?

The style of the narrative is quite episodic. An adult Marjane reflects on her past growing up during the revolution in Iran, and this presented when the years 1978, 1982 and 1992 appear alone on-screen, accompanied by either digetic music or Marjane's voice-over. Each year is soaked with political, religious and cultural influence, presented by clothing (the constant wearing of the Veil by Marjane and her friends in Iran), Marjane's constant conversing with a God-like figure as a child, showing her distaste for her loved ones being tortured and killed, and, most strikingly, the introduction of Western culture, and how it is seen by the Iranian soldiers and Nuns as something truly horrific. It is as if it has an illegal drug-like presence, and it can only be found with figures cloaked and shaded up, as if they are hiding something a lot worse (to Westerners, that is), aiding to present the conflict between East and West. Despite all of the aggressive matter directed towards young Marjane, she seeks comfort in her Grandmother, a figure who is certainly powerful in ensuring Marjane that identity is most important thing on earth, in a gentle fashion. The influence, however, appears lost when Marjane is sent to Vienna, Austria in an aid to protect her from the crumbling society of Iran. She has had a taste of Western culture, but now she engulfs herself in it, experiencing sex and relationships, all of which, lead to disappointment. Conflict eventually drives Marjane to homelessness, and a taste of serious illness enforces her to return to her Eastern roots.

Back in Iran, Marjane is able to share her opinion with confidence and fight for female equality during an assembly, presenting that she is in charge of her own identity after all. Her Grandma's influence cannot be forgotten. She has taken an influence and made it her own.