‘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.

Evaluation of our creative project (practice)

As our filming location was restricted to just the College building, we wanted to shape a narrative that would appear relevant to this location, and not be over the top or unbelievable. Also, as I have said before, when watching 'La Haine' another film based on power poverty and conflict, we noticed that the narrative and action was set out against a political context that affected the central characters. These were two key inspirational factors that we used to shape our film, which hopefully resulted in this: a political context that affects the protagonist, but at the same time, it is a context that is believable relaxant to the location and the characters. That is why we opted to use the news concerning rising tuition fees for universities in England as our political context. What's believable about it is that should these scheme be approved (I heard the news on Thursday night, bad times...), a number of students will be affected. They will simply feel that because of rising the cost of fees up to £9,000 a year, higher education will just seem 'too impossible' to reach from a financial aspect. This how we aim to show poverty - students are denied opportunity because of what something costs. However, when filming this, I felt that the dialogue was very compressed in the sense that the only thing the viewer will see is a rebellious, whiny student. Also, our script did not take as long to film as I thought it would, so some sections of dialogue were improvised on the day. While there is nothing wrong with improvisation, I was concerned that the viewer may find this section to be a bit too general, and not dealing with the context. That it will appear as nothing more than a 'for and against' argument about university, something that happened and will continue to happen if fees were raised or not.

However, something that I feel we have done well is made out political context clear. We begin the film by showing a computer monitor that contain a web-page of a news article about the raise in tuition fees. I feel that when seeing this, the audience will be less-likely to question why we have chosen to include our created characters as they have seen why they behave in the way that they do. By doping this, we are also hoping to show an element of power - the power of parliament and the strain that it will inflict amongst generations of young people to come. Unfortunately, the way that we wanted to present conflict became less powerful due to the fact that when writing the script, I had included too many lines for the person playing the Teacher character to learn in a short space of time before filming. The dialogue was quite forceful (see below), I had written this when thinking of (again, no named mentioned) teachers who are strongly encouraging of getting student to apply to university.

"That’s ridiculous! You have to go to University, because what else are going to do? Nothing, that’s what! Without education, you’ll be nothing! This college will have nothing to show for your generation if you all said that you ‘can’t afford’ to go to university, so there are no excuses! Get a move on!"

We wanted this dialogue and this character to reflect conflict. He presents a contrasting view on going to university, appearing to care little for the student's excuses for not wanting to go. All he is concerned about is having impressive work to show from students who had studied at the college - like trophies on a shelf. What I fear is that, as this dialogue became compressed, the conflict that we were trying to present will appear less powerful to the viewer.

Before writing this script extract, I have had experience with scriptwriting. However, this was not for film, but for theatre, so when writing this, I found that I had to restrain myself from writing stage directions and find a way to represent the aspects of power, poverty and conflict as if they were written for the screen, and not the stage. This was a challenge, but I challenged that I liked as it has given me preparation for when I write my screenplay for the real creative project. I will think back to this experience when creating this and try to apply a similar writing style to what I have done now. Also, I have learnt that when writing scripts, I need to consider how much time there is before filming must happen. This is so that when working with others, they can learn dialogue effectively and give better performances. This will decrease the chance of having last-minute hitches on the day of filming, meaning that we can use time much more efficiently.

Comments on 'Gommorah'

From the beginning of the film until the end of it, we are made aware countless times that power, poverty and conflict are a prominent theme across four individual stories. Money is constantly mentioned, such as an opening scene where an elderly man complaining about the amount of bills that he has to pay, stating that 2,000 Euros isn't enough, and a scene near the end of the film where a mobster describes people's debts as being like crops - they just keep on growing. A choice to join a rival gang destroys the friendships between two young boys, and the initiation phase of joining a gang, by wearing a bullet-proof vest and being forced to take gunshots, being left with horrific bruises. There is no other sound at this point - just the gunshots, and because of this our attention is brought to it. It is moments like this that show us how emotionally moving and shocking gunfire can be to the individual - the tension on their faces, like the close-up of the the man who was just threatened by two mobsters, is chilling to see. The use of tracking shots imposes the feeling that their are significant features about some of the characters, and by surround scenes after gunshots with nothing but silence, we are aware of the shock that these events cause.

Unfortunately, all of these powerful shots, I find, appear to drive towards no sense of overall narrative. With emphasise split between four separate groups of characters, and sadly, it seems as if the timing between characters are broken down in to fragments that just don't explain enough about each group. For example, we will have a 2-3 minute focus on one group of characters, surrounded by emotionally provoking imagery, and after that, the emphasis changes. Because of this, we as viewers fail to get any sort of emotional attachment to the characters - I can't even name any of the characters. It is as if we see them, 30-45 minutes later, we see them again, 30-45 minutes later, they are dead. Contextually, 'Gomorrah' sounds as if it would contain much more attaching moments. The author of the book where the film gets it name, Roberto Savino, has been held under police protection since its release in 2006 because of the amount of Cammorra mobsters who want him dead for publishing notes of their activities around Naples, Italy. This factor made me build excitement towards the film, thinking that detailed and frightening events would portrayed on-screen. While many of the scenes are frightening and disturbing, such as the closing shot of two dead bodies being carried away in a large digger (it shows that they are not humans, but just more litter to be cleared up from the floor), they are no detailed. As I have mentioned above, it seems that individual plots are cut far too short, and resumed far too late so we lose attachment.

However, the cinematography is used powerfully, it is just shame that this power appears to drive towards no narrative. For example, after a scene where a car has crashed, the front rolls right up towards the camera screen, creating a close-up. At this moment, I felt the intensity that the shot was aiming to create. the Tracking shots used, particularly of the boy sporting an England vest near the beginning, create the impression that the figure are important - our attention is drawn to them, yet we learn little, if anything, about the characters afterwards, as the emphasis on them then changes. A large amount of party music is used during a shoot-out, creating a shocking contrast in terms of what kind of event that the music is suggesting. Sadly, once more though, it then seems as if no developments are made from these points.

The contextual research that I conducted prior to watching 'Gomorrah' made me desperately want to like this film. Unfortunately, with no attachment to any characters whatsoever caused by cutting story extracts way too quickly, the film fails to contain a definite narrative. As I have stated, some very startling and powerful scenes are mused in the film, thanks to the incredible use of cinematography, but seems as if they don't drive any narrative either - they are just there. Powerful images, it seems, without a story.

Background research on 'Gomorrah'

• The story is based on a book by Italian writer/journalist Roberto Saviano, which was released in 2006.
• The book, entitled 'Gomorrah' details organized crime caused by the Camorra, a criminal organization based in Naples, Italy.
• Since it's release, Saviano has received numerous death threats from mobsters and Godfathers of the Casalesi clan.
  
• Saviano has had to be escorted by police ever since and is currently in hiding.

• In 2008, however, Saviano announced that he wanted to leave Italy. "I want a life. I want a home. I want to fall in love. I want to [be able to] drink a beer in public, go to a bookshop and choose a book after browsing the back cover," Saviano said. "I want to go for a walk, enjoy the sun, walk in the rain and see my mother without fear - and without frightening her. I'm only 28 years old for fuck's sake."
• The book has sold over 1million copies in Italy.

• In 2006, the number of those killed in Naples and the surrounding areas was 72, of which 50 were Camorra-linked .

• In 2006, a known mafioso was shot dead in full view of the public by the Cathedral in Scampia as he was coming out of bar. In the summer a Canadian tourist was shot in the leg by a stray bullet during a Mafia shootout, and an American tourist who gave chase to two muggers was set on by local people who sympathised with the criminals rather than the victim. Hotels have taken to handing guests plastic watches so they can leave their expensive items in the hotel safe.

Sources
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/16/italy-mafia
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article621615.ece
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0929425/

Film plans and explaination of aims

Film Plan

A blank screen. 3 Seconds later, the sound of a computer mouse clicks, digetic sound. With this, a name of one of the actors appears in a small, white font, to the lower left-hand side of the screen. 2-3 seconds. It then fades. 2-3 seconds later, another click, digetic, and another actor name appears on-screen for 2-3 seconds in the same font as before. It then fades .2-3 seconds later, another click, and another name (in the same font) and then it fades. 2-3 seconds later, the screen gradually fades in, revealing a computer monitor, which occupies the entire screen. On the screen is a webpage, displaying news about rising university tuition fees. After 10 seconds, the webpage then scrolls downwards, revealing more of the article, as if someone was using the mouse. The screen remains fixed for 5 seconds.

Camera then zooms out. It reveals a teenage boy/girl, age 16-17, who is sat down on a chair in front of this computer screen. We can see the back of their head. They are wearing large, visible headphones, connected an mp3 player of some sort. This process should take 5-6 seconds. Digetic sound is introduced at this point, the sound of music from his headphones. 2-3 seconds later, a hand appears from the right-hand side of the screen, and it forcefully slaps the back of the teenager’s head. Close-up shot of the teenager, from the table that the computer monitor is on. Is it pointing slightly upwards, revealing that the person who hit them was a teacher (in his mid sixties). Dialogue is introduced at this point. The teenager removes their headphones and the digetic music stops.

Teenager: (placing their hands on the back of his head to show that they are hurt) OW!

Teacher: (appearing cross) Oi! You’re meant to be doing you’re UCAS application!

Teenager: (turning to face him) What? Why?

Teacher: Because I told you to! The application deadline is soon, and you haven’t even told me your university choices yet!

Teenager: That’s cause I’m not goin!

Teacher: (appearing surprised, but still angry) What?!

Teenager: University. I’m not goin!

Teacher: Why not!

Teenager: I can’t afford it!

Teacher: That’s ridiculous! You have to go to University, because what else are going to do? Nothing,

(At this point, the camera changes to a medium shot of another teenager, also sat down in front of a computer monitor, who shifts their eyes so that they look to their left, for half a second, and then looks back to the computer monitor. 1-2 seconds, the camera shifts backs to the close-up shot of the first teenager, in the same angle as before.)

that’s what! Without education, you’ll be nothing! This college will have nothing to show for your generation if you all said that you ‘can’t afford’ to go to university, so there are no excuses! Get a move on! (He walks away to his right, so that he is off-screen)

Teenager: (placing his/her hands over their face. He/she sighs.) Fucks sake!

(He/she spins his/her wheelie chair around so that they are facing a table that was behind them. They then lower their face and slam it against the table. Camera changes to a long shot, with the teenager positioned slightly to the left of the screen. After 2-3 seconds, the other teenager who was seen at the other computer earlier appears on-screen, also in a wheelie chair, positions themself next to the first teenager. At this point, the camera slowly begins to zoom in, and does so for the rest of the scene.)

2^nd Teenager: Hey, calm down. Do you really not wanna go to uni?

Teenager: (raising their head from off of the table, lowering their hands as well) No. I said I can’t afford it.

2^nd Teenager: I heard. Well, you don’t have to listen to him. (Indicating the teacher, nudging thier head subtly to their right) Have you talked to your parents?

Teenager: They said they’d kick me out of the house if I don’t apply. But I don’t even wanna go to uni!

2^nd Teenager: (after a 2 second delay) How come?

Teenager: They just want me to be independent don’t they? Fuck’s sake! I don’t have to go to uni to be independent! I can just work in Asda or something. I can earn my own money. Is that not independent enough?

2^nd Teenager: And you wanna do that for the rest of your life?

Teenager: Better that than pay nine grand a year for uni, isn’t it? So I’m not in huge debt for the rest of my life! They’ll still kick me out though. I don’t have a choice really. They tell me to do UCAS there, they tell me to do UCAS here. (Slamming their fists against the table, the camera should now be an extreme close-up shot of Teenager) Fucks sake!

The screen fades to black.

Explanation of aims

When thinking about the other films that we had watched, we noticed that they were often set against a political context (more notably 'La Haine') which was able to drive the narrative. As the aim of this project is to show power, poverty and conflict, but limited to filming around the college grounds, we thought that we could use a political theme that was relevant to the education setting, and display elements of power, poverty and conflict through this. Fortunately and unfortunately, there happened to be a big news story of this nature at present - the rise in tuition fees proposed by the government. As this rise sadly looks more and more likely to happen, we believed that we could present power - the hard, cruel fist of parliament. With the rise in fees, many students in future generations will sadly feel that the cost of university is out of their reach, and will reject to the idea. We were able to use this idea to create a teenage character, who does not want to complete his UCAS application because he 'can't afford' university - with this, we aim to show poverty. Students, for financial reasons, are denied education.

From personal experience, we've noticed that (no names mentioned) many teachers urge student to apply to university, weather it is in their interests to or not, and regardless of if they know what they want to study or not. This gave us an opportunity to present conflict. Using this viewpoint, we created a verbal argument between the teenager, who insists that he cannot afford to go to university, and the teacher, who insists that he must apply, because otherwise the college cannot claim merit for his future achievement. While watching 'City of God' and 'A Prophet' we noticed that their is a sense of facing an ugly compromise (Steak being forced to shoot one of the runts in 'City of God' to be accepted in Lil' Ze's gang, and Malik being forced to kill Reyab by Cesaer, who claims that if he doesn't, he will be killed himself in 'A Prophet'). Using this as inspiration, we formed the idea that our teenage character could also be faced with a grim compromise - if he doesn't apply to university, his parents will kick him out of the home. He doesn't want to apply to university, but he doesn't have a choice - much like Malik in 'A Prophet'. He is faced with a grim compromise - whatever he chooses to do, there will be a price to pay.

Presentation Planning

PowerPoint slide. To include:

• Title question
• Posters from each of my focus films
• Picture of Meadows

Spoken text: To include a brief biography of Meadows, detailing his up-bringing and his introduction to film work. State my question and then state each of the films I will be looking at.

Spoken text or PowerPoint Slide. To include sub-questions:

• Does Meadow's use his own cultural knowledge and experiences to shape his films?
• How Does he use social and political contexts to drive the narrative in these films?
• How are these contexts show within the characters?

PowerPoint Slide. To include:

• Theatrical poster of 'This is England'
• Next to this, state release date, cast and crew, production company ect.

Spoken text: Provide a brief outline of the plot an characters. Include information on the social and political context of the 1980's and how they are explored in the film, using catalogue entries to help. Include how Meadow's created the film based on his own childhood experiences, as detailed in my catalogue entries.

Visual clip: Extract from 'This Is England' of Shaun being shaped to fit skinhead subculture, as prompted by Woody.

Visual clip: Extract from 'This is England' of Combo expressing nationalist viewpoints.

Spoken text: Summary of film and these clips. How they influence the characters and narrative of the film. Include press responses, using catalogue entries to help.

PowerPoint slide. To include:

• Theatrical poster of 'Somers Town'
• Next to this, state release date, cast and crew, production details ect.

Spoken text: Brief outline of the plot and characters of the film. Include notes the social and political context of the King's Cross/St. Pancras redevelopment, using catalogue entries to help. Explain how this was Meadow's first film to be shot outside of the Midlands and what the actors thought of the shooting process and how effective it was.

Visual clip: Mariusz at work on 'St.Pancras/King's Cross station as this implicates a key cultural theme having an effect on characters.

Visual clip: Argument in the flat between Marek and Mariusz, as this displays elements of kitchen sink drama.

Spoken text: Closing summary of clips and film in general. include Meadow's reflections, using catalogue entries to help.

PowerPoint slide. To include:

• Theatrical poster of 'Once Upon A Time in the Midlands'
• Next to this, state release date, cast and crew, production companies ect.

Spoken text: Brief outline of the plot and characters. Explain the controversies surrounding the social accuracy of the Midlands, using catalogue entries to help with this. Explain Meadow's thoughts on this, using his own experience of the Midlands, using catalogue entries to help.

Visual clip: Scene from 'Once Upon A Time in the Midlands' where Dek, Shirley, Carol and Charlie discuss the arrival of Jimmy, as it shows the close community formed between the array of different accents.

Visual clip: Scene from 'Once Upon A Time in the Midlands' where Dek is seen referring to his car 'baby' or Dek working in the garage, as this indicates the reference to the high number of motoring manufactures that are located in the Midlands.

Spoken text: Summary including press feedback and Meadow's comments, using catalogue entries to help.

PowerPoint slide. To include:

• Theatrical posters of all three films.
• A reflective comment on each of these films, using my catalouge entries to help me we with this.
  

Spoken text: Summary of presentation, explaining how I have answered my focus question and the sub-questions. Use a separate paragraph/section covering these questions for each film. End with a 'Thank you'-style sentence.

How social and political themes are explored in the films of Shane Meadows

In 'This is England' Meadows uses his of knowledge and childhood experiences of England in the 1980's, using radio and TV clips of the key events and highlighting youth sub-cultures of the decade as a driving force for the narrative. He even stated that some of the characters in the film have been created based on people he knew in the 80's.

'Somers Town' is a social study of the Somers Town area of London, and presents elements of a kitchen-sink drama by showing conflict within families. The re-development of King's Cross/St. Pancras station provides work for many who have come overseas, such as Marek's farther, and this is presented within the film. The London setting also presents a wide variety of nationalities - English, Polish and French. It also presents a different view on the youth of today - Tommo acts hard, which can be expected from someone of his age. What you wouldn't expect, however, is for him to be friendly with A polish child. But he is.

The social accuracy of 'Once Upon A Time in the Midlands' is questionable. This is because, in the East Midlands setting, Meadows has pitted together a Scot, a Welsh, a Cockney and Scouse, and presents a close community between these accents. How they came to form this, however, is debatable. However, Meadows defends this using his own knowledge of Nottingham and the Midlands, stating that a wide variety of people can be found here.

A comparison of the treatment of power, poverty and conflict in ‘A Prophet’ and ‘City of God’

The story of ‘City of God’ is told entirely from the perspective of Rocket, a young boy who dreams of becoming a photographer. His voice is the narrative that gives the audience an explanation as to who the people around him are and what is happening in society. ‘A Prophet’, however, isn’t told from anyone’s perspective and simply follows the progression of the character Malik as he starts a six-year prison sentence. He enters prison alone, not knowing anyone but is contracted by Ceaser, the Corsican kingpin who rules what happens in the prison. Ceaser tells Malik that he must kill Reyab, an Arabic prison inmate, or be killed himself by Ceaser’s forces. We see Malik develop from a prisoner forced to work with the Corsicans and regretfully kill Reyab so that he can be ‘protected’, to an independent criminal mastermind, committing crimes on his own terms. This form of development can also be found in ‘City of God’ within the character of Lil’ Ze, who we first see as an innocent young boy having his first taste of murder and eventually becoming the leader of the gang who control the streets and provokes fear in everyone around him. The key thing to note however, is that Malik didn’t want to kill Reyab - He had no other choice, it was either kill or be killed, whereas Lil’ Ze’ enjoyed his early killings in the brothel and had the option of weather he wanted to do it or not.

A big similarly between the two films is that both settings (a Brecourt prison in ‘A Prophet’, the slums of Rio De Janerio in ‘City of God’) have a powerful, fear-provoking force that hangs over them and keeps watch -Caesar and the Corsicans in ‘A Prophet’ who instantly trap Malik into doing something that he doesn’t want to do, and Lil’ Ze and his drug-running gang who take part in the gang warfare that fills the streets in ‘City of God’. Also, at the end of each film, we see both of these forces crumble and fall apart - in ‘City of God’ this occurs when Lil’ Ze is shot dead by the Runts, whereas in ‘A Prophet’ we see Caesar’s power gradually slip away throughout the film as Malik becomes more independent and less reliable on him, which causes Caesar much frustration - he is desperate to have power. His demise is truly signified during a scene where he attempts to walk over the Malik, but is knocked to the ground by the Muslims who Malik has independently allied with. Caesar’s fearful reign ends, but the Muslim’s begins, which creates a cycle of terror. Something similar occurs in ‘City of God’ - even though Lil’ Ze is now dead, it is The Runts who take over the streets and again we are imposed with a question - will the terror ever end?

There are also some differences in the narrative in both films. In ‘A Prophet’ the story focuses entirely on Malik’s time in prison, giving little information on any other characters and their backgrounds. ‘City of God’ is very contrasting because even though the narrative is told entirely through Rocket’s eyes, throughout the film he pauses the story in order to tell another small story of other characters, such as Lil’ Ze and Knockout Ned, sharing how their story and background is relevant to the leading story. The story moves through the decades of the 1960’s, 70’s and 80’s and constantly reversers time to tell another story, such as when Lil’ Ze discovers his love of killing, whereas ‘A Prophet’ pushes through Malik’s time spent in prison, time is never shifted backwards.

The films share a very noticeable theme - corruption. The characters are surrounded by ugly compromises; they have to do things that they don’t want to do in order to live. In ‘A Prophet’ Malik is faced with an awful decision as soon as he enters prison - Cesar tells him that if he wants to be protected, he must kill an Arabic prisoner named Reyab, or be killed himself by the Corsicans. There is a similar scene in ‘City of God’ where Lil’ Ze forces Steak to shoot one of the two Runts that they have captured in order to join their ranks. It appears that both Malik and Steak don’t really have much of a choice - they have to do something that they’ll regret for the rest of their life in order to get what they want. For Malik, this is survival, but for Steak, it is to be considered part of the Gang by Lil’ Ze. Both films also display a huge social divide - in the prison of ‘A Prophet’ the tension between the Muslims, Corsicans and Arabics is clear because the Muslims talk to no one but themselves while the Corsicans think of Malik as nothing other than a ‘dirty Arab’, which is also a sign of racial tension. In ‘City of God’, however, the social divide is indicated by the gang warfare that patrols the streets, and Lil’ Ze wants all other gangs wiped out so that he can be the best. Lil’ Ze wants nothing but power. The same applies for Caesar in ‘A Prophet’, who becomes infuriated when he sees his power slipping away in front of him. This is most evident when he attacks Malik, forcing a spoon into his eye because he is angry that Malik no longer fears him.

There is another similar narrative feature - the events in both of the films are set over a progressive timeline. In ‘A Prophet’ this is the six years that Malik spends in prison, whereas in ‘City of God’ the story is spread across three decades. Also, throughout both films, titles appear on screen to identify characters and objectives - in ‘City of God’ these are accompanied with a freeze frame and Rocket’s voice-over giving a brief explanation of who they are/what is happening, whereas in ‘A Prophet’ the narrative is not interrupted at these points.

Comments on 'A Prophet'

This was a film that I enjoyed very much. I found it interesting how the development of Marik is presented throughout his time in prison. He entered as a mindless, police-beating violent man, but he learns a lot of discipline during his sentence, taking literature and science classes, which help him to slow down and take more consideration for his surroundings. He takes these classes as he states that he cannot read - perhaps this tells us something about his background and up-bringing - was he uneducated? could his family not finance his education?

Prison is presented as a dangerous place and Cesar, the leading mobster, is aware of how frightening it can be for newbies such as Marik. He offers him protecting, but this come at a price - Marik must kill Reyab, an Arabic prisoner, or be killed by Cesar's cronies. Straight away Marik is stuck between a rock and and hard place - he can save himself, but it comes as a very ugly compromise. In terms of conflict, a divide is clearly created in the prison - Arabics are refereed to as 'dirt Arabs' and the Muslims talk to no one but themselves. Racial trust is also an issue - when Marik is running an errand, he knock on a house, and the people inside argue about weather they should let him enter, stating 'He's an Arab - do we let him in?'.

Cesar, who takes Marik under his wing, is desperate to maintain his power over the people in the prison. He changes from being the man who Marik feared and worked for, possibly just to stay alive, to the man hating the fact that he has nothing.