Friday 30 October 2015
Sunday 18 October 2015
Tuesday 13 October 2015
Snatch Review
Snatch is a comedy, crime film directed and written by Guy Ritchie and produced in 2000 by Matthew Vaughn with Columbia Pictures Corporation and SKA Films. Since Snatch, Ritchie has directed 6 feature films: Swept Away (2002), Revolver (2005), Rock n Rolla (2008), Sherlock Holmes (2009), Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (2011), The Man From U.N.C.L.E (2015) and he is currently filming Knights of the Roundtable: King Arthur for 2016. These films all have in common the genre of crime and therefore share themes such as money, status and power, showing that this is what Ritchie possibly feels comfortable working with. Guy Ritchie's first film: Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (1998) is very similar to Snatch regarding its style, plot, setting, themes and characters and Robert Ebert said Snatch "follows the Lock, Stock formula so slavishly it could be like a new arrangement of the same song".
In Snatch, the music was by John Murphy, the Director of Photography was Tim Maurice, the editor was Jon Harris and production design was by Hugo Luczyc-Wyhowski. Regarding its critical and financial reception, Snatch was very successful, grossing a total of $83.6 million after having a budget of $10 million and it was rated 8.3 on IMDb. It won five awards: Empire awards for the Best British Director and Best British Actor (Vinnie Jones), a Golden Reel award for Best Sound Editing and a special recognition for excellence in filmmaking. I personally feel that the film was worthy of more than five awards, especially regarding the performances because for me, they were all excellent and this was one of the main strengths of the film which secured a solid and enjoyable viewing.
Starring Alan Ford (Brick Top), Brad Pitt (Mickey), Jason Statham (Turkish), Stephen Graham (Tommy), Benicio Del Toro (Franky 4 Fingers) and Vinnie Jones (Bullet-Tooth Tony), Snatch is a fantastic, wild, event-packed film, full of conflict, deceit, brutality and intimidation that is bound to hold your attention for the entire duration. Full of hilarious one-liners and fantastically well developed characters, Ritchie has created an exceptional piece of work. Snatch is made up of a multi-strand narrative with two main intertwined plotlines: Brick Top pulls Turkish and Tommy into the world of match fixing. Their original boxer gets badly injured by Irish gypsy, Mickey after Turkish wants to buy a caravan from the gypsies. Turkish and Tommy have to convince Mickey to fight and lose for them. At the same time, a massive diamond heist is taking place and as more characters enter the equation, even including a dog, things go from bad to worse and the money and guns becomes the main focus point.
I am a huge fan of cinematography and Snatch is definitely an example of very effective camera-work and with the incorporation of slow motion, stills, unique angles, black and white and colour shots, the audience's focus is kept maintained and they are drawn into this bizarre narrative, given them a sense of escapism from their reality. The opening title sequence was truly incredible and it was a great way to immediately draw in your audience and create a buzz that will intrigue them to continue watching. As you can see in the video below, this sequence features quick-paced editing which goes from action to freeze frame, introducing the protagonists one by one and giving the audience a small insight into their characteristics and possible personality.
There were many key scenes throughout Snatch but my favourite two were: meeting Sol and Vinnie's driver: Tyrone and Brick Top's pig story. I personally found the Tyrone scene hilarious as it was an expression of the characters inner personalities and we see the three men in a more relaxed environment, meaning we as an audience can gain a connection with them due to the more light-hearted tone. Brick Top's pig story is another one of my favourite scenes, firstly because it was very unexpected and I believe this sums up the film because every small section of the narrative comes with new surprises and I had no idea what to expect throughout. Secondly, I believe it holds an implicit meaning to what it appears on the outside. Brick Top refers to feeding dead bodies to pigs and I believe the reference to pigs is meant to represent and symbolise the other characters because they gradually turn more and more greedy in terms of wealth, money, status and power.
In conclusion, I loved Snatch because it had absolutely solid performances from all of the characters which resulted in an entertaining experience that although was definitely very confusing at times, held my attention throughout and I would recommend it for sure. However what disappointed me about Snatch was the lack of strong, female characters as all of the protagonists were male and the exclusion of the female gender shows women to have less importance than men so I would have like to have seen some important females being thrown into the mix. I now feel inspired to watch more of Guy Ritchie's films and I would rate Snatch 8.5 out of 10!
Comparison between La Haine and City of God
In this analysis, I am going to be comparing the two films:
‘La Haine’ and ‘City of God’. They both fall into the category of world cinema,
with La Haine being French and City of God being Brazilian. World cinema films
are known for illustrating harsh messages revolving around social and political
issues and because of this, they may struggle to attract globalised audiences
meaning they have to rely strongly on their distributors and exhibitors. La
Haine was directed and written by Mathieu Kassovitz; it was produced and distributed
by Canal + in 1995. City of God on the other hand was directed by both Fernando
Meirelles and Katia Lund, written by Braulio Mantovani (based on the novel by
Paulo Lins) and produced in 2002 with O2 Filmes and VideoFilmes, with the
distributer being Miramax Films. Production Wise, there is a huge difference
between the box offices of these films, however the budgets were fairly
similar. La Haine had a budget of $2.5 million and City of God had a slightly
higher budget of $3.3 million. Unfortunately, La Haine went on to make less
money in the box office with an overall total of $309, 811 whereas City of God
made a huge increase and went on to make $30.6 million. During the distribution
stages, both films were screened at Cannes Film festival however the reason I
believe City of God made more money is because Miramax is a big, American
distributor/production company so could
gather a much more globalised audience compared to Canal +which is a French
company which is not known worldwide.
La Haine follows Vinz (Vincent Cassel), Hubert (Hubert
Kounde) and Said (Said Taghmaoui) through their twenty four hour period spent
in the French suburban ghetto after their friend, Abdel is beaten unconscious
by police. This causes riots in which a policeman loses his gun which is then
found by Vinz who threatens to kill a member of the police if Abdel dies in
hospital. City of God is narrated by the main protagonist, Rocket (Alexandre
Rodrigues) who as well as telling his own story, looks over at the lives of
Li’l Ze (Leandro Firmino) and Benny (Phellipe Haagensen). They are growing up
in the favelas of Rio de Janeiro and have contrasting dreams: Rocket wants to
become a photographer and escape the favelas whilst Lil’ Ze and Benny become
drug dealers and become extremely power hungry, which Rocket has no interest
in. Both films illustrate an ongoing cycle. In La Haine, there is a cycle of
violence, the protagonists cannot escape from the negativity that surrounds
them and no matter how hard they try, they will always be forced into
uncomfortable situations. In City of God, three generations worth of youths get
involved in the dangerous hood lifestyle (The tender Trio at the beginning,
Lil’ Ze and Benny etc. throughout the main duration of the film and then the
Runts at the end of the film), illustrating that this is the ‘normal’ lifestyle
in the city of god and it is what is expected of each generation, so they feel
as if they have to do what is destined for them.
The contextual factors play a huge role in both La Haine and
City of God because they are both based upon true stories relating to social
and political issues at the time regarding poverty, power and conflict. La
Haine is based upon the murder of a black youth named Makome M’Bowole who was
shot and killed whilst in police custody which resulted in huge protests
against the police and real life footage of the riots is used at the beginning
of the film during the opening credits. City of God is based upon the novel to
which the writer, Paulo Lins once lived in the favelas and went on to become a
successful photographer. The characters in the film are based upon real people
including Knockout Ned in which the real version of him is shown during the
credits of the film. The narratives of La Haine and City of God have evolved
from strong themes such as police brutality, corruption, prejudice, class and
violence and this realism confirms that both films have been made in response
to their social and political context. The fact that both directors are aware
of these issues enhances the power of the narratives and therefore results in
stronger impacts on their audiences.
Although both of these films fall under the genres of crime,
drama, social realism in the style of a documentary, City of God appears to
follow a Hollywood style whereas La Haine completely follows an independent
cinema style. I say this because COG has a protagonist/hero (Rocket) with a
goal to escape from the favelas and he achieves this through his talent in
photography. Contrastingly, La Haine is much more pessimistic because as hard
as the protagonists (Hubert, Vinz and Said) try to escape from the estate, they
are constantly being forced into negative situations with ongoing violence,
even at the end of the film. Therefore, La Haine illustrates a much more
realistic picture of what it was like in that time and context whereas COG does
portray the harsh, tragic realism of the favelas but at the say time, suggests
that one man can escape from the power, poverty and conflict surrounding him
and can be rewarded for hard work- creating a sense of hope which is
unrealistic. This is shown through Rocket who is given the option to choose
photography over drugs and violence. On the other hand, Hubert from La Haine
puts in all his efforts when creating a gym for youths to release their
frustration and he is not rewarded for it, instead it is burnt down by those
who he thought would use it. The fact that the film ends with Hubert pointing a
gun at a non-uniform officer almost implies that he has given up on his dreams
and accepted that there is no hope for him.
La Haine and City of God both portray negative
representations of the female gender. In COG, women are only represented in
terms of sex and men are shown to have complete power and control over them,
additionally shown through actions such as rape. A scene which highlights this
is the one in which Knockout Ned’s girlfriend is raped and he is forced to hear
her screams, objectifying women because they are being used by men to let out
their built-up emotions and frustrations and they are portrayed as weak because
they do not fight back. Even the woman who has a decent job as a journalist is
shown in terms of sex but this time, to have control and manipulation over the
male gender because she uses sex to manipulate Rocket and meet her needs,
illustrating that women can only gain power through their sexual hold. In La
Haine, there is an underrepresentation of women as they are barely seen in the
film at all, and the only female characters we are really introduced to are the
protagonist’s families who are only seen inside their flats. This follows the
domestic housewife stereotype, suggesting that their only role is to look after
the home and family whereas the men are seen everywhere, their roles including:
policemen, protagonists, criminals and youths- representing them as the superior
gender who have more power over women. However, the males in both films still
struggle with their sense of masculinity and they find it difficult to maintain
it. To be seen as a ‘man’, you have to be brave, violent and able to handle a
gun. In COG, generations follow in their elder’s footsteps, using guns and
drugs and planning murders. Maybe they feel as if they have to do this in order
to be seen as a man by society because if they don’t, they may be seen as weak
by the other youths. The character of Vinz in La Haine struggles with his
masculinity and this is shown through the scene in which he cannot bring
himself to shoot a skinhead and he is disappointed in himself because he is
aware that he is coming across as ‘un-masculine’ to his friends.
There is a definite contrast in diversity regarding these
two films. In La Haine, the three protagonists are all of different
ethnicities: Vinz is Jewish, Hubert is black African-French and Said is Arab
African-French whereas in City of God, it could be said that there is an
overrepresentation of black people because the vast majority of the characters
are black youths. I find it interesting that both of the directors for these
films are white and could fit into the categories of our dominant ideology. Due
to this, some people have accused them of exploiting the people in their films
and the way they represent them because they go on to make large profits which
do not have any impact on those living in the favelas or places with poverty.
However on the other side of the argument, it gives those who are more
fortunate the opportunity to see what the lives are/were really like for those
living in poverty and there are provided with a sense of realisation that could
result in a change of heart.
The visual style and cinematography of La Haine and City of
God strongly contrasts, disregarding the similar mise-en-scene. La Haine is in
black and white to enhance the realism and the film more gritty, taking the
audience away from the beautiful scenery of France. City of God is shot in
full-colour however at the beginning of the film, the colour pallet is bright
and vibrant but as the narrative develops, the colours become duller- possibly
representing how the social and political issues are slowly taking over and
draining out the life in the city of god. The camera shots are still and long
in La Haine which to me, allowed a greater and more intense focus on the
characters, whereas handheld camera movement is used in COG which enhances how
rough it is in the favelas and makes it feel more like a documentary.
Overall, I loved both La Haine and City of God because they
had very strong themes and the huge sense of realism really enhanced the
viewing experience. They clearly share many differences and similarities
regarding representations, visual style, production, social and political
context and of course, poverty, power and conflict. I would rate them both
8/10.
La Haine Analysis
La Haine is a French, black and white film directed and
written by Mathieu Kassovitz. It was produced by Christophe Rossingnon in 1995
with Canel plus. The most recent film Kassovitz has gone on to direct is
Rebellion in 2011 which is about dissidents in a French colony who attack a
police station and take hostages. There are immediately similarities between
this and La Haine regarding police and crime. Starring Vincent Cassel (Vinz),
Hubert Kounde (Hubert), Said Taghmaoui (Said) and Abdel Ahmed Ghili (Abdel), La
Haine follows Vinz, Hubert and Said through their twenty four hour period spent
in the French suburban ghetto after their friend, Abdel is beaten unconscious
by police. This causes riots in which a policeman loses his gun which is then
found by Vinz who threatens to kill a member of the police if Abdel dies in
hospital. It is a gripping crime, drama film which had a budget of 2.3 million
Euros and then went on to make $309,811 in the box office. This is a fairly low
budget, therefore suggesting that La Haine is an independent film. It does
follow some of the conventions of independent films by having lots of dialogue,
limited special effects, actors who may not necessarily be well known and a
specific choice of music.
La Haine was made in 1995 and the context of France at this
time links to the film as a whole. There was a clear separation between upper,
middle and lower class people and this is made apparent in La Haine because the
lower class people from the estate, surrounded by poverty are juxtaposed with
the upper/middle class people in Paris due to their mannerisms, locations and
clothing etc. A scene which clearly highlights this is the one that takes place
at a late night exhibition in an art gallery. Inside is filled with well
dressed, upper/middle class citizens, making the protagonists stand out and
look out of place and I believe this was a very significant scene because it is
when the class divide becomes most noticeable to the audience. There were more
than 30000 car thefts per year (there is a car theft scene in La Haine) and 1.4
percent of the population were victims of assault (one of the main narrative
strands is the fact that Abdel was brutally attacked by police). During the 1970’s, there was an economic
crisis and during this, immigration was limited by the French government and
many other European countries constantly blamed unemployment on immigrants
(this helps to explain the racism in La Haine). It clearly follows the genres
of drama and crime because it is very realistic and Kassovitz definitely does
not shy away from the truth, resulting in a gritty narrative which reveals the
brutalities of the French society in the time it was set. Crime is constantly
developing the narrative, pushing the characters into new situations and
challenging them and their abilities, strengths and morals.
I felt the narrative structure of La Haine was very
powerful, especially how the beginning and end was linked through the quote: “It's
about a society on its way down. And as it falls, it keeps telling itself:
"So far so good... So far so good... So far so good." It's not how
you fall that matters. It's how you land.” I really liked how in the final
quote, the word ‘man’ was replaced with ‘society’ because it reveals one of the
overall messages of the film which is that France as a society was falling and
crumbling down due to the crime within it and possibly, it was oblivious to its
damage (“so far so good”) so kept its focus on a new equilibrium (“it’s how you
land”). The film title, La Haine translates to ‘hate’, illustrating that hate
is the force that is destructing society and tearing it apart and this theme is
reinforced again and again throughout the film to emphasise the negative impact
it had on France. The narrative is
restricted to a twenty four hour period and the audience are constantly given
reminders as to how much time the three men had left and I believe that this
manipulation of time was very symbolic. Firstly, it creates an extreme amount
of tension because there is a sense of pressure, especially as Vinz has vowed
to kill a cop if Abdel dies, so the audience are expecting something dramatic
to happen at any moment which leads to a build-up in suspense. Secondly, it
links to the quote spoken at the beginning and end because as the clock is
ticking down, the plot of the film is still ‘falling’ and we are waiting for
that much anticipated ‘landing’. As the time becomes less and less, we are
getting closer to the ground which again, creates tension and it is an accurate
representation of the pressure of time.
The narrative structure of La Haine almost breaks the rules
of Todorov’s theory due to the numerous disruptions throughout which may have
been purposely used to reflect how the main characters are always surrounded by
crime and wherever they go, they cannot escape from it- just like the narrative
cannot escape from its disruptions. These disruptions help with the build-up of
suspense and I believe they foreshadow the climatic ending which also reveals
messages such as karma because there are consequences to the actions of the
men. Within the narrative, there is a binary opposite between the police
officers and the criminals who clearly have different intentions. The police
officers are negatively represented to be scandalous because they are very
brutal towards the youths and criminals and they treat them as if they are
animals. The criminals on the other hand may be portrayed as violent, but they
are also shown to have better intentions as they are fighting for justice. However,
I do not believe this to necessarily be an anti-police film because it
realistically follows the context of what France was actually like regarding
police brutality so the audience are given a true insight into what life was
like during that period of time.
There were a variety of key scenes in La Haine which had a
large amount of significance. For example, there is a scene towards the end of
the film in which the three protagonists have cornered a skinhead (played by
Kassovitz) and Vinz has a gun pointed at his head whilst Hubert is trying to
convince him to shoot. There is a build-up of tension but eventually, Vinz
cannot kill him and lets the skinhead free. This illustrates that he is not the
fearless and heartless gangster he pretends to be and deep down, has a good,
true nature which further indicates his insecurities and it challenges his
masculinity because he is seen as weak after not murdering the skinhead. The
fact that Vinz owns a gun throughout the film is very symbolic because the gun
itself represents Vinz in the sense that he is a ‘ticking time bomb’ whose
anger and aggression can be triggered by just one small action (the trigger of
a gun) to which it then explodes into violence.
The representation of women in La Haine follows the domestic
housewife stereotype because when we are introduced to the men’s families, they
are all female but we only see them inside their flats. There are males
everywhere in the banlieue- the protagonists, police, criminals and youths are
all male and this represents men as having more strength, superiority and power
whereas women are represented as only having authority inside the home, where
they have to look after it. There is clearly a very negative representation of
youth throughout as they are portrayed to be violent, aggressive and
disrespectful which is shown through iconography such as guns, drugs and
cigarettes and also through mannerisms such as swearing, shouting, gang
fighting and theft. This could construct a false idea to the audience that all
youths behave in this way when in fact, they were represented this way due to
the location they were in (the estate) because the scenes that took place in
Paris were not so rough and gang related. However, I believe the police in the
film have a much more negative representation than the youths due to their
unnecessary behaviour in scenes such as the rooftop scene, the hospital scene
and of course, the end scene where they get carried away with using their
weapons and ‘power’ to their advantage.
In conclusion, I really liked La Haine and I would rate it 9
out of 10. I thought the unfolding of the narrative was very effective and I
was gripped throughout due to the director’s strong use of tension. The
character development was exceptionally good and I learnt a lot more about each
of the main characters as the film went on which meant I became more
emotionally attached to them and I could understand why they may act to
situations in certain ways. What stood out to me most was the visually stunning
cinematography, especially the use of depth of field which ensured full focus
was on a particular character or prop. The beautiful shots of France were
juxtaposed with the actual plot which shone a negative light on its society and
the fact it was in black and white helped to add to the serious tone of the
film and it enhanced the realism of it. Black and white may also have been used
to steer the audience away from the stunning scenery of France and guide them
to focus more on the characters and the negativity that is surrounding them and
the area. It enhances the fact the film is based in a working class estate,
giving it a bleak appearance and making it clear that the protagonists are
living in poverty so by using full colour, the audience may have been
distracted from these points.
Annotated Catalogue
The new working statement: How has Wes Anderson developed as an auteur and is he now a
mainstream figure in the film industry?
Films:
Item 1- The Grand
Budapest Hotel (2014)
I chose this as my focus film because it is Anderson’s most
recent piece of work, so shows his style at its most developed stage. By far it
is his most commercially successful film, making $174.6 million at the box
office and winning 146 awards including 4 Oscars and for the first time, he was
nominated for an Oscar for ‘Best Achievement in Directing’, highlighting his
significant progress as a film-maker.
Item 2- Bottle
Rocket (1996)
This was Wes Anderson’s first feature film and there is a
huge difference between this and The Grand Budapest Hotel. It didn’t gain the
recognition it deserved and made only $560,069 in the box office after a budget
of $7 million. However, it began Anderson’s career after attracting positive
attention from critics and it stars actors such as Owen Wilson who has appeared
in all but one of Anderson’s films since.
Item 3- Fantastic
Mr. Fox (2009)
This film marked a significant change in Anderson’s work
because it was his first stop-motion animation and first adaptation from a novel.
Critically, it was very successful, receiving 47 awards as well as Oscar,
Golden Globe and BAFTA nominations. However, although it made $46.4 million in
the box office (after a $40 million budget), it was overrun by more mainstream
films such as ‘Up’ and ‘New Moon’ due to them being released at the same time.
Item 4- Moonrise
Kingdom (2012)
Moonrise Kingdom was a huge success and it was nominated for
an Academy Award for the Best Original Screenplay. It grossed $68,263,166 in
the box office, making it Anderson’s third most financially successful film
after The Royal Tenenbaums and The Grand Budapest Hotel. It can be said to
follow mainstream/Hollywood conventions as the protagonists, Sam and Suzi are
goal driven and the plot builds towards a crisis which is then resolved.
The Internet:
This is very useful as it breaks down the reasons as to why
The Grand Budapest Hotel has attracted a more mainstream audience in comparison
to Anderson’s previous films, covering topics such as: cinematography, actors
and character development. There are constant references to Anderson’s other
films, marking the differences and similarities between them which proves that
he has developed as an auteur since Bottle Rocket and grown to draw in wider
audiences.
These are some very useful statistics which compare how much
each of Anderson’s films grossed in the box office, including the domestic and
overseas percentages. With exceptions to ‘The Royal Tenenbaums’, there is a
positive correlation with the production dates of Anderson’s films and the
amount they grossed worldwide, indicating the increase in his success rates.
Also, The Grand Budapest Hotel has the highest overseas percentage of 66.2%,
highlighting his more globalised audience which could be a big turning point
for him.
This is a very good piece of research because it is a
detailed outline on how Wes Anderson has broken through as a more mainstream
film-maker. It highlights that the Royal Tenenbaums was Andersons
‘breakthrough’ film which allowed him to gain much larger budgets for his next
films and from here onwards, his build-up and pathway to Oscar winning, The
Grand Budapest Hotel is clearly visible.
This is an informative breakdown of Anderson’s work from
‘Bottle Rocket’ to ‘The Darjeeling Limited’. The author, Derek Hill writes
about Anderson’s change and improvement of character development, narrative and
the technical/visual style between these films. He also talks about the
differences in their critical and commercial factors and how this has led
Anderson on to have mainstream success.
This is a useful page because it makes a lot of comparisons
between the work of Wes Anderson and it addresses key information regarding the
progression of his films. What I found most significant on this website was the
section titled ‘awards and nominations’ because it illustrates that his latest
films have won more awards than his earlier films and Anderson’s huge
progressions as a film-maker are clearly highlighted in this.
Interviews:
This interview focuses on Fantastic Mr. Fox and The Grand
Budapest Hotel. Anderson discusses how much he learnt from making Fantastic Mr.
Fox in terms of planning, framing and editing and how he brought these new
skills into his most recent films, Moonrise Kingdom and Grand Budapest. This is
significant because it illustrates the impact that each of his films will have
on the next, proving that he is constantly adapting and improving.
Books:
Item 11- Matt
Zoller Seitz: The Wes Anderson Collection
(2013)
This book provides a lot of beneficial information because
Matt Zoller Seitz has written detailed word essays on each of Anderson’s films,
disregarding The Grand Budapest Hotel, and there are also embedded interviews
with Anderson for each one. Many comparisons are made between the films,
especially regarding what impacts they have had on each other and these essays
are broken down with images, showing a progression in Anderson’s
cinematography.
Item 12-
Item- 13
Rejected items:
Friday 9 October 2015
BFI Film Festival- Suffragette
On Friday 9th October,
I went with my film class to watch a screening of Suffragette at the BFI Film
Festival in London. I really enjoyed the experience because the producer gave a
short question and answer at the end of the film which gave me an insight into
the production of Suffragette and the film-makers intentions behind it. At
multiplex cinemas such as Vue in Croydon, there are no opportunities to meet
those involved in making the film and the Arthouse experience was therefore
much more inclusive and there was a completely different atmosphere regarding
the room’s layout and also its audience who were clearly more serious about
film, highlighted by the round of applause at the end which does not often
happen in multiplex cinemas.
Suffragette was directed by Sarah
Gavron, written by Abi Morgan and produced in 2015 by Alison Owen and Faye Ward
with Ruby Films, Pathe, Film4 and Ingenious Media. Sarah Gavron is not a widely
known director and she has previously directed only one feature film: Brick
Lane (2007) which follows the life of a young, Bangladeshi woman. It made
$1,095,398 in the box office and received a rating of 6.7 from IMDb. Gavron has
also directed two short films: Losing Touch (2000) and The Girl in the Lay-By
(2000), one documentary: Village at the End of the World (2012) and one TV
Movie: This Little Life (2003). Due to Suffragette still being in its exhibition
stage, the box office is currently unknown but I believe it will top Brick Lane
purely because it has been hyped in its sales and marketing stages and I have
seen various articles on it in mainstream newspapers such as The Times and also
advertisements on buses. Additionally, there is also controversy surrounding it
which has been on the news: during its premiere, feminists protested on the red
carpet and they were chanting “dead women can’t vote” which is likely to draw
more attention to the film, therefore attracting a wider audience and grossing
a larger amount of money.
The music was by Alexandre
Desplat, the director of photography was Eduard Grau, the editor was Barney
Pilling and production design was by Alice Normington. Suffragette stars Carey Mulligan
(Maud Watts), Helena Bonham Carter (Edith Ellyn), Anne-Marie Duff (Violet
Miller), Ben Whishaw (Sony Watts), Natalie Press (Emily Wilding Davison), Adam
Michael Dodd (George Watts) and Meryl Streep (Emmeline Pankhurst). As the title
quite rightly suggests, Suffragette is about the feminist movement and how the
women who fought peacefully for the right of their vote achieved nothing so had
to resort to violence and suffering just to get their voices heard. The
narrative revolves around the story of our main protagonist, Maud Watts and how
her experience in the movement affected her family and personal life. (Spoiler
alert) However, I did not personally like the way in which the narrative was
structured because although the film was supposed to be about Maud’s story,
they did not finish it and instead it ended on the tragic death of Emily
Wilding Davison which meant the audience were not able to gain knowledge on how
Maud continued to protest and what happened to her Son. Also, Maud’s character
is fictional whereas many of the other characters are based upon real
suffragettes and I feel the protagonist should not have been fictional because
this is a very serious topic and the audience should be educated on the stories
of real suffragettes who fought for women’s rights in order to gain a greater
understanding of the movement and also to enable a stronger connection with the
main protagonist.
The cinematography in Suffragette
was very effective and there was a strong sense of surveillance throughout.
This was achieved through the use of extreme close ups such as when Maud’s boss
is talking to her at work and these are very intimate and intense, making the
audience feel as if they are listening in on their conversation. This use of
surveillance meant the audience were also able to connect and understand the
characters because we were watching over their personal lives and as the
producer mentioned in the Q&A, the crew intended for the audience to feel
as if they were there in that period of time. Another way this was illustrated
through the cinematography was the handheld, shaky camera movement during the riot
scenes which was supposedly from one of the characters perspectives, providing
the audience with a realistic reflection of what it was like to be a woman protesting
for their rights during the Suffragette movement.
The protagonist, Maud was clearly
hugely passionate about achieving the rights for woman to vote and she was
willing to give up anything in order to fight and protest for this cause. This
was highlighted by the scene in which she discovers her son, George is going up
for adoption and she has a very short amount of time to say her goodbyes to
him. Although she is extremely upset about leaving him and screams as he is
taken away from her, she does not resist entirely and understands that if she
wants to continue protesting, she would have to give George up. I thought this
was one of the more emotionally touching scenes in the film because the
audience gain an understanding as to how much woman’s rights really mean to
Maud and therefore how serious this movement really was. However as I mentioned
earlier, the film-makers did not continue Maud’s story and we never found out
what happened to her or her son and this uncomplete narrative was disappointing
and left the audience hanging, but not in an effective way.
I was impressed by the production
design in Suffragette because the producer mentioned that it was very hard for
their team to re-create nineteenth century England and at times, they would
have to film during the night and early hours of the morning in order to not
cause any disruptions. I believe their hard work really payed off because I
felt transported to that century and the mise-en-scene was very realistic so I applaud
the head of production design, Alice Normington and her crew.
In conclusion, I did enjoy
watching the film however I had much higher expectations for it and
unfortunately, it really disappointed me. The Suffragette movement was huge and
it is a very important part of our history and I feel the film failed to show
how aggressive yet powerful it really was and the film-makers seemed to shy
away from the brutal truth and hide away with a ‘safe’ narrative. In my
opinion, it was unable to illustrate the incredible passion that went into this
movement and I expected to be extremely emotionally moved by it but instead, I
was left with a sense of annoyance because they did not give the Suffragettes
as much justice as they should have and this had the potential to be an
incredible film. However, the performances were solid and it was good to see a
strong, female cast rather than mostly male protagonists. Overall, I probably
would not recommend this film and I am rating it 5 out of 10.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)