'Sweet Sixteen' - Aspects of crime

Is there a sense that the lack of opportunity that the characters have is what leads to their crimes?
I would say yes. This is because Liam is desperate to make his mother happy and the film shows that he will do anything to make that happen. The decision to enter the drug trade could be due to a lack of other businesses in the local area or for people at Liam's age (15, 16). Another reason for this direction could be that Liam's stepfather, Stan, is already in the drug trade himself, which suggests that Liam has had an upbringing around the business.

Do you feel the characters have less chance of success?
Yes. When seeking employment in the future, kids like Liam and Pinball won't have much to write about on their CV's. I would think that Drug dealing is not something to talk about at a job interview. Another thing that my attention was brought to was Liam's life in education. There is little, if any, mention of it and a school uniform in not seen once.

How much does the area you live in lead to criminal activity and how is this explored within the film?

• How is family life portrayed within this film, what impact does it have upon the characters? Family values appear to be highly respected. Liam simply wants the best for his Mother and the film shows that he would run through fire for her. However, after a beating by rival dealers, Chantelle, Liam's sister, shows that she is worried about him when nursing his wounds. Liam is devastated when his Mother runs away after a 'welcome home' party to Stan's house - the man who effectively is the reason that she was prison. Liam stabs Stan, possibly because he does not want his mother to go through the same perils as before and end up in prison again. He cares for her.

How is social class explored within the film?
I think that the film displays Liam as part of a low-class family. He is kicked out of his home by Stan and it is only because of his sister that he is not homeless. With his friend Pinball, we first see Liam selling contraband cigarettes in a local pub and are soon kicked out, which suggests a smug, cheap personality. As I see it, Pinball was the only character Liam connected with outside of his family and I felt like he only cared about Chantelle and his Mother (when it comes to family). It is made even clearer that Liam is all that Pinball has when he steals a car, crashes into
Tony's health club, burns the caravan and cuts his face. This is because he feels that Liam is fading away from him into the drug business and that he is being left alone.

How is crime explored within the film?
To begin with, crime appears almost laughable in the film (stealing a policeman's hat). However, when Liam begins selling drugs, we see the emotional and physical effects that it has on him and his family. This begins when Liam is beaten up by a rival gang who steal his gear. Liam does not simply fall down though - He desperately needs his gear back and goes after them, getting even more wounds in the process. This is what upsets his sister, and his mother is upset later when she learns Liam had gained the new apartment by entering the drug trade. Overall, I would say that crime, even if it is for a 'good' cause, does not come without its perils, emotionally and physically.

Exhibition Questions

1) Why are there no viable arts/independent cinemas in many areas? Why/how is Southampton able to sustain the Picturehouse (Harbour Lights).
Picturehouse cinemas show films that are programmed to the "response to its local audience". So, if the people of Southampton wanted, say, more action films, that is what they would try and get. However, movie-goers from Brighton might want more romantic films, and that is what they would get as Picture house show films that are tailored to each location's audiences. They are also built particularly in university cites, such as London, Brighton and York - maybe their is more of an audience in such locations, and this could be why independent cinemas are not frequent to every city.

2)What is the relationship between movie going and video/dvd/blu-ray hire/sales?
There is defiantly more convenience to watching films on DVD/blu-ray as it can be done anytime, so long as you own the film. They are so easily commercially available in shops, online and for rental and are far cheaper than cinemas, along with snacks so that the cinema can be 'recreated' at home. This is where rental sales would be generally higher. Many cinemas in the UK had planned to boycott the release of Tim Burton's 'Alice In Wonderland' due to Disney saying that they would bring out the film on DVD after 12 weeks instead of the traditional 17 in an attempt to increase the declining DVD sales.


3) What does the programming of the Sky movie channels and Film Four respectively say about the relationship between pay television, niche marketing and consumer behavior?
Sky movies often run promotional programmes on upcoming films, such as the most recent film in the 'Harry Potter' franchise. their website also shows trailers for films that are soon to be released in cinemas. This hype could draw consumers into thinking that the cinema will be a better experience. This is because a service that offers films for FREE is making such a fuss about something that people will have to pay for. People may not want to wait a few months to see a film for free on a smaller screen - they hype marks a better viewing. Film 4 also produced a lot of 'homegrown' material, such as 'This is England' and has since ran it on their channel.

4) What is the most appropriate response contemporary British cinema can make to Hollywood dominance?
An ideal response here would be something along the lines of 'Producing, Distributing and exhibiting a film that has 100% British financing and has a 100% British cast and crew and release it to huge international success'. However, I think it depends on what audiences that filmmakers are trying to reach - are they trying to reach British audiences or American/international audiences? Hollywood industries have this figured out from an early stage as American culture/humor is well-known across the globe. British culture/humor however, may only appeal to British audiences (wit) and this could be why some British film may not be successful overseas.

5) Should British films be distinctive at the expense of profitability or profitable at the expense of distinctiveness?
British films could be very distinctive and profitable if international companies were to invest in the film's production and marketing. However, this is not always the case. Many successful films may seem 'British' in terms of culture and character, but often the production comes from American/international financing. Examples of this include 'The Full Monty' which was financed by Fox Searchlight, 'Notting Hill' which had production support from Universal, and 'Billy Elliot' which was distributed by UIP, the largest Hollywood distributor in Hollywood. Overall, I think British films should be distinctive, but the filmmakers will have to decide if they want to risk profits or not.


6)Is it possible for British films to be both distinctive and profitable?

Distribution Questions

1) How has Hollywood come to dominate world markets?
Many of the top Hollywood studios (Paramount, 20th Century Fox, Universal ect.) Have HQ's not just in the US, but overseas as well - Paramount established itself in the UK and Germany in the 1920's and MGM, Warner Bros and 20th Century Fox opened studios in the UK during the 1930's, building cinemas in key locations such as the West End to screen their films. Cinema chains all over the world have ownership agreements with the studios.

2) Why do i get to see the films I do at the local multiplex?
If a film is produced by say, 20th Century Fox, and a certain cinema has an agreement with the company, is owned by them or they have a financial deal, then we are more likely to see a film produced by them at this particular cinema than anywhere else.

3) Do we get to see the films we want (demand led) or do we see films that are provided for us (supply led) and why?
I would say that more often, we see films that are made for us. This is because the Hollywood industry knows that they'll make money from genres and themes that are proving popular (such as the vampire them set by 'Twilight'). Upon seeing that a theme is popular, Hollywood will want to reproduce and recreate it as much as possible as they know that they'll make money from it. However, a question to ask here is that what makes a certain genre/theme popular?

4) Why are more people going to the cinema today?
I feel that this is due to the way that films are hyped-up so much. Films now get so much promotion that people feel they need to see a film to see what all the fuss is about. Posters appear on buses, billboards ect. and TV spots are in huge numbers. the Star factor is also important to marketing the cinema. By associating big names with the phrase 'in cinemas now' More people are likely to make the trip. Also, with deals like 'Orange Wednesdays' and student offers, the cinema is becoming cheaper, making it easier to get there.

5) look to see whether films hold there positions well in the charts over a few weeks or whether they fall away quickly. What reasons can you come up with to explain this success or failure.
All the hype and word of mouth towards a film can only last prior to the film's release. A film may do well on its opening weekend and take top box office rankings for the next few weeks, but after this time the reviews roll in and tell audiences weather a film is worth seeing or not. Take 'Avatar' as an example. It was number one at the box office around its release time and for a few weeks afterwards. a month or so later, its position went to number 2, slowly to 3, then to 4 ect. and it currently sits at 7.

Production questions

1) How has the status and power of stars changed over cinematic history?
A lot of films now use the stars involved as the main marketing source to the films, drawing attention to their names on promotional posters. Many films are also made as a 'star vehicle' - a method to promote a film with a star who has had the lead role created specifically for them.

2) Take any film you have seen recently and find out who produced it. Then try to find out more about this person. What was their role on this particular production? What have they and others got to say about their involvement and contribution? What projects have they been in previously, were these ventures successful?
'Forgetting Sarah Marshall' Produced by Judd Apatow. Previously, he had produced movies such as 'Anchorman: the Legend of Ron Burgundy', 'Knocked Up' and 'Superbad', all of which had box office success, making a profit in their opening weekends in the US.

3) Why are certain kinds of film guaranteed to make high profits and others high risk?
I think that a lot of this comes down to what genres a filmmaker will decide to use. For example, the disaster/horror genres have to proved recently to be a huge box office success, with films such as 'Dawn of the Dead', making profits at the box office and spawning off many films in this genre, such as 'Land of the Dead'. It is films, I find, that work outside the popular genres, that make it as 'risks'.

4) Which genres are currently popular/unpopular and why?
I feel that popular genres at the moment include comedy, horror and the super-hero theme. This is because many of these films have financial success (e.g. Iron Man) and as a result sequels are created - 'The Dark Knight', 'Resident Evil: Extinction' ect.

5) Why was Hollywood under the studio system so successful?
During the 1910's and 1920's, Hollywood's top studios (Paramount, 20th Century Fox, Warner Bros. ect) Began to emerge. A lot of the time, these companies also had major control over distribution as well as production. Films were being made to a 'reasonable' quality and there were lots of them, so they were able to produce films quickly and market them easily.

6) What has been lost and gained as a result if the replacement of the studio system by the producer/agent/deal system?
I feel that during the studio system, films were being made to the convenience of the studios as they were the dominant force driving the cinema industry at the time, with attention focused on the film titles rather than the star. In more recent times, it is much the other way around. An agent will try to reason with the producer to make it fit the star's needs, rather than being able to create films with ease as the star's were not so vital during the studio system.

7) How and why has Hollywood again become vertically integrated?
During the golden age of Hollywood film, the studios had complete control over production, distribution and exhibition as they realized that this way, they could increase their profits. They could control which cinemas films were released in, which could even mean to companies that were independent of the studios. Why this has happened again could be due to Hollywood re-realizing this and wanting control again, after a period where independent films had the limelight.

8) What are the consequences of vertical integration?
When releasing films to independent exhibitioners, the exhibition companies often don't get to see the film that they are exhibitioning. The risk created here is that the film could easily be a flop and miss out by loads at the box office.

Debate Questions

2) Who are films made for? Do they cater to people's tastes or are they 'safe bets' for the Hollywood Industry?

I will begin with why I think there are films that are 'safe bets' for the Hollywood industry. One factor I will draw attention to is the release dates of certain films, with my key example being the 'Saw' chain of movies. Lets look at the release dates for each of the 'Saw' films so far:
'Saw' - 1st October 2004 (all UK dates)
'Saw II' - 28th October 2005
'Saw III' - 27th October 2006
'Saw IV' - 26 October 2007
'Saw V' - 24 October 2008
'Saw VI' - 23 October 2009
Notice that they as of 'Saw II' the release dates become very near to Halloween. In my opinion, quality of storyline has decreased in each Saw film with too many plot twists, But all films are rather gory, which keeps in theme with Halloween. To me this creates the atmosphere of 'It's nearly Halloween, that must mean its 'Saw' time!' However, the films continue to be successful at the box office ('Saw II' grossed $87,025,093 in the US) , which has most likely provoked so many squeals, with another 'Saw' due later this year.

Also, look at certain partnerships between certain actors and directors e.g. Johnny Depp and Tim Burton. Depp has appeared in a number of Burton's films, including 'Edward Scissorhands', 'Sweeney Todd', 'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory' and 'Alice in Wonderland' where each time Depp portrays a character that could be seen as 'out of the ordinary'. We can apply the same theory to the productions of Judd Apatow, who founded Apatow productions in 1999. Many of the stars in these films have appeared in many of his other films, portraying similar (in terms of stupidity) roles. Some of these stars include:
Seth Rogen - 'Knocked Up', 'Superbad', 'Pineapple Express'
Jason Segal - 'Forgetting Sarah Marshall', 'I Love You, Man'
Will Ferrell - 'Anchorman: the Legend of Ron Burgundy', 'Step Brothers'
Paul Rudd - 'the 40-Year-Old Virgin', 'Forgetting Sarah Marshall', 'I Love You, Man'

Some films tend to have a 'theme' to them, to show that filmmakers have an understanding of what is popular in normal society. For example, the American high-school setting was popular in the 1990's and 2000's, with films such as 'Clueless', 'Mean Girls' and 'Coach Carter' taking the high-school stereotypes e.g. popular kids, jocks, nerds ect. and forming a story out of it.

Nearly every film that I can think of is based on a book/novel ('the Lord of the Rings') , or sometimes historical events ('Titanic') and TV series ('the Simpsons', 'Sex and the City'). This could possible mean that there is no originality to the film industry, but weather that's a bad thing is uncertain. For historic events, filmmakers might think along the lines of 'hmmm... kids won't find this interesting, but if I put this star in it, I could make money!!' and that is how they might chose to market the film. It can be appealing to two audiences - one being the ones interested in history, the others being the ones going crazy for the star.

3) What impact does the appearance of British stars in American films have upon the British films?

So many British stars have found success in big, well-promoted Hollywood films. Some examples include:
Ewan McGregor - 'Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace', 'Moulin Rouge!' and 'The Island'
Christian Bail - 'American Psycho', 'The Dark Knight' and 'Public Enemies'
Keira Knightly - 'Pirates of the Caribbean' saga

Whilst this does a great job in promoting the actors/actresses, there is a sense that the origins of the stars (the UK) has been lost and that they each become just another part in the Hollywood 'for show' section, upon seeing that their film history includes mostly American films. However, this is not necessarily the case for every British import in America - in the last five years, Keira Knightly has appeared in 'Atonement' and 'Pride & Prejudice' both critically successful British films.

The same, I feel, cannot be said about Christian Bail, who's film credit history of the past ten years is nearly all American. Also, because many of these films are financially successful (e.g. 'Batman Begins'), they often lead to sequels ('the Dark Knight') which means an actor/actress will spend more time in Hollywood as filmmakers will be demanding of them to reprise their roles.

However, we do not have to see this as a bad thing. As I mentioned earlier, many of these big American films are often well-promoted, which means that the stars are well-promted. People will begin to recognise the names of the stars, meaning that their names are not easily forgotten. The Hollywood industry could see them in British films and label them as 'fresh talent' and get them a new, wide fanbase. It could also been seen as a compliment to the UK - "that star is very good in that film. We'd like to use him in one of our own films.' 'Why thank you!'. The stars are talented and eye-catching to American filmmakers, so therefore they want them in their films.

The impact of British stars appearing in American films is that it gives the stars a chance to show showcase their talent to a new audience, but it can drive them away from their roots.

Is Cinema Dead?

In recent years, cinema audiences have declined due to television showings of films becoming much more frequent. One such as example of this are the Sky Movies chain of channels, showing older established films and the more recent ones. For example, why pay to see a film when it is possible to wait for about a year and see it free of charge? Another factor which may be destroying cinema is films on dvd/blu-ray. People may feel that they have to make time for an outing to the cinema, whereas dvd/blu-ray is something so commercially available that people may find it easier to pick it up in their weekly shopping and watch it anytime.

On the other hand, some may argue that watching films on a standard TV set and not on the big screen could be classed as 'missing out' on the cinema experience. When a film is so widely advertised through television, posters on the sides of buses ect. the hype is created, exciting cinema-goers. It could be seen as lazy to wait for months afterwards to see a highly-hyped film, deciding on reviews weather to see it or not instead of taking the risk of spending money to see something.

Another thing that I will draw attention to shall be advertisement towards cinema, as I briefly mentioned above. A film can be marketed in so many ways e.g. TV advertisements, posters, taglines, TV spots, trailers in cinemas, interviews with cast and crew members, Internet and feauttretts on the likes of sky movie channels. It is impossible to avoid the 'in your face' factor that big films have as they will be seen everywhere.

However, in the same manner, DVD's are also marketed in this way, making them just as 'in your face' as the cinema releases. Also, many major films see releases in the USA weeks and months before they set foot in the UK and other countries, leaving them open to be found for free on Internet torrent sites, where they can be watched at any time. Food in cinemas often costs a fortune and many cinema do not allow outside food in their screen rooms, which may encourage audiences to get food 'on the cheap' at shops and snuggle up to a film a home. 2nd hand stores also offer films at much, much cheaper price.

For some films, however, this can be seen as a good thing because if they are unsuccessful at the box office, it doesn't mean that they will continue to be unsuccessful once a DVD/Blu-ray/video format is released. One such example of this is 'Waterworld' (1995). Having a budget of $175,000,000, it was only able to reach a gross of $88,246,220 in the US during its time in cinemas, and even managed to score a Razzie award for worst supporting actor (Dennis Hopper). However, the film went on to do much better once it was released on VHS and DVD.