Little Miss Sunshine American Independent Film Case Study

Little Miss Sunshine is an American comedy-drama film. It is one of the more successful American independent films, released in 2006. The film is also the directorial debut of husband and wife Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris. The screenplay was also written by first time writer Michael Arndt. 

Although this is an independent film, which usually consisting of an unknown cast, this film includes several famous actors and actresses such as Steve Carrell, Greg Kinnear, Toni Collete, Paul Dano, Abigail Breslin and Alan Arkin. This pushes away from the typical independent film techniques of casting unknown actors, however this particular independent film is not one that was received by the public in the usual way such as film festivals and dvd. This film was picked up by major Hollywood studio, Fox Searchlight Pictures, who bought the rights to distribute the film and released it into cinemas, making it a complete success.

There are a few different reasons as to why Little Miss Sunshine is classed as in independent film. One being the controversial matters shown in the film, such as the pageant world and how it sexualises and glamourises children in an unconventional way. Many of the girls shown in the film being genuine pageant contestants who dressed in costumes and performed real acts from their own previous pageants. This issue is something that would not necessarily be shown in Hollywood box office films as it is seen as shocking and a bad representation of society with winning being their ideal life goals.

Another reason Little Miss Sunshine is independent is due to the production of the film, done by Big Beach Films. As previously stated, the directors and screenplay writer are both performing their debut with this movie and are not well known, successful and wealthy, which are usually the traits that major Hollywood production companies look for in directors and writers. Also, this film is not a big budget film with large sets and technology used. Instead, this film was made with a budget of around $8 million and was filmed in Arizona and Southern California over a period of 30 days, which is and incredibly short amount of time to film compared to the months that it takes for mainstream Hollywood films. Yet another reason this film is seen as independent is due to the way it was released. Being low budget and not yet having the support of a major Hollywood studio company, the film was premiered at the Sundance Film Festival on the 20th of January 2006, a well known film festival used to display many indie films. August however, is when the film expanded to a wider release, due to being picked up by Fox Searchlight Pictures for over $10 million and 10% of all gross revenues, and being one of the biggest film deals in the festivals history.

This it what makes the film one of the most successful indie films in recent times. Overall, the film grossed over $100 million worldwide, which compared to the films production costs of $8 million is an astounding success

The Stone Roses: Made of Stone British film case study

The Stone Roses: Made of Stone is a 2013 British music documentary on the acclaimed band The Stone Roses directed by Shane Meadows. The film stars Ian Brown, John Squire, Gary Mounfield and Alan Wren. The film was released in the united Kingdom on the 5th of June 2013. The film follows the band reforming in 2012 after a 16 year split, capturing the band at work and in their everyday lives as they rehearse for their much anticipated reunion on a tour across Europe, which came to a close when the band performed three triumphant homecoming gigs at Manchester's Heaton Park. Although the band ore widely known and extremely successful, the genre of this film, being a music documentary, is primarily targeted at a niche audience of The Stone Roses' dedicated fans, whether that be young or old. It also is a film that was not shown in cinemas and didn't have a big budget marketing campaign, meaning that the audience of this particular film would be people who knew of it's existence and followed this particular music genre. Another way in which it may pick up viewers, would be because of the successful British director of this film, Shane Meadows. As well as this close up documentary, looking into the world of The Stone Roses, Shane Meadows has directed several other well established British films such as the 1997 feature film Twenty Four Seven, and the widely known 2006 film This Is England, which was also a successful television programme, partly directed by Meadows. As he is known for being a stand out British film director, Meadows could very well have a significant impact on audiences and have a following, causing this particular music documentary to be viewed by people who are familiar with his work. 
As well as the director, there are several other reasons why it may have picked up an audience. One being the films reviews. The Stone Roses: Made of Stone picked up positive reviews by many. The Guardian wrote about this film, describing director, Shane Meadows' insight and portrayal of The Stone Roses as a "great, heartfelt tribute". It also describes the film itself as "warm, energetic and purposeful". These positive and passionate reviews could easily influence potential viewers, causing the film to reach out to a wider audience of intrigued and interested people. 
Although there is no specific budget written down for people to see, it is easy to make an assumption that this film, being a documentary especially, would have a significantly low budget to not only Hollywood blockbuster hits, but also successful, bigger budget British films. There is however, a figure for the amount that this film has made to date, being £473,282. To the film industry, this figure is significantly smaller than the high budget, Hollywood blockbuster hits, however compared to the low budget and the fact that this film is a British documentary with a niche audience, the money made on The Stone Roses: Made of Stone is a significant amount, and I would say, labels this film as a success. 
To me, being a documentary about one of Britain's many successful and influential bands, this film is an incredible insight to the lives of The Stone Roses that is rarely seen, and is something that I would definitely watch and be fascinated by. Although many do not relate to their world, it is something which is not seen by many. Therefore every single lover of this brilliant band, along with myself, will thoroughly enjoy and appreciate the well filmed documentary, The Stone Roses: Made of Stone.

The Great Gatsby American Blokbuster Case Study

The Great Gatsby is a 1925 Novel written by American author F. Scott Fitzgerald that follows a cast of characters living in the fictional town of West Egg on Long Island in the summer of 1922. The story mainly follows the mysterious, unknown world of millionaire Jay Gatsby and his relationship with the young and beautiful Daisy Buchanan. "The Great Gatsby explores themes of decadence, idealism, resistance to change, social upheaval and excess, creating a portrait of the jazz age that has been described as a cautionary tale regarding the American Dream."

There have been several film adaptations of this novel, the most recent being in 2013. This particular adaptation has been extremely successful within the box office world, and there are a few different reasons why. The most obvious proof that film has been successful is the money it has made. The budget for this film was $105 million, which in itself, proves that The Great Gatsby is a huge Hollywood Blockbuster. So far, this particular Great Gatsby film has made just under $350 million, which compared to the budget, is a very large amount of money. This statistic alone proves that this film adaptation has been a complete success in the box office world, however there are other possible reasons why this film may have been such a success, as well as reasons that argue the statement that the film has been completely successful.

Apart from the money made, another factor as to why The Great Gatsby may have been so successful could be due to the cast of this particular adaptation. The cast includes top Hollywood stars such as Leonardo DiCaprio, Tobey Maguire, Carey Mulligan and Isla Fisher. These stars already have a huge fan base, as well as a successful acting career, making them incredibly admired by film producers and the public alike. 

Along with the factors i have already discussed, another factor that may have influenced the success of this film adaptation could have been the story itself. As mentioned previously, The Great Gatsby is a famous novel, written by a famous author. This alone could have brought in an audience of many, as not only is there just the novel alone, there has been several adaptations already made in the past. A point that could argue against this being part of the success of The Great Gatsby adaptation could perhaps be how much this particular film has modernised the original novel. As it is a recent film, released in the modern day world where technology has drastically improved, this film has heavily modernised the original. One particular way the producers have done this, is through the soundtrack. The songs played throughout this film do not relate too well to the film itself, in fact, some of them are completely new songs, sung by well known pop stars. It has been argued that this has ruined the authenticity of this famous novel, however it has also been argued that the modernisation of The Great Gatsby has helped this adaptation become so successful. Many people have said that the recent pop songs and well known Hollywood cast have brought in a much wider audience to the film, helping it to appeal to many more viewers, even children. If this argument includes truth, then I feel it is more than likely that these adaptations have definitely increased the success of The Great Gatsby

Captain Phillips Research

Domestic Total as of Nov. 26, 2013: $101,140,974
Production budget: $55 million
Worldwide grosses: $177,440,974
Opening weekend: $25,718,314

Captain Phillips is a 2013 American action thriller directed by Paul Greengrass and starring Tom Hanks and Barkhad Abdi. The film tells how merchant mariner Captain Richard Phillips was taken hostage by Somali pirates in the Indian Ocean during the Maersk Alabama hijacking in 2009 led by Abduwali Muse.

The film premiered premiered on the 28th September 2013, opening the New York film festival. The film was praised for its direction, screenplay, production values, cinematography and the performance of Tom Hanks and Barkhad Abdi. It was described as "smart, powerfully acted and incredibly intense, Captain Phillips offers film goers a Hollywood biopic done right and offers Tom Hanks a showcase for yet another brilliant performance."

This film would appeal to audiences as there is a film star cast as the main character. Fans and supporters of Tom Hanks will want to see this film no matter what the story, because he is in it. It may also appeal to people who are interested or knowledgable about the issue that this film is based on, with it being a true story. 
Although the genre and story of this film is typically related to male audiences, female viewers may also go and see this film just to watch Tom Hanks.

By looking at the statistics of the money this film has made so far compared to the budget of the film and how much it cost to make, I would say that this film is definitely successful.

Practical Coursework Ideas

Storyboard

Urban/ Social Realism
- young target audience
- drugs, drinking, violence

Horror
- young girl (teenager)
- vulnerable, naive, innocent
- use camera as killer (never seen)
- modernised for younger target audience

Young Romantic
- teenagers at school/college
- dramatised struggle of love

Noir (hybrid?)
- romance (doomed
- bars (drinking/smoking)
- some parts in colour (red)
- voice overs
- low key lighting





Aims and Context:
- genre: noir/romance hybrid
- storyboard
- target audience: teenagers and young adults (18- 25), female, middle class
- focusing on lighting and cinematography
- explore gender roles and how they are portrayed

Horror Film Sequence

In groups, we were given the task to produce a film sequence of 10 shots in the genre of horror. Our group had the idea to use one female character as our visual. We shot her in an establishing shot of a comfortable, well lit environment. We then changed the mood by cutting out the lighting and filming the character frantically panicking. We also chose to use diegetic sound as our 'killer' as we felt this caused more suspense to the audience as they would never know where the killer was.
      I feel we portrayed the horror genre well in our short sequence and captured panic and fear in the characters' eyes. I feel that to improve we could have introduced some non diegetic sound to increase the amount of tension and suspense that the audience may feel.  I also feel our lighting let us down as although we aimed to use low key lighting to help with the emotion portrayed in the sequence, the outcome of our shots were underexposed and we lost the effect we wanted to achieve.

Written Essay - The Lovely Bones

How does the use of sound and cinematography contribute to the suspense in The Lovely Bones killing scene?

This scene starts off with a close up shot of Susie’s face, clearly showing panic and fear in her eyes. The camera then moves to the killers face, framing him as being quite relaxed and calm. It then uses a shot reverse shot of close ups from each of their faces to show the contrast of emotion between them. The camera also uses high angle shots looking down on Susie and low angle shots looking up to the killer, clearly showing the power and strength difference between them. This gave me clear knowledge of who is in control from the very start of the scene.

            As the scene continues, dietetic sound is introduced as the killer starts talking to Susie, asking her things such as whether she would ‘like a refreshment?’ or if she would like to ‘take [her] coat off?’ It soon became clear to me however, that he is not really giving her a choice with these questions; he is merely pretending to give her an option, as when she refuses the drink offered to her and tries to leave, the killer’s voice becomes more domineering, telling her she must ‘always be polite’ and pointing in her face, again using a low angle shot of him, adding to his sense of power. The camera continues to use close ups of both of the characters faces, once again showing the contrast of emotions in each of them. During this part of the scene, the camera also starts to look around the room from Susie's point of view, with close ups of certain objects such as old pictures on the wall, board games and toys. This shows such detail which almost makes Susie feel comfortable however it made me feel slightly on edge as I knew of his plans and saw his attention to detail as frightening. Another scene in a films that gave me the same emotional response was in Taken, when the young girl gets kidnapped from her hotel. As it is about a young girl being captured, it is also similar conceptually, perhaps relating the emotions I felt in both films. In one this scene, jus before the girl gets taken there are certain visual similarities to The Lovely Bones. The slow camera movement creates tension and suspense as the scene is building, as well as the fact that there is no sound at all apart from the characters' voices, which is also similar to The Lovely Bones scene. The mood of the scene then rapidly changes, along with my emotions, causing me to feel panic as the scene erupts and the camera movement is a lot quicker, as well as loud, non diegetic sound being introduced as the girl is struggling against the men trying to take her.

            Throughout The Lovely Bones scene, camera shots are used effectively to create suspense. Close ups of objects are prominently used as part of the mise en scene, such as when the killer opens a drink for Susie, and when he reaches over for her to grab the bottle opener. These shots are when sound is mostly used, although sound is only used briefly for the majority of the scene.  When the camera uses these close ups on movements of small, insignificant objects such as a small toy dog, quick bursts of non-diegetic sound are used. These build the suspense leading up to the killing of Susie as the sounds are quite sharp and fast, and the close ups that are used with these sounds mean the audience cannot see anything else going on in the scene which then caused me to feel even more tense. These shot types are similar to those used in a previous film that director Peter Jackson had also made, Heavenly Creatures. The similarities between storylines make the films relate to one another very well. The slow camera movement used in both films creates tension well and shows the clear similarities in the director’s work.

            As the killer slowly removes his coat, he caresses the side of Susie’s face chuckling to himself as Susie flinches. There is then a quick cut to her face, which shows the fear and dread she is clearly feeling. Once he has sat down opposite her he tells her she is ‘very pretty’, to which she quickly thanks him, through fear. He then nods his head and smiles at her, however she is looking at the ground, which she does for a large section of the scene. There is also a dark shadow on one side of his face for some part of the scene, showing that the dark side he has hidden for so long is now becoming clear. The camera also continues to shoot close ups of objects around this underground room, still with the use of sharp, fast non-diegetic sound. The behavior of the killer at this point caused me to feel on edge and tense. It also increased the hatred I felt towards the killer and my emotions towards Susie made me apprehensive and sad for what was happening to her.

            Although the two characters are set in a confined environment, they are rarely shot in the same frame. Slow and quick cuts are used from one character to the other, which also shows a high contrast between them, as well as what they are wearing. The mise en scene shows Susie wearing coloured clothing of blue and yellow with a red hat whereas the killer is wearing dark simple clothing. This made me feel completely different and caused my emotions when either of them is in the frame. As the killer becomes more comfortable, the camera movement is a lot softer around him, which links to his relaxed, confident mood. With Susie however, as the scene progresses she becomes a lot tenser, panicked and scared. The camera also helps to show this through the sharper, quicker shots than the ones used to show the killer. High and low angle shots continue to be used, showing that the power is constantly left with the killer, such as when the killer is standing over Susie pouring her a drink 

            Susie’s panic is shown further as a stronger narrative is introduced when diegetic sound is used as the killer begins to ask her about the room they are in, which he built for her, telling her how special it is. She then responds by agreeing with him. “Yes. Yes it is, it’s very special”. Her voice starts to become louder and a lot faster paced, stammering as she speaks, clearly showing the panic through the sound of her voice. The camera still continues to use close up shots on both of their faces. As Susie becomes more frightened the killer seems to get more relaxed, shown through the close ups used on his face as he smiles and nods to her stuttered response.

            As the scene slowly builds, more close up cuts are used on the both of their faces, especially when the killer is talking to her, asking her if she has a boyfriend. Now however, Susie’s eyes are starting to move around the room. The camera then freezes on her face as she looks into his eyes and states she ‘has to go’, looking to the ladder leading out of the underground room. This caused me, the viewer, to feel extremely tense as the camera movement has stopped and a sudden fast movement is expected, however this does not happen straight away, which causes more suspense to the audience.

Although the killer has picked up on Susie’s plans, he remains calm, staring at her, with more diegetic sound used, he says ‘but I don’t want you to leave’ and slowly shaking his head. It the cuts to another close up of Susie’s face, showing her pleading to him with her eyes, not saying a word but looking more frightened than ever.

            This is when the killer states “I’m not gonna hurt you Susie”. This phrase, although said in a calm, friendly manner, almost immediately put panic into my emotions, knowing that he most definitely is going to hurt her, however she looks confused and unsure through a shot of her face.

            This is when the majority of non-diegetic sound is introduced into the scene, as Susie leaps out of her seat and jumps towards the ladder leading to the exit. The killer then jumps and tries to catch her. Suddenly, there is a vast amount of non-diegetic sound playing over the scene. The use of loud strings and percussion is used to make the audience panic. The camera shots also become a lot faster paced and still keep the characters separate. As Susie jumps up the camera lets her run out of the frame and focuses on the killer left in his seat. The camera then uses a mid-shot to watch the killer chase after her. It cuts from Susie on the ladder, using a shallow depth of field to put the killer grabbing her out of focus, to the killer standing at the bottom of the ladder pulling her down. The cuts become a lot quicker and long shots are used to show the intense body movements and struggle between the two characters even though they are still being shot separately. The non-diegetic sound becomes louder and continues to build up suspense within the audience to whether Susie will escape or not.

Suddenly it cuts to a wide shot of an isolated field. Using low key lighting and slowly zooming out to show the vast amount of land. There is also no sound whatsoever. This shot contrasts what I knew to be happening under this specific field. It then cuts back to the same struggle happening between the two characters and the sound and quick cuts are introduced once again.

Susie is then seen to kick the killer and escape from him, running through the vast, empty, silent field, almost in slow motion, with a backwards tracking shot quickly moving in front of her. The vast amount of suspense that had been created by the sound and quick camera movement is gone and I began to feel calm and relieved, however this all changes as I realized that Susie did not actually manage to escape form the underground cabin, only her ghost did.