 |
| d-block corridor |
 |
| the park in northolt hills |
 |
| Swings in Northolt hills park |
 |
top of one of the hills at northolt hils |
 |
| top of one of the hills at northolt hils |
 |
| water/ lakes at northolt hills |
 |
| Path to one of the "lakes" at northolt hills |
Thursday, 3 February 2011
Possible locations for shooting by waqas
Sunday, 16 January 2011
production intentions by Olivia
Production intentions
Target audienceOur target audience is going to be aged from 15-25, aimed at a primary audience of women because we want to show women as dominant, as women in the gangster genre are stereotypically seen as weak in gangster genres, also that they are funny, as women are seen as boring and too stern in comedies. With this we hope to break stereotypes. Our secondary audience is males, as we want to show them using an alternative ideology and make them seen as the weaker sex and to change gender stereotypes and women are not very important, as females are often stereotyped at in crime genres. Our males will show vulnerability, as they will be seen in a different light, so that women aren’t always being dumbed down by males and shown as weak, when they can be too. It will be aimed at an audience C2DE audience because it will appeal to mainly students who are in the E category; also as it will be filmed lower class city area as British gangster films are normally filmed on the streets. They will be able to identify with the characters because they will be of similar age and they can relate to it as students like to shop everywhere and be very girly. Therefore the audience will be able to identify with the characters. In this production there will be a variety of ethnicities, therefore it can appeal to many people and engage them.
Setting
Our settings are going to be in three main places, of which is a popular shopping centre;
· Westfield’s London, which was the largest shopping centre in the UK. This will be recognisable to the audience as it is well-known, especially among teenagers, as they like to shop, and our production will show this.
· Within the school corridors as they are teenagers still in school, therefore they will be identifying with it.
· Piccadilly Circus, for showing the leader in a very dominant way, as this place is very recognisable.
· Our last setting it going to be Northolt hills, this will be used to show our personality and activities at night, because the hills are seen as quite “groupy” with groups of friends always around there. This is also a very recognisable place to which the audience can relate to as most people have been there. Also the three big hills are familiar with teenagers because they can be seen from a distance and are noticeable.
· We will be using streets as well to get across that it is a low budget film but also it is a convention of the gangster genre.
Generally our production trailer will be filmed in night and day, as it shows the gang in the day and how they are at night, like a transformation. In the day is when they are girly and do mainly day to day girly things, but the night/ evening shows their gangster side.
We will have both light and dark lighting for both times of the day, but also on the characters too. Certain characters such as the blonde member, the joker and humiliated person will be shown mainly in light lighting, other from the night but they will still be shown in a lighter lighting to show that they are not as dark and secretive as the other members. The don, the leader and the back stabber member will be shown in dark lighting because they are dark, secretive members. The don will be shown particularly in the darkest lighting because they will have to preserve their identity because of their status and reputation. The leader will be shown in dark lighting as she has to deal with all of the “missions” and “illegal” activities, therefore this will show her protecting her identity. The backstabbing member is the most secretive as she is the one who goes behind everyone’s back, therefore this will highlight her “evil”, shady side of her personality. The rival gang will be shown in both lighting because we want to show them as a gang but also as very vulnerable.
All of the characters will be dressed in normal day to day clothes.
· #1 member will be dressed normally in jeans and a jumper, but they are quite tomboyish
· #2 members will be dressed in formal, smart clothes, wearing glasses because she is potentially the smartest out of all the members
· #3 members will be very dressed up, with make up because they think a lot of themselves.
· #4 members will be dressed in slightly heeled boots, skinny jeans, and leather jacket
· The leader will also be dressed smartly but fashionably, with quite a unique sense of style
· The don will also be dressed smartly, but mainly in black to show her evil, and for the audience to fear her.
We have a gang with 5 members included, there is a leader, who is quite bossy and the other 4 members have very different personalities.
Serious self-centred and sarcastic and bossy
- #1 member: flippant, joker, oblivious, not enthusiastic, bitchy
- #2 member: serious, always humiliated, not listened to, ambitions
-#3 member: “dumb blonde”, accidental, clumsy, thoughtless, loves the colour pink, trips a lot
-#4 member: backstabber, “looks” innocent, attitude problem, sarcastic, there is history between the leader and them self.
There is also a rival gang of males< who are extremely weak and vulnerable. A Don who is in charge of everything. These characters link to our genre because it is the total opposite to the typical crime/gangster/comedy genre.
Basic plot
A highly reputational gang get the chance to finally prove themselves to the Don. they begin their mission of doubling their money on a game of spin the bottle but there is some who wants to ruin it all for them, hoping to ruin Cherry Bang. This links to our genre because crime films have money as a motive.
Our equilibrium: will be that the gang is happy and content with each other, although they upset each other everything is normal.
Disequilibrium: the gang are given a mission to test themselves where they have to double their money, but a member in their gang ruins it and “plays” them.
New equilibrium: the gang find out who it is, with the help of a unexpected gang member, the “dim” blonde, who turns out to be very clever.
RUN FAT BOY RUN- by Natalie
online review of run fat boy run
to run a marathon to win her back.
credit.
Saturday, 15 January 2011
44 inch chest review Olivia
this is a review from a film magazine buts its online
44 Inch Chest
Raging bulls...
3 Stars “I can’t live, if living is without you,” swoons Nilsson’s soaring anthem as diamond geezer Colin Diamond (Ray Winstone) lies prostrate on the floor, a broken man amid the wreckage of his broken marriage.
Colin’s missus (Joanne Whalley) has been doing the dirty on him with a French waiter (Melvill Poupaud), see, and though the presence of Sexy Beast writers Louis Mellis and David Scinto suggests some traditional East End ultra-violence is next on the menu, what actually emerges is an off-kilter examination of old-fashioned masculinity in the midst of a railing, blubbering crisis.
Shadowboxing his demons in a shabby London safehouse while his mates – ageing Lock Stockers gone to seed – goad him towards murdering his rival, Diamond rages at his impotence like a Shakespearian antihero. Howling in anguish one minute, pissing his pants the next, it’s a fearsome, both-barrels performance from Winstone.
Abetted by Hurt channelling Old Man Steptoe, McShane inhabiting a gay lounge lizard, and the rest of Diamond’s gang spitting largely unprintable monologues, the film flits from flashback to feverish fantasy, kitchen-sink to psychodrama, all the while barely leaving that one safehouse set.
Though the cast are terrific, particularly McShane and Stephen Dillane (who holds his own amid an array of UK acting legends), and the dialogue grubbily poetic/profane, there are issues inherent in the material that Venville’s pedestrian direction fails to address.
For a story that seethes with implied violence, not a lot actually happens and stagnation is, by definition, a tricky state to make compelling. “My bum’s gone to sleep,” whines McShane with some justification as another electrifying but actorly digression fizzles away to nothing. And there’s the rub.
With the performances and dialogue foregrounded and the staging kept close and claustrophobic, 44 Inch Chest never escapes the sense that it’s a wonderful, if not very well adapted, play.
A bit of Much Ado About Nuffink if you like.
Colin’s missus (Joanne Whalley) has been doing the dirty on him with a French waiter (Melvill Poupaud), see, and though the presence of Sexy Beast writers Louis Mellis and David Scinto suggests some traditional East End ultra-violence is next on the menu, what actually emerges is an off-kilter examination of old-fashioned masculinity in the midst of a railing, blubbering crisis.
Shadowboxing his demons in a shabby London safehouse while his mates – ageing Lock Stockers gone to seed – goad him towards murdering his rival, Diamond rages at his impotence like a Shakespearian antihero. Howling in anguish one minute, pissing his pants the next, it’s a fearsome, both-barrels performance from Winstone.
Abetted by Hurt channelling Old Man Steptoe, McShane inhabiting a gay lounge lizard, and the rest of Diamond’s gang spitting largely unprintable monologues, the film flits from flashback to feverish fantasy, kitchen-sink to psychodrama, all the while barely leaving that one safehouse set.
Though the cast are terrific, particularly McShane and Stephen Dillane (who holds his own amid an array of UK acting legends), and the dialogue grubbily poetic/profane, there are issues inherent in the material that Venville’s pedestrian direction fails to address.
For a story that seethes with implied violence, not a lot actually happens and stagnation is, by definition, a tricky state to make compelling. “My bum’s gone to sleep,” whines McShane with some justification as another electrifying but actorly digression fizzles away to nothing. And there’s the rub.
With the performances and dialogue foregrounded and the staging kept close and claustrophobic, 44 Inch Chest never escapes the sense that it’s a wonderful, if not very well adapted, play.
A bit of Much Ado About Nuffink if you like.
Verdict:
This arthouse gangster oddity could have set the West End alight – particularly with this Best of British cast, all full of the requisite sound and fury – but it struggles manfully on the big screen.snatch BBC review by Olivia
| Reviewed by Ben Falk Updated 29 August 2000 |  |
 | |
Since "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" was released back in 1998, British cinema has been awash with inferior imitators eager to cash in on its success.
That could be one of the reasons why "Snatch" is such a disappointment, but really, it's due to the fact that writer/director Guy Ritchie hasn't built on the promise he initially showed.
Yes, his undoubted visual dexterity is still there - never so clearly illustrated than by the quickfire opening - but don't believe the film-makers' hype that "Snatch" is 'completely different' to "Lock, Stock". It isn't.
The film combines several stories: the heist of a diamond by Frankie Four Fingers (Benicio Del Toro); the attempted retrieval of said sparkler by assorted jewellers, pawnbrokers and thugs (Jones); two illegal boxing promoters and their attempts to salvage a queered deal with local crimelord Brick Top (Ford); and of course One Punch Mickey (Pitt), an incomprehensible gypsy with a mean right hook.
As before, Ritchie cleverly weaves these strands into a whole. Unfortunately, that whole is patchy, crippled by a lack of laughs, too many uninteresting and therefore unnecessary characters and dialogue which now seems plain cheesy.
There are some good points. Pitt gives his all as the pikey who may be more than he seems, while "Eastenders"' Mike Reid and Vinnie Jones both derive some chuckles from their roles.
But Mr. Madonna's sophomore effort is ultimately damaged by the phenomenon its predecessor spawned, while it also serves to throw some harsh facts into focus: for one, it is becoming increasingly apparent that Ritchie's writing skills are no match for his directorial ones.
Similarly, there's an undeniable sense of 'been there, done that' which pervades the entire film - and that's something that no amount of swirling, bleached-out freeze-frames can rectify.
That could be one of the reasons why "Snatch" is such a disappointment, but really, it's due to the fact that writer/director Guy Ritchie hasn't built on the promise he initially showed.
Yes, his undoubted visual dexterity is still there - never so clearly illustrated than by the quickfire opening - but don't believe the film-makers' hype that "Snatch" is 'completely different' to "Lock, Stock". It isn't.
The film combines several stories: the heist of a diamond by Frankie Four Fingers (Benicio Del Toro); the attempted retrieval of said sparkler by assorted jewellers, pawnbrokers and thugs (Jones); two illegal boxing promoters and their attempts to salvage a queered deal with local crimelord Brick Top (Ford); and of course One Punch Mickey (Pitt), an incomprehensible gypsy with a mean right hook.
As before, Ritchie cleverly weaves these strands into a whole. Unfortunately, that whole is patchy, crippled by a lack of laughs, too many uninteresting and therefore unnecessary characters and dialogue which now seems plain cheesy.
There are some good points. Pitt gives his all as the pikey who may be more than he seems, while "Eastenders"' Mike Reid and Vinnie Jones both derive some chuckles from their roles.
But Mr. Madonna's sophomore effort is ultimately damaged by the phenomenon its predecessor spawned, while it also serves to throw some harsh facts into focus: for one, it is becoming increasingly apparent that Ritchie's writing skills are no match for his directorial ones.
Similarly, there's an undeniable sense of 'been there, done that' which pervades the entire film - and that's something that no amount of swirling, bleached-out freeze-frames can rectify.
Monday, 10 January 2011
kidulthood poster and newspaper review
'Someone has clearly done their homework'
Kidulthood claims to tell the shocking truth about the 'grime generation'. But would real teenagers agree? By Sophie Heawood
Set in the edgy streets of west London, Kidulthood seeks to depict the Notting Hill that is noticeably absent from the Britflicks of Richard Curtis. Over the course of little more than 24 hours, a group of mainly black friends and enemies navigate an urban teenage landscape of suicide, drug binges and underage pregnancy, with a healthy dose of gun crime and happy-slapping. The film's creator, 30-old-year Noel Clarke, based the story on events from his own childhood, drawing further inspiration from newspaper articles about hoodies and hoodlums. In his quest to paint a credible - and sympathetic - portrait, he also took care to cast local unknowns over drama school wannabes and reveal the reasons behind the characters' aggression.
- Kidulthood
- Production year: 2005
- Country: UK
- Cert (UK): 15
- Runtime: 91 mins
- Directors: Menhaj Huda
- Cast: Adam Deacon, Aml Ameen, Jaime Winstone, Red Madrell
There are already signs that critical response will be positive: writing in the Observer, Miranda Sawyer described it as "a refreshing, energetic, modern movie that documents urban teenagers' lives with wit and vigour", while the Times said it is "telling some truths about secondary school life in urban Britain today". It's one thing for high-brow journalists to applaud the film as a wake-up call to New Labour, but quite another for it to win the support of the people it claims to represent.
And yet, if the group of 17- and 18-year-old black students I saw the film with are anything to go by, Kidulthood might succeed with them, too. In some ways, the world of Tara Jayne Manufor, Maria Christopher, Ama Wiafe, Anthony Pozi-Quansah, Martin Igbinedion and Neil Simpson couldn't be much closer to that of the teens portrayed in the film: they go to college in Notting Hill and mainly grew up locally, in single-parent families; one was a student at the school where the film was shot, others couldn't wait to see their old friend Femi Oyeniran play the role of Moony. As the opening credits faded, they squealed and pointed as they recognised their school, their corner shop, their friend's grandma's flat.
United by a love of music, regularly taking time out from studying for NVQs and A-levels to trek over to east London for grime raves, they were enthusiastic about seeing a film promoted as the story of the grime generation. But, having all rushed to see Bullet Boy and found it too heavy-handed, with its overemphasis on gun culture and clumsy attempts at street talk ("It was like they thought you could make it realistic just by saying 'man' every third word"), they were also sceptical, and resigned to being patronised.
Immediately, though, they judge the lingo of Kidulthood - with its "blud"s and "brer"s - convincing. "You can tell the actors were allowed to add their own words," says Manufor. "The language was spot-on. I could believe they spoke like that at home."
The film's producers also claim to have invited grime artists to advise on the soundtrack - a move, thought the group, that had paid off. "Someone had clearly done their homework on what to play when," says Igbinedion, an aspiring rapper. "They played Forward Riddim by Lethal Bizzle just as the fight scene was kicking off - as soon as that song comes on at raves, it's always accompanied by fights. The lyric goes 'Pow!' and the trouble starts."
All six are bothered, however, by the lack of music from the characters' own lives. "The soundtrack was good but they were not musical themselves - at our age everyone wants to be an MC, everyone is involved with music," says Wiafe. Aside from one rap at a party, music doesn't enter the characters' lives. Nobody is recording tunes in their bedroom, nobody even swaps CDs or listens to each other's latest ringtones. "Where was the Bluetoothing?" ask the boys, practically in unison - they're all used to swapping their latest creations within seconds. It was this absence of music that led Manufor to declare: "It wasn't a grime film."
They have other quibbles. Nobody could quite believe the viciousness of the yardie uncle, or the "ho-ishness" of the 15-year-old girl who performs sexual favours for drugs. In fact, Simpson doesn't feel that the 15-year-olds are all that convincing as teenagers: "They do things I didn't do at 15," he says, "things I would never dream of now that I'm 17." Igbinedion argues that the plot is "a bit far-fetched. You hear about guns and stuff, and I grew up in Bermondsey, near Peckham, which is renowned for being pretty rough. But you don't necessarily come face to face with it."
And where, asks Igbinedion, were the police? Why can this bunch of black youths walk down the street without getting stopped and searched on a regular basis? "Yeah, there were no Section 60s!" the rest of the group chorus, referring to the part of the criminal justice act that allows police to stop and search people without evidence. The boys are full of stories of being stopped, sometimes as often as fortnightly - though none has ever been charged with anything. "You can see why kids get as aggressive as they did in the film," says Igbinedion. "You don't start out that way, and I hate it when I see people getting stopped and asking the police, 'Oh, is it because I'm black' - it makes me wince, but you can't help but wonder."
What surprises the group most, though, is the lack of adults. Parents, when not absent, appear weak or misguided, oblivious to the danger faced by their own children. One well-meaning trendy mother calls through the door that her daughter should remember to use a condom, unaware that the girl's boyfriend is punching her in the face. The group are surprised that the 15-year-old couple are even allowed to be left in the same room together. The girls' view: "Subconsciously, you do listen to the rules. Of course, there's nothing physically stopping you losing your virginity before you're 16, but something tells you it's against the rules, so you don't." The boys, meanwhile, admit their mums would "go mental" if they got a girl pregnant, and point out: "At 15, you're thinking about sex, but girls are not giving out sex like pancakes - if you squeezed a girl's tits you're the kingpin!"
But there's also an awful lot about the film the group are impressed by. They recognise the overriding sense of hierarchy, the fear in the playground when the bully Sam turns up, before he's even done anything. Designer labels, the judgment of your peers - it all comes down to status. As Ama explains, "You're either up there or you're no one, you get shut out. My nephew's seven and if he hasn't got Nikes he ain't even going to school - the other kids would make too much fun of him."
Similarly, the sexual reputation of the girls, and the way that, when one boy has finished with a girlfriend, another boy can up his status by staking his claim on her, rings true. "With boys and girls it's a popularity thing, it's a fashion thing," says Igbinedion. "It's like, OK, he's done with her, now it's my turn. That's how boys look at it."
Overall, the teenagers were gripped by the film, thrilled to see a world they knew portrayed so vividly. Given their own experiences of racism, do they not think that Kidulthood could hinder their public standing?
Simpson feels the film "tries to turn a negative into a positive". Igbinedion agrees: "Think about it this way - what they're saying is you don't have to be like this, you could be a lawyer. They're saying, this is what we probably think of you, make us think otherwise. If you feel we're insulting you, do something about it"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)