The Cruel Cut: Social Issue Documentary - Analysis

This hard hitting documentary focuses on the use of FGM on young women in the world, which is seen as a cultural benefit for a woman if marrying a man, as she is seen as pure and more acceptable in the society within her culture. Leila Hussein who presents the show and was also a victim of FGM, confronts the taboo subject by showing the public what really happens to the young girls who go through this. With the shocking images we see and reasons which people think to do so, she goes on a quest to make this known to the world - ensuring that no other girl has to suffer this again. Although this documentary actually effected me emotionally, as a young woman, I feel the documentary lacked clarity. The first half concentrated on feeding information to people, letting them know what happens to the young girls so that they do not misunderstand. The second half of the documentary focused more on the government side of things - where the documentary took a downfall, as she contacted the MP Theresa May and was ignored when approaching her with this issue. Even with Hussein turning up to the office, she is turned away, where then practically the documentary ends with no resolution. Of course, I feel there is no resolution without demand - as a staggering 100,000 petition signatures would be needed for this issue to be brought into the House of Commons. I feel that this documentary has a very good use - to inform people about FGM and the effects we have seen it has had on the women throughout the documentary, but despite this I felt that the documentary lacked hope for the FGM victims and the possible future victims. The lack of persistence that Leila showed was quite off putting, as she basically ended the documentary with telling us to sign the petition.

As The Cruel Cut documentary focuses on a very sensitive subject that effects many women, this is typical of a expository documentary. Documentaries of this type usually focus on a particular subject that effects more than one person, which we delve into and find more information about, whilst also learning of the effect on individuals through interviews which victims of in this case, FGM. One of the biggest conventions used in this documentary the way in which we are fed information - which is through the victims expressing themselves and telling their stories. I feel this has a major effect on the documentary as a whole, as we see just a sample of the women who go through this terrible surgery and how much it effects their life, which made everyone in the room quite emotional when watching - especially when one of the victims expressed that the mutilation had stopped her from being able to have children, which as a woman I would feel extremely angry and sad about. Another convention is actually using a victim of FGM to present the documentary. This gives the audience and the people she talks to throughout the documentary, such as the young men who were clueless about FGM and formed their opinions based on incorrect information they had been told by family members, as she was able to show them what FGM entailed and how much it would effect a woman, especially if that woman was to be their future wife or their child, which shed a light to the young men and also the audience watching the documentary, due to her showing what is done to the vagina during FGM by using play-doh and using large scissors to show what pieces of the female genitals are removed during this process.

When looking at the techniques used to maintain the audiences attention, I noticed the part when she went into the public and asked people to sign a form against her personal beliefs in-particular. I feel she did this to show us how many people are ignorant about FGM, especially when informing them about it in a light-hearted fashion in which she did, as they signed it straight away with only one person rejecting her plead to keep FGM going. Although I felt this showed us how many people do not know the full extent to which FGM goes, I find it hard to understand how she could do it with such ease when she herself was a victim of FGM and it finds it difficult to talk about - whether she feels this would help shine a light on the situation within cultures, I feel it would be difficult for anyone to lie to people about their true feelings about something so serious which effects her life in such a major way. Saying this, it was a good way of enticing the audience to carry on with the documentary as it showed a contrast in opinion as she was going against something she believed in strongly for the sake of a documentary, which I feel pulled the audience in once again. Another technique to engage the audience with the documentary was the way in which she involved politics to show the movement of FGM and she was doing to make people release what a massive importance it was that people knew what was happening illegally within the UK. She did this by contacting the female MP Theresa May, who failed to reply to Leila, which then led us into the petition stage of the documentary - in which Leila involved the audience in and said that we as an audience could make an audience by signing the petition needing 100,00 signatures. The effect this would have on keeping the audience interested is that by including the audience, or giving them hope to believe that they as a person can make a change to FGM.

The purpose of this documentary as it focuses on a social issues - FGM, is to inform and make a change to what females go through such as her self and what can be done to stop it. The change it is campaigning is for the government to lock down on illegal acts of FGM, as although illegal within the UK, it is still a huge issue and young girls are taken out of the country just for this reason. I feel the other reason for this documentary is for the issue to be more known within the public, as although I knew what FGM was, I did not know it was as big of a issue as it was and how much damage it can have to a young girl and a woman's future. This documentary was very good at feeding important about how and what is done, who it is done to and why. I feel that a lot of the people within the UK are ignorant towards an issue such as this, as it is seen as a 'cultural' or 'religous' act, although known of the religious books say anything about FGM or mention that it makes a girl more pure if done. I feel that the public are too scared to say it is wrong, even if they think it as saying something about a religion is usually a bad thing and can start a lot of unwanted trouble. Leila Hussein has been able to inform both her own culture, such as the young Somalian boys about FGM - who originally had nothing against FGM into turning them against it whilst also informing the audience about it at the same time.

The target audience for this documentary I feel would be both men and women, from the ages of 16 and up. This is due to the importance of this documentary to both sexes, as I feel men and women should both know what FGM is especially those who know what it is and whose families believe is a good thing for the women in their families. I also feel that age wise, because of the nature of the documentary and the understanding of a younger audience, I feel 16 would be the right age to talk about this with a male or female as that is the age they generally become sexually active or know a lot more about the female anatomy than of a younger person. The graphic nature of what happens is also very difficult to talk about, especially if the audience are immature - so it would be good to have an audience who have a good understanding without taking FGM as a joke. The target audience would live mostly in the UK, I say this because I feel that FGM is more known in other places in the world such as South Asia (as this is where it happens predominately) and even though it is illegal within the UK, it still happens and people do not know about it - especially when children are taken abroad especially for it to be done, which  people should be aware of and look out for any signs of abuse such as this. Their interests would not come to an importance when looking into this documentary, other than having an interest in politics and/or being a feminist (women's rights movements etc.) - who can be male or female, as this is an abuse against women and some of the audience may feel strongly towards social issues such as this. The language of the audience will be English as the documentary is mostly in English, with some parts in Somalian with subtitles and the majority of the people within the documentary speaking in English.

By Leila Hussein's failure to get in touch with Theresa May, for whatever reason - lack of interest in matter etc. Leila basically tells the audience that the only thing that can be done is for the public to sign a petition to get the subject of FGM into the House of Commons, which makes me as an audience member feel as it is actually up to myself to shine a light on FGM and make it known to the MP's and the British Public. When watching documentaries such as this, the audience feel as though there is some hope to solving the issue, which Leila has clearly stated as the case and due to her own failure, makes us feel as though maybe we could do better/ or help Leila out. This is a way in which the audience have been targeted, as it is almost a 'feel good factor' as if the audience have already made a difference by watching the documentary in the first place.

Case Study: Kony 2012

In 2012, a groundbreaking documentary surrounding the issue in Uganda was released, the purpose being to let the issue be known to the millions of people in the world that Joseph Kony, a leader in Africa, was kidnapping children to use as soldier and forcing them to kill. Jason Russel, a young activist made this known to the world through his controversial documentary about the issue in Africa. He talked about his involvement with a victim of Kony, Jacob, who he had known for almost 10 years. Jacob talked about what he went through, whilst Jacob described in detail the horror of what Joseph Kony was bestowing upon many children like himself, including his brother who was murdered. Jason explained that the issue was simple, that the problem was with the person leading this, Joseph Kony, and if he was arrested that everything would be better for the children in Uganda.

The documentary begins with Jason introducing himself, talking about his family and what he does for a living.We are shown scenes of his wife giving birth to his son Gavin, and how children as young as he is now are being used as soldiers in Africa and couldn't imagine anything like this happen to his child, so why should it happen to another's child? We are then introduced to Jacob, a victim of the child soldiers in Africa, who sadly lost his brother due to the acts ordered by leader Joseph Kony - the centre of the disasters. Jason began to explain what the resolution to this was, by arresting Joseph and restoring the childhoods of the children... But there was one problem, Joseph Kony could not be found. Jason was even contacted by Obama himself, agreeing that what these children suffer is terrible and that he would do what he could to stop it. The documentary ends with Jason explaining what we can do to help to raise awareness of Joseph Kony so he can be found and arrested, which would be done by sticking up posters everywhere around the world so that he is turned into a celebrity and everyone knows about him and what he does.

As the documentary focuses on a social issue that effects children in Africa, the documentary can be classed as a current affairs type of documentary. This is due to the informative content, such as explaining the situation which is going on in Africa, showing us examples of the victims (Jacob) and telling us that we, the world, can help the cause. As well as this, throughout the documentary, Jason Russel puts a lot of emphasis on the importance of our help, as I feel his failures to persuade the government to do something about Joseph Kony had knocked his confidence and began to rely on the public for help. He did this by creating this documentary, who no one knew would become as successful yet controversial as it did in 2012. The effect these types of documentaries have on an audience is that they are made to inspire and awaken the inner activist within the audience. Even if say the audience had never heard of the issue talked about within the documentary, a large portion of the audience would feel as though it would be up to them to make a change - as the presenter or person documenting usually plays on the audience's emotions, especially if the documentary's subject is something sensitive about e.g. children, like in the Kony 2012 documentary.

The way in which the audience's attention is attained throughout the documentary is through content which include emotional scenes, which manipulates the audience into watching to see if there is a resolution or if they can do anything to help. As well as this, Jason uses his own child, Gavin, to example the children who are taken, as he shows the birth of his child and what effect it has on him. The impact this has on the audience is that they see the connection between a child such as Gavin and a child in Africa, showing that this child did not choose to be born into a life such as the one they live and how Gavin is lucky compared to the child soldiers because unlike Gavin, they had no choice as to how they lead their life. We also see actual footage of the conditions in Africa from archive footage, which anchors the situation for the audience showing how serious what happens really is. A victim, who Jason had befriended 10 years prior to the documentary had also been interviewed in this documentary. This examples how much of an effect what happens has on an actual victim and helps the audience understand what happens to the children as the audience are told by someone who has actually experienced it.

The target audience for Kony 2012 I feel is anyone from 13+ (male and female) as the content is not gender specific, the content does not single out a particular person/age of person to watch or help the cause. I also feel this age due to the use of the internet to create the hype about this documentary, which children from the ages of 13 begin to use and would see, as well as people older than this. The interests of this mass audience would be pretty much anything - as there are so many possible audience members with specific interests. One of the main for maybe the older audience members could be an interest in politics, human rights and activism. This documentary would be of interest to them as each of them elements are evident within it. I would say the audience would live worldwide, as again it is not directed at any specific audience and directs to the entire world rather than a specific location. This is with exception of being able to speak English as the documentary is in English with English subtitles.

The way in which Jason Russel made the audience feel strongly about this issue is through his constant emphasis on how the world can help, by putting up posters of Joseph Kony - turning him in to a type of 'celebrity' so the government can realise how much effect he is having on the world as well as being able to find him and arrest him. As well as this, Jason and his organisation created Kony packs which included wrist bands, posters and badges which would spread the word about Joseph Kony so it created even more activism. He also used social media as the major platform for getting the word out - such as facebook, twitter etc. as they are the most famous social media websites which are used by millions upon millions of people in the world, which he realised and saw the opportunity for his documentary to become extremely famous in a short time frame.

My response to this documentary is that although I feel I understand Jason Russel's idea and what he made the documentary for, as it is a very serious issue, I feel a bit played due to the fact that he didn't include vital information about what was happening with the subject in matter. For instance, it turns out the government were actually sending money and supporting Joseph Kony - which I'm sure Jason Russel knew, and that although this does happen in Uganda, that he stressed it to the point where it looked to be a larger spread issue than it actually is. For these reasons, as well as the fact that I didn't really understand where Jason was going with the entire documentary - as a lot of the time he tended  to go off subject, bringing his family into matter and reflecting more of a person view on the documentary rather than giving us more information about Joseph Kony, especially the information which was not mentioned within the documentary.

Overall, I feel although this documentary was intended for good purposes, and obviously was very effective when it came to the audience (due to the amount of coverage it had, appearing even on the news) and Jason coming into this with good intentions, I feel it's rather strange the way in which he approached the documentary, as he focused more on what we can do, rather than the situation in hand - which led me to question why the documentary wasn't released any sooner, as Jason had been working and helping in Uganda for many, many years. I also feel that the documentary was quite deceiving, due to the amount of unclear information within the documentary which could easily be misunderstood by many people, and as this documentary went world-wide, there was a massive surge to help, showing how much people wanted to help. I feel if this documentary shone more of a true light on the situation, made by someone who knew the exact information, that it would have been less criticized when it came to light that most of the information was exaggerated. Saying this, I do back up my point when saying Kony 2012 was a very effective documentary and can see why there was a lot of hysteria when it was released, as it gave people hope and made many believe it began with them to help the children in Uganda.

Audience Theory: Hypodermic Needle

Hypodermic Needle is a theory which explains the way in which an audience processes the content of of media and how it effects them as a person when presented with it in everyday life. One thing that is increasingly interesting to me about this theory is the way in which the audience cannot differentiate between reality and fiction and how in many instances, a young viewer will be exposed to content far more mature than they are ready to understand and not realise that what they are watching is not reality. Violence which is a re-occurring theme throughout many films in history and even today, I feel has the most effect on an audience as a whole when relating to the Hypodermic Needle Theory. For instance, when a member of the audience is watching a scene containing many different themes like sadness or happiness, it effects them mentally. But unlike violence, these emotions do not produce a thought pattern within the audience as violence does. Happy and sad are everyday feelings, where as being violent towards another human is not. This is where the audience, especially one of a young age, is unable to realise that what they are watching is not the way which human beings should act.

In some instances, these scenes of violence can have such a strong influence on the audience that the audience are effected mentally and begin to act physically towards another person. One example of this is the James Bulger case. In 1993, a young boy from Liverpool named James Bulger was murdered by two older boys; Jon Venables and Robert Thompson. This was believed to be linked to the film 'Chucky', which the two boys had watched earlier, as one of the acts against James Bulger was imitated and there were many similarities when looking at the young boys death and the film together. Although Hypodermic Needle Theory is obvious when looking into this case, it becomes aware to me that although the film influenced them greatly, I believe the person(s) involved were already some what mentally disfigured, due to their young age as I do not feel a 'mentally healthy' child would act upon the thoughts if they were just watching the film. This is where the mental health of the audience or state of imagination comes into play when looking at the Hypodermic Needle Theory. As we have learned, this film has not had the same affect on every person who has seen it, or we would have seen similar cases with other people. With this, my conclusion comes to a head - that Hypodermic Needle Theory is mainly to do with interpretation and mind pattern within the audience as one audience member is different to another when it comes to the affect a particular medium has on them.

Looking at how Hypodermic Needle Theory can be used to analyse film, we begin to realise one thing; that the longer lasting affect it has on an audience and/or shock factor of the film increases the interest of the audience. When watching films myself I feel that it has to make me remember it for it to be good, which is usually done by using either emotional manipulation - such as death/love etc. or scenes without emotion, such as ones which have elements of violence and mindless crime. Within the first film that Hypodermic Needle can be applied to, which is City of God, it becomes apparent that the director's idea was to shock the audience and exaggerate the circumstances within the location where it is set to be, in the City of God. I have realised that within this film that the audience could easily believe that what they are seeing is real life and is the way that humans should act, especially when it comes to young children who are impressionable and are easily lead.

In City of God, the shocking scenes of children swearing, being killed, hurt and uneducated is the way in which hypodermic needle can be an issue when it comes to the audience. I feel that if shown to the wrong person, it could have an unethical effect on them and could have disastrous outcomes, such of that of the James Bulger case. The difficult thing about City of God, is that the film is based on a true story, uses people who live in the area to act in the film and is incredibly violent, which would be hard for someone to tell whether it is reality or fiction, so when watching the film, they may think that the whole world is like this and it is how people treat each other. When watching these scenes, it affects the audience and how they think - as scenes which have certain emotional content, such as when the child is killed in City of God, which would be highly emotional and may upset an audience member to an extreme extent to making them depressed or sad for long periods of time. It is all about how a scene or the content is interpreted, which ranges from person to person. In the scene where Lil'dice turns on his friends and kills everyone in the hotel, even though he was told not to do anything and everyone was told to keep the hotel guests alive, it shows how they had an affect on him. They didn't allow him to have any part in the robbery, which turned his character from minor to major .

When it comes to Hypodermic needle theory within Scarface, it is easy to apply it to as the film is of the Gangster Genre. Gangster films are notorious when it comes to scenes of violence, sexual content and rude language. This links to Hypodermic needle theory as these scenes can had an adverse effect on the particular audience watching. For instance, the lead character Tony Montana is a drug lord who made a rise to fame after escaping from Miami, working for a known drug lord Frank and becoming powerful within the drug world. The effect this could have on a audience is giving them the inspiration - as Tony Montana could be seen as an inspirational character - to pursue their dreams, whether they are realistic or not, such as becoming a rich and powerful drug dealer who has much influence on the people around him. His influence on people is evident, when watching the Origins of Hip-hop, which featured many artists who saw Tony Montana as their inspiration from a young age. I feel this is typically the effect of Hypodermic needle theory as we see how delusional the film can make the audience, when even talking about a different goal of power - such as drug dealing and the audience applying it to their own goal, such as making music, because of the determination of Tony Montana. In some cases, the ultimate goal may be such as Tony Montana's, that they have become so connected with the character that they feel as though they could actually implement what he did within their lives, which is a dangerous thing to do as the lifestyle shown within Scarface is unrealistic and could get the audience into a lot of trouble if they tried to replicate Tony Montana's actions.

City of God: Analysis

Set in the 1960s, City of God shows the full extent of the situation in Brazil at that time, as the character’s represent the lengths people would go to survive within such an uncivilized city. Rocket, the protagonist within City of God, narrates his past and then present journey throughout the film, embarking on a mission to make something of him rather than ending up like his apposing character and antagonist, Lil’ze. Formally known as Lil’dice (an unappreciated member of a small time gang) decides to rebel against his own and become a leader of his own gang. The films depicts the lives of the youth in the City of God, as well as showing the effect it has on the even younger generation, who receive no education and involve themselves from an early age with drugs and extreme violence. The contrast between Lil’ze and Rocket shows the difference within people in the City of God, showing the positive and negative sides of the City, as Rocket documents each event which happens within his newly found job as a photographer at a newspaper publication and follows Lil'ze's rise to power and downfall. 

Compared to the other two gangster films we have focused on within this unit, I feel City of God is very different from them both (Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrells and Scarface). As a single strand film, meaning that although there are many elements contributing to the story line, that Rocket's character over everything else is the central importance to the narrative, as he is the one who is a witness to the entire situation in the City of God. This differs from the other films, as I feel that they either have one character and minor characters, who do not have an adverse effect on the film or implement any other importance other than to progress the character's story-line or back story, such as in Scarface, where Tony Montana is the main interest within the film. Which although means they are both single strand, they have both been put across a different way to show what type of film it is which we are watching. In City of God, we are highly focused on Rocket, but the other character's are given a chance to show their back story, such as Lil'ze, where Rocket isn't involved in, which says to us that although Rocket is the main focus, there are other important characters. This means they are less minor characters than say in Scarface, where Tony Montana only relies on the minor characters for progression rather than for us to see their back-story or feel connected with them.

City of God is not much of a film which comes across as an enigma to me, as the actions of the characters usually have ammo, meaning we can understand why they have done something unethical. For instance, Lil'ze felt as though because he was young, he was unappreciated by the other gang members, where then he decided to rebel against them during a heist and does exactly what the gang told everyone not to do - kill the people in the hotel they were stealing from. From this with can connect the reasoning to the action, although brutal and completely uncalled for, we can see why Lil'ze has managed to become a monster. This tiny bit of power then gives Lil'ze the confidence to become his own boss, becoming one of the most feared men in the City of God. Other circumstances, such as the lack of money, food and education, gives us reason to understand why the characters, especially the young ones, are turning to a life of crime - stealing, killing, swearing and taking/selling drugs. All these things which are done are due to the conditions the younger generation within the City of God have to endure, as the older and idolized characters are showing them that they should be like them, powerful and turning to criminal acts to get by. 

The main climax within this film is definitely the when Lil'ze is unexpectedly killed by the runts, who have been meaning to get back at Lil'ze for awhile after being incredibly violent towards them, when ordering one of them to be killed and the other shot in the foot. This turn of events, with the runts and everyone else in the City of God getting redemption over the cruelty that Lil'ze has put upon them when being in-control of the City of God. It is apparent that the equilibrium throughout this scene is then restored, as we are shown the changes of the characters after the death of Lil'ze and how much impact his power had on the whole story line. With his death, we also see Rocket's rise to his goal, as he becomes an extremely credited photographer, which was the resolution of the entire narrative meaning that this turn of events has impacted every characters life, including the central focus, Rocket. 

When it comes to genre, there are many things which tell us that City of God is a film of the gangster genre. The first of these techniques used to target this particular genre is the way in which violence is used within the film. Of course, being a gangster film, this immediately tells the audience that there are going to be themes of violence - but once again, I feel that the use of violence within City of God has been done in such a way that is different to the other films we have looked at. For instance, in City of God, the main characters are young adults and children. This differs to Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Scarface, as the characters in those films are all adults - and rather than using emotional manipulation, they get straight to the point with predictable violence with only adults engaging in it. With City of God, children are used to bring the emotions of the audience out, as seeing a child swear or commit crimes or even being killed, which is likely to affect the audience more than if an adult is seen to do so, as we are not used to seeing children of a young age engage in these sort of activities. A convention used to symbolize the genre is by using locations to create a particular atmosphere. In many films, location is key to setting the mood and even genre of the film. This is no different for City of God, as it is set in a location with actually exists and the director wants this to come across to the audience as much as possible, as the conditions we can visually see within the filming are poor - for instance the houses are dirty, small and inadequate for even a small family such as Rocket's. 

Another way in which from the techniques in this film we can tell that this is a gangster film, is from how money and drugs are an extreme importance to the characters and progression of the story line. This is evident as the main characters involve themselves with drugs and throughout the film we see that the problems evolving in City of God are generally to do with either drugs or money - such as Lil'ze. The last crucial convention within this film symbolizing the gangster is how power is represented. The aim of the game for many of the characters is to be as violent as they can, have a lot of money and sell drugs - which contrasts as to what Rocket's intentions are, as his goal is to become a photographer, because he has a passion and is different to the other characters. Power is seen as desirable, and if you are not powerful or have a good reputation within the City of God, then you simply won't survive as the other stronger characters, such as Lil'ze, will potentially see you as a target. Power is also seen as desirable, as the conditions the characters live in are poor, and they strive to have everything they want in life, which is the same for many people, but is more obvious in City of God as we have their current life contrasting to what could be if they are able to rise to power. 

One of the things that really stood out to me about City of God is the way in which children are represented within the film. In real life, children are not as violent, independent and disadvantaged as those shown in the film, which I feel is key to showing why most of the characters, excluding Rocket, have ended up involving themselves with the things they have. For instance, throughout the film we do not see adult characters e.g. parents of the runts, telling them what is right or wrong, which shows us that they do not have much impact in their lives or that they feel that they cannot control their children - showing how bad the situation is in City of God. We also do not see the children in Education, a part from one scene in the film in which they skived off anyway. This shows that education firstly, does not interest or worry them as they resort to other means of earning money, such as drug dealing and working for the older characters such as Lil'ze or that they cannot afford education due to being under privileged. We also see that the children are generally dirty wearing ragged clothes, again backing up the idea of the children being underprivileged. I feel the representation of children is that they have no one to show them right or wrong, and they have to be more mature than the average child due to this and the circumstances that they deal with in the City of God. 

When it comes to men and women, they are portrayed in a way which relates to the stereotype very much - Men are generally very strong, the dominant sex, who use/see women as sexual objects rather than an equivalent to them. Because all of the men within this film are shown to be violent, I feel as though this shows that rather than all men being this way, that the location which the film is set in has a major impact on them as they feel they have to be strong and brave all the time because of what happens within the City of God - murders, drug dealing and rape. I also feel as because most of the characters used are male and none are female who are strong or are a member of a gang, this shows that men have more of a tenancy to involve themselves than women. Women within City of God are seen as sex objects and nothing else, as whenever a woman is in the film, it is to do with the characters having a love interest (such as Rocket when he fancied the girl). I feel this also shows that women are seen as weak and that men can objectify them as much as they want, as Lil'ze felt as though he had the right to rape Ned's girlfriend right in front of him. The film also shows that women aren't relevant enough to the story line, because it mainly to do with drugs and violence and generally women do not get themselves involved with that sort of stuff where as men are more likely to. 

As for the target audience for City of God, I would say they would be predominantly male from the age 16+. Due to the contents of the film, I feel that this would attract a more mature audience rather than a young one because the violent scenes and fowl language is not suitable for a particular audience. I also feel that because of the cast, which is mainly male, a female audience member may feel intimidated by this as they cannot relate to a female character or wouldn't want to as they are represented in a negative way in the film, which means that men would be more likely to be interested as they are cast in a way which is more acceptable as we expect men to be violent or be interested in violent things. This audience will be interested in different types of gangster films, such as Italian American, English and any other main gangster based films. They will also be interested in geographical locations, and documentaries as this film depicts a location of high interest. The audience may also speak Portuguese, as the film is set in Brazil and they are speaking in the Portuguese language throughout the entire film. 

Throughout this film, there are two scenes which particularly caught my attention when thinking about how violence in used within City of God. The first is the scene in which then Lil'dice rebelled against his own gang and shot everyone after the heist at the hotel. This scene shocked me quite a bit, when thinking of the character and how young he was and how he could manage to do something so disgusting and laugh whilst doing it. This shows how twisted this particular character is and set the scene and idea of the entire film, as this was at the very beginning and showed us what else the film had in store. I feel this scene was particularly violent and upsetting, because the other characters were able to show mercy, where as because Lil'ze is obviously not mentally stable, he was able to kill everyone without having a conscience. What is interesting about this scene, is that we don't actually see Lil'dice kill the people directly, we just see him pointing and shooting the gun whilst laughing and the door closing slowly as the scene changes to an over the shoulder shot. We hear the gun shots and then are shown a montage of clips where the hotel people are lying dead on the beds and in the reception area. This was actually in my opinion more effective than if we actually saw him shoot them, as it is left to our imagination how much damage Lil'ze had caused that night in the hotel. I feel another reason for not showing us the shooting, is to do with the amount of the violence within the film. I feel maybe if this scene was how I said it might have been, it would not surpass people watching the start of it, as the audience have to warm up to these sort of themes rather than seeing complete violence in one go. 

Another scene which was very violent in shocking way is the one in which Steak with Fries has to decide between killing and injuring  two small children, which is a very difficult scene to watch as seeing any child being harmed is difficult, let alone ones which are crying and pleading not to be hurt. What makes this scene so violent, is the fact that the person who has to do the shooting is throughout this scene being mocked for being a wimp, and to show his worth has to hurt these two children who have done wrong to Lil'ze for stealing when they were told not to. Steak with Fries clearly does not want  to do it, but he knows if he doesn't that his life will be harder than ever if he disobeys the pressure. I was shocked to learn whilst watching that we actually see the children get shot, which I've never seen in a film and it made me feel quite uncomfortable. This is why I feel the violence has been used a specific way which is unusual - which directly targets the emotions by manipulating them rather than using gore. It also makes us realize that this type of thing may actually happen in real life, and the audience begin to reflect on what they have been shown. The violence in this scene I would say is the worst out of the entire film, due to the characters being harmed and the effect I feel it would have had on the audience as it has me. 

Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels: Analysis

Directed by Guy Ritchie in 1998, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels is set around 4 friends – Soap, Tom, Bacon and Eddy. After involving themselves in a card game owned by Harry Lonsdale, also known as ‘Hatchet Harry’ the four men become massively in debt after the card game was rigged, owing Harry the sum of £100,000. The film is set around their struggle to find a solution to obtain the money to pay back the debt and how they are led into even more trouble when they overhear the thieves next door talking of cannabis growers who have a huge amount of drugs and money stashed in their apartment. With this new information, Eddy decides that himself, Bacon, Tom and Soap will rob the neighbors once they return from their heist – giving a kick-start to their repayment to Hatchet Harry when retrieving the money and selling the drugs onto Rory Breaker – without Eddy knowing that the thief neighbors were actually employers of Rory’s and lands them into even more trouble. After learning that in-fact Eddy and his gang stole from them, the thieves decide to get revenge and ambush Eddy’s flat whilst they are out celebrating. When arriving at the flat, Rory and other drug manufactures are already there and begin to have a shoot-out, with many of the gang members dying exact for Dog and Winston, who retrieve the money, drugs and the antique guns desired by Harry, but are stopped by Chris – who works for Hatchet Harry, which ends up with them being killed due to a confrontation with the wrong people (Gary and Dean, the thieves who originally stole the guns for Harry). When arriving at Harry’s office to pay off the money and apologies to Harry for the inconvenience, they arrive to find Harry and Baptist lying dead with the guns and decide to take the money and guns for themselves, but when planning their escape, are stopped by Chris, as he crashes into Dog’s car, in turn knocking his friends Eddy, Tom, Bacon and Soap out. Chris then retrieves the money from his friends whilst they are unconscious, leaving them with the guns. Eddy and his crew are then arrested and let out for bail, but decide to rid of the guns are they see them as the only piece of evidence connecting them with the case. Sending Tom out on a mission to get rid of the guns, the gang are presented with a catalo containing antique guns, showing that without them knowing, the guns were worth a fortune. As Tom is about to drop the guns in the River off a bridge, they ring him desperately, with Tom’s phone in his mouth ignoring the call.

This film is clearly a multi-strand, as rather than one main character or group’s life being focused on throughout the film; we are presented with many. For instance, the cannabis growers, Eddy’s crew, Dog’s crew and Harry’s crew were focused on individually, e.g. shots where opposing sides were talking about one another were seen, where there is no real sense of who is in the right or wrong, which shows they all have an equal contribution to the story as they are shown individually, which when each strand or ‘gang’ put together, makes up the narrative. If this was a single strand narrative, we would see one of the characters, e.g. Tom, centralized, with a back story and more emphasis on his importance to the story line and the other characters taking a backseat, where their contribution to the narrative would be less of an impact to the audience, contrasting to how much Tom’s importance to the narrative would be. The film is quite clearly non-linear, as throughout we are presented with past and present, rather a sequential narrative - which means that the time is in order rather than mixed up, like in this film. This is evident from the use of techniques such as discolouring of the picture to show what we are seeing is older than the footage we see throughout the majority of the film and the character's referring in dialog to past scenarios. The climax within the film is evident when the equilibrium is present - at the moment in which Chris retrieves the money which is rightfully his, when Eddy and his crew are given the guns, without realizing that they too have profited from this and with Harry being killed, who is the centre of all the trouble due to his connections with all of the gangs. This climax is important to the narrative, as the equilibrium is restored (everything has gone back to normal) e.g. Eddy and gang won't profit from the guns as Tom dispersed of them, so end up back in the same situation as before they involved themselves with Hatchet Harry. Although saying this, the climax with Tom hanging over the bridge with the phone in his mouth, the audience are left to assume what happens next rather than actually knowing, which I feel is a good way to leave the story as the effect of the film lasts longer on the audience and the narrative can end in anyway they intend on. 

The first and most important code convention used to imply the genre is that of the use of violence and language. Violence, especially within the gangster genre, is the most occurring theme and convention meaning that without this core convention, the genre would have less clarity as well as it being harder for the audience to understand the narrative. Language used in this film is such as swearing, which relates to the violence and the genre of the film. This also shows that the certificate would be higher than say 12A, due to the violence and language combined. For instance, within Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, violence is used to progress the story line, such as at the end when Hatchet Harry is killed by Dog, we see the most important part of the narrative take place - the money and guns being retrieved and Chris getting what was rightfully his. Without Dog killing Harry, this scenario would have been very different, as Chris would have no got his money as well the guns, which are a huge cliff-hanger at the end when Tom is asked to get rid of them and the climax of the film would not have been created.

Technical convention wise, Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels has quite a few; such as the camera angles and shots used - such as mid to long shots, to show the character's in the scene (as there is usually more than one character in the scenes as they are shown as gang members) and would need to show the location which they are in to grasp knowledge of the narrative and who is involved in the particular scene we are being showed. As well as this, flash backs have been used for progression of the narrative, as without them we wouldn't know the back-story to particular characters or even what led them into the situations they landed themselves in, such as Eddy and his gang. The flashbacks are evident through the use of visual discolouration, as the footage set in present day is vibrant and modern looking, where as the footage set in the past is discoloured to symbolize age. This helps the audience understand the genre as usually within gangster genre films, we see old footage where the character or in this case characters begin, to where they are now, as conventionally, in gangster films the character starts from the bottom, has a rise of power or fame then is presented with a downfall, which we could apply to Eddy and his gang as they basically ended where they started. Unconventional for a gangster genre film, there are many times where this film could be classed as a comedy, as the language used is entertaining and the characters within the film are joking around quite a lot of the time, but rather than being genre specific, the humour is just an element contributing to the themes in the film. Using humour in this film can be seen as showing binary oppositions (serious vs. comedy), as when both are visible together we see how much they contrast against one another, making the themes make more of an impact on the audience. The use of comedy I feel has been done to create a diversion for the film, as at some parts of the film, the situation becomes overly – serious, comedy can be used to lessen the serious nature of the scenario, as well as adding a depth of different forms of entertainment within the film.

Within Stock, Lock and Two Smoking Barrels, the representation of women is generally portrayed to the audience as if they are weak and only needed for sexual objectification (which we see at the beginning of the film where the women are seen in the strip club). This relates to the fact that there are no leading female characters within the film - which actually says more about the representation as to if they were to have a lead female character in the film as it is to say that because there is violence and a sense of strength within the film when looking to the characters, who are all male, and that women cannot be seen the same way. Women are stereo-typically seen as the weaker sex, whereas men are seen as the dominant ideology, especially within this film as they fall under the ideology, which is of a white middle-aged man. Relating to the target audience, who I feel would be men from the ages 16 and up, if there were to have strong female characters in lead roles, it would not appeal to them as much as they are not seeing versions of themselves represented in the film and would not find the film as interesting due to this. Saying this, the men within this film have been represented as very fowl mouthed and violent and we do not see a variety of characters as each of them has a part in violence, which is another stereotype. The target audience generally feel as though they can relate to the people they are watching e.g. a young impressionable male may feel pressured to act a certain way due to this, which we could apply the hypodermic needle theory to as it may have a psychological effect on them, due to not understanding the way the individual is acting on screen is not reality. I feel the target audience for this film would be men from the ages 16+ of white ethnicity, as the themes such as comedy and violence are those of interest of young men and stereo-typically, men enjoy scenes of violence more than women. When concentrating on the ethnicity of the audience, I think they would be white as the majority of the characters within the film are white and act in a very common and English manor, which may be more understood by an audience, which replicates the character. Their interests would range from being fans of classic gangster films, American and English, and the actors within the film such as Vinnie Jones, who are very popular actors especially within this genre of film. As well as this, I feel the audience will have an interest in a particular type of music, due to the music within the film, which are generally indie/rock bands, which are heard within it. Another thing, which may be of interest of the target audience, is the director, Guy Ritchie, as they may be familiar with their work and know what to expect from films from this particular Director. 

Violence within this film is extremely important helping the audience identify the genre of film they are watching. In some scenes in particular, such as when Dog's crew fight with Rory's, which shows many people being killed in a very violent manor and when Chris smashes Dog's head between the car door. These scenes, although violent, have a sense of comedy to them as the characters present themselves in a less serious fashion compared to a gangster such as Tony Montana, who is feared within the film as he is seen as having no humanity and being ruthless when it comes to death, money and drugs. In Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, weapons such as knives and especially guns have been used as they represent the brutality of the character, as well as being a common convention within gangster films as weapons are associated with violence. The violence within this film, although effective, is different to how Scarface and City of God have used it. Firstly, the level of violence within Scarface and City of God is substantially more compared with Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, as the scenes include ones of a sensitive nature, like the death of children (City of God) and killing of a family member (Scarface), where as in this film the violence is not as dramatic and would not effect the audience is a manor as serious as the other films, due to the use of comedy.