Unit 25 Cert

Unit 25: Film Studies

12 Angry Men
Film Analysis

This essay will cover sub-elements 1.1 to 4.1 in the unit entitled 'Unit 25: Film Studies'. In which I will be analysing the film '12 Angry Men' by using appropriate subject terminology.

12 Angry Men

12 Angry Men is a film revolving around 12 jury members who must decide whether a teenage boy is guilty or not guilty of murder. The dozen men try to reach a unanimous decision as to whether he committed the heinous crime (in which the teen will be sentenced to death) or not. As the movie progresses, personal issues soon rise and conflict threatens to derail the complex case that will ultimately decide one boy's fate.

The whole film is set in just one room, barring the court scene at the beginning of the movie and the couple of scenes in the bathroom and the scene where they're outside at the very end of the movie.

All 12 characters are portrayed different meaning they all have their own individual opinions and personalities. For example, one man is a loudmouth bigot while another has a personal vendetta against his son (which makes him judgemental on the boy on trial) making him very angry. The main man, played by Henry Fonda, is calm, wise and a good talker presenting his facts and opinions in a respectful manor. This was intentional by the writer so to make the characters individually recognisable and memorable to the audience.

There were some enigma codes buried within the film that you had to read between the lines to see. One of them was the use of the hot weather; I noticed that the almost unbearable heat made them sweaty and uncomfortable which could suggest they have something to hide and/or surrounded by guilt. This weather is further expressed when most people believe the boy is guilty without talking about it first. The weather changes to a thunderstorm when the jurors realize there is an overwhelming lack of evidence. The use of the fan is also connected as at first the fan would not work but during the downpour the fan starts to work.

Another enigma code is that “Juror Number 8” has a white suite while most of the others have black or grey. This strongly suggests that he would be the protagonist while “Juror Number 3” is the arrogant, big mouthed and egotistical antagonist. You can kind of get the idea of who is the “good” guy and who is the “bad” by the characters personality and of course, how they look.

The camera shots were well done too. For example, there were a lot of close up shots taken when they were voting. This is to draw focus to that character, drawing attention away from everything else and concentrating on that particular person as well as giving you a chance to see the individual’s facial expressions which can depict how they are feeling. Another shot that was commonly used was the wide shot. In this movie it was used to show all the characters together when they were moving around the room. The director used this shot to outline the general mood of the group, whether that be happy and content or angry and on edge, we would get it from the wide shot. Finally, nearing the end of the movie a high angle shot was used which is a shot looking down on a character often used to isolate them in the frame. This is used on 'Juror Number 3', the last juror to say "not guilty". At the end of the film all the others are against him and the high angle shot makes him look small and insignificant while a low angle shot which is a shot making a character look bigger in the frame. This is used on the other characters to underline their dominance creating a big impact on the audience.

                          

The film is based on a 1957 American television drama that lasted 1 hour however, due to its popularity the TV drama was adapted into a 96 minute movie. Since then the movie has gained critical and audience acclaim, but why is the film so popular. It could be because the movie illustrates the topic of fear which, even today is relevant. The subject of doubt is also outlined in this production meaning can we ever be certain we know the truth. Prejudice also plays a prominent role in the film which at the time (1950's) was very controversial as this was the time when the civil rights movement was starting to occur throughout America.


When the producer sets out to make a film he wants to know a few things before hand, including the demographics (target market) as it is no use advertising a film with a target market for children if it is a horror movie, for example. If the film is intended for a family audience then a variety of age groups can watch it. By researching the demographic share this could determine whether the movie gets a modest budget, a blockbuster budget or even just being flat out cancelled because
e the report shows there is not a big enough audience who will go to watch the movie. This is because the producer has to validate the production costs to the massive film sponsors such as Disney and Universal who finance the movie.

Audio Version and Group Feedback Session

Blood Diamond 
Film Analysis

This essay will cover sub-elements 1.1 to 4.1 in the unit entitled 'Unit 25: Film Studies' in which I will be analysing the film 'Blood Diamond' by using appropriate subject terminology. 

Blood Diamond 

Blood Diamond is a movie set in the 1990's where civil war rages through Sierra Leone. The 3 main characters come together through challenging circumstance as they embark on a quest through rebel territory to try to reach a rare diamond that could transform all of their lives forever. 

The movie starts with our main protagonist, a village fishermen named Solomon Vandy (Djimon Hounsou) being taken to the diamond mines by a rebel group who destroyed his village killing many. It is there that he finds a rare diamond which he attempts to bury. But the military arrive forcing him to flee the area. Next, we are introduced to our second main character,  Danny Archer (Leonardo Dicaprio) a South African mercenary who is besotted to find this rare gem and soon he teams up with Solomon when he realises his son has been kidnapped by the rebel army. An American journalist, Maddy Bowen (Jennifer Connelly) assists the two men, attempts to obtain a story that will hopefully stop the abuse of diamond workers. 3 people, all with different intentions and views on life set out on an adventure that will change their lives forever.


During the 1990's there was a controversial issue relating to diamonds being sold as jewellery at the exploitation of diamond minors in West Africa. Although this story and its characters are fictional for the most part, the theme and general premise of the movie actual happened. The audience watching this who were associated or effected with the events of this movie would have been emotionally effected in some way.

The main theme this movie covered was nature vs civilization. Danny Archer, the second protagonist represented civilization, the white South African who displays the west's intentions at that time to make a fortune from selling diamonds. Throughout the film we see Danny hell bent on pursuing the diamond which will make him a very rich man and who will do anything to get it. Our other main character, Solomon, represents nature; the quite, fisherman who just wants to raise a family in his small village. At the end of the film, the characters changed dramatically as Danny is shot by his own boss leading him to give the rare gem to his friend Solomon. Here, we see him change to nature as he starts to die. Solomon on the other hand travels all over the world, giving speeches about his experience and a call to stop the abuse of diamond minors. Personally, I don't believe that the main antagonist was a human but instead I believe it was the dramatic landscape. Just getting to the diamond through jungle and dessert seemed an impossible task even without the threat from the rebel army.

Most films use the three act structure model which is essentially the movie split into three parts. These parts are often called set-up or exposition, confrontation and resolution. When watching the film it was pretty obvious when the set-up started and ended, when the confrontation started and so on. The set-up started when Solomon's village was being attacked, it then ended when Danny and Solomon were in the jail together after learning about the diamond. The set-up is there to set the scene and to develop main characters and to create scenarios but to also give the audience watching key facts and information that they need to know. This is called exposition. This is the most difficult act for writers as characters would usually just tell the audience exposition to save time. Generally, it is a lot more interesting when you see the exposition on the screen as film is a visual medium and can be a lot more as well as sending out a message to the viewer that you value their intelligence. As for the confrontation, it began when the town square was under attack by a rebel gang and it ended when Danny died. Confrontation is usually the longest act and this was the case in this movie. The 2nd act is supposed to move the story along and the problem (the one that was set up in act one) has becomes much more dangerous and prominent. Our protagonists would usually spend the rest of this act battling the confrontation they face. The resolution began when Solomon went to London to frame a jeweller and ended when he was about to give a speech about his ordeal. The resolution is supposed to do just what the title suggests; to tie up any loose ends and give the main characters a suitable conclusion.

The cinematography in this movie was outstanding with many shots capturing the vast and colourful landscape. There was a shot near the end of the film where Danny was about to die, the camera panned out from where he was sat displaying rays of the sun set shining down on him. This beautiful scene would make the audience feel sympathetic towards Danny as he was given a dignified death. Another shot would be the use of the close up when the boy realized he had killed another human. This shot allowed us to view this child's facial reaction to what he had unwittingly done. The sense of fear and guilt can be seen on this boy's face with that shot lasting about 20 seconds, long enough to capture his emotional state. A wide shot was used for most of the action sequences displaying chaos and destruction with a lot happening in those scenes. But for character conflict the use of close up, wide and extreme close up shots were used to outline the characters anger and frustration making them very effective.

Also, I believe a film's meaning does change slightly when viewing it at the cinema as opposed to watching it on a DVD at home. This is because when you are at the cinema you are watching a 4K movie on a 400" screen with surround sound. This obviously makes for a more compelled viewing than watching at home on your TV or laptop. You are also watching it with other spectators who react to what their watching just like you do. For example, if you're watching a dramatic part in a film (like Danny's death) then people in the cinema may gasp or at least react in some way. It's the same for comedy movies, it's highly likely people in the cinema will laugh a lot if the comedy's funny (which to be honest shouldn't be so hard to achieve). So, I believe watching a film in the cinema changes your perspective of the film in general. This is why the film looks and sounds different when you buy it on DVD or if you digitally download it. On second viewing, you also understand the plot better as your initial reaction does not necessarily mean that will be your final impression of that movie.

When the producer and director began to make this film they knew that it would be controversial which, by the way, isn't always bad. A movie doesn't need to be a massive hit the day it is released for it to be remembered years down the line. Sometimes displaying a sensitive issue carefully with the right cast can make it more memorable in the future because it’s a movie that offers the viewer something of substance. The morals are relevant in todays world and will most likely be relevant years down the line. So, in a way, it’s a timeless film. This is the outcome the producer wanted and achieved as it is considered by many, as a classic. The budget for this film was $100 million which was a fairly big investment the production company were making at the time. This amount of money allowed for plenty of action and explosions which were justified and relevant and were not just put it in there for the sake of it. The director did not go overboard with the special effects budget unlike Transformers for example which spent $30 million of its budget on its computer generated effects. The producer also had to validate the production costs with the production company, in this case it was Warner Bros. 

Finally, it is time to inject my final thoughts on what I have been discussing in this project. Both films are very different but yet, they are the same in their own right. On the one hand, they both want to make the viewer think about the movie and the underlying messages they include. This helps to keep a film relevant and unique. Whereas on the other hand, they are completely contradistinctive with regards to genre and the type of story they are trying to tell; and the fact that one is in black and white and the other is in colour is the obvious reason to why they are unalike.

To conclude, I think both movies were brilliantly written, expertly directed and superbly performed by all cast members and delivered on everything a movie should deliver on. Both movies had drama laced with comedic relief, an engaging story, interesting characters as well as relative and relatable themes like naturalism vs realism, greed and discrimination. They're both great movies with equally great messages.