Question: How does a large budget impact the way an action film is made, and is a large budget necessary to make a film more enjoyable?

Script:

Budget obviously plays a large role in the film industry, but I am going to compare whether a higher budget makes an action film more objectively enjoyable or entertaining. Baby Driver (2017, Dir. Edgar Wright) takes a more story heavy and stylistic approach to a narrative as its lower budget means that it can’t always rely on action set-pieces like much more mainstream and higher budget films such as Fast and Furious 7 (2015, Dir. James Wan).  One of the key stylistic conventions featured within in the action genre is the use of high octane stunts and set-piece chase sequences; factors which rely on high budget production values such as expensive locations, equipment and stunt personnel. These elements are often considered in terms of an investment which will ultimately pay off at the box office by drawing in a large audience. The mantra appears to be – spend big, earn big. This has proved to be a successful formula for the Fast and Furious franchise; with each entry spending more money than the last, it is as if each movie is trying to one-up the previous entry. However, many critics such as Sonny Bunch have argued that the films have been going downhill since some of the previous instalments, calling more recent films in the franchise “Aggressively brain-dead”[i]. In Fast and Furious 7, every time the plot advances, it just feels like an excuse to move onto the next action scene With critic Josh Dickey saying the story as a whole “Requires you to cease all thinking” in order to watch the movie. Conversely, Baby Driver (2017, Dir. Edgar Wright) appears to be much more focused on narrative development and character arcs with the occasional action scene placed in to keep the audience excited as well as advancing the plot.  

Another incredibly important part of a film’s budget focuses on advertising, and for a film like Fast and Furious 7, advertising was key. Without a massive advertising campaign, the movie wouldn’t have brought in nearly as much money as it did. Similarly for Baby Driver, whist it did have a fairly large advertising campaign in comparison to many of Wrights other films, a main selling point for many was that it advertised as “An Edgar Wright Film” which meant that many people would have bought tickets simply because it was directed by someone known for heavily stylistic films. Fast and Furious 7’s budget also meant that it could hire more mainstream/big-name celebrities, and even though Baby Driver stared slightly more well-known actors than some of Wright’s other films, (Which have typically stared Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, both of which Wright thrust into stardom from relative obscurity) it’s stars are still much less famous than almost the entirety of the main cast in Fast and Furious 7. Baby Driver is also Wright’s 2nd highest budget film, following the $85 million ‘Scott Pilgrim Vs The World’ (yet despite its budget, Baby Driver was still more of a success in the box office), In fact, all of the films that Wright has directed thus far cost less than the entirety of Fast and Furious 7, with all of his credited films only costing around $155 million in total, in comparison to Fast and Furious 7’s $190 million. From this stat alone, it is clear that almost the entire mainstream film industry is focused on making money, which is why there are so many franchises in Hollywood.

David Hesmondhalgh has a theory which says that the media is being commodified in the cultural industries (which means everything is turning into something that can either be bought or sold). Therefore studios will commission several sequels to films that have done well at the box office. The first film in the franchise usually has a fairly small budget, and if the series continues to have a large box office profit, more sequels will be made with a higher budget in the hope to make even more money than the previous film. At the time of this recording, Baby Driver is still a stand-alone film, however there are rumours of a sequel being discussed, with Wright even teasing the movie early in 2019, saying “A first draft of Baby Driver 2 exists”. Wright has said that he initially didn’t think about a sequel, but after the massive commercial success of the film, (Grossing more than all of Wright’s previous films combined at the box office) decided to go along with the idea. This is an example of the commercial and profit-driven studios of Hollywood. Wright’s films take years of careful writing and planning, even before he gets to the filming stage, as all of his films were more or less entirely controlled by him. James Wan on the other hand, has directorial credits in over 29 films; Compare this to Wright’s 8 films, and you can begin to see how Wan makes movies that studios ask him to direct, whereas Wright takes a much more independent approach to film making, only making the films he wants to make, and changing some minor details for the studio.

Before Wan was working on action films with gigantic budgets, he was very influential to the horror genre, most notably, he directed the first 6 “Saw” films, as well as “The Conjuring” and “Insidious” Which all have relatively small budget. In total contrast to this, he is currently working on films like “Aquaman 2” Rumoured to have a budget of over $200 million. This is completely different to Wright’s way of film making, as he carefully crafts, Writes, directs and produces his films at the expense of not making as much of a potential profit, whereas Wan is constantly churning out a steady stream of either high budget action blockbusters or very low budget horror films in order to make the studio as much money as possible, which follows along with Hesmondhalgh’s media theory about commodification. Through the use of commodification, Wan has been commissioned to make several low budget films for different studios in order for maximum profit, working with studios famous for this, such as Blumhouse Productions. Wan’s films are typically more successful than Wright’s movies as they are aimed at a wider audience, giving Wan a net worth of around $50 million. Compare this to Wright’s estimated $10 million and it is clear that Wan’s films are aimed at a very wide audience to sell more tickets, whereas Wright has a fairly niche fan-base, due to his films being much more stylised than Wan’s, and also based on the fact that you can get a lot more out of Wright’s films (As he includes small “Easter Eggs” and references to both his own films, as well as his inspirations and homages to films and other popular culture events) by paying it your full attention. For this reason Wright’s films are usually given higher praise, as they are targeted more towards film fans, rather than a casual audience. Both directors were born within 4 years of each other and both started their line of work as a director at around the same time in the late 90’s, but considering Wan’s number of films, he was the obvious choice for studios. The shows how cinema in recent years has been commodified, and many filmmakers are more interested in the money than the art of filmmaking. Legendary director Martin Scorsese recently stated his thoughts on the Influx of superhero films and how they aren’t truly ‘cinema’, but simply designed as versions of other ideas; “They are sequels in name but they are remakes in spirit, and everything in them is officially sanctioned because it can’t really be any other way.”[ii] This theory can be applied to the Fast and Furious franchise, how each film is just another variant of itself, as opposed to Baby Driver, which is not part of a franchise, but an independent story. This can be linked to genre theory and specifically the 4 stages Metz’ Genre Cycle[iii], starting with the experimental stage. This stage (known as the Experimental Stage) focuses on action films from the 60s and 70s which attempt to bring something new to the genre. Films like Bullitt (1968, Dir. Peter Yates), The Italian Job (1969, Dir. Peter Collinson) and early Bond films are prime examples of changing up the formula for action films. Then there is the Classic Stage, where these new conventions of action films are beginning to become more widely used by other filmmakers, this is where large franchise blockbusters such as the Marvel Cinematic Universe films and Fast and Furious Movies start to become much more formulaic and similar. This is then followed by the Parody Stage, where films such as Johnny English (2003, Dir. Peter Howitt) and Hot Fuzz (2007, Dir. Edgar Wright) attempt to make fun of the stereotypical conventions of those franchise action films for their flaws. Finally there is the Deconstruction Stage, in which Baby Driver falls under due to the way it starts to break the rules of the stereotypical action film, blurring the lines between the action, comedy, musical and drama genres.

The large budget of Fast and Furious 7 definitely helped the film become more accessible to a large audience all over the world, however, it was also due to the films BBFC and MPAA classification of the film as a 12A and PG-13 respectively, meaning the film is much more accessible for younger children and families. This means there are a lot more potential profit to be made simply due to the number of people that can actually access the movie. Compare this to Baby Driver, which is Rated R in America and 15 in the UK and you can see that Wright’s film was at a clear disadvantage for potential profit from the outset. Some films are intended to be rated as a 15, and then changed in post-production and editing in order to get the film rated as a 12 or 12A so that it is much more accessible to people as well as so it will make a larger profit. Because of this potential loss of profit, most of the very expensive, stereotypical, Hollywood blockbuster films will be rated as a PG-13/12A, in order to make back as much of their budget as possible, and turn a profit. This also means that films with a higher rating are typically less successful in the box office, which is why so many of Wan’s horror films have such a small budget of only a few million dollars. This means that Budget is much tighter in a film like Baby Driver, as it doesn’t have an established franchise that will draw people in, or a seemingly infinite amount of money being given to them by the studio, because the studio cannot be sure that it would make the money back at the box office.

In conclusion, budget can have a huge impact on the way a film is made, affecting the production values contained within the film. That said, this does not always equate to a better cinematic experience. From the box office sales alone, Fast and Furious 7 looks like a much “better” film because more people went to see it in the cinema, however using data from Metacritic, The 50 or so reviewers found Baby Driver much more enjoyable, giving at an average rating of 86%[iv]. Compare this to Fast and Furious 7’s 67%[v] and it is clear that audiences and critics alike actually found Baby Driver to be an objectively more enjoyable film, despite having a fraction of the box office sales. This seems to prove the idea that even within the action genre, audiences ultimately prefer to watch a film which tells a good story using well-drawn characters rather than watch a series of elaborate set-pieces, visual effects and stunts.

Word Count: 2003

---

[i] https://freebeacon.com/culture/furious-seven-review/  Sonny Bunch, Published 03/04/2015, (Viewed 16/01/2020)

[ii] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/opinion/martin-scorsese-marvel.html Martin Scorsese, Published 04/11/19 (Viewed 20/01/2020)

[iii] http://johannabeckera2media.blogspot.com/2015/06/genre-theory-christian-metz.html Unknown, Published 21/6/15 (Viewed 21/01/2020)

[iv] https://www.metacritic.com/movie/baby-driver Metacritic, (Viewed 23/01/20)

[v] https://www.metacritic.com/movie/furious-7 Metacritic, (Viewed 23/01/20)

In this essay I will be comparing the use of cinematography as a principle storytelling device in the films of auteur director Stanley Kubrick. More importantly, I will analyse how this changes over his career by comparing techniques used, the intentions behind them, and the effects on the viewer in the films “2001: A Space Odyssey” (1968) and “Full Metal Jacket” (1987). In order to understand the change and progression of the role cinematography had as a narrative device in Kubrick’s work, I must look at his trademark techniques and his career as a whole. {taken a little bit out here} It is important to clarify that these movies were chosen, among other reasons, because of their different historical contexts; 2001 is set in the future, a fabrication of what society could be, whereas Full Metal Jacket is set in the past, loosely based around the Vietnam wars.

Before delving into Kubrick’s movies and techniques, It is imperative to explain the main overarching theme of this Video essay – how kubrick’s use of cinematography develops, in correlation with how Kubrick develops as an auteur.

An article on Britannica.com regarding Astruc, Bazin and others describes camera stylo in this quote, it says

caméra-stylo (“camera-pen”), holds that the director, who oversees all audio and visual elements of the motion picture, is more to be considered the “author” of the movie than is the writer of the screenplay.

Auteurs can nearly always be identified by their trademark techniques, Kubrick’s trademark techniques are:

Elaborate tracking shots, especially reversed ones, the one point perspective, the wide angle lens, and finally monolithic themes, which i will quickly touch on now

Monolithic themes: Kubrick often uses monolithic beings/elements in his fi lms that are far more powerful than the characters, these beings / elements convey a sense of dystopian control. This can be obvious in 2001 in the example of HAL: being a supercomputer with immoral intent and nearly full control over the protagonist and his surroundings. Or it can be very subtle like in full metal jacket the idea of war being a type of dystopian control, as if referencing to a future world where everyone fights for survival. This leads me on to further explain that in Kubrick’s later films, the intent behind these techniques started to be much more narrative based and these monolithic elements started being displayed in a more conceptual way. In fact, a quote from Gilles Deleuze talks about these monolithic beings / elements as being the products of a “cinematographic brain”. He talks about how the Mise En Scene is a brain and the beings inside it are on a journey through it, these monolithic beings / elements are catalysts for change and evolution and propel the character through not only the story, but through the cinematographic brain. (show quote) Here, it seems, Deleuze is referencing to how kubrick’s style is exponentially more than what can just be seen on the screen. Each different  component seen in his film is like a catalyst to spark emotions, they all work together interchangeably and form a giant “brain” 

“For in Kubrick, the world itself is a brain, there is identity of brain and world, as in the great circular and luminous table in Dr strangelove, the giant computer in 2001: a space Odyssey, the overlook hotel in the shining.” (3)

Moving forward, I must now look at how Kubrick uses his trademark techniques in his films and how predominant his cinematography was as a storytelling device as opposed to an aesthetic choice

Firstly,  in 2001 this shot (17:12) depicts the current world from the view of space, it establishes a narrative jump in time from a primitive period with primitive shots to this futuristic society as if to represent mankind’s evolution and colonization of space. Here, the cinematography is able to express the narrative without any human subjects or dialogue. Taken out here It is something that critics have picked up on continuously, praising Kubrick for his genius, In-fact In Alexander Walker’s book: “Stanley Kubrick, Director” he says that Kubrick forced his viewers to” jettison the outmoded notion of a story told largely in words,” (page 242).

Whereas full metal jacket uses many simple tracking shots to represent the narrative pulling it along with the characters.

This uncovers the foundation of my argument about how Kubrick’s use of cinematography as a storytelling device changes throughout his career:

during the start of his career his films were heavily based on creating beautiful cinematography, i believe that Kubrick’s partnership with Alcott inspired him and drove him to create these masterpieces. Taken out here The audience can be introduced to their worlds without any context, just what they can see, however in Full Metal jacket it felt very narrative based, the viewer moves with the subject and every shot seems to be based around the character. It is evident then, that in Kubrick’s later films (specifically after the loss of cinematographer John Alcott) the narrative carries a heavier priority in the end product over the cinematography.

Looking at the cinematography as a whole, 2001’s cinematography was so stylistic and artificial, it pushed the viewer away, this meant that the viewer would view the film from an outside perspective, as a member of the audience rather than being immersed into the narrative. By the time FMJ was released, Kubrick had started to value the importance of narrative and immersing the viewer into it, additionally, with the invention of the Steadicam, Kubrick was able to do combine beautiful shots with perfect immersion to help encapsulate the viewer into the narrative.

Kubrick’s representation of monolithic themes also clearly changes between the two films, in 2001 The obelisk and Hal are the two most obvious examples. Rather than looking at the lack of cinematographic substance now in FMJ, I’d like to bring to light how well FMJ uses the monolithic themes to bring the audience into the narrative, The camp as a whole represents the monolithic themes, and the drill sergeant is like an output for this. In fact, by seeing the world through Private Jokers eyes, the viewers can create an emotional connection with the characters in FMJ. They see his emotions and his experiences, as David kehr from the Chicago Tribune says: “There is a real fear at the heart of this monstrously armored, desperately defensive film.” – re rotten tomatoes they follow him and are made to feel a part of the movie, they feel his fear, making it all the more real. Contrastingly, in 2001, the scene where the space men approach the obelisk demonstrates how little emotional connection the audience has with the characters. The absence of close-ups on their faces, the exclusion of dialogue and lack of cinematographic connection all lead to the scene feeling like less of a progression of the narrative and more of an aesthetic choice. There is a visual disconnection in 2001 because the camera seems to not be focused on any one subject, it roams around almost in pain with no repeating pattern or correlation with subject matter. Moreover, what would be considered as the main character is stripped, devoid of all emotion, expressionless and monotone, at 1:29:36 one can compare Dave to Private Pyle, dehumanised by the situation, however, unlike in FMJ there is no counterweight like Joker to balance the situation and help the viewers connect emotionally, the audience has to force themselves into the film. In fact the closest moment they have to an emotional connection is the termination of HAL towards the end, Hal being one of the most visually recognisable symbols of film to date. 

Taken out here. It is possible then, that Kubrick may have created a film with such a strong narrative in order to open the audiences eyes to the horrors of war rather than glorifying it with epic cinematographic shots. He may have been using the glorification of war to entice people to watch his film, hoping to instead reveal the living hell that war really is. Similarly, 2001 was set around the time of the Apollo missions, starting 1967 with Apollo 1 and ending in Apollo 17 in 1972, during this time the idea of living in space was in media everywhere, it became an obsession. Kubrick may have created 2001 to show what space travel could be like, he knew that this was exactly what the audience wanted to see. Therefore, Kubrick’s use of cinematography also changed as a result of the current historical context.

From the glorification of space travel, to the disparagement of war, I am led to conclude that over the 13 film career that Kubrick led, his use of cinematography as a principle story telling device evolved and exponentially expanded until he finished his final film, creating an arc and legacy, unrivalled by many other legendary filmmakers, a change that would establish him as one of the greatest for years to come.

Sources

1 – Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica (Dec 27 2017) , “Auteur Theory” published by Encyclopaedia Britannica inc, available at : https://www.britannica.com/art/auteur-theory Access Date March 25 2020

2 – Landy, M. “The Cinematographic Brain In 2001: A Space Odyssey” From Kolker, R. “Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey: New Essays” (2006) Oxford University press (page 99) Available as a preview at: https://books.google.je/books?id=YpritcZXPFoC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

3 – Alexander King (2000) “Stanley Kubrick, Director” Published by: Norton (page 242)

4 – Kehr, D. (1987) `JACKET` A COLD, PERVERSE FILM OF UNSETTLING POWER Via Chicago Tribune. Available at: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1987-06-26-8702170008-story.html Accessed on (26th March 2020)

5 – Full Metal Jacket (1987) Dir, Kubrick. DVD – deluxe edition (2008) USA: Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.

6 – 2001: a space odyssey (1968) Dir, Kubrick. DVD – digitally restored and remastered edition (2019) USA: Turner Entertainment