Michael Francis Moore (born April 23, 1954) is an American filmmaker, author, social critic and activist. He is the director and producer of Fahrenheit 9/11, which is the highest-grossing documentary of all time.   

   His films Bowling for Columbine (2002) and Sicko (2007) also placed in the top ten highest-grossing documentaries, and the former won the Academy Award for Documentary Feature.

Moore criticizes globalization, large corporations, assault weapon ownership, U.S. Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, the Iraq War, the American health care system, and capitalism in his written and cinematic works.

[SOURCED FROM WIKIPEDIA]
-

Roger & Me

Moore first became famous for his 1989 film, Roger & Me, a documentary about what happened to Flint, Michigan, after General Motors closed its factories and opened new ones in Mexico, where the workers were paid much less. Since then Moore has been known as a critic of the neoliberal view of globalization. "Roger" is Roger B. Smith, former CEO and president of General Motors. Harlan Jacobson, editor of Film Comment magazine, said that Moore muddled the chronology in Roger & Me to make it seem that events that took place before G.M.’s layoffs were a consequence of them. Critic Roger Ebert defended Moore's handling of the timeline as an artistic and stylistic choice that had less to do with his credibility as a filmmaker and more to do with the flexibility of film as a medium to express a satiric viewpoint.^[32]

Pets or Meat: The Return to Flint

(1992) is a short (23-minute) documentary film that was aired on PBS. It is based on the feature-length film Roger & Me (1989) by Michael Moore. The film's title refers to Rhonda Britton, a Flint, Michigan, resident featured in both the 1989 and 1992 films who sells rabbits as either pets or meat.^[33]

Canadian Bacon

In 1995, Moore released a satirical film, Canadian Bacon, which features a fictional US president (played by Alan Alda) engineering a fake war with Canada in order to boost his popularity. It is noted for containing a number of Canadian and American stereotypes, and for being Moore's only non-documentary film. The film is also one of the last featuring Canadian-born actor John Candy, and also features a number of cameos by other Canadian actors. In the film, several potential enemies for America's next great campaign are discussed by the president and his cabinet. (The scene was strongly influenced by the Stanley Kubrick film Dr. Strangelove.) The President comments that declaring war on Canada was as ridiculous as declaring war on international terrorism. His military adviser, played by Rip Torn, quickly rebuffs this idea, saying that no one would care about "... a bunch of guys driving around blowing up rent-a-cars."

The Big One

In 1997, Moore directed The Big One, which documents the tour publicizing his book Downsize This! Random Threats from an Unarmed American, in which he criticizes mass layoffs despite record corporate profits. Among others, he targets Nike for outsourcing shoe production to Indonesia.

Bowling for Columbine

Moore's 2002 film, Bowling for Columbine, probes the culture of guns and violence in the United States, taking as a starting point the Columbine High School massacre of 1999. Bowling for Columbine won the Anniversary Prize at the 2002 Cannes Film Festival^[34] and France's César Award as the Best Foreign Film. In the United States, it won the 2002 Academy Award for Documentary Feature. It also enjoyed great commercial and critical success for a film of its type and became, at the time, the highest-grossing mainstream-released documentary (a record now held by Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11).^[5] It was praised by some for illuminating a subject avoided by the mainstream media.

Fahrenheit 9/11

Fahrenheit 9/11 examines America in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, particularly the record of the Bush administration and alleged links between the families of George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden. Fahrenheit was awarded the Palme d'Or,^[35] the top honor at the 2004 Cannes Film Festival; it was the first documentary film to win the prize since 1956. Moore later announced that Fahrenheit 9/11 would not be in consideration for the 2005 Academy Award for Documentary Feature, but instead for the Academy Award for Best Picture. He stated he wanted the movie to be seen by a few million more people via a television broadcast prior to election day. According to Moore, "Academy rules forbid the airing of a documentary on television within nine months of its theatrical release", and since the November 2 election was fewer than nine months after the film's release, it would have been disqualified for the Documentary Oscar.^[36] However, Fahrenheit received no Oscar nomination for Best Picture. The title of the film alludes to the classic book Fahrenheit 451 about a future totalitarian state in which books are banned; according to the book, paper begins to burn at 451 degrees Fahrenheit. The pre-release subtitle of the film confirms the allusion: "The temperature at which freedom burns." At the box office, as of 2010 Fahrenheit 9/11 is the highest-grossing documentary of all time, taking in over US$200 million worldwide, including United States box office revenue of almost US$120 million.^[5] In February 2011, Moore sued producers Bob and Harvey Weinstein for US$2.7 million in unpaid profits from the film, claiming they used "Hollywood accounting tricks" to avoid paying him the money.^[37]

 

Sicko

Moore directed this film about the American health care system, focusing particularly on the managed-care and pharmaceutical industries. At least four major pharmaceutical companies — Pfizer, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, and GlaxoSmithKline — ordered their employees not to grant any interviews to Moore.^[38][39][40] According to Moore on a letter at his website, "roads that often surprise us and lead us to new ideas—and challenge us to reconsider the ones we began with have caused some minor delays." The film premiered at the Cannes Film Festival on May 19, 2007, receiving a lengthy standing ovation, and was released in the U.S. and Canada on June 29, 2007.^[41] The film was the subject of some controversy when it became known that Moore went to Cuba with chronically ill September 11th rescue workers to shoot parts of the film. The United States is looking into whether this violates the trade embargo. The film is currently ranked the fourth highest grossing documentary of all time^[5] and received an Academy Award nomination for Best Documentary Feature.^[42]

Captain Mike Across America

Moore takes a look at the politics of college students in what he calls "Bush Administration America" with this film shot during Moore's 60-city college campus tour in the months leading up to the 2004 election.^[43][44] The film was later re-edited by Moore into Slacker Uprising.

Capitalism: A Love Story

On September 23, 2009, Moore released a new movie titled Capitalism: A Love Story, which looks at the late-2000s financial crisis and the U.S. economy during the transition between the incoming Obama Administration and the outgoing Bush Administration. Addressing a press conference at its release, Moore said, "Democracy is not a spectator sport, it's a participatory event. If we don't participate in it, it ceases to be a democracy. So Obama will rise or fall based not so much on what he does but on what we do to support him."^[45]

Music videos
Moore has directed several music videos, including two for Rage Against the Machine for songs from The Battle of Los Angeles: "Sleep Now in the Fire" and "Testify".
He also directed the videos for R.E.M. single "All the Way to Reno (You're Gonna Be a Star)" in 2001 and the System of a Down song "Boom"

VERBATIM THEATRE

Verbatim Theatre on Prezi

THE SYNDICATE - REGIONAL IDENTITY

Mise-en-scene 
This shows the area in Leeds to be run down and poor, which is shown through the graffiti on the garages in the first scene. The workers in the supermarket are shown to have different regional identities through their costume. For example, the American man and woman are wearing smart clothes (full body suits, etc.) and so are portrayed as more in control than the other characters, who are from Leeds.

Mise-en-scene 

The mise-en-scene shows this section of Leeds to be run-down and poor. This is shown by the graffiti on the garage within the first scene. The people working in the supermarket are shown to have different regional identities despite living within the same region. This is shown by the American man's costume, who is wearing a suit and therefore portrayed as more affluent than the other characters.

Cinematography 
Starts with an establishing shot which shows lots of people in a town. This adds a sense of community and 'togetherness' and reflects the attitude to each other within their regional identity.
  The American man is portrayed as outsider, as a two-shot is used of the workers while he is talking to them, showing them looking uncomfortable and uncommitted to what he is saying.

Editing 
Shot-reaction-shots show the relationship between the old woman and the two men, showing them to be conversational despite age, perhaps drawn together by their regional identity. This reinforces the idea of a sense of community. People in the background are also blurred, drawing emphasis to the conversation.
During the argument, parallel editing is used to show the man watching the TV at the same time, showing that tension within the same regional identity is the norm. Fast-paced editing is also used to mirror the fast and angry dialogue, again highlighting tension between regional identities.

Sound 
Regional dialect to establish location.
Soft music during transition and high-angle shot of location, which makes the place seem melancholy and dreary.
The non-diegetic sound of the TV.

BBC POLICY

Sopps

View more presentations from Nikki Acquah.

Hollyoaks – the wedding part 1

View more presentations from Nikki Acquah.

Time: 3:00- 5:00

UPSTAIRS DOWNSTAIRS

Consider how representations of social class are constructed in ‘Upstairs, Downstairs’ using:

·        Cinematography

·        Sound

·        Mise-en-scene

·        Editing

This clip from ‘Upstairs Downstairs’ shows people from two separate classes; the upper class, and the struggling lower class who are dismissed by society.

   The extract starts with a scene from ‘Upstairs’ in which Mr. Landry and an upper class woman are having a private and flirtatious conversation at a dinner party. Head and shoulder shots are used as they talk to each other, and a shot-reaction-shot is used to show the woman’s facial expression when he asks her to dance with him. The people around the table are shown to be rich as they have servants catering for their every need.  This is significant in terms of composition, as the camera allows the servants to walk into the shot, rather than having the main focus on the servants. This creates the impression of the servants not being very important to the scene, and adds to the representation of higher class people as being superior to lower classes.

   Long shots are also used to establish the scene, and draw emphasis to their surroundings. For example, the mise-en-scene shows a large table and fireplace. The fact that the table is furnished with numerous plates, candles, and lots of food, shows that they are upper class. The men at the table all have their hair slicked back, and their costumes (formal black suit attire, and bow ties) show that they are upper class. The low-key lighting, coupled with slow pace of the editing, creates the impression of a relaxed atmosphere, also adding to the romantic mood of the conversation between Mr. Landry and the woman. ‘Mr. Kennedy’ is portrayed as the most dominant person in this scene, and this is highlighted in the editing. Mr. Landry is blurred as he speaks about Mr. Kennedy. The use of focus pulling exaggerates the fact that Mr. Kennedy has more power.

   The sound used in this extract is mainly diegetic; as the natural sound of cutlery clinking and wine being poured into glasses can be heard. The fact that these sounds are constant throughout the scene shows how the upper classes are always well provided for, and never lack good food and drink. It also contributes to the construction of ‘social realism’ in this TV drama, suggesting that the director wants to show audiences how the upper classes truly lived. However, some non-diegetic sound is also used. At the end of this scene, soft and classical sounding music is played in the background. This is used in the transition between ‘upstairs’ and ‘downstairs’ and highlights the contrast between the two social classes. A mid-shot of the two butlers is used at the end, and shows them looking at each other in the light of the conversation at the dinner table. This suggests that the working-class are nosy, and gossip about the upper-class, even though they are unaware of this.

   The mise-en-scene used during the ‘Downstairs’ scene contrasted hugely with the previous scene. It was apparent that the people downstairs were merely servants, as the women were wearing cook’s outfits, and props such as the brooms that stood in the corner was evidence of the domestic duties they had to perform. Other outfits, such as the Head Butler’s, and ‘Johnny’ made them appear upper class, however there were subtle hints that they did not fully belong upstairs. Firstly, Johnny’s accent wasn’t like the gentry upstairs, but rather sounded much more common. In addition, the butlers’ ties were white, and didn’t match the black formal ties used ‘upstairs.’ Other props, such as the large table in the middle of the room, showed that they were lower class, as it wasn’t furnished or even covered with a cloth as it was ‘Upstairs.’ The editing used when the scene moved ‘Downstairs’ was much faster, with the transitions between the characters very quick to accompany the panicked and fast way in which the servants were speaking. Jumpcuts from character to character increased in pace, adding contrast to the relaxed atmosphere of ‘Upstairs’ and showing how different their lifestyles are.

    The contrast between the two classes was further emphasised when one of the upper class men came down the stairs. As he did so, he stood upright, and a light shone behind his head, portraying him as the more powerful and dominant character.  The diegetic sound of his footsteps as he entered the room could be heard, and this accompanied with the shot-reaction-shots between him and the cook, made his entrance seem much more menacing, as the cook look scared and completely shocked to see him standing in front of her. The camera shows low-angle shots which watch the characters through the dirty and chipped windows. These create the impression that the audience is intruding on the lower classes ‘private’ life, and also reflects what is going on in the scene, (e.g. the upper class man is intruding on the lower classes daily routine.) This is very different to the earlier scene upstairs, where the audience was positioned in a way to make them feel almost as if they were included in the conversation themselves.

  The audience is shown a ‘two shot’ of the characters as they start their conversation. This is significant as this scene shows them as they start to bond, despite being of two separate classes, which challenges the stereotypes about social class. The classical music played in the background also lifts slightly, with a harp playing in a much calmer and more serene way, to mark their new ‘friendship.’

   At the end of the extract, the cook yells at the butler’s even though she has a lower social standing than them. The Butler’s superiority is shown in the editing, where there is a two-shot of himself and the other butler, yet there is a focus pull onto the main butler, blurring Johnny out. This draws emphasis to the main butler and shows him as superior. A close-up of his face is shown when he is shocked to find that the American Ambassador’s son has been called ‘dear’ by the cook, creating the impression that people of different social classes shouldn’t communicate. 

Extract, Holby City

Please watch the extract from Holby City and comment on how representations of gender are created using:

·         Cinematography

·         Editing

·         Sound

·         Mise-en-scene

This extract starts with a male doctor ‘Michael’ breaking up with a female doctor called ‘Lou-Lou.’ The establishing shot is at an ‘overhead tilted angle’ which resembles the view one might usually get from a CCTV camera. This hints at the fact that something dramatic is about to happen. At the start of the conversation, camera angles show ‘Michael’ as the dominant man, largely in control of the situation. The editing makes it so that the audience are seeing Lou-Lou’s face while Michael says, ‘I don’t ever want to see you again’ which emphasises the harshness of his words, and reaction shots are used to show Lou-Lou looking shocked and hurt as he yells at her. As Michael walks off, the camera stays in a fixed position as he walks into the frame. This gives the impression of him being a stereotypically strong, male character, as it shows him getting larger as he walks away from the female doctor. However, when Lou-Lou attempts to regain control of the situation, there is a focus-pull on Michael’s face, blurring him and putting more emphasis on her, which highlights her strength as a woman. Mise-en-scene also contributes to portraying these characters in a way that challenges gender stereotypes. For example, the woman is wearing blue scrubs, a colour which is often associated with masculinity, while the man is wearing pink, which connotes femininity. However, even though Lou-Lou is portrayed as quite strong and manipulative, there are still aspects of her costume, such as wearing earrings, which reveal a more stereotypically feminine side. The over-the-shoulder shots, when Lou-Lou tries to draw Michael back, is significant in terms of positioning, as it also shows her desperation to be with him, again stereotyping women as being reliant on men. This is shown later on in the clip where Lou-Lou rings her ‘daddy’ to solve her problems for her.  In this part, there is an aerial shot of her sitting on the stairs, making her seem smaller and therefore a weak and pitiable woman. A common representation of women in the media is ‘emotional’ and this is highlighted as she is shown crying on the stairs.  Use of props also contributes to the idea of women being emotional as she is gripping a tissue in her hand. The camera pans slowly around her, which creates the impression of her being in a large space, which again makes her appear smaller and accentuates the impossibility of her situation.

   In a later scene, a man called Hal confronts the doctor about his friend Amelia, as Michael has messed up Amelia’s ‘boob job.’ This scene also presents the idea of men being stereotypically strong and powerful, as Hal raises his voice when he speaks to Michael. The editing in their conversation is very quick, and jumpcuts between the two characters, adding to the pace of the scene. The camera also shows reaction-shots of Amelia, showing her to be vulnerable and helpless, as she is lying in a hospital bed and attached to tubes. Point-of-view shots show her watching the confrontation between the two men, but through the hospital blinds. This makes it seem as though she is intruding on a conversation between the two men, and therefore shows her as being shut out of a masculine environment.

   The next scene starts with a long-shot of two male doctors, who are shown to be standing very close to one another. The composition allows the audience to see that they are still within the hospital, as it is clear that the men are looking at an X-Ray. However, the camera cuts to a high-angle shot of the two men, which eliminates the X-Ray and provides a glimpse into their private conversation, which could be used to symbolise their relationship as people, rather than simply doctors. The doctor who is secretly gay is shown to be standing towards the corner of the camera frame, making it seem as though he is leaning towards the other man. When the other man looks him up and down, a close-up is used, which shows his eyes lingering on certain areas of his anatomy, suggesting homo-eroticism. In this scene, both men are trying to insert their dominance and masculinity by insisting the sports that they play aren’t girls’ games.’ However, the mise-en-scene seems to give them some feminine qualities. For example, the man that is shown to lose the power struggle is wearing pink, and the lighting is dim which adds to the suggestive atmosphere.

   Two women in conversation are shown by a tracking camera, as they walk down the hospital corridor. These women are represented in a stereotypical manner as their costume instantly defines them as feminine. For example, both of them are wearing headbands, and one is wearing a long necklace, bracelets, earrings and rings on her fingers. The use of sound in this scene is important in constructing representations of gender, as the diegetic sound of their high heels on the floor also add to the idea of femininity, as it seems to define them more by ‘beauty’ than intellect or power.

   The last scene shows a conversation between Hal and Amelia in which he confesses his love for her. All sound in this scene is diegetic, which adds to its realism. The fact that Amelia has lost her confidence in this scene because of the ‘boob job’ that went wrong, is also a stereotypical representation of women, as it focuses on her emotions and her physicality. As Hal comforts her, the camera zooms in on her, accentuating her reaction and how much she is depending on his character for support. As ‘Hal’ walks closer to her, the camera pans around Amelia, creating the impression of a point of view shot. However, as the camera remains level, and doesn’t tilt or produce any high-angle shots, it symbolises his respect/care towards her, and so challenges stereotypes of men being dominant and overpowering. As Hal starts his confession, the camera jumpcuts to show the conversation from outside the room. This shows both of them looking down, again through the hospital blinds, allowing the audience to feel as if they are intruding on a private moment. An ‘insert-shot’ of them holding hands is used near the end, again symbolising the equality of the two characters.