Contextual analysis essay

thesis: hollywood films tend to glorify the theme of criminality, compared to independent films that subvert the hollywood and theme of crime in order to challenge the audience.

The film 'savages' is independent and 'the wolf of Wall Street' is hollywood with some Hollywood conventions in both. Both films contradict eachothers perception of crime. Hollywood  films tend to glorify the theme of criminality, and independent films tend to strip back the reprocessions and the severity of crime in a realistic way. Both can be related to real life situations and scenarios that occur in the world now, the financial crash being as a result of greedy bankers, and violent gang battles, as shown in savages.

 the wolf of Wall Street present Jordan Belfort as a loveable vouge. He has been given this role as it is similar to the one in catch me if you can. In the scene where Jordan illudes to the fact that everything they have been doing in the brokerage firm is well and truely illegal. This film has the same director as the film 'goodfellas'. So Jordan has characteristics or trates of an Italian gangster. Scorsese  tends to make mafia films, so this film is filmed with a  'mafia' turn of events, with different aspects of Mise en scene, narrative and cinematography. the director has also used direct adress in the way that is has been filmed in this scene. This is to make the film look almost documentry like, giving it a sense of realism that independent films tend to possess . in comparison, the film 'savages' present the stock characters of 'heroes' in ben and shon, but they both possess characteristics of criminals as they are drug dealers. this subverts the typical hollywood narrative in a sense that they are not directly heroes. independent films are looked at as a piece of art work, and should be made to make the audience think, this is the challenge that comes with savages.

 ben and shon are put in mexican tribal masks when trying to rescue their girlfriend, so the masks actually represent your typical 'heroes' very well.

the wolf of wall street tries to glorify the theme of criminality, which tends to be common in Hollywood films. Especially ones where there is no identifiable criminal, but the film exaggerates money laundering to make it look like a good thing that will make you a wealthy man. This tends to attract a wider audience and is called 'mass marketing'. This method is used in Hollywood films as they are strictly there to make a profit. the aspects of mise en scene plays a big part in the way criminality is presented. There is a mass use of bright colours, in order to keep the film in a positive light, and sets the mood.
also suits tend to be the main costume, and people commonly assosiate suits with the hero and good characters (James bond, mission impossible, men in black). This is where the wolf of wall street subverts the typical Hollywood narrative. in contrast, 'savages' has a wider sense of realism, with a true reflection on gun crime, drug crime and murder. this is where independent films are in place in order to challenge the audience, and are thesis: hollywood films tend to glorify the theme of criminality, compared to independent films that subvert the hollywood and theme of crime in order to challenge the audience.

The film 'savages' deters the audience away from the kinaesthetic feeling of happiness when watching a film involving crime. It actually posses some scenes  that will cringe and disgust the audience, not out of spite but out of morality. It's scenes like when shon in forced to set the right hand man on lado, the cartel member on fire as part of a punishment, and the camera man uses aspects of Mise on scene and cinematography, by taking extreme close ups and point of view shots, again adding to the realism. My point being, independent films often use realism as a technique to put the audience in the place of the victim. However, the wolf of Wall Street very much contradicts this point. Being the smash hit Hollywood film that it is, and that the film is a product rather than an art form, the directors want to avoid the feeling of disgust at all costs, as the profit will decrease. This became obvious to me in the scene when Jordan actually says 'we we're making more money than we knew what to do with, and what would you do if you had that much money you didn't know what to do with it?' And then cuts to Jordan Belfort sitting on a yacht easing lobster with two supermodels. Not only is this an exaggeration, but it puts a subconscious thought in the head of the audience that what he's doing is productive rather than illegal. So Hollywood films such as this try and make it as unrealistic as possible, to really exaggerate. 

 Both films are filmed cut and edited in different ways, in order for them to profitable (more in the case of the wolf of Wall Street). The directors do this in terms of cinematography and Mise en scene. Mise on scene refers to the lighting, back drop, setting props and characters. And cinematography refers to the actual shot types and angles. 'Savages', is filmed in a way that is arguably less realistic, but must be done in order emphasise the brutality of crime. A perfect example of this would be the initial hiest that ben and shon carry out where the camera man uses lots of birds eye view and tracking shots, aswell as cutting to different scenes as different things happen. The characters ben and shon are put in casual clothing, again to show that it is less artificial. The director also used a lot of weapons and heavy machinery as well as a copious amount of drugs and money for the film. Even though it seems less realistic, it's a highlight for how things like this happen and the outcome of these events. The wolf of Wall Street tends to use a lot of direct address in the film. I find that this may be used as a way for the audience to connect with Jordan Belfort as a character, and develops almost a sense of envy. I think that leonardo di caprio is the perfect man for the job, as he plays such a perfect loveable rouge, and it's easy for the audience to fall for his charm. Third person shots and extreme close ups are often used near enough everytime Jordan speaks. This shows the quality of his expensive suits and the way he has been made up both hair and make up to fulfil his role that super money forms super human, again very unrealistic. 

The outcome of the two films similarly resemble eachothers, in terms of punishment and rehabilitation. In the film 'the wolf of wall street' Jordan Belfort doesn't really serve a punishment for his fraud, Laudery and drug use. This is evidenced towards the end when he is narrating his experiences in prison. And he mentions that he enjoyed his time there as he forgot he was rich. This scene also uses brighter lighting, in terms of Mise en scene, in order to portray the way his life was enlightened after prison. Also his costume went from a suit, commonly associated with stock characters of hero and Villian, to all white overalls, which suppresses his identity as a rich man. In comparison, the film 'savages' also serve no punishment for their criminality, but quite the opposite in regabilitation. The director alludes to this point in the closing scene, where the narrator (ophelia) tells the audience about what the 3 are doing with their life at the moment. Again the lighting is turned up, and there is a use or a lot brighter colours aswell as lens flair to portray the enlightening of the situation. On the other hand, the criminals (bahar Cartel) we're arrested, due to the running of a drug organisation and multiple counts of murder. This is more typical for an independent film, as the villains tend to get killed, and there is a clear 'winner' if you like, in the resolution stage of the film. This is where the independent challenge is introduced to the audience.

to conclude, both films possess the presentation of criminality in different ways. as the wolf of wall street is a Hollywood film, with independent conventions, it tends to exaggerate the themes as well as its message. this is to widen the audience and evidences that theory that Hollywood films are prodominatlty made to make a profit. on the other hand, 'savages' confronts criminality and presents it how it is. this is a common thing within independent films, and also evidences the theory that independent films are designed to challenge the audience, and send out messages rather than making a profit. 'savages' also has hoHollywoodonventions in terms of micro analysis, I believe this is to widen the audience. finally, both films present criminality in different ways, but both give seperate messages.

 made for specific audiences to enjoy as a peice of art with a message rather than a profit.

 again, the heroes are put in mask s when trying to save their lover. this is a very Hollywood way of doing things. I believe the director done this to wider the audience.