Hello and welcome to my easy to understand guide to iDanielBlake which is a set film industry text for section B of component 1 on the media studies exam for A-level under the EDUCAS exam board. It will only ever appear in the industries section of an exam at A-level and I'm going to go through everything you need to know about iDanielBlake in this video. If you want to know more about straight out of Compton or Blackboard Panther, depending on what year you are sitting your exams, then I will be uploading videos about those as well.
The first thing you're going to need to know about I, Daniel Blake is some factual information about who made it, where the money came from. So this is quite complex. Ken Loach directed it. Ken Loach works for 16 Films and it's a company that he started. They're a very small independent production company.
16 Films partnered with a French company called Why Not Productions. Why Not Productions loved Ken Loach films, so they agreed to help partner up to produce the film. But they couldn't distribute the film because neither of these two companies are vertically integrated, so they are simply production and not distribution. So they needed to get distribution done by E1 Productions.
E1 Productions did the distribution and marketing for I, Daniel Blake. Even with all of these companies involved, they still didn't have enough funding. So they needed to get funding from other companies such as the BBC and the BFI. Phew! Lots of companies involved here.
And there's a very, very good chance that you are going to mix up these names. So I suggest maybe getting some fact sheets or flashcards or something to try and remember all of these facts about I, Daniel Blake. So the first thing you should know is that Ken Loach is really quite a famous director. He very much focuses on social realism as a genre, which is quite a niche genre.
It's not hugely popular and it never really does that well at the cinema. But it's a very British, very gritty genre. And Ken Loach does it really quite well, so much so that he's won loads of awards in the past, Oscars. He's really quite well known both in Britain and globally. So having him on board...
was a really big unique selling point for the film and it attracted several people and companies to work on the film itself. For example having Ken Loach on board was what attracted Why Not Productions to come on board as well because they knew that if Loach was on board it was probably going to be a success. For that reason Ken Loach's name is the one that's mentioned all over the poster and on every trailer because he is the unique selling point.
There's no famous cast in this film, so using his name is what is going to draw in perhaps his pre-sold audience, the fans of his other work. Getting funding from the BBC and the BFI meant that they had to fulfil certain obligations in order to get that money. So the BFI and the BBC are quite hot on funding things that are innately British. They don't really fund big mainstream films. They always go for things that are a bit more niche, a bit more alternative.
a bit more culturally significant, perhaps educational in some way, and that kind of show aspects of Britain to the world that might not otherwise get shown. So you can see that the funding and where they got the funding from actually might have had really big impact on I, Daniel Blake as a film because it does show regional areas of Britain. It shows very niche storylines, unusual characters, and it really is quite alternative in comparison to other more mainstream films. The low budget for the film meant that the production had to be very, very specific.
It was filmed mostly on real locations, so real streets, real job centres, real houses, not in like big sets, pieces or studios because they simply couldn't afford it. They didn't have huge casts of extras in the street, they just had like real people in the background of their shots. A lot of it was improvised by the actors.
The BBC was responsible for some of the funding. Now, the BBC is a public service broadcaster. They get their money from public licence fees. And part of their remit as a broadcaster is that they want their products to be informative and educational as well as entertaining.
They also want to show, you know, diversity and new talent. This is all part of the BBC's official remit, which you can read about online. And you can probably see the effect that had on production as well. So, you know, there is quite a diverse range of people within the film.
They are all unknown actors for the most part. So you're showing quite a lot of new talent in terms of actors. And that helps to add to the social realism feel.
And it is quite informative and educational. It's a very hard hitting film. It's quite emotional.
And it is, I suppose, there to educate audiences on the grim realities of the benefit system within Britain. and what it's like living in poverty and trying to claim benefits and going to food banks. So it's not just there for entertainment value like many other mainstream films. Because of the funding it got from the BBC, it is also there to be informative and educational too. Ken Loach is really quite well known for being quite left-wing, quite liberal and really loving exploring the problems in Britain caused by government policy.
He's staunchly a Labour supporter and very anti-conservative and you can see the impact that his ownership, his leadership of the film has had on the narrative and the content and in all the marketing materials as well as the film itself. You know, the film very clearly is anti-conservative. It is very much a kind of social commentary about the problems that have been caused by conservative austerity measures. So understanding some of that social, cultural, economic context is important. Some people argue that because Ken Loach was on board, that might make the film seem more mainstream because he is well known and he's won several awards.
Perhaps it makes the film feel more popular and open to a wider audience than if it had been an unknown social realism director. So perhaps it's his involvement that adds to the mainstream nature of the film. Other than that, the film feels very niche and alternative. You know, it's set in a regional area of Britain which narrows the audience down. It's hard to sell a film like that to a global audience.
Many other audiences are only really familiar with Britain in terms of London or sort of Surrey. And to try and sell a film about places like Newcastle and Sheffield is quite difficult, particularly because of the heavy regional accents in the film. In other audiences in other parts of the world, particularly in America, really find it difficult to understand those accents.
And so trying to distribute this film globally because of the regional nature of the film is quite challenging. It did slightly better in countries where it could be subtitled. So in countries like France and in certain South American countries, it was distributed reasonably successfully there. And that's probably because they didn't have the accents on. It was either subtitled or dubbed in those countries.
But in the countries where audiences were expected to watch it in its native language, like when they were watching it in America, that's probably why it was not distributed particularly successfully in America at all. In fact, it was only shown once in America at an awards ceremony. and the rest of the time it was mainly distributed within smaller countries. It's important to understand the marketing materials and techniques that were used for iDaniel Blake, why they were used and how they might engage the target audience.
So they did use quite a lot of traditional media, so things like printed newspapers, magazines, trailers and posters and they probably used these traditional forms because the target audience for iDaniel Blake was a little bit older, so maybe 45 and above. it meant that they might be more familiar with traditional forms of marketing and they might not necessarily use online media as much as younger audiences. This is perhaps why they also used things like the Daily Mirror, the E1 Productions who did the distribution. They put a article with inside or several articles inside the Daily Mirror as though it was I, Daniel Blake, writing, as though he was a real person.
And this was a really interesting kind of narrative enigma for the audience. It created mystery, engaged them, and it made it feel real. It added to that sense of the genre of social realism. But it also would have engaged those slightly older audiences who were still reading print newspapers.
But in particular, the left wing audiences, because don't forget, the Daily Mirror is a left wing paper, which you should know if you're studying A-level. And they are more likely to have people who are anti-conservative. So the ideologies of the...
newspaper fit the ideologies of the target audience and of the film. The posters and the trailers heavily feature Ken Loach's name as a way of engaging the target audience and they feature several of the key scenes as well as mentions of the fact that they've been nominated for and won several awards including the Palme d'Or award. For a little bit of context the Palme d'Or award is an award that is given at the Cannes Film Festival each year and the idea is that I guess this is a bit more alternative or niche to... to an Oscar or a BAFTA, they tend to award films that are a bit more niche, a bit different, a bit unusual, a bit more culturally significant.
So the award helps to connote the nicheness of the film and it helps to engage those audiences who want something cultural and highbrow from their film experiences. Because they had a reasonably low budget, when Eon Productions did the distribution and marketing for I, Daniel Blake, they used a range of methods that might have been reasonably inexpensive, but that would have had high impact. And a lot of these techniques were what we call guerrilla marketing.
That is guerrilla, not like the animal. That means that it's kind of wild, it's on the streets. you know the public are going to see it and sometimes it's a bit controversial or even illegal in some cases so E1 actually projected quotes and images from the film onto the sides of important buildings like the houses of parliament and these were this was a great way of advertising the film because not only did it get a lot of attention people were sharing it on social media it was going viral there were pictures in the newspapers the next day but you were specifically targeting British audiences You were hopefully targeting global audiences as well, because you might get a lot of tourists walking past these buildings.
Because they were being projected onto political buildings like the Houses of Parliament, you were also hopefully getting across your political message from the film and perhaps appealing to those left-wing audiences who want social change. Eon Productions also advertised for a regional marketing officer. In fact, they advertised for several of them based up north. in Britain.
And their jobs were to basically market the film in ways by contacting regional people, regional buildings, regional workplaces, places like schools, hospitals, council offices, police forces, and basically going in there and talking about the film, talking to real people working in public services. Their job was also to go to local cinema screenings of the film and maybe protest outside with placards about the Conservative government and austerity. Their job was to flyer places, to put up fly posters, which often is illegal in many places, to advertise the film too. So it was quite a low budget technique, but it was very, very good at targeting a regional British audience. And in particular, because it was based up north, good again at targeting people who were anti-conservative.
For that political context, you need to understand the north is more likely to be. Labour supporters and less likely to be Conservative supporters, all as a result of the 1980s and early 90s with Margaret Thatcher in charge. She made several policy changes which affected the north of England, perhaps more so than the south.
And as a result, statistically, demographically, the north of England is more likely to be left wing than right wing or even centralist. So targeting those northern big cities. It's a good way of meeting and finding audiences that might agree with the ideologies in your film.
It's worth considering Curran and Seaton for I, Daniel Blake as well. Does the fact that I, Daniel Blake is made by quite a diverse, independent company and range of companies, it's not owned by or produced by a massive conglomerate. Has that resulted in a more creative overall film?
It's definitely not particularly mainstream. And in comparison to a lot of other films, it is more creative and diverse and different. So perhaps this film does reflect that part of Curran and Seaton's theory. And it does suggest that perhaps this film is not all about profit and power. It has some educational value and it has some political messages, too.
But please don't forget, you know, it ultimately is a film that is, you know, is making money and profit for the companies involved. So there is a commercial nature to it as well. And it is partially about profit. A film's premiere can also be a really good marketing tool as well and actually the I, Daniel Blake film premiere was quite unusual. The premiere took place in Newcastle when most premieres for new films take part in London and the reason for this is perhaps again to signify that the north of England might be more engaged by the film than the south because typically the north tends to be living in more poverty than the south.
It might also be a good way of showing the left-wing ideologies of the film too. So having the premiere up north was an interesting idea. They also invited Jeremy Corbyn to the premiere and he attended and then later tweeted an article and wrote an article as well for the Daily Mirror about the film.
And this was a very clever marketing tool as well. Again, his audience is left wing Labour supporters. They are by their nature anti-conservative.
It's opening up to his pre-sold audience of fans as well. Because paparazzi will take photos of him, they will do articles about him, it's another way of extending the publicity for your film too. He will of course share his articles and ideas on social media about the film and then that will also increase the reach of I, Daniel Blake to a more wide audience as well.
In terms of technology for I, Daniel Blake, they used very little technology in terms of new technologies in the film. Obviously, they filmed and edited it, but there were no special effects, no big set pieces. You know, they're not using IMAX or 3D or anything.
And that's partly to do with the genre of the film and partly to do with the budget. But technology, they, you know, they didn't use a huge amount of online technologies, digital technologies in terms of marketing either. And that's... like I said earlier, probably because their target audience perhaps is a slightly older and therefore less likely to use digital media, more comfortable with printed media.
But they did use technology to offer the film as a digital download after its release at the cinema and you do have to be aware, you know, perhaps that is a way of engaging younger audiences, modern audiences. It does make the regulation of the film more difficult if it's available online. because it's harder to regulate in terms of the age of the people going to see the film or getting to see the film and it could result in the film being pirated as well.
So the use of new technologies like digital streaming, digital downloads, could have a negative impact on something like iDaniel Blake. It's worth being aware of other regulatory issues as well. The BBFC does the classifications of films and the regulation of the film industry in Britain.
They awarded iDaniel Blake a 15 certificate. primarily because some of the scenes they just felt were too emotional and too disturbing. And they also felt that younger audiences just wouldn't necessarily understand the narrative and wouldn't be able to appreciate some of the more tragic or emotional parts of the storyline. So it's worth being aware of those things. Some people might argue the film should have a lower certificate, that it might be educational for audiences, particularly younger audiences, to see, to give them some education about what it might be like to live in poverty in Britain.
and how other people might live. And it might give them something they can relate to if they've been in similar situations. You know, if you think about the film and what's actually in it, is there anything hugely graphic or offensive in the film?
There are some swear words in the film, but not a huge amount. And, you know, so potentially there are arguments that the film could have had a lower certificate in places. But obviously the company wants as low a certificate as possible, really, in order to try and guarantee as well. wide an audience as possible.
If the certificate was any higher, if it was an 18, it would have narrowed the audience down too much. And if it was any lower, people might have assumed that it wasn't going to be gritty enough. So there's kind of a fine line to tread really for companies between making sure they get a wide an audience as possible, but also seeming as though they are engaging. So as well as I, Daniel Blake, in the A-level exam in 2020, you might also get asked about straight out of Compton as a film topic.
I've got a separate video for that. If you are taking this exam after 2020, then I do have a separate video that is coming soon about Black Panther, which is the other film to replace Straight Up Compton on the spec.