I, Daniel Blake Analysis

Ken Loach

• English independent film maker
• Films are quite critical of social and political contexts, with issues raised in his films such as poverty, homelessness and Labour rights.
• His films are always set in the Uk as it fits in with the social themes of the films 
• He's won many awards throughout his film career, including the Special Jury Prize at the 1990's Cannes Film Festival and the Felix award for the best European film in 1992  

Who are the stars of I, Daniel Blake?
Usually indie films don't have any main stars to show in their film, and this film is the same. The stars of the film don't have any previous experience in film acting and aren't well known. The main male character of the film (Dave John) is an English comedian, writer and actor, however he isn't well known in the acting community so that's why he was used in this indie film. The main female character (Hayley Squires) is an English playwright and actor. 

Is the film high budget or low budget? How can you tell?

The film is low budget because it doesn't have any huge investors, for example unlike a film in the marvel franchise it doesn't have a bid filming budget. However, the film was funded by the BFI (British Film Institute) and the BBC (British Broadcasting Company) which could suggest that the budgeting could be quite high, however the BBC have a habit of investing into these types of movies.  

Which companies produced and budgeted the film?

The two main companies that funded the film were the BBC and the BFI, as they usually invest in these types of movie genres. 

• BBC ( British Broadcasting Company ):

The BBC is the leading broadcasting company in the Uk and the highest earning public radio television company in Europe. In 2019, the company made £4.89 billion, and 3.69 billion came from TV licensing. 

• BFI ( British Film Institute ):

The BFI is is a film and charitable organisation which promotes the Uk independent film making and television. The BFI uses the lottery fund to encourage more independent film makers to produce more films and educate others on the art of film making. They are also sponsored by the the department for digital, culture, media and sport. 

Why would they be interested in funding a film such as I, Daniel Blake?

The BBC and the BFI would want to support this film because it helps to grow out the Uk independent film scene and helps to get a serious message to the audience watching as some people would be able to relate to the situation the characters are put into.  Furthermore, the BFI would want to fund this film as they encourage independent film makers to make more content to grow the British independent film scene. 

Film Marketing:

Genre: 

I, Daniel Blake falls under the genre of a Drama 

Themes:

The themes in the film focus on real life issues in the Uk, some of which can be applied to other situations in other countries.  The main theme throughout the play is struggles that Daniel and Katie have to face on a daily basis. The themes of this film includes betrayal, as they are both let down by the system and are forced to go into other areas of work (for example Katie working at a brothel) to support themselves and the others around them.    

Ideologies and Social Messages:

The film explores the ideas of poverty, the welfare system and the Work Capability Assessment, whilst also representing underrepresented character's in the Newcastle area it's based in. The social message is quite clear during the film, as it's explaining the some people are treated with respect because of the lifestyle they are forced to live due to circumstances out of their control. This film and the ideologies shown in it are also similar to Ken Loach's other films.

Setting:

The film is obviously set in the Uk, we know this due to the things we see throughout the film and the stereotypical representations of the country. The film is specifically set in Newcastle.

Representations:

The main characters ( Daniel and Katie ) are represented as individuals that are poorly treated by the system in Newcastle, even f they have valid reasons to receive benefits. Daniel is represented as the main 'hero' characters as he is the one who is fighting for justice for him and the others who are in the same situation, whereas Katie is represented as the people that Daniel is trying to help save. Katie as a character is also represented as vulnerable as she has no where to turn when she receives no money to use on her children, so she turns to prostitution to feed her children. This also makes us feel sympathy towards her as a character maybe more than we do to David, at it seems the struggle of being a single mother betrayed by the system have caught up to her, especially when turning to prostitution after being caught shoplifting. 

Target Audience:
The movie is obviously viewed as relatable because it relates to some similar situation that people living in England watching it might be situated in, as it's a film about the system failing people in the Uk, which is similar to real life circumstances in the country. This also suggest the target audience would be individuals above the age of 20 years old, as it wouldn't be aimed at a younger audience due to hard hitting subjects that younger audiences may not be easily able to comprehend. In terms of gender, it doesn't really have a specific gender it targets towards because the situation can happen to anyone. Political standpoints would affect the target audience, depending on whether the audience watching is left wing or right wing. For example, The Sun newspaper (right wing) was very critical because it was criticizing the government's policies, as the current government is conservative, whereas The Guardian (left wing) had a very positive response as it has very similar views to what the film is trying to portray.

Reception:

Newspaper Reviews (The Sun and The Guardian):

For starters the headlines of the two different stories portray the political standpoint that the two papers have. The Sun newspaper's title includes 'only Lefties could go misty-eyed' suggesting that the film was obviously not made to please people who supported the current government and their policies, and that the Sun newspaper obviously didn't support the film, the Guardian obviously supporting this film as it brought up big government issues. Furthermore throughout The Sun's article constantly talks about how depressing the film as a whole is, whilst criticizing the way that different social ideas are presented, and it's pretty obvious why this as the Sun support the conservatives and right wing parties. The Guardian newspaper and The Sun also have a very different explanation of the film, and even though the premise of the description is the same they both are explained differently. In The Guardian, the newspaper explains the film in a quite sympathetic and nice way, so that people can get a true feeling of the film from the explanation given. On the other hand, The Sun explains a quite blunt summary of the film, making it very obvious that the newspaper isn't focused on the film in general, but the negative message that it gives out about their political views. Overall The Suns analysis of the film is overwhelmingly negative whereas the analysis from the Guardian is positive. 

What type of audience could have oppositional reading of the film?

Any audience that reads the Sun newspaper and believes in their views would have an oppositional reading towards this because the film is very critical of the government and system they support. Unlike the Guardian, who side with the views mentioned in the film, the Sun were very critical as they believe the system works fine just the way it is, and any criticism against it they will immediately disagree with it. The Guardian loved the film as it agrees with the political issues brought up in the film as The Guardian report on problems with those exact issues on a daily/weekly basis. 

How important would large profits be to the makers of the film and why? 

Large profits could be seen as quite important to the makers of the film as they need to be able to many he money the put in back. Unlike films that have big outside sources funding their projects, people who produce independent films usually invest their own hard earned money into it along with small investments, so they need to be able to make that money back in order for the film to be worthwhile for the producer. Not making this money back could cause issues with paying loans that were taken out and could potentially stop them from making more films after, as they don't have the right funding.