Body of Lies Case Study

I

This case study is on Body of Lies. It was directed by Ridley Scott and the production company was Warner Bros. Pictures. It was filmed in the USA and was first released in the USA on the 12th October 2008. The film had an estimated budget of $70,000,000 and made $12,884,416 on the opening weekend and grossed $39,380,442 (USA) (11 January 2009).

 II

Judging from the opening of the film I think the intended audience for this film is males and anyone who likes films about warfare and government conspiracy. The reasons I think this Is because of what looks like law enforcing agents moving in on what looks like a terrorist’s bomb making house with a shaded Muslim guy who looks like he’s preaching to people with a gun in the background at the start of the film. The film has been given a 7.1/10 (55,881 votes) there is a little controversy when looking at different reviews from people on how good the film is. Somebody who voted the film to be 10/10 had this to say.

“Kingdom of Heaven: 1000 years on...,
9 October 2008
Author: owlglass from Dunedin, New Zealand
Films involving 'current events'--particularly those relating to anything happening in the Middle East and Terrorism--tend to be soaked in the writers', producers' and director's politics, which usually end up very much in-your-face and spoil the film, because you suddenly lose the story and drown in the preaching and proselytizing.

Ridley Scott, who has already addressed the West-East/Christianity-Islam issue in a previous film, 'Kingdom of Heaven', this time bit the bullet (instead of the sword) and continued KoH's story about 1000 years later. 'Body of Lies' is very much a Ridley Scott movie and this translates into the film's politics as well. Thing is, you can't leave politics out of a political movie; and so what do you do? Well, here's a newsflash for the poli-preachers on all sides: it's possible to have it all, and just watch Ridley Scott do it. Just like KoH, it's all about even-handedness and realizing that (1) every side in a conflict has a point of view, which, to itself, is perfectly valid; and (2) every side has people you'd probably like and some you really wouldn't, (3) the way to peace lies with understanding (1) and (2); and not with having just one point of view, no matter how righteous it may appear. Both, Islamophobes and Islamophiles--or those on the extremes of any aspect of the political spectrum--will probably find ample elements to dislike about this film. Others of a more moderate and even-handed disposition will find much to like and appreciate.

All of this, rather profound, stuff is wrapped up in a gritty Ridley Scott production and direction, that keeps your full attention for its full 2+ hours. Leonardo DiCaprio has really grown up and cast off his annoying persona, which was so prominent in just about all his movies; until 'Blood Diamond' came along. Russell Crowe is basically a secondary character, eclipsed almost completely by DiCaprio and Mark Strong. The latter has come a long way since I first saw him in the BBC production of Jane Austen's 'Emma'. The gentle and understated romance element provided by Golshifteh Farahani as 'Aisha' provided a nice contrast to the testosterone-soaked male world in which this drama plays out.

The movie confirms what I've known for a long time: Ridley Scott apparently can do no wrong.”

But somebody who voted it 2/10 had this to say:

 “Is the movie over yet?,
19 October 2008
Author: PWNYCNY from United States
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Maybe being a government bureaucrat is not the most glamorous way of making a living but it's still a way to make a living. However, after watching this movie, one may come away believing that every government bureaucrat is a lazy, bloated, conceited, paper pusher who lives exclusively to partake of his next lunch break. Not exactly a pretty picture, but this is the picture that the audience has to endure when watching what is nothing more than another tedious, noisy, overacted action movie. Just what the doctor ordered ... right? How many more of these movies has Hollywood made? One thousand? Two thousand? The formula for making these movies is so beaten into the dust that by now it should be completely unrecognizable. The locales change but the plots remain the same, and with the same shallow character development and the equally shallow acting as trained performers are asked to devolve into pseudo-cartoon characters and act accordingly. This movie seemed to run-on interminably. "When will this movie end?" I repeatedly thought to myself. Leonardo DiCaprio was totally unbelievable as a CIA operative, but what has to be one of the great gaffs of miscasting, an overweight Russell Crowe plays a CIA bureaucrat. Please note that in this movie the on site operative is "lean and mean" while his desk jockey supervisor is fat. This is called stereotyping. What was the casting director thinking? Why not have Jack Nicholson play an overweight office clerk? Or Nicole Kidman play a frumpy department store saleswoman? And the story was so fantastic that no amount of literary license could afford it credibility. An obviously non-Arab American (Mr. DiCaprio) trying to pass himself off as an Arab ... speaking fluent Arabic ... concocting all kinds of hair brain schemes that are doomed to failure ... trying to out think and outfox real Arabs who are completely unfooled by his laughable Arab masquerade ... trying to romance a Palestinian woman while in the middle of conducting a highly sensitive and complex espionage mission ... etc. By now you get the point. Next time try casting an actual Arab in the role. Not even the most naive movie goer can believe all that. There should be a rough balance between the protagonist and antagonist. In this movie the protagonist is so transparent and incompetent that it leaves the story in shambles. Next stop for this movie - DVD land and oblivion. And one other thing. Don;t let this movie discourage you from working for the government. The pay may not be great, but the fringe benefits are excellent, a critical fact that this movie conveniently omits.” 

III

As this film was only released in 2008 modern technologies where taken advantage of in increasing audience knowledge and access to the film. Body of Lies has an official site which has a trailer for the film, a link to buy the film on DVD or Blueray, a link to the main site for Body of Lies. On the main site you can view the synopsis of the film, actor profiles of who stared in the film, filmmakers profiles, a gallery of shots from the film and downloadable backgrounds for your computer. Audience knowledge and accessibility to the film have also been increased by the use of youtube. Many videos have been uploaded with user reviews, interviews and soundtracks for the film.

IV

I have decided to analyse the first three minutes of this film as we are only making openings for a thriller film. The audience can read straight away the location, of which it is Manchester. People may associate Manchester as a bit dodgy with higher crime rates than other place due to stories reported in the media and how other people perceive it. We then see a man whom we straight away assume to be Middle Easter from the way he is dressed, the language he is speaking and the use of Middle Eastern music in the background. The use of a foreign language makes the audience feel like they have stumbled on what they shouldn’t be hearing. From the subtitles of what the man is saying we can see that he’s not just preaching about a religion but about terrorist attacks they are undertaking, this leads to the idea of war which can be backed up by the iconography of having the gun in the background. The speech of the man then quietens as we stop seeing the Middle Eastern man and now sounds like his voice is coming from a radio. We then see around the flat where there is a man asleep with a book open on his chest this may show that he is religious and was listening to the other man preaching, this may lead the audience to think this is a religious war. In the next shot we se another man working at a table with what looks like chemicals. This man is wearing glasses, which usually symbolise intelligence. This symbolisation may mean this man has studied into what he is doing quite extensively. As all this is happening we are constantly shown a swat team progressively getting closer to the flat. As the swat team is dressing in black and the people inside the flat are dressed in lighter colours you could say the white hate/black hat effect has been used. The swat team is in black, which usually represents the badies and lighter colours usually represent the good guys, from this we may think the people inside the flat are fighting for a good cause.

Swat team with milk float annotated 

V

When it comes to representation in the first 3 minutes of the film it is apparent that a stereotype of Middle Eastern people have been used in relation to bombings. This creates a very serious effect on the audience leaving them to take this situation seriously due to previous events with suicide bombings. However this is counteracted by the use of the swat team looking very organised and on top of the situation leaving the audience feeling that the swat team are very professional in what they do.