Matthew Vaughn Interview

Click the image above to link yourself to an interview with Matthew Vaughn with FirstNet.

Why ‘Kick-Ass’ is Kicking Butt in DVD/Blu-ray Sales

Lionsgate announced yesterday that Kick Ass “proved dominant across all revenue channels this past week.” The film debuted in the number one position in DVD and Blu-ray sales – as well as the top movie download on iTunes since its release August 3rd.

The critical success of Kick-Ass hinted at the potential for excellent performance in home entertainment sales. While it wasn’t a huge surprise, for many of us, it offers a welcome sense of validation. Those of us who believed in the film’s potential for ‘cult’ success were rewarded with quantifiable proof this week.
Last April, there was much ado about nothing with regard to the film’s “failure at the box office.” In fact, the film was only a “failure” when measured against the inflated projections for opening weekend numbers – numbers that were based on perceived “audience awareness.” What these projections failed to consider was that the perceived awareness was isolated to a powerful, but segmented, fraction of the population at large – meaning an improper sampling. The blogosphere often becomes a self-cannibalizing entity and the response to Kick Ass illustrates that trend beautifully. 


There was (an understandable) fan boy and girl fervor in anticipation of the film. One which lead credence to the notion that Kick Ass would strike it big opening weekend – and by big I mean projections forecast a $35 million open weekend – for a film that cost $25 million to make.

There was also an enormous influx of trailers, videos, and other marketing materials prior to the release of the film – a tactic that could have backfired, positioning the audience to rail against a film – as a result of overexposure. When the film failed to perform as projected, the blogosphere (unsurprisingly) jumped at the opportunity to write a bunch of snarky articles outlining the film’s financial shortcomings. To put that in perspective – remember the film cost $25 million and went on to make $96 million worldwide.

Here is what those projections failed to account for:

1. As mentioned, the “audience awareness” sampling came from a community predisposed to be aware of, and interested in, a film like Kick Ass – as well as its source material. Without a recognizable name attached, or broader brand appeal, that awareness wasn’t representative of the general movie-going audience.
2. Much of the target audience for Kick Ass was not old enough to take themselves to an R (hard R) rated movie, and this film is not an easy sell to parents. “Oh yes mom, can I please go see this film that features an adorable mass murdering twelve year old who makes liberal use of the ‘C’ word? Yep, it’s the very one Roger Ebert called ‘morally reprehensible’!”
3. How hopelessly square Americans really can be (this feeds off of number two on the list). Now, don’t misunderstand, I like Roger Ebert. I don’t always agree with him, but I like him. However he asked in his review if his response to Kick Ass made him “hopelessly square.” My response is – yes, yes it does.
4. Misinterpretation or rejection of the film’s central characters and story lines. Again this is a follow-up to number three on the list. I will use Mr. Ebert as the singular representative to a broad stick in the mud reaction to the film.

Many felt that the film was morally bereft due to its depiction of an exquisitely violent little girl. Emphasis on little girl. I contend that Hit Girl’s gender played a powerful subconscious role in some people’s negative reactions to her. Further, people felt that the film lacked a broader social message. To that I would ask: What kind of message would you like? A lie? Would you like to be told that good triumphs over evil every time and all is really simple and neat in the end?

I would follow those questions up with another: Is a film under an obligation to deliver a standard ‘moral of the story’ which is easily digestible by all? An idea already broadly accepted that adds nothing new to our cultural discussion? Or can it not simply be tons of fun and wickedly entertaining? I did myself the favor of steering clear of all the videos released for Kick Ass prior to its open. As a result I was both delighted and surprised with Chloe Moretz. I found Hit Girl’s action sequencesalone enough to justify a trip to the movies.

However, I would argue that the film does in fact have a moral and societal message. A very simple message perhaps, but a clear one imbued in every moment of the movie. The message is this: You, even you, ordinary, non special “regular Joe” you who is just like ordinary, “regular Joe,” non special me can do something – so why don’t you? Why do you, do we instead just sit back and watch?
We see this in the character of Kick Ass himself. This perspective is clearly laid out in his “YouTube treatises,” but can also be seen in everything he tries, fails and succeeds at doing throughout the film. We see this theme play with Nick Cage as the  hilariously overzealous Big Daddy – crazy, but committed. We see this in Kick Ass’s love interest Katie who takes the more traditional social action route. We particularly see this in the character of the “bystander” who watches, but does nothing – and is eventually shot for it.

What Kick Ass does so beautifully is set itself up as a film that is going to be the “anti-comic book” movie, the one that breaks all the rules – and pokes fun at the accepted tropes of the genre. Then at a certain point (around the time of Big Daddy’s confrontation with his ex-partner) the film takes a turn and fulfills every aspect of a standard comic book tale. Kick Ass tells you it is making this turn by visually propelling us into the comic book world of Big Daddy’s creation. This is some fun and outstanding filmmaking.
Kick Ass felt like a film that was destined to be misunderstood in its initial release and then appreciated by a large cult audience as time progressed. The kids who could not get their parents to take them to the movie can now buy the DVD. Those who balk at $10 in the theater seem okay with $15 spent on the more permanent DVD or $25 for a Blu-ray.

“Word of mouth” has had a real chance to spread to the general population. Many “non-traditional” films have followed this same trajectory to cult film success. Some notable selections include;Blade Runner, Office Space, Fight Club, TV series would include Firefly, Freaks and Geeks andArrested Development.

Hit Girl The Red Band Trailer

On Set with Chloe Moretz

Kick Ass Did Succeed At The Box Office - And Heres Why

This article was written by Cole Abaius and first appeared on Film School Rejects in 2010.

Updated: Deadline is reporting that Kick-Ass actually won the week by a narrow margin of $19.8 million to $19.6 million for How to Train Your Dragon.

I’m sitting in a giant echo-chamber of a movie theater complete with it’s old-style, curved panoramic screen and chairs that were ordered with gusto by someone in the 1950s. In the Century Park 16, tucked away from the rest of the bustling world in Tucson, Arizona, it’s no surprise that my afternoon screening of Kick-Ass is almost completely empty except for a trio of teens who are skipping school, a middle-aged man who’s slouched down in the back, and a couple that sneak in fifteen minutes into the action.
There’s almost never a huge crowd there (which is part of why I love it), but the bad news for Matthew Vaughn and company is that the scene I witnessed was the norm, not an outlier.
So now everybody is asking the proverbial question about how a movie with that much hype performs with such lackluster at the box office. After all, it came out with geeks screaming its praises from Butt-Numb-a-Thon, from South by Southwest, and from Austin in general. How could all of those positive reviews not lead to success?
It’s fairly simple actually, but the first thing to remember is that Kick-Ass wasn’t a failure except at playing the expectations game. Let’s look at it in context:
Kick-Ass is an indie film made for $30 million that just made $37 million world-wide by its U.S. opening weekend.
Even with the average path a film takes through the theaters, the movie has already made its budget back, will make its advertising budget back by next weekend, and will ultimately be a financial success. It won’t be the smashing success that some predicted, but it will still be a success.
Of course, those raw numbers don’t take into consideration the split between Lionsgate, the theaters, and the film’s producers, so technically the production team has not regained its original investment. However, a film (especially one with this type of budget) making an equitable number back on its opening weekend is a good sign that it will be on schedule to be a positive investment.
People are shifting in their seats about sequel possibilities seeming out of reach now, which is a fine question to ask, but we’ll get to that after taking a look at why Kick-Ass didn’t explode out of the box.

‘R’ Does Not Stand For ‘Target Audience’
The  film world does a metric ton of editorializing about the ratings system. In particularly, we talk a lot about how those secretive, old white people hurt the artistic process and the business model by slapping an R-rating on a film for seemingly arbitrary reasons. However, in the case of Kick-Ass, I think everyone can agree that it earned its R. Unfortunately, that rating doesn’t do well when your target audience is 14-year old boys. Those boys have a tough time getting into the theater without buying a ticket to How to Train Your Dragon.
Am I saying that the numbers are inflated? Not exactly. I’ve always hated that argument because it’s so absolutely unprovable, but on the common sense level, I will make the bold claim that at least one whole ticket for the family fare ended up wandering into the wrong theater for some ultra-violence.
Still, the ultimate obstacle there is creating a movie aimed at the younger set and then barring them from seeing it. It’s a simple case of conflicting goals – which is fine – especially considering that the filmmakers clearly weren’t making a film to maximize profits. Unfortunately, that’s a reality they’ll come face to face with over the course of the next few weeks.

Conservative Groups Don’t Matter, Do They?
Usually there is a boost in sales when people threaten to protest. The do-gooders and morality policemen often have the opposite effect by increasing awareness and interest in a project, so many people are confused that Kick-Ass might have been hurt by the attention instead of helped.
The only reason I can come up with is pointing out that there were no protests.
For all the screaming about controversy on the internet, there were no major parental organizations that planned or executed protests – at least not on any sort of large scale to have an effect. All of the controversy talk about violence and children saying naughty words seemed to come directly from the filmmakers. And, you know, Roger Ebert.
In this case, conservative groups don’t matter because they weren’t ever really in the equation. Perhaps attempting to drum up controversy only alerted some who were planning on seeing it to the very type of film. Without some flustered parent making a jackass of himself on national news networks, the film didn’t have that organic boost that comes from people buying a ticket just to see what has the Christian League of Conservative Christians of America all knotted up.

Then What About How to Train Your Dragon?
It’s a nice tidy picture that a kid-friendly film launched back from the pack to beat the kid-friendly film with violence in it, but there’s no conspiracy here. Yes, How to Train Your Dragon moved from being 3rd back to 1st, but it also lost money. It also lost its #1 spot to a movie that got dragged through the mud upon opening (Clash of the Titans) and dropped all the way to 5th, and a comedy that is keeping a standard course in diminished ticket sales in its second week (Date Night). A simple look at the math from the previous weekend and this weekend shows that Dragon didn’t so much soar back into 1st as it limped past other films on a faster decline.
Still, Kick-Ass failed to overtake it. It’s not a grand, conservative conspiracy, but the film earned every bit of its 2nd place finish.

No Names
The movie didn’t feature any big name talent (except for Nicolas Cage who didn’t happen to searching for any lost treasure), and that can definitely be a factor in breaking a movie beyond its built-in audience and out into the mainstream. This is a likely culprit, along with other factors, as to why the film didn’t bust right out of the gate.
However, the reverse argument is also true in this case: a film with no known stars just made $20 million in one weekend.

Accidental Marketing
One other possible hypothesis is that Lionsgate just didn’t know how to market the film. There was a lot of red band material, but it was all shown to people already interested in going. Plus, most of the television spots all high-lighted the humor and camp which, some believe, led certain possible movie goers to think of it as a spoof along the lines of Superhero Movie (which opened with less than $10 million back in March of 2008).
Yet again, another completely unprovable hypothesis. Plus, it’s one that sounds moronic considering that, yes, there was humor in the trailers but, no, it was miles away from anything in the spoof world. Even the casual television watcher could have seen a noticeable lack of Leslie Nielsen in the Kick-Ass trailer.
Still, with that conspiracy theory unprovable, it still stands to reason that there was a failure in marketing here that was augmented by the challenge outlined earlier in selling a comic book movie to kids who won’t be allowed into the theaters without an adult.

Will There Be a Sequel?
I don’t know. I don’t know because I’m not Mark Millar or Matthew Vaughn. I’m sure that there are some conversations to have, but the important thing to remember here is that the film was actually a success at the box office. It wasn’t a huge success, it wasn’t the kind of success that people preached about, but based purely on the numbers, the film is in the money.
As an indie film picked up for distribution from Lionsgate, it is in a unique position. This isn’t likeSpider-Man where Sony had a target number and executives waiting to give the go-ahead based on ROI. This is a film that is in its own driver’s seat. That driver’s seat might be occupied by Lionsgate now, but all the talk about the film failing or not deserving a sequel is a bit absurd.
If there’s a fan base there, and if the production cost can be kept low, and if the artists want to see what else they can do with the material, and if Chloe Moretz thinks of something more offensive to say, then I don’t see why there wouldn’t be a sequel. And all of those seem well within the realm of the possible. Especially the part about Moretz. I hear she can curse like a sailor.
To every geek out there slapping his or her forehead, and for everyone currently wringing their hands about whether a sequel will be made, please take a deep breath. Count to ten. Take a ride on your jet pack. Kick-Ass was a success even if it doesn’t exactly feel that way.

Editor’s Note: This piece has been updated from its original format to clarify on the concept of making the budget back.

Meet the screenwriter of the Controversial film 'Kick Ass'

   

Jane Goldman's new film Kick-Ass is the story of a foul-mouthed 11-year-old girl assassin. The screenwriter wife of Jonathan Ross and mother of three admits to a 'geeky' enthusiasm for comic books and violent video games.

The screenwriter Jane Goldman freely admits that her new film Kick-Ass "is not, obviously, for everyone". Perhaps she is thinking of the scene in which Hit-Girl, an 11-year-old female assassin in a luminescent purple wig, enters a roomful of evil baddies and utters the immortal line: "OK you c**ts, let's see what you can do now." Or maybe she is referring to the bit where Hit-Girl, in a conversation with her father about what she wants for her birthday, pretends to ask for a puppy before admitting with a coquettish giggle that "I'm just fucking with you Daddy. I'll have a Benchmade model 42 butterfly knife." Or she could be recalling the moments where Hit-Girl shoots a man through his cheek or slices off a drug dealer's leg with a machete.

Whatever the reason, Goldman is aware that Kick-Ass could cause something of a stir. "I wouldn't take it personally if someone didn't enjoy the film," she says when we meet. "Certainly my 86-year-old friend of the family, I'd strongly recommend she doesn't go and see it."

She laughs, a tad uneasily. Goldman, 39, a talented writer who penned the widely-acclaimed 2007 film fantasy Stardust, is clearly nervous about how Kick-Ass will be received. "You've no idea how the audience is going to react, you just hold your breath," she says, anxiously pressing her hands together, her face partially obscured by a curtain of dyed carmine red hair. Later she will admit that she hates interviews. Partly, one imagines, this is because she happens to be married to the television presenter Jonathan Ross, he of the floppy hair and the inflated salary and the lewd answerphone messages, and she is wary of saying anything that could add to the public circus that surrounds him.

But in this case the nerves are misplaced. Kick-Ass is a brilliant and inventive piece of film-making and looks set to become one of the box-office hits of the year. It tells the story of Dave Lizewski, a nerdy high school student and comic book fan who decides to become a superhero despite the fact that he has no special powers. Dave (played by Aaron Johnson, who recently starred as the young John Lennon in Nowhere Boy) proves to be a fairly unsuccessful vigilante until fate brings him into contact with Hit-Girl, who has been trained by her father in the art of self-protection and who is the master of an astonishing array of weaponry, including butterfly knives and taser guns.
Directed by Matthew Vaughn, who also co-wrote the script and with whom Goldman worked before onStardust, Kick-Ass is based on the eponymous superhero adventure penned by the Scottish comic book writer Mark Millar. The film is shot through with Tarantino-esque action sequences but also manages to be extremely funny, despite the fact that the subject-matter – a pre-teen girl who swears like a sailor and shoots baddies dead with big guns – is somewhat problematic. Seven American film studios turned down the script before Vaughn released it through his own production company.
"We just really wanted Hit-Girl to be a character who, in a sense, simply happens to be an 11-year-old girl, in the same way that Ripley in Alien could have been a guy but the part happened to be played by Sigourney Weaver," explains Goldman. "She [Hit-Girl] is genuinely dangerous, she's genuinely mad. It's not her fault: she's been raised in this environment where she doesn't know anything different. She's unwittingly part of a folie a deux."
Does she think of Hit-Girl, who is played by the 13-year-old actress Chloe Moretz, as a sort of hardcore mini-feminist, a challenge to the usual assumption that most movie violence is carried out by adult men? "Yeah... she's a feminist hero by token of the fact that she pays no attention to gender stereotypes. I think she also doesn't want special treatment because she's a girl."
The film caused controversy in the United States because of a violent online trailer that could have been viewed by children (even though it was clearly marked as "red band", denoting adult content). In the UK, Kick-Ass will be released with a 15-certificate but there is an argument that because the film's protagonists are youngsters, it will prove more appealing to those in the same age group. "You could say the same of Fish Tank, which has swearing and extreme emotional portrayals of violence," counters Goldman. "Kick-Ass is a film for adults. It was never, ever aimed at children."
Will Goldman be allowing her own children – Betty Kitten, 18, Harvey Kirby, 16, or Honey Kinny, 13 – to see it? "The two oldest will see it. My youngest daughter… I have to think about it. I think it's a different deal if you've been on set and known the people involved and you know it's not real. Yeah, maybe.
"You very much see the consequences of violence in the film. I think that films that could be said to glamorise violence are ones where there isn't a physical or emotional consequence, where you have people fire off rounds and everyone is dying off cleanly and it doesn't matter, whereas here, people are bereaved, people are hospitalised, it's kind of unpleasant.
"I really don't think anyone having seen this film would come out of it feeling bloodthirsty… I don't think there's any reliable data proving any correlation between violence and films."
But was Goldman worried about the effects on Moretz, who, despite starring in the film, is too young to go and see it in the cinema? She thinks about this for a moment, hesitating as if to get her thoughts in order. "The fact that she's actually enacting the violence is in many ways probably less traumatic for a child actor than a lot of films where the children are victims of violence – serious films where they're the victims of violence at the hands of family members. I think actually, emotionally, that's a lot more disturbing for a child actor whereas this is comic book; it's light. I don't think it raises any difficult emotional issues for a child to process."
Still, the Daily Mail is in a predictable tizz about it all. A few days before we meet, the newspaper runs an article headlined "Jonathan Ross's wife causes outrage", as though she had been caught mugging Andrew Sachs on the street for his bus pass. Does she care about this kind of press coverage?
"People's intolerance, I find puzzling," she says, a vertical crinkle appearing between her eyes. "The fact that I was singled out, I found bizarre but it didn't upset me, I just thought it was peculiar. It's funny – it's very rare that a movie is described as a writer's movie. It was kind of ironic that it was only when people had decided there was something negative about it that it was the writer's movie… Maybe it's that it makes a good tag on to this ongoing narrative in the press involving other people in my family – it makes it part of that saga."
That is as close as Goldman gets to mentioning the Jonathan Ross-shaped elephant in the room, and it must be frustrating to be constantly pigeonholed as someone's wife when she has been quietly pursuing a successful career as a writer for the last 20 years. Goldman grew up in north London, the only child of liberal, wealthy parents. Like Hit-Girl, she was terrifyingly precocious – leaving school at 16 with eight O-Levels before being hired as a showbusiness reporter on a casual basis by the Daily Star.

A year later she met Ross at a nightclub while working for the paper, and the couple got married when she was 18. Goldman spent most of her 20s having babies but also found the time to write several books (including a novel, Dreamworld), front a television series investigating the paranormal, and cultivate a growing reputation as a screenwriter. As well as her work with Matthew Vaughn, she has just completed the script for a forthcoming film adaptation of Susan Hill's ghost story The Woman in Black. She seems to be intrigued by the supernatural and fantastical and admits to a "geeky" enthusiasm for comic books and computer games.

"I play World of Warcraft, which means I end up hanging out with teenage boys a lot," she says. "I really enjoy the company of my kids… I'm not one of those people who goes 'Yeah, my kids are my mates', that's a dreadful kind of mother, but I'm fortunate that there are times that they do want me around, and I feel lucky that they let me into their world."
There is a part of Goldman that seems to connect easily with childhood, perhaps because she missed out on so much of it herself. "Yeah, I never hung out in parks and got drunk… I never did the proper teenage stuff and maybe that's why it still holds a fascination for me but I like to think it's because I really like that unbiased outlook on life. Teenagers come to things fresh and can really teach us an awful lot.
"I've yet to meet a bitter teenager. Bitterness, jealousy and jadedness, I think, are the most unattractive qualities in a person, and unfortunately they do seem to come with age."
In person, Goldman seems to embody both this freshness and a sort of gentleness that is strangely at odds with her love of violent video games and her striking physical appearance. She has a beautiful face, fire-red engine hair (re-coloured every three to four weeks) and a figure that looks as though it has been drawn by a lascivious comic book artist. Is it a coincidence that she looks like the superheroes she has written about? "That's a huge compliment, thank you," she says. "I've always loved science fiction, fantasy, manga, comic books, so I guess to some degree those things influence my personal idea of what looks nice, which definitely isn't everyone else's."
She laughs, but it must take a certain degree of chutzpah to look so flagrantly individual. "In some way it's less courageous because it's essentially saying, 'I've opted out'; it's saying 'Please don't judge me against society's standards! I know I don't measure up, I've opted out, I'm playing a different game.'"
It is a game that she plays extremely well – but then, all that time practising on World of Warcraftmust surely help.

This article was written by Elizabeth Day and first appeared in The Observer on Sunday 21st March 2010.

Kick Ass - The International Trailer

Kick Ass Box Office Figures

Click the picture above to go to Mojo and view the films box office figures.

Kick Ass - The Comic Book

Kick-Ass is a creator-owned comic book series written by Mark Millar and illustrated by John Romita, Jr. It is published by Marvel Comics under the company's Icon imprint. It is the story of Dave Lizewski, a teenager who sets out to become a real life superhero. His actions are publicized on the Internet and inspire others. He gets caught up with ruthless vigilantes Hit-Girl and Big Daddy who are on a mission to take down the gangster John Genovese.

Working Titles Films

1. In 1983,the company 'Working Titles Films' was co-founded by producer Tim Bevan and Sarah Radcliffe.

2.The compnay was founded in 1983.

3.The company is based in Marylebone, London, but can branches can be found in Ireland and Los Angeles.

4. Tim Bevan and Eric Fellner no co-own the compnay.

5.The company hostan array of awards,but most namely 26 bafta awards, 6 oscars and 4 academy awards. Tim and Eric also won a Bafta for an outstanding contribution to the British film industry.

6. Working Title have 43 full time employees.

7. Their Philosophy has to always been to create and make films for an audience, and for European films to appeal to audiences worldwide.

8. The company have many a box office smash, including films such as Mr.Bean's Holiday, Bridget Jone's Diary, Hot fuzz, Shaun of the Dead, Love Actually and State of Play just to name a few.

9. But with success comes failure, films that Working Titles have made and become flops inlcude The Boat That Rocked, The Guru, The Shape Of Things, Thunderbirds and Fargo.

10. Richard Curtis is a british screenwriter, music producer, actor and film producer who has a history for wokring with Working titles on films such as Bridget jones and Bean.

11. The company have worked with directors sucgh as Kirk Jones (Nanny Mcphee) and Beeban Kidron (Bridget Jones: Edge Of Reason.

12. Hugh Grant has worked with and stared in several WT films, noteable the Bridget Jones films.

13. Joel David Coen and Ethan jesse Coen (The Coen Brothers) are two critically acclaimed American film makers. They write, film and produce their films together, working with Working Titles on films such as Fargo, The Big Lewbowski, O Brother and Where Art Thou?

14. Polygram, once the companies corporate backer, was merged with another company to form the Universal Music Group in 1999, then the company merged and was sold to Universal Studios in the same year, leading them to own 67% of Working Titles.

15. Shaun of the Dead - Budget $5,000,000.
Hot Fuzz - Budget Budget £8,000,000 (estimated).

16. Working Title seem to produce more british comedies than any other genre of film e.g Hot Fuzz, Johnny English, Mr.Bean, Shaun of the Dead and many more.

17. They also make a lot of RomCom films, for example the Bridget Jones series, Love Actually, and Four Weddings and a Funeral.

18. In 1999, Bevan and Fellner launched a subsidiary company named Working Title 2 Productions, commonly known as WT2. The company is an independent film production company run by Natascha Wharton, and has produced films that include Bill Elliot, Shaun of the Dead and The Calcium Kid

19. Recent Film and DVD releases, recent film news , a back catalogue of their TV and film releases.

20. Although their philosophy was to produce European films to appeal to a worldwide audience, they now produce American films too.

Representation- The Man

We were set the simple task this week in Media to construct a representation of the photo seen above. Going on what only I could see from the picture, I took into consideration his clothing firstly, and the fact he is smoking a cigarette partially covering his face with one hand and with his beanie hat pulled down low. I noticed very quickly the patches on his trousers and the plaid shirt he is wearing, something that I personally picture when thinking of the homeless, therefore I was very quick to jump to the conclusion that this man was homeless, and was covering his face in a way to hide himself as he may have been ashamed. Along with his scuffed shoes and the cigarette this backed my presumption that he was in fact homeless. However, I could not be more wrong. 

The man seen is Doug Bihlmaier, one of the very first stylists at Ralph Lauren, and a very important member of there team. When we discussed the photo in more detail with Mr.Ford, he pointed out several reasons as to why we where wrong. Firstly, the trousers; the turn ups are very neat, almost as if they had just been pressed or ironed, and the patches are too neat and precise, clearly deliberate and thought through. Secondly, the plaid shirt. Most importantly it is his size, it fits him, something that a homeless person may not have the luxury to obtain, well fitted clothing. Smoking may just be a habit, and we later learnt the shoes he is wearing cost around $320, so not in any way cheap. 

 This just goes to show how quickly people are to judge and jump to conclusions using various personal experiences and stereotypes when viewing certain forms of media, when they couldn't be any further from the truth.

Analysing Magasines Transition Work

Analysing Magasines Transition Work