Film 1
Film 1) the first camera shot in this opening is a pan; used to establish a location for the audience. The issue with this shot is that it wobbles; however, the error is not too a level of which could corrupt the atmosphere first established. Rather than using this pan the group could have used an establishing shot to help present their location quicker. The next shot, with the presumed antagonist sitting behind a candle is a low angled shot which empowers the villain. Yet, this idea of power is challenged further on in the piece as the antagonist is seen in a high angled shot making her seem venerable. In the high angled shot the camera lowers, yet the movement to this position is once again wobbly making it hard to maintain a good level of audience concentration. There are also several over the shoulder shots which is a good way for the audience to see what the antagonist is doing. There is a verity of long, mid and close up shots which shows the production company has a range of skills above the angled shots and the over the shoulder shots.
The backing music fits nicely with the horror genre and the group have incorporated some sound effects which helps heighten the feel of the piece. The scratch in-between shots seems amateur, I question if they really had to be their? The group may have used the Fooley effect with certain parts to help emphasise certain key moments such as the burning of the picture or the dragging of the body among leaves. The dialogue helped set up the narrative and plot of the piece. Yet, I feel for an opening it may have gave away to much information. Another issue with the dialogue was that you could hear dialectal environment sounds within the background, a solution to this could have been to record the sound separately in a quiet environment rather than on site of production.
Mise is a key factor to this piece and it feeds the audience tons of enigma coded messages which gives them something to unpick as the film journeys on; similar to films such as ‘The Sixth Sense’(1999) or ‘Shutter Island’(2010). The red candle gives an idea of the antagonist personality. The red connotes death, blood and murder and the way the crew have asked the actor to stare into the flame suggests the antagonist is insane. A significant prop is the collection of images of the male, this allows the audience to become aware of the stories plot and highlights that the antagonist is jealous of her loves new love. By burning the picture the candle and image props become one showing that the antagonist wishes to kill either her love of her loves new love. This leads up nicely to the blood covering her white shirt; this juxtaposition costume works well as the white connotes purity and the blood connotes death, allowing the audience to choose whether or not they feel for the antagonist’s broken heart.
The editing of the piece is were the opening falls apart. I already criticised the piece for giving away to much narrative for an opening but this coinciding with all the fade to blacks (a trailer convention) makes the clip feel as if it is a trailer. There is really only one question left to be asked after this opening and that is did the antagonist kill the male or female? Apart from this we know why she did it and who did it covering up the majority of the mystery and making the opening seem more like a short movie.
I think the ‘Peephole productions’ logo is brilliant and it fits very nicely with the horror genre. On a negative note the second production introduced ‘Valley Entertainment’ does not have a logo and is only on the screen for two seconds. A real institution would be offended if their advertisement and praise of accomplishment was a messily two second title. The names seemed to appear in a suited style for their film as did the title. The juxtaposition of red and white was also shown throughout the title sequence as names appeared in white and the title red. Once again making you question the only character we meet in the opening and allowing the audience to feel emotions for her with un intentional promotions from the production crew.
Film 2
Film 2) the majority of the opening is devised from long shots which are either stationary or panning, nearly all are following the white coated girl. These shots all block the girl in the centre of the frame and leave’s a large amount of open space around her connoting she is venerable to attack. This idea is further connoted by the over the shoulder shot of the presumed stalker and clever editing. All these shots are steady and mixed with the accessional close up and mid shots it shows a excellent diverse stretch of camera skill.
The sound effects fit the horror genre nicely and build up tension to create an atmosphere which ultimately established a mood for the rest of the film; this is partly achieved by following the horror convention of high pitch jingles as part of the non diegetic background music. I find the voice over at the start of the clip very interesting and question it to try and solve it riddles. Lines, such as ‘Please, please don’t.’ are repeated numerous time and seem to be a play back response which makes me believe that the victim is being recorded and then re listened too. This group has used the scratch sound effect wonderfully, appearing when the stalker is seen in the jump cuts. This helps add a creepy factor to this unidentified character.
The main factors of mise-en-scene are used to make the opening more dramatic; lighting, blocking and costumes. The exterior natural lighting throughout the piece slowly gets darker and this added with the jump cuts of the stalker makes the situation the audience are viewing more alarming. The victim being unaware of the stalker but the audience constantly seeing him is dramatic irony and the tension of this perk is greatly increased when the streets become darker and the stalker is no longer visible. The blocking of the piece is done well making the victim always centre of attention and placing her in the frame where she seems alone and venerable. By having the stalker always blocked behind her gives of the impression that the victim is unaware of her pursuer and the shot of him in the home so close to the victim is daunting. This is done by showing within each jump cut and sighting of the stalker the gap between predator and prey narrowing. The costumes of prey and predator are binary opposites and one connotes innocence as the other does evil, this works well and above this the colours add a scare factor as the dark stalker blends into the night well but the white prey stands out.
The jump cuts throughout the piece are done beautifully and by seeing the victim alone and being persuade by her stalker within these moments really heightens the sense that she is oblivious of being followed. Also the fast pace editing at the end connotes confusion which fits nicely with narrative which is left fractured and confused. The narrative remains open by having the victim speaking at the start; if the dialogue wasn’t there I would have presumed she died, making the opening a short movie. As it goes they did not and by having the jump cuts and change of natural lighting changing moments of time it makes the narrative fractured; this however makes the film a thriller (as fractured narratives is a thriller convention) and not a horror which defeats the group’s research of potential audience, ultimately making the institution waste time and money targeting the wrong audience.
I think the second and third institution logos are brilliant and look very professional. The first one of the two, ‘Fugitive productions’ fits the horror genre brilliantly and the second, though not suiting the genre looks very professional and believable. This is why it’s a shame that the ‘CVHS productions presents’ logo is boring and looks extremely amateur. Like the last student film I analysed I think the production logos should have remained on screen longer so not to offend any institutions. The names also felt rush and the title was a disappointment as it was only on screen for two seconds and seemed to have no though process behind it apart from the colour, which was red to connote death. Ultimately the camera, editing and sound was good for this production but it seemed more of a thriller rather than a horror. The titles did not fit the genre and the narrative confused it.
Film 3
Film 3) the group lacks a diverse range of camera shots. I could only count several mid and long shots all from different points of view which either shows the group has only basic understanding of camera angels or they were to laser to plot an opening which could hit top grade boundaries.
The non diegetic music for the opening was also disappointing. The music they used defeated all purposes of music chosen for horror genres. Rather than establishing a tense atmosphere it made the piece feel like a drama. The only piece of sound I could praise was the added effect of when the man enters the room. You hear smashed glass which reveals to the audience that something tragic has happened in that room.
Mise-en-scene for this piece isn’t much better than the camera or sound production. The red tie the male wears connoted danger and blood, possibly he is the killer? Or is he the next victim? These questions keep the audiences’ attention. The bat is also a useful prop suggesting the man is heading into danger and about to confront the threat. These are good however the lighting and location for this piece is not well planned out. It seems to me as if the group used a friend’s house which was available and filmed when was easiest rather than scouting for locations and planning a filming schedule which could be in the natural low key lighting of night time making the piece much scarier. I appreciate the equipment used may not have been ideal for night time filming (such as the low quality of cameras) however, under the street lights and with the front door open allowing the house light to brighten the street I see no issues with the idea. Regarding locations I would suggest using a creepier house which was more rural and open, this would make it easier to believe that the man was alone is checking the victims as no one else would be around to help him.
The editing which led the first three shots together was very quick. To quick to create an atmosphere needed for a horror but after this error the editing maintained a good level of continuity. The production logo for ‘CVHS MEDIA PRODUCTION’ was extremely amateur and showed no skill of editing. The ‘Bad apple’ productions logo also distracted the viewer from the genre making the distance between the desired horror genre and the opening greater. The name titles were not conventional for a horror film; seeming to happy and curved and the film title also showed hardly any skill or thought process apart from the colour which could connote blood or death. The narrative of the piece remains open which is critical for a good film opening.
No comments:
Post a Comment