Psycho

Psycho, perhaps Alfred Hitchcock's finest and most well known work, has been studied for a great deal of time during our lessons. The whole film was a brilliant thriller, and an excellent narrative to depict the inner workings of Norman Bates' fragmented mind. The film has received much praise among the industry, and Alfred Hitchcock's ascension to greatness was greatly influenced by Psycho. I have chosen to talk in depth about one of the particular scenes in Hitchcock's film, and to evaluate everything within it, from Mise-en-Scen conventions, sound both diegetic and non-diegetic, and camera angles from alternating perspectives.

The Setting: The motel, particularly the lobby.

The Plot: Marrian has escaped from town with $70,000 worth of cash. She spends the night in a motel, where she is offered dinner by the owner of the establishment, Norman Bates. Norman enters his house to make her some food, where he is reprimanded by his 'mother' for feeding strangers. Marrian waits just outside her room, awkwardly hearing the ensuing scene.

Diagetic sound is used from the very beginning of this scene, with the voice-over of Norman's mother clearly heard shouting from the window, though the track itself is obviously placed over the existing score. Marrian feels awkward as she stands in the doorway, darkness outside and light within her room, as if her last chance to enter the salvation of her abode is established. There is a long-shot of the house, and Marrian is stood stroking her arm and looking around, clearly uncomfortable with the scene. The darkness of the night creates a foreboding sense, emphasised by the shadow of the car on the wall, which Norman moves into when he returns to her with food. The old fashioned look theme of the house creates a sinister tone, and from this we can see Norman owns an old building that may harbour secrets best left untouched. Dead tree silhouettes are upon the wall, emphasising death within the narrative. Scary music plays on string violin as he leaves the house, approaching her as the music dramatises. Tension is built from this, showing that something unfortunate may be about to happen.

Low-key lighting is incorporated, and the dim lighting of the lamps in the rooms shows potential safety. The camera shows both the characters from the side, both in the shot, with quick shots between the two of them. The camera is mostly a point-of-view shot from Marrian's perspective, watching Norman and his reaction. The audience is positioned behind Marian, seeing things from her point of view. The camera pans to show them both from the side once more, Norma stood in the darkness before Marrian. Camera zooms out to show the room, as Marrian invites him in. Norman seems nervous and reluctant to enter.

Marian has experience with men, and controls this scene. She steals most of the camera time, and she is clearly in control, for now. The two characters observe one another, and Marrian laughs kindly at Norman's attempts to compliment her. They eventually decide that, through Norman's invitation, eating in the parlour is a better idea, and he leads her into his lair. A low-angle shot shows them both walking into the room, as Norman disappears into the darkness, Marrian still in the light. Norman soon takes control of the situation, receiving more camera time. Norman turns the parlour light on, and we see Marrian with her arms crossed to show nervousness. A stuffed owl is shown in the parlour as the camera performs a close-up shot. The owl is a bird of prey, representing things that Norman may do during this scene. Taxidermy, Norman's hobby, is a rare and bizarre hobby, reflective of his personality.

Marrian is clearly disturbed by the situation, but remains composed. A shot of a raven ready to strike is shown above, and the shadow hangs across much of the wall, acting a symbol of death. A low-angle shot of Norman is used, with him usurping dominance over the scene by filling and being above most of the camera. The shadow of the owl wings on the wall behind him spread out behind his head like horns of the devil, showing murderous and wicked intentions to his character. The shadows show his alter-ego and dark side, his eyes dark to reflect his past.

Marrian sits in front of him, eating quietly to herself. Norman is seen looking nervous, stating that she 'eats like a bird'. Surrounding Norman are pictures and candles. He is nervous and struggles with words, particularly 'falsety', which takes him several moments to distinguish. He sits in the dark whilst Marrian is in the light, the two contrasting forces showing their roles in the scene. There is a telephone on the table behind her, symbolising that she may need to call for help. Surrounding Norman are hard and straight objects, whilst dainty and round objects immerse Marrian. She has feminist items surrounding her, such as mirrors and pillows, incongruent to those around Norman. She seems to humour him, remaining secret around her past and pretending to take an interest in what he says, at this point asking all of the right questions. Norman sits back in his chair, caressing an object with his free hand, which under much speculation, could represent a phallic object and the implement to which he extends and emphasises his sexual desire for Marrian.

Norman potentially has an Oedipus Complex as his mind unravels, his Freudian stance adopted when talk turns to his mother. The camera pans between the both of them in a medium shot as they discuss their pasts. ''What are you running from?'', he asks, and he speaks of private traps and imagines himself being trapped in a prison. Marrian slowly falls out of main-charactisation, instead falling behind Norman in terms of speech and camera time. He expresses his superiority over her through this. The camera zooms in upon his face, the dark shadow behind showing that his mother is watching his movements and words against her. He shows a defiance to her and a need to break free, something that Marrian can relate to. He uses blunt mannerisms and words, 'cold and damp' and 'grave' when he speaks of her room if he were to leave her. There is a parenthesis after he says this, leading into a dark tone adopted in the narrative.

Marrian speaks of putting her in a home. He moves forwards in his chair, shocked, and Marrian backs away. The music resumes to show fear and foreboding. His view is a profile shot, his face the main caption of the camera. The mood changes, Norman challenging Marrian when she tells him to put his mother 'away someplace'. The birds are in the background, his allies in his fell swoop. He speaks as if he has been to a mental institution before, and he starts becoming hysterical, calling his mother as 'harmless' as the stuffed birds, references to later in the story where she herself is stuffed and preserved after he murders her. There appears to be an inner conflict occuring in Norman's mind, as if Marrian is no longer present in the room, as he argues with his mother's mentality. Eye contact is made severely at this point, showing that Marrian may follow the same fate as Norman's mother.

Thriller Opening - A Comparison of Duel and Speed

Duel
Director - Steven Spielberg
Year - 1972

The Opening:

Shown from the perspective of a car driving on the road. A radio voice over plays over the top of the car driving, the sound diegetic and coming from the cars interior. The radio station keeps switching between presenters and commentaries, speaking about various news of the day, including weather and a crime in the local area. The car continues driving as the image crossfades, credits showing as the car continues on the road. We see the camera from the cars perspective at several points, as if a hint of things to come; somebody may see the car from behind, and this is reflected in the driving of the car. Panning shots are also incorporated in order to show the car travelling a long distance.

Credits are shown rising across the screen between cross-fading shots, the font yellow and eye-catching, to show the cast and crew of the piece. Steven Spielberg is the last name to appear, the director being seen as the most important character of the piece. We see the man driving the car from behind, with no passenger present, to create a foreboding sense that something will come up behind and attack him. A long car journey ensues, with the camera dissolving into the film, the opening creating a dark and sinister tone.




Speed
Director - Jon de Bont
1994

The Opening:

Scary music showing the lowering of an elevator, with little else occuring, showing the descent of the elevator in the shaft. The music is exciting and fast paced, and the introduction up to the credits relies entirely on the quick successive music to drive the narrative, with the credits appearing upon the screen, moving in time with the movements of the lift. This same scene continues for a couple of minutes, the lift gaining speed and flashing lights shooting by, until the lift comes to a grinding halt, 'Speed' bursting across the scene with non-diagetic sound representing a boom, shooting the words across the screen.


Comparisons

Many comparisons can be drawn between the two films, and these are all mediated by the impact on the audience. It is interesting to note that, whilst Speed's opening is a far simpler design, the overall affect is more engaging for the viewer. Speed's primary focus is upon the music to drive the introduction, which is essentially just a panning down shot of an elevator shaft. Our teacher even muted the volume whilst we were watching it, and it was interesting to see how people's attention and focus was broken and how quickly it happened. Without sound, the atmospheric and quick-paced music to drive the opening, Speed has little to keep it going. Duel on the other hand relies upon complex narrative to drive the film, with no music as such, and instead a serious of radio stations being broadcast throughout the car. In terms of openings, Duel is a far more complex affair, featuring not only a variety of shots and camera angles, but also different locations and different media conventions. Whether it's placing the camera upon a car bonnet to film what's ahead, or having a non-existant passenger in the back watching the driver of the car, Duel relies on engaging the viewer in a far different manner. It's fitting that the more modern film caters to a more modern audience; those that like in-your-face action and quick, booming music to set the scene. To a modern audience, Duel does not hold up quite as well as it would have during the making of, as it focuses on a much slower build, gradually creating the atmosphere, rather than throwing us in at the deep end. From the initial offset, Speed is clearly a fast, action-packed thrill ride. Duel on the other hand loses out on this classification, but works well with a wittier and more thought out script, especially for the opening. Both engage the viewer, but as a modern audience myself, I must say that Speed had the most immediate appeal to me. However, I appreciate and respect that Duel is an elaborate and twisting story that requires a lengthy viewing, and maybe several after, to truly take it all in. Speed lacks this, but focuses on a sharper, more energetic edge.

Other comparisons may also be drawn; Speed focuses on low-key lighting and quick images. Duel on the other hand has bright sequences that show the audience what is happening clearly and with ease. It is easy at first glance to tell that Speed is going to be a thriller, yet stumbling into the opening of Duel, it could just as well be a documentary. The genre is not as obvious until later on in the film during Duel, the opening sequence designed to set the scene, as opposed to Speed's quick depth of charge to entice the viewer. All in all, both films are good representatives of the genre, though Speed is the most accessible to a modern audience, who have grown up with computers, mobile phones and fast living.

Final Destination

Year - 2000
Director - James Wong
Genre - Supernatural Thriller

Final Destination is a brilliant concept for a film, and one that I personally find to be a very good example of the Thriller genre. It's a Supernatural Thriller, based in real life with a fictitous undertone, centering around a group of students at University, who are being watched by 'Death'. When they escape a burning plane, when Alex (Devon Sawa) has a premonition of its' malfunction, they watch in fear as his vision comes true, the plane exploding before their very eyes. As they were supposedely 'meant' to have died upon the plane, they are persued by death throughout the film, one by one dying in the order that they would have on the plane. What entails is fate intervening with the characters, and some gruesome deaths occuring as they slowly get killed off.

The film itself is well made, in that attachments to the characters are made, so that their deaths have meaning; these are not just mindless drones being killed, but real people that the viewer can sympathise with. The low-key lighting and falsetto arrangements that occur just before the characters deaths, with particular implements focused on by the camera creates a thrilling since of disturbia. For example, at one point, we hear a whisper of wind, and a metallic piece of shrapnel is shown blowing upon a train track. We know that this metal IS going to kill one of the students, but we don't know how, which is part of the mystery behind Final Destination; often the deaths themselves are predictable, but the way in which they occur breaks the obvious mould. When the train eventually passes over the track, the group all look safe, standing by the roadside and talking. Then all of a sudden, deaths plan comes into action, the metal is flung up as the underside of the train strikes it, and it hereby decapitates one of the characters. The deaths are theatrisiced aptly, and seem genuinely chilling. The film itself is a good example of a modern and unique take on death and the Thriller genre. As much of the film incorporates low-key lighting, we often have a distorted look at what's going on. There are things easily missed this way and further watchings can reveal far more to the film than an initial viewing.

One of the best set pieces is how death seems to not only kill the characters, but torture them sadistically as well. At one point, the teacher of the students, who was also on the trip with them when the plane exploded and has thus been marked for death, is drinking coffee from a mug. We see the mug crack, and water starts dripping out. She places the mug upon her computer monitor, and the water leaks into the electrics. The screen explodes, and glass flies into her neck. This could have easily killed her, but instead we watch her bleeding and clutching her neck, gasping for air. The mise-en-scene here shows continuous ways for her to help herself, with rugs and mats that could have soaked up the blood, yet in her panic we watch death arduously and tauntingly abusing her, making her run for help in a nearby room. Her house catches fire as she rushes into the kitchen, slipping over on some of the spilt water from the mug earlier. The way that everything plans out to fit together has integral continuity to the storyline, and on this level Final Destination succeeds, with it's macabre density and gritty realism. She finally reaches up for the towel on the kitchen counter, which slips down far enough to just be in her reach, her throat still bleeding and impaled with glass. However, a knife rack is resting on top of the towel, and as she pulls the towel over the edge of the counter, the knives fall, stabbing her in numerous places. Final Destination is clearly aimed at an audience that can tolerate cringe-worthy moments, and is certificated 15 in the United Kingdom, with good reason. The violence isn't inherantly brutal, but it is deceitfully wicked.

Another reason that made me pick Final Destination as my featured Thriller, is the characters names. It sounds bizarre, but the many of the surnames of the characters are designed to be tributes to existing film directors, particularly for the Film Noir and Thriller Genres. The characters in the film are as follows, paired with their historic counterparts:

Billy Hitchcock: Named after Alfred Hitchcock (Psycho, The Birds)

Ms. Valerie Lewton: Named after Val Lewton in first and surname (I walked with a Zombie, Cat People)

Tod Waggner: Named after George Waggner, an American Film Director, Actor and Producer (Phantom of the Opera, The Wolf Man)

The idea was to provide a homage to inspirational directors who influenced the filming of Final Destination. We can clearly see the Psycho tendencies running through the production, and there is a definitive Film Noir edge, particularly in the low-key lighting and characterisations employed. We see the excelled bombast of classics of George Waggner, and the theatrical labeling of the film provides us with a production in Final Destination that combines much of the appeal of past films made by the respective directors listed above. In this way, Final Destination not only captivates the imagination with it's prolific darkness and psuedo-realism, but also expresses the Thriller genre delightfully.

Media Conventions - Vladimir Propp

Vladimir Propp had a view on narrative structure that was different to almost any conceived at the time. In short, he saw all prose, novelistic or otherwise, to have the same basic outline of structure, which he represented in eight different key archtypes. He analyzed over one hundred texts to try and highlight his studies, and he was rewarded with the basic principles in which he established. He found that all narrative contained:


1. The Villain — Designed to struggle against the hero, and to fall in the final, usually climactic duel.
2. The Donor — Offers preparation to the hero, and often gives them advice or information, or a magical implement used to help them. In all cases, The Doner gives the hero an item to help in their quest.
3.The Helper — Usually a secondary character who accompanies the hero, The Helper aids in the quest directly.
4.The Princess - Often the prize awaiting the hero at the end of the narrative, mostly through promise of marriage. Usually lacks refinement in character, and designed to be the object of the heroes desire.
5. The Father — Often gives the task to the hero, to rescure his daughter, for example, usually with the promise of something in return, for example marriage to said daughter, or land or wealth.
6. The Dispatcher — The character who sends the hero off on his quest. Usually the initial giver of information, and can be linked to The Father.
7. The Victim — An often used character type who carries the weight of the narrative and recieves the most sympathy, The Victim is usually killed by the lead Villain, before being defeated by the Hero.
8. The Traitor - Often the false hero, and can usually be found trying to steal the glory of the hero, for example taking the Princess as his own, or betraying the Hero in a way that directly affects the storyline.

Criticism to Vladimir's work does exist, with some stating that his simple take is reductionistic, putting things in their simplest form without taking into consideration the subtle consistencies of the narrative. However, Propp's idealogy does hold a sturdy basis in most situations in the theme, and narrative structure does often follow his outline.

The Ambient Soundscape

Yay! Finally got music on here. HTML is confusing...but ah! This should hopefully jazz the Blog up a bit, and I should be adding a few more tunes over the coming weeks to make my blog that little bit more engaging. This first one up is my favourite instrumental: Hells Kitchen, by Dream Theater.

If you'd like to turn the music off at any point, just simply press the 'stop' button on the music panel.

Our Final Production - Planning

The Initial Idea:

The Usual Suspects

Director - Bryan Singer
Genre - Neo-Noir
Year - 1995

The Usual Suspects is a neo-noir based film, reviving the film noir of the early 20th century with an engaging storyline, a cast of characters that immediately appeal to their given audience, and a creative flair that leads the viewer into a puzzle that they must solve. The story follows that of five professional criminals, getting back together for one more job, though things take a turn for the worse, and they slowly start getting killed off by the mysterious 'Keyser Söze', a terrifying enigma whose identity remains unknown until the finishing segment of the film. The introduction to the film places the most emphasis on the film noir genre, by playing the rest of the film out as a flashback, a similar tactic deployed in both 'Double Indemnity' and 'I walked with a Zombie'. The opening is present day, with much of the film working as a monologue from one of the five criminals (and the only one to survive; Verbal), and he occasionally delves back into the current situation, where he is being interogated by the police. When he explaining what happened to his companions, the film works as a past experience, though the narrator may be unreliable in his commentary, leading the audience to not necessarily believe everything that Verbal has to say, and making us make our own assumptions over the identity of the mysterious murderer.

The opening to the film is different to many modern day films, in that it has a slow beginning designed to haunt the viewer with chilling, soaring soundscapes of violins an string instruments, the faint sound of piano notes echoing through to create an atmospheric feel. The camera during the opening spans across a mass of water, potentially a river or the sea, with lights from large skyscrapers ahead reflecting onto it during the night. We see the water moving delicately as the lights ripple upon it, the moon clearly visable through the panning shot. For most of the opening, we see the actors names, with the director (Bryan Singer) being shown last, to show his control over the piece, as if all others are under him in terms of the film. The credits appear on the screen and fade out as the camera spans, the names of those involved appearing just above the water.

Eventually, after this initial opening sequence, we see flames, with crates stacked around, and a fire clearly burning around them. The sequence is at a dockyard at this point, the ominous violins' creating tension as we see the lead character of the piece, Keaton, sitting hunched up against the box, wounded and finding it hard to breath. He has a trail of gunpowder leading to his body, and the camera pans up to reveal his face, entering a profile shot, slightly off centre. We hear diegetic sound as the footsteps of Keyser Söze appearing over the top of the quiet, melodic track, as the mysterious figure's boots are all that we see of his figure. Keaton is shown laughing, and then he speaks, the gravelly, dark voice of Keyser Söze answering him. Keaton is shown with sweat upon his forehead as the flames grow around him. The two of them engage in conversation for a little longer, and then Keyser Söze produces a gun and shoots Keaton. He then walks away, lighting a match and dropping it on the gunpowder, to eliminate any trace of evidence. An explosion is then seen as the entire shipyard goes up, and then the film begins with Verbal's monologue.

The scene at the dockyard is a scene used far later in the film, but one that immediately raises questions. We want to know who Keyser Söze is, why Keaton was injured, and what the two of them were doing at the harbour. The questions are answered across the course of the film, and this opening sequence acts as a way to draw the viewer in, and offering an insight into what the film will entail.