In this blog post, I will be crafting a detailed analysis about how each of the key parts of crafting an edited video (mise en scene, camera angles/shots/movements, editing and sound) all highlight the representation of age within the extract - a factor which can be simply overlooked yet possibly one of the biggest factors within the video itself.
Camera shots, angles and movements:
The camera shots that are taken within this extract are mainly close-up shots or full-body shots which are used to show the contrast between characters i.e. when the godfather is sending the 16-year-old goddaughter away because of her not taking a single examination (2:47-2:53), the over-the-shoulder camera angles that are taken over the girl's shoulder is used to display the significance of the father as he is the older character and that the goddaughter is seen as a 'little girl' despite the fact we gain a few hints at her seeking to be more mature i.e. her clothing and the sense of attitude we see from her throughout the extract.
At 1:49, a MCU (medium close-up) camera shot is taken of the teenage female and her relative and manages to contrast both characters within a single camera shot as the relative seems much more taller and her clothing displays how she is older in comparison to the teenager whose shoulders are barely seen in the camera shot, emphasizing how she may have been displayed with maturity when attempting to drive the vehicle yet that camera shot seems to faithfully tell us that she is the youngest with subtlety.
Camera movements which are used within the extract are movements such as "dollying" (or tracking shots) such as from 3:44 to 3:57 since the camera moves along with the subject before using tilt shots by tilting upwards, to display her youthfulness as it tilts from the shot taken of her denim jeans right up to her casual jacket, and then from left to right as it highlights the emotion on the daughter's face before zooming into a picture on her mirror of her and her family; obviously kept as a memento.
From 4:01 to 4:15, the camera shot which is taken of the godmother displays the contrast between her and her daughter from 2:56 to 2:58 as the goddaughter's movement when she is running seems to be quick and display her youthfulness, once again, as it is more likely that a young female would run in a similar movement whereas her mother runs quite slowly to check where her daughter is and when she is running to tell the father that Amy's ran away.
A close-up camera shot is taken of, both, the godmother and godfather at the final seconds of the video to contrast their goddaughter's facial appearance to theirs as they look much more elderly in comparison (i.e. the mother's clothing or the father's wrinkles).
Editing:
The editing of the video is displayed through several camera shots and angles which are used to retain the seamless flow i.e. from 0:29 to 0:31 when the father throws the vehicle keys to Amy, the camera shot switches to Amy as she catches the keys which shows solid editing as there is no continuity error here and it also links to the representation of age as Amy's reflexes here when she catches the keys are similar to a young woman's reflexes whereas when the godfather throws the keys, his movement here was slower so the editing here is used to contrast both characters here.
Sound:
Sound certainly links to the representation of age within this video as each character has their own distinctive voice which expresses their age in particular i.e. from 2:25 to 2:56 as Paul's voice seems deep, thick and elderly whereas the goddaughter's voice sounds whiny, similarly to how an average teenage female's voice would possibly sound as she even shouts, "I hate you!", emphasizing how teenage females often rant/have mood swings.
Other parts within the video which highlight the representation of age include 0:16 to 0:22 (before they are both interrupted by the godfather) since both of these characters are young so their voices would be similar and the fact that their father interrupts them before asking Amy to do an errand for him also displays their positions within the family.
Mise-en-scene:
The mise-en-scene in the extract links to the representation of age i.e. 1:32 to 1:50, this part of the video displays how the headteacher's clothes contrast the family's clothing as the old male's clothes consist of a coat, sweatshirt and dirty trousers (although not being clean but still smartly-dressed in comparison) whereas the family seem to be wearing denim jeans, t-shirts and casual jackets. The clothing used here for all of these characters also link to the atmosphere and time period set for the extract since they wouldn't be really wearing modern-day clothes or expensive designer clothing that would seem out-of-place/too contrastive to their surroundings.
Wednesday 22 February 2012
Wednesday 8 February 2012
Monsters Film Commentary
Despite the £500,000 budget spent on the production of the movie, Gareth Edwards and the crew of Monsters had managed to pull themselves together in a valiant effort to set themselves apart from all of the other movies that had come before it, attempting to be displayed at the silver screen in the US and UK yet not amounting to much more than a straight-to-DVD B-movie release.
The acclaim of the movie lies in the fact that Gareth had utilized all of the film's visual effects from home products and software programs using his own equipment which allows for a much better connection between the movie and us (the viewers) as it may not hold a candle to Avatar's special effects yet the true power of the movie comes from how we can feel that the small cast and crew of Monsters had worked hard to produce what can be described as a great sci-fi movie that doesn't disappoint; e.g. "His digitally created beasts, and the exotically wrecked landscape they inhabit, seem to have been created from a kind of social-realist grime. It's strictly 2D: Edwards is the anti-James-Cameron. The effects don't draw attention to themselves: tentacle-waving aliens are all part of the general, grubby absence of law and order," - the official Monsters review from The Guardian specifically highlights this.
This is true as it not only, received £4,188,738 in terms of box office but was also nominated for six British Independent Film Awards including Best Picture, Best Director and Best Actor expressing that you do not need big-name Hollywood actors to craft a successful movie. Furthermore, the fact that they had just handpicked random 'actors' to appear in their movie also displays the realism of their acting as acting shouldn't be dissimilar from living a normal lifestyle as you still breath, live and speak like an ordinary character but the only differences are that you may portray a different character which you haven't portrayed before. Monsters was also nominated for the 2011 BAFTA's (Outstanding Debut by a British Director) but ultimately lost to Four Lions.
From the re-created signs to the water effects that were created using computer-generated imagery (once again, on a very low budget stretching how far production could go with the £500,000 used); Monsters is an achievement of excellence and will be praised by viewers more for the fact that this is Gareth Edward's first time film-making yet he proves to be a contender in comparison to big-name Hollywood directors such as Christopher Nolan who also tells stories using their CGI/film-making trickery (e.g. Inception).
The acclaim of the movie lies in the fact that Gareth had utilized all of the film's visual effects from home products and software programs using his own equipment which allows for a much better connection between the movie and us (the viewers) as it may not hold a candle to Avatar's special effects yet the true power of the movie comes from how we can feel that the small cast and crew of Monsters had worked hard to produce what can be described as a great sci-fi movie that doesn't disappoint; e.g. "His digitally created beasts, and the exotically wrecked landscape they inhabit, seem to have been created from a kind of social-realist grime. It's strictly 2D: Edwards is the anti-James-Cameron. The effects don't draw attention to themselves: tentacle-waving aliens are all part of the general, grubby absence of law and order," - the official Monsters review from The Guardian specifically highlights this.
This is true as it not only, received £4,188,738 in terms of box office but was also nominated for six British Independent Film Awards including Best Picture, Best Director and Best Actor expressing that you do not need big-name Hollywood actors to craft a successful movie. Furthermore, the fact that they had just handpicked random 'actors' to appear in their movie also displays the realism of their acting as acting shouldn't be dissimilar from living a normal lifestyle as you still breath, live and speak like an ordinary character but the only differences are that you may portray a different character which you haven't portrayed before. Monsters was also nominated for the 2011 BAFTA's (Outstanding Debut by a British Director) but ultimately lost to Four Lions.
From the re-created signs to the water effects that were created using computer-generated imagery (once again, on a very low budget stretching how far production could go with the £500,000 used); Monsters is an achievement of excellence and will be praised by viewers more for the fact that this is Gareth Edward's first time film-making yet he proves to be a contender in comparison to big-name Hollywood directors such as Christopher Nolan who also tells stories using their CGI/film-making trickery (e.g. Inception).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)