Film Scene Analysis: 'The Shining'

'The Shining', (1980) - Stanley Kubrick

 An analysis by Ethan Delaney

In this short assignment I will be analysing in depth (from a personal viewpoint) two scenes from Stanley Kubrick's 1980 psychological horror film 'The Shining', an adaptation of the novel by Stephen King. The film takes place at the Overlook Hotel in the mountains of Colorado, USA during the freezing cold winter. Due to the below zero temperatures of this location, the hotel is closed during this time, thus requiring the temporary hire of someone to take special care of the ground, this someone being middle-aged Jack Torrance who decides to spend these few months of isolation with the rest of his family; his wife Wendy and their six year old son Danny. In this analysis I will be looking into many aspects of the mise-en-scene such as lighting, set pieces and props and other elements of the film such as camera work and editing.
 

   The first scene I will be analysing is the turning point of the film which takes place just before its climatic ending. It managed to build up tension, suspense and uncertainty within myself by opening up in almost silence, with the only sound present being that of Wendy’s footsteps on the dark wooden floor of the large and seemingly empty Colorado Lounge as she steadily moves towards Jacks desk on the other side of the lounge. However, whilst holding a baseball bat for protection, she quickly turns around and looks up to call out "Jack!", who does not appear to be present as she turns back around and continues her short journey to the darker side of room (although, the non-diegetic overdubbed music which then quietly creeps into the scene would surely suggest an overlooking presence). As she does so, the cameras position steadily changes from a backwards tracking shot to a sidewards tracking shot, meaning that the viewers can no longer see what is directly ahead of her, therefore prompting a fear of the unknown in the audience.
 

   Then, the shot cuts to a front facing medium shot of Wendy appearing to be in distress with her eyes wide open and alert as she stands behind Jacks desk, the background is also not in focus which prompts a fearful emotion in the audience along with her performance as once again we are unable to see what could be lurking behind her.
 

   As she slowly turns around, the entire one point perspective shot comes into focus and Wendy starts to walk towards Jacks typewriter which is centre on his desk, this adds to the numerous almost-parallel shots of the film. I think that the many uses of parallel shots and in general repetition in the mise-en-scene could be used to enable the audience to predict future outcomes such as the idea that what previously occurred 10 years ago in the hotel could occur once again (the winter Caretaker murdering his family due to intense 'cabin fever' caused by isolation for a long period of time). An example of this repetition is Kubrick's use of upside down crosses which appear in many scenes of the film such as this one (the window frames make the symbol). It is known that people who were martyred and nailed to crosses back in the early days of Christianity, would often die of suffocation. However, being nailed to an upside down cross would mean that you would not die of suffocation, instead the death would be much more painful and take a longer time, therefore Kubrick is implying that the outcome of certain characters could be much worse than what the audience may be expecting.
 

   In the next shot, the camera is tilted upwards from behind the typewriter as Wendy rises up into the shot (stepping towards the typewriter) creating a medium shot. As she reads the text Jack has been working on, we can see her shocked reaction. Once more the audience is unaware of what exactly the character is viewing, this creates a sense of mystery. As this ordeal takes place, the non-diegetic music in the scene is increasing in volume and depth as more conventional instruments of the horror genre (French horns and screeching violins) join in and certain elements begin echoing - backing up the theory that they are representing an overlooking physical presence.
 

   The colour green is favoured by those who are 'well balanced', suggesting that Wendy (being that she is wearing a green checked shirt) feels safe at this point, although this could have been used by the director in the same way most of the film is set in high key lighting (compared to the Horror genre convention of low key lighting) - in order to make the audience feel safe and to allow for a greater unexpected shock later on. The lighting in this scene comes predominately from the windows and therefore it is natural, creating a sense of realism in the films tone.
 

   Finally, Jack is revealed to be a silhouette in the dark hallway (from an over the shoulder shot) lurking over Wendy who is reading his work at the desk and frightens her as he asks “How do you like it?”, to her unexpected horror, she screams, turns around and holds up her baseball bat in defence. It seems to me that this scene is reminiscent of the infamous shower scene in Hitchcock’s 1960 horror, Psycho. Despite being different circumstances, the scenes have numerous similarities such as a score of screeching violins as the psychotic antagonists are shown to the audience, as well as high key lighting in a dark situation.
 

   In the second scene, Jack is chasing Danny around the hotels garden maze after Jack unleashes an act of terror on his family in their hotel room and threatened to murder Wendy, however Danny manages to make an escape from him through the bathrooms window. Now Danny is in a similar situation to the ending scene in The Godfather in which their older family members are chasing the youngsters around a garden, although in this situation it seems as if it is in an act of murder instead of playfulness. In this scene which takes place in the dead of night, the camera is tracking both Danny and Jack running around the maze from behind and the shot cuts from one to another thus being an example of parallel editing. The lighting in this sequence is mostly low key (a horror genre convention) with occasional high key side lights of the maze which create silhouettes and shadows of the characters which are also conventions of horror. Danny and Jack are never seen in the same dual shot, therefore representing the differences between them both. Another example of parallel editing takes place in this scene as whilst Jack is chasing around Danny in the maze, Wendy is also calling out for Danny inside the hotel.
 

   The non-diegetic sounds in this scene seem to be a combination of out of control contrasting high and low key recordings, mirroring the lighting and Jacks crazed persona. Cleverly, as Danny steps back into his foot prints in the centre of the snow covered maze, a sound of cracking ice is heard to the rhythm of a fast beating heat (representing his heart as it cannot actually be heard) to portray the idea that he is actually standing on ice, however it is revealed that he is actually trying to get away from his father by retracing his steps and therefore confusing him. The sounds in this scene, including those which may be diegetic such as the wind are intensified to represent Danny’s intensified emotions, as he tries to be so quite in this horrific situation. Fortunately for Danny, he manages to escape the maze whilst his father is left confused and unable to escape, leading to his frozen death which is shown the following morning.

The 'Inglourious Basterds': Scene Analysis

Inglourious Basterds, (2009) - Quentin Tarantino

An analysis by Hope Newton & Ethan Delaney

In this essay we will be discussing the many aspects of film in a 4:55 minute long clip from Quentin Tarantino's 2009 film, Inglourious Bastards. In particular we shall be focusing upon the clips editing, use of language and our personal responses to the clip along with other aspects of the mise-en-scène. 

The film is written and directed by Quentin Tarantino, shot by Robert Richardson, edited by Sally Menke and stars Mélanie Laurent as Shosanna Dreyfus (the lead protagonist), a Jewish refugee in Nazi-occupied France who has pursued a career of a cinema proprietor after she only just escaped the brutal murder of her entire family as a young adolescent by Colonel Hans Landa (Der Jude-Jäger: The Jew Hunter). A few years following her escape, she meets Frederick Zoller outside her cinema, a German war-hero actor who arranges a Nazi-studded premier of his propaganda film at her theatre as she takes his interest. With the prospect of an theatre room being filled with her enemy, she plots an act of bloody vengeance with a group of Jewish-American solders led by First Lieutenant Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt).

The scene we will be analysing occurs a quarter of an hour towards the ending of the film and is, for the most part, set in the projection room of the theatre whilst the Nazi party are viewing the film.

In this five minute scene, the same colours are constantly reoccurring: red, white and black. Red in film typically represents blood, danger, love, war, power, strength and passion, all of which are not only present within the entire film, but within this scene itself. White, on the other hand, is associated with light, innocence, purity and perfection, all of which could be used to represent the character of Shosanna, however instead, she is dressed in an all red dress, as if to not only just appear as if she is on the Nazi's side, but to also represent the fact that she poses a great threat to those within the theatre. Funnily enough, the majority of those in the theatre are sat in red seats thus signifying danger and blood, and are also wearing black which has connotations of death. Along with death, black also has strong connotations of anger, evil, power, sadness and wealth, all of which once again match the state of those who decide to wear it.

The scene opens up with a mid shot of Frederick entering a corridor (after politely asking to leave the theatre room for a brief moment). In this corridor lies a cold blue carpet of which could be used to represent a feeling of sadness within in the character and of which would seem very evident in this case as he walks down the carpet with an unamused grimace amongst his face, whilst the camera tracks him backwards. The light in this corridor is of a moderate key with spots of high key due to overhead spot lights and side lamps, of which I think are only occasionally shone to firstly suggest his belief of a 'Heaven' being present above him and, secondly, his uncertainty in whether or not he will be eligible for considering his support of the Nazi party.

As he walks down the curved corridor (of which could be mirroring the twisted nature of those who stand within it), the tracking shot of Frederick cuts to a zooming in shot of the film projector wheel spinning in order to build an increasing momentum and tension within the scene. In addition to the tension being built with the increase in speed being shot, the classic horror music of the scene is also starting to pick up as numerous French horns and drums start to kick in as the bell of the film projector rings (signifying a necessary change of film and symbolizing the beginning of a blood battle, as if a round of boxing were to take place). A couple of seconds later, the scene cuts to a shot of Shosanna peeping her head out of the projection room window, overlooking the theatre as she flicks the first projector to the second).

There are no jump cuts within this whole scene, therefore it proposes the thought in my mind that this scene is taking place in one moment in time. This would mean that the shots of Shosanna's true lover and partner in crime, Marcel (who's smoking behind the stage in front of a huge stack of flammable film and the projection, ready to set the place on fire) is taking place as the same time.

The transition of the first projectors blue tinted light fading into the darkness and the others turning on is also shown after the audience sees a close up of Shosanna taking a brief moment to pause before pulling down on a large leaver, and by doing so Quentin implies that she is ready for her plan of vengeance to take place. Up until this brief pause, the length of the cuts in this scene have been accelerating (the result is basically a montage of shots), suggesting that she is taking time to think about her decision. However, following this break, the length of each shot starts to decelerate, of which I think is a great technique as this indicates that the scene will not be rushing into action just yet. And it doesn't, instead the first piece of dialogue in the scene takes place as Frederick walks up to the projector room, knocks on the door, of which Shosanna responds with 'Who is it?' to which Frederick says his name. The fact that Frederick only said his first name indicates to someone who has not yet viewed the entire film that they both know each other. After Frederick replies, Shosanna quietly whispers the phrase 's**t' in apparent discomfort which we think helps the audience better understand the characters views towards each other.

As she opens the door to reveal Frederick patiently waiting, he jokingly demands that he gets his money back due to the lead in the film (himself) being an 'awful actor' in order to lighten her and the audiences mood (this does not work as she too now has a frown upon her face) following the build of suspense which was cut off (literally) as she opened the door as the music immediately cuts off. The abrupt ending of the dramatic music quickly allows the tone of the scene to change ourselves from feeling worried to calm whilst still remaining intrigued.

One thing leads to another during their conversion at the door as Shosanna continues to tell Frederick that he absolutely cannot come backstage (he is supposed be in the theatre, unknowingly about to be burnt alive Marcel) and thus he looses his temper and barges the door open and starts to tell her how she has no right to speak to him after what he has done for her.

Induction Task 1: Why was ‘The Lone Ranger’ considered to be a box-office failure?

Ethan Delaney AS Level Film Studies Induction Task 04/09/2013

 

Task 1 – Why was ‘The Lone Ranger’ considered to be a box-office failure?

In this short induction essay I will be discussing as to why I think the 2013 live action film ‘The Lone Ranger’ was largely considered to be one of The Walt Disney Company’s worst decisions throughout its ninety year history according to a large majority of film critics, audiences and myself.

The film itself is about a Native American warrior named Tonto (played by Johnny Depp) who recounts his earlier memories of helping John Reid AKA The Lone Ranger (played by Armie Hammer) to help bring long needed justice to the old American west by stopping those corrupt with power, rather like many other superhero franchises. This is its first problem, in my opinion, as in today’s society this film can be very hard to relate to due to its subject matter.

Despite Disney’s hopes that the ‘Superhero’ tag would bring in a lot of the public’s hard earned money, it only managed to gain £153.29 million worldwide, now although this may sound like a great success, the film is estimated to have had a production cost of £144.31 million, according to Disney themselves, which means that the film only really gathered around £8.98 million in profit, supposedly. This total is nowhere near the success of previous Disney produced films such as 2010’s Toy Story (created by Pixar Inc. with financial backing from Disney) which had a profit of around £553,635,011.03 with the same budget.

After viewing the film myself, I think it definitely has its moments of greatness (mostly during an action sequence on a runaway train, obviously), however, whilst watching this two and a half hour film, I couldn’t help but feel as if it was way too long for a film based upon quite a bland unambitious script, many people may instantly be put off by a long running time especially those who were intending to bring youngsters.

The film also has a sort of strange off-beat sense to it (such as Johnny Depp’s dead bird on his head) that is evident in its trailers too, which is its first problem as ‘strangeness’ does not shift too many tickets. This has seemed to polarize audiences over the last few months.

The next reason this feature did not achieve its desired box office score is because it failed to even gain an average film rating of 4.8/10 from critics according to Metacritic.com, instead it only managed an aggregated score of 3.7/10 based upon 45 professional reviews. Film reviews are important to many moviegoers as they’re meant to provide a well-balanced point of view which will ultimately make them decide whether or not to view the film. If a film such as this does not attain favourable reviews from most critics then common sense would suggest to the average moviegoer that the feature will not leave them satisfied and will instead rob them of their money and time. Thus, the film has not made too much gross profit, simply due to not enough people having actually viewed the film.

Another reason why this film has flopped is because Disney did not learn from their previous western, Cowboys and Aliens, of which they also had the wise idea to once again throw too much money at any executive producer with an idea. In simple terms, too much was spent on the production of this film which actually caused it to halt in the middle for a few months as a result of Disney’s fears of it skyrocketing over its intended budget, however the bosses at Disney (unfortunately) caved and allowed production to finish way over budget.

 

Induction Task 2: My Favourite Film Of The Summer

Ethan Delaney AS Level Film Studies Induction Task04/09/2013

 

Task 2 – What was my favourite film of the summer and why did I enjoy it?

I think that my favourite film of the summer was Quentin Tarantino’s Django Unchained of which I viewed sometime in June 2013 on Blu-ray with my dad. I had been waiting a long time to see this film after I first heard about it being in production approximately one year earlier and knew I would have had to have waited about another six months after its UK box office release date of January 18th due to its 18+ BBFC age rating. However, the wait was definitely worth it as it was easily the best film I viewed this summer and in this induction essay I will be explaining as to why I found it to be such a stunning feature.

Firstly, I suppose I should start of by saying that I certainly consider myself to be a Quentin Tarantino fan, having enjoyed every one of his eight films, the Kill Bill films being my favourite, in particular Vol. 2.

Django Unchained is a story of a spaghetti western set in the old American west in the year 1858 just before about a slave (played by Jamie Foxx) who is unchained from his owners by former German dentist turned bounty hunter Dr King Schultz (played by Christoph Waltz). Dr King Schultz then makes a deal to help Django help rescue his wife Broomhilda, also a slave, from ruthless plantation owner Calvin Candie, if in return he helps Dr King to find his next bounty’s during the cold winter.

One of the best things about this (probably over long film) is its screenplay, of which like any other Tarantino film, is full of many great satire lines which can easily entertain the audience throughout its 165 minute running time, along with numerous other superb drama sequences which manage to hold tension, excitement and most importantly attention without the over use of any sort of action. However this being a Tarantino film, there is also a truck load of bloody revenge violence. The film also fortunately has a stellar cast of which not one member, in my opinion is anything less than absolutely believable. My favourite character is arguably the secondary antagonist, the despicably loyal house slave to Mr Candie, Stephen (played by Samuel L. Jackson) who forms an instant hatred towards Django, as unlike himself, Django is a free man. As the senior house slave, Stephen does not like being unable to control Django with his authority like the others and detests the fact that Django is free to ride alongside white men on horses, unlike himself who, despite his loyalty over the years, does not even get to sleep in the ‘Big House’ like Django.

Another one of my favourite things about Django Unchained is its primary antagonist, the Mandingo fighting lover Calvin Candie who is played extremely as well as shockingly well by an actor who is very typical known for basically playing the same version of a nice victimized character in almost every one of his films.