I think that now would be a good time to reflect on how I applied some of the relevant theorists to my work, and how I also subverted some of their proposals to make my product more unique.
Henry Jenkins: Hybridisation
I mentioned in my genre post about how I wanted my short film to not distinctly fit into any singular genre. Drama and thriller were my selected combination, and this is because it would enable emotional depth but also unpredictable suspense. I feel as though my storyboards and screenplay demonstrate this through how the first half of my narrative steadily heightens in pace and anticipation as Dylan approaches the father, but then a slower pace and more dramatic tone kicks in for the latter half of the narrative, reflecting the inner change of the character. Visually this is further evident through the colour palette, using greys and dull shades to enhance the sombre tone at the start while transitioning into a brighter visual array for the dramatic optimism. I was always certain that I wanted my short film to be more drama based than thriller, and I think that the brief moment of suspense at the start proves that the thriller elements are more of a sub-genre of the film than an equal split between thriller and drama.
Henry Jenkins: Hybridisation
I mentioned in my genre post about how I wanted my short film to not distinctly fit into any singular genre. Drama and thriller were my selected combination, and this is because it would enable emotional depth but also unpredictable suspense. I feel as though my storyboards and screenplay demonstrate this through how the first half of my narrative steadily heightens in pace and anticipation as Dylan approaches the father, but then a slower pace and more dramatic tone kicks in for the latter half of the narrative, reflecting the inner change of the character. Visually this is further evident through the colour palette, using greys and dull shades to enhance the sombre tone at the start while transitioning into a brighter visual array for the dramatic optimism. I was always certain that I wanted my short film to be more drama based than thriller, and I think that the brief moment of suspense at the start proves that the thriller elements are more of a sub-genre of the film than an equal split between thriller and drama.
Levi Strauss: Binary Oppositions
I wanted to completely subvert Strauss' cliched concept of opposites, because dramatic performances work best with flawed characters and moral ambiguity. I did this by establishing both of my characters as protagonists/antagonists and so viewers can potentially argue that they both undergo redemption and closure to some extent. Dylan can be seen as a villain through his malicious intentions to kill the Father and avenge his brother, but also as a hero through how he has the self restraint to let the Father and Son go, redeeming himself. Likewise the Father can be viewed as the villain through his unintentional murder of the brother, but also as a hero through how he tries to make up for the loss of life by being the best dad he can be for his son and also mourning his mistake. Either way the film relies on both of them learning something over the course of the narrative, Dylan regaining his humanity and the Father experiencing mercy.
When looking at aspects other than characters, I did conform to Strauss' Binary Oppositions through my use of light and dark. At a visual level I made changes to the aesthetics of my narrative to reflect the tonal shifts taking place, keeping the brightness and colours low and dull so that when the transition occurred my film became visually enhanced and more optimistic.
Tzvetan Todorov: 5 Act Structure
My film Shades of Reason doesn't fit conventional narrative theories because it doesn't have a state of equilibrium. We are immediately thrust into a context taking place after the disequilibrium (where the death of Dylan's brother would be the disequilibrium) and so the whole film follows an attempt to restore the equilibrium. However, there is arguably no equilibrium to restore because either way Dylan won't get his brother back, so he is left with the reality of killing the Father and settling for an equilibrium where his revenge has been carried out, or not killing the Father and forcing himself to adjust to an equilibrium where he must live with forgiveness. Whichever way the film had ended equilibrium would never have been restored to the circumstances prior to the brother's death, and so arguably although my film ends on a point of closure, it doesn't end with the sense of events coming full circle. I feel like if I had opted to conclude the film with the death of the Father, this would have felt like more of an equilibrium by capturing the idea of what goes around comes around, but it would not have been as dramatic and poignant, which is why I wanted a more nuanced conclusion.
I wanted to completely subvert Strauss' cliched concept of opposites, because dramatic performances work best with flawed characters and moral ambiguity. I did this by establishing both of my characters as protagonists/antagonists and so viewers can potentially argue that they both undergo redemption and closure to some extent. Dylan can be seen as a villain through his malicious intentions to kill the Father and avenge his brother, but also as a hero through how he has the self restraint to let the Father and Son go, redeeming himself. Likewise the Father can be viewed as the villain through his unintentional murder of the brother, but also as a hero through how he tries to make up for the loss of life by being the best dad he can be for his son and also mourning his mistake. Either way the film relies on both of them learning something over the course of the narrative, Dylan regaining his humanity and the Father experiencing mercy.
When looking at aspects other than characters, I did conform to Strauss' Binary Oppositions through my use of light and dark. At a visual level I made changes to the aesthetics of my narrative to reflect the tonal shifts taking place, keeping the brightness and colours low and dull so that when the transition occurred my film became visually enhanced and more optimistic.
Tzvetan Todorov: 5 Act Structure
My film Shades of Reason doesn't fit conventional narrative theories because it doesn't have a state of equilibrium. We are immediately thrust into a context taking place after the disequilibrium (where the death of Dylan's brother would be the disequilibrium) and so the whole film follows an attempt to restore the equilibrium. However, there is arguably no equilibrium to restore because either way Dylan won't get his brother back, so he is left with the reality of killing the Father and settling for an equilibrium where his revenge has been carried out, or not killing the Father and forcing himself to adjust to an equilibrium where he must live with forgiveness. Whichever way the film had ended equilibrium would never have been restored to the circumstances prior to the brother's death, and so arguably although my film ends on a point of closure, it doesn't end with the sense of events coming full circle. I feel like if I had opted to conclude the film with the death of the Father, this would have felt like more of an equilibrium by capturing the idea of what goes around comes around, but it would not have been as dramatic and poignant, which is why I wanted a more nuanced conclusion.
Roland Barthes: Codes
Barthes' proposed codes are very specific and so not all of them were relevant to my work, but I incorporated the Symbolic Code and the Enigma Code into my short film. Barthes believes that when more than one of his codes is used this leaves the narrative as 'open', meaning that the interpretations are not fixed and that people may read differently into the film. So despite the fact that the visual ending of the film makes the narrative closed in the sense of a conclusion, the meanings and symbolic depth behind the narrative is open to personal interpretation. When I say I used the 'Symbolic Code', this means that I use physical or visual motifs to represent ideas or themes. In Shades of Reason I specifically use colour on a frequent basis to represent the themes. For example the sky is a symbol for the mood of the film, at first grey as a symbol of hate and delusion, then blue as a symbol of redemption and hope. Additionally I used the colours of the characters' clothes to represent the extent of their moral corruption. Dylan is wearing all grey to represent how he is going through various 'shades of reason', the Father is wearing darker clothes to show how he has been haunted by the guilt of killing Dylan's brother, while the Son wears all white to embody the youthful innocence and major turning point of redemption in the film.
With regards to the Enigma Code, which is specifically used for suspense where actions rather than implications are the source, I feel like I captured this with the recurring prop of the gun. Its appearance showed the potential for violence and helped to elevate the intensity of the scenes, especially where the Father was unaware of Dylan's presence.
Vladimir Propp: Character Archetypes
As already mentioned in my talk about how Dylan and the Father subvert classic Binary Oppositions in my study of Strauss, I also conformed to and subverted the character archetypes proposed by Propp. In much the same way, I feel that I create ambiguity about who is the hero and villain in this film, since it could be any of the three characters (even the Son through how his appearance prevents the murder from taking place). I often find my characters fitting several of Propp's archetypes, or at least certain characteristics of Propp's archetypes. However there is no categorical purpose of my characters, showing how I wanted to make humanised characters rather than characters who merely served a function. Nevertheless, the fact that my characters still conform to certain elements of Propp's archetypes suggests to me that certain characteristics are essential for storytelling.
Barthes' proposed codes are very specific and so not all of them were relevant to my work, but I incorporated the Symbolic Code and the Enigma Code into my short film. Barthes believes that when more than one of his codes is used this leaves the narrative as 'open', meaning that the interpretations are not fixed and that people may read differently into the film. So despite the fact that the visual ending of the film makes the narrative closed in the sense of a conclusion, the meanings and symbolic depth behind the narrative is open to personal interpretation. When I say I used the 'Symbolic Code', this means that I use physical or visual motifs to represent ideas or themes. In Shades of Reason I specifically use colour on a frequent basis to represent the themes. For example the sky is a symbol for the mood of the film, at first grey as a symbol of hate and delusion, then blue as a symbol of redemption and hope. Additionally I used the colours of the characters' clothes to represent the extent of their moral corruption. Dylan is wearing all grey to represent how he is going through various 'shades of reason', the Father is wearing darker clothes to show how he has been haunted by the guilt of killing Dylan's brother, while the Son wears all white to embody the youthful innocence and major turning point of redemption in the film.
With regards to the Enigma Code, which is specifically used for suspense where actions rather than implications are the source, I feel like I captured this with the recurring prop of the gun. Its appearance showed the potential for violence and helped to elevate the intensity of the scenes, especially where the Father was unaware of Dylan's presence.
Vladimir Propp: Character Archetypes
As already mentioned in my talk about how Dylan and the Father subvert classic Binary Oppositions in my study of Strauss, I also conformed to and subverted the character archetypes proposed by Propp. In much the same way, I feel that I create ambiguity about who is the hero and villain in this film, since it could be any of the three characters (even the Son through how his appearance prevents the murder from taking place). I often find my characters fitting several of Propp's archetypes, or at least certain characteristics of Propp's archetypes. However there is no categorical purpose of my characters, showing how I wanted to make humanised characters rather than characters who merely served a function. Nevertheless, the fact that my characters still conform to certain elements of Propp's archetypes suggests to me that certain characteristics are essential for storytelling.
Joseph Campbell: Hero's Journey
What I find interesting about Campbell's proposal of the Hero's Journey is how it can be applied to both Dylan and the Father, further showing that I may have been successful in portraying my characters as humans rather than as hero and villain. His first stage is the 'Departure', embodied for both of my characters in the death of Dylan's brother. Then the 'Initiation' for Dylan is where he is forced to choose either to shoot or spare the Father, and for the Father is it when he chooses to wait for Dylan to make the move when the two of them meet eye contact. And finally the 'Return' is where both characters embrace the consequences of their actions, with Dylan letting the Father live and the Father showing his guilt and regret. By displaying how both of the character arcs can be seen as following the 'hero's journey', it shows that I have applied Campbell's theory, but I prefer to see the character arcs as just a 'journey', allowing the heroic elements of the film to be decoded by the viewers themselves.
What I find interesting about Campbell's proposal of the Hero's Journey is how it can be applied to both Dylan and the Father, further showing that I may have been successful in portraying my characters as humans rather than as hero and villain. His first stage is the 'Departure', embodied for both of my characters in the death of Dylan's brother. Then the 'Initiation' for Dylan is where he is forced to choose either to shoot or spare the Father, and for the Father is it when he chooses to wait for Dylan to make the move when the two of them meet eye contact. And finally the 'Return' is where both characters embrace the consequences of their actions, with Dylan letting the Father live and the Father showing his guilt and regret. By displaying how both of the character arcs can be seen as following the 'hero's journey', it shows that I have applied Campbell's theory, but I prefer to see the character arcs as just a 'journey', allowing the heroic elements of the film to be decoded by the viewers themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment