Hello, this is my blog for my AS Media coursework, detailing the research + planning, production and evaluation process of creating a two-minute film opening
The voice-overs, however I also showed the characters both while they were on and off-screen while the sound was playing
POSSIBLE POINTS OF INFLUENCES
The voice-over is again another convention I have seen especially in rom-coms and teen films
Love Actually
Richard Curtis, 2003
BBFC 15 rating, MPAA R rating
Length: 2'49/7'00
LEAD ACTORS: Ensemble cast (but arguably Hugh Grant has the biggest star power here) GENRE:Romantic comedy (adult, Christmas-themed)
PRODUCTION COMPANIES:Working Title
DISTRIBUTOR:Universal Pictures
BUDGET: $40m BOX OFFICE: $62.7m (UK), $59.7m (US) $247m (worldwide) (The Grant Rule, despite this being a big hit, doesn't apply here, this is quite a gem for British cinema, and maybe a touch too alien with its Britishness, and taking the mickey out of the USA)
TRAILER:
NARRATIVE, EXPOSITION:
We get the love is all around, we are at a high, we are at Todorov's equilibrium of love being all around, the love will be challenged throughout the film and the characters we follow will find it again. At the end every character has a new equilibrium. We are at the same location the film will end on, so that is also further symbolising the equilibrium.
GENRE:
Unconventional not to have the main characters who are in love, but it fits due to the ensemble cast, we are not following one couple or love triangle.
SOUNDTRACK:
Voice-over narration. His status as Prime Minister in the film is signified, as well Non-diegetic incidental music is also added.
REPRESENTATION:
Are people living in poverty going to be in that airport, the victims of war as in the bad state Hugh Grant's prime minister describes.
The film was very well received with critics, currently holding a 95% "Certified Fresh" approval on reviews aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, with the site's consensus stating, "While frothy to a fault, Four Weddings and a Funeral features irresistibly breezy humor, and winsome performances from Hugh Grant and Andie MacDowell."[6] Film critic Roger Ebert gave the film three-and-a-half stars out of four, calling it "delightful and sly", and directed with "light-hearted enchantment" by Newell. He praised Grant's performance, describing it as a kind of "endearing awkwardness".[7]The film had its detractors. Writing for the Chicago Reader, Jonathan Rosenbaum called the film "generic" and "standard issue", stating that the audience shouldn't "expect to remember it ten minutes later".[8]Time magazine writer Richard Corliss was less scathing, but agreed that it was forgettable, saying that people would "forget all about [the movie] by the time they leave the multiplex," even joking at the end of his review that he had forgotten the film's name.[9] The character of Carrie was voted one of the most annoying film characters of all time in a British online poll.[10]
TRAILER:
IDENTS:
Polygram Filmed Entertainment being the most superior here.
TITLES:
Inter-Titles, one on black and one on a cake
Polygram Filmed Entertainment and Channel Four are the distributors of the film. Working Title is the production company. White serif font on black background. A flower-like emblem. "invite you to" is breaking the convention of neutral writing, and signifies the comedic and absurd nature of the film. The emblem signifies romance. The of a serious background can be seen as the serious, romantic element of the narrative.
"Conflict, the root of any narrative, is offered by binary opposition." Theory that states narrative comes from conflict between two polar opposites, thereby the Proppian hero/protagonist and villain/antagonist will be the anthithesis of each other.
Or in the case of the antihero they could be struggling with opposite facets of their personality, the binary within themselves.
Despite Bringing Up Baby's reputation as a flop, it was successful in some parts of the U.S. The film premiered on February 16, 1938 at the Golden Gate Theatre in San Francisco (where it was a hit), and was also successful in Los Angeles, Portland, Denver, Cincinnati and Washington, D.C.. However, it was a financial disappointment in the Midwest, as well as most other cities in the country, including NYC; to RKO's chagrin, the film's premiere in New York on March 3, 1938 at Radio City Music Hall made only $70,000 and it was pulled after one week[46] in favor of Jezebel with Bette Davis.[47]During its first run, Bringing Up Baby made $715,000 in the U.S. and $394,000 in foreign markets for a total of $1,109,000;[34] its reissue in 1940 and 1941 made an additional $95,000 in the US and $55,000 in foreign markets.[46] Following its second run, the film made a profit of $163,000.[34] Due to its perceived failure, Hawks was released early from his two-film contract with RKO[34]and Gunga Din was eventually directed by George Stevens.[48] Hawks later said the film "had a great fault and I learned an awful lot from that. There were no normal people in it. Everyone you met was a screwball and since that time I learned my lesson and don't intend ever again to make everybody crazy".[49] The director went on to work with RKO on three films over the next decade.[50]Long before Bringing Up Baby's release, Hepburn had been branded "box-office poison" by Harry Brandt (president of the Independent Theatre Owners of America) and thus was allowed to buy out her RKO contract for $22,000.[51][52] However, many critics marveled at her new skill at low comedy; Life magazine called her "the surprise of the picture".[53] Hepburn's former boyfriend Howard Hughes bought RKO in 1941, and sold it in 1959; when he sold the company, Hughes retained the copyright to six films (including Bringing Up Baby).[50]
The film received good advance reviews; Otis Ferguson of The New Republic thought the film very funny, praising Hawks' direction.[38]Variety praised the film, singling out Hawks' pacing and direction, calling Hepburn's performance "one of her most invigorating screen characterizations" and saying Grant "performs his role to the hilt";[39] their only criticism was the length of the jail scene.[40]Film Daily called it "literally a riot from beginning to end, with the laugh total heavy and the action fast."[41]Harrison's Reports called the film "An excellent farce" with "many situations that provoke hearty laughter,"[42] and John Mosher of The New Yorker wrote that both stars "manage to be funny" and that Hepburn had never "seemed so good-natured."[43] However, Frank S. Nugentof the New York Times disliked the film, considering it derivative and cliché-ridden, a rehash of dozens of other screwball comedies of the period. He labeled Hepburn's performance "breathless, senseless, and terribly, terribly fatiguing",[44] and added, "If you've never been to the movies, Bringing Up Baby will be new to you – a zany-ridden product of the goofy-farce school. But who hasn't been to the movies?"[45]
SYNPNOSIS: Classic screwball comedy following palaeontologist David Huxely who is engaged to the dour and workaholic Alice. He faces a marriage trapped in hard work with little romance, who is determined that their marriage contain "no domestic entanglements of any kind." He is about to meet a new woman in his life, Alice Swallow, a free-spirited and, possibly pre-cursor of the Manic Pixie Dream Girl, who will turn his life upside down in the pursuit of a leopard that he has been sent from Brazil. The opening sequence introduces us to the engaged couple in their place of work.
IDENTS:
One ident for one company responsible for both production and distribution, as was more common in those days, lasting for 15 seconds and then fading in and out to the titles. It has a signature sound, that of s radio signal, appropriate for its name.
TITLES:
Separate inter-title sequence before the live action starts, which was the norm and convention back then, but can still be seen such as in films like This Is England and The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, and is still seen after a live action opening sequence in the Bond franchise.
THE OPENING SHOT:
An extreme longshot, an establishing shot which we are going to close in on
NARRATIVE, EXPOSITION:
Instead of a title telling us date and setting, like we sometimes see, mise-en-scène is used to anchor the location.
We get introduced to one of the main two protagonists of the narrative. TODOROV: This is an equilibrium, the disruption will happen later with the introduction of We are at the same location that the film will end on, when the dinosaur smashes to pieces, so the dinosaur at the moment represents the old equilibrium that must be destroyed for a new one to exist.
MISE-EN-SCÈNE: For verisimilitude their are multiple scientific objects around the room to connote that this is a place of scientific study. Huxley is dressed in a typical white garb which a majority of people know, making it one of Barthes's cultural codes.
EDITING:
At the beginning we cross-fade into shots.
GENRE SIGNIFIERS:
Two parts of the love triangle are present here, and conflicts about different opinions on family life.
REPRESENTATION:
GENDER: The female dominant in the relationship here. However the woman is shown as the typical torment for the man.
ETHNICITY:Just Caucasians present, this is pre-Civil Rights Movement.
SEXUALITY: Represents the norm of the time, heteronormativity, homosexuality was a punishable criminal offence.
AGE: This is a film mainly focussing on young middle-aged characters, teens and children are not present in the opening sequence. The old Professor stereotypically stands for intellectuality.
CLASS/STATUS: Middle-class, Alice Swallow has delusions of grander when she reacts to Huxley using the phrase: "I'll knock him over", she responds by saying:
David, no slang, remember who and what you are.
ABILITY/DISABILITY: Able-bodied, no physical or mental disabilities, unless you count the glasses of, which are more there to connote his status as a scientist.
NORMATIVE OR COUNTER-HEGEMONIC?
All in all this is a very typical representation in US cinema of the time, however we do get a more unconventional emasculated male who throughout the film will never be the true strong, masculine action hero.
SOUNDTRACK:
Start off with the first track for the titles from the soundtrack, we then get. For the discussion between the characters we only get their voices as diegetic sound, with them projecting across the wide space, this adds a sense of realism.
TRANSITION TO MAIN FILM:
There is no sound added, just a cross-fade into the next scene, the change of location is the main transition, the protagonist is now on his journey as Joseph Campbell would say.
The film received critical acclaim, with a 94% 'Certified Fresh' rating on Rotten Tomatoes.[5] The film, with a budget of US$30 million, grossed a worldwide total of US$130,549,455.[2] In December 2002, the film was chosen by the American Film Institute as one of the ten best movies of the year. The film received a B+ CinemaScore from American audiences.[6] Almost universally praised, with an Academy Award-nominated screenplay, About a Boy was determined by the Washington Post to be "that rare romantic comedy that dares to choose messiness over closure, prickly independence over fetishised coupledom, and honesty over typical Hollywood endings."[7]Rolling Stone wrote, "The acid comedy of Grant's performance carries the film [and he] gives this pleasing heartbreaker the touch of gravity it needs".[8]
Roger Ebert observed that "the Cary Grant department is understaffed, and Hugh Grant shows here that he is more than a star, he is a resource."[9] The film earned Grant his third Golden-Globe nomination, while the London Film Critics Circle named Grant its Best British Actor and GQ honoured him as one of the magazine's men of the year 2006.[10] "His performance can only be described as revelatory," wrote critic Ann Hornaday, adding that "Grant lends the shoals layer upon layer of desire, terror, ambivalence and self-awareness."[7]
The New York Observer concluded: "[The film] gets most of its laughs from the evolved expertise of Hugh Grant in playing characters that audiences enjoy seeing taken down a peg or two as a punishment for philandering and womanising and simply being too handsome for words-and with an English accent besides. In the end, the film comes over as a messy delight, thanks to the skill, generosity and good-sport, punching-bag panache of Mr. Grant's performance."[11]About a Boy also marked a notable change in Grant's boyish look. Now 41, he had lost weight and also abandoned his trademark floppy hair. Entertainment Weekly's Owen Gleiberman took note of Grant's maturation in his review, saying he looked noticeably older and that it "looked good on him."[12]He added that Grant's "pillowy cheeks are flatter and a bit drawn, and the eyes that used to peer with 'love me' cuteness now betray a shark's casual cunning. Everything about him is leaner and spikier (including his hair, which has been shorn and moussed into a Eurochic bed-head mess), but it's not just his surface that's more virile; the nervousness is gone, too. Hugh Grant has grown up, holding on to his lightness and witty cynicism but losing the stuttering sherry-club mannerisms that were once his signature. In doing so, he has blossomed into the rare actor who can play a silver-tongued sleaze with a hidden inner decency."[12]
TRAILER:
IDENTS:
Universal ident and StudioCanal, the first lasting 25 secs and the second 15 secs, connotes the primary superior status of Universal as the distributor. Both have their signature sounds.
The third ident, Working Title, has an audio bridge. This connotes their status as a subsidiary.
TITLES:
The actor's name appears over the
character he is playing
The letters are all lower-case, is this a subtle signifier of the theme of childhood?
THE OPENING SHOT:
High angle and tracking shot of the protagonist.
NARRATIVE, EXPOSITION:
We get introduced to the two ventral characters, we have a binary opposition of age and also of wealth.
MISE-EN-SCENE:
The table signifies his wealth and intellectual capital, with a big book, and his shady character elements are hinted at with an ashtray, they are not anchoring him as a smoker because it might spoil the romantic image.
EDITING:
long takes.
GENRE SIGNIFIERS:
The romance side of the film isn't signified, other than that we have a carefree male who rejects long-term romantic commitments in favour of short-term flings, which is anchored through the fact he ignores the calls of his liaisons. This equilibrium will be disrupted as he will eventually find a woman he has real emotional feelings for.
REPRESENTATION:
NORMATIVE OR COUNTER-HEGEMONIC?
This is quite a stereotypical and narrow reperesentaion of the UK, focusing mainly on English, RP people as the normal characters, pandering to an International and especially US audience, typical for Working Title.
SOUNDTRACK:
Incidental music, more typical for adult rom-coms than teen rom-coms where we have a soundtrack of a song with lyrics?.
TRANSITION TO MAIN FILM:
At 3'30 as the incidental music bridges into the next scene, and the relationship between Will and Marcus is foreshadowed with the baby.
