Previous Students' Opening Sequences

Innocence


One thing that I found particularly interesting with this sequence was the choice of non-diegetic sound/music. The song that was chosen probably normally isn't so creepy, but for some reason in this groups opening, it works really well. Maybe its the version of the song they chose, or maybe its the whole scenario that goes with the song that makes it so creepy... either way, I think it worked quite well.
The style of titles that they used was very effective as well, I thought, since they went for a look that was very similar to those typical anonymous notes (made from individual letters cut out from newspapers/magazines) that characters receive in thriller films. I thought that the title screens/credits were also really good at setting up what was to come in the rest of the film, since those sorts of anonymous notes are often sent in kidnap films, so it seemed likely that they would feature prominently in the rest of the film.
Enigma was used in the first minute(ish) of the sequence, there were lots of shots of hands or feet or character's backs. So for quite a while you can't really tell who the characters are. You can see that one of them is a little girl, mainly because of her height and teddy bear. But apart from that, we don't really find out much about any of the characters until a bit later on.
The very first shot (close up/big close up of a white teddy bear) was very good at representing some of the themes that seem like they will feature prominently in the film. Teddy bears connote innocence (which, is also the film's title) and are also associated with children. The teddy bear was white and white is a signifier of purity. All of these themes (purity, innocence, children) seem like they will appear a lot during the course of the film.
The use of a 'missing' poster was also effective in foreshadowing events that will take place later in the film. At first, the poster seems slightly irrelevant, but then as the opening sequence goes on, the audience then begin to understand just how relevant it really is.

Exposure


The continuity in this opening sequence was very well done. Rules like the 180 degree rule were followed, and there were some good uses of matched cuts/matches on action. Shot/reverse shot was used when the male character goes to open a door, and then we see things from the other side of the door.
The camerawork in this sequence was generally very good but a few shots stood out to me, since I thought they were particularly well done:
~ The shot looking into a an opened drawer - the camera panned quickly from the left side, to the right side and then back to the left side. This quick movement showed that the shot must have been a point of view shot, from the male character's point of view. You can tell this because the male character seemed quite panicked and was rushing and the quick pan helped to convey the sense of panic/rush.
~The low level tracking shot of the male character's feet slowly walking along a corridor - I really like these kinds of shots. I think they're great at creating anticipation since the audience begin to wonder what he's walking towards.
~ The shot from inside a room where we see the door opening - when the character first opens the door, the room is totally dark and the audience can barely even see his shadow, then he switches the light on and the sequence goes from being black and white (as it was previously) to being in colour. I thought this was very effective in showing the contrast between that room (with the pictures stuck all over the walls) and the rest of the rooms in the house.
Low-key lighting appears to have been used, which is very effective for a thriller opening (as well as thrillers in general).
The film's credits were super-imposed over the scene. I thought this was very effective since it didn't break up the film too much, and allowed the action to continue at a fairly fast pace (well, for the beginning part of the sequence, at least).
I thought that the film's title screen was really very good. The font was well chosen, and I thought the effect that they used (with the flash and then the screen/text becoming negative) was very effective in showing that cameras/pictures will be important during the course of the film.


Wanted


I thought that it was very interesting how this group had so many actors in their opening sequence. I think that the finished product works quite well, but having so many actors is something that I really really don't want to do because I think it would end up being far too complicated and hard to organise.
The mise-en-scene works really well too. Particularly the dress codes and lighting. The black costumes are very effective in conveying the 'underground' world that is being presented to the audience. Similarly, the low lighting helped to connote that 'underground' theme. Also, the character's action codes (smoking, gambling, drug preparation etc.) show that the film will be about these 'underground' type characters.
I thought that the music was also well chosen and was well-suited to the themes that were being represented.
The sequence featured cross-cutting, which worked very well since it set up the final meeting between those 5 characters and also showed how they came to that point in the first place. Lots of fades and one or two fade to blacks were used and this slowed things down a bit, but not in a bad/boring way.
We were shown a few different events taking place (all of which lead up to that final meeting) and in between these events were were the title screens were put. The titles were on black screens with white text, which could possibly have been used to try and represent the contrasting good and evil that the audience will encounter during the course of the film.

Under the Gun


I thought the camera work in this sequence was very effective, as it quickly showed us who's side we were meant to be on and which characters we're meant to sympathise with. The first few shots were out of focus, and it's soon made apparent (by something that the main male character says) that we are seeing things from a female character's point of view, and she has just been regaining consciousness (which is why the first few shots were blurry). Quite a few of the shots seemed to be from that female character's point of view, so the audience begins to sympathise with her. Low angle, point of view shots of the male character were used to make him appear to be intimidating/threatening. One shot which I found particularly interesting was one of the female character, where her face was partly in shadow. This connotes a murky past, which was further confirmed when she said "I'm not a part of this anymore" ("anymore" being the operative part).
A lot of fade to blacks and fade from blacks were used, and this made the opening quite slow in pace. But this still worked very well since their opening seems to be much more character-driven than action-packed.

--------------------------------------

I noticed that most of these opening sequence had very little (if any) dialogue. I can see why these groups had to do this, and I think that for my own thriller not having too much dialogue could be a good idea, since a lot of dialogue can complicate things when shooting. But I suppose, since we have better sound equipment this year than in previous years, it may not be so bad. But still, I don't think I want to put too much dialogue in my thriller opening. I think having a bit of dialogue is fine, and probably a good idea, but not too much.

Most of the openings weren't really very fast paced, and I think that would be a good idea for my thriller opening too, since having a film opening being too fast paced can be extremely confusing for the audience. Having a slower pace can also build up to a final event (or something similar) really well.

All of the opening sequences had a range of shot types, with shots being taken from different angles and levels. I think that this is extremely important for my own opening sequence since having a range of shots makes sure that the audience don't get bored.

Most of the opening sequences also had quite low [artificial] lighting, which was very effective since it helped to create lots of shadows and a very thriller-esque atmosphere. I think that low lighting would be good to use in my own thriller opening, but I can see how getting the lighting just right could also become a problem.

The majority of the opening sequences only had 1-4 characters in them, and I think that this is probably the best way to go about things, since it ensures that you won't end up complicating things by trying to organise shooting times for a large number of actors.

So, overall I think that looking at previous students' opening sequences was very helpful and enabled me to find out what works and doesn't work both when shooting and with the end result.

Zodiac Opening Sequence

The film starts with the Paramount and then the Warner Brothers logos on screen (I'm not entirely sure what the proper name for these are). In the background there are sound effects of fireworks fizzling. Then a black title screen comes up with the words "What follows is based on actual case files" on it. A song starts playing and then there is an establishing extreme long shot of a bridge and San Francisco skyline, with fireworks going off in the distance. There is then a tracking shot of some houses, taken from inside a car, with the car window as the frame within a frame. Then the words "July 4, 1969 - Vallejo, CA" appear over the shot. The car stops and beeps its horn. We then see a man closing his front door and jogging towards the car/camera. He leans through the window and says to the driver of the car "Where have you been? I've been waiting since 7". There is then a reverse shot (Medium shot) of the driver, who is a blonde haired white woman telling the man "Get in. I had to find fireworks". There is then some more dialogue between the characters and then the man gets into the car. We see the car drive away and then it cuts to the car driving up to a diner. The woman says that it's too crowded and they should go "some place quiet" , the man says okay and then it cuts to a very/extreme long shot of the car parking in a deserted area. The characters talk some more and it is made clear to the audience that the man and the woman are a couple or will potentially become a couple soon, since the woman starts flirting with the man. Characters in two other cars throw a small firework at the man and woman's car. The man swears at them as they drive off. The woman starts to gently make fun of him. The camera tracks sideways as a car pulls up behind the man and the woman's car. The man and the woman turn around and try to see who's in the other car, but the other car is totally dark on the inside. The man asks if the other car was at the diner and says he definitely saw it there. The woman tells him to "shhh...". Both characters start to look very anxious.
Man: Do you want me to tell him to leave?
Woman: Stay in the car.
The other car then drives off.
Man: Was that your husband?
Woman: *staring out of the car window* No.
Man: Who was that Darlene?
*she turns around to face him*
Woman: Don't worry about it.
Man: Don't tell me not to worry. Who was it?
Woman: It's nothing
Things seem to have become awkward between them, since they both start looking down at their laps. We then hear the screech of car brakes and the two characters watch as the other car drives back towards them. Darlene says "Oh shit" then the man begins to look more panicked and says that they should go. The person in the other car gets out of the car and then starts coming over to their car and is holding a torch, making the character unrecognisable to both the audience and Darlene and the man. The character from the other car walks from the back of Darlene's car, to the car window the man's sitting by (this character still cannot be seen properly). Loud rock music is also playing on the radio. The man then says "Man, you really creeped us out". The other character repeatedly shoots the man and Darlene. All the while, this character's face is completely in shadow. The other character begins to walk away, then comes back and shoots the man some more. Then he/she walks back to his car and the screen fades to black.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I thought the opening of Zodiac was very effective. It did a similar thing to Scream in that both films started by showing the first 'disruption' (as in Todorov's narrative structure theory). I liked the way that the opening sequence leads the audience in one direction (particularly if they have no prior knowledge of the film or the real murder case that it's based on) and then there's a plot twist. So, the film starts sort of like a romance film, there's lots of fireworks and happy people, then the audience is introduced to a couple. This makes the audience think that the couple will be the main characters of the film. But then there's a plot twist since the characters who the audience think may end up being the main characters are killed within the first 5ish minutes. I also liked the use of enigma. At the beginning of the film, we can see that some of the shots are from inside a car. This makes the audience wonder who's car it is and where the car's going. Then when the man is talking to the person in the car, the audience wonder who he's talking to. This enigma goes away fairly early on in the opening. Enigma is used again when the man and the woman are shot. The murderer character is holding a torch in his/her hand, which casts a shadow over his/her face, making him/her unrecognisable. This enigma effectively sets up the rest of the film, since it becomes apparent that the film will be about trying to find out who this killer is.

I've already mentioned this in another blog but just to re-iterate...
1. I think that enigma in a thriller opening is very important
2. Showing the disruption of equilibrium before showing the equilibrium itself can be very interesting.

The Problematic and Ideology

The Problematic
The problematic is the main problem in a film that the main character will face and have to resolve by the end. The problematic is often used to describe what a film is about.

The problematic in Fatal Attraction
Married man, Dan Gallagher, has an affair with a woman named Alex. Alex turns out to be slightly mentally unstable and she causes lots of problems for Dan and his family.

The problematic in Scream
A serial killer strikes in a quiet town in America and the characters try to stay alive and find out who the killer really is.

The problematic in Disturbia
A teenager named Kale is put under house arrest after punching a teacher. He begins to look out of the windows in his house and starts to believe that one of his neighbours is a serial killer.

Ideology
Ideology is the main point that a film is trying to make and what a film is against.

The ideology in Fatal Attraction

• Single women are dangerous
• It's better to be a stereotypical married housewife

The ideology in Psycho

• Mentally ill people are a danger to society

The Three Act Plot Structure Theory

This theory was created by Syd Field. Field explained that films are split into 3 sections:

Act One: Setup
Field said that the first ten minutes of the film are often the most important, since it is at that point that the audience decide whether or not they like the film. Field also believed that once the audience had made their mind up after 10 minutes, they wouldn't change their minds after that. So, the film makers have to make sure that in the first ten minutes the audience get a sense of who the main characters are and why the audience should care them, what the film's about and what to expect in style terms. During the rest of the first 30 minutes, the audience should be shown what sort of problem the main character will face.

PLOT POINT ONE: an important part of the plot

Act Two: Confrontation
This is the longest act of the film. In this act we see the main character facing lots of problems and trying (but failing) to overcome them. There is often a mid-point in the act, where the main character begins to turn things around. But at this point there's still quite a long way to go.

PLOT POINT TWO: the main character realises that the way they've been trying to resolve their problems is not working. This leads on to...

Act Three: Resolution
The main character finally takes control of the situation and will achieve a final victory.

Applying the theory to Fatal Attraction
Act One
The audience is introduced to the Gallagher family. We see that Dan and Beth Gallagher have a young daughter named Ellen. Dan and Beth are getting ready to go to a party. At this party, Dan meets a woman named Alex. When Beth goes away for the weekend, Dan bumps into Alex at his work, and then they go out to a restaurant. Then the affair begins since Dan and Alex go and have sex in Alex's apartment. During the course of the weekend, the affair progresses.

PLOT POINT ONE: Dan tries to break things off with Alex. Alex reacts badly to this and slits her wrists, Dan manages to save her.

Act Two
The audience begins to see that Alex isn't quite right mentally. Alex tells Dan she's pregnant, and continually phones him but he tries to get away from her. Then she does things like vandalise his car and boil the family's pet rabbit. Dan tries to inform the police, but they aren't very helpful. Dan tells Beth about the affair and Alex's pregnancy. Beth throws him out of the house. Ellen goes missing (Alex takes her out without the parents' permission) and Beth gets into a car accident. Dan goes to visit Beth in the hospital and he is forgiven for the affair.

PLOT POINT TWO: Dan goes over to Alex's apartment and tries to strangle her. He then comes to his senses and stops. Alex tries to stab him but he gets the knife away from her and then he walks out of the apartment.

Act Three
Beth comes home from the hospital. She's going to have a bath soon, so the bath is filling up with water (which becomes significant later on). Beth asks Dan to make her a cup of tea, so he goes downstairs to do so. Alex appears in the bathroom, talks to Beth for a while and then starts to attack her. Dan can't hear this happening since the water in the kettle's boiling loudly. Eventually, Dan hears Beth screaming so he runs upstairs to save her. He manages to pull Alex off Beth, then holds Alex's head under the water in the bath. She seems to have drowned, but after quite some time she suddenly comes up from the water. Beth then shoots Alex in the chest. The audience sees the police car outside the house, Dan shaking hands with the policeman he tried to report to about Alex, Dan and Beth hug and then the film ends.

Some initial thoughts/ideas

Quite a while ago, Emma and I had a discussion about potential ideas for our thriller. Emma came up with the fantastic idea of a female character with a femme fatale personality but an innocent appearence. I love this idea and have become a bit hung up on the thought of doing the opening in a really enigmatic way (for some reason, the thought of a close-up of walking feet, is sticking in my mind). Whatever the idea ends up being, I think it'd be really good to have a considerable amount of the opening to be enigmatic, with the main character of the opening sequence only being fully revealed right near the end of the opening . So, lots of shots of feet, hands etc but very few of the character's face.

I did also have the possible idea a while ago of a documentary style, video diary of a serial killer, type of film. But that's a bit disturbing and freaks me out a bit :S. Also, in terms of getting a variety of shot types, I don't think this idea would work since it wouldn't really enable us to do that. That and I'm not entirely sure about what could happen in the opening.

After watching the 'Scream' and 'Zodiac' openings (I'll write a proper blog about the Zodiac opening in a later blog), I've also started to quite like the idea of showing the 'disruption' (like in Todorov's narrative structure theory) first, and then showing the equilibrium stage after. But, I don't think that'd be possible to do in just 2 minutes!

So, I don't really have any set ideas yet, just a few vague ones. I think I might watch the Crime and Investigation channel (my dad watches is a lot... I'm not so keen, but it could be useful) some time to see if I can get any ideas from there :)

Narrative Theories & applying them to films

Claude Levi-Strauss' Oppositions

Levi-Strauss came up with the idea that within films, there are pairs of themes which are known as 'binary opposites'. As implied by the name, these themes are opposite to each other.

An example that often appears in films is good v evil.

Different genres often have common binary opposites of their own. For example, comedy films often have an intelligent character and one who is silly (stupid seems a bit harsh, but I guess you could use that too).

Applying the theory to Psycho

• Good (Marion, Marion's boyfriend Sam, Marion's sister Lila etc) v evil (Norman)
• Male (Norman, Sam, Detective Arbogast) v female (Marion, Lila)
• Insanity (Norman) v sanity (everyone else)
• Freedom (Marion, Sam, Lila etc) v entrapment (Norman)
• Normal (Marion's lifestyle) v abnormal (Norman's lifestyle)
  
  

Tzvetan Todorov's narrative structure

Todorov said that films are structured using the following stages:

1. A state of equilibrium, where everything is normal/as it should be
2. Disruption which affects the equilibrium
3. New equilibrium
   

These stages can be broken down into 5 slightly smaller stages:

1. A state of equilibrium, where everything is normal/as it should be
2. Disruption which affects the equilibrium
3. Recognition of the disruption
4. Attempts to repair the disruption
5. The restoration of a new equilibrium (this equilibrium is never really the same as the first, due to irreversible events that take place during the course of the film)
   

These stages create a circular structure. Todorov also stated that these stages don't necessarily happen in the order shown above.

Applying the theory Scream
Scream starts off by showing the audience the first disruption: Casey and her boyfriend being murdered.
The audience is then shown the initial state of equilibrium: Sidney with her boyfriend and Sidney's dad going away for a business trip.
The initial disruption is then recognised by Casey's parents finding her body and the police are informed. It is also recognised the next day at school when lots of reporters are there.
There is then a second disruption is Sidney being attacked by the killer.
The disruptions can't really be repaired, so instead the characters try to prevent further disruptions by implementing a curfew. This is a thwarted attempt at resolving the situation since the curfew makes no difference really, and more people are murdered.
At the end we find out who the killer is and Sidney shoots him in the head, and this creates a new equilibrium.

Vladimir Propp's character types

Propp explained that there are 8 character types in almost all stories:

1. The hero
2. The villain
3. The donor - provides valuable object or information
4. The helper - the hero's accomplice
5. The princess - the reward for the hero at the end
6. The princess's father - rewards the hero at the end
7. The dispatcher - sends the hero away on his/her mission
8. The false hero

Applying the theory to Rear Window

1. The hero - L.B. Jefferies
2. The villain - Lars Thorwald
3. The donor - there isn't really a donor character. But I suppose Jefferies' window could be the donor since that's what gives him the information about what's happening in other people's houses
4. The helper - Stella
5. The princess - Lisa Fremont
6. The princess's father - There isn't really a father character in Rear Window
7. The dispatcher - there isn't really a dispatcher character, but the dispatcher could be Jefferies' injury, since that's what caused him to start watching his neighbours
8. The false hero - Lieutenant Thomas Doyle
   

Roland Barthes Action and Enigma Codes

Barthes believed that films are made up of two types of narrative codes:

1. Action Codes - these are events that take place during the course of the film, which lead to other events often creating suspense since the audience wonder what will happen next
2. Enigma Codes - these are events which make the audience question why they happened, therefore creating a sort of mystery.

Applying the theory to Fatal Attraction

Action Codes:

• Dan and Alex meet at the party
• Dan's wife goes away for the weekend
• Dan and Alex have an affair
• Dan tries to break-up with Alex
• Alex slits her wrists and issaved by Dan.
• Alex continually phones/tries to contact Dan
• Alex tells Dan that she's pregnant with his child
• Alex does things like vandalising Dan's car and boiling the family's pet rabbit
• Dan's wife finds out about the affair
• Alex takes Ellen out without the parents' permission
• Dan's wife gets into a car accident
• Dan goes to Alex's apartment and attacks her
• Alex comes to Dan's family home and tries to attack his wife
• Dan saves his wife and then she shoots Alex

Enigma codes:

• Did Alex's dad really die of a heart attack like she said he did?
• Does Alex have some serious mental issues? If so, has anyone noticed before or was it just the events in the film that caused her to go a bit mad?
• (Before Dan phones the doctor) Is Alex actually pregnant or did she just say she was to try and get Dan to stay with her?
• How did Alex survive for so long in the bath tub?

Fatal Attraction, Memento and Scream

Well, I realised I hadn't posted a blog about any of these, and thought it would be a good idea to do so...

Fatal Attraction
Overall, I found this film pretty... okay. It wasn't particularly amazing but it wasn't bad either. I didn't really like it much, but then I didn't dislike it either. (I have no idea if that makes sense).

While Fatal Attraction is a very good example of some film theories put into practice (which, I will post something about later on) I had a few issues with some of the narrative events in the film:
1) Why would Dan (Michael Douglas) go after Alex (Glenn Close) in the first place? His wife is prettier than Alex, and Alex's hairline was just scary in the first scene we see her in.
2) The rabbit. That poor, poor rabbit. That was just plain mean! If Alex wanted to go hurt Dan or his wife, that's fair enough (well, not really, but it's a bit more understandable) but leave the rabbit alone! :( I was very sad when that poor defenceless rabbit got boiled. I hate it when bad things happen to animals in films/on TV.
3) Not so much a narrative event issue, but more a dress code type issue: why did they have to cut the little girl's hair like a boy's? At first I thought she was a boy :S

I thought it was very interesting how Alex was wearing white in the final scene, which is often a signifier of purity, when in terms of this film, Alex had totally lost it by this point and was going to kill Dan's wife (which, is clearly not a very 'pure' thing to do).

Memento
Memento was really great when it came to being innovative and making the film really different from most films, since it was a non-linear film. The idea/storyline itself was really good too. But, by the end of the film I was thoroughly confused. I suppose that's sort of the point, I guess they want you to wonder if Leonard/Lenny's wife is really alive or if Teddy's just saying that... with this film you could never really tell who was lying and who was actually telling the truth. Again, I guess that's the point, but I don't like it when that happens! I don't like being confused! I could follow the whole storyline fine, it was just the unanswered questions at the end that bothered me. But, if the creators of Memento were hoping to confuse the audience by the end, then well done to them, they managed it quite well...

Scream
Definitely my favourite out of the thrillers I've seen recently. It was a bit yuck at times (like the cat flap on the garage door thing... blegh) but also quite funny, which was something that I thought was cool. I liked how funny things were said at the times that should theoretically be the most tense/scary times. I thought it was interesting how they gave an indiciation of who the killer was fairly early on in the film, but then they made it seem as if Billy was falsely accused when he was in fact the killer. I also liked how Scream was almost a parody of most horror films, since it was all about the rules (or conventions). I did guess after a while that there must have been more than one killer, since some of the stuff seemed a bit too geographically impossible for there to only be one. I thought the casting of the film was pretty good too.
[And a similar note, here's a random/slightly irrelevant bit of information for you: Neve Campbell was in the ballet chorus of The Phantom of the Opera in Toronto when she was 15, which earns her some brownie points from me :P]

Also, according to Wikipedia:

• Scream is one of the most successful horror franchises of all time, rivaling classics Halloween, Nightmare on Elm Sreet, Friday the 13th and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Alll together nationally grossing more than $293 million. In the US Scream grossed $103 million, Scream 2 $101 million, and Scream 3 $89 million.
• Altogether, the series used 90 gallons of fake blood. Scream used 50, Scream 2 used 30, and Scream 3 used 10.

So basically, Scream was my favourite, and Fatal Attraction and Memento were both alright.

On a different note, there's a new thriller called 'Rendition' coming out tomorrow. I think I might go see it at some point soonish. And it has Jake Gyllenhaal in it, which is always a plus. Hopefully during the half term I'll have time to watch a few thrillers :)