An Example of How Music (Or lack there of) Can Affect Story Tone

 

Above is a two minute clip which I implore you to see. The video is a parody of the Throne Room scene from the original Star Wars film created by Auralnauts - a channel specialising in movie parodies on YouTube. Whilst parodies may not be everyone's cup of tea (as they normally aren't for me), this parody is unique in the fact that it changes incredibly little about the source material. The only things the parody changes for comedic effect is the soundtrack and a couple of sound effects. This process manages to change the scene from one focussing on celebration and glory to a scene that seems to be more at place in a modern cringe-comedy.

 

I hope you enjoy it, or at least find it as interesting as I did.



Mise-en-scene Character Study of the Magneto in X-Men: First Class

The film X-Men: First Class (directed and co-written by Matthew Vaughan) primarily follows the character Erik Lehnsherr (later known as Magneto and played in adult form as the talented Michael Fassbender) as the protagonist. The character’s decisions throughout the film are rooted in his past – a past of oppression and misery in the concentration camps in the Poland of 1944.

The opening scene of the film shows us what life was like for a younger Erik (played in youth by the also talented Bill Milner) and through the use of mise-en-scene, the filmmakers visually represent the characters misery and also the misery of concentration camps during the Second World War. The scene itself shows very little, but is still effective – all the scene shows at first glance is magneto being separated from his family, bending a metal gate and then being knocked unconscious by a soldier.

Both Erik and the characters surrounding him (excluding soldiers) wear well worn, dark clothing and appear pale and dirty through their makeup - implying that the Erik and the other people held in the camp are not cared for and it also highlights their oppression at the hands of Nazi soldiers. The Nazi soldiers themselves are dressed in cleaner, newer clothes and this further highlights the difference between Erik and the people in power. There is a tattoo of a designated number on the arm of another member of camp and this reinforces the sense of ownership pushed onto Erik and the other members of the camp.

There are few props in the opening scene, but those that are utilised are utilised effectively. For example, the wheel barrow and pickaxe used by camp members other than Erik reinforce the sheer subjugation that people inside concentration camps faced. Another prop used is the gun. The gun is used at the end of the scene to subdue Erik and is used to show the powerlessness of the early Magneto and to also foreshadow his eventual transformation into a human weapon later on in the film.

The figure expressions of Erik and surrounding characters show sadness, powerlessness and oppression. This is well juxtaposed to the figure expressions on the soldiers and authoritarian figures as they are shown to be confident and strong in their expressions – further heightening the power imbalance between Erik and soldiers and also further showing the realistic power difference between those inside the concentration camps and those controlling the concentration camps.

Throughout the scene, the characters and setting are shown in low key lighting but this does not emphasise power difference, as many other elements of the scene do, but instead shows horror. Soldiers and people in the camps are both given equally dark lighting – revealing that concentration camps are horrific to all. The low key lighting also can be seen as the foreshadowing of Erik’s concealment from the world during his hunt for Sebastian Shaw.

The last element I wish to cover is setting. The entirety of the scene is shown in a dark camp with rain which gives the audience a sense of oppression and bleakness, a feeling that I’m certain any human would reciprocate if placed in a concentration camp. Another key part of the setting is the metal gate seen towards the end of the beginning scene. The gate is shown as a symbol of power and oppression by the Nazi soldiers as it contains the people inside the concentration camp and reinforces their subjugation with its barbed wire atop itself. The metal gate is also a symbol of power Erik as it is the first showing of his power (which itself is of a controlling nature, although only of magnetic fields) and is the first showing of people fighting against the soldiers and authority figures shown throughout the opening scene.

Erik Lehnsherr’s journey (or descent depending on your outlook on life) towards becoming Magneto is shown gradually throughout X-Men: First Class, but I believe this opening scene in particular is key to setting the direction of both the character and the film tonally.

Annie Wilkes Mise-en-scene Analysis

In the film Misery, directed by Rob Reiner and based on the Stephen King Novel of the same name, a lot of information can be inferred about the character of Annie Wilkes (played by actress Kathy Bates) through the films use of mise-en-scene. Mise-en-scene describes several aspects of a film including: costume and makeup, setting, figure expression, lighting and props.

The costume Kathy Bates wears during her performance comprises predominantly of the colour black, a colour associated with security and emotional safety. This gives viewers the idea that she is protecting the character Paul Sheldon in the beginning of the film, however black can also be associated with both oppression and menace – allowing for an easy change in the viewers opinions towards her as the film progresses.

The costume itself appears to be fairly religious and nurse-like in origins. This reinforces the idea that Annie is a kind and caring character at the beginning of the film and gives context to her actions and psyche when her past is revealed to the audience.

Annie Wilkes’ house becomes the main setting of the film after the first act is completed and it shows the audience a lot about her character. The house appears to be very clean and meticulously sorted - as shown by her knowledge of the direction the penguin is facing – this shows us that Annie Wilkes is a very obsessive person and is in control. This amplifies the audience’s feelings of unease towards her “helping” Paul Sheldon.

There are many aspects of the setting which amplify the notion that Annie Wilkes is heavily secluded. The long driveway which is utilised to build tension in the film is just as much a metaphor for how distant the outside world has become for Annie since her divorce. The many locks on her door can show us that her character doesn’t want to interact with anything outside of her house.

The figure expression of the character changes very quickly and often throughout the play. Sometimes her expression can change from being very innocent and childlike to near instantly changing to become very forceful and strong. This would give the audience a sense that she is unpredictable. Annie Wilkes’ unpredictability is a driving tension for the character of Paul Sheldon throughout the film.

Earlier parts of the film show Annie as a kinder authority as the later parts do and this is reflected well in the lighting of the character. High key lighting is used more often on the character during the earlier, “kinder” moments of the character whilst more low key lighting is used closer to the final depictions of Annie Wilkes. The lighting is used to reflect the progression of the character from a lighter mental state to a darker mental state – if you’ll pardon the pun.

There aren’t too many props that reflect solely on Annie’s character throughout the film, but the few that do give the audience a drastic change to their ideas on her. For example, the sledgehammer prop is used later in the film to assert her dominance and to shock the viewer once we believe that Paul Sheldon is safe. The crowbar the character uses at the beginning of the film begin to show the audience that Annie is a very strong and potentially dangerous character. The other props (such as her cross, her books and idols) and the way she interacts with them reveal that Annie is childlike in nature.

To sum up, the character of Annie Wilkes is shown to be twisted, bipolar and threatening throughout the film, but the main thing the character is shown to be is broken.

A Personal Response to Misery



Misery was a film adaptation of the Stephen King novel of the same name. It was released in theatres in 1990 and was directed by Rob Reiner. The film follows the character Paul Sheldon (played by James Caan), a writer who finds himself saved by his biggest fan (a character name Annie Wilkes who is played by Kathy Bates). Over the course of the film, it is slowly revealed that Annie is not the saviour she appears to be and a psychological thriller ensues.

For me, the film Misery was disappointing. The main reasons I found it to be disappointing (which I shall be discussing) were its handling of tension, its over use of tropes and its (in my opinion) poor ending.

There were several aspects of the film which could’ve been expanded upon to create greater depth - such as the pig named Misery, which could’ve been utilised more as a metaphor for the Misery books and Paul Sheldon’s relationship to them, Annie Wilkes relationship to the character Misery, or the emotion of misery itself. But no, instead the pig seems to be used only to tell the audience that Annie Welks is childish and lives on the farm, a fact that can already be inferred by watching the previous scenes.

The inherent weakness and vulnerability of sleep and from being drugged could have been utilised a lot more, especially since a lot of scenes with Paul Sheldon begin with him waking up. I feel there would have been more psychological horror for the audience to experience if sleep itself was an element of the horror – which brings me to my next point.

I personally only felt tension in two scenes of the film. This is not a good thing for me. The film could have manipulated the information the audience was giving to lull them into a false sense of security and then shock them later but no; watching the film as a whole, I noticed that when the characters were expressing signs of tension, I was not tense – if I was, I was certainly not feeling as much tension as they were intending for me to and this disappointed me.

Also, a lot more could have been done surrounding the burning of manuscripts. Instead of being a representation of letting go or a representation of loss in general, the burning of manuscripts is shown just to let the audience know that Annie is a bad person and that she likes the Misery books – even this is a plot point that is supposed to link the beginning to the end. Again, this is a fact that can be inferred by watching the rest of the film.

When Paul Sheldon’s manuscripts are originally burnt, Annie Wilkes burns them over a barbeque; the fact a barbeque was used led me to believe she was going to feed the book to Paul and I was mistaken. This would’ve made the film more horrific and work much better in my opinion as I feel that the threat of Annie Wilkes wasn’t established well, that is until she randomly pulls out a gigantic weapon seemingly out of nowhere to brutalise someone. Even when brutalising someone, there is not enough time given for the audience to really feel the tension or debilitation of it: Paul keeps on writing as he once did and even gets a comedic middle finger out of his hobbling, and the sheriff gets hidden away without any reaction of his wife and friends he left behind.

The death of the Sheriff marks the beginning of a rushed and poor ending to the film. This point suddenly changes character motives to try to tie the plot into a neat bow. For example, Annie Welks – seemingly built up to be either a usurper of Paul Sheldon or lover of his writing – suddenly wishes to kill both her and Paul which is not at all what the film felt like it was leading to for me.

During the final fight, several tropes of horror are used. The main one used is the ‘not quite dead’ villain trope. Although the pacing of the ending is too quick for these tropes to really bear any weight on the plot, just like the rest of the ending... WHOOPS DID I JUST SAY THAT OUTLOUD?!

 But seriously, the ending was rushed and this normally stops there from being any emotional weight put on the audience until the final scene, so I’m glad they really put in a good emotionally impactful ending... wait what? No they didn’t. I hated the ending to this film – I can’t say otherwise. For one it’s comedic so doesn’t reflect the tone of the film and since when did movies actually become good from having silly one liners put in the end of films, especially in a supposed horror film? It just seemed tonally jarring and really left a bad taste in my mouth.

Also, I feel like the idea of this film being an interesting gender role reversal in cinema is wrong. Looking at it deeply with gender-vision turned on, you can see it is a film about a woman trying to become more powerful than a man and no matter how hard she tries, she is still overcome (and also murdered) by a man. Although she did kill that old man on screen, but then again gender-vision will show you that he obviously (heavy sarcasm is heavy) deserved it because he wasn’t sexually satisfying his wife enough.

To avoid being over critical I’d like to discuss what the filmmakers did excellently – setting up and its use of detail. Every shot and every line of dialogue could be seen as set up for what was to come; my issue is just that the pay off from the majority of this was unfulfilling. The filmmakers also used visual cues to tell the audience key parts of the story without using the ever frustrating exposition Hollywood seems to love recently. The actors also gave magnificent performances, often not having to speak to convey emotions and responses to actions.

 To say a film is disappointing, to me, does not make it bad film. In fact, I think misery is actually a very good film; it just left me wanting more. Whether it being overhyped by fans of the film or just my own experience with cinema and storytelling, I felt that a lot more could have been done with the film.