Just from the from cover of the DVD you can tell that this film is about a man and a women and the relationship or situation between them. The woman (Ingrid Bergman) is obviously very beautiful which could persuade and influence the male audience to want to go and see her, and the man (Cary Grant) is very handsome, so it could make the female audience want to go and see him. Linking this back to my OTS, as this is not going to be made into a DVD, the audience will not know what my characters will look like before they see it. However when they actually start to watch the poker game commence, they will see that my female character is very attractive (her attractiveness will be enhanced by black clothing, dark eye make-up and her mystery), she is also young-looking which will appeal to my male audience (age range: 16-25). My OTS will appeal to the female audience by them hopefully being drawn in by the costumes and creative use of lighting and suspense.
I do understand that my male character (my dad.) might not appeal to 16-25 year old females, but to make the audience believe that he is old enough to have all of this money, he can look slightly older than my female characters.
Going back to the film noir 'Notorious', the DVD cover that i have is less suggestive of romance than the other covers i have seen. The other covers show more interaction between the main male and female characters, but my cover is of the man on the phone, and the woman's profile shot on the other half of the cover. I did notice that she isn't on the phone also, so there is no interaction between him and her. They aren't on the phone to each other!
Here is the DVD cover i have:
As you can see, the light is shining on her, and he is more in the dark - maybe to suggest he is the sneaky baddie? Even though they both look very good looking, its just a bit plain and could have been more thought out so it would fit more with the film plot.Here are the other DVD covers i have found:
Here, only Ingrid Bergman is on the cover looking very concerned yet beautiful. The background is all black so we are focusing on just her face - it can persuade the male audience to want to pick the DVD up. From just looking at this DVD cover i wouldn't have guessed that there is a main male character in it. However, she does look very alone and venerable - which is what she may feel in the film.
This shot of the woman is from the film and she looks seductive and mysterious. Cary Grant is looking very dapper in his suit and bow tie - again persuading the female audience to want to buy it. She is looking over her shoulder at him - maybe suggesting that she doesn't want to get close but still always has her eye on him? And that the scene where this photo is taken doesn't have Cary Grant character in it - he is superimposed onto it. I must also note that she is below him on the cover - suggest male dominance?
I'm guessing that there have been different covers because of different companies releasing it, but all films have been certified a 'U'. I was also thinking that if i have time after completing my editing etc, i could make my own DVD cover?
After analysing the DVD cover, i started to watch the OTS of 'Notorious'. I made notes as i went along, noting all about what was going on, camera shots, and what different things could suggest. I haven't noted what time i saw scenes, but the whole OTS lasted for around 2 minutes 20 seconds. Here are the lit of notes i made:
- There is a really quick shot of a white, happy and very American looking house. 'Pathetic Fallacy' - The happy scene has set the scene to a happy life of somebody living there? We feel a cheerful atmosphere.
- We are then taken onto the credits where the back ground is of a city - just like my own idea. However, this city background looks as if it has been painted, but mine will be a edited photograph. I used a city scene to set-the-scene which might be what Alphred Hitchcock (Director) intended. I also was thinking that as we were shown a house and then a city scene, it could suggest that the scene we are about to be shown is out of the city - going further and further away from the happy house.
- The credits are around 1 minute 10 seconds - showing us the cast and crew (the usual, typical credits). And then the credits say:
"Miami, Florida, Three-Twenty P.M,
April the Twenty-Fourth,
Nineteen Hundred and Fourty-Six"
It took me a few minutes to understand what they meant but i worked it out and found out in 'normal terms' what it means. Here is what it would have looked like if they put it in everyday vocabulary:
"Miami, Florida, 3:20pm,
April 24th, 1946"
I think they may have written it like this because it would be seen as more formal and could suggest 'police speak' - so we may get the hint that we will see some police or people who enforce the law.
- There is then a lovely shot of an old fashioned photo camera with a big flash on it, the shot the zooms out to show a man was holding the camera. The shot then moves even further out and to the side to uncover yet more men with cameras. It gave the hint that they could be journalists.
- We then are shown 180 degrees around the room stopping on a man who is slightly opening a very tall pair of wooden doors. As he is only opening the door a fraction of a degree, we get the impression that he knows he shouldn't be looking. But the 'peeking Tom' doing this is crucial for us to know that this case in court could be serious. There is then an upward movement of the camera to a sign above the door. This sign says:
"United States District Court"
- So now we know that the photographers are waiting to take photos of somebody coming out of the court, and the 'peeking Tom' was sneaking a look into a court room. This is a close up shot.
- We see a point of view shot of the 'peeking Tom' as he opens the door a bit more to show the people inside. I think the only reason this door was opening a bit more was because the film camera wouldn't have been able to fit over the 'peeking Tom's' shoulder and see enough of the room.
- While still seeing inside the court room, but seeing just the back of them. We see and hear the judge charge a unidentified defendant guilty of treason, and forced to be imprisoned for 20 years. The judge hits the gavel (i had to wikipedia that).
- The 'peeking Tom' says to the journalists: "here she comes". Everyone who was in the court room comes out of the door and the photographers start snapping Ingrid Bergman's character. We assume she could be related to the defendant in some way because she is looking miserable and there must be a reason for her to be snapped by journalists.
- Then a journalist comes up to her and asks her for a statement about her father - suggesting that she might have been witness to the incident? Our predictions were right about her being related to the defendant.
- Another man (possibly a policeman) talks to the 'peeking Tom' telling him to let him know if Ingrid Bergman's character tries to leave home.
- We then get the same still house shot we did at the start of the OTS. WE guess this could be Ingrid Bergman's characters home because the 'peeking Tom' was just mentioned to about her leaving home.
Throughout the OTS there is mainly medium and close up shots.
Treason - A crime that is serious betrayal of one's sovereign or nation.
In conclusion
I have really enjoyed watching this OTS so far, and i think analysing it like i did has encouraged me to watch the rest of it. This is probably because i heard EVERYTHING everybody had to say, and had to pay attention to everything. I love the soft black and white effect here (i know it was made in 1946 so these people didn't know anything different, but to watch it now when we have more diverse technology, its much appreciated) and it definitely makes you appreciate the amount of time that goes into old films compared to now due to technology development. Whenever i have tried to watch an old film, i normally cant keep up, or its too slow and i know i have missed key dialogue to understand what is going on. It does make me wonder why if i get lost when watching an old film and why i don't normally get lost when watching a new film? I have come to the conclusion that this might be because this film is very subtle (it is a film noir after all!) and i don't think it was the way in 1946 to make films that were in your face. Whereas now, i think films are made which are quite forward and obvious, with sarcasm and high volumes!
I decided to make my point clear about how different films were back before the 50's to how they are now, i am going to make a table. I have chose the changing point to be in the 50's because that was when colour television was big in the U.S. And also the 50's and mainly the 60's were when culture started to change - linking back to audience theory booklet. Here is the table i made:
There are soo many things that i have missed out on this table which i will definitely put on as soon as i can. I have noticed that the way people live, the thoughts a beliefs they have do effect the way film is made. I think film-makers try and push boundaries but they knew they shouldn't push them too hard. You have to know your limit.
No comments:
Post a Comment