Children of Men

How effectively does the opening sequence from 'Children of Men' use the forms and conventions of film openings? What is your personal response as a member of the audience?

Set in 2027, humans are no longer able to pro-create, and the world slowly enters a post apocalyptic state. A former activist agrees to transport a pregnant woman to a sanctuary at sea, where her child's birth may help scientists save the future of mankind. Directed by Alfonso Cuarón and released in 2006 - Source IMDB

This essay will focus on the effectiveness of the films opening sequence, and highlight the conventions associated with film openings.

We begin the film, with the universal logo.(0-20)  This establishes that its a high budget film, as universal is a prestigious and highly funding producer. Humans have become used to ignoring advertisements, and also ignoring film logos, idents etc. But something about this opening sequence hushes crowds, and gains attention. Its done this by having no sound over the Universal Ident. This is not usual, so we are enticed.

Most conventional film openings have idents with sound, as the image and sound are the trademark of the company. We then see the “STRIKE” entertainment logo, (21-30) which in this film worked in association with Hit and Run Production. Again this ident is without sound.

0.32 seconds in we hear a male voice against a blank screen, “Day 1000 of the siege of Seattle”

Credits run on the black screen as the news audio runs in the background.

This audio becomes digetic when it cuts to a medium shot of a small cafe packed with people (0.55).

We are already opposing an enigma. “the world was stunned today by the death of Diego Ricardo, the youngest person on the planet.”

How is he the youngest person in the planet, and what's happened that he is the youngest person in the planet?

Our main character is introduced. (1.03) This is subtly done by the use of sound, as well as film. His shuffling through the crowd cuts through the audio coming from the tv, and gives him some importance. The fact that he ends up being the person in the foreground of the shot also shows his significance throughout the film. The edit then cuts to a clip of the TV,(1.18) which doesn't look like an ordinary TV. It looks more like a projection. This is the futuristic theme being set for the film. On the TV it says “ Baby Diego, 2009-2027”

This establishes the time in which the piece is set, the not so distant future. We already know its set in London as through the café window you see London buses going past.

There is then a very impressive tracking shot that leaves the audience stunned.(1.34-2.28) This turns out to be a conmen feature of the film. It cuts through the crowd as it follows the main character. As soon as he reaches the door, we see a bus with a poster saying, “Kidney £300 Instant Cash!”

This establishes the economical and political state of 2027. It seems like its in absolute chaos, and as soon as we venture out into the street we see exactly how bad it is. This doesn't look like London, lt looks like a third world country. The people carrier bikes that are riding past symbolises poverty, as we connotate 3^rd world countries with them. London looks like an absolute dump. This leaves the audience with another enigma. How did London get like this?

The tracking shot continues, to a 180* shot of the main character pouring whisky into his coffee. This is the third enigma. Its something a normal, healthy man wouldn't do in the morning. The 180* shot spins round him and focus' back to the café, and suddenly a bomb goes off. We don't expect to see this and its shocking. Suddenly this environment is a terrorist scene, with bodies lying on the road, alarms going off, and people screaming. The camera tracks towards the café, swaying to either side as if the cameras running towards the scene. A woman holding her own arm with her other hand appears.

This is then the credits queue again and we're left with the title of the film. CHILDREN OF MEN across a black backdrop.(2.28)

You can conclude that the opening sequence from children of men is very gripping. It uses many techniques and adapts many conventions to do this, as I talked about earlier. The audiences response is mixed. They are both confused, and are eager to find out more. The enigmas play on their minds before the next scene comes on, but from this brilliant opening, they are hooked straight away.

Harry Potter Poster Analysis

This is a very engaging poster. Here we see a picture of harry. It shows how he's aged since the first film, his beard shows this. He looks rough, and the way the light falls on one half on his face insinuates a 'dark side' to harry in this film. Harry potter is the only film that has adapted as its audience has matured. This is not a kids film this time, it looks more like a horror film.

Harry Potter Poster Analysis

This is a posted i saw on a bus stop. The first this we see is the confrontation between the protagonist and the antagonist. The lighting has a very cold feel, and against a black background we can tell that this movies going to be dark. The words separating the characters say "THE    END    HAS    COME"
This stands out because of its hugely sparse line spacing. Its there to summarize a point, and create an enigma. The audience ask themselves "how does the end come, and what is the end?"
We also gather that there is going to be a face off between voldermort and harry, as they are both opposing the other characters. This is a minimalist approach to a poster, but i think its very effective and engaging.

Pillow Talk vs Fringe

How are the sequences from ‘Pillow talk’ and ‘fringe’ different? Discuss the difference in pace and style of editing as well as the effect the editing has on meaning/the audience’s receptions of the extracts.

In the English language, a Diatonic shift is a phrase used to describe the way the language has changed over a period of years. We can apply this phrase to pillow talk, a romantic comedy from 1959, and Fringe, a US science fiction TV series, from 2008. In these 50 years, film language has shifted dramatically.

In watching both extracts, the obvious difference is the pace of the edit. The extract of Pillow Talk opens with a medium shot of two people talking, and doesn't cut until the conversation is finished (0-24). In the first 10 seconds of fringe, there are 7 cuts. These are close up shots, and both of the men look on edge. Non-digetic mood music is played in the background. All these elements combine and add tension.

The way Pillow Talk “dramatically” starts the extract is, “Remember that girl I told you about? Jan?”(0-10) with a slight zoom towards both characters. Its a minimalist approach, but bearing in mind the main reason for long shots of conversations is because film is expensive. Its much safer, and cheaper to shoot a long take, then try and break it down into smaller shots. This would increase the margin for error. Nowadays, most cameras are digital, meaning that if errors are made, you can simply delete and re-film. This allows film-makers to achieve much more than they could in terms of shot types.

On closer analysis, we notice that there isn't any non- digetic sound in Pillow Talk, the only sound is Digetic. A noticeable difference between the two extracts is the use of communication. In pillow talk, the form of communication, apart from direct speech, is an analogue telephone. This was the technology at the time. On the edit, it uses split screen (30-1.39) to show the conversation instead of cutting back and fourth. Fringe however, uses the latest technology of the time, in a futuristic way. It has its own, “Skype” like program (0-8), and instead of filming a split screen, or cutting back and fourth, we see an over the shoulder shot of a man talking to a computer. This works very effectively, and the effect it has on the audience is that it looks like an efficient, and futuristic way of holding a meeting. This also shows how film language has changed over the years. Split-screen has become outdated. The last film I remember seeing it in was “The Hulk”, and it literally ruined the movie.

The clothes in pillow talk were modern at the time, but now they've become archaic. This isn't necessary the give-away to when it was made, we gather that by the camera format, and use of elongated static shots. As cameras have become smaller, therefore less heavy, it has become easier to get more interesting shots. 1950's cameras weighed tonnes.

The blimp (16-18) in fringe is also a good indication of how much has changed over 50 years. Computers are used to edit films, and some contain cgi, such as the terminator, and inception. Now most films use some form of cgi. In fringe, the blimp in the sky disappears with a phased sound effect. This would not have been possible 50 years ago, as films were literally hand made.

This means that we can stun please the audience. The possibilities are endless to what you can edit into films. Films such as avatar take cgi to the next level, where you really see the wow factor. The audience's reception of cgi films are generally positive. However, 50 years ago Pillow Talk was a cutting edge romantic comedy.

The lighting in Pillow Talk is bright, and clear. However, in Fringe, to add drama, its dark, and very contrasts.

To conclude, these are two very different films. They show how film language has changed over the years, and how pace plays an important part of audience reception, and conveys meaning to the audience.

Additional Horror Stills

This is by far my favorite picture I took that day. I love the contrast of the blood, and the brushed steel of the knife makes a shiny Matt effect which is definitely the focus of the shot. The way it glistens is good too. I think its the perfect shot for a horror film.

I took this picture over as we wanted to convey the theme of dominance and power.

I liked this tool. I never found out what it is, but it seemed creepy.

I thought it would be nice to take a picture of the 'armory.'

Horror Storyboard Idea

Me and Luke took a series of pictures. We achieved this effect by covering my kitchen table in white cloth, and randomly pouring blood over a selected array of everyday kitchen items. We selected utensils that looked like they could cause grievous harm.

We used various methods of spraying the costume blood. We used brushed items, such as a toothbrush to 'flick' the blood over the surface area, and straws to suck up the blood, and 'spray' it in selected areas.
It was then a case of dipping the cutlery in the blood and laying them in a size order.
The reason for this is that we both imagined our horror character as a obsessive, compulsive personality.

I then posed as the killer. I did this by smashing an old watch and wearing it, the idea behind it was that time doesn't exist for him, and his broken watch reflects his broken mind, which adds too his abnormality. I covered my arms in blood and we took a series of pictures, then edited them to make the blood look more congealed than it actually was.