For my A2 portfolio I was required to create a short horror
film, this was a difficult task as I did not have a great understanding of how
to create a film, however I had seen many horror films myself so I understood
the basis of what I wanted. The mise en scene in our film remained consistent
throughout, we had very limited locations as it was all filmed within a field,
and one house, this made location scouting easy and by incorporating a
consistent mise en scene with locations it ensured that our audience were not
confused at any point about the locations within the film, we also ensured that
our actors always wore the same clothes each time we filmed, whilst this may
seem like an obvious thing to maintain, it was heavily key to ensure our film
made sense, otherwise our audience would be questioning as to why our actors
have different clothes within each scene. Our mise en scene helped us appeal to
various aspects of reception theory, particularly personal integrative needs
within the text as the audience were able to relate with the actors within the
film as the locations and clothes are common to that of the time, so our
audience could see that this was a film set in the present day. Our main
protagonist within our film was female, and the antagonist a male, we found
this to be stereotypical within horror films as the female is often perceived
as 'weak' in relation the antagonist and as we did not want to stray too far
from common conventions of horror films we decided to maintain this convention
within our own film.
Lighting was another feature we had to focus on as we were
creating a horror film, we found lighting to be key to establish this,
particularly for the audience, we used a variety of lighting but most of which
remained to be low key, and some elements of chiaroscuro (particularly
noticeable within the camera glitches) this generated an eerie feel for the
film which helped to establish to the audience the genre, this allows us to
generate a preferred reading for the audience, however it is still open for a
negotiated reading (as are most modern texts). We needed to ensure we followed
as many codes and conventions of horror films as possible to ensure our
audience received the preferred reading of our media text, we did not want to
generate any confusion with the genre. The chiaroscuro lighting in the glitch
scenes of the camcorder allowed for some confusion for the audience, this was
intended to grip the audience as it generated hermeneutic codes, not only were
the unsure as to what is happening within the glitch, but the chiaroscuro
lighting provides suspense and further elements of mystery to the scenes. Minimal
sound was used within our film, this was a convention we followed from short
horror films, little variety in sound, and along with little dialogue. Our film
primarily used diegitic sounds that we had added during the editing process,
such as keyboard typing, footsteps, skype calling noises, and 2 horror
soundtracks that added an uneasy feel to the film, this was all we felt it
needed. We had very few non-diegitic sounds, one of the most noticeable however
is when the attic is opened, the non-diegetic sound of the attic door opening
was discomforting enough to be left within the film. The sound simply aided the
construction of our preferred reading as it made it clear that the film was to
be taken seriously, and that there was an element of suspense and fear
throughout the text.
Our film used a range of different camera shots to establish
different ideas within each scene, we wanted to create hermeneutic codes
throughout the entirety of our film, until the final scene was reached. We used
a number of high angle and low angle shots around the main protagonist, this
enabled us to shift the perception of power between the protagonist and the
antagonist, as the high angle shots made it appear that the protagonist was
weak (stereotypical of a female victim) however the low angle shots we used
allowed us to make a counter typical representation as it appeared that the
protagonist was stronger than the viewer. Half of the film is viewed from the
antagonists perspective on a handheld camera, this meant we had a lot of shake
cam shots that cause discomfort for the audience and further reinforces the establishing
of genre, it also means that we view the majority of the film from the killers
perspective, which puts the audience within the position of power, in relation
to the effects model of audience theory, this means that the audience are
passive and powerless to prevent the influence of the film upon them,
particularly within the final scenes of the film where they must witness the
murder of an innocent girl, this could cause discomfort for the audience which
is another common convention of horror films, this helps us to reduce the
likelihood of oppositional and negotiated readings that we do not want.
Editing was one of the most important features for our film,
primarily due to parallel editing. We used parallel editing throughout the
entirety of our film as the audience were moved to and from the protagonist and
the antagonists position, the audience are required to piece together the film
themselves. As our film is consists entirely of parallel editing it meant that
we followed a non-linear narrative, however we did not follow Todorov's
narrative theory when doing this. We followed the conventions of short horror
films that equilibrium is never restored at the end of the film, within our
film, the film begins with equilibrium, then disequilibrium is established as
the killer is bought into the film, however equilibrium is never restored as
the protagonist is killed at the end of the film, this applies directly to the
effects model as the audience are subjected and passive towards the murder of a
woman. In relation to uses and gratifications theory our film primarily appeals
to the audience as a needs to entertain and hopefully by following common
conventions of horror films, providing the appropriate audience are watching
the film, it does this.
No comments:
Post a Comment