Inside Llewyn Davis Stills Analysis

In this shot, there is a heavy focus on perspective moving across the screen, and the colors are fantastic. The alignment of the chairs and lights coming from the left foreground and moving across to the middle right of the shot creates an enormous amount of depth. The characters are framed in the very center, but are not really the main focal point of this shot. They sort of just blend into the atmosphere of this cafe landscape. The contrast of color in this shot is one of best things about it, with the white lights against the almost black section of wall, and the red chairs, in line with the lights, across the white floor. This shot is incredible.

Again in this shot, there is a heavy use of perspective, this time focused on the center of the image. It is a wide angle shot of a bathroom and in the very center, we have Llewyn framed by the very dark doorway. This dark doorway is the focal point of the shot, being the darkest point standing out in the middle of light green and blue tones. Also the repetition of the stalls and urinals help create the depth and give the shot some asymmetry, balancing the left and right sides. With the dark doorway emerging from the center of the frame, and the centered perspective, this shot feels very horror-like feel.

I love silhouetted shots like this one. This medium shot is a great example of the rule of thirds, with the car aligned from the right all the way to the middle of the frame, and Llewyn occupying the center of the left half of the frame. The light coming from above, presumably the moon, is the only source of light in the shot. It creates a nice separation of the top and bottom of the image, and also creates the background that Llewyn is silhouetted against. Also, having the background lit like that, and that car driving in the background, keep the shot from feeling too flat because the character in the shot is just a black figure. Llewyn and the car also just fade into the bottom half of the frame into the blackness, and become part of the scenery.

Once more, we have a centered, perspective heavy shot. I chose this one because it is a repeated shot when he goes into the apartment buildings. This is is also comparably symmetrical than the bathroom image. Llewyn is framed in the center by two doors that split out from each other creating the illusion of depth. The door doors, expanding form the middle of the still are framed by the lit section of the white walls. Then the white section of the walls are framed by the unlit black portion of the walls, in the foreground of the image. This shot tiers in from foreground with the black bars on either side to the center focal point with the character. This shot, once again, has a strong contrast from the foreground and the middle ground that adds to the close atmosphere of this tight apartment complex.

This shot is another great example of the use of rule of thirds. It is a wide shot of a very dimly lit cafe, with all of the light being focused on the background of the image. The depth here is created from the lighting, having the foreground almost completely silhouetted against the lit stage. The background consists of Llewyn spotlit on stage, with another light off to the left that serves as a background for the people and pillar to sit against. Llewyn is framed in the middle of the right half, and the pillar in the middle of the left, contrasting the two sides of the shot. Also, having the people at the bottom and the roof at the top helps create and focus the attention to the main character.

Moonrise Kingdom Still Analysis

This is a very well crafted shot, using repeated shapes to occupy the foreground, middle ground, and background. The shot is from a slightly higher angle overlooking the campsite, sort of peeking over the fence. At the bottom of the frame in the foreground there is a picket fence in front of the characters we are following, that creates a line of triangles along the bottom of the composition. In the middle ground, the top of the picket fence is mimicked by the numerous rows of triangle topped tents, in which the marching Khaki Scouts also fall in line with. The background is occupied by even more tents repeating the same visual of the triangle and drawing it all the way through the shot, from front to back. This line of tents also adds perspective to the composition and adds depth. As far as color goes, the top and bottom of the frame are much darker, almost black, and frame in the scenery of the campsite and characters. Most of the shot uses the colors yellow and green, with the bright yellow tents serving as focal points for the center of the shot.

O Brother, Where Art Thou? Analysis Questions

Presentation

2. Homer’s Penelope is waiting for Osidius to come back, facing the suitors who are eating his food and taking advantage of his kingdom. In the Coen’s version, Penny, obviously short for Penelope, is not waiting for Everett to come back at all. She has moved on and already found another man who she is with, and told her kids that Everett was hit by a train.

3. The Coen decided to use the bible salesman as the Cyclops. Whenever he is shown on screen, it is from a low angle, making him look larger than the main characters like the giant Cyclops from The Odsyssey. He also breaks a large branch off of the tree echoing the giant from The Odyssey as well.

Scene Analysis

1. The first we hear as the introduction of the film is chirping and the sound of instruments pounding against the ground. This becomes the soundscape of the film, and them there are voices that come in as well. This way, we start listening to the film first even though there is no visual element yet. In this approach to the beginning of the film, it makes the introduction to the film and visuals easier.

2. The cross cutting close ups between the characters faces show each shot of the reaction of the men, and this showcases the personality of each man. While being seduced, Everett is talking like his usual talkative self, and from facial expressions, Delmar shows his cluelessness, and Pete shows his greed and his anger.

O Brother, Where Art Thou?

I’m going to use this to discuss something I haven’t noticed in watching this film previously, and that is the opening shot of the slaves chained together, and the closing shot of the little girls held together by the rope. I know that this was a question for the homework, but knowing the Coen Brothers and their use of film knowledge in all of their work, I want to discuss it to figure out the ties more. The film deals a lot with ideas of class and race as barriers, symbols, and something that needs to be further understood.

The film opens with a shot of inmates, all of whom are black, chained together working on building a railroad. The only inmates to escape from that group, the characters we follow in the film, are white. Throughout the course of the film, race pops up as a means of controversy and questioning, when they are in the recording booth and when they come across the KKK ritual. In both instances race is questioned because of the denial of negro music and then the saving of the black man from the KKK when he is to be lynched. These themes seem to be addressed in the visual connections that are to be made.

The closing scene in the film depicts the little girls, all holding on to a single rope and all white, walking across a railroad track. Now, knowing the Coen Brothers, the fact that they walk across a railroad track seems deliberate. It seems as though they are bringing the little girls on to the level of the men in the beginning as to eliminate race and state and bring the story full circle. In contrasting the visuals of them both, they create a connection between the two. It does also, as the text states, bring about a symbol of marriage and positive family ties, but I think from these visual indicators, it is also commenting on race and it’s stature.

The Piano

I think Baines and Ada’s relationship in the film is technically considered rape by definition, but in the sense of the film does not entirely feel that way. As the film is told through Ada’s point of view, and she is married to a man she does not know and does not connect with, you cannot help but see her connection with Baines as ok. Over the course of the film, Baines does lure her into him by using the piano as bait, but the relationship eventually becomes consensual. It is because of her will to go back to him that it is hard to consider what he did as rape because Ada now feels for him, and wants to be with him. The only problem is that she is married to Stewart, making the relationship unlawful. Adding to Ada’s desire to be with Baines, in the scene where she is caressing Stewart’s back, she pulls away when he goes for her accentuating the point of view of the film. She has been forced to marry this man that she feels nothing with, and seeing the film from her perspective, her connection with Stewart is definitely not consensual. Her connection with Baines however is eventually seen as something to be desired.

The Vanishing Questions

2. The most important shot in the abduction scene is Saskia looking at the family portrait of Raymond. This is the motivation for her to get into the car because she assumes that he is an okay person and a family man, that he is safe. The portrait builds her confidence with him and allows her to feel that Raymond isn’t capable of doing anything, and is being honest. It also highlights the fact that horror could be anywhere, even in the mind of a seemingly normal father.

3. In the second practice attempt, the shot begins as a medium shot. In this, shot Raymond is practicing his approach to get a woman in his car, so the camera gives room to the framing as if there were a person standing there. As the shot continues, the camera pans over, following Raymond and the imaginary woman, and even shifts over as the door opens to accommodate for the space the woman would take up as she moves. The camera then pans across the car as Raymond walk behind to enter the driver’s side door, keeping the passenger side of the car in view the entire shot.

Spoorloos Vs. The Vanishing

The fact that they same person directed these two films is very surprising. The original was a much more compelling story and telling of the story because it allowed the viewer to become connected to the material. The pace of the film, compared to the remake let the material sink in more and there was time for questioning of what is happening and why. It almost seemed silly watching the remake after watching the original because of how they introduced scenes and how they got to certain parts of the film, for example, the tunnel scene. In the original, the film started out by introducing the couple and had a space of time that we got to connect with them and sit with them to get to know them a little bit before something happened. So by the time they got in the tunnel, and ran out of gas, we had already seen her tell him to get gas and become frustrated along with her. Also, as the title suggests, we know that someone or something is going to vanish, so by pacing it slower and building the characters, you are waiting for the moment for one of them to disappear. When Rex arrives back at the car, and Saskia is gone, there is a real sense or worry because we now know the characters, at least a little, and had some suspense build to the point that you would be worried if one of them were gone. However, in the remake, this whole situation is fast paced and not introduced near as well. There is no real connection established with the characters before the tunnel, and by the time he runs out of gas, she just mentions that she told him to get it earlier. Introducing lines like this, very rushed and forced, make the scenes feel silly and bad. Then, by the time he gets back to the car, there is not a real sense or worry or danger established because of how quick and abrupt the scene was introduced.

Another scene that again stood out because of introduction and pacing was Raymond or Barney trying to persuade the women into his car. The original had such a building up to what it was that he was doing, and not really introducing him till later in the film that let you be with him and try to figure out why. He was first introduced just when the car went by him, and then later we found out why he was shown. Also, because it focuses in on him trying and failing so much, you start to fear for him a bit and fear that something is really wrong with him. In the remake, Barney, the new unimproved Raymond, was just sort of boring and weird. It was partly because of the scenes themselves and the fact that everything was rushed, but also because the character wasn’t near as compelling. They showed him fail a couple times, and then just through on how he came to his final realization of how it was he was going to accomplish his task. In comparing the two characters, Raymond was a much more subtle mysteriously creepy guy, that showed a lot of persistence for a reason that was unknown. Barney was an annoyingly forced weird character that left no real mystery to his reasoning.

One of the other main additions to the remake that had no place in being there, and took away form the initial story was the newfound relationship. I’m not sure why he put this in the remake, but it is completely unnecessary and frustrating. It moved the story along way too fast, and kind of took over the real plot of the film, which was the vanishing of the girl. The new girlfriend just had no place in the story as a remake of the original. In the end, she was only there to try to be the hero and destroy what was originally a terrifying ending.

The main theme and idea of the original was all about the golden egg dream, which I didn’t realize until literally the very end of the film when they showed both photos of the couple and framed them with an oval. That, as an ending to the story was fantastic and horrifying all at the same time. It connected the story to the characters and created a more psychologically interesting film by using a more metaphoric reasoning to the conception of the film, rather than a happy boring ending. It brought you inside more, and gave me a moment of extreme realization in the end when they were both finally in their “golden eggs” and it was finally all over, like their dreams foretold. In conclusion, the original created a much more physiologically sound experience that was well connected and read through by the end. The remake was silly in comparison, especially having watched the two back to back.

Allen Scene Analysis

2. Woody Allen’s comedy is not mimetic because he not attempting to represent reality. He attempts to recollect the memories based on the way he wants to remember them. He is representing the way we actually remember things, in scattered thought, with variations thought about after the fact. He is adding more life to the memories being told in the film, by telling them in the way he would now, being that it is years passed, and he has had time to think on them and understand the situation differently.

3. While the verbal conversation is going on, the subtitles at the bottom of the screen show what the characters are thinking because they obviously aren’t going to say to each other what the subtitles say. It makes the conversation closer to what is really being communicated in this situation, and also how each of the characters are both critiquing each other and themselves during the conversation. It’s a very clever and comical way to further the conversation and juxtapose what is actually happening on screen.

Allen's Comedy Style

I find Allen’s comedy style very effective. I think the stepping out of the illusion of the film creates a better connection between viewer and creator. In a situation like Allen’s character in Annie Hall, his character is very quirky and specific about things, so to step out and explain the situation, it helps you to understand what is happening. For example, in the scene where they are reading the play he wrote, without him stepping out and commenting on the play just being a reinterpretation of his life, but with a happy ending, it seems a little pitiful. But to comment on it in that way, it becomes self-deprecating, and the viewer is able to sort of laugh with him. This style is useful in that it allows him to further his character development and ground the joke in reality as well. Most jokes are funny or relatable because of how we connect them to ourselves, and to break the boundary of the film’s illusion, it grounds the joke in reality, and in turn with the viewer.

Visual Strategy in Daisies

            Chytilova’s visual strategy throughout the film is to keep the viewer on end and to keep attention. There are color changes, scene changes, and montages that happen so suddenly that you have to stay focused to know what is happening. I think by playing with the visuals in that sense, it allows you to also connect with the playful nature of the film and it’s story. It keeps the entertainment and playful aspect continuing, similar to the girls’ actions in the film, as they are repeatedly breaking things, cutting things, and humiliating people. Chytilova takes it upon herself to really get inside of the head of the two girls, and give the film the character that they have.

Music in Vertigo

            In the scene when Madeleine disappears into the trees, the music is used to signify that something really has gone wrong and bring you into the hypnotizing feeling that Madeleine is putting on. We know that Madeleine has been going off into little trances, but as she walks away in this instance, we are shown something is very wrong when the music changes into a hypnotic tone with a higher note that hits when the shot comes back to Scottie as if to signify that he realizes something really is wrong. This sort of music changes the mod of a scene drastically because you can’t help feel uneasy when hearing that play.

            In another scene, where Scottie is putting on Judy’s necklace and realizes that he knows it because it is the one that she wore as Madeleine. The music here, along with his facial expression, is used as an indication of thought and to signify to the viewer that the necklace, though we’ve seen it before, means something. Also, with how loud the music got when he recognized the necklace, affects the significance and makes it stand out that much more. The music then switches back to the sort of calming “in love” melody as if it is in Judy’s perspective now.

Detour

            The protagonist feels like an anti-hero. From the first instance when the man dies, he becomes almost inferior, and this becomes more prominent as the woman he picks up keeps reminding us of that. He can’t find the right thing to do throughout the whole film and constantly has to defend himself to no good end. He gets stuck in this situation that seems to just get worse and worse by circumstance, but has no power to bring himself out of it correctly and by his own will. Throughout most of the film, there almost aren’t any shots that portray him as bigger than anyone else that he has more power over them to get out of this mess. He is just shown as a guy stuck in a situation. There are a few shots though inside of the hotel that picture him as a hero type when he is defending his conscience and innocence. The few shots come from a little lower and point up making him look larger and more commanding. In the film, he does have the truth, but that never gets the chance to let him go, and he never takes it.

Freaks

            I see Freaks as a melodrama. Looking up the definition of melodrama, it is described a dramatic piece appealing to the emotions, whereas horror is defined as a feeling of shock or disgust. I don’t think that he wanted people to feel disgusted or scared by the characters on screen, but rather tell of a story that catered to their abnormalities. It used the freaks as an indication of class, showing how Cleopatra felt superior to them because she felt she was better. The film didn’t play out as if it were a horror film with scares or the suspense that they involve. It more played out as a drama of a dwarf loving a woman that wouldn’t love him back, and trying to take advantage of him, that ended up having a dramatic turn of events in the conclusion.

Buster Keaton

            The core comparison is that while the mechanics developed, he went on to work more with the mechanics of making and the world around him to develop a film focusing on editing, composition, and special effects, while Chaplin focused on his acting and performance. When Gunning mentions Keaton’s modern insight, he is referring to the fact that Keaton worked with the mechanics of the present and developed his making based upon what is “now”, at that time. It is also stated, that Keaton extended the insight of man’s modern behavior into a view of the world itself as machinelike, referring to it as an alien and alienating system. So, Keaton is poking fun at the human relation to machines. Mechanization’s relevance is that Keaton’s gags depend on an encounter and interaction with physical properties. They depend his ability to occupy a mathematically precise point within a dangerous process. He relies on the alienation from the machine in a situation to create comedy through the scenario.

Top 10

1. The Goonies – Inherently became my favorite movie when I was younger.

2. E.T. The Extraterrestrial – Childhood and alien encounter in perfect unison.

3. Palo Alto – Reminds me exactly of high school.

4. The Place Beyond the Pines – Storytelling and cinematography are on point.

5. Drive – Artistic and unique directing.

6. Brick – It feels small, and I have yet to find anything else like it.

7. Attack the Block – Great example of a well-done fun movie with aliens.

8. Adventureland – I can watch this over and over.

9. Blade Runner – One of my favorite composed sci-fi films.
10. The Darjeeling Limited – The brotherly connection and quirkiness.

Introduction

            My name is Brady Corcoran. I am a fifth year Fine Arts student with a minor in E-Media. I’m not exactly sure where I want to go with Fine Arts, but I’m hoping with the E-Media Minor that it can bring me somewhere into the film industry because I have become increasingly interested in pursuing that. Lately, my Fine Art has been leaning more towards the abstract side. Films were a large part of my childhood as something my brothers and I watched together. I am very interested in cinematography and hope I will be able to do something with it in the future. My other main interest outside Fine Arts and cinema is soccer, which I have played almost my entire life. I’m still not sure what I’m doing after I graduate, but hopefully something worthwhile comes along.