Compare and contrast the representation of men in “Nottinghill” and “Trainspotting”.
How would you account for the similarities/differences?
The two films “Nottinghill” and “Trainspotting” both have different ideas as to how they represent the men in the films, and the stories in which are used to show them. For example, Nottinghill is a fantasy love film which relies on surreal events and spending a lot of money on the creation of the film to make it successful. On the other hand, there is the film Trainspotting, which focuses on creating a meaning throughout the film, and creating an impact on the viewer which will be strong enough to convince them to feel a certain way. They paid a very small sum in comparison, and yet became one of the most successful films, and was also able to create a huge debate of controversy as to how it was rumoured to have encouraged drugs, although it’s aim was to do the exact opposite of this.
Within the films, the main characters have a completely different personality and lifestyle. Will Thacker from Nottinghill owns a book shop in a wealthy town, who is in debt and unable to earn enough to cope in his lifestyle, but somehow is able to, whereas Mark Renton from Trainspotting has no future, as he is ‘hooked’ on drug use, and spends all of his money on it. The only real similarity with the two is that they are unsuccessful, and aren’t earning enough money to be able to cope with a stable lifestyle. They do however both change later on, as Will finds himself falling in love with a celebrity film star, which he ends up being in a relationship with, and Renton gets himself off drugs, by ‘cold turkey’, being without anything to take along the way to ease the process, and gains a job as a property seller. Like most films, there is always a happy/positive ending, so you would expect them to change, because they are the main characters, being followed by the camera throughout the film.
Unfinished
Wednesday, 21 October 2009
Trainspotting 'Interview' scene deconstruction
Trainspotting – Spud’s interview scene
Spud is represented throughout the film as the unstable character, who is very shy, weak and isolated. During the scene where Spud has a job interview, these representations of him are shown clearly.
The camerawork is simple, but helps to show the representation of his mentally unstable state, and his isolation as a character. The use of close up, medium, and long shots cut between eachother, to show his slightly ‘crazy’ mental state, and showing the character on his own in what seems to be such a big space, to represent his isolation to others. It creates a contrast to the others in the scene, that of the people he is being interviewed by. There is three of them sat next to each other, in a medium shot, with similar colours to each other and no quick cuts, showing they are more stable than Spud.
The editing isn’t anything difficult. Just simple cuts from shot to shot, but it is quicker when Spud is in the scene, again to represent his mental state, after taking the drugs, and yet for the interviewers, they only have one shot where they are shown, until Spud is in the camera again.
The sound is quiet, to emphasis on Spud being alone, with the only sound being the voices. It has no major impact on this scene, only to relate to it actually representing an interview, where you would only hear voices.
The mise en scene in the shots where Spud is shown emphasis his isolation yet again. He is shown sat in the middle of an empty space, on a green leather chair, wearing brown boots, and a grey suit, with a blue top. The walls around him are plain, with a mirror to represent him being the only one there, and a plain blue carpet to show his life, plain and dull. In contrast to the interviewer’s mise en scene, they also have the same chairs, walls and carpet colours, but there are three of them, in more formal clothes for two of them, and another in more casual clothes, showing that he is less important. They are sat behind a table, showing superiority towards Spud. They have paper, boxes, and similar coloured formal clothing (with an exception to the man on the right side) to emphasis this representation.
So, to conclude, in this scene the mise en scene is dominant in creating representation, and the camerawork is effective in creating the atmosphere and showing the mental state of the characters. The sound and editing has little to offer here, but they have their reasons for it either way.
Spud is represented throughout the film as the unstable character, who is very shy, weak and isolated. During the scene where Spud has a job interview, these representations of him are shown clearly.
The camerawork is simple, but helps to show the representation of his mentally unstable state, and his isolation as a character. The use of close up, medium, and long shots cut between eachother, to show his slightly ‘crazy’ mental state, and showing the character on his own in what seems to be such a big space, to represent his isolation to others. It creates a contrast to the others in the scene, that of the people he is being interviewed by. There is three of them sat next to each other, in a medium shot, with similar colours to each other and no quick cuts, showing they are more stable than Spud.
The editing isn’t anything difficult. Just simple cuts from shot to shot, but it is quicker when Spud is in the scene, again to represent his mental state, after taking the drugs, and yet for the interviewers, they only have one shot where they are shown, until Spud is in the camera again.
The sound is quiet, to emphasis on Spud being alone, with the only sound being the voices. It has no major impact on this scene, only to relate to it actually representing an interview, where you would only hear voices.
The mise en scene in the shots where Spud is shown emphasis his isolation yet again. He is shown sat in the middle of an empty space, on a green leather chair, wearing brown boots, and a grey suit, with a blue top. The walls around him are plain, with a mirror to represent him being the only one there, and a plain blue carpet to show his life, plain and dull. In contrast to the interviewer’s mise en scene, they also have the same chairs, walls and carpet colours, but there are three of them, in more formal clothes for two of them, and another in more casual clothes, showing that he is less important. They are sat behind a table, showing superiority towards Spud. They have paper, boxes, and similar coloured formal clothing (with an exception to the man on the right side) to emphasis this representation.
So, to conclude, in this scene the mise en scene is dominant in creating representation, and the camerawork is effective in creating the atmosphere and showing the mental state of the characters. The sound and editing has little to offer here, but they have their reasons for it either way.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)