© 2014 ellathompson

ANALYSIS-REFLECTION 2

In the film Clown Train how does sound contribute to the atmosphere of this film? Describe what you heard? Can you make reference to another genre film and how they utilise sound to create tension and a unique filmic space? 

Sound is used in a few very sophisticated ways in this film.

In the opening sequence, sound alone (against a black screen) is used to set the scene and tone of the film. The viewer immediately engages in the film as they attempt to discern what the harsh, hollow, sharp sounds (reminiscent of a train grinding to a halt) actually are. These sound effects elicit an emotional response from the viewer – making them uneasy and anxious. The viewer – recognising the foreboding tones as pertaining to genres like horror and thriller – anticipates what is going to appear on the screen. The mood/tone is set, the scene (train grinding to a halt) is suggested, and tension is established. The audience is engaged.

Throughout the film, the tension rises and settles, fluctuating erratically to give an overall sense of instability. The sound is what drives these fluctuations and cues the viewer to feel greater unease at certain moments.

These are some of the key sounds:

  • Low machine/atmosphere buzz sound effect. This is noticed more during the moments of little action, where there is stillness and silence. In a way, it gives the feel of a loud silence. A quietness that screams, and is uncomfortable. Again, it causes the audience unease. They remain engaged in this suspense of other sound (/movement), waiting and expecting action.
  • Buzzing sound effect when light flickers – reinforce the sense that this is a hostile situation and the protagonist is in trouble (viewer further identifies with the protagonist).
  • Intermittent high-pitched musical note (becomes louder throughout the course of the film) – cues higher moments of tension.
  • Intermittent musical tapping (becomes louder throughout the course of the film) – creeps through the thick silence and also builds tension.
  • Horror breathing sound (“schhwwwp”) when film reaches moments of highest tension – e.g. At climax of clown’s final joke. (I also think this sound effect is used musically in the credits to reinforce overall tone of film).

And then there’s the sync sound; the dialogue. When the dialogue occurs, it punctuates the thick silence, making it that much more striking and engaging for the audience. Every uttered word matters to the viewer, and each has impact. There is also the distinction between dialogue heard inside the carriage and dialogue heard outside of the carriage. When the visuals indicate that we are hearing the events occur from outside of the carriage, the dialogue is muffled. This reinforces the sense that the protagonist is in trouble – he is isolated and no-one outside the carriage (not that anyone seems to be there) can hear what is taking place inside the carriage.

One of my favourite uses of sound in this film , however, is the hollow boom/thump sound effect. This is cleverly used to accent the editing transitions. For example, the hollow boom/thump sounds when we cut from one shot of the clown sitting a few seats away from the boy to another shot of the clown sitting in the seat opposite the boy. The sound effect also accents the clown’s physical movements – e.g. “BOM” sounds when the clown turns his head to look at the boy. The sound effect is employed like this to startle the viewer at certain moments, and to provoke the viewer to associate a broader sense of alarm with the clown character. It also works to create an unstable rhythm in the film, again evoking unease and apprehension in the viewer about what is to come and when it will come.

All in all, Clown Train‘s use of sound is characteristic of horror and thriller genres. The viewer recognises this immediately in the opening sequence, so their narrative expectations for the film are moulded by the codes and conventions they know horror and thriller films to employ.

 

Select from one of the readings, up to but not including Week 5, and briefly describe two points that you have taken from it. Points that excite you, something that was completely new to you. 

The reading that I want to talk about is Mackendrick’s On film-making : an introduction to the craft of the director.

A point in the reading that struck me as new is the debate about how much an actor should know about the rest of the processes of the screen production that they have been cast in.

Should they be let into the tales and trials of the various production processes? Will knowing more or knowing less yield a better performance from them?

Knowing less may mean that the actor is better able to focus on constructing the story world illusion in their own imagination, and perhaps more naturally fall into character. They may perform more instinctively, rather than overthinking the acting. But then this may bring with it other issues and yield a poorly informed screen performance. And then the director must also keep in mind the importance of showing respect for the actor and their craft (regarding this choice of leaving the actor out of the loop).

Knowing more may mean that the actor makes better decisions about their performance. Being aware of lighting, lenses, continuity, position of boom, etc. will greatly inform the actor’s choice of position, movements, expression, vocal performance and so on. But then there’s the issue that the actor might consequently become too involved externally in their performance, and may be more inclined to overthink their acting.

As the reading discusses, the actor must have proficiency in carefully working a balance – navigating between the imagined story world of their character and the real-life processes of constructing the story world on screen.

This requires careful calculation from the director about the amount and type of extra info they disclose about the production to the actor. Of course, what the director should disclose to the actor depends on the sort of production, the actor, their character, and many other factors. In this sense, a calculated relationship between the director and actor is crucial. The screen performance depends on their teamwork.

The other point that struck me – not as new, but as significant – was that the director should have at least a rudimentary understanding of the craft of acting. This is so that the director can efficiently communicate with the actor – in the actor’s language – about their performance. I’ve also had this thought. I’ve watched my idol, Danny Boyle, directing in BTS videos, and there are so many moments where he unselfconsciously dives into character to demonstrate the sort of performance he seeks from the actor. And what is even more interesting about this is how undeniably good he is at these little impromptu demonstrations.

I remember realising how important an understanding of the acting craft is from a director during my VCE Media days – when I had to direct actors for my crappy short films. I’d dabbled in acting on and off throughout my school years, but it was only when directing for the first time that I really appreciated its worth. I learnt how much of crucial asset that knowledge was to directing, and boy was I glad that I was armed with some understanding of acting; that my shallow level of experience was there to keep me afloat.

So, yes, I fully agree with this point – to the degree that I’ve even considered the prospect of taking a couple of acting classes when I finish this course so that I can become a better director.

 

In the tute we screened a short film called Rolling – a film made in Film-TV1 a few years ago.

In 300 words or less describe what you thought worked or didn’t. At this stage we don’t expect you to have a great deal of film knowledge or language. Don’t be afraid to use your own words. Things you could talk about – script, casting, timing, camera movement, location. You may not remember much detail, if so, it could be helpful to talk about your first impressions, after all this is what most of us are left with after one viewing.

I thought that the film was excellent, especially for a second-year student film. I definitely remember admiring the writing – thinking that the script was really well written, particularly the sections of dialogue. I also recall thinking that the male lead’s acting was outstanding. All of the little things he did with his facial expression, his body language, his voice – it was a captivating performance. In comparison, however, I felt that the female lead’s performance was a bit of a letdown; a bit dull. I think that role could have been cast better.

One shot that I really liked was the opening low angle shot where the camera was tracking backwards as the male lead was walking forwards through the aisle, trying to psych himself up to talk to the girl. What is great about this shot is that the camera moves through the aisle and the walls/shelves pass on either side, making for a really powerful sense of motion and depth. I’ve always liked those kind of tracking shots. In fact, I think at the same time during this shot the character’s thoughts were VO – and, if so, then I’ve had that exact same shot idea in mind for a film that I want to make in the future.

As for the other camera setups, I’m not sure if this is correct but I remember thinking they weren’t set up and executed that well – specifically the dialogue shots (between the male and female leads). I remember thinking that those parts looked a bit amateur and tacky. Or maybe it was clunky editing that made these dialogue shots feel amateur and tacky. Technically (not the writing). I can’t quite remember, but that is the impression I got. Or it may have been that poor sound during these scenes was what gave the film a tacky/amateur feel. I can’t remember… I just remember the impression.

I thought the production design was nice in terms of the girl’s wardrobe and makeup, the setting of the supermarket (aisles of products give for strong colours and interesting corners/areas/angles), and the dull apartment full of toilet paper.

The story ending, however, I didn’t like. I was expecting a stronger resolution – some sort of twist, some sort of reaction, not something that fizzled out and was something of an anti-climax. But that’s just my tiny opinion. I’m sure there are plenty of people that liked the ending.

Anyway, overall, I thought the film was excellent – above all, the writing and the male lead’s performance. I hope my group’s Film-TV1 film turns out that well.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Skip to toolbar