- Viewed on Virgin Media
Shorts
A woman is stocking up on junk food in a shop when she runs into her ex-
boyfriend and his new girlfriend
- I chose this film because
I thought it was funny, I liked the way that in the end, even though
there he had the stereotypically pretty girl as his girlfriend now,
it
still suggests how much he misses the ‘ex-girlfriend’
- The setting is represented in
an interesting way, as it very much conforms to
the common stereotype that supermarkets are the place where you run into
people, often not wanting too
- The characters are also
represented in a way that conforms to the common
romance story, the ex-girlfriend, the boyfriend and the new girlfriend.
The ex-girlfriend is made to be inferior to the other couple, this is presented
through her costume. She is wearing tracksuit bottoms, and an unfashionable T-
shirt, clearly only chosen for it’s comfort rather than fashion, for her “night
in”. This adds to the comedy part of the genre, as we can empathise with her,
and laugh about the times that we have felt embarrassed in what we were
wearing, perhaps even when running into ex-boyfriends. It is also mentioned
that she has put on weight, which is confirmed with the initial mid shot of her
eating whilst shopping (1), and the close ups where we see the junk food that
she is putting into her basket.
- The ex-girlfriend has a very
negative representation. This juxtaposes with the
boyfriends positive representation, perhaps to intensify her embarrassment with
meeting up with him, clearly feeling inferior. Not just with her bad appearance
compared with his, but also possibly because of the way he has moved on,
whereas she hasn’t. This is furthered with the dialogue, when she remembers the
specific time they “went out”, for “2 months 5 days”, whereas he casually says
“a few weeks”. The use of the non-diegetic narrative confirms to us her
embarrassment about saying that, as we get to hear from her perspective. This
non-diegetic narrative also allows us to feel sympathy for her, we already feel
it because of her embarrassment, however being allowed to hear mainly her
thoughts, connects us to her; reminding us she is the protagonist but also
allowing us to feel sympathy for her.
- The male, ‘Rob’ has a positive
representation of masculinity, with his smart
shirt and “skinny jeans” from “Milan”, a stereotypically fashionable place. His
new girlfriend, ’Sophia’, also has a positive representation of traditional
femininity, which we see especially with the close up when we see her
immaculate hair and make-up (3). This positive representation heightens the ex-
girlfriends appearance, but also changes our view towards the new girlfriend.
We feel connected to the protagonist through the non-diegetic narrative, so we
laugh as well as agree when she calls the new girlfriend a “cow”. The
immaculacy of her appearance then heightens this, as we see her as very stuck
up, furthered with the dialogue when she sarcastically asks about the “night
in” and has a very RP accent when she corrects ‘Charly‘ (the ex-girlfriend) by
saying “Milan“. .
- The expected audience for this
film has shaped the representations. Audiences
of romantic comedy’s are often active viewers, meaning that they long for the
couple to get together, and they feel involved in the film. This shapes many of
the situations in films, as they want to make them realistic so that the
audience can identify with them. We see this in this film when Charly just so
happens to run into Rob on a day when her appearance is really bad, this could
even have happened to some of the viewers.
Narrative
- This is a linear plot and
narrative. The filmmaker has most likely chosen this
particular chronology as it is a simple plot, and this simplicity is what makes
the film good, as it means the viewer can focus entirely on the comedy - It conforms to Todorov’s theory
by having a linear narrative. The equilibrium
is when the girl is shopping, looking forward to her “night in”. The disruption
is when she runs into her ex-boyfriend, with his new girlfriend, which is
rather awkward, and it doesn’t help that she is clearly embarrassed with what
she is wearing. We can tell this through her body language, with the way she
has her arms crossed to cover it. This film conforms to the 4 stage Todorov
theory, as opposed to the more common 3 stage one, as this one has a third
stage where the protagonist tries to repair the disruption. We see this when
she makes a joke, “Matalan?”. we can see by the ex-boyfriends facial
expression, furthered with the way he laughs, that he perhaps misses her
humour. The final stage, the resolution, is when we see that the ex-boyfriend
is not happy with his new girlfriend. We see this through body language, for
example, when they have a long hug and when we see that he is uncomfortable in
his “skinny jeans” (7).
Genre
- This film conforms to the
hybrid genre, Romantic Comedy. The storyline conforms
to that of a romance, where a former couple bump into each other again, and we
are left at the end wondering if they will get back together. The comedic
conventions are formed in the story, with the way Charly is embarrassed with
what she is wearing and with what she is buying (4). - But there are also comedic
parts throughout using facial expressions, for
example when Charly is carrying a mars bar in her mouth around the store, then
when she is shocked to see Rob it falls out, and she badly attempts to run away
(2). - Another comedic convention is
their use of a minor character, who is watching
the scene but not involved in it, so that the audience can laugh at that
persons reaction. In this case it is the shop worker who is stacking shelves on
the floor. We laugh at his many facial expressions, rolling his eyes and
tutting (8), but we can also identify with him. We are watching from the same
sort of distance, and so we feel like him, perhaps adopting many of the facial
expressions that he is doing. Furthermore, by having him on the floor he is out
of the scene, therefore he can judge them without them noticing, just like the
audience. - I could argue that Steve
Neale’s theory of repetition and difference is also
used. It repeats common conventions of the romance genre with the archetypes of
the characters, and also the traditional structure (Todorov’s theory) however
the difference is that we are not left with any closure. Audience’s of the
romantic genre like these films as it makes them feel comfortable that they
know what to expect, and that they will be happy by the end when the couple
gets together. However, in this film there’s a difference. At the end they do
not actually get back together, it is only implied at the end when we see that
they miss each other. This could be because it is a short film, and so they don’
t have time to have a big happy ending, or it could be because they are trying
to expand the audience of the film or to keep the traditional romcom audience
entertained by averting the expectations of the genre. The viewers are caught
by surprise, leaving them optimistically hoping that they get together, after
the film has finished.
Audience - The film can be watched on you
tube, or on the Virgin Media website. Often when
it is on the Virgin Media website it is good quality, as they are usually
entered for competitions. However it often means that the audience for it is
very specific, as all of the films are labelled underneath genre, therefore it
will mainly be comedy and romantic genre viewers. Therefore, the demographic
information will stereotypically be female, any age from 16-45. - However, it is also on you
tube. This means that it will be viewed by a wider
audience, therefore it will not have to worry about sticking to the genre
expectations, as they are widening their audiences, so by not completely
following the Todorov theory, they are experimenting with the genre.
Media language - There is a clever shot/ reverse
shot sequence during the meeting between the
three characters. It is clever as initially we see Charly, on a slight low
angle, yet the shot of Rob and Sophia are straight on. This low angle could
perhaps show Charly’s vulnerability in this situation, she has her arms folded,
trying to cover her T-shirt. She feels quite self conscious at being “bigger”,
so we sympathise with her. Furthermore, the shot is aimed slightly over towards
the right, giving the effect that it’s from Sophia’s angle. It is a low angle
mid shot, so it looks as if she is being judged, therefore conforming to what
we think Sophia would be thinking (5) - Sound is also used very well.
The non-diegetic sound is Charly’s thoughts.
Initially we think she is the only one who we can hear outside of dialogue,
however we then hear Rob’s thoughts. The fact that it is only these two we can
hear, it puts them to the centre of our minds, and so subtly unites them. Their
thoughts are similar, and this is where we start to think that they may get
back together. This is then confirmed at the end when they hug (6). Finally,
the two non-diegetic voices both talk over Sophia when she is telling them of
their plans. This means we listen to Charly, further sympathising with her.
No comments:
Post a Comment