Rear Window - Atlee Watson

The music to rear window made elevated many of the films major moments to even greater heights. The opening shot of the film was shot how I believe that everyone would see a neighborhood at a glance. As the frame continues to pan each of the main apartments that Jeffries often spies into, the music is very bright and happy. The dancer/Ms. Torso, Lonely Heart, the musician, and even the apartment of the eventual crime scene, all of these apartments at a glance are the happiest places on earth, and the music does its job to emphasize that point. But because the music is diegetic, it can be heard by everyone in the film, as in the opening credits when the sound is coming from a radio. Even when Jeffries attempts to scratch inside his cast the music goes from a nervous pace to a soothing sound, while the sound is pressumably coming from a neighbors window. But not only does the music comment on the neighbors themselves, but you as the viewer apply different means to the music given which neighbor we are looking at. For instance, when a sad song is played towards the beginning of the film, when we look at Ms. Torso, Jeffries plants the idea that she is not in love with any of the current men in her apartment. While Miss Lonely Hearts is sad because she has prepared this fake/staged dinner with her imaginary dinner guest, and Thorwald arguing with his wife, who he later kills that same night. Even Jeffries has an quarrel with Ms. Fremont. Despite the same music as the camera pans throughout the complex gives different meaning to the audience when it is applied to each of the tenants of the surrounding apartments.

However, the music is also ironic. The entire story is told from the point of Jeffries, and even though we are only a spectator much like Ms. Fremont and Stella, the music is made to accompany the thoughts of Jeffries. Because we are the constant spectator with him and see what he sees, he interprets his own views to what we are both seeing. I doubt that we would assume that the actions we are seeing was murder, but because Jeffries believes it, we go along with him and the music, ironically, aids him in making his point of murder.

There was an odd moment that I noticed when we were watching. I do not recall if it was the first encounter with Lt. Doyle, but I believe that it is the first time that Doyle attempts to disprove Jeffires many accusations, and when he does this there appeared to be an odd edit that I noticed. It seemed as though that once Doyle had disproved what Jeffries was saying that all the sound was cut out of the scene because it could no longer aid in creating the tension of Jeffries's theories. I am not sure about this, but maybe we could take a closer look when we get back in class on Tuesday.

Rear Window (Alfred Hitchcock, U.S.A., 1954, 112 minutes)

For many viewers, Rear Window vies with Vertigo as Hitchcock's masterpiece. The case for Vertigo is based on the film's style, its expressionistic use of color, and its sophisticated narrative and visual examination of the psychology of obsession. Rear Window, on the other hand, perhaps more than any other of Hitchcock's films (it's claimed), demonstrates the rich narrative and psychological potential of the director's cinematic vision executed in a totally constructed environment. As I mentioned, the entire film was shot on a single stage at Paramount. While most of the action takes place in L.B. Jeffries' (Jimmy Stewart) apartment, we, like Jeffries, have visual and aural access to the events occurring in and around several constructed apartments surrounding his building's courtyard. Following the film, we noted that its soundtrack—ranging from the actors' dialogue, to street noise, to music—is completely diegetic, meaning that it can be heard equally by the characters in the film and the audience (as opposed to nondiegetic sound, which is available only to the viewer). For this week's post, I'd like you to write about how one or two significant elements of Rear Window's soundscape (these can be recurring elements or single sound events) provide not just a sense of realism, but also layers of symbolic, ironic, or dramatic meaning. How, that is, does Hitchcock's sound construction enhance the surface and subtext of his visual construction? Looking forward to your posts! (Note: The visuals below are merely illustrative. I'm not asking you to choose one of them to write on as I have in previous posts.)

Double Indemnity - Parker Sealy

This scene is particularly interesting when it comes to the film noir aspect of the movie. Film noir literally means black cinema and plays off dark lighting like no other. This scene is interesting because of how it plays off the light. In most scenes with Walter and Phyllis together, the dominant in the shot is Phyllis. In this scene, however, it is the shadow if Walter. I think that in the other scenes, Phyllis is the dominant because she is the woman with the plan. Even though Walter is coming up with the train idea, etc, Phyllis had always planned to find a way to use someone else to kill her husband. In this scene, Walter finally knows and goes to her house to end it before turning himself in. He is in control even though she has a gun. He knows how he is going to handle the situation and what to do with her and he finally truly gets that he was being used. The lines from the blinds on the wall represent a prison like atmosphere where each of the characters are trapped. Not only because there is no way out once you have murdered someone but someone has to die in the situation when they are both onto each other. The blinds are sharply pointing to Walter’s shadow. This is a theme of film noir. To be rich in texture and jagged shapes which can mean sharper images such as this one. It is the only light that gives way to the shadow of Walter therefore making sure that your eyes go to him first. This scene is set up before you even see it continue. It is foreshadowing because Walter is creepily entering and is the dominant therefore you know that he is about to come into the room and take control. Then Phyllis is sitting in the chair very calm which allows you to know that she is not in control and therefore you can see how the scene is going to play out.

RIFF - James Clarke

Last year I was lucky enough to see the award ceremony and RIFF's big winner "Pound Cake" on Saturday. This year I decided I would mix it up a bit and go see the Experimental Block of shorts. I almost immediately regretted this decision. Not only did I learn that experimental film was not my cup of tea, but I also discovered that it is hilarious to hear Harry Musselwhite laugh in the midst of a silent theater.

"Telephone", shot in black and white, was very visually stimulating. I could see all the elements of mise en scene within it, signifying all the relationships between callers and their devices. I still thought it was incredibly strange and didn't catch onto any kind of narrative though.

There was one short that was just music to some sort of kaleidoscope montage. I think I have that as a default on Windows Media Player. Not only did I not particularly care for the music, i felt that the visuals were not enthralling or impressive enough to merit a 'film' at all.

The one short that I really loved was "Sunday". I could identify a protagonist, I could identify a narrative, and I could identify the conflict. The stop-motion animation was great and very refreshing from all the computer generated effects in modern cinema. I loved the music and the dark feel of the brain workers. Definitely a unique piece and worthy of much praise.

The last short, and I do not recall the name, was about different people dealing with lost love or a breakup, I think. I hated this short. There was no narrative, none of the characters mattered, and it was entirely too long.

I'm glad I got to go to the DeSoto as well this year. I've always wanted to go into that style of theater. I also look forward to participating in RIFF next year with my own student film.

Grand Illusion - James Clarke

The Grand Illusion marks a time of change on society of the world as a result of World War I. A great change in the way that people and countrymen treat one another. The class system of Europe is crumbling as the war wanes, and these French soldiers must rely upon one another to maintain some shred of sanity.

The characters pictured above are my main focus. Not only is the German officer on the right just an incredible model for future badguys in other films, but he is the perfect antagonist for the French prisoners of war. Not only is he too a prisoner of this place, but his body is in shambles. He is in constant pain as a reminder of his time as a soldier. Meanwhile, the men he guards are all in relatively good health. The illusion of a relationship that forms between the two officers pictured is also a terrific foil. The Frenchman accepts the company because it would be rude not to, but the German is hoping to associate with an equal. What the Frenchman comes to not be able to accept is that his fellow compatriots are lesser than he is. Unable to accept this, he sacrifices himself so that those less than he can escape. He does this to prove his point that no one man is worth more than another, especially in a time of war. The German pleads with him to not forfeit his life, and guns him down. By World War II this mentality of class was most definitely was completely gone. It was replaced solely by race and religious differences.

Why must someone always be better than another person because of their differences?

I particularly love the scene where all the prisoners are making costumes and discussing their reasons for escape. Tennis courts are for playing tennis, and prisons are for escaping. This is a terrific statement. Prisons are for holding prisoners, but to the prisoners, the illusion of freedom is ever present. The ensemble of characters in this film are definitely its highlight. Their relationships as they arrive, how they change, and the new relationships formed is a testament to the changes in Europe at that time. I did think the ending was rather abrupt and strangely placed, and they don't seem to be any better off lost in Switzerland than in Germany, but at least they escaped so that the other officer's sacrifice was not wasted.

Double Indemnity- Amanda Carman

First of all, the majority of this scene is very low-contrast, giving it the murky quality mentioned in the prompt.  It is more difficult than in past films we've seen to discern exactly where his coat ends and the curtain behind him begins, and where the curtain ends and the wall begins, despite this scene taking place during the day.  Secondly, the brightest elements of this particular screenshot are the strips of light cast on Walter, which create a pattern reminiscent of iconic prison garb.  Thirdly, he is placed facing the camera in a way that seems to break the fourth wall, but the shot is from a medium-long distance.  These three elements each emphasize a different aspect of the film noir style. 

The low-contrast lighting embodies the genre's tendency toward the darker, more morally depraved themes and its ability to place morally abhorrent characters in a more ambiguous, murky place in audience sympathy.  In this film in particular, we know from the beginning that Walter is a murderer, but still find ourselves connecting to him.

The strips of light not only foreshadows this moment (right after meeting Phyllis) as the one that begins to trap Walter on the metaphorical motorcar of murder, but also reflects the genre's franker side.  Film noir is characterized by how much is revealed in voiceover narrative; typically no motivation goes unexplained, no action is unpredicted by the narrative.  This is such an iconic feature of the genre that the improv game by the same name has only one rule different from a regular scene: the characters must step out of the scene and explain their secret motivations or what they were planning on doing next.

Walter's placement emphasizes the characteristic of the indirect address to the audience; in this shot he is facing the camera, looking out at the audience, but he is not close to us.  Similarly, in the voiceover his comments serve to address us directly (explaining the flashbacks as they happen), but because they are spoken into a recording device meant for his boss we are still distant from him; he establishes no relationship with us even while speaking to us.

Double Indemnity - Jen Peaslee

The first thing that attracted me to this image was the obvious low-key lighting, which is pretty much a necessity for the film noir style. It's very dark and sort of "gritty" feeling, because you can't really see what's going on in this image at all. Still, Walter is the dominant, because he's the only part that you can even partially see, thanks to his side being slightly lit up. We can't see his face, so by all rights, just looking at the image supposedly shouldn't give us any idea as to what he's thinking. But...we can see his walk. Hands in his pockets, his walks seems more uneasy than carefree (although this is helped by the fact that right before this particular shot, we could see his face, which certainly looked uneasy, and he is narrating this by saying that "it was the walk of a dead man.").

Once he turns away from the camera and starts walking away, it's clear that his paranoia, his fear that everything is going to fall apart, will come true. He is being watched. He is alone on the street, as we can tell, but the camera is watching him. He is not off scot-free. The camera does not follow after him, of course, it just stays still and observes. The camera judges - we judge.

Other people have already pointed this out, and it's not something I would have noticed on my own, but I like the idea that the significance of him being only half-lit is that he's being taken over by the darkness...by the femme fatale (another staple of film noir, of course). He's being taken over just like the guy in Sunrise - his evil mistress was also bathed in darkness, which affected him as well.

Double indemnity- Angela, Jung

In this movie, we have to concentrate on using the lights. When the woman and the man meet in her house in the first time, the light in place was very bright. There was no shadow. However they started to plan to make her husband died, the scenes in the movie have more shadows than the first of the movie. Sometimes shadow cover the man’s half face and the sunlight and shadow from the window make stripes on his back. Finally in the last scene, when the woman and the man shot each other, we cannot recognize their face well because shadow covers the most of their face and place of the movie. This effective using of lights and shadow can express the story’s explanation and also can express character’s emotion and make audience to feel tension.

When I looking this movie in the class, I concentrated on the camera’s motion. I thought that the camera follows character’s motion. For example, when the man open the door and get in to the room, the camera located behind the man and follow him continuously. Therefore the scene has not detached each other.

The theme of the movie is that the dark desire of the man can come up from just human itself not devil face. When we choose the easier way to get something, we can cross a line between goodness and weakness and after this we can choose devil road easier than before.

Double Indemnity - Craig Walters

In this shot, the only light coming into the room in which Walter Neff is standing is coming through the windows of the room, which is a symbol of fragility. These windows shines bits of the light on Neff while the shades on the window create a very harsh lighting contrast with jagged features. It also entails a very urban room setting as most of film noir takes place within cities. the ability to see the streams of streaky light coming in from the window makes it seem as if the room is not only dark, but also clouded with smoke drifting in the light. Despite the features of light, the lack there of is more important, or at least the contrast in film noir. Neff’s body takes on the darker features because the light in shining on such a small portion of his body. The lighting on one side of his face while the other being much darker very much to reminds me of the Batman villain, Two-Face, which may elude to the dark side of Neff which is portrayed later in the movie. Film Noir’s overarching theme of the darker aspects of the human condition can definitely be seen in this movie and very delicately placed throughout any shot in the movie, as in this one.

Double Indemnity - Drugstore - Beca G.

In this scene, Walter and Phyllis are in the drugstore discussing how they can no longer see each other due to the scrutiny on the murder of Mr. Dietrechson by the insurance agency. The two pretend not to know each other as they discuss this in the drugstore.

Note that the two actors are standing close together, yet facing away from each other, attempting to emulate strangers who are merely looking at the same product. The whole scene was carefully choreographed so that Walter and Phyllis can have their conversation in the store without arousing suspicion.

The focus in this shot is also tight on the actors, leaving the audience with a clear view as to the actors' expressions. Both actors are looking into the distance, yet Phyllis has a more angry look on her face while Walter looks more contemplative. This displays the motives of the two characters - Phyllis wants her money, and for Walter to take the blame of her husband's death if it boils down to it. Walter is more worrisome of the relationship - especially after finding out from Lola that Phyllis may have murdered the former Mrs. Dietrichson.

The costuming in this scene was rather interesting to me. From the first time the audience meets Phyllis, she is nothing short of fabulous - clingy dresses, silk robes, etc. But in this scene she is wearing a more demure outfit. The gingham seems to make her look younger and perhaps a bit more innocent - a sort of compensation for the fact that she murdered her husband. Walter also seems to look a little disheveled - just enough to give an insight to his inner turmoil over what he ought to do.

I enjoyed this film, and I thought that the lighting was really fantastic. This shot doesn't really capture that as they are in a store, meaning brighter overhead lights. Yet tons of other parts of the film make good use of the light to draw parallels between the light and dark of the situation, and the literal light and dark in the scene.

Overall it was a really good film and I thought that Barbara Stanwyk was a fantastically wicked villain.

Double Indemnity - Jessica Nguyen

This shot is classic film noir with shadows from the blinds being cast across the main character and the room, the low-key lighting, the slight wide-angle shot, and the actor’s face in almost all shadow. The chiaroscuro and hazy lighting gives off the dark, criminal feeling of film noir. It gives a sense of foreboding and plays into the terrible lives of the main characters in the movie, adulterers and murderers.

The wide-angle shot allows us to see into the lifestyle that Phyllis lives, one of money and nice things. This gives us our first glimpse into what she is like she likes being well-off, having money to blow, and living in a mansion of sorts; she is shallow and will do anything to have these things, even if she has to use and hurt other people to get them.

Another thing about this shot that lends to film noir is the way the protagonist is seemingly telling a story into the recorder, while we see the story as a flashback with him narrating. Here, we can see his expression in deep thought while he waits for Phyllis to come down. It’s almost as if he feels contempt or something close to that for her from his facial expression, and maybe it’s foreshadowing into how he should have continued feeling for her, if he had wished to stay out of trouble. Instead, he falls for her and becomes an adulterer and a murderer for her only to lose everything in the end.

Double Indemnity Greg Weinstein

The context behind the last picture has great impact on the rest of the movie, as this is the climatic ending. In this picture, we have Phyllis sitting on a chair with a gun under the cushion, with Walter behind her knowing everything that she has lied about. In this image, there is an interesting power play going on between the two characters as either character could really be thought of as the more powerful figure, while Phyllis is probably the more dominant due to the light. This is a classic example of film noir with the shadows covering our leads foreshadowing something bad that will surely come along. You almost get the feeling that Walter is just about to ring her neck as his hands are so close and you can feel the anger and betrayal that he feels from being set-up. And at this point for Phyllis, since she doesn't know she loves him yet, the coldness just lies on her face as she looks away with her eyes half open, working her femme fatale role. It is a real interesting look on the scene as they are both turned towards the window and the light barely shines through, creating that light on Walter's left side only, and Phyllis' face only slightly illuminated. It is just this great dynamic between the two, set up by the context as one only recently found out something about the other, and one is about to find out something about herself and the other.

Double Indemnity - J. Miley

Nothing denotes a noir film like the lighting. It is always dark and gritty to the point of almost not being able to see what is in the shot, like this one. The shot is lit low-key (the staple of film noir) with only exactly what is needed. The only things lit are the sidewalk, Neff and a building in the background.

This shot is just after Neff has changed clothes and gone through the garage so that Charlie could see him leave the apartment. Now he is walking to the drug store to gets some dinner. At first, just before this shot, Neff is very optimistic that everything went perfectly. But in this shot, he tells Keyes that he knew something went wrong. He could “no longer hear his footsteps;”it was “the walk of a dead man.” This walk to death is very evident in this shot due to the lighting. Everything around Neff is dark; the only things visible are him and his path, which consequently leads to total darkness. This shot flips the logic of the beginning of the film in a way. At the very beginning, it seems that Neff is hurt but do not know how badly or how he got that way. In this shot though, we see Neff’s path (the “how he got there”) but do not know exactly where it leads; only that it is not going to be good and possibly to the bullet with his name on it.

Another major element of this shot concerning the lighting is the way that Neff is only half lit. Throughout the movie, Neff is depicted as the quintessential antihero- the good-guy doing the wrong thing for the wrong-if-almost-understandable reasons. At the beginning, he refuses to help Ms. Dietrichson, but comes around because of his feeling for her. After that, he barrels through the plan “straight down the line” as if he thought about it too much he would chicken out. Towards the end, he tries to escape his fate, to get off the trolley, but he cannot. Eventually he has to own up to his actions. This turmoil of the antihero is depicted in Neff in this shot. Only half of the character is lit- even in his darkest hour (having just killed a man), there is still some good in him. Like Two-Face from the Batman, Neff is almost split in two not only by the lighting but also by his wardrobe. While his suit is lightly colored (like a traditional hero), his hat is dark (much like the villains of westerns). His dual nature is pictured in full effect as he walks to his own demise.

Double Indemnity - Bradley Strickland

Double Indemnity fits the profile of film noir. The image above is no exception and particularly highlights the essential aspect of darkness (both literally and figuratively).

This image shows Walter walking the streets late at night in order to have an alibi. The irony of the situation is that he has already done his deed for the night. The voice-over tells us something that we already know: that guilt is getting at him. He feels watched; he is being spied upon. The camera’s placement behind Walter allows the audience to be the detective that is on to him. We are the moral judges.

The low key lighting that creates the darkness of the image reinforces the wickedness of his deed. His twisted plot to use his walk to the pharmacy as a decoy shows just to what extreme Walter will go to serve the femme fatale. His placement suggests that Walter himself is walking with the shadow. This illusion that only half of the man is visible – the rest of him is in darkness – shows that he has been taken over, seduced by the dark, the femme fatale. This scene no longer shows us Walter, a man’s man; it shows us a shell possessed by lust. The idea that he is being possessed clouds the moral ambiguity and intensifies the power of Phyllis.

Though they claim to be on a trolley car together, it is ironic that he is on this murky path alone. The disappearance of the sidewalk into darkness, metaphorically into moral ambiguity, tells us that there are no street lights, no happy ending to this story.

Double Indemnity- Jeremy Brinson

Throughout the film both Walter and Phyllis were captured in shots that depicted them as a normal couple. the locations were mainly in a grocery store with the two cast in normal everyday lighting. this concept really added power to the film and aided in further disconcerting the audience, for it was in these settings that the two would discuss the murdering of Phyllis' husband.

However, this shot I feel best casts the two plotters in their natural habitat. The shot has them in Walter's apartment on his couch. They are at a full shot with low contrast lighting. this causes their shadows to be soft which is a smart choice, seeing as the lighting already reflects their dark secret. the blocking for the actors reflects their coolness: the two lounge upon the couch- Walter staring at the ceiling and Phyllis eating- looking as if they haven’t a care in the world.

This shot depicts the overall plot with perfect accuracy. The two meet in secret to plan the murder. They choose to rendezvous in plain sight, so as to avoid any unwanted attention. In this instance, the two meet in secret to confirm their love for each other and to begin plotting the homicide. With the elements of plot, mis en scene, and photography, this scene coins the pure essence of the movie.

Double Indemnity - Amber Merrell

This image strikes me as being very dark in nature. The lighting for the scene is minimal and appears to come through a window somewhere behind Phyllis and the doorway through which Walter is coming. This lack of lighting from within the room automatically creates a suspicious and rather sinister tone for the image. Further enhancing these dark moods is the presence of shadows throughout the image. The light coming through the window casts restricting bars across the wall, fencing the characters into the predicament in which they have put themselves. The light from the doorway effectively creates a silhouette of Walter on the wall. This ominous shadow hints at the betrayal about to be revealed and the violence that will follow. His shadow acts as a warning to Phyllis that this figure in the doorway is not the same man who she deceived and used.

I find it interesting to note that the seductive ankle bracelet is visible on Phyllis’s leg. This anklet is strangely attractive to Walter and is one of the first things that he noticed about this deceptive woman. In this image, Phyllis wears this tempting accent piece even when lounging in the dark in a dressing gown and house shoes. Her otherwise seemingly innocent attire is ever tainted by this suggestive piece of jewelry.

The fact that Phyllis is smoking seems to suggest that she is nervous about something. She is up late, sitting in a dark room, smoking a cigarette. It is not unreasonable to assume that she is upset. This unsettled mood adds to the bleakness of the situation and further hints at the dark end to not only the movie but also Phyllis’s life. The casual yet still dangerous position of the temptress paired with the stark shadow of Walter presents a fascinating duality between the seductress and the seduced. Phyllis has done her dirty deed and now seems to wait for the consequences to catch up. Walter, on the other hand, has only recently come to realize that the woman he loved used him. He seems to hesitate in the doorway, not wanting to face the woman who betrayed him.

Double Indemnity - Atlee Watson

This week I chose the next to last image (just in case image doesn't show up), and I believe that it encompasses many aspects of a film noir.

Now obviously this image has classic elements of a film noir, the room is very dimly lit with the only sources of light coming from a window and the open door. This type of low lighting is seen often in a film noir. It also contains the typical crime drama plot of a film noir. These types of crime drama rose in popularity after the great depression with the rise of gangsters during this time period. The sexuality throughout the film between Walter Neff and Phyllis Dietrichson pushed the limits of the moral boundaries established by the Hollywood Production Code. Two people who would kill for love and money was shocking for the times.


The mise en scene of the shot is actually done quite beautifully and symbolically. First, you have the dim room with the only light coming from the window and opened door as I mentioned before. Neff's shadow in the door, to me, represents whats to come for Dietrichson, while the light from the window casting the
"bars" on the wall represented what is to come for Neff. Also, they are both dressed very formally, as if they were each dressed for their own funeral. The blocking of Mrs. Dietrichson hides her away from the audience, in the same way that she is also hiding the gun from Neff in the cushions of her chair. Not to mention the lighting on her character. As the film progresses, we find out that she was not only unhappy with her husband, but how she may have been implecated with the death of the original Mrs. Dietrichson. Neff has discovered this information and in this image you can see how wrapped up in darkness she truly is. This film was the embodiment of a film noir and received high praise with its Academy Award nominations, while setting the standard for future film noirs.

Double Indemnity - Jessica S.

The seedy look in this image seems to give the best example of film noir technique, because the first thing to notice about it is the “venetian-blind” lighting- the ‘prison bars trapping’ Walter Neff- which encompasses his mentality at this point in the film. He has already murdered Phyllis Dietrichson’s husband in order for them to be together- or so he thought up until this point- and he has gotten himself literally trapped within Dietrichson’s world, which brings up another aspect traditional to film noir, and that is the sultry and seductive nature of Barbara Stanwyck’s female lead role. I suppose you could type her as this film’s femme fatale, in that she inevitably led Fred MacMurray’s character into a dangerous situation, using her ‘helplessness and despair’ as an unhappy, lonely woman to trigger the character Neff into devising a plan to kill her husband. What makes her seem even more femme fatale-like is that she completely masks the fact that she doesn’t want her husband dead so that she can just simply be with Walter Neff, she only wants him dead because of all the money she can have because of the insurance policy’s double indemnity clause. This is carefully hidden from Neff throughout the film until he finds out what her real intentions were by talking to Dietrichson’s step-daughter. Phyllis Dietrichson’s seductive and sketchy ways ultimately traps Neff into a binding ‘clause’ of his own- he has the choice to either kill Phyllis or be killed and let her reap the benefits of her wrongdoings that he helped initiate.

With the mise en scene in this image, along with the “venetian-blind lighting”, the overall space enclosed by the frame leaves only one option for Neff to consider should he need to escape. The ‘prison bars’ of the lighting have enclosed him in to his right, but they have also projected onto the background part of the scene, leaving what seems like one tiny shadowed corner for him to go to, which would inevitably lead him toward Dietrichson-toward the danger that she represents. The expression on his face is stony and fixed, and his posture indicates that he is probably standing more rigidly and is more tense that he would have been had the couple’s situation not turned out to be a kill-or-be-killed situation.

In terms of the period of this noir film and thinking about the Production Code, I can see how not only the reputations of the characters playing ‘villains’ would be risky, but also the little things that makes film noir part of what it is. I watched a documentary recently about how films produced under the Code followed strict rules like “no kisses should be over three seconds long,” and how male and female characters smoking around one another was immediately indicative of sexual intent and innuendo. In addition to that, in terms of Phyllis Dietrichson’s infidelity, it seems as though the writers and the actors themselves had to be careful about how far they could take all of the restrictions. Sometimes it almost seems like they are mocking the restrictions of the Code by filling in the obvious situations that would get them in trouble with something more ambiguous and under the radar that makes it all seem appropriate when it really alludes to the opposite.

Double Indemnity (Billy Wilder, U.S.A, 1944, 107 minutes)

Before the movie last night, I said that film noir had its visual roots in German Expressionist cinema, and that the popularity of the genre's murky look and seamy narratives were, to some extent, a reflection of a general darkening of the American mood during the last years of World War II and after. I also mentioned that the nature of this particular story, adapted by director Billy Wilder and crime writer Raymond Chandler from the novella by another crime writer, James M. Cain, pushed the moral boundaries established by the Hollywood Production Code and put off several actors, including Fred MacMurray and Barbara Stanwyck, who had to be convinced to take a chance with their established reputations in the roles of the adulterous murderers, Walter Neff and Phyllis Dietrichson. For this week's post, choose one of the images below and discuss how the visual elements combine to reflect some seemingly essential aspect of film noir. Naturally, these elements would include the qualities of the photography and mise en scène, but think, too, about the narrative context of the image you choose, the nature of the characters, the costumes, and the character blocking. Looking forward to your comments!

 

The Grand Illusion - Parker Sealy

In The Grand Illusion, these officers are treated with more class than expected. Why? They have it relatively good considering the circumstances. They fail to realize that once they get out of the POW camp, they are just going to be back in the realities of life. Not only do they want to escape but they also keep failing which almost represents fate. They are meant to remain in this camp because it is protected unlike the harsh reality outside the camp. Once they do finally escape, they are forever running (at least until they get to across the border).

In this picture, it is almost a representation of the harsh reality breaking into their life. Maréchal gets a taste of this when he has to leave Else. In this shot, the lighting is high key because it is pretty even lit. This suggests that there is hope because they are out of the camp and they’re where they wanted to be, at least a first. As you look at the shot, your eyes are immediately drawn to Maréchal, being the dominant. You immediately go from the high key positivity usually seen in comedies or musicals to knowing something is up and your emotion is turned due to his expression on his face. The framing is loose because they are out of the POW camp so it does suggest a bit more freedom unlike the imprisonment feeling of a tight frame as suggested earlier in the film. The picture still, however, represents the harsh realities of life that they have voluntarily walked back into. SO while they get a bit more freedom to “move around a bit,” the illusion is that they may have had it better off in one protected place rather than having to run to a new oasis to finally be safe.

Grand Illusion and RIFF by Greg Weinstein

In Grand Illusion, Renoir made a movie about WW1 (right before WW2 started) that made fun of it, humanized it, revered it, and contemplated it's affect on history and the future. There is a comment in the movie about how this would be the last war and another guy tells him not to be stupid, that there will always be war. Of course, this is more of a commentary on the times and the illusion that "the great war" would be the last war instead of just a 1. This is even more poignant because Renoir fought in WW1 and because he knows the book in which he borrowed the title from "The Great Illusion" was all about how a giant European war could not happen, and here in a span of 25 years the world would get two. I choose the picture of the p.o.w.s sitting around a table working on their costumes because of the absurdity of the actions in the picture due to their present location during a very tumultuous time. Also, the little French man with a cigarette in his mouth resembles Napoleon Bonaparte a great deal, which is very significant because that was probably the last great European war as it involved so many different countries. The idea of him being Napoleon in the forefront of the scene, could work as a reminder of how much people didn't want another war like that, and if you truly trace it back enough, could be seen as the precursor to WW1 as it would eventually lead to the use of treaties between countries to stop great powers like Napoleon Bonaparte or Germany or Austria. Also, looking away from the men, the audience sees a giant window with broken glass, but the window does not look onto some great scenic views, but onto another building. In this picture alone, you have the duality of the absurdity of the costume making with the repetitive view of the same thing, as if this has been done before and it has never once been for a good reason. Renoir's use of mise en scene works to show his views on not only "the great war", but also the budding tension growing in Europe which people can foretell leading to another "great" world war. Which is precisely why he chose the title, and the actions of the men in these holding camps, to show how these wars are nonsensical and any notion of peace or friendly cooperation is some "grand illusion".


At RIFF, I saw the experimental block on Friday. My friends and I were originally going to see "Think tank" and a "Marine story", but couldn't find it so we showed up late and caught the tail-end of the second short. However, this did not stop us from enjoying some of the shorts. The one that most stands out to me (for being good) is Sunday. The short about what a man is doing on his last day (which turns out to be wasted, basically him drinking) coupled with stop-motion animation of these things controlling him from the inside was really visually striking, especially when death came for the "mind-workers" and their death was spliced with the man lying on his couch dying. The animation was really good for this level, and it was obvious they put more work into that as the man walking through his life was pretty standard fare. There were other shorts like the German music one where it basically looked like you were watching music playing on windows media players, was just rather pointless as I could have saw it on my own computer, although I thought there was some message about the destruction of the environment as the only colors they used were orange and green and when it was green the images looked like trees and then in orange it was chaos, but I might be reaching there. The absolute worst of the shorts was the last one, which I have been told the title so many times, but I really do not care to remember it, as it was just long (they say 11, but I really thought I was in there for 30 minutes) and it basically amounted to the director throwing everything he could think of on screen, and then every time the audience thought it would end, he would go, oh wait I forgot about this and the movie continued. It was just nonsense, cliched, and boring. All in all, minus that short I really enjoyed them and a few of them were real keepers while others were just pieces of work.

The grand illusion-Angela, Jung

This film theme is prejudice and discrimination of rank, racial, religion and nation. During first world war, two man from France participated in the war. But they are captured. And they are familiar with each other because they are from the same nation. Although this familiar relationship, they didn’t have totally deep relationship between them. Because the one is the aristoclasic class and the other is proleteria class. This shows us the discrimination of class. On the other hand, the man from Germany can be familiar with the noble class from France, this is because they are all from noble class. From this situation, this discrimination is organized in the society so deeply, so we can recognize the discrimination of class is a very hard thing to overcome.

The two man from France were sent to prison camp, and there they met one guy from France. The noble man from France is connected this guy because of sharing privilege, but they are separated because of the class. And the proleteria class man from France is connected with this guy because of their same class, but they are also separated because of their different religion and race.

In this movie, the window is used to express their separation and boundary. Through the last scene, the director of this movie tried to show that the discrimination of class, race and religion can be overcomed. And all most scene is showed from eye level angle.

The Grand Illusion - Jessica Nguyen

This shot in the film shows one of the many underlying and overlaying illusions created by Renoir in “The Grand Illusion.” This shot has a sense of normal life: the men are at a house with coffee made, wearing pedestrian clothing. There is no sign of a war going on anywhere around them. They also give off the illusion of blended racial and social barriers, as the two men, seemingly friends or family in the shot, are from very different backgrounds, working-class Frenchman and a wealthy Jew, which was not usual for Europe at that time. It may have been a step towards what Renoir believed to be the new form in European culture, a place where social status and background did not matter or separate people. And yet, there is the window separating the two men; one is inside the house, while the other leans leisurely against an old wagon outside, showing that there is some difference and distance between the two still, maybe that they have not forgotten the war even while they are away in this place of solitude. While Rosenthal is the dominant in this frame, taking up most of the center, the eye also goes to Maréchal since he is facing us and we see a full shot of his body, unlike Rosenthal whose back we see in this over-the-shoulder shot. You would think the size difference would mean an inequality between the men, but they are set almost parallel to each other (Maréchal is leaning slightly), a sign of unity and similarity. This once again tells of Renoir’s illusion of equality in Europe and the fall of social status as important in Europe after the war.

The Grand Illusion - Sean S

The picture shows two military officers, Rauffenstein, who is the German commanding officer of the prison camp, and Boeldieu, who is unofficially the leader and prisoner of a group of French soldiers. They're next to a window discussing their lives and what they mean and where they come from. The relationship between each other is significant because they both come from aristocratic backgrounds with a lifelong career in the military. Renoir uses this in their conversation to symbolize the similarities between them and their ability to connect on a level apart from the rest of the relationships throughout the prison, which makes it unique.

You can tell from Rauffenstein's actions (when he opens up so trustfully to Boeldieu) that he's troubled that Europe is rapidly changing, which alludes to how connected Rauffenstein is to the old world where class and order have a higher prevalence in their nation's politics. The plant/flower is a subsidiary contrast. It appears in the center of the image for the audience to see. This is one of Rauffenstein's prized possessions because it shows how difficult it is for him to change, and when Boeldieu says ""For a commoner, dying in a war is a tragedy. But for you and me, it's a good way out," Rauffenstein cuts the flower showing that he realizes that people like himself and Boeldieu are no longer needed in the anarchic world of emerging societies.

The Grand Illusion - J. Miley

The grand illusion in "The Grand Illusion," I think, most pertains to Captain de Boeldieu deception of Captain von Rauffenstein. This is, however, a double deception on de Boeldieu’s part. I do not believe that he wants to deceive von Rauffenstein, but must for the sake of his men. Thus, he acts one way to the soldiers under his command and to another von Rauffenstein. The illusion is complete; de Boeldieu never lets up on his guise, even when no one is looking (as in the shot above).

The German guard is paying de Boeldieu no attention and his second in command (Lieutenant Maréchal) is yawning with boredom and tiredness. Still, de Boeldieu is unrelenting in his “properness,” never breaking the illusion for either von Rauffenstein or his men. What separates Von Rauffenstein and de Boeldieu is never implicitly stated. But it is implied that they are a different type soldier, presumably created only to lead and go to war. Their time is coming to an end, though, as von Rauffenstein says that the end of the war “will be the end of the Rauffensteins and the Boeldieus.”

While Renoir does not say it is so discrete terms at that point, he does show that idea through visuals and plot both before and after that line. This picture is one of the first images that shows this change. Not only do we see de Boeldieu’s semi-distaste for the way that Maréchal yawns, but in how the German soldier, despite being in the foreground, fades into the background. This message is told through the lighting, color/tone and placement, which then dictate the dominant and contrast.

In the shot, Maréchal and de Boeldieu do not look like they are not actually lit any lighter than the guard is, but they appear to be because of how their skin tones contrast against their clothing. In contrast, the guard’s skin is almost the same tone as his clothes. Not only that, but he in the same color as those in the background. This causes Maréchal and de Boldieu to pop out.

The attention is further drawn to Maréchal, making him the dominant. Not only does de Boldieu’s stare lead us to Maréchal, but he literally has two arrows (his chevrons) pointing at him.

While Maréchal is the dominant visually, he is also the dominant concerning the new wave of culture as it were. He is standing there yawning, giving us the sense of the boredom he might feel with how things are. De Boldieu is the contrast in the shot; he is the second brightest thing on the screen. But he yields to Maréchal’s presence (his irreverence to the situation) as he will be fading away to the new culture, that which both he and the Germans represent. While de Boeldieu is merely subject to Maréchal, the German, despite being in front of both of them, disappears into the background. Not only Germany, but “the Rauffensteins and the Boeldieus” all half to yield to a new European culture.

This image shows two enemies who actually share a great deal of admiration for one another which is symbolically shown as they frame the rose in the center of the shot. This is highly relevant to the story line because when Captain Boeldieu dies Captain von Rauffenstein cuts the rose which demonstrates the love they have for one another. The rose, according to mise en scene, is a subsidiary contrast because once you’ve taken in the dominant elements, being Boeldieu and von Rauffenstein, the eye is then attracted to the middle ground which they frame and that is where the rose lies.
I believe that Renoir suggests with this shot that despite strong national ties, Europe as a whole is moving towards a more trans-national movement, where being European, as a race or simply group of people, is equally meaningful if not more than local relevance. Aligning with this idea in the plot line, Merechal (who’s French) ends up falling in love with a German lady, Elsa.
This shot at first seems closed because it is framed tightly around the subjects, however the window opens it up once you look at it a little longer, I believe this would also suggest the gravity of their current situation, World War I, while opening the door (or window, in this situation) to the possibility of a bright future for Europeans as a whole. The equal division of the composition of the shot symbolic portrays the equality of the characters and situation, granted Rauffenstein is sitting and Boeldieu is standing, but it is a reversal of their current roles as Captain and prisoner (European equality anyone?).