Category: Design for animation, narrative structure and film language

Research Visual Presentation:

The Camera Use and Satire Narrative in Mockumentary

The investigation of this report bases on books and articles written by several mockumentary and film shot research scholars like Jane Roscoe, Craig Hight and Steven Lipkin, and specific films that have applied mockumentary filming and narrative techniques. The report mainly focuses on the visual and psychological impact of mockumentary filming technique on the audience and the critical and ironic nature of mockumentary.

The investigation finally draws a conclusion: The use of hand held camera and subjective shot in mockumentary can enhance audiences’ experience of engagement and strengthen the interaction among audience, characters and fictional world, though it still has some limitations. Carefully-designed mockumentary narratives satirize the documentary form and the real world in different levels and ways, and challenges viewer’s ideas by changing their experience and status.

Research Posts Links:

Research Areas: Mockumentary shooting and narrative

Research 01: The impact of hand-held camera and subjective shot on mockumentary filming

Research 02: The ironic nature of mockumentary and how mockumentary challenges audience’s ideas

Weekly Tasks and Notes Links:

Week_01: Notes & Understanding of Film, Animation and VFX

Week_02: Disney’s hyperealism

Week_03: Politics in film and media & Notes

Week_04: Notes

Week_04: Mise-en-Scène Analysis & Summary

Week_05: Notes

Week_05: Film story & Characters Breakdown & Timeline

Week_06: Notes

Week_06: Film Character&Story Development Breakdown

Week_08: Character Appeal Notes

The ironic nature of mockumentary:

It can be argued that the seemingly credible characteristic of mockumentary provides favorable conditions for its satire on other things. Compared with traditional narrative, mockumentaries often allow for more absurd and ridiculous narrative situations to be more readily accepted by audiences than if the same narrative situations appear in a film produced more in a tradition form. Gary D Rhodes’ mockumentary film Chair (2001), using a realistic narrative and shooting method to tell about various cases that happened to the actor Bela Lugosi’s favorite piece of furniture after his death. According to Rhodes (2002, p.47), “Despite the ridiculousness of the faked story and fictitious characters, some audiences still believe that what they just witnessed was true until the director exposes the scam at the end of the film.” Apparently, such characteristic not only brings mockumentary a great sense of ridiculousness and humor but also exaggerate the degree of satire to the real world.  

Through the projection of fictional stories, mockumentary criticizes and satirizes the documentary form and the real world. Apparently, The mimic of specific subjects allows mockumentary to blur the boundary between reality and fiction, which leads to a discussion of documentary’s authenticity. Hight (2014) argues that mockumentary shows audience the possibility of fabricating nonfictional works, which challenges the audiences’ common expectations toward these forms. In the book Faking it: mock-documentary and the subversion of factuality (Roscoe & Hight, 2001), writers separate mockumentaries into three levels depending on the degrees of their satire to documentary: parody, critique and hoax, and deconstruction. Parody mockumentary is more like a comedy film, which contains little satire to documentary. For example, This is Spinal Tap (1984), which critically comment the hyper-masculinity in heavy metal rock area. Deconstruction mockumentary, however, aggressively deconstructs the foundation of documentary and focus more on critiques rather than humor.

Mockumentary also criticizes the reality by creating a new world which is almost close to the one people lives in. It uses parody and mimicry to challenge people’s basic understandings of their country, faith, collective history, and their sense of identity(Genter, 2013). American mockumentary Zelig (1983), for example, uses forged pictures, characters and footage to tell the story of an almost real character,  Leonard Zelig, who can change his identity and even appearance depending on his surrounding environment. Through the description of Zelig’s story and people’s reaction to his life, film satirizes the public’s psychology of seeking novelty and some ugly nature of humanity. The design of narrative not only enhances the authenticity of Zelig’s world but also create a strong intimation of the irony of real world.

How mockumentary challenges audience’s ideas:

Mockumentary also challenges viewer’s ideas by changing their experience and status. Such statement can be found in book F is for Phoney (Juhasz and Lerner, 2012), which points out that mockumentary aims to link audience and the fictional world together. “Fake documentaries are most compelling and productive when they double back and multiply the traditional documentary object……All of these elements shift and refocus in their reverberation, allowing the viewer, in the process of such seeing, to also become a stake holder in this lively system.” To sum up, the connection between audience and mockumentary is designed into two levels. Normally, mockumentary talks directly to viewers, which seeks to build up a relationship with a knowing audience who through being in on the joke can appreciate both the humor and the inherent critical reflexivity of the form(Lipkin et.al 2006). This characteristic can be easily found in most of fake documentary comedies like Zelig, The Rutles (1978) and This is Spinal Tap. As for more critical and serious mockumentaries, however, they even let viewers to become part of them. Take film Man Bites Dog (1992) as an example. Man Bites Dog tells a story that several filmmakers following a serial killer and recording his crime for a documentary production. At first filmmakers are observers and just simply recording the crime. However, they gradually become accomplices after they get involved into these violence and chaotic. The subjective shot makes audience become the witness of these crimes and even become part of the production team. When camera records the moments of killing or even participates into these violence, the film is actually questioning audience’s fascination with the macabre and their feelings as accomplices.

References:

Books

Campbell, M. (2007) “The Mocking Mockumentary and the Ethics of Irony”, Taboo, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 53-62.

Genter, R. (2013) “Book Reviews: “Too Bold for the Box Office: The Mockumentary from Big Screen to Small” ed. by Cynthia J. Miller”, Film & History, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 95-97.

Hight, C. (2014) “Mockumentary.”, in Salvatore Attardo (ed.), Encyclopedia of Humor Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA and London: Sage, pp. 515-516.

Juhasz, A. and Lerner, J. (2012) F is for phony : fake documentary and truth’s undoing. Minneapolis: University Of Minnesota Press, p. 16.

Lipkin, Steven N., Paget, Derek & Roscoe, Jane. (2006) “Docudrama and Mock-Documentary: Defining Terms, Proposing Canons.”, Docufictions: Essays on the Intersection of Documentary and Fictional Filmmaking. Jefferson, N.C.: Mcfarland, p. 11-26.

Rhodes, G.D. (2002) “Mockumentaries and the Production of Realistic Horror”, Post Script – Essays in Film and the Humanities, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 46-60.

Roscoe, J. and Hight, C. (2001) Faking it: mock-documentary and the subversion of factuality. Manchester, Manchester University Press.

Films

Bad News Tour [film]. 1983. SANDY JOHNSON dir. UK: Unknown.

Chair [film]. 2001. GARY D RHODES and BOB STOVALL dir. USA: Unknown.

Man Bites Dog [film]. 1992. REMY BELVAUX, ANDRE BONZEL and BENOIT POELVOORDE dir. Belgium: Palisades Tartan.

Rec [film]. 2007. JAUME BALAGUERO and PACO PLAZA dir. Spain: Filmax International.

The Blair Witch Project [film]. 1999. DANIEL MYRICK and EDUARDO SANCHEZ dir. USA: Artisan Entertainment.

This is Spinal Tap [film]. 1984. ROB REINER dir. USA: Embassy Pictures Corporation.

Zelig [film]. 1983. WOODY ALLEN dir. USA: Warner Bros.

TV Series

The Office. 2001. Capital United Nations. 9 July. 76 hrs.

The impact of hand-held camera on mockumentary filming:

One of the most unique elements in mockumentary is its shooting style, which mimics the shooting process of documentary to build up an illusion of reality and authenticity. But how does it work? A review of the available literature provides some examples, which shows that mockumentary filming can significantly enhance audiences’ experience of engagement by using hand-held camera and subjective shot. 

Issari, M. A. and Paul, D. A.(1979) mention that the recorded footage from a hand-held device reflects more tactile and visual human characteristics. Jean-Pierre Geuens (2015) points out that the placement of hand-held camera humanized the view, making it more personal. “The shot no longer appeared to originate from the eye or the mind of the storyteller, but became rather the direct expression of the holder’s body.” Both of these views emphasize the humanized property of hand held camera. Geuens also uses a war scene of The Anderson Platoon (1967) to emphasize an idea: the viewer is made to experience what the cameraman went through so that viewer can feel how difficult the cameraman’s circumstances are. This idea is demonstrated clearly in a scene of another film Man Bites Dog (1992), in which the camera shakes violently when the cameraman is being hunted by killers. The camera finally rolls on the ground and stops, which implies the death of cameraman. Such characteristics of hand held camera build up a relationship among audience, characters and the fictional world. 

The impact of subjective shot on mockumentary filming:

It is believed that subjective shot is another important element of mockumentary shooting, which has a great impact on visual and mental experience of viewers. Briefly, subjective shot means shooting in first personal view. Gustavo Mercado discusses subjective shot in his book The Filmmaker’s Eye (2011, p.83). He mentions that a well designed subjective shot matches both the character’s emotional and psychological subjectivity and the physical attributes of character’s perspective. He also notices that subjective shots enhance the level of interactions between other characters and audience, which helps them builds up powerful relationships. It is clear that subjective shot has its unique functions, but is it suitable to replace traditional shots? Eugeni, R. (2012) compared first person shot with traditional point of view shot, and argues that the first person shot breaks the rules and grammatical constructions of point of view shot, which also extends (and partially manifests) the principle of subjectivity implied by point of view shot. 

However, the use of subjective shot in mockumentary should also be careful. Audience might find it difficult to identify with the character whose subjectivity they are experiencing in a long subjective shot because of the lack of reaction shots (Mercado, 2011). Additionally, it has been widely criticized that the overuse of hand held camera causes too much shake and blur to image area, which make audience feels uncomfortable.

Ideally, the first problem can be solved by setting camera man as an unimportant character, adding monologue recordings or changing the user of camera frequently. Spanish horror film Rec (2007), for example, set protagonist’s assistant as the cameraman so that protagonist’s nervous facial reactions can be recorded clearly, which reinforces the thrilling atmosphere. As for the second problem, several works suggest that the combination of mockumentary filming and traditional filming can overcome it to some degree. A convincing example is film District 9 (2009), which uses varied kinds of cinematic modes – a corporate promotional film, hand-held documentary film and traditional narrative shots to demonstrate the society and life of people after alien refugees arrived on Earth. The blending of documentary and traditional filming successfully creates a convincing air of authenticity in the first 15 minutes of the film.

• 

• 

• 

References:

Books

Branigan, E. and Rauh, R. (1975) Formal permutations of the point-of-view shot. S.L., Erscheinungsdatum Nicht Ermittelbar. pp 54–64.

Eugeni, R. (2012) “First person shot. New Forms of Subjectivity between Cinema and Intermedia Networks / El pla en primera persona. Noves formes de subjectivitat entre el cinema i les xarxes intermèdia / El plano en primera persona. Nuevas formas de subjetividad entre el cine y las redes intermedia”, Anàlisi : Quaderns de Comunicació i Cultura, , pp. 19-31.

Geuens, J. (2015) “The dismantling of the fourth wall”, Quarterly Review of Film and Video, vol. XXXII, no. 4, pp. 314-328.

Issari, M. A. & Paul, D. A. (1979) What is cinéma vérité? Metuchen, N.J: Scarecrow Press, p. 172.

Mercado, G. (2010) The Filmmaker’s Eye: Learning (and Breaking) the Rules of Cinematic Composition, Taylor & Francis Group, Oxford, p. 83.

Films

District 9 [film]. 2009. NEILL BLOMKAMP dir. USA: Sony Pictures.

Man Bites Dog [film]. 1992. REMY BELVAUX, ANDRE BONZEL and BENOIT POELVOORDE dir. Belgium: Palisades Tartan.

Rec [film]. 2007. JAUME BALAGUERO and PACO PLAZA dir. Spain: Filmax International.

The Anderson Platoon [film]. 1967. PIERRE SCHOENDOERFFER dir. France: Office de Radiodiffusion-Télévision Française.

This is Spinal Tap [film]. 1984. ROB REINER dir. USA: Embassy Pictures Corporation.

Character Appeal

Appeal in animation characters is a similar parallel with actors having charisma

• A character who is appealing can still be unsympathetic, a villain or monster.
• Appeal is critical in the audience association with the character creating interest and concern.
• Appeal lies not oonlt in the design of the character but the action and deed of the character within the storyline.

What creates appeal: essentially the character feels real and convincing

Design, Performance and Role

• What visual componets or aspects of a character might achieve this?
• What performance traits might endear us?
• Why do we forgive and ultimately care for a character?
• How do we establish trust and empathy with a character?

Exaggeration

Uncanny valley

Concept: In aesthetics, the uncanny valley is a hypothesized relation between an object’s degree of resemblance to a human being and the emotional response to the object. The concept suggests that humanoid objects that imperfectly resemble actual human beings provoke uncanny or strangely familiar feelings of eeriness and revulsion in observers. “Valley” denotes a dip in the human observer’s affinity for the replica, a relation that otherwise increases with the replica’s human likeness. (From wikipedia)

Links:

Theme:

The impact of mockumentary shooting and narrative on traditional film production

Mockumentary refers to a fictitious story filmed with the technique and form of documentary. Mockumentary shooting technique and narrative method has gradually become familiar in the early years of 21th century, its impact on traditional film shooting and narrative methods are controversial. Some people say that mockumentary improves the feeling of reality by using realistic shooting and sound, others think that the making and result of mockumentary shooting and narrative have too many limitations. This thesis will investigate, evaluate and measure the impact of mockumentary filming techniques on modern film narratives, and draw relevant conclusions.

Keywords: Mockumentary, film shooting, film narrative.

Outline Structure:

Introduction

Part1: Background of mockumentary shooting and narrative. (techniques, form and applied areas) + my argument + the organisation of essay

Main Body

Part2: Methodology

Part3: Argument1: Properly using mockumentary shooting and narrative techniques can help film makers enhance the atmosphere of the film and the reality of the world view.

Positive view: Subjective shooting, Breaking the Fourth Wall. Voyeuristic view

Nagative view: Camera shaking, Shooting limitations,

Refutation: citations&analysis

Part4: Argument2: Using mockumentary filming and narrative techniques can be a better way to enhance the criticism of reality than traditional film narrative.

Positive view: The blending of reality and fiction, Identity transfer.

Nagative view: Traditional film criticism techniques

Part5: Draw a conclusion. Suggestions. Talk about the future of mockumentary shooting and narrative.

References

Part6: References

Questions to research:

What is mockumentary?

Mockumentary is a kind of film works which shows audience the fiction stories in a documentary way. Mockumentary often shot with untraditional methods. For example, shooting with hand held camera devices or using interview perspective to tell story.

How many kinds of mockumentary shooting and narrative?

Based on the difference of narratives, mockumentary shooting and narrative can be separated into several forms:

• Fantasy stories made in a realistic style based on a purely fictional worldview. Example: The Blair Witch Project (1999), This is Spinal Tap (1984), District 9 (2009), Zelig (1983)
• The reproduction of scenes and characters based on real events. Example: JFK (1991)
• Artistic creation of characters and scenes based on one or more real events. Example: 24 City (2008), Death of a President (2006)

What is the difference between mockumentary, documentary and traditional film making?  

The main difference between mockumentary and documentary is the authenticity. Documentary films record something really happened in the real world. However, what mockumentaries record are fictional settings and stories which are designed by directors and film makers. However, both mockumentary and documentary have same general characteristics of style which constructs the feeling of factuality. For example, poor lighting, unstable sound quality and minimum editing style. By mimicking the style of documentary, mockcumentary raises questions about the factual discourse of documentary.

What is the advantage of mockumentary shooting and narrative? Why?

One of the most important elements of mockumentary is its feeling of authenticity. Mockumentaries often allow for crazier narrative situations to be more readily accepted by audiences than if the same narrative situation appears in a film made more in the tradition of the classical Hollywood style. Gary D Rhodes’ mockumentary film Chair (Rhodes, 2001), using a realistic narrative and shooting method to tell about various cases that happened to the actor Bela Lugosi’s favorite piece of furniture after his death. Despite the ridiculousness of the faked story and fictitious characters, some audiences still believe that what they just witnessed was true until the director exposes the scam at the end of the film.

Another advantage of mockumentary is its nature of satire. By mimicking the style of documentary, mockcumentary raises questions about the factual discourse of documentary. Additionally, mockumentary narrative and shooting is a perfect way to reflect and question the social problems in real world. District 9 (2009), a science fiction mockumentary film directed by Neill Blomkamp in 2009, tells the story of alien refugee on earth to satirize the apartheid, which is a system of institutionalised racial segregation that existed in South Africa and South West Africa in South Africa from 1948 until the early 1990s. This is Spinal Tap (1984), a rock and roll mockumentary, satirizes the rollercoaster lifestyles of rock stars by creating and recording the life of a fake rock and roll band called Spinal Tap. The combination of real and fake brings mockumentary a great sense of humor and satire.

What is the disadvantage of mockumentary? Why?

One of the shortages of mockumentary is its visual experience. The shaking of hand held camera and the low quality of sound can make audience feel uncomfortable. It is hard for people to feel the location of characters in some situations because the shooting style of mockumentary limits its camera language. The lack of color correction and proper editing may make people feel confused and a sense of insecurity. However, this shortage can also become one of the adventages when director is shooting a horror topic mockumentary. The uncomfortable, unstable and messy camera shooting style can significantly increase the sense of fear and reveal the mental statement of characters.

Most of mockumentaries are horror and comedy, can it be applied in other themes or areas?

Science fiction. Disaster films. Serious topics like politics or social problems.

What is the realistic elements in mockumentary films? Examples?

Without question, the form of mockumentary shooting is totally fake because film makers use fake settings and fictional characters to build up the story. However, the theme of mockumentary narrative and social problems which mockumentary reflects really exist in real world. 24 City(2008), a mockumentary film shot by Jia Zhangke, follows three generations of characters in Chengdu (in the 1950s, the 1970s and the present) as a state-owned factory gives way to a modern apartment complex. The film

References:

Rhodes, G.D. 2002, “Mockumentaries and the Production of Realistic Horror”, Post Script – Essays in Film and the Humanities, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 46-60.

Özge Akoğlu. 2010. Mock-documentary: questioning of factual discourse of documentary. M.S. – Master of Science. Middle East Technical University.

ROYAL, D.P., 2012. FALSIFYING THE FRAGMENTS: NARRATOLOGICAL USES OF THE MOCKUMENTARY IN HUSBANDS AND WIVES AND SWEET AND LOWDOWN. Post Script, 31(2), pp. 54-66,120.

DOSSER, M., 2020. Music in Comedy Television: Notes on Laughs. Music, Sound and the Moving Image, 14(1), pp. 79-82,91.

ANDERSON, K.T., 2009. Tickling and Teasing the Real: Mocking Reality TV in the Film “Series 7”. Post Script – Essays in Film and the Humanities, 28(3), pp. 108-122.

TAYLOR, H.M., 2007. More than a Hoax: William Karel’s Critical Mockumentary “Dark Side of the Moon”. Post Script – Essays in Film and the Humanities, 26(3), pp. 88-101.

CAMPBELL, M., 2007. The Mocking Mockumentary and the Ethics of Irony. Taboo, 11(1), pp. 53-62.

Allen, K. & Jensen, T. (2021, August 3). Mockumentary and the Sociological Imagination [Online]. The Sociological Review.

[1]赵禹平.纪录片与伪纪录片的辨析:符号叙述分析[J].大舞台,2017,(5):74-80.

Nenad Jovanovic (2021) Mockumentary between Factual and Poetic Truth: The Case of Tehran Has No More Pomegranates, Quarterly Review of Film and Video, DOI: 10.1080/10509208.2021.1948313

DAVIS, W., 2012. THE REALITY ANATOMIST: CHRIS LILLEY AND THE MOCKUMENTARY FORM. Screen Education, (67), pp. 94-102.

ROSCOE, J., 2000. Mock-Documentary Goes Mainstream: “The Blair Witch Project”. Jump Cut, , pp. 3-8.

SICINSKI, M., 2007. F Is for Phony: Fake Documentary and Truth’s Undoing. Cineaste, 32(3), pp. 87-89,75.

Geuens, J.-P. (2015) ‘The Dismantling of the Fourth Wall’, Quarterly Review of Film & Video, 32(4), pp. 314–328. doi: 10.1080/10509208.2014.968761.

Eugeni, R. 2012, “First person shot. New Forms of Subjectivity between Cinema and Intermedia Networks / El pla en primera persona. Noves formes de subjectivitat entre el cinema i les xarxes intermèdia / El plano en primera persona. Nuevas formas de subjetividad entre el cine y las redes intermedia”, Anàlisi : Quaderns de Comunicació i Cultura, , pp. 19-31.

Mercado, G. 2010, The Filmmaker’s Eye: Learning (and Breaking) the Rules of Cinematic Composition, Taylor & Francis Group, Oxford, p.83.

Albright, M. 2011, The Visible Camera: Hand-Held Camera Movement and Cinematograpohic Embodiment in Autobiographical Documentary, University of Southern California, Division of Critical Studies, Spectator, Los Angeles.

Film Reference:

The Blair Witch Project (1999)

This is Spinal Tap (1984)

District 9 (2009)

Man Bites Dog (1992)

JFK (1991)

24 City (2008)

Rec（2007）

Zelig (1983)

• Take 2 films you enjoy and break down the character development and story development throughout the film:
• Analyse how the main characters evolve
• Analyse how the characters drive the story
• If there are similarities between your films point this out and why you think they are following a similar structure if so.

SE7EN

Seven is a 1995 American neo-noir psychological crime thriller film directed by David Fincher. The film tells the story of David Mills (Pitt), a detective who partners with the retiring William Somerset (Freeman) to track down a serial killer who uses the seven deadly sins as a motif in his murders.

Main Characters: David Mills, William Somerset, John Doe.

Story Development:

Detective Lieutenant William Somerset is a man who will retire in the next week. Before his retirement, he partnered with short-tempered Detective David Mills, who has recently moved to an unnamed large city with his wife Tracy.

Somerset and Mills investigate a set of murders inspired by the seven deadly sins: pride, greed, wrath, envy, lust, gluttony and sloth. The first victim is a super fat man who was fed to death, which relates to the sin of gluttony. At first Mills thinks the murder is just a anti-social madman. However, as the second case released, in which a criminal defense attorney killed after being forced to cut a pound of flesh from himself, representing greed, Somerset realizes that the murder is a serial killer and there will be more victims in the future.

Clues at the murder scenes lead Somerset and Mills to a suspect’s apartment, where they find a third victim, a drug dealer and child molester, strapped to a bed and barely alive, representing sloth.

The detectives use library records to identify a man named John Doe and track him to his apartment, where they have a gunfight with Doe. Doe then hurt Mills badly, but for some unknown reason he doesn’t kill him. After Doe escaped, Mills and Somerset checked his apartment and find out that Doe is the one who took a picture of Mills yesterday. They also find a clue to another murder by searching Doe’s notebooks.

The detectives arrive too late to stop a man forced by Doe at gunpoint to kill a prostitute by raping her with a custom-made, bladed strap-on, representing lust. The following day, they attend the scene of a fifth victim, a model whose nose has been cut off by Doe. She was given the option to call for help and live disfigured or commit suicide by taking pills. The woman chose the latter option and died, representing pride.

As Somerset and Mills return to the police station, Doe unexpectedly turns himself in, covered in the blood. Doe offers to confess to his crimes, but only on the condition that he escort Somerset and Mills to a secret location where the victims representing envy and wrath are presumably buried, otherwise he will plead insanity. Somerset and Mills agree with Doe’s idea and followed him to a place, where they see a delivery man driving to them. Somerset stops the car and the delivery man gives a package.

Somerset opens the box and, in a sudden panic, tells Mills to stay back. Doe reveals that he himself represents the sin of envy, as he envied Mills’ life with Tracy. He says that the box contains Tracy’s head, telling Mills that Tracy begged for her life and the life of her unborn child. Despite of Somerset’s warning, an enraged Mills fulfills his own role as wrath and kills Doe, completing Doe’s plan. Finally Somerset watches as Mills is taken away.

Character Development:

David Mills:

Mills is a young detective who is passionate, bad-tempered and impetuous. At first Mills dislikes Somerset because Somerset thinks he is naive and ridiculous. After they had a dinner together with his wife Tracy, their relationship becomes closer, which helps them to focuse on cases. David gained much experience with Somerset and both of them find the murder. However, the death of Tracy lits the raging fire inside Mills. He kills the murder and finally pays a price for his outrage.

William Somerset:

Detective Somerset is an experienced old police officer who lives alone. He was once passionate about his work like Mills is, probably as passionate as Doe is for what he considers to be “work.” However, after living in the city of crime for years, Somerset loses his passion and is tired of working in this depressing place. Somerset’s similarities to John Doe ultimately help him catch him. His intelligence helps him to find Doe’s address and finally catches him. He originally wanted to escape the hatred in the city but after the events with Doe he has changed his mind and decided that he can make an impact by continuing his detective work.

John Doe:

Doe’s characteristic is quite like Somerset. They are both clever but lonely, feeling sick of crimines in the city. However, instead of helping people Doe decided to punish them in the most gruesome way possible, which forced him to go on an opposite way. He is evil, bad but also tragic.

Analysis:

How characters drive this story:

Most part of the story is driven by Mills and Somerset’s investigation. At first both characters’ comflicts make the investigation hard to continue. However, Tracy’s dinner helps the relationships between two characters become closer, which let the story keep going. After Mills and Somerset find John Doe’s apartment, story starts to go in another direction. When the suspect John Doe caught by the police, story seems to go to the end. However, the death of Tracy pushes the story to the climax, Mills and Somerset fall into a passive position and Doe is in the driving seat . After Mills kills Doe, story goes to the end quickly, which makes the final ending more impressive.

---

Zodiac

Zodiac is a 2007 American mystery thriller film directed by David Fincher, based on true story. The film tells the case of the manhunt for the Zodiac Killer, a serial murderer who terrorized the San Francisco Bay Area during the late 1960s and early 1970s, sneering at police by sending letters and ciphers mailed to newspapers. The case remains one of the United States’ most infamous unsolved crimes.

Main Characters: Robert Graysmith, Paul Avery, David Toschi, Arthur Leigh Allen, etc.

Story Development:

July 4, 1969,

An unknown man attacks Darlene Ferrin and Mike Mageau with a handgun at a lovers’ lane in Vallejo, California. Mike survives.

One month later,

The San Francisco Chronicle receives several letters written by the killer calling himself the “Zodiac,” who threatens to kill a dozen people unless his cipher containing his identity is published. Robert Graysmith, who is political cartoonist at that time, gaines great interest in this case. When the newspaper publishes the letters, a married couple deciphers one. However, no identity exist in this letter.

September,

The killer stabs law student Bryan Hartnell and Cecelia Shepard at Lake Berryessa in Napa County. Cecelia dies two days later.

Paul Avery, who is a crime reporter, begins sharing information with Graysmith. Graysmith finds out that the line which Zodiac mentioned in his letter, “man is the most dangerous animal of all” is a reference to the film The Most Dangerous Game.

Two weeks later,

San Francisco taxicab driver Paul Stine is shot and killed in the city’s Presidio Heights district. The Zodiac killer mails pieces of Stine’s bloody shirt to the Chronicle along with a letter. San Francisco police inspectors David Toschi and his partner Bill Armstrong start to investigate the case.

In 1971,

Detectives Toschi, Armstrong, and Mulanax question Arthur Leigh Allen, a suspect in the Vallejo case. After a brief talking Toschi heavily considers Leigh as the prime suspect. Unfortunately, a handwriting expert insists that Leigh’s handwriting doesn’t match with Zodiac’s one, even though Allen is said to be ambidextrous. After received the threatening letter, Paul Avery shares information with the Riverside Police Department and finds out that Zodiac might have been active before the initial killings.

In 1978,

Avery moves to the Sacramento Bee. Graysmith contacts Toschi about the Zodiac murders and eventually impresses him with his passion of that case. With the help of Toschi, Graysmith gaines more imformation after he searched high number of files. Toschi then received a letter from Zodiac which causes his demotion.

Graysmith continues his own investigation. He gathers tons of circumstantial evidence, which points out that Arthur Leigh Allen is the most suspicious suspect. Toschi is impressed by his investigation and asks Graysmith to finish his book.

In 1983,

Graysmith tracks Allen to a Vallejo Ace Hardware store. They stare at each other before Graysmith leaves.

Eight years later,

After Graysmith’s book, Zodiac, has become a bestseller, Mike Mageau identifies Arthur Leigh Allen from a police mugshot. Leigh’s DNA test is negative and he died of heart disease before police could question him. The Zodiac cases recently still remains open.

Character Development:

Robert Graysmith:

At first, Graysmith is just a cartoonist who has no relationship with Zodiac cases. However, the sense of justice and his perseverance drive him to focus on this case. When Zodiac cases become yesterday’s news, Graysmith keeps searching and finds out similarity and relationships among all those cases. He then become an expert of Zodiac cases, finishes his book and share his research conclusions to people around the world.

David Toschi:

David Toschi is a good detective. He has smelled the trace of Zodiac killer. However, because of the lack of evidence and terrible cooperation between police departments, he and his colleagues lose the best chance to catch the criminal. After years his colleagues feel exhausted of Zodiac cases and quit, but Toschi still keep searching. Toschi can be considered as a tragedy character, for he devoted himself into Zodiac cases for years but stil cannot catch him. Finally he has to follow with his colleagues and leave these cases for later ages.

Analysis:

How characters drive this story:

The story can be seperated to two lines. One is Graysmith’s investigation and the other is the offical investigation(Toschi’s investigation). At first, Toschi and his colleagues take a long time to investigate and find out several suspect like Rick Marshall and Arthur Leigh Allen. Leigh becomes the top suspect, which push the story to the first climax. However, no evidence is found and story suddenly come to a deadlock. In this part Garysmith is more like a bystander, showing audience the influence and horror that Zodiac killer has brought to people at that time.

After years police still don’t know who Zodiac is, Graysmith takes the place and starts to investigate by himself, the story becomes more interesting. His research is hindered by environmental factors several times, which adds twists and turns to the story. After all of Graysmith’s evidence points to Leigh, the story goes to the second climax. Finally, Leigh’s DNA is unmatched and the story ends.

Character Performance

Larva CG Bros

Little Things 2004 Daniel Greaves Tandem Films Entertainment(sound effect and character actions can make animation narrative interesting)

Piper a Joy Story

Pixar Short Films #7 For the Birds 2000 Ralph Eggleston

Lifted-Pixar Gary Ridestrow

Topic

• character development
• story development
• character and story development in animation

The film that I would like to talk about is:

L.A. Confidential (1997)

L.A. Confidential is a 1997 American neo-noir crime film directed, produced and co-written by Curtis Hanson. The screenplay by Hanson and Brian Helgeland is based on James Ellroy’s 1990 novel of the same name, the third book in his L.A. Quartet series.

The film tells the story of a group of LAPD officers in 1953, and the intersection of police corruption and Hollywood celebrity. The title refers to the 1950s scandal magazine Confidential, portrayed in the film as Hush-Hush.

Unlike traditional drama films, there are three protagonists in this film: Wendell White, Jack Vincennes and Edmund Exley.

Chracters Background

Wendell White was borned in an unhappy family, his mother was beaten to death by his drunk father, which made him obsess with punishing men who abuse women. White is quite strong and has become a detective for years. He is hot-tempered, but also smart.

Edmund Exley is a new detective. His father used to be the detective lieutenant in LAPD and was killed by an unknown assailant whom Exley secretly nicknamed “Rollo Tomasi”. Ed, despite his thirst for justice, is not without his demons. He is a political animal, smart and brave.

Jack Vincennes is a narcotics detective who moonlights as a technical advisor on Badge of Honor, a TV police drama series. Sid Hudgens, publisher of the Hush-Hush tabloid magazine, tips Vincennes on celebrity criminal activity so that he can make high-profile arrests for Sid’s publication.

---

Story Arc Breakdown (8 steps)

• You

The story started with a background of the 1950s Los Angeles, where gangs and drugs were rampant. LAPD vanished the reality and people never knows the dark side of LA.

After that, Wendell White, one of the main character, punched and punished a man who hurt his wife on Christmas Eve. He then met a woman at a bar and was attracted by her beauty.

At the sametime, Jack Vincennes, with the help of the publisher of Hush-Hush tabloid magazine Sid Hudgens, arrested an actor for taking drugs. Edmund Exley, however, was on his duty in police office that night.

Then a police office accident happened, which caused the resignment of White’s partner Stensland. Jack Vincennes was removed from Narcotics to Vice and Edmund Exley, who testified the whole accident, was raised to detective lieutenant of LAPD.

• Need

After the restruction in LAPD, a robbery and multiple homicide happened at the Nite Owl coffee shop. Stensland was one of the victims. Exley took the case and started searching.

• Go

• 

• 

• 

• 

Exley and Vincennes arrest three African-American felons for the crime. Exley questions these African-American felons and find a girl that they kidnapped before.

At the same time, White find an advanced prostitution organization and met with one of prostitute Lynn Bracken, who is also the woman that White saw in the bar. He also save the kidnapped girl.

• Search

• 

• 

• 

• 

Three African-American felons later escape from police custody and are killed by Exley in a shootout. Exley becomes a hero and the crime fighter in LA. Vincennes then gets back to the show as the technical advisor. White helps precinct captain Dudley Smith punish criminals and falls in love with Lynn Bracken.

• Find

• 

• 

• 

• 

Although the Nite Owl case appears solved, Exley and White investigate further, discovering evidence of corruption all around them.

Hudgens involves Vincennes in setting up a homosexual tryst between struggling actor Matt Reynolds and District Attorney Ellis Loew, intending to create a lucrative scandal. After Reynolds is found murdered, a guilt-ridden Vincennes joins Exley’s investigation to find the killer.

• Take

• 

• 

• 

• 

Vincennes finds out that all the victims and crimes are related to LAPD precinct captain Dudley Smith. Vinecennes pays a visit to Smith and is shooted by him. Vinecennes dies after murmuring “Rollo Tomasi”, the fictional character that Exley told him.

• Return

• 

• 

• 

• 

The next day, Exley’s suspicions are aroused when Smith asks him who “Rollo Tomasi” is. He searched more information and realized that Smith is the true murder. Smith then enraged White to kill Exley, trying to let them kill each other.

At the police station, White and Exley fight, but stop when both realize that Smith is corrupt. They then search more evidence and are sured that LAPD has existential crisis.

Smith lures Exley and White into an ambush. After the gunfight Smith is injoured and suggests Exley to hide the truth. Exley refuses his suggestion and then kills Smith before police arrives.

• Change

• 

• 

• 

• 

At the police station, Exley explains what he, Vincennes and White learned about Smith’s corruption. The LAPD decides to protect their image by saying Smith died a hero in the shootout, while awarding Exley a second medal for bravery. Outside city hall, Exley says goodbye to Lynn and White before watching them drive off to Lynn’s home in Arizona.

---

Characters’ Archetypes Breakdown

Frankly, characters in L.A Confidential are quite complicated and can not be easily analyzed with the 8 Kinds of Archetypes of Hero Characters principle. Therefore, I tend to analyze these characters based on what they did and then match they jobs in this film.

Edmund Exley:

A Hero character but also a Shapeshifter, a Mentor. He is ambitious and fulls of justice. He uses his actions to prove that he is a good detective, which even affects Jack Vincennes and Wendell White’s personalities. With the help of Vincennes and White, he finally finds out the truth.

Wendell White:

Also a Hero character but more like a Threshold guardian or a Sidekicks character. He is more powerful than Exley, helping Exley find the truth.

Jack Vincennes:

A great Sidekicks character. He is an old fox in LAPD and has his own secret. He finally moved by Exlley and feels responsible to help bring justice to his city.

Dudley Smith:

A Shadow character, bad cop. Smart, dangerous, secretive.

Sid Hudgens:

Not easy to define this character, more like a Trickster.

Lynn Bracken:

Sidekicks, helping Bud and his stuck-up colleague Ed Exley solve a crime that goes deep into the heart of L.A.’s underbelly. She is smart and has independent personality.

---

Main Character Timeline Before Film Start

Wendell White: borned in unhappy family- raised by his uncle and their family- became a detective in LAPD, solved several cases with his partner Stensland- live alone in LA

Edmund Exley: borned in a simple family- like reading books and learning-talked with his father quite often, admired his father but dislike his job, which is dangerous- his father died in accident, the willing of finding the murder drives him to become a sergeant in LAPD- under his father’s fame, Exley trys his best to catch up with his father

Jack Vincennes: used to be an young active detective who is passionate with catching crinimals and solving cases- after years he realizes that LAPD is a political area, there is no justice at all- feels depressed and becomes fish in troubled waters

Story curves

Kurt Vonnegut

Story curves’ structure

• Exposition: introduce of settings, problems that characters facing
• Rising action:
• Climax: tense moment of story
• Falling action: movement toward ending
• Resolution: final outcome

the hero’s journey

Stories’ characteristics

• life death
• consciousness unconsciousness
• order chaos

1. You
2. Need
3. Go
4. Search
5. Find
6. Take
7. Return
8. Change

Terminologies and Definitions character types

Characters type

• protagonist: Main character(good/bad)
• Antagonist: one or group of characters who stand against protagonist

• dynamic: experiences inner growth
• static: no growth, no change
• round: well-developed
• flat: undeveloped

8 Kinds of Archetypes of Hero Characters

• Hero: protagonist, separates from the ordinary world
• Mentor: provide motivation, provide insights, provide training to help the hero
• Threshold guardian: guard the world and its secrets from the hero& provide essential tests to prove
• Herald: issues challenges, announces the coming of significant change
• Shapeshifter: characters who keep other characters on edge
• Shadow: opposite to heroes (good/bad)
• Trickster: relish the disruption of the status quo
• Allies(sidekicks): individual or a team, represent the virtues of hero

P.S. a film does not really requires 8 or more characters but must cover all these jobs that the 8 kinds of archetypes mentioned

Characters Dimensions

Animation promotes a broader definition of a character than other media formats through the re-interpreting human form.

Advancing narrative through Characters

character movement should convey the necessary action pertinent the narrative but the attitude, emotion or mood.

Key Consideration

• establish the personality or demeanour of character for the film
• determine anatomical details and physical fluidity and extremity of action required
• identify all actions your character performs in pieces
• design actions and emotions that drives the narrative
• clear frame or stage your character for performance in a scene
• design audio to support the performance

Mise-en-Scène Analysis

Part01:

• Settings & Props

This scene is filled with chemical elemements and science photos, which shows the audience that it is a chemistry experiment class. Through these settings people can realize that characters are all students.

• Costume, Hair & Make Up

All characters in this scene wear goggles, which shows that they are doing experiments.

• Facial Expressions & Body Language

Character A(first male fox) is focusing on the experiment. However, his partner, character B(first female fox), looks inattentive and keeps looking at her right side, which shows that something on the right side attracts her. Character D(beaver) has more body language, which makes this character look more naughty.

• Lighting and Colour

Warm soft light covers the whole scene, which makes the scene calm.

• Positioning of characters/objects within the frame

Character A and B stand together behind a desk, which shows that they are partners, so do other two characters.

• What role does the shot choice (Cinematography) play in the scene.

The first shot shows the scene location(laboratory). The second shot, which is a medium shot, faces charactor A and B, which shows that their status are equal.

Then the camera moves to the right to show other two characters. After the explosion, camera becomes a more emotional medium close-up shot and focuses on character B and C, which shows that their relationship becomes closer.

Finally camera turns back to medium shot and focuses on character A and B, making the shot becomes calm again.

Part02:

• Can you describe the mise-en-scene in this picture? How are the characters placed in the frame?

Mise-en-scene: Two charactors, one male and one female, lying on a bed in a room . Their wearing and hairstyle shows that the male is much older than the female. A pair of slippers is on the carpet. The light in the room is warm and blurry.

The props, like bed and slippers, for example, show that these two characters are at a hotel. The slippers show that only one people lives in this room, one of them must be a stranger. The bed is clean and neat and bed throw has not been removed, which shows that this is their first night.

Characters are placed in the middle of the long shot. They look a little nervous and tired. It seems that they are thinking of something.  The woman crosses her arms in forn of her chest, which show that she is at a loss.

The warm soft light makes the atmosphere ambiguous.

Part03:

• Can you describe the relationship between the characters?

Rebecca is the new hostess and Mrs. Danvers is the housekeeper. It seems that the relationship between Rebecca and Mrs. Danvers is a little awkward. They are not quite familiar with each other. Mrs. Danvers looks not quite enthusiastic, which makes Rebecca feels scared and uncomfortable.

• How do we know what the relationship is?
• Can you describe how the mise-en-scene works together to tell us what the relationship is?

From their costumes and hair style, we can find out that Rebecca is the hostess and Mrs. Danvers is her housekeeper. What’s more, Mrs. Danvers has a poker face and a calm voice, which shows that she is not quite interested in Rebecca. It is obviously that Rebecca feels afraid of Mrs. Danvers, because her actions are quite nervous and unnatural. The camera also shows their relationships. Mrs. Danvers is at a higher level compared with Rebecca and the camera, which gives the audience a great sense of oppression. Most of the light is facing Rebecca and only a small part of light illuminates Mrs. Danvers’ face, which shows that their relationship is not quite peaceful.

Part04:

• Can you describe the mise-en-scene in this picture?

Props: the character is surrounded by low-rise buildings, telephone poles and people who wear robes and scarf with dense beard. All these props show that she is at somewhere in Egypt or Iran.

Costume: the girl wears a red scarf on her head and a green/yellow clothes, and carried a bag on her back. Her costume is quite different with other people, which shows that she is quite special.

Facial expression: the girl looking around on the street, looks quite nervous and worried.

Light: natural warm light, which shows that the girl is outside.

Color: The main color of this scene is red, brown and yellow. The scene uses a lot of unbright colors and the only bright color is the girl’s red scarf, which seperates the girl with other people and shows her speciality.

• What type of shot is it?

A medium shot

• What is the camera angle?

Eye level shot

• Where is the character located in the frame?

The character is at the middle of camera, walking on a street which has old buildings on both sides.