Research Project:

https://www.mediafactory.org.au/lachlan-knowles/2020/05/29/assignment-5-research-piece/

Reflection7: https://www.mediafactory.org.au/lachlan-knowles/2020/05/29/reflection-7-2/

Reflection 8: https://www.mediafactory.org.au/lachlan-knowles/2020/05/29/reflection-8-2/

Reflection 9:https://www.mediafactory.org.au/lachlan-knowles/2020/05/29/reflection-9-2/

Reflection 10:https://www.mediafactory.org.au/lachlan-knowles/2020/05/29/reflection-10-2/

Reflection 11:https://www.mediafactory.org.au/lachlan-knowles/2020/05/29/reflection-11-2/

Reflection 12: https://www.mediafactory.org.au/lachlan-knowles/2020/05/29/reflection-12-reflection-on-jesses-presentation/

Edgar Wright and Découpage

This piece is intended as an investigative project on the work of Edgar Wright, specifically focusing on his five self-written and directed feature-length films. These films consist of Shaun of the dead (2004), Hot Fuzz (2007), Scott Pilgrim vs. The World (2010), The World’s End (2013) and Baby Driver (2017). What I hope the following is informative of is what Wright’s films and style suggest about his approach to directing. In discussing his style and trademarks there are a plethora of points which I could address. These perhaps could include the jump cuts, whip pans and rapid montages which have become synonymous with his films however drawing attention to his use of audio provides an interesting point to investigate. Specifically looking at his soundtrack and sound effects and how these influence or are implemented as a result of his approach to decoupage. Embedded is some clips which assist demonstrate what I discuss.

Wright’s use of soundtrack has been self-described as a heavy influence on the creation of his films. Most evidently in his most recent film Baby Driver, examining this film alone could provide the basis of an entire essay. Despite this, I want to touch on this film more briefly to lay out some examples of Wright’s approach to building a scene before discussing this in the broader sense of his other films. The particular element of which will inform much of my approach researching his films revolves around the way in which Wright uses the timing of his editing and action in synchronization with his audio. Most noticeable through the cuts occurring on the beat of the soundtrack, this is very apparent in even the initial six shots of the film. Each of the characters is introduced after a cut in time to the beat of Bellbottoms (The Jon Spencer Blues Explosion 1995). This continues consistently throughout a majority of the film however it is the more subtle implementation of this matching which presents greater detail for investigation, particularly the matching between specific musical elements and action. Again with avoidance toward solely discussing this film a few examples of this technique can be seen in these same opening six shots. Ansel Elgort’s first head movement matches the sound of the initial drum and guitar, Jon Bernthalls gum chewing is timed to complement the rhythm of the song and Eiza González’ smirk grows as the violin strings intensify. These examples exist only in the films first six shots and this visual matching between beat, rhythm and instruments only multiplies and manifest even more subtly throughout a large portion of the movie. Looking at this film alone it is no stretch to claim it is the result of intense pre-production planning. In an interview with Christopher Nolan, Wright himself discussed writing the ‘action and song together’ in the script as well as letting the ‘song dictate what’s happening’ (Cinema Garmonbozia, 2017). This intensive involvement of soundtrack clearly required a focused approach to the specifics of decoupage in this film from an early level scripting stage, Wright even implemented an app which allowed his actors to play the soundtrack whilst reading over the script (Google Play, 2017). Perhaps even more interesting looking at how Wright developed this film is looking at how he developed this style throughout his career.

Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is perhaps the more obvious film to discuss next in relation to sound. In a similar way to Baby Driver’s immense intertwinement with music, Scott Pilgrim vs. The world involves itself with its soundtrack heavily. The involvement of music in Scott Pilgrim vs. The world is pivotal to the film as a result of its source material, a comic by the same name. Pilgrim identifies with his band and the shows they play have heavy involvement with his narrative arc. The synchronization between song and image certainly exists within this film however, to a lower degree. Many sequences have clearly been cut to the beat and Wright employs some creative use of split frames and visual effects during musical pieces within the film. Where Wright has further employed the style of synchronisation identified in Baby Driver is through his use of enhanced diegetic sound effects. This again is most easily displayed through the film’s opening. The initial sequence as the audience is introduced to Pilgrim and his housemates is full of video game noises. A number of these sound effects are used in timing with specific eye movements, expressions and camera cuts. One point in this exchange includes a video game sound effect of a player finding a coin exactly as Pilgrim (Micheal Serra) drops his eye line down towards screen left. This is followed by a short video game jingle playing over quick cuts between Pilgrims housemates, and ends in a high note which is synchronized with the eyebrow raise of the housemates (00:01:23 above clip). Despite the inclusion of handheld Nintendo consoles in these shots, these sounds are almost certainly a result of editing post-production. This specific heightening of diegetic sounds continues through much of the film and sort of lends itself to the question is this all pre-planned? or are these sound effects simply designed and added after the fact? In questioning this upon repeat viewings it begins to appear that, much like Baby Driver a lot of these little synchronisations are pre-planned and whilst they aren’t as prominent in his other films they are certainly present.

When looking at the remainder of Edgar Wright’s films, Hot Fuzz, Shaun of the Dead and The World’s End there are a considerable number of examples of this technique. In the first 30 seconds of Shaun of The Dead, Simon Pegg moves his head up and down in time with the sound of an 8-bit arcade video game, later in that film they fight a zombie to the beat of Don’t stop me now by Queen. Similarly, in Hot Fuzz opening, a minor movement in Bill Nighy’s face perfectly match a copying machine beep and the sound of a digital camera focusing (00:02:37 clip above). These little visual and audio matches can be spotted all throughout these three films known as the ‘three flavour cornetto trilogy’ as well as the two aforementioned films. All of these enhanced diegetic sounds are likely to be added in post-production or at least edited in some way, this could suggest that they are a product of editing rather than of pre-planning. However what stands somewhat in opposition of these sound effects being an afterthought is Wright’s inclusion of these diegetically. Undeniably he employs a lot of non-diegetic noise that accompany his camera movements and action, however within the mentioned examples everything is intended to exist diegetically. This persistence to have everything the audience can hear exist within the world of the story suggests that Wright has at very least the sound sources planned ahead. 

This subtle synchronization between movement and audio can be seen in all of Wrights films. This has varied from informing an entire film such as in Baby Driver, or being used subtly in the case of Hot fuzz. This very particular approach seemingly sparked as a playful visual style earlier in his career as it can be seen spotted throughout his filmography, leaving Baby Driver almost as a culmination of all the little sequences he had tested it in. Identifying its effect is no easy task, in all of his films it plays a very particular role in adding to the comedy of a pan or disappointed glance from one character to another however its implementation in Baby Driver seems different. The opening scene of that film alone adds this visual energy about the sequence, the song itself guiding the pace of the edit. Wright’s approach to decoupage, especially in relation to Baby Driver is self-admitted to be largely influenced by the soundtrack, however, this stylized combination of audio and vision has clearly had an influence on a lot of his earlier work. Addressing this particular stylistic choice has resulted in one suggestion about his approach to filmmaking, that is that it seems a very calculated and attentive one. To say Wright’s films are all a product of immense application of decoupage from an early stage is potentially an overstatement, however, to apply this to the film of Baby Driver certainly seems reasonable. Its coordination with its soundtrack could not succeed with a ‘work it out on the day’ approach. Extending this logic to his other films is certainly a stretch, none achieve the same level of choreography and timing however, in all of them exist little segments of this synchronised use of audio. Whether through enhanced diegetic sound effects or matching with specific musical elements, this harmony between sound and image suggests implementation of a film’s decoupage at a pre-production stage. 

References

Baby Driver, 2017, Movie, Universal Pictures, directed by Edgar Wright.

 Cinema Garmonbozia, Christopher Nolan interviews Edgar Wright 2017, youtube video, viewed 28 May  2020, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W600u0bXLU4>.

Google Play, Baby Driver with Director Edgar Wright and Ansel Elgort, 2017, youtube video, viewed 28 May  2020, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xr5Mvj0ybJs>.

Hot Fuzz 2007, Movie, Universal Pictures, directed by Edgar Wright.

Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, 2010, Movie, Universal Pictures, directed by Edgar Wright.

Shaun of The Dead, 2004, Movie, Universal Pictures, directed by Edgar Wright.

The Worlds End  2013, Movie, Universal Pictures, directed by Edgar Wright.

In reflecting on everyone’s assignment 3 presentations I have quite a few thoughts which some of my reflections will consist of however one concept that was thought-provoking was Ruby’s chosen topic of horror films. Whilst I think her investigation more stemmed towards the idea of point of view shots it made me very aware of the lack of horror films I have seen. Now in the past I have openly refused to watch a lot of horror films, perhaps to my own peril as it is an entire genre that I am completely ignorant to and I intend to change this. My problem with this genre of film is not that they scare to some insane degree that I can’t sit through them but I don’t feel enjoyment in being scared. I feel a lot of horror films are loved due to their cheap jump scares and ability to frighten people rather than a solid production or narrative arc. Now this is obviously a very ignorant view of an entire genre and I aim to change this in the coming weeks and what this reflection is, in essence, is the reason I have begun to see value in expanding my exposure to these sorts of films.

What has made me interested in breaking this prejudice against horror films is something that feels very pertinent to our class. Unfortunately, it comes in the form of a very overused quote from director Martin Scorses, ‘Cinema is a matter of what’s in the frame and what’s out’. This idea of what’s included in a frame is obviously very relevant to our studies and I don’t feel the need to justify this as it speaks for itself but why I think it is relevant to this discussion is in relation to my ignorance to horror. My reflection number …. Briefly touched on this concept in relation to the suspense created in true detective through the threat which existed outside of the frame and I feel this potentially draws some elements regularly used in horror. The horror genre, although I admit I am somewhat underexposed to its specific techniques, but from what I have seen is regularly created as a result of what cannot be seen by the audience, indeed what is left outside of the frame. Now, this comes full circle to my reasoning for discussing this, I feel horror films present a genre which has crafted what it leaves out of the frame and its effectiveness relies on how successfully this has been achieved. There’s undeniably something to learn through watching all types of film, good or bad, cheap or expensive, but I feel in relation to decoupage horror films present an incredibly strong representation of what’s achievable through excluding subjects from the film.

For this reflection I wanted to talk about ‘suspension of disbelief’ not to come up with any grand definitions or conclusions on what it means but just in the sense which I’ve heard it used in discussion of cinema. Perhaps more so to propose some questions about my own understanding of it. To begin i wanted just to draw some definitions from online, the most useful follow;

• The temporary acceptance as believable of events or characters that would ordinarily be seen as incredible. This is usually to allow an audience to appreciate works of literature or drama that are exploring unusual ideas.

https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/suspension-of-disbelief.html

• The concept that to become emotionally involved in a narrative, audiences must react as if the characters are real and the events are happening now, even though they know it is ‘only a story’. ‘The willing suspension of disbelief for the moment’ was how the British poet Coleridge phrased it in 1817, with reference to the audiences for literary works.

https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100544310

Now my reason for a focus on ‘Suspension of disbelief’ is partially to expand on my reflection on the continuity of a shot in The Big Short. The part of this phrase that I find interesting is its regular use to explain someone being drawn out of a film or having their suspension of disbelief ‘broken’. I’ve regularly heard this phrase used to describe someone being snapped out of their investment in a film usually as a result of either poor filmmaking or some outrageous diversion from what is believable within the narrative bounds of a film. Now in terms of both of these potential occurrences which may have this ‘breaking’ effect I can understand it within some circumstances.

One example which feels entirely understandable within this era of constant remakes and sequels is when someone has an investment in the source material. One example of this which springs to mind was the backlash the 2009 Zack Snyder film, Watchmen received as a result of its diversion from the original comic book source material. Arguably this film went to great lengths to stay true to its source material, a lot of its scenes a literal recreation of the comic book pages, the costumes some of the more accurate in the superhero adaption genre and the dialogue mostly ripped straight from the pages of the original comic. The end of the film, however, took liberties to divert expectations and as a result, fans felt betrayed, this to me is understandable. Audience members have an attachment and a vision of how this translation to the film should happen so I can understand the disappointment when things go another way.

But what about a text in which the audience has no expectations? either as a result of no knowledge of the story or it being a completely original film? This is where my quarrel with this term begins. Perhaps my best example for this is my own experience with the film ‘into the wild’. Now, this is an adapted film, its source a book of the same name however going into viewing the film I had no knowledge of it, no attachment, no expectations. Despite this, there is a shot within the film, around a third of the way through in which the actor Emile Hirsch looks directly into the camera and smiles, breaking the 4th wall. For a period after this shot my suspension of disbelief was no longer suspended, I became disinterested in this character because this 2 seconds of the film seemed more at home in a blooper reel than in the film. Now my question is this, why is such a small detail in something that I have no previous investment and no hand in creating perceived as such an offence to me? Why does this bring me out of the film? As if I’m suddenly alert that I’m watching a film and wasn’t previously? I suppose this could be put down to my own snobbiness in judging films but I don’t feel I’m alone in such experiences.

For this reflection, I wanted to respond to a quote from Greta Gerwig in a ‘directors round table’ youtube video. The quote was in response to the question, ‘What do you think cinema is?”. This was put to her on the spot but her response was something that stuck with me out of a 2-hour long interview, it was simply ‘I don’t know how to explain it but I know it when I see it.” Upon initial consideration this seemed rather evasive of an answer, however, I feel it touched on something not dissimilar to our class’ themes. Admittedly I know next to nothing about Gerwig’s films or style, but this rather open-ended answer sort of touches on something I’ve pondered for a long time. My personal question sort of revolves around the idea of why is cinema as effective as it is? Why can I be so thrilled by Baby Driver’s opening or that shot in Taxi Driver where the camera cranes up with Robert De Niro’s hand as he pops some pills and reveals his mohawk. Or so emotionally invested in a character like that of Blade runner 2048 whose main character has essentially no real weight in the overall narrative? Or entirely entertained by a film which is entirely shot in one room like Rope?

These are, like Gerwig’s answer, very open-ended. I don’t feel like there’s one clear answer, it seems partly psychological to the specific person and partly to do with studies like ours. Découpage certainly has a major role in it but why do some things please one person and not the other? I suppose without properly editing or continuity something will seem nonsensical. Having said that a film as ridiculous as Swiss army man which as far as I can determine has no logical answer to explain insanity on the screen, yet it is both exciting and emotional? I guess the answer to the question is simply if it works, it works?