Week 4’s readings were surprisingly sciencey for what I thought was just a pure media course. But this diversity of this course has been delightful so far anyway. Film is made up of audio and visual stimuli (unless of course you went to Shrek in 4D at movie world*)

Because vision is our primary sense we perceive EVEN AUDIO through our eyes first. So behold the curious McGurk Effect!

ADD MORE FROM READING HERE

Back to the film side of it, a brilliant example of how visual and audio can work together to create a compelling effect is the sound edit in Jurassic Park (1997) directed by Steven Spielberg. After her daughter is attacked, her moth screeches. The soundtrack also swells with high-pitched whiney violins which help blend the screaming. This sound slowly changes into a train screech, as it cuts to the man yawning. We immediately join the sound to his open mouth as if he is screaming, even though the sound doesn’t how he would scream normally. This shows that visuals dominate our film experience, but sound can be used to trick us.

*shrek in 4D: I’m terrified of horror movies so seeing the haunted house short film was borderline torture. The 4d aspect was quite refreshing literally as we were splashed with water when goop was shown on screen. And a sadistic tickle device under our chairs set off when we were shown creatures on screen.

McKee, Robert. (1997). ‘The substance of story.’ In Story: Style, Structure, Substance, and the Principles of Screenwriting. New York, USA: HarperCollins, pp. 135-154

This reading made me rethink the way I read stories and see films with the idea of seeing the world from the protagonists point of view, and looking through their lens out at their world. This seems more fulfilling and insightful than looking down at the character and at their circumstances. I used to think “well if I were them I’d…” now I think more “I can see why they are choosing to do that.”

For example with Cast Away (2000) directed by Robert Zemeckis, as Chuck Nolan is pushed the the edge of his humanity in isolation, we all wonder: “what would I do?”

Focussing on the narrative, Chuck’s antagonist is time, and the catalyst is his own desperation. I find this film interesting because all the motivation and obstacles are abstract and internal. For example to combat loneliness he comforts himself by creating a volleyball pal who pushes him through the toughest times. We do not hear Wilson the volleyball talking, but he becomes a character we care about.

Frustration as a catalyst for action is very evident in the scene where he starts a fire. As Rabiger states his will is “powerful enough to sustain desire through conflict” and cause “irreversible change.” We see Chuck become excited, starting out optimistic, break down in agony and giving up. Then we see him try again with new sticks and flint; we cry and laugh at his success as he dances around in flaming glory. It is interesting that there are no immediate external pressures pushing him to start the fire, which proves that a story’s pacing is determined not just by the world’s reaction, but the core of his character.

Rabiger also says that the protagonist should “pursue the object of desire convincingly.” This is particularly important for Chuck as we see him slowly decline to an existential state as he loses hope. He continues to toss up between giving up or making a drastic leap of faith. Tom hank’s realistic portrayal of a man pitted against one humanity’s most excruciating timeless questions, “to be or not to be”

I never thought I would try and relate Macbeth to Cast Away but there it is.

To me Chuck’s choice to go out sea for a last sliver of a chance at being found, encapsulates the idea of the protagonist needing to hold onto hope to propel the narrative. We can all see ourselves in Chuck.