Film Genre Comparisons:
For this project i will be analyzing the horror genre and its codes and conventions, whilst also analysing the films as a whole whilst comparing them, the films i will be analyzing are women in black and would you rather; i specifically chose these 2 films as they both fit into the criteria of horror, however each film is completely different in the execution of horror, would you rather being more graphic and violent, leaving nothing to the imagination, where as women in black is more paranormal and the fear of the unknown.
according to Steve Neale genres are instances of repetition and difference, The women in black follows a man exploring an abandoned house which is said to be paranormal/cursed, but would you rather is following a women in need to earn money, with the actual threat of 'the game' and being killed during the process. We see Neale's theory in motion as they're both the same genre but are different in their own special way with the codes and conventions.
The genre of horror has ancient origins with roots in folklore and religious traditions, focusing on death, the afterlife, evil, the demonic and the principle of the thing embodied in the person. These were manifested in stories of beings such as witches, vampires, werewolves and ghosts. European horror fiction became established through works by the Ancient Greece and ancient romans.Women in black suspense clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=od_XDxlOlUw
in this scene we can see, that Daniel Radcliffe is slowly walking into the other room with an axe drawn and ready for him to defend himself, this is shot in a very classic horror genre style, with spooky, and suspenseful eerie chords, and music gradually building up, which you may not even notice, but you are subconsciously aware which can cause stress expecting the character to be attacked; following a slow pace, to increase the tension and suspense, asking the question, what is behind that door? in this specific scene, if you where to subtract the music and sound effects it would possibly change the entire scenes tone, with this type of film and its genre, this film isn't reliant on gore, dismemberment or overall something that shocks you, it is however heavily reliant on build up, sudden jump scares, the inability to be expecting whats coming, which is why im comparing the films as the both fit in the description of horror, even though they are completely different in there deliver of said 'horror' in this scene and the whole film women in black, it follows this pattern; comparing this to would you rather leaves the obvious answer of the difference as already explained what women in black doesn't include would you rather does, for example you are aware of the threat, a deranged man wanting to play a sadistic game, but in women in black, the title is the only thing to go by, and that of the vague descriptions Daniel Radcliffe is told about before entering the haunted home, the thing about would you rather though is I personally believe it is more menacing to face something head on, rather than not being exactly sure what your facing, despite my opinion other may think differently, something the films both have in common, is the inability to be in control, Would you rather puts the captives in restraints and threatened at gun point, one attempt of escape lead to a member of the group being shot, in women in black, Daniel Radcliffe's doesn't know how he can't prevent this entity, all he can do is essentially try to survive, and find out why.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fbTP5MjhH0
in this scene we can compare the difference from women in blacks scene, even though both films portray the horror of whats to come would you rather immiediatly reveals what the element of horror is, in the scene we know straight away each person is given a choice of who shocks who, but in women in black is more mind games, and trickery which confuses the viewer, usually leaving the mystery to the imagination, which is how these films differ as woud you rather is very in your face with what is happening and how the plot is likely to follow, it is even obvious from the start that something about this some what 'innocent' game would follow something sinister and sisturbing, along with that would you rather is very graphic and leaves almost nothing to the imagination, for example some one is forced to explode there hand, and is shown on camera, although, there are a few dark scenes in women in black like the poison drinking scene it doesnt compare to the obcenitys of would you rather.
Summary for horror - it could be said that they are both equally scary however for different reasons, so in a summary, the films whilst being in the same genre of horror and follow a similar plot (unnecessary death unfolding at the end) the films still remain different due to the style of the film, one being imensly graphic, and the other following a haunted house which provides jumpscares and less graphic scenes, one showing the fear of the unknown, and the other showing the fear of what is to come.
next i will be analyzing action and its codes and conventions, I will comparing charles bronsen and hancock as my two seperate action films, I will talk about the similarities and differences used within these 2 particular action films.
Action film is a film genre in which the protagonist or protagonists are thrust into a series of challenges that typically include violence, extended fighting, physical feats, and frantic chases. Action films tend to feature a resourceful hero struggling against incredible odds, which include life-threatening situations, a villain, or a pursuit which generally concludes in victory for the hero (though a small number of films in this genre have ended in victory for the villain instead). Advancements in CGI have made it cheaper and easier to create action sequences and other visual effects that required the efforts of professional stunt crews in the past. However, reactions to action films containing significant amounts of CGI have been mixed, as films that use computer animations to create unrealistic, highly unbelievable events are often met with criticism. While action has long been a recurring component in films, the "action film" genre began to develop in the 1970s along with the increase of stunts and special effects. Common action scenes in films are generally, but not limited to, car chases, fighting and gunplay or shootouts. This genre is closely associated with the thriller and adventure genres, and they may also contain elements of spy fiction. an action film is usually heavily reliant on fight scenes, effects, and a moderately gripping storyline, usually car chases hand to hand-fights or an all out war occur in action films all seemingly done in really unrealistically very entertaining ways, a good example would be fast and furious, Bronsen, A criminal sent to prison for a petty crime, however staying in said prison for many, many more years than his set release due to bad behaviour (constant fights), a very aggressive man, who seems particularly unhinged played by tom hardy, fighting is his overall goal, to be famous, to be the best, no matter what it takes. Hancock follows a regular man at a first glance, however we soon learn this man posses great abilities, the ability to fly, deflect bullets and has extreme strength, he is also a drunk, described as a waste, and homeless, he isn't exactly a generic super hero, usually saving the day often causes severe property damage. going back to the point of Steve Neale genres are instances of repetition and difference these 2 films also follow a similar plot, a man wanting to improve himself, hancocks instance is to be a better hero, where as bronsen wants to be the best fighter, each man practice and train throughout the film, however the huge difference is one man is good and the other is bad, although talking about bronsen being bad, is quite strange when we watch the film we want him to win the fights and do well regardless of what or who he is, regardless of him being a bad guy, we want him to succeed, regardless if him succeeding has a positive or negative outcome for others, but in hancocks situation we want him to succeed for the right reasons as he is doing wrong but trying to do right which is what the films do differently, both films by being in the action genre obviously include fight scenes however bronsen's are clearly done in what seems to be in less of a budget but it matches the style of the film, but if Hancock fought like that in his films it would be laughable and almost boring, as the scene is set for him to have all these powers and fights like a regular man, it wouldn't be interesting, and would essentially put people off the ending of both films are completely different, bronsen being the bad guy isn't let off and is kept in prison almost left on a cliff hanger of what is happening next and is almost open to interpretation, where as in Hancock he is a changed man, and goes to live a quiet life with his wife, who he discovered he had been married to for thousands of years, which causes his powers to deplete but he wanted to live a good life§e, so we can see how the endings differ and not every single action film does end happy. in conclusion Most films being in the same category follow a similar pattern, whilst usually being different in the context of the character, and what they do in the film, but the plot usually as a whole ends the same so overall i have learned how to analyse films i have watched and compare them from other films, however i find this a hard task still.
No comments:
Post a Comment