The Scene that I am choosing to analyze for this portion of the assignment is what I believe to be one of the most powerful moments from season 6 of the hit HBO series The Sopranos. In this scene, the newly “made man” Christopher Moltisanti (played by Michael Imperioli) is finally confronted by his girlfriend, mother, and extended “family” of fellow mobsters regarding his addiction to drugs. To give the reader further background context, Christopher Moltisanti is the nephew and right-hand-man of mob boss Tony Soprano (played by James Gandolfini). Throughout season’s 1-6, it is Tony’s goal to mold Christopher after himself, teaching him all that he needs to know to one day take over Tony’s successful and vast crime empire. Under Tony’s “mentorship,” Christopher proves himself to be an extremely efficient mobster as he is as ruthless, manipulative, and violent as his mentor Tony. However, there is one small detail that is impeding Christopher’s progress to becoming the “perfect” mobster; his growing addiction to the drugs that he is responsible for pushing throughout New Jersey’s underbelly. As the story line progresses, Christopher’s addiction causes him to make “slip ups” that members of the mafia under close FBI scrutiny cannot afford to have (e.g., flying off the handle and shooting a bakery worker in the foot, flying off the handle and killing a host at a restaurant, “knocking off” shipments off various things such as cigarettes, computers, and so and revealing his identity to the drivers, abusing his girlfriend, and the list goes on and on). In short, Christopher’s drug abuse causes him to become a “sloppy” criminal who is clearly not ready for the position of “family” boss. In the scene previous to the intervention scene, the high on heroin Christopher accidentally sits on and kills his girlfriend Adriana La Cerva's small dog. This was the straw that broke the camel’s back as Adriana (played by Drea De Matteo) decides to take no more of her boyfriend’s drug abuse and tries to help him. In response, she visits Tony who helps her set up the intervention.
Throughout this extremely short scene, the combination of camera shots, lighting, sound (or rather the absence of sound), and editing techniques are effectively used to place the viewer in Christopher’s place, essentially allowing them to experience the anger, discomfort, disappointment, and additional emotions of the intervention for themselves. Also, the combination of these techniques effectively emphasizes the unusual “norms” that the hyper violent, yet concerned family operate with. As a result, the viewer's typical concept of "family" is disrupted, leaving them questioning what is "family"? What does it mean to "love" one another? What it is the best / most effective way to show this love? And what is the "best" / most effective way to help a family member in some sort of need? Tough or tender love? And so on.
The scene opens up very “tight” with a medium close-up of Christopher’s bedroom door. The door then opens up to reveal a medium close-up of Christopher himself. The camera is positioned just close enough to see his deteriorating condition (his dirty shirt, unshaven face), as well as the surprise on his face at what exactly he sees. However, the camera isn’t quite close enough to his face to infer the exact emotion, and ultimately what exactly is causing him such surprise. Before cutting to what he is indeed seeing, he then exclaims “What the Fuck?” as he scans back and forth. Underlighting in this portion of the scene is also used complement the feeling of mystery / suspense at what Christopher is looking at. Christopher himself is also underlit to emphasize his deteriorating condition as a drug addict by making him look dark, sleepy, gloomy, and like this is his first emergence from the solitude of his room in days. In other words, this lighting contributes to Christopher looking like he is very in need of some kind of help. Overall, the shot and lighting of this portion of the scene give the viewer just enough information to create suspense and emphasize Christopher’s deteriorating condition / need of help, yet not quite enough information to figure out exactly what is going on.
The camera then cuts to a wide shot of the answer to Christopher’s surprise; his entire “family” (members of his actual family including his mother and girlfriend, as well as his family of fellow mobsters) seated in uncomfortable looking folding chairs arranged in a circle in the living room. The wide shot produces a feeling of discomfort as the wide angle shot makes it look like everyone Is literally “squeezed” into the room. Also, the shot is a slight high shot, as the camera is slightly looking down on the family, producing the feeling of discomfort and “smallness” as they confront the task at hand; confronting Christopher himself. Furthermore, the viewer can barely make out non-verbal signals of discomfort including the moving of hands in laps, uncomfortable looking faces, and wandering eyes. However, the shot is too wide to see these things with complete clarity, so the viewer is again given just enough information to get a basic idea of what is going on, yet not enough to feel totally secure / comfortable about it; exactly how Christopher presumably feels in reaction to what he is experiencing.
Shots then rapidly intercut between additional medium close-ups of Christopher and his family as they begin to reveal why they are there. For example, there is a shot of the intervention moderator standing up to greet Christopher, saying that everyone has gathered to talk about his drug problem. The camera then immediately cuts back to Christopher asking “What?” and then to Tony commanding Christopher to “SIT DOWN” in a stern voice. Also, I should note that a number of these shot combinations are over-the-shoulder (from Christopher's perspective), to reverse-angle, back to over the shoulder. Through the use of these particular shot combinations, the viewer experiences the scene through Christopher’s point of view as the family begins to judge him. The rapid intercutting from Christopher, to family member, back to Christopher, and repeat emphasizes the feelings of being on trial, as well as Christopher’s confused cognitions as he struggle’ to comprehend what is going on.
While all of this is occurring, the scene is nearly void of sound. Other than the sounds of uncomfortable metal chairs squeaking and people lightly clearing throats, you could hear a pin drop in the room. Together with the above camera shots, these solitary human sound effects emphasize and further help to let the viewer experience the overall discomfort in the room. In this silence, the camera then cuts around to additional mid close-up shots of the rest of Christopher’s family. Again, using underlighting, the viewer is able to just barely gather nonverbal information of the family members (uncomfortable and disapproving looks on faces), yet not quite enough to know exactly what they are thinking; presumably what is going through Christopher’s mind at that moment. This lighting also helps to emphasize the gloomy, uncertain, and fearful overall mood of the scene. Christopher then objects, saying "Fuck this" with a wave of his hands, and the character Paulie Walnuts (played by Tony Sirico) slowly stands up, points at him, and tells him in a firm voice to "SIT DOWN." As Paulie stands up, the camera slowly tilts up to follow the rising motion of his body, making Paulie appear to be extremely powerful and intimidating to both Christopher and the viewer.
The intervention then begins and dialogue filled medium close-up, over-the-shoulder, and reverse-angle shots continue to intercut back and forth between Christopher and his family as people go around the circle and share with Christopher how his drug use has impacted their lives and "business." As Christopher continues to become more and more agitated, his speech and language move from a merely biting tone, to posessing a violently explicit edge. Christopher’s family reacts accordingly. For example, in a medium close-up of Tony, the viewer sees and hears him yell “I'M FUCKIN WARNIN YOU CHRISTOPHER!” in response to Christopher nearly spilling information of a murder in front of the intervention moderator; an "outsider" to the families "business." In this shot, the viewer can literally see and feel the tension on Tony’s face and in his voice. The viewer can also clearly experience Tony’s anger as he points at the camera (Christopher or the viewer), with spit flying out of his mouth as he yells. Throughout the entire series, the viewer is both repulsed and engaged by the conflict between the acidity of such speech / actions, and the deep care and love the family clearly has for each other. In short, this type of communication is “normal” for this family, and all of the above film techniques help the viewer become an “insider” in this bizarre family. It is then left up to the viewer to reconcile the concept of family / familial love as portrayed in the show with their own, and question if such violent love is even possible or "right."
At the climax of the scene, Christopher takes it way too far and Paulie, gets up, grabs Christopher by the shirt, punches him in the face, and knocks him off of his folding chair. The moment after he hits the ground, the remainder of the family jumps up and starts beating the living hell out of him. At the moment that Paulie grabs Christopher by the collar of his shirt, the camera quickly cuts between extreme close-ups of each character’s face. The effect that this creates is that the viewer can literally experience the fear from Christopher’s perspective, as well as see the feral anger in Paulie’s eyes. While the remainder of the family beats the downed Christopher, the camera cuts between wide angel high shots of the action and extreme close ups of feet and legs making contact with Christopher’s body, creating the effect of getting a “birds eye” view of the fight, as well as experiencing the sharp blows from Christopher’s perspective. Accompanying the beating are the sounds of feet stomping, flesh being kicked, the women of the group screaming, and the men swearing each other, all working together to enhance the sensation of pure chaos.
The camera then transitions to a medium, two-shot of Tony sitting across from Christopher in the hospital, telling him in a stern voice that he “will” go to rehab “for the family,” in a firm, yet tender and concerned voice, with Christopher apologizing and crying. Again, this transition juxtaposes the previous violence with the true concern and tenderness that the family shows each other. Overall, the viewer is left wondering if a family with such extreme dynamics can possibly exist, and if this perhaps the "best" / most effective way to help someone with a drug problem despite the brutality of such a method.
----------------------------------------
PART TWO (Ad analysis)
Embedded above is a PERFECT video to use when talking about gender representations in the media (I recently used it during my media studies unit with my two groups of seniors and it worked EXTREMELY well with getting them thinking about gender stereotypes / portrayals in advertisements.)
The link posted bellow will take you to a shot-by-shot analysis of the ad.
http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd429dsq_339z93hzdx
----------------------------------------
PART THREE (Teaching Techniques)
For this third and final section of the assignment, I'd like to share with everyone the way I taught camera techniques during the media unit of my student teaching.
As I sat down and began to work out a unit plan, I literally had NO IDEA where to begin having 1.) never taught before, and 2.) never taught a media unit before. I simply googled the phrase "teaching media studies," and an absolutely life saving resource popped up; I've linked to it bellow.
http://www.texascollaborative.org/BoerckerModule/sec1.php
Titled Visual Rhetoric: Using Advertising Analysis for Reading and Writing Courses, this is an entire unit focusing on visual literacies in advertising (a wonderful pre-exposure to this class), created by Laura Boercker, an instructor at North Harris Montgomery Community College in Texas. As similar to our focus of study for this assignment, Boercker provides her students with the basic film grammar of camera techniques to explore how the audience is "potitioned" in relation to the subject(s) of the ad, and the subsequent cumulative meaning created. In addition to camera orientation, Boercker also talks about the idea of eye gaze (where the eyes of the subject are leading the viewer), something that we did not touch on in CI 5472, and how the use of direct eye gaze (subject looking directly at the camera / viewer), and indirect eye gaze (subject looking at other subjects / objects) influences the meaning of a visual text.
Although Boercker provides a fantastic vocabulary for begininng to critically analyze advertisements, she provides almost no guidance in what type of activities pair best with this vocabulary. As such, I was on my own to create some kind of activity to have my students learn, apply, and transfer this vocabulary to other tasks. Here's what I came up with, and I must say it worked out EXTREMELY well.
First, I simply printed off the text packet of vocabulary definitions that Boercker includes in her unit (see site). I then gave a brief lecture verbally describing these definitions, the effect / meaning that each is used to create, and examples of each.
From there, I split the students up into groups of six giving each group ONE of the following images representing a range of camera orientation and types of eye gaze:
Once students were in groups, it was there task to 1.) identify what type(s) of camera orientation and eye gazes were being utilized and 2.) identify the end result, effect, and potential purpose the creators of the ad had in mind during the design process of each ad. Students then worked in groups on this task. Once they were finished, I projected each individual image to the entire class, and each group did mini-presentations of their conclusions to the rest of the class. As a result, students got the opportunity to zero in on one specific ad, as well as see 5 other examples and hear the reasoning behind how their peers concluded what they did about each ad. For example, I recall the group with the image of the girl with the fish hook in her lip making the following conclusions saying something like: this is a close up shot of a girl with a fish hook in her mouth. Her eye gaze is indirect as she is looking off to the upper left corner of the screen. Her eye gaze, as well as the line from the fish hook makes us ask questions like "Who is on the other end of the hook? Why are they doing this to her?" Judging by the look on her face, this also looks uncomfortable. The text in the ad says "The average smoker smokes over 5000 cigarettes a year." When we compare this with what is going on in the image, it doesn't look like she chose to get "hooked" on cigarettes. Maybe it's the tobacco companies on the other end of the hook? The text paired with this image also suggests that many other people are "hooked" on cigarettes just like this girl. What will happen when she gets "reeled in"? Will she be killed like a real fish (but in this case by cigarettes?... and so on and so forth.For homework, it was then students' task to find a print ad out of a magazine / off of the internet and do the same analysis on there own (by this time, they've had me explain it, talked through it with their peers, and had their peers explain it back to them). They then wrote a short paper for their analysis which I graded.
All in all, a VERY successful activity. Also, be sure to pick bizarre images or use the ones I've provided (like the fish hook girl). Although it grossed them out a bit at first, the sheer strangeness of it was enough to grab and hold their interest.
Thanks for reading such a long post!
No comments:
Post a Comment