Alfred Hitchcock and the Restrictive Movement Style

He is one of the masters of film making and is often noted as one of the greatest and most influential directors of all times. The unrivalled master of suspense thrillers who made an art out of murder. The important thing about his films is that more than the plot, it was the style of presenting the story that made it so exciting.

Hitchcock was also not afraid of experimenting. Needless to say, most of his experiments turned out to be successful! In the recent past, I chanced upon a few of Hitchcock films and I was surprised to find a good many of them following a very peculiar setting. Something I call, restrictive movement. He didn’t allow his characters a lot of room to move about. So, the story is set in a place and all the action takes place at the spot. This, in my opinion, is a brilliant devise to increase the tension. You know that you can’t run. You can’t escape. The viewer constantly feels claustrophobic. Ofcourse, it’s no walk in the park to make a film like that. There are numerous difficulties in shooting a film in such a small space. But, Hitchcock’s genius lies in the fact that he actually uses some of those challenges to his advantage! Let’s take some examples of his films which use restrictive movement.

Of the films that I have seen, Rear Window, Rope, Lifeboat, Dial M for Murder and The Lady Vanishes uses this style of film making. The last two, although are not strictly restrictive.

Allow me to get into some of the details of these films and see how restrictive movement film-making makes the movies so special.

Take the case of Rear Window. This is the story of a photographer who has broken his leg and is grounded for a few days. So, the bored guy takes into looking out of his apartment window into the neighbourhood. Trouble begins when he suspects one of the neighbours to have murdered his wife. The whole film is set in the small apartment of the protagonist. Everything in the film is seen from within the apartment. This has the obvious disadvantage that it restricts the viewer to the line of sight from inside the apartment. But, here Hitchcock uses this very problem to make it even more thrilling. We see the man leave the building, but we don’t see if he took a cab or not. We don’t see how far he walked in the rain that night. We don’t see him approaching the protagonist’s room, just hear the footsteps! When he enters the room, the protagonist’s wounded leg makes him vulnerable to attack and we wonder will he be able to make it! Rear Window would have been a pretty average film, if only it was made in a usual way. The story is nothing that great. It’s the tension created by the restrictive movement that makes the film special.

Rope is one of the most innovative films I have ever seen. Here, Hitchcock attempts two unusual styles. First, it’s all set in one house, so it’s restrictive. Second, it appears to have no cuts at all! That’s one hell of an experiment. The whole film is like a theatre play with no cuts at all. Well, actually it has cuts. Those days a film roll couldn’t shoot for more than 10 minutes. So, Hitchcock too shots as long as he could and then mask the cuts. For example, he would zoom the camera into a man’s coat until it blocks the screen and use the black screen to mask the cut. This is a very risky experiment, especially for a thriller. It’s an established fact that shorter scenes increase the pace of a film and long takes tend to make the film slow. So, long takes are often used in drama where the characters get time to establish the setting. For a thriller, it is important to keep the film fast, so that the audience is on the edge. Hitchcock used extreme long takes, but makes the action fast in the film, thus ensuring that the tension is maintained. The story is about two friends who kill another friend just to see if they can get away with it. To top it all, they arrange for a party in their home with the body hidden in a chest, right in the middle of the room. It’s a great story and the setting makes it all so special. This is perhaps one of the few films where restrictive movement wasn’t that challenging. The story was set entirely inside the house, so we didn’t need to know what’s going on outside. This, in fact, increases the focus of the film and we have no distractions

Lifeboat is another master-piece! This is a war era film. An allied ship is destroyed by a German U-boat and the survivors get on a lifeboat. Before being sunk, the ship managed to destroy the U-boat too and the lifeboat picks up one of the German soldiers too. The whole film is set in the lifeboat, in the middle of the ocean! The tension begins from the 1^st moment, when we wonder when will they be rescued. Things are complicated by the fact that none of the ‘good guys’ really seem to know their way around the ocean. The only man who claims to know the way is the German, but can we trust him? Our sympathies keep oscillating between the characters like a foucault pendulum and we are never sure what’s happening. This film obviously had to be restrictive in its movement. The feeling of being totally lost and helpless is brilliantly used by the director. He pulls us into the lifeboat as well!

Dial M for Murder and The Lady Vanishes are not strictly restrictive. There are a few scenes which take place in other locations as well.

Dial M for Murder tells the story of a man who plans to get his wife killed by another man. The story unfolds almost entirely in the couple’s house. There are a few shots outside as well, but most of it is inside. There is a beautiful shot in this film when the cop watches the man enter the gate and fall into his trap, all through the window in the room.

The Lady Vanishes has a lot of scene shot in different locations, but even that is restrictive. The film starts at a hotel in a European country and then, after some time, takes place in a moving train. So, inspite of being shot in different locations, most of the action takes place inside the train, which makes it very restrictive indeed. The feeling of being totally trapped without an escape makes the film so thrilling! Ofcourse, Hitchcock shows that it’s not always a bad thing to be trapped in the train. There is a scene when the train proves to be the rescue vehicle!

All these films demonstrate how Hitchcock perfected the art of restrictive movement and really used it to enhance his films, not just in style, but in structure as well! Would be glad for more inputs on this! On other Hitchcock films which follow this style or films by other directors as well! Have fun!

Persona - Ingmar Bergman

One of the greatest films by one of the greatest directors ever, this is a landmark film. I have seen it many times and with each viewing, it reveals so much more to me! It is perhaps the most experimental film Bergman ever made.

Here are a few notes I made on the film. Would welcome your view about the film!

Name - Persona

Director - Ingmar Bergman

Story - Ingmar Bergman

Cinematography - Sven Nykvist

Starring - Bibi Andersson, Liv Ullmann

• The 1^st few images are that of a film rolling. Somewhat suggesting to itself.
• The scene of the goat being slaughtered is shot is high key. An outdoor shot probably with lots of bright light. The shot of a man (Jesus?) being crucified is shot indoor and low key creating lots of shadows.
• Both the cases use telephoto lens. Close-up shots and the background is out of focus.
• There is a blank shot for a moment and then there are shots of trees in a wood, shown in deep focus. That is followed by a shot of an iron fence. Parallel lines are what stand out in both the shots.
• Next is an extreme close-up shot of a woman’s lips, followed by several close-ups of peoples’ body parts. All apparently dead, in a morgue. White background. Once again, geometric patterns are made by the body of the people.
• A boy starts reading a book. There is a sound if dripping water from the beginning of the morgue shot. Still continues. The boy suddenly becomes aware of something and stretches his hands to touch it. He touches the camera lens as if breaking the 4^th wall. Then the shot cuts in to showing the boy touching what appears to be a larger than life, out of focus, woman’s face. The face seems to be shifting, changing. Establishes the motif with the water and the core of the film at the beginning.
• When the doctor is briefing the nurse, Alma, Alma is shown in long shot 1^st, then medium shot and then is close-up. This gets the viewer more attached to her, as if we are moving closer to her. The scene changes. Now Alma is shot from behind and we can see the doctor, but it’s shot using a telephoto lens with Alma in focus. Thus, the doctor is still out of focus and we see only Alma’s back. Accentuates the fact that even though the doctor is superior in the hospital, Alma is our centre of attention.
• The scene when Alma enters Vogler’s room and introduces herself is shot using a wide angle lens. Thus we see the whole body of Vogler. The scene creates a lot of depth, suggesting that although the nurse and the patient are not far in space, there is a lot of distance psychologically.
• Then suddenly it changes into a medium shot with telephoto lens when Alma bends closer to Vogler and she turns her head. The room is high key lit and creates very little shadow.
• The next time Alma is in Vogler’s room, the lighting is very low key. The characters are all in shadows. Also, he uses only telephoto lens to shoot them. Creates an intimate relation with the characters.
• At night, Alma does a character aside before going to sleep by talking directly to the audience. Then we see Elisabeth pacing about in her room. She is watching TV. A shot reverse shot shows her reaction to the news on the TV about the Vietnam war. She is shocked and can’t take it. She is shot in close-up to show her emotions. The lighting is again low key. It’s night. Also, she moves to the corner of the room while watching it. As if she is literally cornered by all the atrocities.
• Next is the scene where Alma is reading the letter to Vogler. It starts with a close up of the hands exchanging the letter and the camera settles on a medium shot of Alma reading it. It’s a long take (more than 2 minutes) with no camera movement. There is also very little ‘action’ in the scene. Alma just reads the letter. Then suddenly at a point Vogler snatches the letter. Vogler is also shot is medium shot.
• Next is when the doctor talks to Elisabeth. Here, Elisabeth Vogler is framed in a medium shot with the doctor standing behind her. We just see the doctor’s hands. The camera remains steady on Elisabeth while the doctor is talking. Here again, as a thematic motif, the person talking is not shown, rather the person who is being talked to is in the frame.
• “Your hideout isn’t watertight. Life seeps in everything”. Great line!
• Bergman loves long takes. He doesn’t rush through shots unless absolutely necessary. He likes to give the viewer enough time to savour the beauty of each frame. Camera movement is as little as possible.
• The shot where Alma is reading a part from a book to Elisabeth is accompanied with abstract visuals of a beach. Rocky beach with white rocks. Perhaps referring to the images conjured in the mind when listening to the prose. But whose mind?
• These are the 1^st few shots showing the bond being formed between the two women. All of these have water in some form. The mushroom cutting scene has sea in the background, the book reading scene is at a beach with the sound of seagulls audible, the next scene where Alma tells Elisabeth about her fiancé is shot inside a room with a large window in the background. Rain is falling outside and the sea is also visible.
• The shot where Alma is telling about her sexual orgy with a couple of stranger boys in the beach is shot in a full shot with both Alma and Elisabeth in the frame.
• Another very interesting scene when Alma and Elisabeth are sitting at the table and Alma is talking about how she thinks they are similar. The whole shot is one long take. The one scene where Elisabeth appears to whisper to Alma is an enigma. Alma was with her head down at the table and she was quite drunk, the camera was behind Elisabeth. So, we will never know if Elisabeth really said that or if it was Alma’s imagination!
• A beautiful shot when Alma reads Elisabeth’s letter. Alma is standing by a small lake or pond. She is feeling betrayed by Elisabeth. It’s a long shot with Alma and her reflection in the water visible. She appears to be looking at the reflection and thinking. Once again, water in an emotionally charged scene. Part of the motif.
• When Alma breaks the glass and sweeps it, the whole thing is shot in a long shot. Somewhat detaching the viewer from the scene. In sharp contrast to the earlier scenes of interaction between the characters which were all in close-up or medium close-up.
• When Alma leaves a piece of glass on the ground intentionally and Elisabeth cuts herself on it, the scene shifts suddenly into another series of abstract images, mostly in close-up and tight close-up accompanied with disturbing sounds. It marks the change in the chemistry between Alma and Elisabeth and in some ways the way they treat each other.
• When Alma fights with Elisabeth and then runs after her in the beach, asking for forgiveness, the scene ends with Alma crying on the beach and then it fades into the next scene of Alma sitting calmly and Elisabeth pacing inside a room. The roles are reversed.
• Next, a few cut backs show Elisabeth’s anxiety and Alma’s calmness. It is as if Elisabeth has suddenly become worried about Alma while Alma has given up on Elisabeth, or perhaps herself!
• Interesting. When Elisabeth is looking at the picture of a kid with his hands up in the air, the background music is very similar to the ‘Joker theme’ from The Dark Knight. Did the music director get inspired by this piece in Persona?
• In the end when Mr. Vogler comes and talks to Alma as if she is Elisabeth and Alma responds. Here, Alma breaks down after a while. She says things which suggest that she is indeed Elisabeth and she is repenting. It is as if Alma is the part of Elisabeth which she has to hide. Which she cannot bring out in public. So, Alma does that. Here it is established clearly that Alma and Elisabeth are one and the same person.
• When Elisabeth and Alma are again talking about Elisabeth’s baby, the camera is on Elisabeth while Alma is talking. Another visual motif in the film.
• Next, the same scene starts all over again. This time, the camera show’s Alma while she is talking. It symbolizes the importance Alma holds. No longer is the rule applicable. Now, Alma has equal importance as Elisabeth does. Perhaps because they are the same person.
• It is a deep focus scene.
• The scene starts with a two shot, showing Elisabeth’s back and Alma’s face. Then it becomes a medium shot of Alma alone and then it goes into a close-up of Alma. Once again, giving more and more importance to Alma.
• Towards the end, there is a shot of the movie camera shooting as well. Self reference, like a French New Wave cinema.
• The film ends the same way as it started, with the image of a film reel finishing in the spool and the projector light going out. Self reference again.

GOD - Greatest and Oldest Delusion

This is a piece I wrote sometime back, but wanted to share it here too.

Introduction: - This is perhaps the most controversial piece I have ever written! I am not sure if I am competent enough to write on a topic like this, but I think that I need to express my views. I am not going to publish this anyways, so, who cares if I am competent or not!

The Origin of God: - The scriptures say that, God created the Heaven and the Earth. The truth is that God didn’t create us. We created Him! This is common knowledge to all, whether they believe it or not! There are many theories as to the reason for the creation of God. There is probably no way to know which is the true one, but the most commonly believed one is that, God was created to explain the unexplainable! To explain the change of season, the thunder and the rain. This is widely believed by many to be the most likely cause. But, I think that is not the case! I believe in another theory. It’s partly my own but mostly I read in a Bengali book, “Satyer Sondhaane Maanush”, which means, ‘Man in Search of Truth’. In the beginning, there was no God. Men lived in small groups who were nomadic. They hunted for food and most of the times, there used to be fights among the groups over better hunting grounds. Gradually, these groups grew in size. Then, a problem developed! Man, by nature, is revolting. He doesn’t listen to anyone. It’s practically impossible to control a group without revolts! But revolutions were not acceptable! If internal fights start, the group will become weak and the very survival of the group depends on its strength! No leader can lead a group of men without being questioned at all!

There is one tool to control men unchallenged! It is Fear! The most powerful of all the basic emotions! There are six basic emotions, Love, Hatred, Anger, Happiness, Sadness and Fear. These are the fundamental emotions. All other emotions are derived from one or more of these. For example, respect is a mix of love and fear! I say that fear is the most powerful of all emotions. Some may challenge me, but that is the truth! Fear overcomes all other emotions when the time comes.

Our ancestors were smart enough to realise this. So, they exploited this emotion to exert control! They created the most fearful being comprehensible! A being who is not human, not even mortal! He created the whole Universe and rules it according to His whims! He shows his anger by the thunder and when He is not pleased with us, He makes us suffer by draught and flood! We have to be good to keep Him happy or else, He will punish us, if not on earth, then in Hell, after our death! Can you imagine anything scarier?

Another emotion associated with God is Hope! It gives the hope to man that his hard work and sufferings will be rewarded in Heaven, also the promise that if he behaves well and obeys the ruler, he will be rewarded in heaven. This is once again a very powerful motivator. The hope of better times is what keeps all of us motivated through our hard times. But, this hope has been exploited brilliantly by the creators of God. As the ‘Architect’ of ‘The Matrix’ said to Neo, Hope is simultaneously the source of mankind’s greatest strength and his biggest weakness!

The ruler became the messenger of God. So, his orders must be followed to the last word, else, God will be displeased! To prove their authenticity, leaders like the priests of Egypt, who were expert astronomers, predicted the periodic floods of Nile as wrath of God! This was perfect! Men were terrified and they followed these leaders blindfolded. Thus, the purpose was achieved. A faithful following was developed to ensure the survival of the tribe. So, the creation of God was not only for good but was absolutely necessary at that time! But, gradually, mans’ thirst for power used the power of God. It was and is the easiest way to command a faithful following. So, with time, the concept of God lost its original purpose but found new uses for itself.

The Theory of God: - Then gradually, the concept of God developed into a powerful doctrine. Mankind is inquisitive by nature. He seeks explanations to everything he sees around him. This nature of man is the basis of the great discipline known as SCIENCE! Science is the tool for explaining Nature. But the theory of God also provides an alternative explanation to all phenomena, that all is the work of God. Whatever happens in the Universe happens because God intends it to be so. This explains all phenomena of the Universe much more easily than Science! One doesn’t have to think and meditate, observe and deduce, experiment and seek truth! God does everything as He fancies. So, no point asking why or how something happens! Thus, gradually, the theory of God started replacing Science. This would have marked the end of mankind. Ironic, isn’t it? The concept created to ensure mankind’s survival, became a threat to its existence! But, thankfully, there were some men who dared to question this authority of God and sought the truth by the ways of Science! That was the beginning of this age old battle between darkness and light, ignorance and knowledge, lies and truth! The battle between Religion and Science!

Since the concept of God is used to explain the phenomena of Nature, let us consider it to be like a theory of Science! We shall try to analyse this God Theory on the parameters of Science and see where it stands!

A Very Poor Theory: - There are many criteria for analysing a scientific theory. Different people adopt different set of criteria for this purpose. But, there are certain criteria that are generally considered to be absolutely essential for any good scientific theory. Let us see how the theory of God fairs in them! The first is that any good scientific theory must be precise. It should not be ambiguous. There should be only one possible interpretation of a statement. The theory of God is very vague! It is not even properly defined! There are lots of interpretations. Everyone has his own way of interpreting this theory! So, it fails the first criterion. Then, a good theory must make precise predictions about the future, given certain parameters. These predictions must be of a nature that they can be verified and proved by observations. For example, if I know the mass of a ball, the force with which I throw it and the angle at which I throw it, Newton’s laws of motion will predict exactly where the ball will land, how much time it will be on air and what will be the shape of the path it will follow! The theory of God fails to make any such predictions. The third criterion is that, the statements of a good theory must be valid universally, without any exceptions. Newton’s laws of motion hold true on earth and moon equally. But the theory of God is so ambiguous that its statements change even from person to person! So, the theory of God fails in all the tests! It is definitely not an acceptable theory!

Arguments against the Existence: - There are many arguments against the existence of God, but I will start with what I believe to be the most powerful one. The fact that there is no proof of existence hardly means anything! There are many scientific entities, like the black hole, for which there is no direct proof of existence! The reason I don’t believe in the existence of God is because it is inconsistent with the well established theories of Science. The theory of God has no solid Scientific or Mathematical base and it directly contradicts all established scientific theories. So, either the proved and verified scientific theories are all wrong or the theory of God is baseless. Even the religious leaders know that the theory of God is weak, so, they tried their best to suppress Science! The vanguards of Science like Copernicus and Galileo and innumerable others were punished for doubting the validity of God and questioning the authority of the church! Even today, the religious leaders often lend their expert opinion on matters of Science, like artificial insemination and cloning!

Many say that Science is not complete. It does not have all the answers. That is true. There are many things that Science can’t explain. The origin of life and that of the Universe is still a mystery! But simply because Science can’t answer these yet doesn’t mean that Science is wrong! The Universe is about 13.5 billion years old. If we consider the discovery of Fire as the birth of Science, even then, Science is no more than 10,000 years old! 13,500,000,000 years of mess-up and 10,000 years of clean-up! And they want us to tell them everything! Is that fair? Give us time! We have already done a pretty neat job! Science will prevail; I have no doubt about that!

The God Pitfall: - Usually, when I am engaged in a conversation with a believer and the arguments of the believer start to weaken, he resorts to a favourite. Even great scientists believed in God! Well, it is actually quite a stupid argument, because, simply because some great scientists believe in God doesn’t mean He exists! It simply means that they are mistaken. I call it the ‘God pitfall’! It is a trap which caught many great minds of the world and caused significant loss to the world of Science.

Johannes Kepler believed that the planets should move in circular orbits around the Sun because he thought that circles were divine! He was the one who showed that they actually move in elliptical orbits, but this was a repulsive idea to him. To him, elliptical orbits were just an ad-hoc hypothesis until he found a way to fit a circular orbit in his theory! He spent many years of his life attempting to achieve this. Needless to say, he failed! So, he wasted many years of his life in search of divinity!

The great Albert Einstein was convinced that the quantum theory was wrong. This belief was not based on scientific rationale, but on a preconceived notion that Nature can’t be uncertain. Although it does not mean God directly, but it was something very similar. In fact, his famous quote, “God does not play dice”, says it all! He spent all his life in a fruitless search of a theory to replace the quantum. Just imagine how much more he could have done if he was not caught up in this irrational belief!

The greatest physicist of all times, the Father of Physics, the magnificent Sir Isaac Newton also fell into this trap. When his theory of Gravitation predicted that the Universe must be expanding or contracting, that it can’t be stable, as was believed then, he refused to believe his own theory and when he failed to explain the stability of the Universe, he said that God must be keeping the Universe stable! If only he had believed his own theory and accepted that the Universe must be unstable, we wouldn’t have had to wait for more than 200 years to know this! There are numerous other examples, but these are some of the most brilliant minds who were deceived! So, we can see how dangerous this deception is!

The Last Word: - Now the scenario is improving. People have become educated and hence, more open minded. They don’t follow the preaching of the scriptures blindly. They ask questions and seek truth! The number of atheists worldwide is increasing day by day! A day will come when the concept of God will be dead. Ancient history, people will call it then!

Science has progressed so much that it has now proved almost inarguably that there is no place for a God! The Universe is so beautiful that to think that it is run by the whims and fancies of someone (read as God) is an insult to its grandeur! The Universe is magnificent and it does not need anyone to create it or tell it how it should develop. It has its own set of rules which are followed without exception! The Universe is poetry in motion and to appreciate its beauty, one needs to understand the language of Science, because that is the language of the Universe!

Love Thy Cosmos.

Sagnik Chakraborty.

24/11/2006

Juno – Jason Reitman

These are some notes I made while watching the film. I find this very helpful in understanding a film when I take notes. It gives a better understanding of the film and what was the thought behind framing a shot in a particular way. It gives me a better understanding of the mind of the director. These notes are not properly formatted and I apologize for this. Would try to post something more finished the next time, but for now I just want to get this one floating. Hope you like it. Would love to hear what you people have to say. So, here we go..

• ·         The movie starts with a warm light reflecting autumn. Also, the warm lighting gives an uplifting feeling as we don’t know yet what is going on.
• ·         The shop where she goes to take the pregnancy test is shot in tight frame. Gives a claustrophobic feeling. Here Juno is confronting her fears. Same with the lavatory scene.
• ·         When she is going back home after the positive test, the lighting is very dim and cold. Reflects the mood. A tracking shot follows Juno while she passes the boys in yellow shorts jogging. Creates a visual parallel between the boys who are apparently happy and carefree and Juno, who is going through considerable mental frustration. Even Juno’s sweatshirt is crimson and somehow dull as against the yellow shorts of the boys.
• ·         The 1^st time we enter Juno’s room, the camera focuses on odd objects in her room, as if the viewer is there and just looking at the odd things in the room, trying to see what Juno likes and all.
• ·         Juno’s room also has lots of things to create a tight shot. Painting on the wall, hangings from ceiling. The wood is dark but warm in colour. When she calls her friend, the friend’s room is much more open in the shot. Much more space in the frame. Once again, emphasising the psychological status of the two friends.
• ·         Bleeker, the boyfriend, is introduced in an interesting manner. Instead of showing him, the director shows us various things he does in the morning. All very routine and planned things. The background plays “A Well Respected Man”. The whole thing gives a character sketch of Bleeker.
• ·         When Juno is telling Bleeker about the pregnancy, her shots are much tighter than Bleeker’s. Bleeker is framed with a white background while Juno is sitting on a dark chair and hence, when the camera goes for a close up shot, Bleeker is given more space than Juno in the frame. Signifies that although Bleeker is worried about it, he doesn’t have to carry the real burden. It’s Juno’s burden to bear.
• ·         When she is calling the abortion clinic, the camera starts from a back shot, showing the clinic ad on a paper and moves slowly to the front capturing Juno’s face. There are no cuts in the scene. It’s one slow graceful camera movement. Interesting. It establishes a connect between Juno and her act which might have been diluted with a cut shot.
• ·         In the abortion clinic, there are lots of geometric patterns. In the cabinet, the upholstery, the wall frame. Everything is lines and geometric. Gives a somewhat cold and calculating and precise feel to the place.
• ·         Vanessa is introduced in a similar way as Bleeker. Draws a parallel between the two characters in a way. Both are ridiculously perfect, so to say.
• ·         Vanessa’s house is big, specious and white. Gives the feeling of affluence, but also makes it look empty in contrast to Juno’s home. Shows that although they have money, there is something missing. 1^st instinct is that it’s the baby, but later we find more.
• ·         While discussing the adoption with Juno, Vanessa constantly tries hard to impress while her husband is more aloof. Gives the indication that she wants the baby badly while he may be just playing along with her.
• ·         Most of the scenes with Vanessa and Mark together have some sort of divide between them. The bamboo shoot in the beginning then the vase when they are sitting. These are in the background, but clearly divide the two characters. A visual indication to the tension between the two.
• ·         Juno’s room is always lit with warm light in high key. Creates a very cosy feel.
• ·         When Juno is showing the ultra-sound picture to Vanessa, the camera momentarily focuses on Mark at a distance. Shows while the two women are bonding over the baby, Mark is watching from a distance.
• ·         The scene where Juno, Vanessa and Mark are discussing the baby shower and how somebody earlier flaked out on them, the three are sitting in different parts of the room and the director frames them all differently. Juno is shot in mid close-up, thus giving her some amount of importance. Vanessa is a long shot with her whole figure in the frame. There is a lot of space around her and the background is mostly white or pale yellow. Mark has the most interesting framing. He is sitting in a staircase and is shot in mid close-up too, but the camera is placed behind Vanessa and her shoulder is always visible. Points out the presence of Vanessa in Mark’s life all the time and it comes out somewhat intrusive. As if he has no space of his own. This accentuates the part earlier where mark says that Vanessa has given him a room for all his music stuff. Also, the railing on the staircase creates a diagonal in the frame with Mark, thus giving him more visual important in the scene than anyone else.
• ·         Once again when Laurens are talking about what colour to paint the baby’s room with, the director creates a visual bifurcation between Mark and Vanessa with the colour patch right in between them in the background.
• ·         When Juno and Bleeker are talking about him taking another girl to prom, the lights on the ceiling make a diagonal, thus creating a visual emphasis.
• ·         The scene where Mark tells Juno that he is going to divorce Vanessa, the lighting once again creates the mood. The light is subdued but somewhat low key, creating some shadows around both the characters and the surroundings. Also, although the room is coloured on mahogany, the light is cold. Doesn’t bring out the warmth as is the case in Juno’s home which has a similar colour pattern.
• ·         A very interesting framing when Vanessa walks in and finds Juno crying and leaving and confronts Mark. All three are in the scene. Juno and Vanessa are shot in the same frame. Mark is shot in a separate frame with Juno still visible, but only in profile and again, Vanessa’s shoulder is visible. Very beautifully depicts the dynamics between the three.
• ·         In that scene, Mark is shot is close-up twice. Once when he puts a mild argument saying that he is wondering if they are ready to be parents. In this scene, he is making a mild argument and hence, even in the close-up, we can see Vanessa’s back in the corner of the frame. Next time Mark makes it clear that he is not ready to be a father. He has finally broken from the tie and is coming out clear with his thoughts. This shot has only Mark. Vanessa is off the camera completely.
• ·         When Juno is driving back home from the Laurens’ place after Mark says that he is going to divorce Vanessa, she stops the car mid-way and cries. That scene has a very tight framing with Juno being shown in a frame within a frame, created by the window. Enhances the sense of helplessness and loneliness.
• ·         When Juno goes to the hospital and is about to deliver the baby and when she is delivering the baby, the rooms are white. It’s a neural colour. When she is resting in a room after the delivery, the room is back to gold and mahogany. Lighting is high key and warm. Heightens the mood.
• When Vanessa 1^st holds the baby, the background is white and washed out. Creates a halo effect around her.