SSC Film Studies

With reference to the films you have studied for this topic, explore in detail two of the key elements that produce an emotional response in the spectator 

The films I have studied for this topic have very different way in which they produce an emotional response for the spectators. Most films will attempt to align the spectator with a specific character; if a filmmaker can make us align with a character then we are more likely to adopt a preferred reading of the film and therefore are emotions can be easily manipulated and more likely to experience an audience response rather than an individual spectator response. 

In the film full metal jacket the opening sequence introduces a series of individual’s characters; removing each of their identities and transforming them into a group and encouraging us to align with them as a group. Shaving their heads gives the soldiers a uniform look and essentially making them indistinguishable from one another. The fact that each character is framed in a medium close up makes it more difficult for the spectator to align with just one specific character. The non- diegetic music in this sequence reinforces the militaristic focus of the film and the audience aware of the Vietnam conflict that might dictate their emotional response. The purpose of this sequence is to introduce the focus upon the regimented army life and the loss of identity the character will face; therefore the spectator is aligned with the group and not the individual. 

Throughout the first half of the film the spectator is forced to align with the group against Pyle; he is used to show the destruction into ‘a killing machine’ and his he unities the group together. This reinforces that these people are no longer humans in fact they are now killing machines stripped of their identities. The fact that throughout boot camp they are constantly surrounded by uniformity significantly showing Pyle’s separation; he's depicted as an ‘other’ due to the fact he's both physically and mentally impaired. A key scene that depicts the group turning against Pyle is the jelly doughnut scene; Pyle is caught sneaking a doughnut into camp instead of Pyle being punished though the group are. From this moment onwards the group start to see Pyle as a potential threat and a danger towards them as they are being punished for his mistakes. The boot camp sequence also reinforces the fact that Pyle’s is isolated both physically and mentally as the actor of Pyle was told to add 30 pounds for his character, comments such as ‘fat arse’ therefore show that he isn’t as physical as the group. Through the boot camp sequence the spectator is seen Pyle as being isolated as the group are being to turn against him as Cowboy looks at him in disgust, the moment that he realises that he is a problem for them. 

During the soap hitting scene, I have an A- central sympatric response towards Pyle as I can recognise and image what Pyle is going through to be horrible. However, I have never experienced something like that myself and therefore I am likely to align with the group than I am with Pyle; as personal experience is a key factor in determining an emotional response with a character. The fact that I also have more eves to the point of view of the group I can understand the motives more and therefore I can identify with the sense of endorsing their behaviour and their attitudes. During this scene the spectator can also a duality in the joker, as he's constantly inconsistent and shifts between types of actions and personality. The fact that there is a connection between Pyle and Joker suggests how Joker is an untrustworthy individual as he refuses to become an outcast like Pyle and aligns with the group instead. In this way the spectator can never truly align with Joker, due to at some points we see him as sympathetic character whose rebelliousness endears hum to us. However, there are other points when the spectators see him as an arrogant, brutal and unsympathetic character. Due to the switch in characters I have an emotional response of anger towards the character Joker as his unclear motivates leave the spectator confused and disappointed in his actions. 

During the second half of the film, the theme of ‘unclear motivations’ is clearly seen as the character of Joker embodies this by wearing a ‘peace’ symbol on his jacket and then ‘born to kill’ on the top of his helmet. The fact that the spectator is rarely given a clear motivations for any of the characters especially Joker, it’s therefore very difficult for us to align with him or any other character individually. The interview scene offers viewers an insight into each of the characters and their individual ideas. However, it still offers no concrete ideas as to why each of the soldiers is really in war. Even though each of the characters is giving their individual responses the cinematography here is still very much militarised as each solider is shot at the same for the same amount of time. 

The sniper scene at the end of the film shows Joker wanting to commit an act of mercy and end the pain of the injured sniper whom the spectator might see as being more sympathetic for the fact that she is a woman. In this scene, the duality of man is also seen as the joker as he commits the act of murder but in order to get the young woman out of the pain that she is. The duality go man theme is presented through the whole of the film and it is one of the main reasons the spectator is unable to align or give allegiance with one particular character. This scene, also shows how there are no over-riding motivations given from any of the other soldier’s. 

With my second film that I have studied for this topic; A Clockwork Orange, straightaway the film begins with a blood red screen and non- diegetic, synthesised music. This combination introduces us to a strange and unfamiliar world. The scene then cuts to a close up of Alex’s face, drawing attention to his unusual use of makeup; the framing of his cold blue eyes, introduces Alex as the protagonist, highlights his makeup allowing us to construct him as a non- typical male character. The fact that Alex is the first character we see, he is looking into the camera but more specifically at each audience member individually - making the spectators and Alex's relationship different and more personal with each audience member and their response to the eye contact. The camera starts at a close up of Alex, and then pans back, revealing the surroundings and other characters. However Alex maintains constantly in the centre of the frame at all times and is the only character making eye contact with us at this time. The eye contact is maintained for the duration of this long shot, once again reinforcing the alignment the audience should develop with Alex. Alex is the only character in this scene with his feet up on a naked female mannequin, straightaway introducing the view of women but nothing else but objects to Alex to play with; from this we learn Alex's ideological view and psychologically prepare the spectators for the house invasion scene where Alex rapes an innocent woman. By Kubrick preparing the audience for this scene, the audience will not be shocked by Alex's actions and they will therefore stay aligned with him. Due to the fact that Alex is are narrator throughout the film allows the spectator to align with him more as we see the worlds through his else and nothing we are unsure about he explains, denying us the opportunity to see things from an alternative point of view, this is used to be very manipulative in future scenes. He says '...and my droogs', when describing his associates, this distinguishes his as the leader character - in general, audiences will attempt to align with the leader character as they are seen as the strongest in the group.

The next scene, the tram scene shows a mid-shot of litter and empty beer bottles, and the homeless man showing how he's just dirtying his surroundings. Before we see the gang in the frame directly, the scene is backlit, their shadows cloud over the whole scene connoting with the power the group have. The narration used here encourages the audience to share Alex’s point of view, it also can be seen as a justification for his next actions. While Alex and the homeless man are speaking, there is a close up shot used when Alex speaks, but only a mid-shot when the drunk homeless man speak; also Alex speaks calm and is articulate, while the drunk guy is drunk, and slurs his words. Reinforcing the justification for Alex to commit this assault. Alex initiates the assault, once again showing him as the leader of the group. We see him strike in a close up shot, but as the violence begins, the shot switches to a mid-shot and Alex can’t be distinguished in the group of attackers. This manipulates the audience, and doesn't directly show Alex being aggressive, making alignment for the audience easier. This scene could be seen as being the first test for the spectator; whom are they going to align with the homeless man or Alex. 

The next scene, the home invasion scene begins with a man typing away who is interrupted by a doorbell ring. The camera pans over, revealing a woman, the fact that she is revealed secondary to the man comments on the social hierarchy in Alex's mind, as he is ultimately the storyteller. The fact that there is an older male and younger female is an instant reference to the Male Gaze. The male character looks for a wife who is physically attractive and yet ‘passive' at the same time. The fact that the women doesn't want to open the door at first as she is sceptical at first, she is told by her husband to open the door. She obeys, letting in four men who grab the woman and rush into the house, before raping her and attacking her husband.  The use of masks that Alex and the droogs have on allows the spectator to make a disassociation with Alex and the ultra-violent acts; due to the fact that Alex denies the spectator to see him at his worst, and only allowing the spectator to view his whole face when he is not committing violent acts. Also, in this scene we are denied any opportunity to see the female’s point of view as this would create alignment with the woman and possibly ruin the alignment the spectator has with Alex. However, during this scene, I personally had an A central and sympathetic response for the woman, as even though I haven't experienced anything like this, I can still from a women’s point of view imagine what she is going through to be horrible, and due to this I lose some of the alignment I had with Alex from the start of the film. I believe in order to produce an emotional response with the spectator one of the key factors is personal experience that the spectator has had to go through. 

During the interrogation scene; I feel as if this is the moment the spectator really takes allegiance to Alex, as this is the scene were we see a switch in him from the rest of the film. We see Alex positioned as being vulnerable, being depicted as a young innocent boy; juxtaposed by the ‘protectors of citizens’ figures who act violently towards Alex. Straightaway the spectator is encouraged to see Alex as a protagonist, and somebody who is being mistreated, through the use of POV shots and high angle shots, which ultimately allow us to take allegiance to Alex. This has been achieved as in this scene, Alex is seen as the character we have aligned with up until this point, the character whom we don't associate with crimes or violence, therefore when we do see him being brutally treated the spectator feels sorry for him initially. However, the use of the POV shots, encourage us to adopt Alex’s view and identify with him, further the fact that we see through a POV of the teacher looking at us the audience, allows us to share the feelings of Alex, whereby we feel we are being addressed as well as Alex and can empathise with him; ultimately this scene drives a connection towards the character Alex, and allegiance takes place. Along with his, the high angle shots make him seen vulnerable, and a victim, which further positions him as somebody who is being mistreated, and not the ultra-violent crime committing character he has been throughout the film, but the other half of his persona we have aligned with. 

At the end of the film, Alex is effectively reversed of his treatment and back to his old self. This combined with the uplifting music, creates almost a sense of relief, whereby the spectator again share Alex's feelings of happiness, as we realise he is once again the ultra-violent character which he originally was. The reason we feel happy with this, is simply as the character we aligned with throughout the whole film, is one of ultra-violence and rape, and we have empathised with him throughout the film, and also through his treatment. Therefore, when we see him effectively un-cured we feel happy and relieved that the original character is back, and that if he is happy then we are too. Overall, it is the depiction of violence as enjoyment which is returned at the end of the film, a depiction which we have been encouraged throughout the whole film to adopt, in the form of a character which we gave our allegiance to. 

To conclude I believe both these films are designed to have an individual response from each of the spectators; the spectator will build a personal and specific response to a film based on many factors including gender, personal experiences, and cultural experiences. Both ‘Full metal jacket’ and ‘A clockwork orange’ have different meaning and ideas that different individuals have depending on one of the many factors; therefore suggesting that emotional response is more so to do with the actual individuals experience rather than the film they are watching.