The film is set in Sweden, presumably in the middle of winter – due to the heavy snowfall. It begins with the first piece of dialect ‘squeal like a pig’, initially it is unclear as to the significance of this phrase, as the boy speaking is alone. He is the first character introduced, and from first impressions seems to be fairly strange. For example, he is shown holding a knife, in his underwear – talking to himself. The music at this point is fairly sombre, indicating that something is not right. This is reinforced with strange perspective camerawork – portraying two different male characters suspiciously, perhaps foreshadowing. This introduces the equilibrium (supporting Todorov’s narrative theory), in this case – Oskar living his everyday life with his mother, and occasionally visiting his father. Oskar’s father is an alcoholic, this adds to the theme of men in the film being represented as bad people, such as murderers and alcoholics. There is rarely a positive representation featured, besides the school teacher.
The earlier ‘squeal like a pig’ repetition is put into context in the school scene, as ‘Oskar’ is represented as a victim of bullying – with his name being ‘piggy’. The following part is a murder scene. The killer appears to be one of the characters previously shot at the very beginning, and again preparing some sort of equipment just before. This correlates to the use of sound as he is introduced – and supports the earlier foreshadowing. It also explains his suspicious behaviour, and perhaps immediately places him in the role of ‘villain’ in the audience’s mind - according to Vladimir Propp’s theory. Use of sound is again significant in this scene, as the effect of the throat being slit is enhanced for dramatization. Oskar then meets ‘Eli’, and initially they seem very distant from one another – and almost nervous or awkward. The camerawork presents this well, with mainly long, perspective shots being used. All of these scenes become the ‘disruption’ of the equilibrium, as following Todorov’s theory – as they disturb Oskar’s life and routine in one way or another.
Use of mise-en-scene, such as costumes, help to reflect both character roles and storyline within the film. For example, Oskar and Eli initially wear very dull, often dark colours when they first meet. Throughout the film, this progresses and changes – to colours such as red, indicating potential love, danger and passion. This tells us more about Eli’s character, and the relationship between her and Oskar – perhaps placing her in the role of ‘Princess’ within Propp’s theory, as after all, Oskar does go out of his way in order to ‘seek’ her. Also, when Eli tells Oskar to fight the bullies back, it gives her the role of ‘helper’ as she aids Oskar, who is the ‘hero’ in this film. However, the mise-en-scene never distracts from the storyline, as it always fairly subtle – this allows for the drama to be more gripping and adds an element of social realism, as it as true to life as possible. Binary Opposites are a constant theme throughout, as with Oskar and Eli being opposite sex, and Eli being young and her victims old. This supports Levi-Strauss’s theory, and Tomas Alfredson has perhaps purposely played on these opposites in order to make the film more effective. An example of this is the unusualness of a grown man being portrayed as weak against a young girl – which gives uniqueness to this film, as it does not follow traditional horror conventions (I.e. the object of horror being a strong force).
A lot of the film is shot at night, with low levels of lighting. This gives the traditional horror look, as the dark is always viewed as ‘scarier’ than day. There are several close-up camera shots throughout the film, which work to good effect in many cases. For instance, the camerawork gradually becomes closer and closer between Eli and Oskar as the film progresses, in order to represent their relationship. They also allow us as the audience to read facial expressions easily, meaning less dialect is needed to explain emotions – allowing the film to have an eerier feel due to long spells of pure ambience or silence. As well as this, many of the shots are taken from a character point of view, and this is represented through the height level in many cases. Scenes involving Oskar or Eli are often shot from a low level – as they are naturally smaller than others. Also, the editing in some scenes – such as the school lesson – reflects emotion, as the use of fading and blurring display lack of attention span in their mind. Another feature of camerawork is long shots, these are used in parts such as the throat slitting scene, and the bridge murder scene. Both give the effect of a witness perspective, which adds to the social realism – making the film more effective in its aim to thrill or scare, as it seems more real. This effect is amplified by the inclusion of trees, partly blocking the view, as it appears as if you are actually witnessing a murder.
Binary opposites are continued when Oskar visits his father. The juxtaposition in experience between his lifestyle with him in the countryside and his city life with his mother is clear. With his father in the peaceful, picturesque countryside he almost seems care-free, away from the troubles of the city – along with its dark and mysterious vibe. As well as this, there is also the contrast between day and night – as besides the bullying, the days are much less eventful than the nights, due to the murders all occurring at night.
By the end of the film, we can establish all of the character’s true personalities and qualities, and Levi-Strauss’s theory almost becomes less significant – as the roles seem to reverse in ways or cancel out, and the characters are not as definable as good and bad. For instance, Eli is a serial killer, yet she is also ‘the helper’ and protects Oskar, suggesting many cases are too complex for the simplistic ‘good and bad’ theory – as there is a combination of personality traits. This applies to Propp’s theory as well, as many characters have several of the roles. Eli’s father figure for example is classed as ‘the donor’ (as he aids Eli in her need for blood), as well as ‘the villain’ due to his murders and perhaps ‘the father’, however, he does not fit this convention entirely as he does not reward the hero. Similarly, Eli is also a villain, simply because she takes lives – however, she does have good sides, such as ‘princess’ and ‘dispatcher’ (as she directs Oskar to stand up for himself). The ending of the film marks the restoration of the equilibrium, as all of the bullies have seen the wrong in their ways, and have been killed by Eli. Also, she has ‘moved away’ so there is an overall lack of conflict within Oskar’s life, and he can return to normality.
No comments:
Post a Comment