'Cubs'

The film was directed and written by Tom Harper and produced by Lisa Williams. It released in 2006. It received a BAFTA film nomination and won the British Independent Film Award. The plot is very controversial as it’s about fox hunting, a once popular sport. However, there is a modern twist as the action taking place in an extremely urban area with a gang of youths as the hunters when, usually, we would associate fox hunting with upper class people. Many themes and issues surface throughout the film such as violence, responsibility, leadership and peer pressure.

The opening is very misleading, which I believe was a strategic decision by the director because a group of youths are playing football while shouting. Therefore, this immediately caused me to make the preconception that the plot will revolve around these youths in a stereotypical way so, for example, gang crime etc. The camera movements are very swift and shots switch between different characters at a fast editorial pace. Following this, we are introduced to two primary characters, one male and one female, Ben and Davis. The shot reverse shot and close-ups between them indicate they share an intimate relationship, which is also shown by the generous gesture from Ben. He gives up his gloves because the Davis is “freezing”. They then have a conversation where Davis states she should’ve been home “ages ago but oh well”. This subliminally highlights the theme of teenage rebellion while diverting from what’s to come. To expand upon this, at this point, I still thought the plot would be based around teenagers conducting bad social behaviour.

The mise-en-scene conveys to us a real sense of urban grittiness through the location, which has graffiti covering the walls. In addition, the lighting is grey which connotes dullness and allows us to see they’re in a city area. Despite this, the lighting also communicates ambiguity, which, again, I feel is a strategic directorial decision that becomes more understandable as the film goes on. The diegetic sound accentuates the realism, which is what a film of this content is trying to do because everything is meant to be kept naturalistic to stay true to the genre by conforming to the codes and conventions.

We know who the other main character will be by the way Ben and Davis jump up saying “he’s here”. He’s clearly a gang leader as he has two others walking behind him in an ordered manner. Ben and Davis are both worried but they haven’t shared their concern. This is conveyed by the focus pull between them as it separately shows their facial expressions in the same close-up shot. When the gang member enters, he slams the gate open and the loudness of the diegetic sound emphasises his authority and aggression. The gang leader is revealed as Karl and everybody lines up to show their respect when he squares up to them.

Ben is disappointed when Karl doesn’t “pick him”. At this point, it’s unclear why Karl is choosing people but it obviously means a lot to the youths as when an older boy is chosen, he’s very smug while the younger ones are frustrated and blame each other for Karl not picking them. Much to Ben’s annoyance, Davis tells him she knew they wouldn’t be chosen. However, Ben chases after Karl leading to a medium shot where they’re situated at either end of the frame showing their separation in terms of status. Karl eventually, reluctantly agrees to choose them and tells them he’ll see them later.

The next shot is a point-of-view; Ben and Davis are seen looking down at the gang through a metal fence. It’s metaphorically representing a shield, protecting them from what’s to come while making them feel uneasy about the whole situation. It’s also indicative of how they’re unsure whether they want to actually join the gang. This idea is sustained by the fact it’s a high angle shot showing them looking in because it’s communicating how, at the point, they have the moral high ground and still have that chance to back out.

The lighting immediately changes to bright when they’re in the tunnel with other youths. It’s exposing their negative behaviour, foreshadowing something is going to take place which has consequences for Ben and Davis. For example, there’s smoking and drinking going on and the parallel editing gives both us, the audience, and Ben an insight into what’s about to happen. Upon further analysis, one youth says to another “I can’t believe you screamed, like a girl, over a bit of blood” to which the other one replies “were you even there though? No”. The camera then cuts to a close-up of Ben’s anxious face. While all this is going on, Karl arrives with two ferocious looking dogs.

Karl then walks over to Ben, hands him a cricket bat and tells him “if you fuck up tonight, you’re on your own, get me?” This puts a lot of pressure on Ben, who is looking more worried than ever. The editorial pace quickens and the camera cuts to a close-up of the dogs barking before cutting to a wide shot of the whole gang getting ready to go. It then continues to cut to different members of the gang before finally ending on Karl shouting. Everyone starts to run and the diegetic sounds are drowned out by a non diegetic urban beat.

After frantically chasing the fox, they manage to corner it and it’s up to Ben to hit it with the cricket bat, however, he loses it much to the others dismay. Despite this, Ben see’s the fox again as he’s walking away, he has to make a quick decision about whether to let it go or tell the others. Not wanting to taint his reputation amongst the gang, he tells them and they chase the fox once again.

The dogs capture the fox and the handheld camera makes it difficult to decipher exactly what’s happening but the fox can be heard whelping in excruciating pain. Karl then hands Ben a gun and tells him to “initiate it”, in other words, he’s basically saying “you be the one to kill the fox”. This is where peer pressure is most predominant and there’s a very subtle link to my own A2 film in terms of everyone trying to convince Ben to shoot the fox because the primary character in mine is in a different situation but faced with a similar dilemma, doing something they really don’t want to.

There is another focus pull between the fox and the gun, which Ben is now aiming at its head. This really accentuates the violence because we can see the injuries the fox has endured. As an audience, we really feel sympathetic towards the helpless fox so it’s evoking that strong sense of emotion while putting fox hunting in a completely negative light. Eventually, Ben pulls the trigger and everyone cheers for him. Karl says “you’re one of us now” and smears Ben’s face with blood. Davis looks upset and disappointed. The diegetic sound of sirens can be heard so the gang scarper and the following shot is of the fox laying dead, situated in the centre of the frame, which makes it more effective because we can see how it’s been tortured.

The camera then cuts to the gang celebrating around a fire and although Ben and Davis are sitting together, they’re now very distant emotionally as show by the way Davis is looking away from him. Moreover, there is then another focus pull, similar to the one between them earlier, although now it emphasises her disappointment and his guilt. She places his gloves in his hands and leaves with a melancholic expression upon her face. Ben wipes the blood from his face before Karl asks him to join them near the fire. The fox’s tail is getting waved around and everyone is cheering except Ben who clearly wishes he had never gotten involved in the first place.

'About A Girl'

It was directed by Brian Percival in 2001 and won awards such as the BAFTA for best short film, best short at the Edinburgh Film festival, the TCM Classic Shorts Award prize at the London Film Festival, and the Jury Prize at the Raindance Film Festival. It was written by Julie Rutterford and produced by Janey de Nordwall. The plot consists of the main character, a young girl, talking about her personal life and aspirations in style of a documentary. The audience receives a huge shock at the end’s twist while themes and issues such as teenage pregnancy and responsibility rise to prominence.

The titles are first to appear on the screen in a quite modern and technological fashion as each letter looks as if it’s being typed, especially as there’s a beeping noise alongside it, similar to a mobile phone’s keypad sound. The futuristic typography could convey to the audience the film is about youth, because that’s what it connotes. The first shot is of a silhouetted girl singing and dancing along to Britney Spears’ song ‘Stronger’. As the girl is standing on her own, we gain a sense of both her independence and isolation which are quite contradicting, so, therefore, this could be a binary opposition. Also, the lyrics become increasingly significant as the film goes on because contextually the singer is talking about being out of a relationship, not belonging to her boyfriend anymore and standing on her own two feet. However, after the ending of the film revealed, where the girl throws the baby into the water, the lyrics could have their own meaning specifically for the girl “I’ve had enough, I’m not your property from today, baby’.

It then cuts to a close up of the girl talking directly to the camera with her eye line level matching the audience’s. This could convey her confidence, ego and how comfortable she is with herself because she is talking very swiftly and freely expressing her views with the opening line “If Jesus were alive today right, he’s probably be a singer”. She’s talking in a strong mancunian accent and through the mise-en-scene we can see she’s from a working class family as we see Manchester’s dilapidated, industrial site. Through this, we can see glimpses of the poverty and deprivation of her area and possibly her family.

There are then many jump cuts which communicate her randomness as she’s talking about loads of different things at once. Upon further analysis, this could be showing her irrationality, disorientation and disjointedness about the situation with the baby and how she feels about it because at the age of 13 it’s extremely hard emotionally, especially for girls, which was also evident through watching ‘Love Me or Leave Me Alone’. There is no solid evidence for the baby belonging to the girl however, I believe it makes more sense if it does because of the way she continues to mention how she has become good at “hiding things”.

Her monologue could also be interpreted as confessional because of her directness. To elaborate upon this, she is blissfully letting us, as an audience, into her personal life without hesitation which could either highlight her naivety or prove the fact she’s feeling guilty about the baby. It could also evoke empathy or sympathy from the audience because her monologue is constantly being interrupted by short scenes of her home life with the separation of her mother and father. Furthermore, we are presented with the fact her father is neglectful because the girl asks to live with him and he implies he is too busy for that.

Although she appears quite grown up and independent at times due to the different shots, we also see her childlike fantasies surface when she’s on the bus. The diegetic sound of her and her friends singing ‘Oops I did it again’ by Britney Spears accentuates their aspirations and the idea all young teenagers are dreamers as they’re talking about being famous singers.

The shot where she’s situated above the water is foreshadowing while also showing the audience how she’s reflecting upon something (at this point, we are unaware of what it is exactly). The way she’s gazing down at the water communicates this because she’s at the top of the frame, could be metaphorical because literally, she’s looking at her reflection physically but it could also represent her emotional and mental reflection.

'Love Me or Leave Me Alone'

The film was directed and written by Duane Hopkins and produced by Sam Haillay. It won the best short award at the Edinburgh Film Festival in 2003. It explores the relationship of a young, teenage couple who are both most probably experiencing all these different feelings for the first time and, also, the film raises themes and issues such as transition, change, responsibility and immaturity.

The film opens with two teenagers shouting and being generally volatile to each other with explicit language etc. The editing emphasises the violence between them with the swift jump cutting. In addition, the cuts also highlight the instability, unpredictable and erratic behaviour taking place. Upon further analysis, the fast editorial pace adds dynamism and gives the scene energy, which is strategic on the director’s part as it keeps the audience engaged straight away while giving the scene a sense of alertness and even danger for the teenagers.

After the argument, the boy and the girl are seen walking away from each other in a long shot. This emphasises the divide between them while raising the binary opposition of separation vs. Attachment. To expand upon this, the fences in the background right behind where the girl is standing could be a metaphor for how trapped and caged in the girl feels emotionally whereas the boy leading into the darkness could represent how he is emotionally unaware by trying to block out what’s happening, as teenage boys at that age tend to not want to express real emotions while girls are opposite and find it easier to show their feelings.

The following wide shot of the girl situated in the centre of the frame accentuates her isolation and lack of control because she is gazing out into the distance as if she is unsure of what to do. Also, it’s possible that she’s craving escape by the way she’s looking out; this reinforces the previous idea of the metaphorical, emotional cage. The next shot, a close up of the boy, allows us to understand he’s now aware that he’s done wrong by his facial expression and the diegetic sound of the girl sobbing, the guilt is therefore noticeable, however, he doesn’t want to make the first move because of his pride. Also, he selfishly feels pity for himself.

In terms of the diegetic sound, we can hear the girl breathing heavily which is a directorial decision because, in reality, in that type of area you wouldn’t be able to hear breathing that easily. I think this stresses the frustration, as does the handheld camera, because it gives us a sense of disorientation. The shot immediately after that of the girl is indicative of how she feels the same, she wants him to come to her and we can see this through her distressed, upset expression as well as the fact she’s stood right where he can see her. She wants attention from him so she’s lingering in the field where she’s in sight for the boy to notice her.

As the girl storms towards the boy in the tracking shot from behind, we expect a standoff between them because of her body language, posture and the pace she is moving at. However, she says to him quite adamantly “don’t you dare follow me!” and the subtextual interpretation for this is “follow me!” Because she clearly wants attention and wants him to understand how she is feeling and what he’s done wrong but he just continues to sit there, doing nothing, much to her dissatisfaction.
After she storms off again, she waits round the corner because, to reiterate, she wants him to come after her. There is then a point of view shot from the boy which conveys how he is contemplating going after her, but is unsure. When he finally decides to follow her, he sees her walking swiftly away. This is to show he is now too late and the girl expected him to catch on sooner. Teenage boys that age are emotionally illiterate and slow in situations like this whereas girls are ahead emotionally and seem to instinctively know what they want and expect from the outset.

The titles are very childlike and the typography carries immature, carefree connotations and, so far, we have been subjected to that by the teenagers arguing and attention seeking. The next close up of the girl communicates how she could be feeling. For example, her blackened eyes show sleep deprivation and exhaustion, this could even lead off to more complex themes and issues like mental illness. Following this, the camera cuts swiftly from the boy to girl, who are both walking quickly and I believe this shows that although they’re far away from each other, there movements coincide which brings a sense of togetherness.

These two main characters are now given identities thanks to the boys’ (Steven’s) mother asking him about the girl (Jessica). I believe their names have deliberately been held back until now to make them slightly ambiguous so we really have to think about the reasons for their relationship breakdown. There is emotional distance between Steven and his mother as shown by the way he responds to her interrogative manner. This could be a result of their age and reinforces the idea of young, teenage boys not being emotionally “ready”.

The next shot sustains the idea of their togetherness even though they are apart from each other because of their placement in the frame. Steven is closed in at home smoking a cigarette while Jessica is in the wilderness listening to her music. She has a sense of freedom but isolation because of the desolate surroundings while he is suffering entrapment, physically and emotionally. Therefore, there is an inherent contradiction, also shown by the way they look at their rings, they are binding although physically apart.

When he finally comes to the realisation that he should go after her, he races in front of her on a bike while she is simply walking. He stops so far in front so he can be ahead. It’s also a sign of immaturity. When he plucks up the courage to speak to her, he asks if she “wants a backy” (which, presumably, in this means a ride on the back of his bike) to which she rejects him by explicitly showing him her middle finger with an expressionless face, proving it’s too late for him, he should’ve caught on how she was feeling quicker. This has clearly dented his pride and he begins to annoy her which, again, exposes his immaturity. He succeeds in annoying her as she tells him angrily to “just fuck off”, but he doesn’t go anywhere showing persistence and proving that he cares even though he internalises feelings while she externalises them.

There is a sense of desperation when Jessica finally manages to catch a lift off someone in a car. He calls her name but she refuses to respond leaving him with no choice but to ride as fast as he can on after her on his bike. I think the shot we see of him in the mirror communicates the idea she’s reflecting upon what happened and how she wants to get away from him but can’t. In the next shot, Steven is now the isolated one situated in the centre of the frame. He calls Jessica to which she says “what do you want?” He replies “Nothing...” followed by “...will you meet me?” He’s in denial at this point because he does want something yet he’s still trying to shut it out by automatically saying “nothing”. This, again, sustains the ideas about teenage boy’s emotional literacy.

They later meet as the sun is setting which could be a metaphorical representation for the end of their relationship. They are more civilised to each other this time around. He’s even polite to her as shown by the way he holds the open for her to go inside.

There is a preconception that teenagers that are their age sort out their differences by having sex, probably because of the fact they’re going through puberty. When this is shown, there are several jump cuts back and forth, similar to the beginning of the film. However, instead of showing them breaking up, the shots are showing them reunite. It appears all the disagreements between them added up to sexual tension because the following shot shows them laying together peacefully. Afterwards, Steven asks whether they’re still seeing each other and that he needs to know now. This reinforces the fact teenage boys need everything straightforward for them to understand it. Jessica replies she’s unsure which communicates the complexity of her emotions. To elaborate upon this, both of their faces are half blackened due to the mise en scene because of the lighting ratio. This conveys how they both don’t know what they want even though boy comes across as though he does through the dialogue. The film ends with the girl writing a letter and the boy exposed due to the mise-en-scene of a car lighting. It’s ambiguous as we are not shown exactly what she is writing. Despite this, we can see that she has written “I love you”.

'Gasman'

‘Gasman’ was directed by Lynne Ramsay and produced by Gavin Emerson in 1997. The film has won awards such as a Cannes Grand Prix Du Jury award and a Scottish BAFTA for best short. Since ‘Gasman’, Ramsay has gone on to make feature films ‘Ratcatcher’ and ‘Morvern Killer’, which, again, won her numerous awards while boosting her reputation as a director. ‘Gasman’ is about a father harbouring a secret which his children are clearly unaware of. This results in the children sparking a rivalry against each other for his attention. Also, the film raises many themes and issues, which are debateable due to the overall ambiguity of the narrative and characters, such as neglect, child rivalry, jealousy, responsibility, economic struggle and (possibly) intoxication.

When the film starts, there are many extreme close-up shots of the human anatomy, for example, arms and shoulders. This is a strategic move by the director because she didn’t want the audience to immediately see the main character which would intrigue them and make them want to see. Despite this, the extreme close-ups are indicative of how the main character is about to be revealed which adds to the film language. These shots also convey a sense of mystery which will engross the audience even further.

In addition, there is another extreme close-up shot of a boy playing with a car; however, he is vigorously scraping it against the table which is holistically uncomfortable for the audience to listen to. This juxtaposes with the cheerful, diegetic Christmas music playing in the background. In relation, the boy sprinkles salt into the car and this links to the well known phrase “white Christmas”, which carries joyful and positive connotations and he isn’t going to get that. The boy’s possible isolation and negative attitude because Christmas is known as an extremely happy time for families but the sound of the salt hitting the toy car abruptly drowns the music out.

Moreover, there is intertextuality in the shot with the girl with her black shoes because the choreography is an exact replica from ‘The Wizard of Oz’ and I think it shows her loss of innocence and vulnerability as a child. She reinacts the classic moment with her voice and movement exactly like Dorothy’s (‘The Wizard of Oz’). Also, the mise-en-scene is definitely symbolic as the black shoes are very similar to Dorothy’s red shoes. However, the fact they are black shows a low status. A following low angle shot of the suit hanging up on the wardrobe establishes a higher status and as the suit belongs to a man, the audience are able to guess it’s the father’s. The soft plastic around the suit is indicative of a concealed identity which shows there is more to him.

The opening overall is very generic and represents a typical 20th Century family with the children bored at home, a father getting ready while the mother helps, therefore, they take on traditional gender roles. We know its set during the 70’s in Glasgow because of the diegetic music playing and the dialect and dialogue spoken by the characters. The lighting is very dull because of its grey, bluish colour and slightly grainy texture. This makes the house appear slightly dilapidated which allows the issue of economic struggle to surface. The colour causes many adjectives to spring to mind like dull, harsh and dark. Each of these has negative connotations.
The diegetic sounds within different shots communicate the family’s struggle. For example, the father’s smoking and drinking (although we’re not sure of exactly what he’s drinking) not only gives away his nerves but the exhalation emphasises his inner turmoil which gives room for interpretation because some could argue the inner turmoil is a result of the fact he has two separate families to provide for or it could be due to the apparent economic strife they’re suffering. The father’s voice is droning and slow paced which conveys a possible low self esteem and depression.
The shot of the mother looking out of the window as her family leave for the Christmas party is foreshadowing of the plot because of her character codes. For example, her placid and subdued facial expression indicates something significant will eventually happen. After this, there is a wide shot which is quite bleak and misplaced in a sense. Also, the boy is separate from the girl and father which makes us contemplate whether he is more mature and clued up about his father’s alternate family.

The wide shot where the family are seen as silhouettes is very ironic because it gives a family portrait effect making them seem like a typical happy family yet previous scenes show they’re far from it. The slow tracking shot of them walking on the tracks is very significant because the disused tracks are infinite and give a sense of hopelessness as it seems like it goes on forever. The dysfunctional-like railway tracks could also metaphorically represent the muddled and mixed family as adultery is a predominant theme and there have been hints of the father’s infidelity throughout.

When we meet the other family, we can see they’re also economically challenged through the mise-en-scene because the children are dressed in what looks like school uniform, and it’ slightly dirty. Furthermore, we immediately gain a sense of child conflict because one girl is making snide comments about the girl from the other family. Her brother makes the comment “she looks like you” which subtly communicates to the audience that they’re all related to each other, reinforcing the presumption about adultery. The teasing which takes place between the children is like sibling rivalry and the two girls even have similar headbands. The applied 180 degree rule along with the shot reverse shot between the two adults show intimacy and the closeness shows how they’re in their own little world. In spite of this, the phatic communication which takes place between them contradicts this and shows they’re being civil primarily for the kids and they don’t really know what to say to each other. This shows how complicated the family are.

When they arrive at the dilapidated pub where the party is being held, the father holds the door open for girls but allows it to shut on the boy which allows the theme of resentment to rise to prominence as there is clearly a lack of respect between them. The slow panning of the room indicates how bored the girl is because it’s from her point of view. The theme of boredom is accentuated by the fact all the other children in the room appear to be having fun and enjoying themselves. Following this, there is a wide shot which emphasises her isolation and alienation from everyone else. The immediate swift editorial pace after this conveys how there is complete chaos in the room.

In addition, the handheld camera effect communicates vulnerability or possible intoxication depending on whose point of view this particular point is from. There are a frequent amount of jump cuts which show a loss of consciousness, sustaining the possible theme of intoxication. The father might be portrayed as being selfish at this point for leaving the children to play on their own which, again, raises the theme of child neglect. Eventually the two girls fight for a place on their father’s lap as a result of jealously and resentment. The father attempts to comfort both of his daughters, showing he is caring which could contradict the argument for him being selfish.

On the way home from the party, the father has to comfort both girls a second time after they fight over who gets to hold his hand. The family portrait effect is present again due to the mise-en-scene of the streetlights, when the “other” family go back to their mother (without the mother and father sharing small talk this time around) the girl picks up a stone, which because of the previous moment with he boy throwing the stone at his father, has become symbolism for hatred. She drops the stone before sighing and they begin to make their way home. Finally, it’s worth noting the structure of the film follows Aristotle’s 3 acts theory.

'The Most Beautiful Man In The World'

Written and directed by Alicia Duffy in 2002, this BAFTA award winning short film follows an unconventional plot with various inconsistencies which appear to be crucial to the overall effect of the narrative. The story itself initiates with a young girl looking extremely bored in her home watching television. It immediately becomes clear that her mother has no interest in entertaining her because she’s too busy speaking on the phone. The girl then wanders off into the grassland outside the house. Whilst making her way through the wilderness she meets a stranger, a man whose identity is not revealed. Her mother swiftly gestures her back inside after witnessing what’s going on, resulting in the girl being trapped in her home once more.

‘The Most Beautiful Man In The World’ revolves around primary themes such as boredom and innocence while tackling controversial issues like child neglect. However, the lack of dialogue throughout creates a sense of ambiguity and doesn’t allow us to make distinct opinions about the characterisation and their individual identities. The frequent amount of close-up and extreme close up shots give a personal touch to the inside scenes which juxtaposes with the freedom conveyed in the wide shots when the young girl is outside. In spite of this, it also communicates entrapment and confinement indicating how there are limits preventing the child to grow accordingly. There are several dominant ideologies as a result of this. For example, the aspects of mise-en-scene such as the dull lighting and run down home lead to the audience believing the mother is economically challenged, which may make them sympathise or empathise with her because she is clearly a single parent. Although other people may believe the mother does not pay enough attention to her daughter by leaving her to watch television, suppressing the child’s stimulation. As the struggling single parent isn’t completely apparent due to the fact she is absent through most of the film, the issue of child neglect will rise to prominence much more swiftly. This results in a binary opposition as it’s primarily the single parent ideology vs. Child neglect.

Upon further analysis, we can understand how the single parent may be struggling through her voice, as when she is speaking on the phone, she sounds weak and depressed. Also, from her inflection and intonation, we can mould the idea that she has a low self esteem, causing the audience to possibly feel pity towards her. Despite this, it is crucial to notice how the child’s language is not being exercised which has a negative impact on her development. This can be interpreted as the mother is not teaching or helping her child correctly which might be a result of the fact she is self indulged in her own problems/conversations. Overall, the film relies heavily on diegetic sound. During the inside scenes the sound is only coming from the television whereas outside there’s insect sounds etc. This allows the issue of nature vs. Nurture to surface as, when outside, the girl is free to explore her senses and use her natural child’s instinct by absorbing her surroundings. In comparison, when inside her home she is receiving hardly any form of adventure and that is conveyed through the quietness.

In addition to this, the mise-en-scene is indicative of neglect. To elaborate upon this, the child’s clothes are dirty and old looking while the house itself is dilapidated as shown by the old heater and chair. The lighting, to reiterate, is extremely dull which makes the home seem repulsive in some respects. This contrasts with the light shining through the window. At this specific point, the child is clearly inquisitive about what’s outside as shown by the mid shot of her staring fixatedly out the window. This foreshadows the fact she will eventually begin to explore.

Moreover, the issue of child neglect and the theme of isolation are emphasised during the extreme close up shot where the young girl is clutching the radiator because this could be a metaphor for how she craves emotional warmth from her mother because she is lacking the substantial amount for a healthy, growing child. Similarly, this is also conveyed symbolically through the dog as it’s almost acting as her guardian, which sustains the idea of her needing someone. To expand upon this, even when she goes outside to ride her bike, the dog is watching over in the wide shot. Another significant factor of this particular shot is how she is riding her bike around in small circles, indicating how day to day life is constantly the same until the next close up shot of her looking over her shoulder to see if she’s being watched. At this point in time, as an audience, we know life is about to change for her from the film language. Immediately after this shot, there is a jump cut to her standing behind the fence. This can be interpreted in different ways, for example, the spikes carry connotations of danger while the fence itself signifies a boundary. The girl then leaves the frame completely only to re-enter on the other side of the fence showing a rebirth and a fresh sense of adventure. This is new territory for her and I think the director wanted to show the diverse difference from home life to the outside world.

The child welcomes the idea of freedom and exploration as she is walking along with her arms spread open. Also, this shows how she is new to the wilderness as she’s walking carefully and it’s as if she is attempting to keep herself balanced; as if looking out for obstacles. In addition, the editing in the next few shots is significant to how she’s learning in a proactive environment because there are jump cuts which are sharp, giving a sense of alertness. Although there is a still a sense of danger from the way she appears to scrutinise what’s around her, she is having an influx sensory experience. The following low angle shot of her running the stick through water is empowering; presenting her as a new explorer. Also, we are now seeing her from a different perspective and the water itself connotes, philosophically, holiness and cleansing which reinforces the idea of her rebirth.

Following this, the young girl hears her dog and goes over to see where he is. This is the point where the man is introduced for the first time; however his identity is not revealed. This allows the audience to make different readings and interpretations about who he really is. Ideologically, people may instantly believe he is there to harm her because he’s a stranger and she’s just young child. The director has done this deliberately to keep the plot and narrative ambiguous and it’s also quite misleading. If we look deeper into what’s actually taking place, we can link the dog back to being a symbolic guardian and the fact he’s with the man is communicating he’s safe and not dangerous. Alternately, after the young girl says “that’s my dog” there is an extreme close up shot of the man picking a bug off her in a gentle manner which indicates he could be an estranged father. The intimacy conveyed in the shot is indicative of how he is protective over her and this also highlights the theme of innocence as he hands her bug and she gazes at it before he smiles innocuously which makes her feel comfortable causing her to return a smile. This is the first real connection between the characters in the film and it is broken by the mother who witnesses what’s happening resulting in the child running home and the shaky, hand held camera at this point makes the child’s fast pace more predominant. However, the fact the mother is calm and collected throughout this situation helps us make the assumption she knows the man, which sustains the idea of him being the father because instinctively, if the mother felt her child was in danger she’d be more panicked and irrational.

Immediately after this, the girl is back inside, trapped in her home. The transition between shots slows down changing the editorial pace from outside because when the girl is inside it cuts to the man in a wide shot who is still standing in the same place outside, it then swiftly cuts back to the girl and this shot continues for longer. This shows the separation between the child and the man while accentuating the theme of the child’s boredom when she’s inside her home. The credits then begin to show, making the audience feel a sense of finality. However, there is a shot straight after with the child’s gormless expression, emphasising how she’s gone back to receiving little or no stimulation as she stares at the television blankly. This shows how the child’s day to day life is back to normality after her experience as an explorer of the wilderness.

It is also highly necessary to notice how no official authority is being represented. For example, social services, this brings up other conflicts like “Is the mother really to blame?” In contemporary society, authorities are sometimes tainted badly for not always handling situations involving children correctly. For example, news stories such as the disappearance of Madeline McCann have impacted the way society feels about situations like this and that’s why, as an audience, we make automatic assumptions about the way the child is brought up, the role of the mother and whether the man is actually there to harm her. I believe the director deliberately wants the audience to jump to irrational conclusions before looking deeper into the complexity of the situation.

Finally, I believe another important aspect of the film is the idea of Todorov’s narrative theory about events initiating as an equilibrium and then a disequilibrium occurs, because that does seem to be the basic structure in this case. For example, at the beginning we are presented with two main factors, child neglect and single parenthood and these opposing forces have an equal impact but when the child is curious to explore; other sub events take place which is the beginning of disequilibrium . To expand upon this, when the primary problem is solved, which in this case is the mother getting her child back in the safety of their home the equilibrium presents itself all over again. The film is conformed this way, following this basic narrative structure throughout. It helps us to understand why the events that take place are important to the plot and characters.