Filmmaking / Directing : Expressing Meaning in Film. A short essay by Carlos E. Fernandez by Carlos E. Fernández

In this essay I will argue that the assertion that directors use only one chief element of film

structure to communicate meaning is wrong. Furthermore, aided by three specific examples,

convincing material and analysis will be provided to argue that in the majority of the films there

is always a combination of all elements of film structure to communicate to the audience their

intended meaning.

As a matter of fact, even in older films that contain a relative straightforward and easy to

understand narrative, given the complexity and richness of film as an art genre, most elements of

film structure are required to successfully engage the audience in appreciating the meaning of the

narrative. Furthermore, in order to substantiate the thesis of this essay, three very fine films will

be discussed using various elements that are prominent in the production of the film.

Throughout the history of movie making, one of the films that has received the most

acclaim by critics as well as the subject of so much analysis and reviews is Persona, directed by

Ingmar Bergman, a director that in some circles attained almost an iconic nature.

Persona, (whose chief element used is acting) features Bibi Andersson and Liv Ullman as co-

protagonists in this psychological thriller. Acting was so good that some audiences tends to

reduce the value of the film to the performance of these excellent two actors. However,

especially movie lovers very soon realize that the complex meaning of this film is actually also

communicated through the use of film structure, cinematography, production design, sound

design and editing

As far as production design, the sets in the film are minimalist in the sense that there is

not much décor and very few objects in the different indoor locations where scenes are shot. This

is so maybe because the intent of the director is to force the viewer to focus on both Elisabet and

Alma, given the fact that the narrative is always around what the protagonists are doing, thinking

or saying. Furthermore, the visual design of the film makes extensive use of soft lighting, mostly

characterized as naturalistic. In the film, this type of lighting seems to be furnished by daylight

coming through the windows and openings. Also, table lamps equipped with dimmers are used,

and the shots shots that show Elisabet’s face fully illuminated, go from a fully illuminated

Elisabet’s face to almost total darkness. However, hard lighting is also used in the film especially

when showing medium and close-ups of Elisabet’s face in indoor locations.

In regards to cinematography the camera work in this film is evident by the significant

footage spent in close-ups of the two faces of the protagonists. The two faces are often shown

together, sometimes next to each other and sometimes in very artistic contrasting shots. Nurse

“persona”, the cinematographer presents alternating shots of both close-ups and medium shots of

Alma and Elisabet, especially when he wants to try to project the thinking of either of them. This

can be observed more tellingly in the scenes following the profound disgust of nurse Alma when

she discovers through a letter written by Elisabet, that the latter has been “studying” the different

actions and reactions of the former. In this sequence, the camera man uses medium shots of

Alma and Elisabet so as to show how each one of them is engaged in trying to interpret and deal

with each other’s feeling after the altercation.

Silence is ever present through most of the duration of the film and the viewer is

constantly trying to determine what Elizabet’s facial expressions mean merely by looking at her

facial expressions. This is much less in the case of Alma because she’s often engaged in a

monologue. In addition to this, every time there is a scene of dramatism where Elisabet is

confronting a sentiment of fear, despair, shame or guilt, we hear ominous noises using sound

montage. Also, there is a short scene in the movie where VOR is briefly used once when Elizabet

and Alma first arrive to the Island’s cottage.

Finally, the sequence of scenes are mostly presented using continuity editing. Mostly eye

line matches and numerous cuts and dissolves are used showing either faces, and sometime shot-

reverse shot technique is used when they are engaged in conversation.

In the Night of the Hunter, which seems to be a combination of horror and noir, director Charles

Laughton uses several elements to complement cinematography ( the chief element used ), in

order to communicate his intended meaning. In this film the main message is the triumph of

Kindness and Goodwill over Greed and Wickedness, or Good over Evil.

This film offers excellent performances, especially from the main protagonist, preacher

Harry Powel, played by Robert Mitchum, as well as two other characters; the boy John Harper,

played by Billy Chapin and Mrs. Cooper, played by Lillian Gish.

In the film, the personification of Evil is very well accomplished by Mitchum. In fact, throughout

the film he manages to alternatively display wicked humour in various scenes; Malice as in the

scenes when he’s trying to get the “secret” from the little girl, and also when he lures the young

girl, Ruby, to get information about the children; Hypocrisy, when he is supposedly “talking to

the Lord” in his car, and when he almost bursts into fake tears twice when he says that his wife

has run away from him and left him alone with the children, and then again when he first meets

Mrs. Cooper and inquiries about the two children. At the same time, he shows a terrifying inner

war with himself due to his psychotic nature. This is shown in the the scenes when he is

watching the burlesque show, as well as his violent rejection when his new wife expresses her

desire to consummate their marriage. In general, his acting can be categorized as technical.

As far as the acting of Billy Chapin, this is a case of minimalist acting since throughout

most of the duration of the film his facial expressions are very restrained, seemingly as a result of

the shock he suffers with the dramatic arrest of his father, the loss of his mother and also because

of his profound distrust of the preacher.

When it comes to the performance of Lillian Gish, her attitudes, facial expressions and

demeanor in general do a great job at expressing the personification of Good, especially in

several scenes of tenderness and kindness that she shows when she interacts with all the children

under her protection and care.

Regarding the role of film structure, this film has a very good balance of long shots (the

scene showing the community, and the two children playing in the field), as well as a numerous

close-ups of the preacher, and medium shots of various characters engaged in conversation in

many of the scenes. On the other hand, we can observe high and low angles in the camera

positions, especially to portray the preacher as an ominous dominant figure, and the children

displaying their fear and vulnerability. There are quite a few scenes with twisted and

strange angles that remind us of typical German Expressionism.

Our third film to be discussed, The Conversation was directed by Francis Ford Coppola,

starring Gene Hackman as the main protagonist playing Harry Caul. Harry is an awkward, highly

introvert individual whose specializes in surveillance or eavesdropping. In the film, Harry claims

that his sole interest is to execute his assignments without getting involved with the

situation and the subjects of his surveillance assignments.

Here again, other than sound design being the chief element involved in expressing meaning,

there is a combination of other elements that will be discussed.

As far as acting is concerned, Hackman delivers an excellent performance. True to his

personality and role, Caul displays a minimalist type of acting since his facial gestures hardly

ever express any emotions. There is also some technical acting especially in the scenes where he

spends sometime in the hotel room eavesdropping while he is thinking that a crime is being

perpetrated. In these scenes Caul does show expressions of fear and paranoia.

In terms of editing, one salient element of editing is the use of a sequence ( long) shots in

the opening scene showing an aerial view of the square in San Francisco. Throughout the film

there are quite a few cuts but no fades or dissolves. Furthermore, because the conversation

revolves around the couple subject of the eavesdropping, the editor uses visual montage when

the camera is “following” the couple around the square. The style of editing is definitely

continuity editing since we can easily follow the story in a linear way. In order to express his

isolation, several long shots follow Caul moving through the streets alone, while close-ups of his

face reflect his fear, guilt and paranoia.

When it comes to production design, because of the nature of the plot, a very prominent

part of the sets used in the film are constituted by the working spaces where Harry Caul spends a

great deal of his acting time. In fact, there are so many scenes showing the sophisticated

surveillance equipment that Harry Caul uses, that all this hardware almost turns into “silent

actor” in the film.

There are no paintings or mattes or miniatures used in the film. Also, the shots

of the convention that Harry and his colleagues attend were made at an actual

surveillance equipment convention.

In conclusion, with the analysis of the three chosen films, we can observe that a combination

of the various elements of film structure were used. This strongly contributes to prove

the thesis of this essay: As opposed to the claim that films use only a chief element of film

structure in order to communicate meaning, most films use a combination of all the elements,

primarily because of the complex and rich artistic nature of film making as well as the narrative.