Comparison of the 1953 and 2005 Versions of "War of the Worlds."

I've watched both version of "War of the Worlds," and as there both thrillers, I decided to compare them. Both films have similarities and differences between them. One of the first things I noticed was that in the older version of “War of the Worlds,” the mise-en-scene is a lot darker, especially at the beginning of the film when the first alien lands on earth. This connotes a feeling of coldness and isolation among the characters. However, this is a completely different concept with Spielberg’s version of the film, as he chooses a New York City mise-en-scene, which is filled with a much faster pace of life. It also has the ability to introduce all sorts of drama, as the city itself is a very busy place.
The way the alien is revealed in both films, are very different in terms of angle shots and atmosphere. For example, in Spielberg’s version of “War of the Worlds” there’s a huge build up with lightening storms, before any actual sightings of the alien. This is in contrast to the 1953 version of the film, when almost straight away you see a long shot of the alien crash into the rural setting. When the alien first appears in the 2005 version of the film, Spielberg has hundreds of people gathering around the open hole in the ground, while using a nice overshot of everyone’s heads. Suspense is created, by rapidly tracking the splitting road. As soon as the craft actually rises, immediately panic is among everyone, with Spielberg using plenty of over-shoulder and POV-shots, as a way of throwing the audience into the action themselves. There are zooming close-ups of Rays face, stating the shock that he is feeling and how vulnerable he must be, and uses helicopter shots to show how the big and “transformer like” the craft is in comparison with New York City. The tripods make sinister foghorn sounds to rally its comrades. This connotes that the foghorn is a way of communicating with each other, which is actually what animals also do, especially as a call for help.
However Pal uses a completely different approach, as the actual mise-en-scene is very dark and dreary, with only a few people actually present when the craft reveals itself. Before this happens, there are no signs of people panicking; in fact, they are looking at the possible commercial value of it. The build up is more slow and comical. When the alien does emerge, Pal uses a close-shot of the blinking eye, as it rises up almost like a sinister plant. The camera positions itself behind the crafts neck, using a high-angle-over-shoulder-shot, making the victims seem small and helpless. There are long shots of red smoke and the first sign of destruction as there’s a blast of heat-ray, much to the victim’s surprise. There aren’t any non-diegetic sounds; instead Pal wants the audience to focus purely on the sounds which the craft makes itself, which emphasises the use of sci-fi iconography. When the alien craft is also the first shown, it makes an electronic beeping sound, which connotes a sort of radar examining the area for hostiles.
Spielberg continues to create suspense very cleverly, as he uses the reflections from car windows to almost trick the audience, and Rapid cutting is used to create fear and panic among the victims. There are spectacular long shots of the alien all the way throughout the film, making the craft seem massive and over powering. However the pace of Pal’s version of the film is much slower and panic is only really emerged after the vaporisation of human beings.
Pal’s version of the film is also very Stereotypical, as the all the way throughout the film, the woman is portrayed as a typical 50’s subservient woman i.e. “fetching the tea” and looking after the men. She is also shown which was again typical of the 50’s as a screaming, vulnerable heroine. However, this aspect has been cut completely from the 2005 version of “War of the World’s,” as any female audience watching the film would be insulted by such stereotyping. This proves how attitudes to how women are viewed since the older version of the film.
Film companies today are under great pressure to make huge profits, so it is essential for the ultimate success of the film to cast big names. (Star Theory) Tom Cruise, although portrayed as a husband with a failed marriage his wholesome American appearance still shows him to be a stereotypical caring and ultimately heroic father. In the 1953 version, Gene Barry was not a father but more of a sex symbol to encourage the female audience. Interestingly, the main difference between the two films is that the heroine in the later version is not an adult, but a little girl. (Dakota Fanning)
50 years on in Spielberg’s film there is no longer a threat from communism. (Pal suggests the red eye of the 1953 alien connotes the under lying fear of most Americans of the USSR). However is Spielberg’s alien invasion suggestive of America’s and the worlds new under lying fear of Muslim extremism?

The Grudge

I recently just watched a horror film called "The Grudge" as I was trying to compare a horror film with a thriller film. I have to say, my overall feelings about the grudge is that it was a chilling film, but with a poor narrative. The reason why I felt it was a chilling film, is for the number of thriller signifiers involved and the use of graphics creating suspense.

For instance, the first thing that I noticed about "The Grudge" is the actual DVD cover. (As shown right) It instantly caught my attention, as the overall colour black connotes danger, mystery and psychological horror. It's a very darkening colour. The title is the only thing in red, which again connotes danger, and it sticks out against the overall Mise-en-scene of the demented looking girl. The way the girls one eye is looking directly into the camera shot, means she is wearing a direct-mode-of-address, which captures the readers attention, and draws them into looking at the films. Her long black hair covers most of her face, leaving her actual appearance up to the readers imagination.

The actual plot of the film isn't very clever, as it mainly just involves a series of gruesome incidents occurring in one house, and Sarah Michelle Gellar as the main actress playing an American nurse in Japan. However, what makes this a scary watch is for starters the music. You can instantly tell when something is about to happen, as the music quickens and grows louder, and even though this is quite a cliche thing to do in horrors, it still works. The graphics of the actual girls face is chilling, and the main scene which sticks in my head is the one where Sarah Michelle Gellar stands alone in a hospital. The lights keep flickering on and of which is a known thriller signifier, and you keep hearing noises but see no faces, which again, leaves it up to the audiences imagination of whats about to happen. The whole ward is deserted, and of course its night time which makes it even scarier. Also, the whole Mise-en-scene of the actual house where nearly the whole movie is based around, is quite cleverly done. It has plenty of levels and windy staircases which are also known thriller signifiers. Most of the scenes are shot in dark, and the people in the house at the time are lead to this one place in the loft by a series of mysterious noises such as babies crying and creaks. You also have quick mid shots of the shadow of the girl who spreads around this deadly "curse." There are several other chilling scenes, and you witness other people dying in mysterious ways, which can lead a shiver to the spine!

Overall, I do recommend people to watch this movie as it is a good film to watch, but I have seen better horror films.

My First Blog Entry

From looking at the thriller genre so far over the past few weeks in Media Studies, I've become impressed with all the different types of thriller signifiers there are included in films. For example, before studying this area of films, I never focused on the small features that actually complete a thriller. For instance, all the car chases and twisting narratives keep me interested in the film. Thriller signifiers are the techniques that make a thriller a thriller, and without them, the film would be boring and not even worth watching. It's also the sort of themes involved that produce a thriller, such as weather it contains mystery or danger. Before studdying thrillers more closely, I didn't realise how strong the stereotypes were, for instance how women are used for there sexuality which connotes danger and destruction, and how men are potrayed as big and powerful. In modern day times, this would be precieved as sexists. Also, I've been watching more thriller films at home lately, but ones that were made in the 1950's, where-as before I always thought the older style were boring and they didn’t engage my interest. However, I now actually think there more interesting, despite the graphics that are used in modern thrillers.

However, my favourite genres of films are still "Rom-Com" as they always make me feel happy and not think about any problems. I also find them light hearted. This is why I prefer them to thrillers. But before, I never really distinguished the difference between horrors and thrillers, where-as now I realise horror films are gorier, where-as thrillers are there to create suspense. For example, the extras such as shadows, staircases and night time scenes complete the thriller genre.

Therefore, so far I'm really enjoying looking at this topic in Media Studies, and I look forward to studying even more types of films, and going into them in more detail. Although I'm concerned at the fact from now on ill never be able to enjoy a film without analysing it! I now find myself looking at the stereotypes, genre, mise-en-scene and symbolic codes.

A the moment, there isn’t an area which I'm finding difficult in Media Studies, apart from trying to remember to write down notes during films, as before I'm used to just watching the films for enjoyment. However, in the future I'm going to try and learn to combine the both!