BSA 206 S2W1 : Scene Analysis

So in class we watched a breakdown that some people on Youtube made for Indiana Jones to serve as an example of what we should be doing for our own directors - I have already expressed this but I wish SIT had it's own resources to draw from and didn't have to go to outside sources like this youtube video made by people who aren't even qualified. Nothing they say in the video is factually incorrect (that I know of), the problem lies more with the fact that I already saw this years ago when they made it and I can imagine many others have too, it feels like I'm not really learning anything new. I understand if this is what they want us to do, but would be nice to see an example that actually came out of SIT. Maybe in future some more original content can be created by SIT, it's a small problem but I just hate when we watch video essays or videos from NoFilmSchool.com in class, it just feels a bit redundant at that point.

Having said that I really enjoyed the video, it's well made and gives good information, wish there was a bit more of a focus on the filmmaking and how things are clearly or cleverly communicated to the audience, especially since we are focusing on the director, but it is a very nice video and I will take inspiration from it and apply the same things to my chosen director. The thing that surprised me most about this video was how much it went into the historical background of the film, outside of just the scene, I will do the same for Unbreakable and Shyamalan.



So here is a quick breakdown of the video, I will follow the same steps and investigate the same things, as this is of course an example of what we are supposed to be doing:

1) Very quick intro

It's one of the most mysterious, creeping and subtle opening scenes of all time, this is M. Night Shyamalan's first exposure to the public after his critical and financial darling that was the Sixth Sense. His chance to prove he wasn't just a one trick pony - today we're taking an in-depth look at the opening of Unbreakable.

2) Origins

M. Night Shyamalan conceived the idea for Unbreakable even during the filming of his previous movie, already offering star Bruce Willis a part in what he at the time described as a "very cool idea he had". So impressed with Shyamalan's efforts on Sense Willis already signed on to it, this was the kind of clout that Shyamalan had built up for himself with his breakout horror movie The Sixth Sense. With his film grossing more than 600 million dollars at the box office and snagging 6 oscars Shyamalan was thrown from complete obscurity into the rare position of having anything he makes next be financed, the pressure and expectation was extreme, but Shyamalan just wanted to get right back into his next film and prove to the world that he was more than a one hit wonder.

You have to understand that at this point in Shyamalan's career he was being praised as the next Spielberg, a true auteur, and with only one film under his belt. All this went to his head somewhat and this is where you see the cocky and up his own ass Shyamalan that he has become so infamous for being (show clip where he sucks himself off), he had changed his perception of himself so much towards being a kind of prophet or poet that his movies started reflecting this as well - later culminating with the lady in the water where he plays a man destined to save the world with his writing. You'll see this present in the scenes in Unbreakable, where every technical choice seems to be a commentary on his own writing style.



The story at the beginning was much larger than what it ultimately ended up being, even incorporating Mcavoy's character from Split at one point, but Shyamalan thought it more interesting to narrow down the focus just to what is traditionally the first act of this type of story and focus the whole movie on just that (show clip where he says this).



So the whole movie would be what is usually the worst part of superhero movies - the origin story, a subversion for sure.

3) While there were some holdovers from the Sixth Sense, like the leading man Willis, a lot changed from Shyamalan's breakout hit to Unbreakable, big roles like Editor and Cinematographer changed hands, lending a somewhat different style to the film.

 DOP Tak Fujimoto - a personal fav of mine, known for his work on Silence of the Lambs and Gladiator - wasn't available for Unbreakable, being occupied with the Keanue reeves and gene hackman critical disaster The Replacements. He was replaced by Spanish photographer Eduardo Serra, who lended a much more steely look to the film, something also present in his later work on the final Harry Potter movies. Although such a major cog in the filmmaking machine was replaced the style of the movie stayed very close to what Shyamalan established in The Sixth Sense, if anything it became more extreme, with slow pans and static shots heavily present. The biggest difference I see is in lighting and colour, with Fujimoto's being more natural and Serra's being more monochromatic and drab.The similarities are probably due to Night's reliance on storyboards.


4) Some kind of quote on what Shyamalan wanted to achieve with Unbreakable.

Of course the movie didn't go on to nearly as well as Sixth Sense no matter how hard Shyamalan tried, no oscar nominations and disappointing box office numbers, Unbreakable didn't receive the love it most likely deserved until much later, now being considered a classic alongside Sixth Sense, some even feeling that its Shyamalan's best film. Tarantino did get this at the time, but he's a fucking weirdo. Like if you see a quote from Tarantino on a DVD cover you don't really take it to heart, specially if its an Eric Roth movie.




The movie suffered from an odd marketing campaign, from a studio who believed entirely in Shyamalan, enough so to give him free creative reign, but not enough to believe that audiences would go see a superhero movie. Times were very different.



Quote from this video where he says that when he made Unbreakable comic book movies were very niche.

5) Completing the visual look of the film was production designer Larry Fulton (a Shyamalan mainstay), Art Director Steve Arnold (going on to work on the biggest superhero movie of its time - Spider-Man) and costume designer Joanna Johnston who worked with Shyamalan and the actors to create a specific look for each character (show quote about colour pops) with the two major players each having a distinct associative colour, something that becomes even more prominent in the sequel Glass. Sam Jackson actually asked for purple, no idea why he's so obsessed with this colour, he did the same thing for star wars.

6) Breakdown

Before Fading in from black, a baby can be heard crying. This introduces the technique of O.S (off-screen) sound. It helps create a sense of place before ever seeing it, adds to the building atmosphere and helps smooth the transition from black to moving image.

This already builds a sense of mystery as we wonder what the event is all about. The unbroken take helps maintain the escalation of tension throughout the scene. 

As the people enter the first example of flipping perspective is demonstrated, Shyamalan does this multiple times during the opening scene. In this example the mirror doubles as a hallway, it’s reflecting the larger department store, it’s only when the doctor and women enter that the audience is made aware of this truth.

As the camera pans the audience realize they were looking at a second mirror the whole time, and that the shot is constructed very differently than it initially appeared. Again an example of twisted perspective.. 

This serves two purposes: 1) It helps the blocking maintain the long unbroken take, multiple setups are truncated into one movement and 2) it reinforces the idea that the audience’s point of view cannot be trusted at first sight, there is always important information reserved that the audience is not made aware of. 

The lingering shot maintains the thinning suspense.

When he asks the first big shock of the scene "did you drop him" the camera moves laterally for the first time since the scene started, helping emphasize the line and finally breaking away from the mirror or any reflections.

This moment needs to be emphasized because it is the point where its made clear something is not normal here.

The camera keeps moving to the right, even when the doctor is looking at the other characters in the mirror the audience now sees them as they really are, not represented through a reflection. This shows that the scene is not tied to the doctor’s point of view. 

Traditionally the camera should have swung back left to follow the doctor’s gaze and place the audience in his head, instead it moves in the opposite direction, resulting in both a subversion of expectation and the reinforcement that the scene is unfolding from an omniscient point of view.

After the title it opens on a shot of the protagonist, sitting in a train staring out the window, he if reflected in it. Connecting the scenes with the presence of reflections, an important theme in the work as it reinforces the idea of how one sees themselves. David Dunn, the protagonist, spends the movie learning that he is not the man he thought himself to be.

He moves away and through a gap in the seats sees a young girl upside down, he cranes his neck to see her right side up. After a moment of observation he moves back to his original position, we see a wedding band on his finger.

This section once again reinforces the whole idea of perspective, the way the main character alters his own point of view to try and see that of the young girl, as well as the control of information with the audience not being made aware of the wedding band at first until just before it becomes a relevant plot device. 

A young woman's voice asks if he's alone, he says 'yeah' and she puts her baggage in the above head compartment, she is wearing a short cut shirt with her midriff showing. The camera moves laterally again to show that the main character is looking directly at this before he averts his gaze. He takes off his wedding ring.

The viewer is made aware of his thought process simply through his body language and what information is provided on screen.

Shyamalan's style seems to be very much about what is and what isn't told to the audience.

The use of the seats in the train for example: it hides a lot of the frame and only gives the audience the right information when they are required to know it - the wedding ring tells us that Dunn is married, he knows this the entire scene but the viewers are only made aware seconds before the lady joins him.

This translates to the larger picture of Shyamalan's work, where he likes using twist endings that reveals something new about the plot, shedding the rest of the story in a different light.

The shot with the little girl is interesting because it's from Dunn's perspective, but then one also has to wonder whether or not the whole scene isn’t playing out from her point of view. Perspective is a very obvious theme in this scene, with the presence of reflections and Dunn craning his head to try and see the world as the little girl does.

As a director Shyamalan is all about what the audience is allowed to see and how they experience the film, fitting that this opening scene has that represented in spades. Even more importantly however is what it says about the film on a larger scale. Unbreakable is about the extraordinary found within the ordinary, it’s about a man coming to see himself in a different light. The opening scene works to foreshadow this and places the audience in the same situation of the main character, forcing their own perspective to be questioned. 

By constantly subverting what the audience think they are seeing, Shyamalan creates the same emotional response that the character goes on to experience throughout the film. 

The slow camera movements that reveal the change on perspective or that reveal important plot elements echo how the truth dawns on the main character. It’s not a sudden realisation, rather a drawn out epiphany.

The film takes a stark omniscient viewpoint, as illustrated by the opening with the doctor, but Shyamalan uses the filmmaking to place the viewer in the shoes of the main character, even going as far as to create the same emotional response as felt by the character.

________________________________________________