In Nuri Bilge Ceylan's Once Upon a Time in Anatolia, a team composed of a commissioner (YILMAZ ERDOGAN), a doctor (MUHAMMET UZUNER), a prosecutor (TANER BIRSEL) and a several others search the Anatolian steppes for the body of a murder victim. Due to the homogenous landscape, night and them being intoxicated at the time of burial, Suspects Kenan (FIRAT TANIS) and his mentally-challenged brother are unable to give the exact location of the corpse. In their downtime, the team discusses various subjects such as yoghurt, prostate health, their jobs and their family. As the night darkens, as do the men's conversations regarding sin, guilt and death. In the morning, the film solidifies it's grim themes, with one specific one being that children …show more content…
Using rack focus, the plane is clarified and we see three men on the other side of the glass drunkenly conversing. When one of them goes outside to feed a barking dog, Ceylan transitions to a wider shot, presenting a storm brewing over the horizon, indicating something more alarming than a hungry dog is about to transpire. To symbolize the longevity of the investigation Ceylan presents a shot of an apple flowing down a steam, with abrupt stops as it travels through the rocks. Ceylan repeatedly uses wide shots during the investigation, even in times of conflict. For instance, when the prosecutor is standing by himself, his body appears minuscule compared to the vast landscape. This juxtaposition suggests how little the investigation matters. Ceylan also alludes to the investigation's insignificance when the driver, doctor, the prosecutor and one police officers and Kenan are in the car. Since Kenan is in the middle seat, the audience's eyes are initially directed towards Kenan; however, as the scene progresses and the prosecutor talks to his wife on the phone, a low-key lightening on Kennan's face develops providing no visibility of his facial expression. With this divergence of attention Ceylan is suggesting that the murder investigation is inferior to the prosecutor's need for
Jhene Aiko Efuru Chilombo was born on the 16th March 1988 in Los Angeles, California USA. Her blood is mixed with various nations, having Spanish, American, African and Japanese descent. Her name is represented in the music industry. Her first endeavors were with the R&B group ?B2K?; however, recently she has embarked on a solo career as a singer and songwriter. Her first album titled ?Sailing Soul(s)? was released in 2011, and upon its release had a major critical success.
Not able to remember much about this particular part of the movie, I believe this introductory scene's purpose was to either enhance the realism of the setting by emphasizing the court building's efficient, business like manner or to provide a timeslot in which to roll the credits for producer, director, stars, etc. The settings aren't only built upon through the use of scenery and extras in the movie. Invisible and distant in the play, we see in the movie the judge, bailiff, those witnessing the trial and most importantly of all- the defendant. This is an important change because in the case, we are free to come up with our own unbiased conclusions as to the nature and identity of the defendant, whom we only know to be a 19 year boy from the slums. Seeing his haggard and worn face in the movie changes all of that, yet for better or worse, it engages the audience deeper into the trial as they surely will sympathize with him and can gain some insight into why, later, Juror 8 does so as well.
Zooming causes the audience to stare at the fix point, the note, compressing the world in the suspense of the scene. This scene ends with a fade cut, fading into black and returning from black. This creates the suspense that lets the audience know that something climactic will take place. This setting shows how as Jeff continues to piece together the puzzle, his case for Mrs. Thorwald’s murder becomes more inescapable, and eventually, Lisa and Stella become Jeff’s confidants.
Juror number eight is the main protagonist, he also a reserved with his thoughts, yet very strategic with them. He is the defender of the down trodden victim. He has a calm rational approach to everything and he reveals the gaps in the testimonies placed against the defendant. These examples would be; that the old man couldn’t have seen the boy run out of the house, as the old man had a limp and therefore could not make it to the door in time. The old lady across the road could have never saw the boy stab his father, due to she wasn’t wearing her glasses and it was pitch black. Number eight is a man that s...
Even before the jury sits to take an initial vote, the third man has found something to complain about. Describing “the way these lawyers can talk, and talk and talk, even when the case is as obvious as this” one was. Then, without discussing any of the facts presented in court, three immediately voiced his opinion that the boy is guilty. It is like this with juror number three quite often, jumping to conclusions without any kind of proof. When the idea that the murder weapon, a unique switchblade knife, is not the only one of its kind, three expresses “[that] it’s not possible!” Juror eight, on the other hand, is a man who takes a much more patient approach to the task of dictating which path the defendant's life takes. The actions of juror three are antagonistic to juror eight as he tries people to take time and look at the evidence. During any discussion, juror number three sided with those who shared his opinion and was put off by anyone who sided with “this golden-voiced little preacher over here,” juror eight. His superior attitude was an influence on his ability to admit when the jury’s argument was weak. Even when a fellow juror had provided a reasonable doubt for evidence to implicate the young defendant, three was the last one to let the argument go. Ironically, the play ends with a 180 turn from where it began; with juror three
Guilty or not guilty? This the key question during the murder trial of a young man accused of fatally stabbing his father. The play 12 Angry Men, by Reginald Rose, introduces to the audience twelve members of a jury made up of contrasting men from various backgrounds. One of the most critical elements of the play is how the personalities and experiences of these men influence their initial majority vote of guilty. Three of the most influential members include juror #3, juror #10, and juror #11. Their past experiences and personal bias determine their thoughts and opinions on the case. Therefore, how a person feels inside is reflected in his/her thoughts, opinions, and behavior.
The close up shot of the sheriff overlooking the people on the beach with the look of concern and distress, opposed to the family in the background, smiling and enjoying the nice sunny day. This shot of him explains his perturb feeling that he knows what awaits in the water, unlike everyone else. The long shot of the person floating in the middle of the sea exposed makes the audience feel relaxed but also cautious. Over the shoulder shot shows the attention is not on the man talking to the sheriff but on the woman in the sea, which was a false alarm, of the woman screaming, but also keeps the audience alert. Another long shot is shown when the children get up to go to sea, makes the audience anxious for danger that is about to happen.
This movie goes to show how such crucial facts and minuet evidence if not processed fully and clearly can change the outcome in such a big way. In this jury you have 12 men from all different walks of life, 12 different times, and 12 different personalities. Who have an obligation to come to one conclusion and that's whether or not the young man on trial is guilty of murdering his father or is innocent beyond a reasonable doubt. Under much frustration and lack of patience these 12 men began to get unruly and unfocused. Throughout this distraction key terms get misused, facts get turned around and more importantly emotions start to cross making it hard for these men to produce a verdict.
The police and car owner follow close behind him, trying to get the husband to pull over. The use of the single frame displays the husband’s dark silhouette as the camera focuses on the rearview mirror where the police can be seen gaining on him. It allows the viewer to take in both storylines simultaneously. The husband is still racing home to help his wife, but the police in the mirror also show the duality of his worries as they literally and figuratively hang over his shoulder. Meanwhile, in the mirror, the police are seen trying to grasp the husband in order to get him to stop. The two spaces for the characters gives the chance for the film to focus on the overall plot progression versus the time cut between the husband and the police separately. It decreases the amount of time that audiences spend on one character and their storyline instead it forces them to understand the dynamics of every storyline and how they interact with one
This creates a distorting view keeping Brody’s face in the same position but stretching and distorting the view behind him. This shot disorients the audience for a second indicating Brody’s own disoriented emotions when seeing the attack. This shot takes the air out of the situation and throws Brody right into action. Chief Brody’s fear of another shark attack has become reality. The scene then breaks out into complete chaos. A wide-angle lens is used and it shows how helpless Brody is to the situation as he and the rest of the crowd are forced to watch the boy be ripped apart. The scene ends with Alex’s raft washing up on the shore to lower the tension for the next scene.
...s the police sitting on the high chairs in the police station. Weine uses balanced composition in the film. For instance, Francis is in the police station talking to the police. In this scene Francis is in the middle and on both of sides there are equal amounts of policemen, stools, and triangular window.
First, policemen showed up at Alex’s home to tell him that his uncle died in a car crash. He knew he was about to receive bad news by “the way the police stood there” (Horowitz 2). Alex always knew his uncle to be a safe driver, so when
The plot of “Witness for the Prosecution” takes the viewer on a rollercoaster ride as the mystery of Emily French’s, a wealthy widow, murder unfolds in the courtroom. Leonard Vole visits the office of Sir Wilfrid for legal advice because he suspects that he will be arrested and charged with Mrs. French’s murder. Consequently, Vole’s suspicion came to fruition when he was arrested minutes are voicing his concerns. Sir Wilfrid accepted Vole’s case after he consults with a fellow barrister (attorney). Christine Helm, Vole’s wife and a former actress, graces Sir Wilfrid’s office with her presence to corroborate Vole’s story confirming his alibi. During the trial, Christine is not called as a witness for the defense; however, she is called as a witness for the prosecution. The mysterious death of Emily French resulted ...
The action begins when the men leave the women in the kitchen alone. This where Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters find out themselves find out who had kill Mr. Wright. For some unknown reason the women were acting like they were profession detectives, they were asking question and making conclusion. They were discussing the way the kitchen was left are the murder. For example, when Mrs. Peters was looking through the cupboard, she finds out that Mrs. Wright had bread set. Mrs. Hale concludes that Mrs. Wright was going to put the loaf of bread beside the breadbox. Another example is when Mrs. Peter notices that Mrs. Wright had been making a quit. They were asking question if Mrs. Wright making quilt or making a knot, like a professional detective. The men come back in the kitchen and overhear th...
This film really focuses on the characters. Their thoughts, anger, distress, and mistakes become part of your mistakes. This deals with a father’s s priority and how he will achieve that priority by using unethical ways like torturing an innocent man. Bringing up child abduction and torture are