This week we've moved on to do ideas generations sessions with our teachers. On Tuesday we were set a task called 'Post Secrets' whereby we were given a postcard each which had an image and a secret written on it which we had to base our ideas around: we had to write a 100 word film synopsis based for a micro-short film, then we swapped with the person next to us. I swapped with Jerome. We then had to write our own little secret on a postcard and draw an image to go with the secret and a 100 word film synopsis for our secret. The point of the exercise was to show us that multiple ideas could sprout from one stimulus.
Our second session of ideas generation was on Tuesday when Mr Collins wasn't in. Ms Pemberton took the lesson. We were told to draw 3 columns and 4 rows of circles; we could draw anything in them. We were timed and when the time was up, we saw each others' drawings. Some of us drew inside the circle and abided the rules, others drew outside the circle. The morale is: creativity shouldn't have limitations. I drew outside the circle, so nothing new learned there.
The second task of Wednesday's session was to come up with a verb/noun/adjective. Once we had written the verb/noun/adjective, we were to fold the piece of paper up and pass it along to the next person. The idea was to unconsciously come up with the weirdest sentence ever. I learned that film makers draw their inspiration sometimes from peculiar ideas sometimes.
The third task set was a task similar to that of a guessing game. Each person came up with a routine and a halt in their normal routine. We guessed the scenarios - but it took a pretty long time because some of the reasons were hard to guess. The task taught us to look deeper in to things, moreover, to be creative when it comes to thinking up scenarios and have an open mind.
Despite these tasks, they gave me no new ideas that I didn't already have - but they did teach me to approach things differently and have an idiosyncratic way of thinking.
The internet is one of the many forms of media that we have, fortunately. It provides a cheaper alternative in distribution than any other form would. Short-film websites include:
Coffee Shorts
The BBC Film Network
Virgin Media Shorts
Warp
Atom Films
Silver Films
......then there are websites for user-created content, but professionals and amateurs use them alike:
YouTube
Vimeo
YouSendIt
Flickr
Daily Motion
and many more. The internet makes short-films a huge success story because everything's so easily accessible and free. The difference between the websites which allow user-created content to be uploaded freely and the professional short-film websites lies in the purpose. Websites like YouTube are a tool for mass-media and users who are interested in other peoples' content. Professional short-film websites such as the BBC and Virgin Media shorts are actually companies which serve to distribute the works of those who are competing to get in to the film industry. Amateurs and first timers use these as tools to showcase their work. Their films compete, unlike the user-generated content websites such as YouTube.
Short-films on the internet have an equal amount of chance to promote aspiring film makers as a portfolio does. They result in loads of success stories, for instance: Virgin Media Short winners (top 12) have their short-films showcased before feature-length films in UK cinemas nationally. 'Panic Attack' is another success story: advertising director Frederico Alvarez, signed up to the Visual Effects blog on www.motiongrapher.com and posted a short-film he made of a robot attacking a city. He received calls from Hollywood within days of it being online. Now he's on to making a sci-fi feature-film due to be released next year.
Young people use the internet a lot, 16-24 year olds are the prime age group and with so many on social networking sites like Facebook or MySpace, where there is so much access to videos and people can post links to videos on the internet, it means that young people are more subjected to online short-films than adults and older people. We could see an uprise in the number of young people who make short films in the future.
Whilst feature-films are commercial and are exhibited in cinemas in order to make money grow on trees, short-films are a much more feasible option for any purpose. Short-films on the internet could be a huge hit in the UK - especially with the cuts being made: meaning that less British feature-films can be made and less film stock ordered by exhibitors. Whether short-film will be a worldwide success is unknown, but what gains popularity in Britain is also recognised as a success story in other countries.
Aspirational film makers can elevate their careers so speedily on the internet because everybody uses it; whilst the internet can't guarantee success for short films, the internet is definitely one of the main causes for the uprise.
This is another way of exhibiting short-films. Short-film festivals are a chance for aspiring/amateur and student film makers to get their work noticed. The festivals work just like an average film festival would, but short-film festivals only accept short-films. There are subcategories for some short-film festivals, but most accept all genres of short-films.
London Short Film Festival
Is a 10 day short-film festival founded by Philip Ilson in 1994, sponsored by the UK Film Council. It has changed its name once: from The Halloween Society Short Film Festival to The London Short-Film Festival in 2008. It used to be a monthly film screening, up until 2003 when it became a film festival.
It now screens only UK work and has expanded with its venues and film genres that it accepts. As from this year, it's going to put the winning films on to the BFI Archive. It showcases 250 short films and has over 11 venues plus nearly 10, 000 audience members. The Times describes it as "A London bastion of cutting-edge short-films and multimedia".
There are different awards for different categories. The Best Film of the Festival winner is the ultimate winner. 2010 nominees were:
THE BEDFORDS (Henry Coombes) BELIEVE (Paul Wright) JADE (Daniel Elliot) KID’S MIGHT FLY (Alex Taylor) LAST TRAIN (David Schofield) THE REAPERS (Nick Jordan / Jacob Cartwright) RED SANDS (David Proctor) STRANGE LIGHTS (Rosie Pedlow / Joe King) THE WAKE (Loren Slater / Kerry Kolbe) YOU’RE THE STRANGER HERE (Tom Geens)
Ultimately, the winner was 'You're the Stranger Here' directed by Tom Geens.
Future Shorts Festival
Started in 2003 and has "a rapidly expanding network that allows film makers the opportunity to have their work seen on the largest theatrical platform worldwide". It's recognised by the media as an avant garde short-film festival. Not only do Future Shorts hold short-film festivals in the UK, but they do it worldwide. Their website claims to have 90 cities and 19 countries in their expanding network. They hold regular festivals.
This works differently to any other film festival: film makers only have to enter their work once in to the contest for their shorts to be exhibited worldwide. Some films are even selected as part of the monthly programme, which comprises of 15 UK venues, theatrical venues and none-theatrical venues.
Films are normally screened in the old-fashioned style, with live music, performers and other exhibits. There's not just one winner to this event, there are multiple winners.
This is an independent short-film production company, based in the UK. They also distribute their films after they produce them.
The founders of the company are Max Mulvany and Samuel Vincent, both in their early 20s.
Their films are shot on a low-budget, so it's a production company for aspiring film makers rather than film makers looking to make a little bit of money.
The production company targets young people primarily; they make a wide variety of films and have links to many websites so that people can visit their website:
They offer a free download service to download short-films from their website. Surrealist Studios has made over 8 short-films. Their short films have been screened at YourScreenEvent, Bath Pre-loader Competition and Wiltshire Film Festival.
My favourite director of all time: Christopher Nolan (born 30 July, 1970) is a British-American director. He was born in London to an English father who had the occupation of an advertising copywriter and an American mother, whose occupation was as a flight attendant. He developed a fascination with film making when he was barely 7 years old. He used his dad's Super 8mm camera, playing out scenarios with his action figures. Moving to Chicago didn't hinder his passion for film making as he made short films with Roko Belic.
Nolan studied for an English Literature degree at University College London. He also advanced with his film making, shooting his films on a 16mm camera at the same university.
His first short film was called 'Tarantella' (1989). He's directed two other notable shorts before hitting up feature-length mainstream films: 'Larceny' and 'Doodlebug' (the latter is part of the Cinema 16 short film collection whilst the former was screened at the 1996 Cambridge Film Festival).
His degree in English Literature and action toys he used to play with as a child may explain why he's so narrative oriented when it comes to film.
Whilst he directs feature-films and some of them are cliche, his films don't comply with the codes and conventions of films structurally. He notably meddles with structure; so his films are a mental puzzle-box. Nolan works mainly under the mainstream commercial production company Warner Brothers. He's been nominated for and won a ginormous amount of film awards in his career in the film industry.
The awards he's won are multitudinous, amongst them are an MTV Award for Best New Film Maker, a 2 Saturn Awards for Best Writing, 2 Empire Awards for Best Director. Nolan is a testament to film.
This short film, 'Doodlebug' below is one of a few which he directed.
The titles are cleverly made up, with the two 'oo's in 'doodle' as a pair of eyes, resembling someone looking for something; they come first before the film - in his later films he makes a habit of using a pre-title sequence in order to set up the film's plot. It zooms out and we realise that the eyes in the title graphics were the man's. There's no speech from the one character in the film. The film depends on the visuals and the music to tell the story.
The music is synthesised and cryptic in tone. The lighting is low-key, making it shadowy. Christopher Nolan has done this intentionally so that we can't see much of what the man's trying to look at. The colour of the film is black and white even though film cameras were capable of colour films as early as the 1940s. This is clearly a directorial choice. Before we know what he's attempting to catch, we hear the diegetic sound of a ticking clock faintly in the background - the alarm rings all-of-a-sudden - startling us and startling the man. The alarm is in fact the sound of a telephone ringing. He picks it up and as he gets more anxious - dukes it in water; the reason as to why he does that is left ambiguous. We see a second close-up zoom of the ticking clock, symbolising a time-limit, but for what? It cuts to an extreme-close-up of the phone sound-waves bubbling in the water. It could represent the claustrophobia he feels - after all, we know that he's trying to catch a bug.
The camera tracks the man as he tries to catch the 'bug'. High-angle shots are used to maximum effect: to show the man's vulnerable and petrified state of mind. Worms-eye shots are used a lot in this film too, so that the audience can see where the bug in and track it as he tries to catch it. When the man finally uncovers it, we realise that 'the bug' is actually a miniature version of him - hence the reason he's been unsuccessful in killing it. But as the bug copies his every movement (high-angle shots to show him and the bug simultaneously) we assert that as there's a miniature version of himself copying his every movements, there might be a larger version of himself who will be trying to squish him.
He squishes the miniature version of himself with his shoe, and our suspicions are confirmed as we see a larger version of himself squish him with the shoe that he used to squish the miniature version. The man has brought it upon himself and the moral of the story is simple: what goes around comes around. This expression is based on Newton's Third Law of Motion. Without getting too philosophical, this is a politically incorrect view to hold, none-the-less, it's a morale. This is a short, but extremely visually effective film and as with most of Christopher Nolan's films, the visual content is awe-inspiring and thought provoking, it proves that he uses mis-en-scene to maximum effect.
To find out more about Christopher Nolan, visit his fansite:
http://www.nolanfans.com/
Brian Percival is another illustrious example of a short-film director who's gone on to pursue larger feature-length films. His career in film debuted with his first short film 'About a Girl'. He's gone on to direct TV films too - 'A Boy Called Dad' will be his second film, first feature-length film. Everything he has directed has so far been similar in style: people dealing with personal issues and relationships that people develop with one another.
So far he's received one BAFTA for Best Short Film and that was with 'About A Girl'.
His most recent and only feature-film - 'A Boy Called Dad' was released last year.
Notice how it's similar narratively to 'About A Girl'. This yet again shows that short film is a ground for experimentation and if successful, can become a basis for ideas in feature-length films.
Andrea Arnold (born April 5, 1961 in Dartford, England) is a British director of short film. She was raised in a council estate - the eldest of 4 children and attended the American Film Institute, based in Los Angeles. She recently made a breakthrough with her feature-length film 'Red Road' (2006).
Andrea started out in TV, programmes she worked on spanned from 'Top of the Pops' - her first TV career - as a dancer, to children's TV programmes and sitcoms on Saturday morning TV. She then moved on from starring in TV programmes to directing short films. She's directed:
Arnold has won herself 2 BAFTAs, a British Independent Film Award (Fish Tank) and an Academy Award for Best Live Action Short Film (Wasp). Her inspirations and upbringing have been inflicted on her style in her films. She says "No matter what happens to you in your life, all around you there are amazing things."
In class, we've watched one of her films - 'Wasp'.
Last Tuesday, our preliminary task was set by Ms Pemberton. It was to film:
A character opening a door
Sitting down next to/opposite another character
Exchange of dialogue
We needed to have a match on action, shot reverse shot and 180 degree rule edit in the film and we had to make it as interesting as possible, with as many unique and interesting angles as we could fit in.
I was put in a group of 3: me, Roisin and Rochelle. We made all the necessary checks: the settings were on manual and all of the equipment was in the bag, so we headed off to film last Thursday.
We decided to film a sequence where Rochelle walks to the bathroom, the camera tracks her and she enters. Then Roisin follows and the same camera techniques are used for Roisin. Our filming required me to go in the girl's bathroom because I was the camera man and the setting was in the girl's bathroom. In the story, they had an argument over mints. Roisin, in the story, stormed out of the bathroom and Rochelle followed her, Roisin hit her and Rochelle fell down.
We used a good variety of shots and the camera seemed to work when we filmed with it, but when I played it back over on the camera, it paused. We tested it on the computer. Initially, we thought that there was something wrong with the way we uploaded the footage, but on handing the camera over to the technician (Ashley) we came to the conclusion that there was something wrong with the camera.
The next day, we filmed with a different camera and it worked well. The story was far more interesting and light-hearted in tone than the last one was: Rochelle's fish (Fred) had died. Roisin came over to console Rochelle, and while Rochelle was crying, Roisin called her a "bitch", so she pretends to care but deep down she doesn't care about Rochelle's dead fish. We used a good variety of shots and adhered to all of the editing techniques that we were asked to use, but when we filmed it, there was one key shot of Roisin and Rochelle's face that I, as camera-man, missed out. All in all though, from a visual aspect it cut in all the right places, our music undermined the sad tone of the film, which we wanted, to make it humorous and it wasn't "too OTT" as Ms Pemberton remarked when she watched ours.
Roisin, Rochelle and I worked well as a team. We all exerted equal amounts of effort in to the task set and agreed, took in to consideration each others' views and pulled aside our differences to make a very good preliminary piece of work. I found out that I like working with different people and I appreciate their unique ideas -some of which I never thought about. Ultimately though, I feel I want to work by myself on the actual short film so that I can make my own idea reality without it being challenged by someone else.
'Avant Garde' is a French phrase, translating as 'ahead of the crowd', but could also be considered as an adjective. It is purely experimental and idiosyncratic in relation to the codes and conventions of feature-length films. Avant Garde is a movement, brought about in the mid-20th century as an anti-mainstream stance. The phrase is an accreditation to all film auteurs. It marks a new era film and shuns out all aspects of the mainstream doctrine. Ever since the inception of avant garde, it has been a dawning prodigy and it has traits in contemporary film, art-house film and indi film.
One such example of an Avant Garde director is Maya Deren (April 29, 1917 - October 13, 1961). She was part of the key to the Avant Garde movement. She made films throughout the 1940s and 50s. One of her most well known films is Meshes of the Afternoon. She says "I make my pictures for what Hollywood spend on lipstick.". Her focus is on the story rather than making commercial success.
Meshes of the Afternoon (1943) begins with the very symbolic shot of a flower being put on the floor. The flower is a representation of life, blooming. We then see a tracking shot of a woman's shadow approaching the flower; it cuts to a closer shot of her shadow, overshadowing the flower. We see her hand pick the flower up. The music of a harp and flute playing make it a dream-like sequence. We only see her shadow and hands - never the rest of her body. The camera tracks her feet as she walks upstairs - her identity still unknown. She comes to a door, but the key falls out her hand. The camera does a lot of tracking: it has already tracked her shadow for the duration of her journey and now it's tracking her in to the house. From her POV we see the seemingly desolate house.
Our attention is drawn to a knife, just left in the bread. It falls out. The knife suggests to us that she's going to get stabbed at some point. The film's graphic and suggestive in a visual sense. We hear the none-diegetic sound of a drum banging, which gives the scene a buildup. She goes up to her bedroom to see a window open and the curtain wafting about. There are close-ups of minor detail such as a telephone randomly laying on the staircase and a flower. The close-up of these objects reverberate the actions later to happen in the film. The flower laying on the staircase suggests that the woman's life will be taken later on. This idea is reinforced by the woman in the black cloak (representing the grim reaper) taking the flower with her.
The woman goes downstairs, sits in a chair and we see an extreme close-up of her eye closing: she's dreaming. We go in to her mind. We see a wide-shot of a winding path in a wood. A tribal humming is heard as the camera zooms out through a funnel. The tribal humming gives the film a raw feel, a contest feel. We see a woman dressed in black, walking on the path. Her cloak gives her ambiguity but we can't make out her features. Since we've seen an image of a flower - and this woman's dressed in black, she could represent the grim reaper. When she turns around, her face is completely white. We can't see her face. Her inhumane presence is creepy.
The woman in her dream runs after this cloaked woman as she stole her flower and the woman might want to find out the identity of the cloaked woman. The dream sequence is inter-wined with reality - but we can't tell which is which. In the film, we see a woman entering the house where the woman we saw at the beginning, is sleeping. Around the table are 2 other woman. The 3rd woman picks up a knife and goes to stab the sleeping woman. When the sleeping woman finally wakes up, we wonder if she's still dreaming because she is woken up by a man. Somehow, we know that everything is not as it seems. The man leads her to bed, she throws a knife at the man and his image shatters. However, in the next few shots, we see that same man walking towards the house and upon entering, finding her dead. This is where the film ends.
The film relies on symbolic close-ups being used conjunctly, so that we can associate one object with the next and this moves the plot on, without the need for any dialogue. Slow-motion and stop-motion are used for dramatic effect. The film doesn't use any background music with the visuals - in feature films, there'd be dramatic music to go along with the visuals to give it emotion. This film shows that music isn't needed where there are good visuals. No music gives the film an eerie tone because the visuals are so dramatic, but they don't explain enough on their own - so the viewer is left to speculate.
Shots are often repeated, such as the shot of the telephone, the key and the knife which crops up a couple of times. The camera moves so as to give the film that dream feel that happens when you go to sleep. There's only two pieces of background music for the film: one for the dream feel with the harp and flute and the other is that tribal raw humming that we hear whenever the cloaked woman comes. The visuals give the viewer a sense of heedlessness, that you'd get in a dream. The audience is left to figure out what's going on and it gets you to think harder because there's no dialogue.
Themes crop up during the film, such as life being taken (woman in cloak stealing the flower) and forbidden fruit (key being taken out of a woman's mouth) like in Adam and Eve. This whole short film is Biblical in meaning. The absence of dialogue makes it more interesting because it makes the brain work harder to solve the hidden meaning. It resembles horror in the intensity of the film and how it stupefies the audience at the end when we find out that the woman has actually been murdered and all those close-ups of the symbolic objects that we thought to be vagrant actually meant something. 'Meshes of the Afternoon' can definitely be traced in style and elements in it to contemporary feature films that we are used to seeing in cinemas today.
There has always been an idea that has inspired and determined what is made in short films nowadays. Short films were the starting point for any kind of film that we see today. This is the history of short films:
1895 - La Sortie de Usine - by the Lumiere brothers was the first ever film to be released. It was also the first ever commercial film to be released, to a paying audience. It was only 1 minute due to technical restrictions. Their other film - L'Arrivée d'un train à la Ciotat - was the first film to have camera movement (panning).
and in 1902 the first short film with narrative was released. Shot in black and white, but the frames were coloured over in post-production. Directed by George Méliès, it's called Le Voyage dans la Lune.
Other films competed, aiming to supersede their predecessors.
1910 - the term 'short subjects' was coined. It became a phenomenon amongst audiences because they could go to see multiple short films. This was a major breakthrough in film because it entertained numerous people.
1930s - Hollywood - short films start to turn in to feature films.
Narrative became a popular thing and this was needed for feature films. 'Classical Narrative' as it was known as - 90 minutes or more (feature film).
1960s - 80s - TV was invented, which gave people an alternative. They had film in their lounge and could stay home to take care of the family. Nuclear family was the main priority for the majority in post-war Britain. Short film eventually came back, however, it was darker in theme. Focus wasn't primarily on commercial success anymore, but narrative.
Modern contemporary short film has massively progressed on since then, with CGI being the main development followed by enhancements in image and sound; narrative has developed too. Fundamentally however - short film has elements that you can date back to the last century.
A week ago, we were set a task to find a short film that we were inspired by on the internet and show it to everyone: today we're showing it to everyone. The task was set because I think the teacher wanted us to think about what makes a short film good. The selection from JPr is:
Alex - Sorry I'm Late
Jerome - Skin Deep
Katie - Slap
Roisin - Spin
Me - Sign Language
Emma - Envy
Carla - New Boy
Sign Language
This is the film that I chose. I chose this film because it was a very uplifting film and about someone's passion for their work and how it made something so boring actually very interesting. It's shot with an average camera - Canon 7D and edited in Final Cut Pro and After Effects. The film had an incredible shooting budget of £237 (not including the camera used to film and the editing software) altogether, the production budget would've come to just under £5000. The 5 minute short film is documentary style and it was short-listed by Virgin Media shorts for the best short film of 2010.
It begins with the man, called Ben, stating "Yeah. My work place is wonderful - and I wanna' share it.". He explains what his work is like and what he does for a living. We learn about him through the cutaways of him where we see him do his job. He explains that he is an "Information Static Technician - a board guy". He tells us that he's been doing his job for 15 years but he's been promoted to a higher position. He enthusiastically describes the requirements for his job and his past: the job runs in the family. He points out all of his friends "my work mates are amazing" and we see shots of them doing their job.
Ben resembles tour guide in character: he discloses information about London's past to us and tells us about the street and location he's in, in a geographical sense. We know that he adores his occupation because he says "there's so much community, so much life - but most people don't see past the neon. I'm here to point out less obvious things".
The music used is folklore music and sounds upbeat, matching in with the tone of the film. We hear the faint sound of traffic, telling us that it's another busy day in London. It's something that makes us feel at home because we're so used to hearing the sound. The only effects that are used are panning - to draw our attention to the sign posts being used (for comedic effect) and an optical effect - focus pull. The focus pull is also used to draw our attention to interesting things that we otherwise wouldn't find interesting. The visuals are very literal in meaning, like when Ben says "opportunity right under our nose" we see a cup of coffee under his colleague's nose. They've got to be literal in meaning because that's what gets his point across about things.
As the film progresses, we begin to think that Ben's fantasising about his friends because no-one seems to be acting the way that he describes them to be. Everything seems to be normal - but we know that everything's not normal because Ben seems to sound like he's holding back tears in his throat. Earlier on, he mentions that it is his last day in his current position before he gets promoted - maybe that's why his colleagues aren't acting as they should be. His alarm startles us - it communicates to us that time is up and that it is the end of his shift, not only that - it's the end of his 15 year occupation. Ben seems disappointed about his colleagues not giving him a "send off".
He's about to leave, but as he starts to proceed, he pauses. Someone whistles. We see Ben's reaction to the whistle before we actually see the whistler. Ben looks astonished: everyone's saying goodbye to him through sign posts. The signs are a visual pointer as to what the audience should be looking at. The last signs say "Before you go" and "Just talk to her". Ben walks over to the female colleague who he seems to take a particular liking to. We realise that his friends weren't just a fantasy - that they were only out of character because it was his last day. He heads over to his female colleague.
The short film uses medium close-ups and frames the man at the side, just like a documentary interview would. It also uses cutaways for the purpose of pointing out the beauty of the city, in addition to that it points out his situation: his friends and occupation. The title of the short film 'Sign Language' is very literal in meaning. It is exactly that: sign language. One of the many ways of communicating with people and the film shows us that it's an effective way. No dialogue comes from anyone else apart from Ben, but the sign posts at the end make us laugh because it's strange to be making conversation so openly in public.
The film is all about aspiration and it sums up what most feature films can't, all in under 5 minutes. There is an equilibrium (him working on the street - average day), disequilibrium (his shift ends - alarm - nobody's said goodbye?) and a resolution (everybody's holding up sign posts wishing him the best of luck and wishing him farewell). Nothing's left unexplained at the end and the best thing about this short film is that you don't get bored because you only have to watch it for 5 minutes. No gap is left unfilled.
Directed by Charles McDougall, this film is about an attempted robbery that goes wrong. The film starts off with fast paced James Bond style music. Again, another bass guitar is used to add to its deep melodic tone. We see a POV shot of someone in the car, driving over a bridge. It then cuts to a close up of someone's hands, opening a suitcase that is revealed to be crammed with money. They steadily stack the money in to piles. On one band, the title 'Steal Away' is revealed (an appropriate way because stealing is associated with money, the titles come up on money) and the director, writer and main cast. The POV shot of the man continues as we see him entering a tunnel which we think at first is an underground base, but the car comes out of the tunnel and turns in to a road. The sequence cuts between the title sequence of the money being packet up and the unknown person, driving in different locations around London.
After the title sequence, we see a cross, hanging from the front window of the car that the person is driving in. The cross could be a good luck charm because this seems like an action genre short-film, even though not many short-films are labelled in such ways. The symbol also represents life after death, as most people associate the cross with the Christian symbol of Jesus hanging from the cross.
The non-diegetic music turns to diegetic music that we can see being played in a CD player in the car that the man is driving in. The man's face is partially revealed when the camera de-focuses from the cross, pans up and focuses on the man. The de-focus might have been intentionally used for that brief bit with the panning up because the director wanted us only to focus on the cross and the man. The man is wearing shades and the car is filled with shadows. This makes the man look menacing because his eyes are hidden, so we can't relate to him. As he stops at the second pair of red lights, someone comes over to wash his screen. As this is still from the man's POV, we assume that this is a car-washer coming to wash his windows: we can only see one person. However, this is a distraction as we see when an accomplice smashes the window and makes a grab for the suitcase with the money in.
The accomplice and the man in the car struggle, but the accomplice (a woman) gets away with the suitcase. The man in the car aims a gun at her as she runs in to Bank tube station. The director has deliberately filmed outside Bank tube station because the woman is stealing money and we all know that banks have money in them. He shoots at the woman but she escapes unscathed.
We then see the robber's POV as he shouts "NO!" and chucks the bucket of water on the car bonnet; he must have a close relationship with his accomplice because he's very upset over this. The man in the car is outraged and aims his pistol at the robber (man). The man in the car seems to be pointing the gun at us - breaking the fourth wall in terms of film because it seems like he's actually going to shoot at us directly.
The film then narratively switches from the man in the car's point of view to the accomplice's point of view. The tracking shot of the woman shows her desperation as she meanders her way through everyone in the crowd. As the fatal gun shot is fired, the sound is echoed, the woman accomplice grinds to a halt, turns around and the camera zooms to a close-up of her, the zoom is in slow-motion in order to emphasis the realisation that her male accomplice has been left behind and shot. The woman's breathing is emphasised upon as well, it is made louder and the noise of the crowd is made lower. This tells us that the woman has panicked.
We think Michael's dead until he comes running around the corner and in to the frame. The empty corridor is there for a few seconds to show us the loneliness that the woman feels, because it's from her point of view. Michael runs to kiss her, the background music is brought back in because the background music is the action theme in this short film and Michael coming back represents the woman's life coming back in to action. The camera tracks them as they run and we are brought to a dark passage that is barred off by a gate. This tells us that this is a part of the underground station which they're not meant to be. This is further emphasised by the red light that we see; it could also represent death.
The camera tracks their feet as they run through a puddle. We can hear the sound of them breathing heavily. By the end of this sequence, the audience are meant to feel out of energy, like the characters are - so that we can empathise with them.
They both attempt to open the suitcase that they stole, the camera tracks their hands as they do it, so that the audience can try and decipher where the opening is, with the main characters. As the suitcase opens, an explosive sound is heard and a close-up of loads of bank notes in red dusty air is shown. The director wants us to think that this is blood from an explosive suitcase. The red air connotes the metaphorical blood that they have on their hands. Reaction shots are used to show that they're surprised and tells us that we're meant to be surprised too. They kiss - an extreme close-up - to show to us their emotions for each other: they're glad to see each other alive; meanwhile, a white train approaches. The normal train that you see on the underground is red, blue and white, but this train is just white. It denotes a passage to the afterlife.
The train approaches in silence, which seems menacing because it feels as if it's creeping up on them. There's a continuity error: when we see the train from an external point of view, it's empty. As the pair board the train, it has passengers on it. Whilst this looks like a continuity error, it might not be; the director might have put it there intentionally to confuse us.
The camera pans inside the train as both of them board. We hear someone speaking from the other end. We learn that it's a preacher at the other end of the train. We can tell he's a preacher by the way he's dressed: a black suite, his top hat and the prop he holds in his hand - the Bible. The camera pulls from a shallow focus to a distant focus of the man at the far end of the carriage: we focus on Michael and his assistant as they look around the carriage, but our attention is drawn to the man, just as theirs is. We try to locate the source of the voice, but we can't until the camera focuses on him. The director wants us to think that the man is God, because at first we can't hear his voice. He says "I have sinned, I have grown weary in the ways of the world. I am beyond the reach of your eternal grace." and "He knows". It cuts to a reaction shot of Michael, who looks scared as if he's been exposed.
As the preacher speaks, we see a hand washing peoples feet in water, this could denote holy water and the cleansing of sins. People are filming the man who is washing peoples feet and giggling amongst themselves. The camera pans down to the man washing the feet to show his lower position than everyone else. There is a shot of the preacher, jesting his hand outwards to people as he says "he holds out his hand" this may be a gesture for people to come with him. Some drunk people board the train too, but the preacher remains impassive about it. He continues to preach his wisdom. One of the drunk men accidentally hits the black male who is innocently washing peoples feet. The drunken man guiltily hands over £20 compensation for the damage to the black man. The preacher comes over and hands back the £20 note to the drunken man. This represents the forgiving of sins too.
The preacher holds a cloth to the black man's nose whilst singing 'Steal Away'. As he continues singing 'Steal Away', background music of the song comes in. A spiritual air to the film is brought in. It is uplifting to the scene. As Michael sits down, the black man offers to wash his feet and cleanse him of sins. However, Michael declines and instead, washes the black man's feet, thus cleansing both of them of their sins. Michael is doing a good deed for the black man. His accomplice looks disgusted by the gesture, but Michael cleans the man's foot anyway. The black man leans forward to rub Michael's hand - as he does this, the lights flicker, along with the singing, this accentuates the theme of forgiveness. The lights come back to normal - Michael has been relieved of his sins.
The transport Police come to arrest the Preacher and the black man because they think that they're begging: this is a chance for Michael and his accomplice to leave. They depart the train and leave their stolen money with a tramp, in one last act of kindness. The tramp shouts because he thinks that they've stolen, but they haven't. It cuts to a close-up of the ticket barriers - they represent something very important that we don't realise at first. Michael is allowed through the gate, but his accomplice isn't (the officer who denies her the access is Simon Pegg - the only famous actor in the film). We realise that the barriers draw the line between heaven and hellish Earth as we hear a none-diegetic jingle (something special has happened) and we see Michael hold his hand on his heart as he remembers himself being shot. He jilts slightly as he reminisces the sound of the gun shot. His accomplice has been taken away from him so he feels like he's been shot again. The suddenness of the gun shot shocks us as well, it feels like a blow to the head - surreal.
The music changes to the sound of church bells and violins being played in a dark depressing tone as the man ascends up the escalator. This symbolises the transition from Earth to heaven - his soul is leaving. The whole scene on the tube represents judgement day. He's been judged based on what he did on the tube and because all his sins were cleansed, he's going to heaven.
The scene fades out to white - to a field where it's raining. We feel gloomy, even though he's gone to heaven, he's gone from Earth. The church bell chimes again, it fades to a shot of the dead trees, then a wide shot of the people, like they've been transported. As we see people at the other end of the field marching towards those who've most recently come to heaven, we see a close-up of a woman amongst a very passive crowd. She cries in disbelief "dad!". We realise the other set of people are also dead and that everyone in the field is now in heaven. We aren't enlightened as to why the people who were on the underground are now in a field, but it could be because their bodies are in a grave underneath a field and the soul goes wherever the body goes - like when Michael died by an underground station, so judgement day for him is in the underground.
Everyone can find their relatives apart from Michael, we see a tracking shot of him walking, trying to locate his relative. We see a birds-eye view of everyone in the field so we don't get disorientated and so we know that everyone apart from Michael, has found their relatives. We see a medium close-up of Michael. Shallow focus is used because the director wants us to focus solely on his emotion: his disconsolate feeling as his eyes search in vein for someone. The shot of Michael is used conjunctly with a medium close-up of a woman. Both of them are medium close-ups so that we see their souls connect. She calls "Michael". Michael turns to see this woman and we realise she's his mum only when his voice tearfully pronounces the one syllable that constitutes the word 'mum'. They embrace in a hug. A close-up is used to show this so that we feel emotionally jerky too.
We then see the same black man as we saw on the tube, calling a name. As he does this, it fades to a shot of him on Earth (back to the mortal world). As he calls the name again and turns, the focus pulls from him to the distant focus of the emergency services at the scene of the crime that happened in the beginning. We see Michael's physical counterpart is dead. The camera pans out to the preacher and man who we saw on the tube. As it continues to pan out, we see that time has moved on in the real world and it's now evening. We hear multiple sources of sound: the preacher singing, the traffic, medical staff speaking to the witnesses. It pans to the rest of the street, continuing as if nothing's happened: it was just another crime scene.
The film evokes an enormous amount of emotion out of us because it makes clever use of shots and symbolism. It visually tricks us in to thinking something with its close-ups, shallow focuses and dark lighting that disorientate us as viewers and leaves space open for the visual background to be changed.
Narratively, it does something different than any mainstream film: it changes in POV from one character to the next; not only this, but it portrays the robbers as good people and the narrative sticks with the robbers for the whole film and allows us a chance to see all aspects of their character. Mainstream films wouldn't allow us to relate to people who've done bad things.
We're tricked in to thinking that the spiritual word is reality because it's not manifest as much as it is in mainstream and from the narrative in mainstream, our expectation of heaven is that it's wonderful and shiny. This film gives us a different feel and visual sense of the place - that it's like reality, but without the people. It's not until the end that we get a sense structurally of what has actually happened. This short-film does what most can't achieve in an hour - it sends across a clear message and makes you think deeply and reflect. The title 'Steal Away' doesn't just tell us about the plot of the money being stolen - in the broader sense, it tells us to steal away from evil.
