The Good Place offers to its audience a unique interpretation of the afterlife, particularly focusing on the utopia that is rewarded to those that have led a righteous life – what is known as The Good Place. Season 4 is a continuation of the story line in which Eleanor, the series’ protagonist, poses as The Good Place’s architect who runs all background operations for four new residents in an attempt to save all of humanity from spending eternity in The Bad Place. The first episode of season 4 provides the framework for what is to follow, establishing the challenges that must be overcome in order for Eleanor and her friends to succeed in saving the ‘broken afterlife system’. This critical review will examine and analyse various filming techniques used and the effect that they have in the first episode of season 4 of The Good Place, titled A Girl From Arizona – Part 1.  

The episode commences with a prolonged close-up shot of Eleanor’s face reacting to Chidi’s first comments of ‘heaven’. The intimacy created from the close proximity of the shot establishes a close relationship between her and the audience. We are unable to see Chidi and can assume that he is in eye sight of Eleanor due to the fact that she is looking behind the camera; however, after several comments of happiness remarked by Chidi, we see Eleanor turn to her left to acknowledge him. The camera then briefly switches to a mid-shot of both Chidi and Eleanor where it is revealed that she is staring into the distance with a posed smile. This is then emphasised by a long-shot which positions the small figures of Eleanor and Chidi in the centre of the screen as the residents go about their business around them. From here, we are able to see the instability and conflict that is occurring within Eleanor as she endures Chidi’s first comments and struggles to maintain the ‘Architect’ act. She remains motionless and can be interpreted as temporarily broken as a result of Chidi’s comments – obviously distraught by his lack of memory of her and the relationship that they had. The episode has barely begun, and the audience is already feeling sympathy for the strength and selflessness that Eleanor maintains as well as the sacrifices that she has made.

After the arrival of Linda Johannsen, who is portrayed to be the most boring person of all time, Eleanor and Michael receive another resident by the name of Brent Norwalk. After the initial surprise of Linda Johannsen, we are again amazed when the character is portrayed to be a snobby, wealthy, middle-aged, white-privileged, obnoxious businessman who plays golf. After he wakes up in the Good Place and is informed that he is dead, the first time he speaks and reacts turns into a long rant about the troubles he was in when he was alive because of comments he had made and assures Eleanor and Michael that he is not racist (even though he clearly is). During his long rant, which is totally unexpected by Eleanor and Michael, the music which usually plays throughout the show as background noise is cut out. The scene become silent and all focus is placed on Brent. The effect of the music cutting out is representative of the initial shock that Eleanor, Michael and, more importantly, the audience, experience. The silence creates dramatic tension as no one knows how to react to the absurdity and unusual nature of the character. During his rant, the scene is filmed primarily with a close up of Brent’s face with one brief cut to Eleanor and another to Michael as they react to Brent’s rant. After his rant and his demand to know where he is, the camera cuts to a side mid-shot shot of the three of them. The distance between Eleanor and Michael from Brent as well as their inability to speak creates comedy in the scene. There is a long pause and cessation of all sound until Michael is able to reply with “the Good Place” – which creates comedy in the fact that everything Brent spoke of sounded “bad.”

It’s not just camera positions that have been carefully chosen for the purposes of advancing the story. Mise-en-scenes is an excellent tool in film making as it provides an opportunity to reveal more information than can be received from what is said. Moura (2014), states that mise-en-scene can help the director to “determine the look and feel intended.” For example, one shot which involves the characters Janet, Jason and Derek, portrays to the audience greater meaning behind the dilemma that Jason finds himself in. The position of the camera portrays to the audience Jason and Derek standing on a concreted ledge above the other residents of The Good Place who are all in the distance mingling with nature. The shot encompasses the concreted floor as it shows that they are separate from the others and not living in the ‘paradise that others seem to be living in. Additionally, they are both standing in the shade of a large structure, which covers them in darkness while everyone else in the background are showered in the suns light. This also symbolises the Jason’s dilemma and emphasises his feelings of hurt, disappointment and anger towards Derek, while others are in a state of ‘eternal happiness’. When Janet appears, Jason’s feelings are again highlighted when Janet is closer in proximity to Derek than she is to Jason. Janet’s back is faced to Jason and all of her attention is directed towards Derek while Jason is left separated from the two. Additionally, Derek is dressed in all black while Jason is dressed in complete white. Not only does this make the audience sympathise with the ‘good’ character Jason, but it also makes us see that he is in Derek’s dark shadow as he is in Janet’s favour – Jason is left sad, alone and jealous.

Another technique which creates dramatic tension and heightens the intensity of the scene for the audience is editing, more specifically, cuts. This can be particularly effective in moments of tension and excitement by utilising quick, fast-paced cuts to action. The Good Place exhibits this technique when Linda Johannsen, a supposed elderly resident, punches Eleanor and Michael in the face before attacking several more residents. It is the first act of physical violence portrayed in the show and catches the audience and the characters completely off guard. Before the action kicks off, the camera cuts are spaced out and relatively smooth. The transitions then change to match the action of the characters and, as soon as Linda punches Eleanor, a series of quick cuts ensues. Due to the intense circumstances and amount of action in the scene, the five second period of punching various people has a total of 11 cuts. In all, Linda punches three people before kicking a fourth person into a fruit stand. The scene’s intensity is created by the character’s actions, but they are emphasised and heightened for the audience through the technique of editing. The quick changes to the action confuse and surprise the audience as much as Linda confuses and surprises the other characters.

Evidently, there are various filming techniques available to a production crew that can further develop the story as well as heighten or emphasise specific actions to achieve a certain effect. The Good Place manages to utilise various techniques in the creation of film to reel in an audience and maintain their interest throughout the show. Episode 1 of season 4 clearly demonstrates some of the techniques that can be used to create successful film and the choices made should be recognised and appreciated by the audience as part of what makes the show so brilliant and successful.

References

Moura, G. (2014). Mise-en-scene. Retrieved from http://www.elementsofcinema.com/directing/mise-en-scene-in-films/

I recently filmed the duologue scene from Night at the Museum 2 which was discussed in an earlier blog. There were two characters, Larry and Brandon – I played the part of Brandon. As it was my first on-location filming, the process was unknown to me and I was not sure, to an extent, of what to expect. But, from the beginning, I was excited and ready to embark on this new experience.

On set was the director, a camera crew of two as well as fellow acting students who took on the roles of: a boom operator, a sound recordist, a clapperboard operator and an assistant writing notes on camera operation times, positions and shots.

The location of the shoot was an exterior hallway at the university campus. It was under cover with one wall being the façade of a building, while the other side was a long display case with glass panels showcasing various artworks and drawings. This was the most suitable location for the scene between Larry (Ben Stiller) and Brandon (Jonah Hill) in Night at the Museum 2 as they require an “exhibit” to refer to and interact with.

Before commencing the filming, I changed into my character’s costume – a security guard outfit consisting of: black pants, a short-sleeved white shirt, a high-visibility vest, radio communications, a belt, a badge, black shoes and a torch. It was also decided that I should wear my watch and hat right before filming. As we had not procured any suitable hats for a security guard, the Director liked the idea of wearing the cap I was wearing upon arriving at the location – an LA Dodgers branded cap. It surprised me and was not at all expected. She had made the comment that it could bring out the “try hard” quality in Brandon; therefore, it was incorporated into the entirety of the scene.

One of the first thoughts that had arisen as an issue was the state of the weather. There was significant cloud clover and, by 11am, thunderstorms were predicted. This proved to be a significant factor and challenge during the filming process, greatly hindering the productivity of the day. Shortly after 8am, the equipment was being set up while my filming partner and I blocked the scene and went over it multiple times. This benefitted both us in gaining familiarity with the location, but it was also beneficial for the filming crew and the director as they could plan how the scene would work. An additional change was made to incorporate polishing the display case before the final line is said and the scene ending – something we had not rehearsed or planned for before. However, it was an aspect that we collectively decided would create additional comedy in the scene.

We began filming the scene with a mid-shot that incorporated both of the characters. Almost instantly we discovered an added challenge to the filming of this scene – aeroplanes. As we were outside and the city has an airport, planes often fly above the university campus creating loud noise that was able to be picked up in audio. The solution to this was interesting and something that, as an actor, I have never experience before. When a loud noise occurred, usually from a plane (which felt often), the director would call out to “stop” and pause for a moment. We would remain in our positions as our characters as best we could and, once the plane had passed, the director would call to “go back” to a previous line or to go “from the top”. Interestingly, it felt like a routine which had been done before which puts into perspective the number of times of which challenges like this can occur during filming.  After filming the scene multiple times, the camera would be repositioned to a new angle and we would have to repeat the process again.

A significant factor in the filming process was repeatability. By this, I mean being able to perform the scene over and over again as authentically and as if it is the first time it is happening as possible. Each time, from the top or from a paused moment, we would have to keep the same energy that we had from the first shoot all the way through to the end. Feedback from the other actors (now filming crew) suggested that we were still remaining authentic and managing to maintain the comedy despite have performed it multiple times.

The weather slowly approached and at about 9:30am it began raining. As the weather wasn’t expected or predicted on the day of filming, we were all caught off guard. At this point, the rain had only a slight impact on the scene as it was not loud or heavy. But, before long, the severe thunderstorms arrived and began to have an impact on the scene. Heavy rainfall and loud thunder made it difficult to continue; however, we decided to wait for opportunities to film again so that the scene would not go unfinished. Because of this, we were able to film in moments of calm when the storm temporarily subsided. We nearly finished filming from all planned camera angles – only one being cut short.

Interestingly, the master shot was filmed last and during the intense noise of the thunderstorm. I learned that we did not need to record audio for this shot as the microphone would be in view of the camera as well as the fact that there was already enough audio recorded earlier to be able to accompany the footage. After filming, all of us, including the director, felt good about the scene.

If we were to film again, it would obviously be beneficial to film on a day with good weather for the sake of continuity and audible dialogue. The planes did not prove to be a significant issue as their impact was limited. Evidently, there are some things that you can’t plan for and, as a production company, you “just have to roll with it” – a fitting quote from the film (and the subject of my first blog) Living in Oblivion.

The actor’s costume contributes greatly to their portrayal of the character they are playing and can affect their performance in multiple ways. Due to the power of costume choice, a performance can change significantly after the introduction of costumes. As mentioned by Landis, “Costumes communicate the details of a character’s personality to the audience, and help actors transform into new and believable people on screen” (Landis, 2014, p. 2). Without the introduction of costume, a character’s full potential may not be recognised as costumes communicate to the audience so many important details of the character and the story. In a scene between Larry and Brundon from Night at the Museum 2, costume becomes a significant factor in determining how the scene will play out.

Larry is the security guard protagonist who features in all three films in the franchise. Brundon is the security guard of an alternate museum, the location of which this scene takes place. In an ironical sense, Larry, whom usually guards exhibits, is accused by Brundon of getting too close to the exhibits. As they are both security guards in their own museums, each having a sense of pride and ego about their positions, they are destined to have an altercation – essentially being replicas of one another. Both wanting to be of higher importance and status than the other, the scene can be summarised as: both having met their match. 

Costumes provides great detail of who the character is and directly affects how the character is going to behave in a scene. According to Ripley (2014), “what we wear has two main purposes: function and expression.” The functional aspect is reflective of the occupation and location of the character, while the expressive aspect includes the denotation of status, class, allegiance, gender, sexual orientation, and personal opinion.

Focusing on Brundon, the audience is able to gain so much knowledge and information about the character simply by looking at his costume. Being the security guard of the museum, he is required to wear a uniform which is literally purposed to reflect his occupation to others. Brundon is instantly recognisable by visitors to the museum as well as to the audience as it is almost a direct replica of the costume which Larry has been required to wear whenever he is on the job. Straight away this portrays for Brundon a sense of status and authority, a position of which Larry is usually familiar with.

Analysing solely the script, it becomes clear that Brundon desires this status of importance and power. When Brundon sees Larry near the exhibit, he moves in to establish his dominance, accusing him of touching the exhibits without it actually happening. He becomes a bully, making various accusations and comparing him to a little girl. This could be reflective of some event that he experienced in the past when he was compared to a little girl. Throughout the entire scene, Brundon is constantly trying to come out on top and maintain that dominance and power; however, Larry is also taking it away from him. When Brundon is clearly in a position of defeat (when he is put into a headlock in the film), he still maintains his dominance without losing it by approving of Larry and not letting him apologise as it would seem Brundon’s conceit and loss of power. Brundon is a person who believes he is so important and powerful in his job and that others need to listen to him.

Wearing an appropriate costume can reflect how the actor plays the character in the scene. For example, as Brundon’s status is clearly portrayed to the world, the attitude he has towards Larry at the beginning of the scene can be of a relaxed state. This reflects his confidence and sense of importance, meaning that he does not have to do much work to feel overpowering towards Larry. Instead, he can let the words and the costume do most of the talking – directly reflecting the character and affecting the actor’s performance.

A key feature of the scene is Brundon’s torch; initially holstered, it becomes a weapon to threaten Larry. In Ripley (2014), it is mentioned that:

“Nearly every job comes with its own tools. How those tools are carried is dictated by need and practicality.”

This must be a considered part of costume design as it becomes prominent object in the scene. Brundon begins the scene being verbally and physically subtle about his position but, when he feels his power slipping away, he becomes more assertive, using his costume and status more directly. The way in which the character’s torch is positioned, where he holsters it and how he holds it all reflect how Brundon sees himself. On Brundon’s line (in the film) “I don’t know Princess Jasmine, am I?”, the character displays for Larry his holstered torch which is interpreted as a threat by Larry. This choice made by the character, again, reflects his attitude and behaviour of being important and domineering over others.

Actors can find a lot of useful information out about their characters when performing a scene with a costume. Embry comments on this, suggesting that:

“Actors connect to their character during the transformation process in a variety of ways including understanding the time period of the show, socioeconomic status of the character, and specific personality traits unique to one of the fictional characters” (Embry, 2018, p.24).

All of this information has been revealed to us through the script, further emphasised and accented by the costume choice. This is particularly useful in scenes like the one between Larry and Brundon due to the fact that it is the first appearance of Brundon as well as the last. Therefore, being able to gain so much information, backstory and life out of the character from ideas about who he is and what he is wearing is extremely beneficial.

References

Embry, E. (2018). The Art of the Dress: How Getting into Costume Affects an Actor’s Self-Perception (Honours Theses, The University of Southern Mississippi). Retrieved from https://aquila.usm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1604&context=honors_theses

Landis, D. N. (2014). Costume Design Defining Character. Retrieved from https://www.oscars.org/sites/oscars/files/teachersguide-costumedesign-2015.pdf

Ripley, L. (2014). Costuming Your Characters. Retrieved from https://mythcreants.com/blog/costuming-your-characters/

Directed by Robert Altman
Released July 21, 1992

From the very beginning of the film, Altman completely turns around traditional film conventions, executed through rule-breaking and trickery. One of the most significant aspects of this film is Altman’s use of Hollywood to show its own ugliness and the film industry’s greed and corruption of art. Ironically, the film shows us that artistic films such as itself (The Player) are still existent in comparison to typical tropes of Hollywood movies.

The film is a satirical comment on the Hollywood film industry and its stereotypical predictability in film plots and character choices, including the actors playing the roles. The main character, Griffin, directly comments on this idea, saying that 

“certain elements that we need to market a film successfully…suspense, laughter, violence. Hope, heart. Nudity, sex. Happy endings…Mainly happy endings.” 

The Player itself deliberately includes all of these elements as it directly comments on the Hollywood film industry. Primarily, the film challenges the idea that films can be made with artistic integrity; however, films which follow the rules and guidelines and include the various predictable elements, will generate the most money and, therefore, be more favourable. 

The Director of the film, Richard Altman, commented that

“Hollywood is much crueller and uglier and more calculating that you see in the film…it’s all about greed, really…” (Eggert, 2016).

Altman communicates this well through the film’s execution and the unique ability to portray the two different outcomes, or sides, of this idea. For example, one of the final scenes consists of Bonnie facing the facts that the movie the studio created is not artistic, holding little realism; thus, resulting in her being fired and left to fend for herself, abandoned by many that cared about her as she cries on the steps of the studio. On the other hand, the corrupt film executive, whom is guilty of murder, is promoted, has a wife with a child soon to be born as well as a new and fancy house and cleared conscience. This is both a happy and a sad ending for the two characters. Both endings are unexpected by the audience as they aren’t typical endings. The film catches its audience off guard, making a statement about the Hollywood film industry.

During the first scenes of the film, it is able to be deciphered that they are in Hollywood as it is created through the various aspects that can be associated with it. For example, much of the first parts of the film consist of: story pitches, famous actors, meetings, agents, bookings, movie posters, fancy cars, life of luxury, parties, fancy clothes and the fact that everybody knows everybody. An audience can recognise these aspects; however, are caught by surprise due to the nature of which the film portrays Hollywood.

“Altman wants the audience to be caught off guard by how much worse it is” (Eggert, 2016).

Despite this goal that Aspen has which involves communicating the lack of hope and faith attributed to Hollywood, he does not become bitter, instead, applying comedy and typical film elements to challenge, identify and laugh at. The most prime example of this is when Bruce Willis heroically charges into the gas chamber to save an innocent Julia Roberts on death row – succeeding and kissing as they walk to safety.

References

Eggert, B. (2016). The Player. Retrieved from https://deepfocusreview.com/definitives/the-player/

Knowing all you can about a character is crucial to the success of an actor’s performance. To this extent, analysing a character often requires a significant level of research – not simply the name, location, age, appearance, mannerisms and voice of the character. This is not enough.

An actor needs to have a sense of meaning and connection to every thought in every sentence spoken by the character. They need to be able to identify and understand all changes in the dialogue, acknowledge and be familiar with the overall objective and current objective (which is always changing), recognise and experience the character’s flaws, connect with their memories and moments of the past, be aware of all relationships and what they mean to the character, know the inner monologue (the process of thought which isn’t spoken), understand the character’s ghost (a moment in the past which has affected the character and their decisions) and spot all conflicts and everything that prevents the character from achieving their objectives. In addition to this work expected from an actor, their performance needs to feel natural and authentic as if it is the first time the character is speaking the dialogue.

Hitman’s Bodyguard, a film directed by Patrick Hughes and released in 2017, follows the story of Michael Bryce, a bodyguard, assigned to the protection and safe transportation of Darius Kincaid, a hitman. They are constantly under attack by a ruthless dictator’s men as Kincaid is attempting to testify against the dictator in court – Kincaid being the only (living) person with sufficient evidence to persecute him. Bryce, whom used to be a triple A rated executive protection agent and CIA officer, has been reduced to protecting drug-addicted corporate executives due to the assassination of one of his clients two years ago. Bryce and Kincaid struggle to get along throughout the ordeal; however, Kincaid eventually learns of and discloses the fact that he had shot Bryce’s client on the way to his next job.

In a comically entertaining scene, Ryan Reynolds (Bryce) performs a monologue to a street bartender after leaving Kincaid (played by Samuel L. Jackson) in a precarious and vulnerable situation. However, Reynolds does not simply speak the lines because he is naturally talented. He, as all actors do, has to have a thorough understanding of the character.

To perform this monologue, I am going to analyse the most important information for character analysis in the following paragraphs.

Firstly, we will discuss the ghost of Michael Bryce – the event in his past which influences all he does even two years later, especially since it is included as a significant part of the film’s plot. Essentially, Kincaid is a hitman who was passing by Bryce’s client and decided to take a shot which instantly killed him. Bryce believed the incident to be a result of his girlfriend spilling information, subsequently, she suffered all the blame and they broke up. In addition, Bryce lost his job and his reputation as a triple A rated executive protection agent. Just before his monologue, he has been made aware that the person he must protect is actually the person who ruined his life as well as the fact that it wasn’t a planned assassination, just passing by. In addition, his now ex-girlfriend is not to blame for the incident. All of this contributes to how the actor will play the scene as well as how they can connect to the piece. Realistically, he lost it all and now he feels a desire to get revenge. He is obviously angry and upset but he would also experience guilt for his girlfriend and shame for so easily failing.

Another important aspect of character analysis to focus on is the flaw which is a determining factor of the progression made by the character. The flaw is what prevents the character from achieving their objective. In this case, Bryce’s objective would be to achieve some level of revenge on Kincaid, to abandon him and leave him to be killed by those that are after him. His overall objective (his ultimate goal throughout the film) is to regain his reputation, get back his old job and to have a happy relationship with his ex-girlfriend. The only way to be able to achieve all three of these objectives is to complete his assignment and safely transport Kincaid to the court house. Therefore, his flaw is that he needs to keep Kincaid alive and safe and deliver him to the court house – Bryce must protect and be responsible for him. The objective he had beginning the monologue is transformed as a result of the character flaw.

When analysing any dialogue, an actor should be able to identify each and every action verb that is played. There should be at least one action per sentence as this creates an understanding of what the intention of the line is and how it should be performed. Action verbs reflect the character’s objective and decision making process. It also prevents the performance from remaining on a single note due to the fact that the action is always changing.

The following is Bryce’s monologue with an action verb next to each line:

Do you have any idea how prepared I was? (seeking, wallowing, defending)

No. Every possible scenario I had covered. Every kill shot. Every…every angle. (justifying, reassuring, proving)

And this guy ruins my fucking life with one luck shot through a window the size of a…just a… (attacking)

There he goes again. (accusing)

I hope they kill him. I really do. (avenging)

Even if I did save him…again…you know what he would say? (debating, questioning)

He’d say I had it all figured out before you got here. (justifying, debating)

He’d say uh…”I guess my think just better than your thing motherfucker. I guess bullets are just allergic to me motherfucker.” (mocking, defending)

This guy single handily ruined the word motherfucker. (accusing, attacking)

Do you know how hard that is to do? (questioning, demanding)

I was triple A rated. Executive protection. Triple. (declaring, justifying, reminiscing, proving)

I was up here…I was up here and… (regretting, reinforcing)

GODDAMMIT! (submitting, succumbing, recognising)

Character analysis is evidently hard work and there is still so much more to consider when deconstructing dialogue. However, what is mentioned in this blog is some of the most important aspects of any character analysis and is sure to improve any performance.

Directed by David Lynch
Released May 16, 2001

The relationship between film form and content is regarded as incredibly important in the film industry and David Lynch is notorious for exploring different film forms to achieve meaning in his productions. Mullholland Drive is an excellent example of this as it serves as a lens into the incredible individuality of the mind of Lynch but also because the film deliberately and consistently explores the relationship between form and content. Whether it’d be one complimenting the other or clashing with the other, each and every decision is purposefully made to create meaning in film. 

From the very beginning of the film, an audience is able to understand that this isn’t going to be the usual film. This is due to the first few minutes of the film consisting of a dance in which there are multiple copies of people dancing within each other. There is bright purple coloured background, loud music and blurred white faces which can only be described as a confusing acid trip experience. This is accented by an adjoining scene in which the primary colour is black and a slow-paced car drives around at night before it turns into a murder attempt topped with the abrupt inclusion of a car crash. His method of creating opposites in colour, speed and sound is heavily prominent throughout the film. The two described scenes occurred at the very beginning of the movie and already an audience has been on a rollercoaster of a ride.

The style of filming, although there are moments which are evidently edited and unrealistic, is executed in a way which manipulates the audience to feel as if they are present in the scene being shot. This is attributed to the cinematic scenes in which there is a lack of non-diegetic sound, therefore creating a sense of intimacy and naturalism. The performance then becomes simply the actor and the noise that they make in the scene, for example, when Rita is running down a dark street and the only noise heard is the sound of her heels hitting the road. Once again, however, Lynch offsets this with the sudden appearance of bright white headlights and the loud noise of sirens. A particular scene in which the audience is able to be fully immersed in the world being presented is when Betty begins exploring her Auntie’s house. There is little noise heard, only incredibly detailed sounds of clothes rustling, and the camera often recalls to a position which depicts the perspective of Betty exploring the house. This combination of techniques puts the audience on edge as they wait for the intruder to be revealed in the house and this creates a sense of urgency and immersion. 

A curious element to the film is Lynch’s use of the distillation of imagery to represent a false reality. After a fair way through the film, the ‘dream’ that you have been watching is trying to break away and return to reality and this is evident through the relationship between content and form. Visual cues are provided to the audience, for example, the distillation of lights into the shapes of an ‘x’, the blurring of scenery and characters, cuts to darkness and fades in and out. In addition to this, we are also provided with audio clues into the state of reality in which the characters are in. During the scene in which they visit a theatre, a character literally says “it is all an illusion” which is a cryptic message to the audience that everything they have watched is not real and is actually a dream. 

Overall Review

An excellent and highly intricate and detailed film which explores and challenges the relationship between film form and content. As an audience finally begins to piece the story together, Lynch literally destroys this reality and reveals that most of the movie was a dream; therefore, it can be interpreted to be lengthy and confusing, particularly to the average audience member. Mulholland Drive is a confronting masterpiece with elements which can terrify, excite, sadden, anger and completely immerse an audience into a film which presents a dark reality.

Directed by Tom DiCillo
Released July 21, 1995

Living in Oblivion offers a unique insight into being on set during the production of a film. Although it may seem all too real for those with experience, the broader audience are subjected to a comedic behind-the-scenes telling of a film crew’s challenges, particularly focusing on the suffering of both the actor and director.

A unique stylistic approach is presented to the audience immediately from the opening scene – black and white picture. It is a refreshing approach to film, particularly in modern cinema, however this choice isn’t fully appreciated until the first satisfying transition into colour on cue with the “action” call from the director of the film within the film. When the camera is rolling and the actors begin the scene, the audience is completely absorbed into a new world with different characters and a different setting which is the ideal goal for any film. This stylistic choice not only reflects and emphasises the heavily prevalent ‘low-budget’ factor of the film but it also creates in the audience the same desire shared by the cast and crew which is to continue and finish the filming of the scene. It is a natural response to want to see the world truthfully and in colour which is why an audience feels a need to continue watching the emotional scene being filmed between the two actors. However, the audience, like the two actors on set, are repeatedly removed from the world of colour as a result of an unpredictable disruption, mistake or issue occurring on either side of the camera and the agitation is shared by all.

The movie is split into three parts: the first part being a dream of the director, the second part being a dream of the lead actress and the third being the real filming of a scene on set. Each part endures the same arduous filming process accompanied with infinite distractions and issues that prevent any progress from being made. This pattern is only ever broken in the final few scenes of the film when a scene is successfully captured without disruption just as the director was nearing breaking point. Through his perseverance to continue despite such challenging situations, the Director, Nick Reve, finally makes progress thanks to the comedically timed arrival of his elderly mother showing up on set and taking on an acting role in the dream sequence. This is certainly attributed to Nick’s earlier comment in the film:

“Sometimes you just have to roll with things”

A prominent feature throughout the film is that all of the occurring issues are a direct result of the film being a low-budget. The film (and the film within the film) highlights the struggles that new/emerging or low-budget film crews must endure. This opposes the traditional high-budget Hollywood films which have access to higher quality sets, equipment and crew. Various references are made to Hollywood filming throughout Living in Oblivion and how there is such a large contrast between the opposing sides of filming. Once an additional character, Chad Palomino, is introduced as a Hollywood actor into the film, he is portrayed as a self-absorbed and unskilled actor (not the actor playing Chad) whom repeatedly prevents any progress on set by constantly stopping the shoot through mistakes or to provide his personal thoughts and suggestions. The challenging nature of dealing with the Hollywood actor irritates the audience as much as irritates the Director. DiCillo, the Living in Oblivion Director, has even mentioned that he had “lifted all of the Palomino character’s mannerisms from a star with whom he had just finished working” (IMDb, 2019). It’s intriguing to see this contrast between the two types of cinema, Hollywood filming and low-budget filming, particularly in a cinematic movie. For an audience, it creates both perspective and appreciation for the two sides of the industry.

Overall Review