One moment from Shark in the Head in which setting plays a prominent role is… the entire movie. It was shot almost entirely in front of an old man’s window, for the love of Urban Meyer!! OK but seriously, one moment that is worth taking a look at is when the protagonist discovers the construction going on and decides to join in on what some might consider fun. It starts out when he is going through his usual routine – looking out the window as the world passes by – and begins hearing a loud racket which we discover is all thanks to a construction crew. After realizing what is going on, our protagonist heads over to help them out and quickly integrates with the crew, even bringing 6 beers to them at one point as they all take breaks from a hard day’s work. The director deviates in this scene from traditional depictions of setting and the classical paradigm to create symbolism by having it all take place mere steps away from the old man’s front door. It shows us that even though his world is confined to a tiny area, he somehow manages to find interesting things to fill his time with as well as interact and meet new people. Despite how small one’s world may be, it is always possible to reach out as our protagonist did here.
Does this film achieve style, or is it a film of manner? Does a sillier question – other than this one – even exist? There is essentially no story to tell, which leaves us with only one option… Style! Most interesting is the film’s constant back and forth between diegetic and non-diegetic details. As an audience, we are addressed directly by the actors a couple of times (when the dancers all turn and shove their arms out, and when the scene opens with all of the actors standing and looking at us before resuming their daily activities), and it is not made clear whether or not the main character is/would be aware of these moments. Are they in his head? Is it some sort of director decision to give us a glimpse of how he feels? Certain questions are left unanswered.
I agree. The setting does play a prominent role in Shark in the Head, and the moment that you chose was a really great example of that. I think that scene is interesting in particular because it is one of the many times that shows an interaction between the setting and the protagonist. Instead of just serving as a backdrop, the setting almost takes on characteristics of its own. The concept of the old man’s window is interesting. At some points, Mr. Seman is open to everyone that passes by, symbolized by an open window, and at others, Mr. Seman is scared of what’s outside of his window, pulling covers and locking the window and door. The scene where he helps the construction workers is interesting. It shows an altruistic nature of Mr. Seman. We start to characterize him as someone who genuinely wants to connect with the people (and setting) around him. It’s also interesting that, like other scenes in the movie, it’s not really mentioned again and we don’t see the effects of his contribution. We also never see how the construction workers react. We never see their faces or hear what they say. This makes them seem more like part of the setting rather than actual characters. I’m not sure how this contributes to the theme, but it’s an interesting observation.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that this is a film of style rather than manner. The scenes are not strung together to move a plot along. Instead, the scenes are just there to be visually stimulating and to suggest a larger philosophical ideal. Much like its German expressionist predecessors, the film is constantly calling attention to the non-diegetic elements. I agree that we, as the audience, are unsure of which elements are part of the diegetic world and which are not.
To me, this scene perfectly characterizes our protagonist. His amicable mood towards all people is so simply portrayed in him joining in on what would seem to be a day of work to others. Yet to him, helping with construction is just a by-product of making friends and enjoying people. Maria Prochazkova takes a profession that, typically, is ignored by the general public as they go about their day and uses that to depict the sort of man that we are exposed to for 75 minutes. Obviously in this movie there aren’t ample amounts of dialogue, so instead we are forced to learn about our main character through his actions and his expressions. The stark contrast created between everyone passing by the construction workers without any notice that they even exist and Mr. Seman seeking them out for conversation is an accurate depiction of his character.
ReplyDeleteAlso agree that the word manner shouldn’t even exist in this conversation unless we’re prefacing it with “no.” Prochazkova, in true German expressionistic style, realizes that she has no concrete plot that she is working with, and as a result, goes to great lengths to focus on the film’s style. That is, in a film with no more than 30 lines of dialogue, we are forced to pay attention to the details, setting, and music that are given to us in order to receive whatever message the director is trying to convey (assuming there is a direct one, which there doesn’t seem to be). The style in this movie clearly outweighs all else, and, because of that, we are left to interpret the movie however we see fit.