Search results for 'tag:Expressions tag:Irony' matching tags 'Expressions' and 'Irony'

how does hitchcock create suspense and shock?

Anonymous — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:41:52 GMT

HELLO! CAN YOU PLEASE CHECK MY ESSAY ACCORDING TO SEA PARAGRAPHS (sTATEMENT, eVIDENCE, aNALYSE)?

âHow does Hitchcock create Suspense and shock?â

Alfred Hitchcock is known as the âmaster of suspenseâ and a great innovator. He has three films in the Top Ten of the American Film Instituteâs top thrilling films. âPsychoâ, made in the year 1960, was number one. Hitchcock always uses suspense and tension to shock his audience. He does this by using cinematography very well by the way he uses the camera position, angles, movement and shots. He also uses scary music and lighting when he wants to shock his audience or create suspense.

Hitchcock misleads his audience to create shock in âPsychoâ. At the beginning of the film, we see Marion Crane and Sam Loomis in the bedroom together. By seeing this, we think this is a love and romance story. After Marion steals the money from her boss, we then believe the genre of the film is about crime. However, the genre of this film is not about romance or even crime. In fact, this movie is a thriller and the main character, Marion, dies a third way through the film. This is unexpected because she is the main character of the film and not a bad person. Another shock is when we discover that Norman Bates dresses like his âmotherâ in womenâs clothing, which the audience finds strange and weird.

False suspense makes shocks more shocking because we never know what will happen. Hitchcock creates false suspense in a number of ways. When Marion has been sleeping in the side of the road in her car, a cop comes and wakes her up. The audience feels tense and wonders if she is going to get caught with the $40,000. Marion is very nervous and we are afraid if the cop is going to search her bag. Her uneasy behaviour adds to the tension. The copâs sunglasses also add to the tension because he is staring right at Marionâs face, and Marion feels guilty and anxious.

Another moment of tension is when the cop follows Marion. We think that he realises that Marion is up to something. There is a slight low angle close up of the copâs car in the rear-view mirror of Marionâs car where she nervously watches him following her. The eyelevel medium shot of the car in the rear-view mirror, allows you to see him following, which is a reflection of the copâs car. Hitchcock builds tension by cutting between Marion and the cop.

Hitchcock also creates false suspense when Marion goes to a second-hand car dealer. The cop has an eye on Marion, but she does not know that he is there. We do see the cop so there is a moment of tension. She is doing things that you will not usually expect, such as being panicky and in a rush, which all builds to tension. While the mechanic pulls her car in to inspect it before selling her a different car, she is shocked when she spots the suspicious cop. Although she is aware that the new car she will be buying could be identified, Marion quickly and foolishly decides to buy it. Her nervous behaviour makes the surprised, car dealer wonder why she is forcing him to sell the car to her. She nearly leaves her bag behind, which is a false shock. We expect that Marion is going to be stopped by the cop, but luckily, she does not get caught with the cash.

Another false shock is when, Lila, Marionâs sister, screams when she sees her own reflection in the mirror in âmotherâsâ bedroom. She screams when she sees herself in many reflections in an opposite long mirror, but is relieved that the frightening image is only of herself.

You can only have a limited number of shocking moments to shock people because the few shocks give more impact. If there are too many shocks, then the audience gets used to it.

There are only three shocks in âPsychoâ: when Marion is killed in the shower; Milton Arbogast, the detective is stabbed by âmotherâ; and the discovery of âmotherâ by Lila. Hitchcock creates suspense and shock when Arbogast tries to interview âmotherâ. He quietly enters the front door of the house, takes off his hat, and then stands for a moment in the hallway. He begins to climb up the long steep staircase to the second floor. We feel a bit tense and afraid that something may happen to Arbogast because he is inside a sinister-looking house on top of a hill. Using a tracking shot, the camera follows him from behind to a tracking, high-angled shot in front of him as he climbs up the stairs so he looks vulnerable and small. A cut to the top landing, using an eyelevel close up shot to show a crack of light appear on the floor through the slowly opening door of a bedroom, creates tension as if âmotherâ is behind the door who will see Arbogast and attack him. When he reaches the top step, Hitchcock cuts to a birds-eye-view shot and the high-pitched, screeching music starts to create a shock when Arbogast is attacked at the top of the stairs, in a bird's-eye-view shot, by âmotherâ coming from the bedroom. He is stabbed to death in the face and blood flows out of his face when Arbogast falls backwards down the stairs to the floor. âMotherâ chases after him and gets on top of him; the knife goes up into the air for another strike before the scene fades to black. However, this is not the first shock of the film.

In the shower scene, we experience the first big shock in âPsychoâ. At the start of the shower scene the audience follows Marion into the bathroom. We see her undressing to have a shower. It is very quiet and we can just hear her taking off her gown. The shot is an eyelevel medium close up which makes us feel uncomfortable because we are close behind a naked woman and following her, which seems like we are intruding into this private space. We are looking straight at Marionâs bare back and upper body which makes us feel like Norman, when he was watching her undress through a hole in the wall. Like Norman, we are voyeurs and are intruding into this private space. Hitchcock then cuts to an eyelevel medium close up of Marion in the shower and we watch her cleansing and washing herself, like she is washing away her sins and guilt. We notice that Marion is very relaxed and happy because she is going back to Phoenix to pay back the money she has stolen. Hitchcock cuts to a low angle close up from Marionâs point of view of the water which looks like it is coming down at us, straight and sharp from the shower head which creates a moment of tension because, at the moment we cannot hear anything except for the running water, and this may distract us and Marion if someone is nearby. However, Hitchcock then cuts to an eyelevel medium close up in which we see Marion rinsing herself. This is a realistic shot because the camera is on the bathroom floor on the side of the shower watching Marion and we can see her calm facial expression, so we relax as well as Marion. We think nothing bad is going to happen to her because no one else is in her room and the bathroom and everything seems quiet except for the running water. This is also a private hotel.

Hitchcock then creates suspense by using dramatic irony. He uses an eyelevel medium long shot in which there is a dark shadow on the left, or dominant, side of the screen. Marion is in a completely private place, but in this shot we know that there is someone behind her, while Marion does not. The camera is in front of her, placed inside the wall, and Hitchcock makes us feel uncomfortable and tight as if we are trapped in the shower with Marion. As she is showering, through the translucent shower curtain, we see the door open. With her back to the shower curtain, we can spot a shadowy figure coming from behind. Marion does not hear the killer because of the water falling on her and her hair is soaked by the water so she appears to be small and vulnerable on the right side of the screen with her back to the shower curtain. We see the bathroom door open and we spot a shadowy figure coming from behind. We feel tense because the figure may harm Marion. The shock comes when the dark figure suddenly tears the shower curtain and shrill high-pitched music begins from sharp shrieking, violin strings. The shrill music plays a large part in creating absolute terror as does the silhouette of the figure that is revealed because the face is shadowed and we cannot see it. The killer is on the left or dominant side of the shot and is very dark; light can only be seen on the right side. The killer is holding a knife towards the right bottom corner of the frame where we last saw Marion, so we feel tense and terrified for her.

The shock continues with a close up of Marion screaming. The blurring of the image by the water makes Marion appear less human and everything happens fast. The close up shows her first reaction to the murderer and to intensify this Hitchcock cuts to an extreme close up of Marionâs mouth as she is screaming loudly. Next, Hitchcock uses a low angle medium shot of the killer who is dominating the centre of the screen. Hitchcock uses shadow to make the killer appear dark and horrific. The killer then starts to attack and we hear sound effects of stabbing. In reality, the sound was made by stabbing a melon. Hitchcock then cuts to a high angle medium shot of Marion to make her look weak and vulnerable. She is in one corner of the frame and the knife is in the space. The knife is blurry because it is moving very fast and Marion is in the corner backing away. The tile wall is trapping her behind and she is very exposed. The attack goes on and on and we keep hearing stabbing sounds of the knife. Hitchcock then uses a high angle close up of Marionâs feet so we can see the blood being washed away from Marionâs body, which creates the impression that Marion is dying because she is losing large amounts of blood and looking very weak. The killer leaves and Marion slowly dies. Hitchcock uses an eyelevel close up of Marionâs hand trying to hold on to the tile wall. She is trying to hold on to her life. This is the aftermath of the shock but there is still tension because there is nothing we can do and slow and low-pitched music starts to create a sad atmosphere.

Marion slowly slides down with her back against the wet, slippery shower wall, while looking up and the camera follows her slow fall. We feel guilty because we are unable to help. We then see Marion stretch her hand out to grab the shower curtain but it comes across as if she is stretching her arms towards us, for help. We want to help Marion but it is impossible so we must just watch her fall so we feel powerless. Then Hitchcock cuts to a birdâs-eye-shot where the shower pole divides the screen in half, which seems like we are directly watching what is happening down in the bathroom. Marion holds onto the shower curtain and pulls it down from its hooks one by one onto herself, which is a diegetic sound and now the slow and low music stops. Then we can just hear the water running from the shower, which tells us that the attack is over and Marion falls to the floor, dead. After that, Hitchcock cuts to a high angle extreme close up of the dark plughole, which is sucking up the water and Marionâs blood which suggests that Marion's life has gone down the drain. The shot dissolves to an extreme close up of Marionâs eye where we can see drops of water which seem like she is crying, which creates an atmosphere of sadness. There is great difference between Norman's 'peeping tom' eye and Marion's dead eye because Marionâs eye looks completely innocent, but Norman was using his peeping eye to watch her undress. Then the camera zooms out to her upper body which becomes a tracking shot where the camera turns and tilts as if we are standing up. We feel sorry and very guilty for Marionâs death as we were unable to stop this terrible attack, so when we leave the bathroom we are basically leaving Marion.

In comparison, in âThe Birdsâ, Hitchcock uses several shocks, perhaps maybe ten or more. Some of them are shocks with no suspense such as when the gull pecks Melanieâs head; the attack by the birds at the childrenâs party; and when the sparrows come down the chimney and attack Mitchâs house. There are also shocks with suspense: the school attack; when Annie is dead; the gulls peck the farmerâs eyes; the petrol station scene; the attack on Melanie in the attic and the huge number of still birds at the end of the film. He does this to shock his audience again and again.

Hitchcock also creates dramatic irony and tension in âPsychoâ when we see the shadow of âmotherâ in the shower scene. Hitchcock also creates dramatic irony in âThe Birdsâ in the climbing frame scene. Here, we see Melanie smoking outside the school, sitting on a bench in a medium long shot. She is calm. There is a long shot of the school and an establishing shot of birds in the sky. We can hear children singing, which sounds normal. There is then a cut to a medium long shot left of the climbing frame behind Melanieâs head (in the right corner of the frame) that dominates the shot to show it is empty. We see one bird land, and Hitchcock builds suspense as he cuts between Melanie looking relaxed and a shot of the climbing frame with four to five birds. Then he cuts back to Melanie before cutting to the climbing frame with fifty birds. Then again he cuts to Melanie still smoking and watching the birds. A cut to the climbing frame which is now full of birds creates shock which Hitchcock develops shock when Melanie looks behind her and sees them. Hitchcock cuts to a high angle long shot as she rushes to the school, which makes her seem vulnerable because then there is a cut to a low angle as the birds start to attack. Both of these attacks are extended and constant.

Hitchcock also uses slow suspense such as when Arbogast and Melanie climb up the stairs in âPsychoâ and âThe Birdsâ respectively. He also uses the stillness of the birds as a collective and then shock. There is the shock of sharp objects in a close up, for example, the knife in âPsychoâ and the beaks in âThe Birdsâ.

In âPsychoâ, Hitchcock creates tension by mainly using music which sounds unnatural, and also shock with the exception of the diegetic sounds in the shower scene. In contrast, he only uses diagetic sounds in âThe Birdsâ such as when the birds are squawking and making noise for tension, Hitchcock also uses silence (the absence of sound) to make the audience feel uncomfortable, for example when we see the broken cups in the farmerâs house. The sounds during the attacks in both films are sharp, harsh, strange and disturbing which build shock because they make the audienceâs heart beat.

At the end of âPsychoâ, there is a resolution. The killer, Norman, is in prison and is punished. However in âThe Birdsâ, there is a cliffhanger as the birds win and the humans flee. The film is unresolved, so it creates tension among the viewers. âPsychoâ is in black and white, which makes it more sinister and frightening for example, the blood in the shower scene looks realistic, even if it was chocolate syrup. Also lighting is used to create shock. For example, in the fruit cellar, the body of 'âmotherâ is brought to life, revealed by the dead bodyâs crazily laughing face, with its eyes moving, lively and brought back to life by the light. The eyes of the corpse that stare at Lilaâs direction appear realistic but they are indeed dead. This can only happen in black and white, as it involves shadow. In contrast, âThe Birdsâ is mostly in colour so it seems less scary and happier at first. However, the blood looks artificial to us because it is bright red. A better use of how Hitchcock used colour was the fire which looks extremely terrifying and dangerous because it is bright orange and yellow, which would not have the same effect in black and white. However, there is a change of the use of colour at the end of the film when it is mainly black and white because of the colour of the birds and also because it is night which creates tension and a sinister atmosphere.

The killers in both films were realistic but strange and unexpected. The story starts in the city, but mostly set in a small rural town where the character is unfamiliar so the audience has sympathy for them. Also the small town is supposed to be safer, but is surprisingly dangerous. The main characters in both films are blond, stylish beautiful women, both motivated by a love interest. Hitchcock uses experts for both films. In âPsychoâ, there is a psychologist who comes at the end and explains Normanâs condition, which is the resolution. The car is pulled out. There is no more tension. In âThe Birdsâ, an ornithologist woman gives information about birds and their behaviour. In âPsychoâ, Norman's hobby is stuffing dead birds and other animals. The birds are, of course, a constant image in âThe Birdsâ.

At the beginning of âThe Birdsâ, we think this is a romantic comedy, when Mitch flirts with Melanie and the lovebirds move side to side in the car, while Melanie is driving in her car. This seems funny as birds do not normally do that. âPsychoâ, however has nothing to do with comedy. In âPsychoâ Marion is serious and poor whereas Melanie is cheerful, spoilt and rich. Both films are misleading because it starts as a romance. In âPsychoâ, Sam has left his ex-wife and now wants to stay with Marion, but he cannot afford to support her economically, so they are both unhappy. In âThe Birdsâ, Mitch too had a previous lover, Annie but now lives with his mum, Lydia and younger sister, Cathy. Both films are a thriller and become dark and sinister. Hitchcock misleads us to make the shocks more shocking.

Hitchcock creates suspense and shock in the way he uses cinematography: camera position, angles, shots, colour, lighting, sound and music. For example, in âNorth by Northwestâ, Hitchcock creates a scene of suspense and shock in the plane scene. There is an extreme long shot of the sky and cornfield and Cary Grant who looks small and helpless, stands waiting. Then a plane tries to attack him. There is a long silence, and he looks for the plane engine. A truck approaches and Hitchcock uses the camera from Caryâs point-of-view of the truck coming closer until it is an extreme close up of the grill of the truck. This creates shock as the grill is coming towards Grantâs face and ours. There is a point-of-view shot of the plane. A close up of Grant shows us he is shocked and a cut to a long shot of the plane coming towards him builds tension. Grant dives under the truck and then there is a great big shock, when the plane crashes into the truck which is leaking petrol and there is a terrific explosion.

In my opinion, I believe Alfred Hitchcock was outstandingly excellent at creating suspense and shock in a number of ways especially in the shower scene, as we know âmotherâ is coming from behind, but Marion doesnât since her back is facing the shower curtain. I preferred the film âPsychoâ as it was more successful in creating suspense and shock, since the film was made in black and white. This made it seem darker, scarier and creepy.

Re: "I merely claim to be..."

Mr Wordy — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 01:54:26 GMT

Avangi
When you add "merely" to that, the skepticism mounts.

The expression lends itself to two interpretations: (1) The claim is false. (2) I don't want to fight with you. I'm simply stating a fact.

I don't know which interpretation would better serve (or preserve) the irony of the Napoleon story.

Its ambiguity may contribute to its uselessness.

To me, "merely" here most naturally means "I don't claim anything else", not "I don't do anything more than claim it", so doesn't add to the doubt.

Since we may reasonably assume that the ~~statement~~ claim is false, the question for me is whether the speaker himself believes it. This point seems ambiguous -- he may firmly believe it, he may partially believe it, or he may not believe it at all (despite the fact that he claims it) -- though I suppose that "claim" tends to suggest he might not fully believe it.

Re: "I merely claim to be..."

Avangi — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 01:22:37 GMT

RonBee
The word "claim" is one of those words that is often used with some skeptism.

When you add "merely" to that, the skepticism mounts.

The expression lends itself to two interpretations: (1) The claim is false. (2) I don't want to fight with you. I'm simply stating a fact.

I don't know which interpretation would better serve (or preserve) the irony of the Napoleon story.

Its ambiguity may contribute to its uselessness. But that doesn't make it unidiomatic. (I just noticed something: idiomatic.)
- A.

Re: What does it mean?

Avangi — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 01:52:14 GMT

"instances of ironic speech"

"conversational irony"

My problem in trying to make sense of this is that I've never thought of a sentence (or even a statement or an expression) as being ironic. I think of situations as ironic. (It may fall to people to point out the irony of a situation.) I don't know if my problem is linguistic or cultural, or just stupidity.

When my wife was learning English (as a native Spanish speaker) she once accused me of being ironic. I finally discovered she meant I was being sarcastic. I thereafter assumed that in Spanish, "ironic" means [English] sarcastic, but I never actually verified it. I've always thought that people are sarcastic, along with the remarks/statements/expressions/sentences/phrases they create.

If anyone can enlighten me on this, I'd be grateful. - A.

Re: garbagemen's softball team <shock!>

Clive — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 16:30:09 GMT

Hi,

OK, could someone please explain to me what's the meaning of the underlined expression?

'You from Homicide? he asked Jack and Jimmy collectively'
'We're not from garbagemen's softball team'

This is said with irony/sarcasm. The idea is 'We are not garbage men, we are police officers'.

best wishes,

PS. what's the meaning of trailers in this sentence: When the fuse had burned down, the trailers had been sparked. I have no idea. Where did you find this sentence? Can you provide some context?

Best wishes, Clive

Students at a disadvantage

milky — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 10:51:13 GMT

Louw says:

"a text receiver needs to utilise the knowledge of semantic prosody to percieve irony in the message or to judge the degree of sincerity of its proponent. Access to information on prosody from the corpus is paticulary important for nonnative speakers, since they are more liable to miss such irony and be more vulnerable to the hidden intentions of the producer than native speakers, who probably have some sensitivity to it at some subconscious level."

How can we help our students become more aware of the semantic prosody of English words and expressions? What practical steps can we take to prevent our students becoming disadvantaged in such areas of usage?

Re: a nice state of affairs

Clive — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 22:30:05 GMT

Hi guys,

"It is not a nice state of affairs for a Government that is not trusted by 80% of the population to do what it is paid to do - collect and spend tax wisely"

I've learnt so far that "nice state of affairs" has a negative meaning and simply means. "It's not a good situation" or "a nasty situation" etc... In the above sentence it sounds as if there is a double negative. I might have percieved the meaning wrongly, though. What exactly is "nice state of affairs" and "NOT nice state of affairs"

The simple meaning of 'This is a nice state of affairs' is that the speaker is happy and satisfied with the situation.

However, the same words are fairly commonly said when the speaker is not happy, not satisfied. In this case, the speaker is expressing his meaning with irony. eg We might say 'Oh, good!' if we receive bad news.

To tell the difference, you usually need to look at the context, listen to the speaker's tone of voice, look at his facial expression, etc.

Best wishes, Clive

Re: Figure of speech v. Literary Device

Philip — Sat, 07 Apr 2007 15:44:22 GMT

Mister Micawber wrote:

Figures of speech are a kind of literary device. From online:

Figure of speech: 'A mode of expression in which words are used out of their literal meaning or out of their ordinary use; for instance, hyperbole, simile, metaphor.'

Literary device: 'a literary or linguistic technique that produces a specific effect, esp. a figure of speech, narrative style, or plot mechanism.'

I would call paradox a literary device. (Though I suppose it could include figures of speech... but don't ask me for an example.)

About 100 years ago when I was studying such things, 'paradox' was at the top of the list of literary devices that I had to memorize, including: personification, metaphor, motifs, irony, alliteration, hyperbole, imagery and symbolism.

Re: I would like to thank...However, I can't...

Aperisic — Thu, 27 Jul 2006 13:33:44 GMT

I claim no answer to any of the questions. I am just thinking aloud.

Nona The Brit wrote:

1. Why you think there is "an earlier draft of this paper" instead of "the earlier draft of this paper"?

Because there was more than one earlier draft? People often do two or three (or more) drafts until they are satisfied.

I agree. It is also possible that "a", "an" is there to suggest non-existence of the paper.

Nona The Brit wrote:

2. Why there is twice the same phrase "an earlier draft of this paper"? Repetition adds to the comic effect.

Certainly. Grammatically, it is possible to use "the earlier draft" because at this moment a specific draft was already mentioned, we know which one. We have however only "a","an", which suggests as well that a draft might not exists. "A", "an" is used then only to specify the type of the object in the discussion not its existence.

Nona The Brit wrote:

3. Why in the third sentence there is only "earlier draft" no "an" and no "of this paper"? Grammatically it needs no 'an' and perhaps they thought that 'of this paper' was just too much repetition. If you want to use 'an' you could re-phrase it as 'there wasn't an earlier draft'.

I think as well that if you add "earlier draft of this paper", the author would leave the final reader's focus on "the paper", not on "the (a) draft". And he talks about a draft so not bad to leave focus on it at the end.

Nona The Brit wrote:

4. Jim Copeland is a true person. Do you think the author and Jim are friends or it is a dose of irony here? We can't tell that.

I think it is a joke not related directly to Jim. I agree that we can't decide that.

Nona The Brit wrote:

5. "he made no valuable comments or suggestions" suggests that there were still some kind of suggestions given by Jim Copeland. What is the purpose of "valuable"? Again, we can't know that.

I think that "valuable" is an expression that sounds formal. It sounds like one of those phrases that are used, and the author is saying that with a touch of boredom. However, "he made no valuable comments and suggestions" is funny on its own, and it could lead to irony or even an insult if we have no surprising ending.

"As a matter of fact" is funny as well, it sounds like "Oh, I've just remembered..."

Nona The Brit wrote:

6. Do you think that this addition has the same spirit as the rest of the "thank note"? Yes I suppose so.

"I would like to thank Jim Copeland for valuable comments and suggestions on an earlier draft of this paper. However, I can't, because he made no valuable comments or suggestions on an earlier draft of this paper. As a matter of fact, there was no earlier draft, and I am not quite sure that I know who Jim Copeland really is."

I think that would be the ultimate end of his attempt. The next step is to delete everything :o)

Nona The Brit wrote:

Another interpretation (seems unlikely though) of the situation is that the writer is annoyed with a 'Jim Copeland' trying to

take credit for the writer's work!

I think that it is possible as well that to Jim as an editor everybody thanks for this, for that, in the magazine. It sounds like "I would like to thank Jim..." is a bird-song in the company (as well as famous "earlier draft"). So the author used that and made a joke. I feel precisely that amount of "inappropriateness". If I were that editor I would laugh a lot. But, any other plausible explanation is likely possible. (By the way, is "likely possible" a pleonasm? And what about "plausable...likely possible"?)

Three-four questions more

"I would like to thank Jim Copeland for valuable comments and suggestions on an earlier draft of this paper. However, I can't, because he made no valuable comments or suggestions on an earlier draft of this paper."

7. Why there is 'and' in "valuable comments and suggestions" and 'or' in "valuable comments or suggestions"?

8. What would be the meaning if you use other combinations "and-and" "or-or" "or-and"?

9. Would you use "neither nor" - neither valuable comments nor suggestions? Why possibly the author didn't?

Re: May and Irony

CalifJim — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 03:47:12 GMT

Eladio,

I don't think the verb choice in itself plays a significant role in creating irony (which you are using here in the sense of "sarcasm"). Rather, it is the entire sentence, and, as mentioned above, tone of voice. Unusual and clever expressions tend more toward sarcasm than mere changes in verbs. Sarcasm (or irony, as you say) can easily be combined with humor, of course.

Are you sure you've used a frying pan before?
And you claim to have passed "Egg Frying 101"!
It's hard to believe anyone could actually do that to an egg.

CJ