Critical analysis Narrative: The film has a simply constructed narrative, like most short films where information has to be put across fast. It is uncomplicated but effective and there is little fat that could be trimmed from the framework. Act one establishes the mundane existence of Frank and Linda; act two starts and ends with door opening requests for ball retrievals and basically consisting of a series of stunts, act three is set in the neighbours house, where all is revealed. Act one: Although the very start establishes Franks workplace, name and the fact he hasn’t got a car, the ironic hint concerning weather patterns is maybe a little subtle and could be communicated more both visually and through the actual sound of rain. The brief introduction of the Neighbours is an essential plot element in terms of establishing, for apart from the brief 2 line interlude of the first kitchen scene, we follow the activities of Frank and Linda chronologically. Act two: This is where the heart of the film is. From the gentle ride of the first act the main characters are put through a series of events. The first section concerns the discovery of the hand and it’s subsequent falling on a rug. These are structured logically. The cistern lid stunt is slow paced and considering the bathroom scene in the middle of the sequence, is the natural choice to go first. Secondary is the stair stunt. This is logically placed as their position in the house dictates that Frank and Linda are required to get nearer to the ground in order to escape. It is also a more elaborate stunt at a slightly quicker pace and a good build up for the events in the kitchen. The kitchen is the most sophisticated and dramatic stunt sequence. By appearing later in the act it carries forth the expectations from the proceeding sequences and it would be strange to backstep to a less intense scene. Then latterly the potential for tension is exploited with a walk back through the whole house. Considering the movement from the door it works well Act three: This works fine in terms of the narrative. The idea of having their fate revealed casually by the contents of a platter is neat, but it’s effectiveness lies on the visual capacity for this to be communicated. All meanings are neatly explained in the cellar scene. The very ending, linking back to the start and suggesting a continuance of the story. Genre/influences: The genre is generally described as a slapstick horror. It may borrow from certain aspects from both genres, but it never takes itself entirely seriously. There is a dark element of humour hidden in there possibly attributed to, or at least in tune with, the BBC comedy programme ‘the league of gentleman’. Lighting: The lighting is basically fine though out the film, with only a few instances where it particularly stands out. There are some inconsistencies. The living room scene shots contain glaring errors where the light seems to come from an unknown source and is out of tone with other shots in the same location. The first really noticeable example of lighting change being the bedroom scene. Here it comes from a lone lamp, giving a ring of shadow around the wall. This helps connote a more dangerous feel to the room than a brightly lit set up would. The Neighbours kitchen scenes is the area where lighting is most varied, with some sections being too dark. This adds nothing positive to the film and is the main area of lighting problems. A subtler problem is a small red light that appears periodically on a couple of shots. This has the hallmarks of a light on the front of the camera. It appears when Frank is about to confront a door with a detached segment of toilet and when a Neighbour hits someone with a spade in order to get lunch. Otherwise this shot is nicely composed along with the proceeding shot of the menacing Neighbour stepping out of the shadows. The shot of the bricks being removed is also well composed. The backlighing transcending an angelic quality on the subject, connotes a mix of innocence and evil. It is a well composed shot and although there is lighting flair around the head of the young child, this is acceptable considering the lighting source hasn’t been established. It might even help add to this effect of heavenly hallucinations.  Cinematography: The opening titles have to capture the audience, in this case setting a dramatic and dark tone to the proceedings, which is followed through in the second and third acts. In tone with this the cinematography strategy contains evidence of cohesion in relation to the narrative content. The mundane opening contains no camera movement in evidence: the first example of a more elaborate shot composition is proceeding to the turning point of the film: the discovery of the hand. First through a change in the depth of focus, shifting attention away from Frank and towards the ball. The most noticeable moment of cinemagraphic error is in the dining room scene where Frank says ‘I found it in the garden’. Here he appears to be looking the wrong way, indicating a visual oversight. Throughout the second act there is camera movement. It tends not to be overdramatic and never looses sense of the action presented on shot. Mostly it takes the forms of pans, for example of Linda dropping the phone then running towards Frank, tilts of the hand being caught and the spillage of water down Franks trousers. The point of view head shot is clearly the main exception outside the usual perimeters of shot composition. This works effectively as a means of establishing the nature of the room, which is a benefit considering the creaking door. The use of sound: Sound, throughout the film, generally compliments the pictures successfully. Again, a common theme the first part of the film the sound formation is very basic. Dialogue and background noise, with TV ambience to accompany the sitting room. Combined with a slight clock noise helps to accompany the static nature of the sequence. It’s only moving through to act two that issues of sound come into consideration and meanings are created purely through sounds. The first sound to do this is the hand catch sound. This is timed about right, the relation between image (although off camera) and sound working effectively. Although the fact that the phone has been cut is established through action, it might also be heard more predominately. This is a minor factor considering the musical build up that accompanies these actions. The sound of the first stunt does not appear to be out of place, either in the build up or the impact of someone falling with a toilet part. Perhaps the injuries on to Frank’s hands could be communicated more clearly although perhaps more visually rather than through sound as the fall takes place quickly. The subsequent sounds of Linda tripping over Franks more delicate regions and a collision with a coffee table. The stairs noise seems OK in distracting Frank and Lindas decent. Perhaps it should be a little more panned to the left to give it more audible placement, complimenting the future movements in the kitchen scene. The 180 degree point of view pan is the main instance relationship between vision and sound is an essential ingredient in communicating swaying movement. Therefore on the tilt up to the head it is perhaps a little quiet. Between the heartbeat noise in the kitchen slowly fades up and is an effective device to increase tension, but apart from this the scene is notable for a lack of sounds (see below). The spade hitting sounds work adequately, in conjunction with a series of audio build ups. Then it’s back to a more basic sound approach for the cellar scene, the fridge buzz and a chopping sound. This is an important sound to connote the cutting of bodies and is adequately gruesome. Music : The music adds very much to the film. The theme sets the mood of the piece well, it contains dramatic and horrific vibes which is used in several places through the production. But careful not to be overused with other musical elements being used at different times. Tension emitting tones preceding the stunts, for example, Frank approaching the door with the cistern lid and preceding the elaborate mishap on the stairs. There is evidence of a couple of visual cues for the music, the lifting of the platter being the most obvious. The extra orchestral moments give the film a slight comic heel. Without them, the tone of the production would be more serious and possibly too serious. They quirk up the proceedings without it verging too far in this direction. The end credit music is fits snugly. It’s upbeat nature means it doesn’t take itself too seriously, which is in tone with the film. The chanted singing is childish and evil, accompanying the image of a little girl playing football fittingly considering the previous actions. Additional sounds? There is minimal evidence where sounds could be added to further enhance the picture. Footsteps in the few exterior scenes, especially the point of view of Frank finding the hand as the feet are out of frame. There are also a couple of examples of bodies perhaps falling too quietly onto the floor particularly after the headbut and the banister. The severed head doesn’t seem to make a noise when it falls on Lindas T-shirt. When they go outside for the last time, there isn’t a door opening sound, which would have been nice. The door being moved by a cistern lid appears not to make a noise when it swings, but this is a very minor issue, virtually invisible in the wider context of the film. Editing The edits throughout the film are tight, especially in relation to the stairway stunt which is skilfully constructed. This is the main evidence of particularly quick editing, the composition of the shots meaning this approach wasn’t required. There seems little evidence of the selected form of editing contradicting the content of the film rather than accompanying it. This leads to the conclusion that it is fine, because it’s the kind of production that doesn’t place edits as a particular prominence. Points of view: The point of views are generally consistently of third party observation. There are few exceptions apart from Frank approaching the hand in the garden, him looking at his hands while about to slap Linda (cistern sequence) and an establishing shot of the kitchen which is from the view of a severed head hanging from a light fitting. These add to the variety of shots and work well considering the narrative is told from a neutral rather than subjective viewpoint. Characters constructed: The characters tap into preconceptions about middleage appearance to construct an image of a mundane and routine lifestyle. This meaning arises from a conglomeration of factors that place Frank and Linda in this context. The characters are defined through act one and, the role of the leads is consistent in terms of narrative. There are a couple of inconsistencies with the acting, especially Frank who’s nature of the voice varies slightly at different parts of the film. Linda’s characteristics are pretty consistent, she is defined as a typical housewife, mainly through the line ‘you can get that, I haven’t finished mine’. The next door neighbours are the characters that play with expectation. This is in order to give the film a twist. They are initially presented as a ‘cleaner than white’ bunch, communicated in mannerisms and respectable clothes. This works well as the expectations aren’t too overplayed, heightening the audiences awareness to such an extent that it causes suspicion. Gender issues: The film does reinforce rather than challenge stereotypical views of the main characters, with Frank being a factory worker and Linda appearing to be a housewife. However the messages representational capacity to reproduce a dominant model of the world is a subtle ideologically infiltrated influence rather than a cohesive attempt at forming meaning. It has its roots with subtle stereotypes. Despite the variants of their pallets, the women do the cooking and the men arrive from work. Perhaps a more noticeable aspect is that it is Frank that approaches the gap in the door first armed with a cistern lid and it is the male Neighbour that hits Frank and Linda with the spade. The main challenge to this is the girl playing football. Although in no way unusual there is a hint of resistance against more traditional ideas in terms of gender representations. I would argue that this is the only issue that stands out from a blanket woven from dominant beliefs, as the film appears to have no objective in this area. Falling into the welcome trap of entertainment rather than informing opinion and challenging the preconceived ideals that have been absorbed and recreated by societies. Film description: The film I would describe as dramatic, rooted in but pushing the boundaries of realism. This is because it isn’t an every day drama, but stretches the possibility of gruesome next door neighbours to its extreme potential. Appeal to target audience: The film doesn’t have a specifically targeted audience in terms of race, gender or age, although some of it’s content may be socially deemed unsuitable for younger children (swearing and severed heads etc). Given the broad field of target audience it would appear wise to assess the appeal of the film itself, rather than tying it exclusively to the needs of a specific group. I think overall the key aspect is patience through the opening stages. The composed stagnancy of the first few scenes may be a barrier for those demanding a more active cinematic form, but the opening titles communicates an anticipation of drama indicating this is an establishing sequence.