Thriller Genre Evaluations

Trust Me
www.youtube.com/watch?v=62etCozQTGU
This is a short thriller film that is about the main character in the film, Norman, is woken in
the middle of the night by an unknown caller. He is told by a mysterious unknown caller to
escape by some unexplained intruders and is taken on a journey by the instructions of the
unknown caller around the town centre.
The film begins with a longshot to show the character, then transitioning into a first-person
point of view, making the audience feel as if they are in the character’s shoes and
experiencing the journey for themselves. It also helps the audience understand how the
character feels, taking us through the journey and taking out actions on behalf of the
audience with an intense feeling of fear not overcoming his decisions. The use of
iconography is also used through the prop of the phone, this makes it apparent to the
audience using the phone and an unknown caller that the genre is a mystery/horror. Without
this it would take away from the effect that the unknown caller has, like telling Norman what
to do and give him directions to a specific location.
The mise-en-scene is also reflected to show the genre of the film. One way this is done is
through the antagonists wearing dark clothing which clearly shows to the audience that they
are the adversary of the film. The dark costume is also used as it has connotations of
mystery, evil and fear of the unknown which is applicable for the characteristics of the
antagonists. The audience also automatically applies to these characters when they see the
dark costumes as they think of these negative connotations towards the antagonists
because it shows that they are posed as a threat towards the main character which the
director has made the audience feel like they are in the shoes of. Dark costumes are
conventional because the shades of black and grey connote to death, evil and mystery
which all are factors in this genre that make the audience feel thrilled.
It is also shown as the location that the storyline begins in is very isolated and in the middle
of deep woodlands, which can be seen as the character drives away from the house. This
has connotations of loneliness and the feeling of being ambushed, which is exactly what
happens which the director intends to make the audience feel anxious. This is used in many
other well-known thriller films such as Cube or Saw. It also gives the edgy feeling that, in the
situation that something terrible happens, the character won’t have the luxury of getting any
instantaneous help from anyone – leaving a window for the worst-case scenario in the
audience’s imagination which is death.
The effect that is given from the first-person cinematography causes the audience to have a
feeling of realism and can relate to the character in motion. The first and most apparent
directorial intent of first-person cinematography is for the audience to feel the experience of
the situation as if it were happening in their own eyes and finally, enhancing the viewing
experience and making the audience feel like they are part of the story. Not to mention it
gives much more of a different perspective compared to cinematography of other films that
follow the primary route of simple camera movements, but what first person does that other
shots don’t, is the noticeable and clear intentions of the director and what he wants the
audience to experience by cutting any potential meanings that could have various messages
– for example a mid-shot could be used to sexualise the character for the audience’s
gratification, or to emphasise the surroundings of the character that could have significance
according to the context. Whilst first person has much more clearer meanings because they
clearly show what the character is going through which is mainly what the camerawork of
other films in comparison are trying to portray with shots like the mid shot. Just like this
example, if this shot is used for the entirety for the film it would usually mean that it would be
a short film, as it is extremely rare that an entire two or more hours of a film would be filmed
in this shot as it would be the same as filming in any other shot, but it does feature in short
films to give the audience a feel for a snippet in other people’s daily experiences. However, if
this shot is used in films in the mix with other films, it means that they want to include the
audience in the feel of the main protagonists’ experiences. They are conventional because
they make the viewer feel like they are in the protagonist’s shoes and feel the same feelings
as the protagonists when events take place and their feelings will also be heightened. It is a
good idea to do this because it not only creates the thrill emotion that the director wants the
audience to feel but it also heightens it as they can see it from the most important
perspective.

This film does fit with Todorov’s theory, but it doesn’t clearly show the stages of the theory.
The early stages of the film show the first stage of ‘equilibrium’ which is the protagonist and
the storyline of the film at peace. The protagonist is sleeping and is awoken by a call from a
mysterious unknown caller. He then gets up and looks out the window to find three figures
with flashlights in his space. This is the next stage of Todorov’s theory which is the disruption
stage. This continues until the protagonists escapes in his vehicle and drives away from the
isolated location. The next stage, the ‘resolution’ stage, for example when he escapes and
there is a couple of scenes where the antagonists are included until they return in a scene
during the first ‘resolution stage’, when the protagonist starts to flee from the antagonist
again, the storyline returns back to the ‘disruption’ stage and only goes through the last three
stages which consist of the ‘resolution’, the ‘restored order’ and finally the ‘new equilibrium’
stages when the protagonist reaches the location that this mysterious unknown caller has
been directing him to, then the antagonists enter and excludes any hostility by giving friendly
gestures. An unlikely ending, but it still briefly follows Todorov’s storyline stages – however
briefly.

Roadside
www.youtube.com/watch?v=84sKjWyMFoE
This short thriller film is about a woman who is walking down a long dirt road, and a
mysterious man that offers to help her by giving her a lift in his truck. Throughout the film he
acts threatening and mysterious towards the woman which adds to the tension because the
audience doesn’t have clear view of who this man is or, clearly, what his intentions are.
Towards the end of the film it shows a long shot of the car driving away, and what seems to
be struggles from inside the car which are indicated by the brake lights being turned on and
off and the car swaying left and right before the car comes to a firm stop and the horn starts
to noise for a long duration. It then follows with the woman, getting out of the car then
removing the man and driving off into the distance, as the film ends abruptly.
The film begins with a restrictive narrative as we get to meet the two characters who are
unnamed but can be read easily. The woman is portrayed as vulnerable which is shown
through her emotions in the mid-shots used and the man is shown as superior which is
shown by high-two-shots to show he has power over the situation. This is needed as the fact
that we don’t know a great amount of information makes for the whole, however short,
storyline. The fact that we don’t know what the man is capable of gives the outlook of the film
more of an edge because at the beginning scenes of the film, the director intends for the
audience to feel as if this mystery man is dangerously capable of anything. The fact that the
narrative is restricted also plays into the effect of the ending and is a lot better in comparison
to if it was an unrestrictive narrative because the audience would see it coming and the plot
twist of the film would be subdued by the information that the audience would use to predict
the forthcoming scenes. However, the fact that the narrative was restrictive makes the end
plot twist of the vulnerable female character killing the dangerously superior man elevates
the audience’s shock because that is not an outcome that the audience could have possibly
predicted in correlation to the information given by the film. This fits with Todorov’s theory as
the beginning includes an equilibrium, then a disruption occurs and then a disequilibrium.
The resolution would be when the women kills the dangerous man, and the restored
equilibrium would be when the woman drives off in his car. We know this because the man is
no longer a threat to the vulnerable woman, and she is restored to her normal state in the
beginning – which is safety. The disruption would of course be the man approaching the
woman in his car and compulsively persuading and asking her to ‘get in’ his car. Each stage
has a rather short transition and quick period during each stage, which can make it difficult to
identify the stages of the film according to Todorov’s theory. However, this film makes it quite
clear because there seems to be a significant event that takes place at each stage to make it
more apparent to the audience that these stages are transitioning/occurring. For example,
the first stage is apparent to the audience because it is an introduction to a second character
(the man), and the second stage (disruption stage) becomes apparent when he continuously
aggravates her to ‘get’ in his car until she finally gives in and gets in his vehicle. The next
stage which is the resolution stage becomes apparent because the next significant event
happens – the death/killing of the dangerous man. This is logically followed through by the
new equilibrium as she is now safe again. The director of the film has made each of the
stages clear to the audience because there isn’t a great number of events happening, so
when something does happen – it has meaning of transition behind it which gives each
event of the film influence over the audience.
This film clearly reflects the thriller genre because it portrays various conventions of the
thriller genre, even in the short duration of the film. Firstly, the cinematography. One of the
scenes of the film is taken in a sequence shot. The sequence shot adds to the tension in this
film because the constant slow tempo of the scene makes the audience maintain a drastic
event that may take place. It makes the audience think that something is going to happen in
that shot, whilst it is stretched out for a longer duration to keep the audience’s attention
attached. The audience usually only realise the sequence shot after or when the significant
event has finally happened. The over the shoulder shot also shows the man’s social
‘authority’ over the woman as he is taller than her, meaning this can also technically act as a
very slight low angle shot. There are no outright low-angle shots used throughout the film,
however these shots are mostly used to show power to the character that the camera is
directed towards. The scene where the over the shoulder shot is used is also a sequence
shot. We know this is a sequence shot because there is no transition from camera angle with
the two angles that are used in the scene. The angle begins with an over-the-shoulder shot
which is directed at the man. As he is speaking to the woman, the camera slowly adjusts to
the side to act as a two-shot – showing both the characters and to show how the man is
making the female character feel uncomfortable. The last shot of the film is a long-shot that
shows the back of the truck, that the dangerous man finally lures the vulnerable woman into,
drive away for a short distance before it sways out of control and the horn starts to noise
indicating that the man is unconscious, and his head is on the steering wheel. It then shows
the woman leaving the vehicle and re-entering into the driver’s seat, then driving off –
restoring order and establishing a new equilibrium as she drives off. This scene was
intentionally shot with this cinematography because the director doesn’t want the tempo of
the film to increase due to violence and the fight between the two characters. Instead the
director shows the back of the car drive off and lets the audience assume that the man is
dead – from a distance. It is kept at a low tempo because the action is subdued by the
distancing of the camera and the vehicle, but the audience can still see the events taking
place in order to see what is going on and how the video comes to an end. Sequence shots
are conventional because it allows the events and footage to be more realistic and dramatic
as the footage is seen as more authentic and uncut.
Mise-en-scene is also used in this film the first occasion that this is noticeable on is when we
can see the woman walking down this long dirt road and there is low-key lighting applied to
the footage which was done to add an effect of gloom in the opening scene, but as the story
goes on we find out that it is also to add suspense onto the man’s character because we do
not know what this man is capable of – with help from the restrictive narrative.
The second micro-aspect of the film that we can see is the isolated location that the film is
set in. This is extremely common for a thriller film to be set in an isolated location because it
is always included for the same purpose – to make the audience feel uneasy about how bad
the circumstances of the situation can get and the fact that there is no instantaneous help
that could possibly, worst case scenario, save their lives. The man appears much more
dangerous in this film compared to if it would have been shot in a city centre area because if
he would have become a danger to the woman there would be no help in close proximity to
help this woman – whilst in a compact area there would be plenty of people in close
proximity to help the woman and apprehend the man. Another reason, however, not the
primary reason, would be to give a sense that either/both characters are lost, and this could
likely be the case in this film as she is walking vulnerably in an isolated area on her own. It
also makes the woman seem more vulnerable because like the first reason, there is nobody
to help her but herself in the act of defence.
Another micro-aspect is the costume of the antagonist which is another indicator that the film
is of the thriller genre. The antagonist is wearing dark clothing in the film which has
connotations of power – which isn’t always a positive connotation, and, in this context, he
has social power over the woman until the plot twist unfolds as he is in the car and looking
more physically stable than the woman. Another connotation would be mystery which would
be the most fitting to the charisma of this character. It would likely be the most fitting
because the main basis of this man being a threat to this vulnerable woman is how he is
mysterious and unknowingly dangerous which makes him more dangerous – because
fearing what isn’t known has a stronger power behind it compared to what is known. This is
conventional because the connotations of the dark costumes link to the theme of the short
film which is mystery and death which both appear in the form of events.

This does fit with Todorov’s theory because all the stages are demonstrated at different
stages and these are done by significant events to clearly establish to the audience the
developing stages of the story to the audience. An example of this would be when the
woman kills the dangerous man in the car – which is a clear indication of a transitioning in a
stage, specifically from the disruption stage (the man antagonising the vulnerable woman)
into the resolution stage and then swiftly transitions into the restored order stage when the
woman drives off in the distance. The first stage of Todorov’s theory is the equilibrium stage,
which is applicable to this film when the woman is walking down the long dirt road in a very
isolated location. This woman only becomes vulnerable however when the stage transitions
into the next which is the disruption stage. This is when the truck approaches the woman
and the antagonist begins to make the woman uncomfortable by consistently asking the
woman to get in his vehicle, until she eventually does. We can recognise that this stage is
the disruption stage because the woman doesn’t look vulnerable to any danger until the
mysterious man approaches her an begins to antagonise her until she gives in and gets in
his vehicle. The next stage of the theory would be the resolution stage is when the woman
kills the dangerous man and removes him from the driver’s seat. We can identify that this is
the resolution stage because the threat towards the woman’s vulnerability is solved and
there no longer – which means a resolution has taken place. The next stage is the restored
order which is when the woman gets into the passenger seat and drives off. We can see that
this is the restored order stage because peace has been restored and there is no longer a
threat. The last stage of the theory is restored equilibrium, this would be the final moments of
the film when the woman drives off in the distance. We know this is at this stage because the
tempo and feeling that was present at the beginning of the film was replicated and restored
at the ending of the film, and both scenes of the film also didn’t have a threat at the point of
specification.

HOLD’EM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pJgQOQ1JRA
This short thriller film is about 3 characters playing a game of poker, when the third character
who is associated with the other characters walks in late with an unknown male character
who is introduced to them because he helped the female character who is late, get to where
she is going. When one of the three original characters mentions where he works, the
unknown character turns to an antagonist quickly because he recognises the name of the
place and a crime that it was associated with recently that concerns him. When things spiral
out of control, he murders three of the characters, shortly before murdering the fourth, who
mentioned where he works, for a chance to explain himself.
The film begins with a restrictive narrative as we get to meet the characters. This is needed
as the story unfolds unexpectedly and the director wants the audience to be surprised by the
events and not to interpret what is going to happen next. This fits with Todorov’s theory as
the beginning includes an equilibrium, then a disruption occurs and then a disequilibrium.
Although it does not have a resolution as there is no return to the original mood of the first
scene as the antagonist kills the rest of the characters. We know that there is also know
restored order for similar reasoning and because the film is cut short before we know if the
antagonist turns out to be good hearted.
This film clearly reflects the thriller genre because it portrays various conventions of the
thriller genre, even in the short duration of the film. An example of this would be firstly the
mise-en-scene that is used in the film. The first micro aspect of the film is the lowkey lighting
used. The characters are sitting around a table in a dark room that is only lit by a dim light
which adds to the suspense and mood because it makes a contrast between the lighting,
which is mostly projected on the characters, and the darkness that they are surrounded by.
The darkness that they are surrounded by and that is majorly covering most of the space
around them connotates to evil and mystery which the audience may predict to happen in
the coming scenes of the film – resultantly keeping their attention directed towards the
actions of the characters and the imminent moments. It also gives the audience the notion of
the possibility of someone or something hiding in the darkness that could cause danger,
which they may think because the lights have been dim from the beginning and they haven’t
known if there is anything/anyone there that could be a potential harm to the characters that
are presented.
Another micro aspect that is used is the prop of choice that is a gun. This weapon adds a
heap of suspense because it is a direct danger to the protagonists. This also clearly
indicates to the audience that this character that assumes the gun is the antagonist because
he poses a threat to the characters. The director deliberately introduces the characters that
aren’t equipped with a weapon first to indicate to the audience that they are not antagonising
anybody and so the audience can work out that these characters are the protagonist and
that the character that is introduced later on is the antagonist because he holds a weapon
that is not owned by any of the other characters that would make them threatening. It also
shows that the antagonist has more power over the protagonists because he has the
resources to protect himself or cause danger if he feels necessary, which is an ability that he
uses at the ending of the film and an ability that none of the other characters evidently hold.
This is conventional as this prop connotes to death and threat, it is also seen in numerous
thriller films like Nightcrawler and Prisoners for similar reasons.
Another micro aspect that is used is the costume that the antagonist is wearing compared to
the protagonist’s costumes. The antagonist is clearly indicated to have connotations of
mystery and evil because he is wearing dark clothing from top to bottom, not to mention
black hair which adds to the argument. The costumes that the protagonists are wearing, that
we can see, is a white crop-top, a green button-up shirt, and a grey button-up shirt.
However, the main protagonist that is also the last to be brutally murdered by the antagonist
is also wearing a black vest which is the same coloured top as the antagonist. This could
indicate that the protagonist has the same level of power as he is not afraid of the
antagonist, or maybe it could suggest that this protagonist is just as evil and mysterious as
the antagonist – but the director has intentionally added this detail for it to be a contrasting
argument to leave the audience possibly thinking about the context and whether the
protagonist was actually a bad person.

Another convention that is included is the disorientating shot that is behind filmed behind the
protagonists backs in a sequence shot. Not to mention, when the antagonist is introduced, it
doesn’t once go behind his back which could suggest that the protagonists are all vulnerable
to danger while the antagonist is not vulnerable and could also suggest that he is going to be
the dangerous to the rest of the characters in the coming moments – which proves to be
true. It also brings back the image that there could be something hiding in the darkness that
could be a danger to the characters which makes them vulnerable. The positioning of the
camera behind the protagonists is in the darkness and almost ‘watching’ over the characters
and observing what is happening which makes it seem to the audience (if they closely
notice) that the characters are being watched by someone or something in the abyss of the
darkness they are surrounded by. The camera handling makes it seem more realistic to
make it seem like someone is hiding in the darkness because the camera that was filming
evidently wasn’t placed on a stand and moved by a machine, but handled manually by a
cameraman – which is noticed by the rocking/slight shaking of the camera which helps
create the feeling from the director even more that we are looking at the events of the video
through a hidden individual’s eyes. The shakiness of the camera is also conventional as it
creates realism and makes the audience feel as if they are truly witnessing instead of
watching through a setup, stable camera. It also adds to the tension of the situation because
it adds unpredictability through realism.
This film does not fit with Todorov’s theory as there is no resolution after the disruption of the
film. The first stage of the theory that we can see is the equilibrium stage which occurs when
the main three protagonists are all sitting around the dim-lit table playing poker (this also ties
in with the title of the film – Hold’em – which is a direct reference to gambling). The
characters are conversating for a couple of minutes before a car pulls in outside of their
location, shortly after, the female protagonist that the three original characters all seem to
have known previously walks in with the unknown, mysterious antagonist. At a first glance,
the characters nor the audience really know that the unknown character is the antagonist
until moments later when there is an opportunity for his character to be analysed, then we
can see that he is likely an antagonist figure because of various conventional features like
his costume and connotations, the props he has and the dialogue that he speaks. After both
late-coming characters are seated and all the characters are around the table, it seems to go
back to an equilibrium state as everyone is peaceful and none of the characters are
particularly concerned whether the unknown character is a threat or not because he hasn’t
posed a threat to any of the characters. This state is maintained until he begins to
antagonise the main character wearing the black vest about where he works and an event
that was related to his workplace and a personal matter of the antagonists. This poses as
another disruption stage, as there was no way of the antagonist knowing that the main
protagonist was involved in the matter before he brought it up, or at least the director has
intestinally left out this information for the audience to interpret whether the antagonist knew
the entire time or not. However, looking at it face value we must presume that the antagonist
didn’t know until the matter was brought up by the main protagonist, which means it
transitions from the equilibrium state back to the disruption instead of the disruption being
maintained because if the character had never of brought up where he worked then it could
be argued that the antagonist would have never got angry and nobody would have been
murdered. It is only after the final protagonist that is spared, but shortly shot after, that the
theory’s stages muddle, and the storyline skips the resolution and restored order stage.
However, it does still have a new equilibrium stage but to the antagonists benefit because
everything is restored like before from his perspective which may follow the storyline if the
director wanted to intentionally transition perspectives from the protagonists to the
antagonists – however this is unknown as this is where the story ends and cuts to the end
credits. The director’s intention was evidently to leave pondering questions in the audience’s
imagination such as ‘Did he know all along?’ and ‘Is he the wrong or right for avenging the
boy’s death?’. In conclusion, the director ended the film on a cliff hanger to leave various
questions and thoughts, like the examples, in the audience’s minds for them to answer or
think about themselves. This is done in various films like ‘Joker’ and ‘Sopranos’ where the
audience wants to know what happens next but are only left with the facts on screen that
they are given, and this is not done by accident, this is intentionally done by the director for
the reasons given by context.