Wasp (Andrea Arnold 2003)

Part 1

Part 2


This film represents a typical council estate lifestyle for some people. It tells the story of a mother who hasn't yet accepted her responsibilities of motherhood and still wants to meet men. At the beginning of the film, we meet the mother running down the stairs with her children shouting for them to follow her, it shows desperation and not a particularly laid back lifestyle. She runs through the street holding her half naked baby with her three scruffy looking children trundling behind her in her night gown with no shoes on. We have no idea where she has come from or where she is running from. The hand held camera throughout the whole film helps to emphasise the desperation and anguish felt by everyone this woman goes near.

There is very natural lighting throughout and seems to be little or no artificial lighting to add to the social realism of the whole situation. The way she violently bangs on the other woman's door and explicity swears and violently fights with her in the street all in front of her children shows a lack of parental responsibility, even though her heart is in the right place as she is defending her children. It is clear to see that the children do not have a positive role model in their life as they begin to get involved in the bad language, and at the end of it all the mother encourages them all to put their middle fingers up to her in almost a comic like style. All of the natural background noises are left in to add to the gritty lifestyle these people are living, car noises, the baby crying, none of these are peaceful sounds, it shows the audience what a stressful lifestyle this can be at times.
When Zoe gets talking to David in his car, she is quick to tell him that they are not her children, this really highlights the lack of materal instincts for these children as she is clearly not happy to have them. There is mention of a previous boyfriend which suggests that these children may not all have the same father, a very common sterotype for someone who lives in a council flat. We get an insight into the sort of men she see's by the car that David drives, a very old model that doesnt't start the first time. It suggests that she is desperate for a man to help her with her children and will take anyone that wants her, as for a first impression he seems a bit sleezy.

She seems to see her children as more like friends, the way she jokes about this potenial new boyfriend with them, particularly the oldest as she is the one she off loads the baby on to. The claustaphobia of where they live really sets in when it shows some views of the area, where it is very built up and over-looked by everyone, there are a lot of people crammed into one area, certainly not the sort of place you would want to bring up your children. It gives a suggestion as to her income which is obviously little or none. Their house is very compact, and yet we see Zoe as not very maternal, it is full of pictures that her children has drawn. They have mouldy bread in the cupboard so she ends up giving the children a bag of sugar to share. This again shows bad mothering, as she clearly does not know how to provide for these children properly. It is then the job of the eldest to share it out.

Our next view of her is when she is walking to the pub to meet David, she is now dressed up in very cheap looking clothes, that were not only cheap to buy but cheapen her as a person, her hairstyle is that of a low income, not very careful person, and her red top and short skirt gives the audience a clue to what she wants to get out of the night. Throughout the film she always shouts at her children everytime they talk about food that they want, because she cannot afford it, this obviously not only angers her but upsets her that she cannot afford to provide for her family. She seems to have almost a split personality as at one point she is shouting and swearing at the children then she is all playful with them and trying to make them happy by dancing and singing for them or running down the hill with them.

She then leaves her children outside the pub in a very grotty area while she goes inside to meet David. She has to squeeze past all the men looking at her provocatively because of what she is wearing, it belittles her as a woman as they are objectifying her. This is then emphasised again later when David won't leave the poole table to get her a drink she has to get it herself, and he uses to excuse that she is a "modern woman". Her embarressment of not being able to afford the drinks shows her to be a bit selfless, as it is her drink that she changes, her children still get a drink and some (even if only a little amount of) food and David still gets his drink. Deep down I think she really does care for her children but just isn't emotionally mature enough to know how to look after them. When the food is given to the children the eldest takes her motherly role straight away and takes the food to share out, while other others get a bit annoyed about it.

Worry for the children then sets in when they are running around in the road screaming while the sound of traffic is foregrounded, it half suggests that somehting bad will happen to one of them sooner or later due to their mother not being around. They are left in the dark and cold. The mention of bus tickets when Zoe is talking to David shows her lack of income as she obviously doesn't have a car. The scene then changes to the eldest daughter trying her hardest to keep the baby warm outside. It is almost like a role reveral as the mother is inside chatting up men, while the daughter is outside being an adult. Zoe then gets very angry when her daughter taps on the window for her mum's help. The baby is hungry, which also portrays a lack of responsibility for these children as she has let them go hungry. She then tells them to stay away from the door because of the sort of people hanging about, yet she has left them outside the whole time exposed to all sorts!

While the children are alone, the eldest notices some men dropping food on the floor, she then takes it upon herself to go and get it to provide for her siblings, more food than their mum has ever given them, even if it is off the floor, this soon makes the baby stop crying which the mother was never able to do. Although she is kissing David in the car, as soon as she hears her children screaming she straight away jumps out the car to make sure they are okay, this emphasises that she really does love them but just isn't sure how to look after children. She then gets very upset when she thinks the baby has been stung by a wasp and seeks refuge in David's car who provides the children with food, our preconceptions of him then change as well, as he suggests getting them home and he has bought them food, so he is actually a good man, even though the way he made me talk about her children at the beginning suggested to the audience that he wouldn't be interested if he knew she had children.

The ideological message in this film is to look after your children and to keep an eye on them at all times otherwise you may lose them, through injury or social services will take them away. It suggests that mothers should let go of their youth and understand their responsibilities, and to get their priorities right. This is very different from a Hollywood film as it has not been glamourised at all, it is an extreme case of social realism. It is clear by the camera work that it is also low budget. Although a popular short film, I doubt it has had the attention that a feature length film would have had so it is also unrecognised.

This film touches on two different theories of narrative. That of Roland Barthes, when he says that narratives follow the ideological dimension of myths (societies values), as society would look at this woman as an unfit mother who clearly does not care about her children, but it is clear to see from her house decor and her behavious at the end that she really does care for them but she doesn't know how to look after them, rather than not wanting to. It can also be argued that it follows Tsvetan Todorov's theory of equilibrium, (that all narratives start with an equilibrium that is disrupted and then is resolved with a new equilibrium), in this situationit would be the normal family life at the beginning with Zoe and her children, then the disruption when the baby is stung by a wasp, and the new equilibrium at the end when it alludes to a new life with David.

I am to use parts of this film very implicitly, it will have a hint of the social realism from this of a very extreme case of domestic violence, it will also have the contrast of two different stories being played at the same time, (Zoe's night out and the children being left outside).

Evolving Ideas

After watching a film, "Law Abiding Citizen" at home, I now have an outlined idea of how I would like my film to look. Having analysed these two films I have decided that I quite like the idea of using a dream-like sequence, as I feel that this could be really expressive and effective interpretted in my own way. I don't yet have any ideas as to what the theme could be but I like the idea of having random sequences put together, I will however need to make sure that it is obvious to the audience that it is a dream.

Gunslingers (Regan Hall, 2009) - BBC.com

From the write up we know that the short film is about a young farmer fighting to save the woman he loves from the grips of a jealous outsider. The cinematography throughout is very dream-like, it is a dream-like sequence that becomes emphasised by the random scenes that don't seem to link together on the first viewing. All of the characters appear very animated in their faces and movements, along with the setting they are in not looking real. Although none of them seem real, it changes its look throughout, from looking like an imitation of real life to a purposful back drop for a 'photoshoot' effect.

The ideology behind the sequence is that of passion and desire through the sincerity of it. The costumes are dated, they are that of a Texas cowboy in about the 1930's. The colour is black and white so that the audience can gain no knowledge from this, it is not important. The man looking to steal the woman is dressed in a sterotypical cowboy costume. He is made to look, with the eye make up, sincere and smouldering. The ruggedness of his stubble makes him come across as the sort of man anyone would keep their girlfriends away from. He has the typical 'bad boy' look.

The woman is dressed very provocatively for the time. She has a very low cut dress on and her blonde hair suggests a flirty side to her. Her smokey eyes mirror that of the man trying to steal her as they too give her the smouldering, sexual look, it gives her a connection to him. Her facial expressinos are very suggestive of her looks of vanity. We can tell she takes care of herself and wants people to know. The young farmer is dressed very plainly and the only thing that really stands out is his hairstyle, which is that of an abstract, modern model, contrasting with the time era the rest of the film is in. Their body language poses vary greatly. The cowboy has a very wide stance, particualry when he draws his gun, this suggests confidence and masculinity. The woman has a long stride which suggests she too is confident and knows her beauty, she takes pride in the fact that men are fighting over her. The young farmer is very hunched over and aggitated throughout, his paranoia coming from the anxiety or losing the woman he loves.

The settings are all very artificial looking. The lack of surrounding population suggests a need for women to repopulate, or the unimportance of everyone else in this fight for her love. The very seemingly randon choice of settings build up the tension and story of distance between the two men, until they finally meet. Making the cowboy intrude on to their front proch shows an invasion of someone elses property and a moral line being crossed, it shows further reason for conflict, not only the house but for his wife as well.

The scene where the rose is being stroked on a male back leaeves a lot to the imagination as we do not know whose back it is. Has this woman already had a past affair with this man and this is was the feud is about? Or is that an insight for her desire for the cowboy? Or could it just be her sharing intimacy with the farmer? The act of the woman blowing out the candle suggests her higher status as she is calling the shots in the household with these men.

The camera is very static throughout due to the fact there is not a lot of action and not much movement. This again suggests a dream-like scenario. The woman being dressed up in a tiara at the end shows again her high status amongst the men as she is seen to be that of royalty to them. A precious 'prize' almost that they are competing for.

The edits are fairly long in this film which I believe it mirrors the 'dreamy' music and the unrealisticness of it all. They are all fairly equal in length as well which is fairly uncommon of any type of film. This is different to Hollywood films in many ways. For one obvious reason, it has no speech which we would not see in a big budget film. Another reason is that it can be quite hard to understand, and others may interpret it in lots of other ways which allows for a creative mind to make of it what they will, feature length films would not do this as they has a very closed narrative structure that has linear aspects because they know that this has worked in the past and so will ultimately make them money again.

We can apply Roland Barthes theory of the narrative to this film in how he describes Enigmatic Codes in "An introduction to the structural analysis of narrative (1975), which can be described as puzzles set to engage the audience and maintain the curiosity. Maybe not obvious puzzles but I do believe this short film displays signs of confusion which keeps the audience enticed to find out whether their own interpretation was correct or not.

Parts of this film I aim to use in my own is the dream-like sequence of it. I like how it uses postmodernism to make sure the audience knows it is fiction.

Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (Mark Lediard, 2009) - Depict.org

This short film has an effective impact on the audience in the way that it takes an old fashioned classis children's entertainment film and makes it look as though it should be a nightmare. The flashing images and the randomness of the sequence make it look as though it were a dream, which Alice In Wonderland indeed is, yet it is not seen to be a negative experience for Alice. Whether the film makers intended this or not it is unknown but the character Alice in the short film is Chinese, whereas Alice in the story we all know is a blonde haired little girl wearing a blue dress and is very naive to the world. However, the Alice in this film looks a lot older and looks to have a lot less child-like tendencies. The "drink me" bottle is an adaption of the novel where she finds a very small glass bottle with a cork, whereas the short film has made it a modern day sports bottle.

The music adds a lot to the nightmare-like situation. The way Alice sits on the bed rocking dips into another analysis' of the novel that suggests Alice was infact crazy due to the things she was dreaming and saying. The image of the rabbit being seen as evil due to its demonic eyes leaves a lot to be considered, could it be suggesting that the rabbit is evil as he is the one who makes Alice fall down the rabbit hole and made this nightmare begin? When it switches to black and white, it shows that this is no longer reality, up until then, everything previous is possible. The end where she wakes up in a dream like scenery is significant to the novel when she wakes up in a tree at the end and has realised it is all a dream.

The audience it is aimed at I would say is those who have read the novel or seen the Disney adaptation of it, because if you had done neither, it would make no sense as ou wouldn't be able to make these links between the origianal and the short film. I think it was made to give an alternative view to the classic, like we frequently see on the internet when famous films are recut into shorter films to change their genre entirely. I assume this outlet was chosen as it is specifically for short films. I doubt any other outlet would have been suitable for it as unless the alternative audience knew it was a short film it may seem a little confusing.

The editing style of this film is very fast paced to keep up with the ever changing scenarios in dreams. It is different from that of a Hollywood film as they would have varying edit lengths as they have time to incorporate a character profile in their films whereas short films have to convey a message in a very short amount of time, so to cram, are often quicker paced. These are what makes it stand out as a short film. Other aspects are that it is very obviously low budget and unrecognised, I doubt many other people have seen it, as it is only able to be viewed on an unpopular website.

This particular film could touch on Tsvetan Todorov's idea of what a narrative should be like. He says that all stories begin in a state of equilibrium which is then disrupted, and then in resolution a new equilibrium is created. This is true to this short film as she begins in one place, goes through a major disruption in 'wonderland', then finsihes somewhere entirely different.

Parts of this film I aim to use in my own is the quick paced, almost desperation nature of it. I like how quickly it ploughs through the storyline and manages to cram a lot of information and story into a short amount of time.

Initial Ideas and "About A Girl"

Having never seen a short film before, it would never be fair for me to pass judgment on my understanding of them, but I had never understood how they can convey a message, or carry a storyline in under 10 minutes. However, after viewing some short films, I have come to realise that many of them are down to your own individual interpretation.

I have watched a short film called "About a Girl" (Brian Percival, 2001. It was my first experience of a short film, and I thoroughly enjoyed it due to the gritty, social realist side of it. It carried a message and tells a story. We can tell straight away the audience it is meant to appeal to by the very title being typed out by a phone, we can also tell what sort of era it is from by the way it is being typed and the sort of phone that types in that way. The cinematography of it is throughout made to look dull. The opening shot if the silhouette of the girl singing and dancing is very dark, yet very true to real life, as many times in Britain, that is exactly what the weather looks like and how it would be. It would appear that throughout much of the film they have used natural lighting to keep it as real to true life as possible. The character is not that of a big Hollywood actor, her singing voice is not perfect, she is a typical teenager from England. The background hum has been left in, this could be for two reasons, either due to the budget of the film they don't have the technology to remove it, or it has been left in deliberately to add to the real life element.


We see straight away the sort of character this 13 year old is, by her accent, that of a very common person from the bad end of Manchester. Other clues to this are her clothes, she is wearing a very cheaply made coat that looks worn, as though she has had it for a while, it suggests lack of income into her household. Her hair and make up also says a lot. Her long hair suggests a child-like innocence, which makes it more shocking at the end when we know what she has been up to. She has been deliberately made to look her age also by lack of make up. The overall lack of style lets the audience know straight way the sort of background she has come from. The camera remains very intrusive throughout as it is always very close to her face in a documentary style. The hand-held element keeps with this theme. It is appropriate as it is though she is narrating us through her week as she talks directly to the camera. The setting that she is walking through is a real place in Manchester which helps with using natural lighting and getting it to look very reality like. The background is that of a boarded up building with dirt all over it. Again, giving us an insight into her life. All of the short edits and jump cuts are subtly used to break up her speech, although it appears to flow into a sentence, there are subtle clues that could reference to the baby she has lost.

The shot of her and her mum also reflects a typical family life of the time.

Also the shot where she is asked to take bags off of her younger sister. It fulfills the typical non-serious family arguments. The shot is composed very cleverly as it shows them walking away from the nicer looking houses and heading towards the block of flats that are inn a grey tone, whereas the house have a warm orange glow to them. We can also reiterate the class status of her family by what her mother and younger sister are wearing.


She also swears when quoting her mother. The fact that she says it very openly and barely flinches shows that this is common language to be used in her household. The line she speaks when she is in the cafe with her dad "I'm not a kid" is a big reference to the end of the film where we see that she has in fact had a child. Her dad's mannerisms suggest a similar lifestyle to that of the girl and her mother, shown by what he is wearing, just a very basic jogging suit, a typical 'skinhead' hairstyle and the way he speaks to her, we then get our assurance of this background when she states that he is currently unemployed. It makes the audience wonder, what has he said to her to make her respond in that way?


The audience gets the impression that she thinks she is a lot older than she really is, for example when she says, "hello, I'm thirteen" although this type of language to anyone older comes across as immaturity. Her very lack of involvement with the camera other than that of speech suggests she has something to hide, she makes little eye contact with it and is constantly looking around avoiding it. Her loneliness and lack of being able to express what has happened to her is very clearly shown in the shot where she is watching her father playing football, not only that she is not getting involved but all of their costumes are very bright and stand out but she is still wearing the same dull coat, and she almost disappears into the background. When she talks about this the setting behind her reveals a lot about where she lives, there is a bridge covered in graffitti which suggests a poor area with a lot of vandals and therefore a high crime rate, not the sort of place you would want to bring up your family. Her being left out is then emphasised when she says that her dad takes her to the pub, we conjure up this image of her and her dad having a good time spending quality father daughter time together, when in actual fact he abandons her outside, in a rough area of Manchester while he has a good time inside with his friends. It feels like she defends her dad as she never says that he leaves her, and if it were not for the shot showing us this we would never know.


The lyrics from Britney Spears' famous songs are repeated through out, especially the lines, "I'm stronger" and "I'm not that innocent", these lines are very significant to the end story line as she obviously isn't very innocent to have had a child and she is convincing herself that she will be stronger for getting rid of all evidence of her ever having a child. A major giveaway to the end of the story is hen her and her friends are on the bus singing, "I'm not that innocent" and then the girl says, "well I'm not", however the quick cut away from it soon diverts the audience's attention, so if you aren't pay ing close attention, you could either not realise that it is her that has said it or miss it altogether. The bus scene makes us feel very sorry for her as this is her being a typical child, singing and dancing and very overly confident with her friends and yet she has this dark secret that is obviously eating away at her.




She makes an obvious contradiction when she says, "and I look after our image" when, as previously stated, her hair, clothes and make up do not reflect that of an image concious person. It then follows to a shot of her in the perfume shop turning her nose up at the smell, this again emphasises how child like she is as this is the sort of thing adults are into. Clue are also reavealed here about her upbringing as she makes up a believable story about her own mother being blind, this shows a lie that help her get away with things through life, it also suggests her to be very talented at making things up which we know from later on in the film. This scene between the shop assistant and the girl shows a vast juxtoposition in values, as here a have a materialistic lady who looks after her looks and is very well spoken and polite, contrasted with an outspoken, immature, scruffy teenager.

Straight after this there is a big hint about the ending, not that it would help the audience guess what is to happen but it makes you wonder whether that could be what she is talking about. She says, "it hasn't got a name yet but it doesn't matter", then it cuts and she talks about her and her friends starting a band, but the cut makes the audience wonder is she really talking about the band or was she talking about the baby? Teenage immaturity is also brought out in this part when she says that her mum "never lets her have anything", she obviously doesn't understand the financial situation in their household and doesn't quite grasp the value of money, which is how it should be for a girl her age. This highlights how shocking it is that she has had a baby.

This shot of her mother looking on at her daughter with a face full of anguish and worry shows that her mother really does care about her daughter and wants the best life for her. Could she know that she is pregnant? Is she pregnant in that shot? She is scratching on a scratch card. This to me shows desperation for her family, she has given up trying to be sucessful and is now pinning her hopes on a lucky break gambling.

This shot of teenagers messing about by the river and swearing explicitly cements our preconceptions about where she is from ,in a nicer area you wouldn't get these types of people. She casually walks past them and isn't scared to make a comment to them about fishing which suggests she is used to such an environment. It then goes again to a shot of her and her dad in the cafe and she is talking about running away, her dad never asks her what is making her so unhappy as to why she wants to run away, does he also know she is pregnant? Is this what they are talking about? It then follows to a shot of her looking into the river while sitting on the side of her, it looks as though she is deep in negative thoguht, I interpret this as her contemplating the decision she is making about throwing her dead baby into the river.

She then tells this explicit story of how her mum made her and her brother drown a puppy in the canal. This barbarity to flow so naturally out of a teenage girl's mouth holds a lot of questions as to how bad her upbrnging really is, this is not a normal act and so does she secretly think tnhat there is nothing wrong with throwing a baby in the river just the same? Another baby reference is made again when she is talking supposedly about the puppy saying it had brown eyes and what she wanted to call it, but due to the jump cuts, it doesn't actually follow on from the puppy conversation, so on second viewing we can question whether she is talking about the puppy at all. It then becomes very tense when she stands by the river and says that she's now good at hiding things from her mum and throws the bag in the river, the focus on the sinking bag really makes the audience think what on earth is she talking about? It can be interpretted as a littel insensitive as she walks off saying "I'm still going to have a 99" it's as though she has totally forgotton about it already as if it is no big deal. However when the bag gets trapped in the fence in the river I feel like this references to the fact that it will never leave her, it will always be trapped in her mind what she has done.

I think this final image says a lot about what has happened to her, yes she is walking away from what she has just done, but she is walking on the shaded side of the river, suggesting that she will always have a dark secret hanging over her, the words she sings, "I've had enough" hold a lot of meaning to what she has been through, mayebe now she feels like she can start to move on.

The ideological message of this short film can be looked at in two ways. It can either be interpretted as that of stereotypical 'poor' people's lives at that time, or about teenage pregnancy and how to recognise the signs. Ut sends a message to young epople to be more careful and also to adults to be more aware of goings on such as these. About A Girl is different from Hollywood films as it has not been glamourised at all which I believe it would have if it was a high budget, feature length film. It's differences are that it displays a serious case of soical realism, which Hollywood tends to rear off from in all te sensationalisation. The grittiness is rare to see in high budget movies as it is not a pleasing film to watch particularly.

This narrative structure I believe this film follows is that of the ideas of Robert McKee. He says that characters reveal themselves in the choices they make under pressure. I believe this to be true to this film as we guess nothing about this girl until the end when we find out the 'pressure' she has been under and then we see a big part of what she is really like.

Parts of this film I aim to use in my own will be the big twist at the end, all the way through the audience is lead to believe one thing and it turns out to be completely different.

Understanding of a short film

There are many differences from a short film to a feature length Hollywood film. The main one, depicted in the title is the length, the average length of a feature length film is around 100 minutes, whereas a short film is generally no longer than 10 minutes. Other differences include the vast variation in budget and professionalism. Feature length films depend to have big budgets, often in the millions, and have big time professional actors, directors and producers, whereas short films are very low budget due to the fact that they are not often funded very well due to their ill-success, often as low as under £100 and rarely have an entire film set crew made up of amateurs.

Feature length films are generally made by big American film companies who often keep to the safe option that they know will make money and so often only appeal to a mainstream audience. Short films are more creative and appeal to an alternative audience. The experimental nature of short films make them different. A lot of the time when short films are made it is not known whether techniques used will be a success or not whereas to appeal to mainstream audience to make money, feature length films and very formulaic. Due to the mainstream ideas, feature length films are very widely distributed for their mass audiences, and can be seen in almost every cinema, whereas short films are rarely screened anywhere for their niche market other than the internet. They don't always advertise well either due to lack of funding. Hollywood films often display lots of characters many of who are famous actors, there are crowds of extras all carefully choreographed to perfection, whereas the gritty cast in short films often have little or no experience and are being paid very little wages. Feature length films have a glossy tone to them, we can tell it is not supposed to be real life, in contrast with short films which are more grainy and pixelated making them more real to life and in some ways more relatable.


Hollywood films it can be argued are very bland due to their narrow minded quest to make money, whereas with short films, being that profit is not of first priority they can be more quirky as they are not trying to appeal to everyone. Following these reasons, feature length films can be predictable and repetitive. On the other hand, short films are unpredictable and often have twists, and unexpected endings. For all of the above reasons, it is generally said that feature length films are popular and short films are not so much unpopular but just unrecognised and undiscovered. They are not as easy to view, using web 2.0 you have to pull them from the media, whereas feature length films are pushed on to us using web 1.0.