Emily Carpenter / Department of Film & Media Sequence Analysis The objective. The objective or purpose of a sequence analysis in film studies is to interpret a sequence of film by demonstrating which elements of the film help to construct its cinematic and cultural meaning. When we “do” sequence analysis, we are asking how the sequence’s cinematography, mise-en-scène, editing, sound, and story construct its meaning for us. We are asking how what we see on-screen “does cultural work” by contributing to our understanding of the world we live in off-screen. Guiding questions. This approach asks you to consider the “how” of the filmmaking more than the “what” of the content. As a result, when you sit down to watch and take notes on your sequence, what you are watching for is not merely the “what happens” of the story unfolding onscreen, but the “how” of its presentation to us. Indeed, one way to think about this kind of exercise is to define it as an opportunity to consider how, given all of the possible ways the filmmaker might have conveyed the same subject matter, the method s/he chose makes specific meanings for us. The guiding principle in such an analysis is often one of selection. Out of all possible elements that might contribute to the shaping of a film, what is present (selected) in the film? What is not? What emerges from this form of analysis is a deeper contextual understanding of the possibilities of cinematic expression. Procedure. In what follows, we describe the method that we find most useful in preparing our own sequence analyses. It takes you through the process step by step – how to watch, what to look for, what to select as your own “most significant” elements, etc. Before you Watch: Preparation/Research. 1. Familiarize yourself with the glossary of film terms on bCourses in Files / Syllabus & Handouts. It will take time to learn this vocabulary, but if you try to learn five new terms every time you look at it, you’ll rapidly expand your understanding of the choices that filmmakers make and how they affect what we see and feel when we see a film. 2. Take a mental inventory of the major concepts that have emerged in recent course texts. I have designed this course around texts which, whether they are from a textbook or a scholarly essay, are pointing you toward specific film techniques, developments in film history, or cultural shifts. If you sit down to watch your sequence with these major concepts in your mind, you will find it much easier to “see” the point of each sequence – to see how it is constructed, how it fits into film history, or how it dramatizes cultural shifts. 3. Combine this mental inventory with a general sense of our course topic this week, and make a list of 3 or 4 things that you’ll be watching out for. Now, a warning: this can be tricky! Sometimes, when we are determined to look for/at a select number of techniques or ideas, we may experience “confirmation bias.” That is to say, we may see only what we are looking for, at the expense of ideas that might challenge our view and open us up to new ways of thinking. When we do this in academic writing, we reduce a complex text to an overly simplistic interpretation that can be easily challenged or invalidated. So, even as you give yourself a mental list of things to watch out for, remember to be on the lookout for elements of the film that disrupt or challenge a simple reading. Watching actively: Collecting Evidence, Building Interpretation 1. Watch your sequence many times, and build a solid sense of the sequence “from every angle” – that is, using different topics as your “lens” every time you watch. You might choose to watch the sequence five times, each time looking for/at – and taking detailed notes on – things like: a. What do I notice about cinematography in this sequence? b. What do I notice about mise-en-scène in this sequence? c. What do I notice about editing in this sequence? d. What do I notice about sound in this sequence? Emily Carpenter / Department of Film & Media e. What do I notice about how this sequence advances or seems to delay the narrative? f. What do I notice about how this sequence participates in (or challenges/complicates/refines/extends) discourses of race, class, sex, and gender? 2. Interpretation: Selection. Look through your answers to the above questions and find the ones that seem to be most significant. The “most significant” elements are the ones that have the most influence on the sequence. These are the ones that matter, that contribute most directly to your interpretation of the sequence. In one sequence, the cinematography might be doing the most interesting narrative and cultural work. In another sequence, it might be the interaction between sound and image. In some sequences, you might notice only some expressive element of mise-en-scène. In another sequence, it might be the way that different actors in the frame illustrate different idealized performances of masculinity or femininity. Whatever it is, it will probably stand out to you! This is where you prioritize elements that contribute to a single reading of the sequence – but without discarding any that challenge your reading, as this will add complexity and depth to your essay. 3. Interpretation: Synthesis. At this stage, you should have a sense of what elements you’d like to talk about as you begin writing your sequence analysis. It is OK not to have a thesis/argument clearly formed in your head at this stage! As this procedure is mapping out for you, good essay writing works from the ground up, moving from evidence to interpretation to claim. Writing. 1. Identify your sequence! Identify your sequence at some point in your first paragraph, so that your reader knows where you are in the film and, if necessary, can go watch your sequence if they wish to do so. This can be as simple as saying, “In the following paragraph(s), I will analyze the sequence in which X happens.” 2. Avoid plot summary! Assume that your reader knows the film in question, and do not spend (waste) your time explaining “what happens” in the sequence. Instead, focus on how it happens, by crafting… 3. Descriptive analysis. In order to make an argument, you must present evidence – but the most efficient and elegant way to do so is to use prose that describes and analyzes at the same time. This is to say that, in the same sentence, you will describe whatever element of the film you want to bring attention to and analyze/interpret it. This is called descriptive analysis, and it’s the best tool in your toolbox as a film scholar. Here is one example of how a film scholar might work from evidence, through interpretation, from a sequence analysis of a scene in the film Broken Blossoms (D. W. Griffith, 1917). If you’d like, check out the scene in question at https://youtu.be/ZdIiZzc0Ceo?t=1h21m28s. Evidence / Description / What I SEE Interpretation / Analysis / What I UNDERSTAND Descriptive Analysis / What the film IS DOING A long shot of a bedroom. A Chinese man named Cheng Huan, and a white man named Battling Burrows are standing on opposite sides of the film frame. Burrows has just entered through a door in the middle background. Between the two men, on a bed positioned low to the ground, lies Lucy, the daughter of the white man. She has just died after being beaten by her father. Confrontation in domestic space between white man and “Other” man, over body of white woman. White woman as the person they fought over, the object of their competition and some cultural angst over innocence/purity of white femininity. This sequence dramatizes a confrontation in domestic space between Battlin Burrows and Cheng Huan: the white father and the man of color who Lucy has chosen as her friend and protector. The sequence literally happens over her dead body, which is framed on left and right by the men in question. Alternating medium close ups of Cheng Huan and Battling Burrows, so that we note their Medium close-ups showing the form of each man’s contempt for the other, then this strange dark A series of close-ups magnifies their emotions as they stare each other down and size each other up. Lucy’s father, the Emily Carpenter / Department of Film & Media expressions: Burrows makes angry/fearful faces, Cheng Huan makes angry/amused faces, Burrows seems to react by smiling darkly. humor between them as they size each other up and prepare to fight Quick alternation of long shot and medium shot: Battling Burrows edges his foot backward onto an axe, turns to pick it up, turns back to brandish it at Cheng Huan; Cheng Huan pulls a pistol from his cloak and shoots Burrows several times. Link between white man and traditional masculinity thru the axe; the Chinese man who brandishes a modern firearm becomes the hero by punishing the white patriarch for violence against the innocent woman When Burrows reaches for the axe, and Cheng Huan shoots him, the violent exchange comes to a head in a way that mobilizes the film’s race and class discourses. The coarse, violent white boxer wields the primitive axe; the Chinese Buddhist brandishes a modern firearm in the name of justice. Contrary to what we might have expected entering this scene, the confrontation ends in a shot (figuratively and literally) that deals death as punishment for the woman’s abuser and that defends the man who tried to protect her from toxic white patriarchy. Burrows waves goodbye to dead Lucy, raises his fists toward Cheng Huan, then falls backward, dead. The final gesture of the dying white man alternates between love/regret and anger/violence. As he dies, Burrows waves goodbye to Lucy and then raises his fists once more; each gesture conjures the potent combination of love, regret, anger, and violence that has animated this figure since his first moment on screen. It’s a moment of tremendous pathos, as the gestures seem sad and futile. But we are not meant to mourn this man. Indeed, the film’s narrative of racism comes to an unexpected temporary conclusion: it is not the Chinese man who is condemned, as we might expect given the virulent anti-Chinese sentiment that circulated in the 1910s, but the violent white man. Moreover, the righteous violence of people of color is justified – although only in defense of White man seems angry and fearful, Chinese man angry and darkly amused by Burrows’s fear – Burrows’s grin seems awful, but Cheng Huan’s response more understated, feels almost contemporary – we are invited to side with him. Doesn’t feel sad, though! Emphasizing the film’s interest in critiquing (and challenging the cultural privilege of) white masculinity boxer who has violently victimized her for the majority of the film, contorts his face with rage, but underneath his anger lurks a fear of the “Other” man; this combination of feelings belongs to Burrows but simultaneously refers outside the film to a wider cultural context of anti-Chinese sentiment during the 1910s. And Cheng Huan’s face alternates between hatred and a subtle, sardonic smile that holds Burrows in contempt while also enjoying the cracks in the façade of this white man’s tough masculine act. Cheng Huan’s response is eerily calm; while Burrows mugs for the camera, Cheng Huan remains almost completely motionless. While audiences of the time might have found his posture exotically threatening, audiences today can see a space in which the film allows us a powerful moment of identification with this protagonist of color. Emily Carpenter / Department of Film & Media white womanhood. A NOTE ABOUT DIALOGUE: You will have noticed that this example does not use dialogue as evidence. This is because this example comes from a sequence that contains no speech. The most important evidence in this scene, according to what is presented here, is the evidence of cinematography, mise-en-scène, and editing. But dialogue can be important evidence, too – as can sound. As we move through films that include spoken dialogue, pay attention to how certain lines of dialogue carry meaning – and incorporate them in your evidence and analysis. With dialogue, it is best to present and then interpret a direct quotation! 4. Organize your ideas. When you are organizing your thoughts, move chronologically through the sequence and build from evidence to argument. That is to say, each paragraph should move from descriptive analysis toward a mini-claim, and your final paragraph should conclude with a thesis statement that makes an argument about what your sequence does cinematically in the context of the whole film and culturally in terms of the interpretive frameworks we are focusing on in class during the week in question. 5. Make an argument! In the context of this course, an argument, expressed in a thesis statement, is an evidencebased but debatable interpretive assertion about the cinematic and cultural significance of a sequence of film. (If, when you are done with your essay, you look at your thesis statement and see that it does not complete this objective, you are not finished with your essay!) How does this sequence create meaning in the context of the film? What cultural values does it transmit cinematically? Does it call forward or backward in the film toward another scene, thereby creating associational meaning in the context of the larger narrative? Why is this sequence worth looking at, and what does it show us that can help us understand this film (and thereby film in general) more fully? Sequence Analysis 1. Please choose between the following sequences: • • • The entirety of Pan-American Exposition by Night (Edison, 1901) The “peep hole” sequence of The ‘Teddy’ Bears (Porter, 1907) The opening and introduction of principal characters in The Cheat (Cecil B. DeMille, 1915) Sequence Analysis 2. Please choose a sequence from The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (Robert Weine, 1920), The Jazz Singer (Alan Crosland, 1927), or M (Fritz Lang, 1931). Assignment Parameters. Your sequence analysis should be 1000 words long. Use the model sequence analyses and my “How to Write for Me” handout on bCourses as guides. You do not need to cite any texts, but if you do please follow MLA format for in-paragraph parenthetical citations. There is a “do” and “don’t” guide on this in the “How to Write For Me” handout. How to Submit. Submit your sequence analysis using the Assignments function of bCourses. Due dates are listed by assignment in bCourses. A reminder about late work policy. I will accept late work only if you have made an arrangement with me in advance. Your late work will receive a grade penalty of one letter grade per 24 hours that pass between the deadline and your submission. Please contact me if you anticipate a problem completing this assignment by its deadline. Grading. The following grading brakedown should supplement the departmental grading standards on the course syllabus. A AB+ Strong original argument/reading, excellent descriptive analysis of evidence, excellent structure, flawless style Weak original argument/reading, excellent descriptive analysis of evidence, strong structure, extremely few flaws in style No original argument/reading, excellent descriptive analysis of evidence, strong structure, some flaws in style Emily Carpenter / Department of Film & Media B BC+ and below No original argument/reading, strong descriptive analysis of evidence, strong structure, some flaws in style No original argument/reading, solid descriptive analysis of evidence, solid structure, some flaws in style No original argument/reading, weak/insufficient descriptive analysis of evidence, weak/insufficient structure, many flaws in style Film & Media 25A: History of Film, Part 1 Sequence Analysis 1. Your task. Write an essay that analyzes one of the following sequences. • • • The entirety of Pan-American Exposition by Night (Edison, 1901) The “peep hole” sequence of The ‘Teddy’ Bears (Porter, 1907) The opening and introduction of principal characters in The Cheat (Cecil B. DeMille, 1915) Your Parameters. Your sequence analysis should be approximately 1000 words long. It is OK to write a little more or a little less. Use the model sequence analyses and my “How to Write for Me” handout on bCourses as guides. Please follow MLA format for in-paragraph parenthetical citations and bibliographies. There is a “do” and “don’t” guide on this in the “How to Write For Me” handout. How to Submit. Submit your sequence analysis by 6 PM on Friday, March 1, using the Assignments function of bCourses. A reminder about late work policy. I will accept late work only if you have made an arrangement with me in advance. Your late work will receive a grade penalty of one letter grade per 24 hours that pass between the deadline and your submission. Please contact me if you anticipate a problem completing this assignment by its deadline. Grading. The following table tells you the basics of how we will grade these essays. A AB+ B BC+ and below Strong original argument/reading, excellent descriptive analysis of evidence, excellent structure, flawless style Weak original argument/reading, excellent descriptive analysis of evidence, strong structure, extremely few flaws in style No original argument/reading, excellent descriptive analysis of evidence, strong structure, some flaws in style No original argument/reading, strong descriptive analysis of evidence, strong structure, some flaws in style No original argument/reading, solid descriptive analysis of evidence, solid structure, some flaws in style No original argument/reading, weak/insufficient descriptive analysis of evidence, weak/insufficient structure, many flaws in style Who Grades What? For sequence analysis 1, Emily will grade papers of students whose last names fall in the first half of the alphabet on our roster: Alhamdaputra to Kruglikov. Tenzin will grade papers of students whose last names fall in the second half of the alphabet on our roster: Large to Zimmer. (For sequence analysis 2, Emily and Tenzin will switch halves of the alphabet so that everyone has an opportunity to work with both of us.) We will not be putting extensive comments on these essays because a) we want to give them back to you quickly and b) we prefer to go through them with you in person in office hours, where we can be more thorough with the students who actively choose this level of individual feedback. Should I use a course text as my critical framework? Probably! The Edison and Porter films show elements of the cinema of attractions; Higashi provides a reading of The Cheat. The wisest course here is to do as the first model essay in this packet has done, and use a course text (one of the Gunning texts or the Higashi text) as your critical framework. But your job is not merely to affirm (or “prove”) the arguments of these other scholars. Your reading needs to show us something more. What do Edison or Porter do that is more interesting than the simple cinema of attractions period or concept, or that stretches that concept? What does the opening sequence of The Cheat do that Higashi doesn’t notice, or that you interpret differently? Use your sequence analysis to extend and refine the work of your scholarly interlocutors. Your models for this are the many texts we’ve already read, in which Gunning, Kirby, Singer, Whissel, and Higashi work with their own scholarly interlocutors in order to make an original interpretation of the evidence in front of them. Model 1. This model shows you an example of how to successfully use course texts as a critical framework (“lens”) through which to regard an object of analysis. This author successfully extends and refines the work of Tom Gunning. You can watch the film here. Absent Attractions and the Intangible Spectacle of Anticipation In his article “The Cinema of Attractions,” Tom Gunning characterizes the earliest years of cinema as “exhibitionist,” indicating the “recurring look at the camera by actors” (2) as a microcosm of the medium’s larger obsession with showmanship. Many early silent films are primarily interested in providing striking imagery to audiences, establishing themselves as an object meant to be gazed upon using certain techniques, such as acknowledgement of the camera by the performers on-screen, that invite the viewer in. What Happened on Twentythird Street, New York City (Porter/Fleming, 1901)—heretofore referenced as What Happened due to the length of the title—represents an off-kilter rendition of the exhibitionist tendencies of early cinema in that it does not immediately present itself as a spectacle, but instead promises one. The following pages examine how the film’s appeal is built upon its momentary absence of spectacle, accentuating its voyeuristic pleasure by withholding its engagement with the viewer and the nonchalance involved in the eventual appearance of its subject. Many of the earliest silent films are characterized by one of two different modes of presentation, both involving the provision of pleasurable images to the viewer. The first is a repositioning of the audience in a particular time and/or place, a technique used by films such as Pan-American Exposition by Night (Porter, 1901) which functions as a tourism-substitute of sorts, treating the viewer to the visual of an event that had already transpired. The second mode involves presenting gestures and actions as centerpieces, occasionally holding them within vacuums. The Kiss (Heise, 1896) employs this technique, shooting the actors from waist-up against a black background, emphasizing the titular event as the primary subject of the film. I make this distinction between two sensibilities of early cinema to forward What Happened as a peculiar combination of both. Its spectacle functions as an initial adherence to the former technique with the teasing promise of a shift to the latter. The film places us onto twenty-third street in New York City, but does not immediately display a noteworthy incident. The viewer is repositioned in a place, but the title promises a more specific spectacle. Though it is not yet known what happened on twenty-third street, it must be revealed at some point. What Happened forgoes the staged look of films such as The Kiss, in which the action is directly shown to the audience, and is instead initially presented as one of the era’s tourism-substitute films. There is no immediate subject within the frame. The street is presented as a milieu, bodies and vehicles milling around throughout the shot moving in every direction. There is no appeal to the audience’s view. The people do not acknowledge the camera’s presence. Rather, the film is initially meant as a window into a particular locale, offering a glimpse at the goings-on of a specific location. Its casual appearance, devoid of emphasis, is akin to what we now call the “fly-on-the-wall” perspective of documentary films. This reorientation in a specific space is implied by the “On Twenty-third Street” segment of the title, but the “What Happened” promises a nonspecific but notable action or gesture. It implies an event without indicating it, imbuing the film’s unfolding occurrences with intrigue. By presenting the first shot as a casual, uninvolved view of a space, the film instills anticipation, which may even encourage the viewer to search for the centerpiece that is promised by the title, sifting through the shifting bodies. As the film unfolds, two figures are seen walking towards the camera from the horizon. Though they are initially too distant to distinguish from their surroundings, their steady progression towards the viewer’s perspective provides the only continuous pattern of motion within a group of people moving every which way. Their slower pace is also a distinctive element, a clear separation between the pair and the people surrounding them that helps highlight their presence. This movement towards the camera is a build, subtly placing emphasis on the pair of actors by bestowing them the only pathway that plays to the viewer’s perspective. The audience is able to catch onto the source of the spectacle while still not knowing what the spectacle itself is. Though the parties involved are realized, the viewer still anticipates what will occur. The promised spectacle transpires when the woman’s dress is blown upwards by an air vent. It’s a gendered centerpiece, a clear demonstration of male gaze. A female pedestrian is suddenly, “accidentally” sexualized, tapping into hetero-male scopophilia and presenting her body and embarrassment as objects to take pleasure in viewing. But though a fraction of its naughtiness is inherent to its content, much of it is derived from the inactivity that preceded the exposure. By initially photographing the street as a reorientation in a particular space, the film builds itself on a deliberate disconnect between the viewer and subject, or lack thereof. Since the camera goes unacknowledged, the viewer does as well, and it appears that the citizens moving through the frame have no idea that they are under surveillance by the viewer. The film functions as an exercise in voyeurism; the viewer is free to glimpse through a one-way window without consequences. The sudden exposure of the woman is all the more enticing and exploitive because of the audience’s insignificance to the persons within the film. The nonchalance of the camera’s stillness sacrifices the artifice of stagey set-ups and, in turn, presents the updraft as a genuine accident produced by the environment, one that the viewer is treated to through their unacknowledged perspective. The swiftness of the incident further accentuates its fleeting nature, and photography’s power to capture a moment that would be lost to time otherwise. After a quick moment of astonishment, the woman steps off of the vent and the pair laugh off the misfortune and resume their walk. The event takes all of three seconds, but the disregard of it by the characters adds a sensation of intimacy. There is no wild arm-waving to signal exasperation to the viewer, as was typical of films at the time. By leaving the camera unacknowledged, the subject is all the more enticing, as if the viewer has seen something they shouldn’t have. What Happened derives the significance of its spectacle through a juxtaposition with the absence of it, accentuating the voyeuristic element of its centerpiece and imbuing the proceedings with an air of anticipation. In turn, the cinema of attractions involves the search and wait for the attraction itself. Gunning intertwines the conceptions of cinema of attractions and narrative cinema within the medium’s early history, saying “one can unite them in a conception that sees cinema less as a way of telling stories than as a way of presenting a series of views to an audience” (2). The technique of What Happened is a unique inverse of this tendency, yet still adheres to it. The updraft is the film’s centerpiece, presented to the audience as an object to be viewed. Yet it is the moments outside of the action that make it all the more significant, contrasted at first through the casual, unacknowledged presence of the camera (and, thus, the viewer) and later the nonchalance of the parties involved. Though the film revolves around the provision of an image and, in turn, doesn’t fall completely under the umbrella of narrative cinema, the ancillary details are what makes it watchable. Without the initial environmental immersion, there is no element of surprise or playfulness. Simply presenting a woman having her dress blown upward would be overtly crass, but engaging the viewer’s curiosity by withholding a spectacle adds complexity to the proceedings. Though it does not tell a story in the way modern narrative cinema does, the anticipation created through manipulation of viewer expectation calls to mind narrative’s intention to garner viewer investment in its sequencing. The build is more than foundational to the cinema of attractions in What Happened; it is the key to its allure. It is here, in the methods of spectacle delivery, that inklings of narrative cinema can be seen, so essential to films’ appeal that it would eventually come to dominate the medium itself. Works Cited American Falls from Above, American Side. Dir. William Heise and James H. White. Thomas A. Edison, Inc. 1896. Gunning, Tom. “The Cinema of Attractions: Early Film, Its Spectator and the Avant-Garde.” Wide Angle, Vol. 8, nos. 3 & 4, Fall, 1986. The Kiss. Dir. William Heise. Thomas A. Edison, Inc. 1896. What Happened on Twenty-Third Street, New York City. Dir. George S. Fleming and Edwin S. Porter. Thomas A. Edison, Inc. 1901. Model 2. This model does not use a course text as critical framework, but does demonstrate the “close reading” practice we are helping you develop. It moves chronologically through the sequence, using descriptive analysis to present and interpret evidence from the film’s images and dialogue. The outline that follows the model essay shows what we like about it: what it does, how it’s put together, how it flows. This model is shorter than model 1, but would be of a similar length if it included a course text as its critical framework. You can watch the sequence in question here. The Moral Crossroads The opening sequence of The Grapes of Wrath establishes several key themes using a visual style that establishes patterns that recur over the course of the film. This sequence’s cinematography, mise-en-scène, and dialogue progressively isolate Tom: first in the landscape, then in visual and dialogic social conflicts where dominant views of commerce and class relations figure him as an outcast. This sequence critiques these dominant views, makes an argument about the redemptive moral value of labor, and foreshadows Tom’s fate. The sequence opens in a brightly lit and dynamically composed location shot. It seems to be morning, and we hear the diegetic sound of birdsong. In the middle distance, toward the left of the frame, two country roads meet; one road runs on vertically into the far distance, flanked on the left by telephone poles and power lines that give a sense of the grand scale of this open world. A lone man approaches on foot. We don’t know it yet, but this is Tom Joad. As we will soon find out, Tom has just been released from prison, and the bright, open composition signifies his new freedom. Unfortunately, interactions with other people – and the commercial and class relations that rule their worlds – will sour the sense of optimism that characterize Tom’s approach to the proverbial crossroads. A quick dissolve indicates the passage of time; now, the camera sits to the left of the intersection, and pans slowly right to observe Tom’s arrival at a store, in front of which sits a large truck labeled “Oklahoma City Transport Company.” A cut moves us still closer to the front of the store as Tom, with his back turned to us, approaches and leans against the corner of the truck in the far left of the frame. The shadow of the truck is long across the ground, and the storefront looms over it; beneath Tom’s outstretched arm, in the far distance, we observe a tractor turning slowly in the field. The institutions of commerce and the systems of transport that support it loom large in this shot, in which Tom seems a reluctant (or perhaps defiant) outsider. A woman and second man exit the store, exchange a few words, and this man gets into the truck. In a new shot, Tom approaches from the far side of the truck, and asks for a ride. The man refers Tom to a sticker on the windshield; a close-up shows it: “No Riders Allowed – Instructions of Owner.” This exchange signals something important about what is to come: an individual using someone else’s authority to avoid helping a fellow human being. Tom challenges this response in a way that foreshadows a major conflict of the film: “Sure, I saw it… but a good guy don’t pay no attention to what some heel makes him stick on his truck.” Tom defies the order of things that places power only in the hands of the company men who make rules for their subordinates to follow. In doing so, he appeals to the man’s own sense of right and wrong. This exchange sets up a tension between personal agency and responsibility and the more amorphous power of larger institutional forces (the bank, the company, the state) that will operate throughout the film. As the truck driver questions Tom about the evidence of hard labor on his hands, what emerges is not only a class divide but a divide between those trapped in fear and judgment and those who are willing to break a rule when that rule is unjust. This first conversation in the film thus establishes themes of competition and unconcern for others – and the desire to challenge them – that will organize most of the human relationships and narrative turning points in the film. When Tom leaps from the truck, he is not leaving these conflicts behind him. Indeed, the feelings of frustrated violence that he feels in response to his own powerlessness will lead him down a course of action that requires him, at the end of the film, to take to the road alone again. Model 2 Structure and Function Title • • NOT the assignment title Describes your argument Paragraph 1 • Soft thesis or mapping statement that • Identifies which sequence you will examine and • What about it you find interesting, • In a way that makes clear how you will be linking film technique to film themes. • 2-3 sentences long! • Write this LAST, only when you know what your argument really is! • NO VAGUE/GENERAL STATEMENTS ABOUT THE FILM, LIFE, ETC. Paragraph 2-3 • Chronological descriptive analysis of the sequence that • Notes only those details which are relevant to the argument and • Immediately analyzes/interprets them • In a way that leads you back toward the thesis you started with and • Transitions smoothly to the next paragraph. • Write this first, so that you use the process of examining evidence to build a claim, rather than trying to force a preconceived notion onto the evidence! Paragraph X (Conclusion) • Presents evidence from the end of your sequence that helps you cap off your descriptive analysis, leading directly into the final version of your thesis statement and • Further develops – without summarizing – the points you’ve made so far by presenting the most clear and robust version of the thesis, • Explains how this sequence is important in relation to the rest of the film and • Explains how this sequence reveals something interesting about the construction of California and the American West – IF this is relevant to the specific argument you are making about the sequence! • Write this second, so that you can sharpen your argument and figure out how it’s related to the film and the class! Final Pieces of Advice 1. Don’t name-drop techniques or vocab just to sound impressive. Only use it when it helps you be specific about a detail that is significant to your argument. 2. Give plot information/summary only when it helps you explain the significance of what you are seeing – and how the sequence you’re examining relates to the rest of the film. Sequence Analysis Model Essay (Using No Course Texts) + Structure & Function The Moral Crossroads The opening sequence of The Grapes of Wrath establishes several key themes using a visual style that establishes patterns that recur over the course of the film. This sequence’s cinematography, miseen-scène, and dialogue progressively isolate Tom: first in the landscape, then in visual and dialogic social conflicts where dominant views of commerce and class relations figure him as an outcast. This sequence critiques these dominant views, makes an argument about the redemptive moral value of labor, and foreshadows Tom’s fate. The sequence opens in a brightly lit and dynamically composed location shot. It seems to be morning, and we hear the diegetic sound of birdsong. In the middle distance, toward the left of the frame, two country roads meet; one road runs on vertically into the far distance, flanked on the left by telephone poles and power lines that give a sense of the grand scale of this open world. A lone man approaches on foot. We don’t know it yet, but this is Tom Joad. As we will soon find out, Tom has just been released from prison, and the bright, open composition signifies his new freedom. Unfortunately, interactions with other people – and the commercial and class relations that rule their worlds – will sour the sense of optimism that characterize Tom’s approach to the proverbial crossroads. A quick dissolve indicates the passage of time; now, the camera sits to the left of the intersection, and pans slowly right to observe Tom’s arrival at a store, in front of which sits a large truck labeled “Oklahoma City Transport Company.” A cut moves us still closer to the front of the store as Tom, with his back turned to us, approaches and leans against the corner of the truck in the far left of the frame. The shadow of the truck is long across the ground, and the storefront looms over it; beneath Tom’s outstretched arm, in the far distance, we observe a tractor turning slowly in the field. The institutions of commerce and the systems of transport that support it loom large in this shot, in which Tom seems a reluctant (or perhaps defiant) outsider. A woman and second man exit the store, exchange a few words, and this man gets into the truck. In a new shot, Tom approaches from the far side of the truck, and asks for a ride. The man refers Tom to a sticker on the windshield; a close-up shows it: “No Riders Allowed – Instructions of Owner.” This exchange signals something important about what is to come: an individual using someone else’s authority to avoid helping a fellow human being. Tom challenges this response in a way that foreshadows a major conflict of the film: “Sure, I saw it… but a good guy don’t pay no attention to what some heel makes him stick on his truck.” Tom defies the order of things that places power only in the hands of the company men who make rules for their subordinates to follow. In doing so, he appeals to the man’s own sense of right and wrong. This exchange sets up a tension between personal agency and responsibility and the more amorphous power of larger institutional forces (the bank, the company, the state) that will operate throughout the film. As the truck driver questions Tom about the evidence of hard labor on his hands, what emerges is not only a class divide but a divide between those trapped in fear and judgment and those who are willing to break a rule when that rule is unjust. This first conversation in the film thus establishes themes of competition and unconcern for others – and the desire to challenge them – that will organize most of the human relationships and narrative turning points in the film. When Tom leaps from the truck, he is not leaving these conflicts behind him. Indeed, the feelings of frustrated violence that he feels in response to his own powerlessness will lead him down a course of action that requires him, at the end of the film, to take to the road alone again. Sequence Analysis Model Essay (Using No Course Texts) + Structure & Function Structure and Function Title • • NOT the assignment title Describes your argument Paragraph 1 • Soft thesis or mapping statement that • Identifies which sequence you will examine and • What about it you find interesting, • In a way that makes clear how you will be linking film technique to film themes. • 2-3 sentences long! • Write this LAST, only when you know what your argument really is! • NO VAGUE/GENERAL STATEMENTS ABOUT THE FILM, LIFE, ETC. Paragraph 2-3 • Chronological descriptive analysis of the sequence that • Notes only those details which are relevant to the argument and • Immediately analyzes/interprets them • In a way that leads you back toward the thesis you started with and • Transitions smoothly to the next paragraph. • Write this first, so that you use the process of examining evidence to build a claim, rather than trying to force a preconceived notion onto the evidence! Paragraph X (Conclusion) • Presents evidence from the end of your sequence that helps you cap off your descriptive analysis, leading directly into the final version of your thesis statement and • Further develops – without summarizing – the points you’ve made so far by presenting the most clear and robust version of the thesis, • Explains how this sequence is important in relation to the rest of the film and • Explains how this sequence reveals something interesting about the construction of California and the American West – IF this is relevant to the specific argument you are making about the sequence! • Write this second, so that you can sharpen your argument and figure out how it’s related to the film and the class! Advice 1. Don’t name-drop techniques or vocab just to sound impressive. Only use it when it helps you be specific about a detail that is significant to your argument. 2. Give plot information/summary only when it helps you explain the significance of what you are seeing – and how the sequence you’re examining relates to the rest of the film. 
Purchase answer to see full attachment