Formal Coursework Brief

Analyse a minimum of two film title sequences using all of the concepts and ideas discussed on the course so far.

• In an action film, the conventions we'd expect are fighting, running, guns, gangs.

Mission Impossible
http://www.artofthetitle.com/2008/03/19/mission-impossible/

The 1996 film Mission Impossible, directed by Brian De Palma, is in the action genre. It supports Todorov’s theory – however it seems to miss out the initial stage of equilibrium, and moves straight to disruption. There are lots things going wrong.

The title begins with an extreme close up of a lit match, which then lights a piece of string. This symbolises the beginning; of an explosion perhaps. This then builds throughout the title sequence, as the wire burns more. This connotes that the sequence is building to something big. The last time we see the burning string is right at the end of the sequence, just before the title is seen on screen. A bold, traditional font is used, which makes the title look official and important. This is typical in an action film. This encourages the audience to expect a particular narrative structure, as they will now expect the film to build, with a big climax at the end.

 The lighting in the title sequence is low key, it is quite dark. This is also typical of an action film, as they tend to involve lots of secrets and hiding. It also creates a dim atmosphere, which also reinforces the idea of being hidden.

Although we get a sense that the characters in the title sequence are all working together; as the cutaways used always show similar things, such as computer software and photos, the actual main characters are always shown alone. This reinforces the concepts of spying that we expect to see in an action film, as they appear quite mysterious and hidden.
Close ups are used throughout the title sequence. This connotes the feelings of the characters, and their reactions to what is happening during the cutaways. This encourages the audience to expect a particular narrative story develop, as they would want to know what is causing the reactions seen in the close ups, and what is actually happening in all of the cutaways.


Casino Royale
http://www.artofthetitle.com/2008/01/14/casino-royale/

The 2006 film Casino Royale, directed by Martin Campbell, is also an action film.

The trailer of Casino Royale agrees with both Todorov and Roland Barthes theory. With Todorov’s theory, there is a disruption at the beginning – the main character shoots a person, and it unbalances everything.  This also supports Roland Barthes theory, of the Hermeneutic Code – questions are raised such as ‘who is this man?’ and ‘why is he being shot?’
It also agrees with Levis-Strauss' theory of binary oppositions. The binary opposition in this title sequence is simply good vs evil.

The title sequence begins with an establishing shot that shows the location and the main character picking something up from the floor. It then changes to animation. Rotoscoping (tracing over filming) is also used, but only on the main character. This connotes that what he is doing is like a dream, not quite real for anyone else. This suits the action genre, and the storyline in Casino Royale, as it is something that lots of people dream about. As the majority of the title sequence is animation, there is not a variety of shots used. The depth of focus does not vary either, it stays wide throughout the sequence, showing a lot of animation going on in the background.
A lot of the animation refers to gambling and betting, for example, characters are killed by spades and hearts off a deck of cards. A character is also depicted as a queen of hearts. This raises narrative expectations for the audience, as they expect one of the main themes throughout the film to be luck.
The colours used also remind the audience of betting and gambling - green, white, and red, like a deck of cards.