There exists a separation between the idea of the spy and the spied. Through this dichotomy we are able to recognize the line between the viewer and their relative field of vision. This is topical in the larger matrix of surveillance and intervention in film. The line between objectivity and intervention is integral for surveillance to stay effective. Let us then suppose that if the line is broken, a conflict will arise. The resolution of said conflict ends with a common underlying theme. When a spying force crosses the line in an attempt to alter the story’s outcome, it often succeeds, however this puts the spying force itself into a negative situation. If we assume these phenomena are true, we must also assume that the movie makers want to
…show more content…
Often in literature and subsequently film, a character is a personification of an idea. It became clear in the plot of the film that Detective Doyle is an arbiter for Jefferies’s supposed case. We are led to believe he is an authority we can trust to give us, the audience, the information we seek. Is Thorwald guilty of murdering his wife? Doyle is actually an irony in himself and subsequently a distraction for us. At the 53 minute mark we are introduced to Detective Doyle. The scene fades in from black and we are given a partial profile of Jefferies and the back of who we assume to be Doyle. There is a jump cut to where we see Doyle leaning out the window, his back to the camera and then a reverse shot. Doyle is speaking with Jefferies and discredits Jefferies’s theory in the dialogue. We are encouraged to agree with the detective. Doyle says, “It’s too obvious in a stupid way to commit murder”. Doyle also employs some strong premises in this scene such as “(a murder wouldn’t do so) open to 50 windows and then sitting over there smoking a cigar waiting for the police came to pick him up,” he then takes a tone of an instructor as he sits down across from Jefferies, this creates an eye line, this emphasizes Doyle’s next lines which is of him being leveling with Jefferies. This dialogue is meant to convince the audience that this could all be coincidence. This is important for the plot, but also …show more content…
When a policing force enters their objective focus in an attempt to help in some way, there is greater backlash. This reinforces the idiom, ‘road to hell is paved with the best intentions’. If the spies intervene, they may stop the original issue, but the consequences of their actions always cause a separate problem to escalate. The second point I’m trying to make is that the film makers must also dissuade us from arriving at this conclusion immediately. Characters, sub-plots, and dialogue are used in conjunction with cinematography to create subterfuge in which the allegorical themes can be hidden. We are encouraged to read between the lines and find that underlying allegory, but we don’t want the allegory to be the body of the film, we want it to be the thesis. We watch films for the sake of entertainment, not a bias lecture. The film makers must use these deceptions in order for us to follow the argumentative position that a film takes up for the sake of
Often in literature and subsequently film, a character is a personification of an idea. It became clear in the plot of the film that Detective Doyle is an arbiter for Jefferies’s supposed case. We are led to believe he is an authority we can trust to give us, the audience, the information we seek. Is Thorwald guilty of murdering his wife? Doyle is actually an irony in himself and subsequently a distraction for us. At the 53 minute mark we are introduced to Detective Doyle. The scene fades in from black and we are given a partial profile of Jefferies and the back of who we assume to be Doyle. There is a jump cut to where we see Doyle leaning out the window, his back to the camera and then a reverse shot. Doyle is speaking with Jefferies and discredits Jefferies’s theory in the dialogue. We are encouraged to agree with the detective. Doyle says, “It’s too obvious in a stupid way to commit murder”. Doyle also employs some strong premises in this scene such as “(a murder wouldn’t do so) open to 50 windows and then sitting over there smoking a cigar waiting for the police came to pick him up,” he then takes a tone of an instructor as he sits down across from Jefferies, this creates an eye line, this emphasizes Doyle’s next lines which is of him being leveling with Jefferies. This dialogue is meant to convince the audience that this could all be coincidence. This is important for the plot, but also …show more content…
When a policing force enters their objective focus in an attempt to help in some way, there is greater backlash. This reinforces the idiom, ‘road to hell is paved with the best intentions’. If the spies intervene, they may stop the original issue, but the consequences of their actions always cause a separate problem to escalate. The second point I’m trying to make is that the film makers must also dissuade us from arriving at this conclusion immediately. Characters, sub-plots, and dialogue are used in conjunction with cinematography to create subterfuge in which the allegorical themes can be hidden. We are encouraged to read between the lines and find that underlying allegory, but we don’t want the allegory to be the body of the film, we want it to be the thesis. We watch films for the sake of entertainment, not a bias lecture. The film makers must use these deceptions in order for us to follow the argumentative position that a film takes up for the sake of