Watch at least 3 films from Edison, Lumiere Brothers, and Melies (at least one from each) on your own. Go to the Internet Archive, select "Moving Images" from the drop down menu and search for each director. All of the Edison films can be found at the Library of Congress and can be accessed here. Please be sure to tell me the name of the film and who made it and answer the following questions:
- Do you notice anything particular about the film’s presentation of cinematic space—what you see on the screen? How does this differ from films you watch today?
- What does the filmmaker compel you to see? What is left to your imagination? What is left out altogether?
Rescued From an Eagle's Nest (1908) by Edison
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning of the film, only a part of a small shack is in the foreground along with some mountains in the background. The characters are off center in the frame, creating the sense that there is something more important that will occur later. After the shot of the men falling a tree, a small girl is shown in the center of the frame indicating that she is important and that the audience should pay attention to her. Above the girl, a lone figure flying in the background implies that said figure may also play an important role in the film because of its isolation in the vast skies. The two are put together in the next shot as the figure, an eagle, flies down and captures the girl, flying away with her. They are both centered as the eagle flies, however the ground is not shown, creating the image that the young child is at a very dangerous height. The mother's frantic attempts to save her child are shown through the flailing of her limbs, creating the panic the audience is expected to feel. The father is shown off center in the frame, however instead of doing that to undermine his importance the position is dependent on limiting the amount of cliff they showed and the lack of a visible nest. The main difference between this film and films in the modern era is the lack of perspective change and the special effects. The shack was only had a small part visible throughout the film and the movement of the eagle appeared very artificial.
Le Repas (1895) by the Lumiere Brothers
The baby is centered in the frame, implying that he or she is the main character of the film. The parents are squeezed into the frame, making it appear closed and cluttered which only serves to further emphasize the importance of the child in the center. Both the child and the parents appear very happy and content with their meal despite the clutter. The main difference between this short film and today’s film, is that Le Repas does not have an obvious problem or antagonist that furthers the plot. It also lacks the length of many more modern films as well as the lack of camera movement. The filmmaker compels the audience to see the child by placing them in the center of the screen, but leave out much of the surrounding area and possibly even the rest of the table. By keeping the trees in the frame and the semi-strong winds that are seen through the moving of the clothes of both the child and the parents, the filmmaker allows the audience to infer that the table is outside.
The Kingdom of the Fairies (1903) by George Melies
This film, unlike many of its time, was in color, which was one of the most striking element of the film, along with action occurring in both the foreground and background. Because there was no camera movement, the focus of the scene was usually centered in the frame. Despite the limited camera movement, the special effects in the film draws the attention of the audience very quickly, most often to one of the more important characters of the scene. The color also helps to distinguish important characters from background characters. Although the use of special effects made a great impact during its time, compared to modern day films, they are substandard at best. Many modern day films have clean transitions after the use of special effects, not the choppy style of editing used for Melies’ film. The lack of dialogue, although common for its time, made it difficult to understand why one of the characters, was kidnapped and whether or not the character that kidnapped her was attempted to aid the soldier in rescuing her or was following them to foil their plan. It was also vague as to exactly who each character was and what role they had in the fictional kingdom portrayed in the film. Because of this, the identities of many of the characters is left to the imagination of the audience.
(Please get back to me if there is anything I should change.)
I chose Frankenstein, an Edison Inc. film from 1910. The camera remains static for the entirety of the film, giving only one angle of the scene at a time. The lack of movement is different from current films because it seems impossible for the camera to stay still in modern cinema. Additionally, the shots last longer in this film than they do today. Because of this presentation, the audience’s perception of cinematic space is limited. Scenes are either shot straight-on, giving a view similar to a stage play, or shot from the corner of the room to make it more interesting. The filmmaker also utilizes close-ups, such as a close-up shot of a letter (seen at 1:44) to give more information that cannot be presented with the camera angles used in the rest of the film. Also, towards the end of the film, we see the monster on screen in a mirror before we see it walk into frame physically. This adds more complexity to the shot and also makes viewers focus on the mirror, which becomes important after the monster disappears and can only be seen in the mirror.
ReplyDeleteThe Lumière film I chose was Démolition d'un mur (Demolition of a wall) from 1896. It shows the demolition of a wall in a single take, then plays it in reverse halfway through (0:45). The men working and watching walk all around the cinematic space, on and off the screen. A portion of the space is blocked by nearby buildings as well as the wall itself, and people have to maneuver around it. There is not much to see, just a wall and some workers. However, the filmmakers are still able to present this mundane real-life situation in a more interesting way. The camera angle used in this film displays the wall from the corner as opposed to a flat side. This was seemingly done by the filmmakers to add a sense of perspective and three-dimensional space.
The Méliès film that I chose was Le Diable Noir (The Black Devil/Imp) from 1905. It depicts a creature wreaking havoc in a hotel room by casting spells to make objects move around (achieved with stop tricks in editing). Like the other two films, the camera is static so viewers only get one view of the room. However, the characters move throughout the space, adding depth. They move from objects in the middle ground (such as the table and dresser) to objects in the far background (such as the bed and door). The filmmaker compels us to see the tricks that the creature is doing, because the man it is tormenting is often centered in the frame whenever something is going wrong (like when there are infinite chairs at 2:14).
The Edison film I chose was The Execution of Mary, Queen of Scots (1895). In this very short film we see Mary Stuart surrounded by executioners as she is beheaded. The view presented is at eye-level, portraying the subject of the frame with neutrality. This view, and the static camera, makes it almost like the viewer is looking through a window, intensifying the appalled reaction as we are unable to help as we see a violent act onscreen. Different from films today, the event is presented matter-of-factly, not dramatised. This film is exhibited as a recreation of an actual moment in history. The director compels us to see only Mary’s execution, not the time before or after. We do not see her pleading, crying, or saying goodbye to family. We only see her kneeling down to be beheaded. Of course, a quick cut is made so a dummy ends up being beheaded, but in early cinema this was a very innovative technique and definitely made the event look real. At the very end, we see the executioner holding Mary’s head up high. This is (according to historical reports) something that did happen. The director of this film does not show us anything that is dramatized or falsified, compelling us to see this essentially as a documentary, or like we are watching the real thing happen.
ReplyDeleteThe Lumière film I chose was also from from 1895, La Voltige (Trick Riding). In this film, the camera is static and at the right distance away from the subjects that we can see all their movements, which is important for what is happening onscreen here. We see a man trying, and failing, to get on a horse. The horse stays in the same spot, while the man runs around. The man is dressed in white, seemingly to make him pop out since he is the center of attention. The director compels us to see this in a comedic, exaggerated way. Especially since it took several tries to get on the horse, we are meant to see this as silly and ridiculous. There is no need for different shots, such as close-ups, because from the view we are given the content is communicated in the way intended– as amusing and entertaining.
The Méliès film I chose was from 1898 originally called in french La lune à un mètre, but in English it is called The Astronomer’s Dream. In this film, an astronomer experiences a very odd dream as he falls asleep while working. He is confused and frantic, trying to figure out what is going on. He is always in the foreground, while the things that come to him are in the background. The things in the background are rather large, especially the moon face. Their size makes them appear daunting to the frenzied astronomer. There are multiple shots in this film, showing a sequence of events as different things happen in the dream. The director compels us to view what’s onscreen as fantastic and outlandish, as it is a dream. The set design and costuming is eccentric, and the astronomer makes exaggerated movements to demonstrate his agitation (and excitement), and cuts are made to make the events appear magical, unreal, and obviously dreamlike.
Uncle Josh in a Spooky Hotel (1900) - Edison Inc.
ReplyDeleteThe camera stays in one location for the entire film, and the whole movie is shot straight on (meaning there is no use of deep space). Even though the film is not entirely one cut, as there are special effects, it is designed to look like one take. The film itself is fairly simple - two men enter a hotel room, and sit down on chairs that are almost centered, but still a little bit to the left of the screen. One of the men (Uncle Josh, due to his casual attire) attempts to leave after seeing how late it is, but the other man (hotel staff, he is wearing a suit) pulls him back into the chair. Twice, a ghost appears to cause chaos, making the men fight each other The third time the ghost appears, it gestures for the hotel worker to leave, sitting down in his place. Uncle Josh, focused on the clock, finds something incredibly funny about the time and starts laughing, unperturbed by the ghost. This film is unlike modern films mainly because it only has one camera angle, meaning it isn't able to portray events or emotions from as in-depth a level as it could have otherwise. The fact that the main subject matter is not centered in frame is interesting, too, and the only thing to appear in center frame and stay there for more than a second is the ghost (which could be to emphasize its importance). Also, due to it being a silent film, the plot was much harder to comprehend then it would be normally, although, that might have been the subject matter of the film. The film does not show us much, only focusing on the events that happen within the specific hotel room, but they do show us the ghost, who is just a man wearing a white sheet with eyeholes. The aftermath of this particular haunting is not shown, nor is Uncle Josh's reaction to the ghost. This film seems more like it exists to show off the special effects (ghosts "appearing" in the middle of the frame) than to tell a story.
The Sea (1895) - Lumiere Brothers
This film is much simpler than the previous one. Five boys are swimming in the sea, and they repeat the process of running on a dock, jumping into the water, swimming out, and doing it again until the film ends. The camera is positioned in a way that centers the dock, but not straight-on. Instead, the frame utilizes deep space. The dock starts in the lower right corner of the frame, in the foreground, and continues to the center, in the middle ground. This framing means that the boys are moving between the foreground and the middle ground for the entire film - even though the camera itself is static, this film remains interesting to watch simply because of the framing. The actual scene does not show the boys getting on the dock, as that part of the dock is cut off by the camera positioning, instead placing an emphasis on the jumping. The jumping is the most centered action in frame, too, further emphasizing it. The straight on camera angle was, again, unusual
Évocation Spirite/Summoning the Spirits (1899) - Georges Méliès
This film is somewhat similar to the first one. It too has a straight-on camera angle, and focuses on special effects. The first shot is a man holding a wreath, centered. He hangs the wreath up to the right, and walks left where he goes on to conjure many images in the wreath before he finishes. Although the straight on camera angle is, again, unfamiliar to modern movies, it seemed much less blocky and stilted than the first film. This was due to the lack of unnecessary filler movement - there were a lot of (unbearable) conversations in the first film, while this one transitions seamlessly from special effect to special effect. Also, despite the straight on angle, the framing for this one is more thought out, too - the wreath and the man both have about half the screen, where the first film had all the subjects crammed together on one side. This film compels us to see (and believe) the magic tricks happening on screen. Nothing off screen is implied, and the filmmaker wants a focus on the action presented.
For my Edison Inc. film I chose Jack and the Beanstalk from 1902. The film uses cinematic space to the best of it's ability meaning they use as much of the screen as possible while taking a shot. They do this because they have static cameras and they need to use the most of the screen if not all. In the opening scene we see a fairy giving some beans to some guy then he trades the beans for a cow and this all happening in one area to make it cheaper to get the whole story across. This is different from films today because nowadays we use so many different shots to get the story across because we have so much money put into films so it makes it easier to get a story across in multiple different scenes. We are compelled to see the actual action of the movie because its silent so we can not really learn the story. And obviously the thing left out and is for the imagination is the actual dialogue.
ReplyDeleteFor Lumiere Brothers I'm choosing "Leaving the Factory" 1895, this movie is less of a story and more of the brothers just testing the capabilities of film and what they could do at that time. All we can see on screen is a large group of people leaving a factory.This is different from films we watch today because nowadays we watch films for real stories not people walking. I guess we are compelled to see people walking, and what job they were just doing is left to our imagination. As Well as who the people in the film truly are.
For my Melies film Im choosing “A Trip to the Moon” from 1902, this movie just like the Edison Inc. uses cinematic space to the best of his abilities because of the static camera. Melies was a magician back before he was a director so he was able to use tricks from when he was a magician to make his movie better.They also used very well painted backdrops and nice props to make the movie seem to be real. What we see on screen is pretty obvious, we see people preparing to go into space And we see them go to the Moon which is very cool because then they do know what the surface of the Moon look like so we got to see what everyone else thought back then thought it looked like. This differs from film to watch today because instead of using magic tricks like they did in the movie we just use special effects and cuts and editing to make the movie come to life. We are compelled to see what Melies a thought that the moon looked like.Honestly most of what is left your imagination is dialogue and who the characters really are because everything is so obviously portrayed through the movie, it is a wonderful film I'm glad I got to enjoy it.
For my Edison film I chose "Serpentine Dances"1894. This is a short film, around 35 seconds in length, that shows a dancer on stage performing a very unique and flowing dance. The dance has the wave like movement that one might associate with a snake, hence the title of the film. As the dance progresses the dancers dress changes and changes color tone. This appears to be one of the first instances of color in a film. One thing that stood out to me about the presentation of cinematic space is that it is very two dimensional. The camera is stationary, with the dancer centered in the frame. There is nothing behind her but dark space and without a object in the background to show depth the film is given this quality, much like the appearance of a stage performance. This could be the exact look that the filmmakers were going for, as the dancer appears to be on stage. This is different from films that I see today as they utilize depth and camera movement, unlike this particular film. In this film the director compels the audience to see that fluid movements of the dancer, while leaving the audience that is supposedly viewing her onstage out and instead to our imagination.
ReplyDeleteFor my Lumiere Brothers film I chose "Arrival of a Train at la Ciotat"1895. This short film is almost a full minute in length and simply shows a train pulling up to a station. I noticed that this particular film utilizes cinematic space by giving the film a three dimensional effect. They do this through the angle of the shot, so that as the train approaches the station it gets larger in the frame, until it eventually passes the camera, with the rest of the train still extending into the background, giving the film a sense of depth. This is remarkably similar to films today that also utilize the sense of depth in the way that this film does. In this film, the filmmakers compel the audience to see the train station in all of its commotion and bustle as a loud train, billowing steam pulls up. While the train eventually passes the camera, the sense of atmosphere that the film creates allows us to imagine the parts of it that we cant see. The camera is stationary throughout the full film, so the filmmaker is forced to leave out the rest of the station that we suppose exists behind and around the camera. This is ok however, as, like the train, the audience can imagine what the rest of it looks like through the atmosphere that is created.
For my Melies film I chose "The Vanishing Lady"1896. This film, about a minute twenty in length, shows a magician on stage who makes a woman disappear. He then fills the empty char with a skeleton before bringing back the woman. These "vanishing" effects are created through the uses of cuts and edits. The film's presentation of cinematic space, much like Edison's "Serpentine Dances"1894, is very two dimensional, giving the effect of an on stage performance. Unlike most films today, it does not utilize depth. In this film, similar to "Serpentine Dances" the filmmaker compels us to see the amazing way that the magician is making these objects disappear and reappear, while at the same time forcing us to use our imagination to see the audience that we assume this magician is performing in front of.
An Artist's Dream (1900)- Edison Inc.
ReplyDeleteAn Artist's Dream shows a painter who falls asleep and believes his paintings come to life before awakening and seeing the figures back in their frames. In this short, the camera movement never changes; the setting remains the same view of a studio for the one minute length of the film. Despite the limited view of one angle, the viewers still see a long shot including the floor and above the character's heads. Something very interesting about this film is how Edison used editing to alter the story. When the artist in the story tries to grab his painted figures, the scene cuts and resumes to him grabbing at thin air while the woman has disappeared. It happens a few more times with the devil-like man that awakens the artist, Edison even shows him fly away. This is different from films today because the stories are much more complex, even if unnecessarily so. Not much is left to the imagination after watching this short a few times, it is just an example of an early fantasy short.The storyline is effectively communicated through a controlled cinematic space, and most importantly editing, with nothing left out besides obvious dialogue.
Baby's Lunch (1895)- The Lumiere Brothers
Baby's Lunch is a less than one minute short that is pretty self-explanatory from the title. The frame shows an infant sat on a high chair sandwiched between their presumed parents. Although this film is of a single shot, it is clear the Lumiere Brothers were aware of cinematic space. The camera shows a middle shot of these figures, using the size of these subjects to create a sense of symmetry. This short doesn't follow a narrative and is purely observational, but the constant movement of the adults is similar to the fast pace in movies we watch today. Any context to this family is left out, but the Lumiere Brothers compel viewers to make up their own background.
The Vanishing Story (1896)- George Melies
I chose this short because it reminded me a lot of Edison's An Artist's Dream. This film shows a magician make a woman "disappear" under a blanket while sitting on a chair, then has her replaced by a skeleton sitting in the same place. Like An Artist's Dream, this is all made possible by the use sharp editing, making it look like the subject vanished out of thin air. It is also filmed in one long shot, with clear attention to balanced framing. A difference between this film and the ones we watch today is how we watch this short as an audience member rather than an outside source. Viewers do not see the audience of this act, Melies leaves out this perspective. Melies compels viewers to see the exact trick, only leaving how he accomplished this to the imagination, rather than the narrative itself.
L'Arrivée d'un train en gare de La Ciotat (1895)- Lumiere Brothers
ReplyDeleteThis is a film of a train coming into a station. However, it is quite unique compared to the work of Melies of even Edison (moreso Melies). All of the movement in the film is very lateral, on the same sort of diagonal plane. In Melies films, and some of Edison's, we see more of a horizontal plane, as see in The Four Troublesome Heads (1898, Melies). Melies films, although great, are shot indoors, and look like a staged production. This film was filmed outside, and exhibits how much one can do with the ability to film outdoors. This film also employs deep space, as we can see everyone getting off the train, from the foreground to the far far background. The Lumiere Brothers also did not leave much for us to image. Everything in the film is very explicitly there, as the film is just depicting a real life situation. As with most films of this time, the camera doesn’t move.
Shooting captured insurgents (1898)- Edison
Similar to the Lumiere Brothers, Edison portrayed real life events. In this case, it is the lining up and shooting of Cubans against a wall by the Spanish soldiers holding them. This was one of the first films to employ practical effects that are seen in the film. Obviously, this film doesn’t actually depict the murdering of 4 people. This film instead uses practical effects to make it seem as if the guns were firing. This added to the actors falling to the ground gives off the idea that the people have been shot and killed.
The Four Troublesome Heads (1898)- Melies
This film is a very short film depicting a performer taking off his head multiple times and then smashing them. The performer remains centered in the screen for almost the entirety of the film. The film is shot from one constant position, similar to how we would view a performer like this. Melies wants us to see a performer taking off his heads as a little trick and then making them disappear. This is what we see, but there was a lot of effort put into the editing of this film so that we could see everything as Melies intended. This not only employed stop editing, but also the cut and pasting of certain objects within the frame. For instance, whenever Melies takes off his head, there is a stop cut so that he can grab a head model. As he moves this head model, a black square has to be placed over his actual head or else it seems like he still has a head. When he places the head down, there is another stop cut in which the fake head is replaced with a pasted in version of the moving head. This was very time consuming because someone had to cut out each frame of Melies head so that when pasted in, the frames came together to create the other moving heads.
New Brooklyn to New York via Brooklyn Bridge (1899)- Edison Inc.
ReplyDeleteThis short released by the Edison company depicts a trip across the Brooklyn Bridge, as detailed within the title. The short itself has no narrative, characters, or dialogue, but utilizes interesting camera techniques which are present in modern day film. For instance, the entirety of the two minute short is a long take, which has no cuts or shots in between. In fact, it seems as if the footage is completely raw, with no editing or post production being done to improve the look of the final product. It is this level of basic imagery which makes this film so intriguing however, as it becomes apparent that this film is much more of an experiment than a product created for entertainment. The camera also follows a fixed point of view, as it is mounted upon a train which crosses the bridge at a moderate pace, with no attempt to move it to create shots or depict the surroundings of the bridge. Somewhat unintentionally, it seems as if the director is purposefully leaving the surroundings of the bridge outside of the frame, creating a sense of mystery and awe about the true visuals of the bridge.
Collies À Saigon (1896)- Lumiere Brothers
This film shares many similarities to the experimental film discussed above, however it also contains some semblance of editing. Much like Edison's "New Brooklyn to New York via Brooklyn Bridge", this film contains a fixed camera perspective, but is different in that it is a static camera with no movement other than that of the objects on screen. The film depicts a group of Chinese men carrying a cart across a busy street with many children nearby, which again lacks any true narrative driven story or plot progression. Much like many of the films created at the time, it also lacks many of the cinematic techniques seen in more advanced movies such as Citizen Kane or American Beauty. For instance, the majority of the film is a long take, which is a product of the lack of editing or shots seen within films created at such an early point in history. Notably, there is a small cut seen near the very end of the film, which indicates that the directors were beginning to toy with editing and the processes in which to make a movie. It must be said that movies created at these times pioneered the film medium, as they served as the building blocks upon which all film was created.
Le Voyage Dans la Lun (1902)- George Melies
George Melies's "Le Voyage Dans la Lun" is a milestone in film, as it is one of the most extraordinary examples of early narrative driven story in cinema. The short film follows a group of scientists who make their way to the moon and encounter an alien species. What makes this film special for its time is its use of frequent cuts between shots, as well as its magnificent use of depth in its backdrops which help drive the narrative and give the viewer a sense of verisimilitude. While this narrative is very simplistic in nature, it also attempts to tackle ideas which were very hard to grasp at the time, such as space travel and interstellar life. Aided by the depth created by the backdrops, a fantastical world springs to life which fills viewers with excitement and awe. Also of note is the films theatrical acting style due to the lack of sound throughout the run time. Because the emotions felt in the scene could not be expressed through dialogue, Melies forced his actors to utilize exaggerated hand motions and movements to create an understanding of the events at hand.
Edison Co.- “Nervy Nat Kisses the Bride”
ReplyDeleteIn “Nervy Nat Kisses the Bride”, every room, compartment, and open space is shown quite openly, but in the closed areas, only the backs of the rooms are really expanded on because they are where the events of the film take place. The camera is fixed in every scene, so only the events central to the story are shown. It is unlike how scenes are shot now, because larger views of rooms are now shown due to a lack of camera fixation. The film shows a nervous man, Nat, trying to obtain a kiss from his newly married bride, but also shows a rather brash man trying to initiate relations with her and being thrown from the train. The audience is compelled to see the brash man’s collection of sexual protection devices, which implies his intent to have relations with Nat’s wife, and explains his later actions. What is not shown is Nat’s actual kissing of his bride, which is implied by the title.
Lumiere Brothers- “L’Arroseur Arrosé”
In “L’Arroseur Arrosé”, there is only one area shown with a fixed camera shot, but it is in an open area that emphasizes that it is outside and able to be explored. The camera captures most of the event, but as it is fixed and the characters move around quite a bit, not everything can be recorded. Unlike films made now, the actions aren’t shown completely, and the humor shown is barely worth considering in 2017. The film centers around a boy who steps on a gardener’s hose to stop the water and make it squirt out all at once, and the boy being punished by the gardener after a brief chase. Nothing in this film is left to the imagination.
George Melies- “The Astronomer’s Dream”
In “The Astronomer’s Dream”, there are multiple shots, all with a fixed camera, that have very little exposed space. The sets were not very large, but showed a great deal of action and interaction. Were this film remade today with modern filming techniques and technologies, it would most likely be the same but with a moving camera angle and computer generated effects. The film depicts an astronomer that falls asleep and has what can only be described as a nightmare, in which the moon is a large monster eating most things it comes in contact with and mythical beings descend from the sky to the astronomer. After some time in this odd dream, the astronomer wakes up and resumes his studies. While it is known he was dreaming during the film, it was not actually shown that he fell asleep, he simply began the dream.
The first film I watched was Frankenstein which was produced by Edison and directed by J Searle Dawley and was released in 1910. What I noticed is that the film presents its narrative from one single perspective, almost like a play. This differs from modern films which shows the events from different perspectives and angles. Dawley compels me to see the action on the screen, most notably the actors’ performances. However there is one instance where the director compells me to search the frame when he reveals Frankenstein through a mirror, which is a very clever shot. What it leaves up to my imagination is how Frankenstein was created, it cuts between the doctor and the formation of his monster in order to show the stages of its creation.
ReplyDeleteThe second film I watched was The Gardener which was made by the Lumiere Brothers in 1895. The presentation of cinematic space in the short is shot so that the garden has depth of field to is, as well as forcing our eyes to look around the frame by having the two characters on opposite ends of the frame. The actors’ performances are still the main focus of the frame which draws my attention more than anything else. A modern comedy would use its dialogue and action rather than just action for a joke, however this stems from the Lumiere Brothers not being able to use sound in their films.
The final film I watched was George Melies’ Journey Through The Impossible, which he directed in 1904. The presentation of cinematic space is very closed yet open at the same time. This is due to the entire film having been shot in a studio with a fixed camera, it is easy to tell that they are on a set. However Melies’ makes up for this and opens up the cinematic space by using clever set design to place actors in the background while compelling us to see the main action in the foreground to give the frame some life. The film heavily relies on special effects, and although impressive for their time, don’t really hold by today’s standards. While practical effects were utilized, a modern film would have gone the route of using CGI to create effects. What is left to the imagination as well as something that is left out altogether is a clear cut narrative. There is no real narrative other than a group of people going on an adventure, so I am left to ponder over many details in the film that could be explained by some narrative if provided.