Textual Analysis of 'Page 23' (Houben, Arts, van den Boogaard, 2011) - Sam McLeish

 

 Key
Camera Terms

Sound Terms

Mise en Scene Terms

Editing Terms

Theory Terms 

 

'Page 23' is a Dutch, comedic short film that explores the lives of the models in an IKEA-style catalogue and the shadowy forces that control them.

 

 

The sequence starts with many establishing shots of all locations that the sequence takes place in. With the slow pans, typically uninteresting décor and furnishings, and the slow diegetic backing track, the sequence is actually presented as quite boring. This was clearly meant to be achieved by the sequence because a key theme in the narrative is the boring life that the characters have to put up with. Therefore, the lack of exposition at this stage creates enigma under Barthes’ Hermeneutic code for the audience, because they are waiting for the sequence to engage them more actively.

 

Next, the sequence breaks the current, rather boring ‘equilibrium’, when applying Todorov’s model, and the disruption of the sequence happens when the female holding the book breaks character and walks around the scene. This is unexpected for both the audience and the male character in the scene because he looks confused in his facial expressions as to why she's doing this, and he questions her for it. Therefore, the audience may label the character as the ‘hero’ under Propp’s character model due to the fact that she is breaking the social norm of the sequence, whereas the male is the false hero as he is trying to get the female to conform back to normality. In doing so, the narrative is developed because the audience may relate to the female’s character boredom so far.

 

Continuing, comedy is developed within the sequence because when the male character moves his head in a close up, the audience can hear the diegetic foley of his bones creaking. This is useful for the narrative because so far, the sequence could have been seen by an audience as nothing but a glorified advertisement before the female broke character. Plus, the comedic elements continue due to the fact that the sequence uses dramatic irony, for example, the narrative has made it incredibly clear to the audience that the characters are in a catalogue, due to the fact that the editing shows the prices above their heads. Therefore, for the female’s diegetic dialogue to question her own existence is clearly very unexpected where the male just describes a lamp as “beautiful”, creating more enigma under Barthes’ because no one would ever describe a lamp in this way.

This theme is continued when the male says “well, you still have your books” in his dialogue. Under Altman’s semantic codes, the audience assumes that her books would keep her entertained and due to the fact that she just dismisses them shows that she’s overreacting. However, it isn’t until the woman picks up the books and walks over to the man to reveal an empty cover that the previous interpretation is dismissed and the female character looks extremely agitated in her facial expressions and body language. Due to the emphasis on her anger via the prominent foleys of her footsteps, the audience now finds it understandable as to why the female character is so frustrated with her situation. Furthermore, this idea is continued into the change of location to the boardroom where she dramatically screams at the men who all don’t react, which of course creates even more enigma because it isn’t normal.

 

However, when the female character makes her way into the bedroom location where the male character is now in a different outfit with a different woman, the ‘realisation of disruption’ from Todorov’s model is applied for the female because the audience were already aware of this through dramatic irony. This is really made clear for her when the male character asks “have we met before”, and she returns to her original location and she says “what the fuck” in her diegetic dialogue. Despite the realisation in the narrative, she automatically conforms again to her situation out of fear when the male says “I think someone’s coming” and her facial expressions look forced and scared. This is reflected in the non-diegetic backing track which now sounds more disorientating for the audience.

 

Next, the sequence cuts to an entirely new location for the first time in the film with a new female character. In the mid-shot that she’s presented in, her facial expressions and body language suggest that she is very scared of her environment and the person she is with, a trait that is typical amongst thriller films. Plus, with the introduction with the headless figure dressed in black, the audience finally can assume that this character is the ‘villain’ when apply Propp’s character theory. Also, a binary opposition (under Claude Lévi-Strauss) is presented between the two characters on screen, the female displaying her white skin whilst the male’s skin is entirely covered. Due to the above factors, it is suggested that this is the point in the sequence where there’s an ‘attempt to repair disruption’ when applying Todorov’s model. Normally, in a typical thriller sequence this would have been done by the ‘hero’ character, but in this one it is undertaken by the ‘villain’ character. In doing so, enigma is created under Barthes' Hermeneutic Enigma code because it isn’t explained by the exposition as to why this is done.

Finally, the narrative explains why the above is done because it is discovered that now the female is replaced which was entirely unexpected to the audience. This is rather unnerving to the audience because the male character seems wilfully ignorant or blissfully unaware that his wife has been replaced, and in doing so, the sequence’s narrative becomes even stranger. Plus, with the graphics fading in at the last minute, via post-production editing, the audience still gets reminded that the villain is in control regardless of the fact that he’s not on screen.

 

What I would steal from the sequence

• The use of a 'anonymous villain'
• The use of foleys for effect
• The use of post-production graphics