Let's talk about the aesthetic decisions made by the filmmakers. How successful was this movie as a work of art and why? Don't just tell us about your overall, vague impressions, but consider specific, meaningful choices made by the writers, actors, and director. You could consider cinematography, sound editing, pacing (for instance, the introductory and concluding sequences), specific performances, etc, etc.
Don't try to comment on everything, but focus on something interesting to you.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The filmmakers' minute attention to the most subtle of details really came together to make this a striking work of art. I was particularly impressed by the lighting. There were moments during the meeting where silence fell and the viewer was drawn into the quiet snapshot of the room, darkened with creeping shadows, only lit by the few lamps that seemed to dim as the meeting proceeded. The large doorway in the meeting room was kept open for most of the movie and its stark whiteness contrasted with the dark subject matter discussed in the conference room. Even outside of the house the world was mostly white because of falling snow and the effect of the lighting and the use of color very clearly conveyed the message of how terrible this meeting was. The overall lighting of the movie was very dim and I think that artistic choice fit very well with the grimness that the viewers feel as the meeting progresses.
ReplyDeleteA specific moment when I felt the lighting and the set design was artistically perfect was when Heydrich and Eichmann are drinking in the lavish sitting room of the stately house. The scene is so dark that all you can see is the whiteness of the world outside and paleness of their faces that are blanketed in shadow. It is easy to see what the viewer begins to understand by the end of the film, that these men are being consumed by darkness. So when Heydrich says "the adagio will tear your heart out" I could only feel that the deliberate beauty and the opulence of their surroundings made the horrors of this meeting all the more haunting.
-A.L.
I also noted the effect of the snow with the lighting. It was a stark contrast to the darkness indoors and the dark subject that was being discussed. I think it was quite deliberate that no matter what and even though you could see all the characters well, there was never enough light for the house o be brightly lit. It felt very cold inside, even though the characters did not show signs of being cold. I think this might have also been intentional, like they were not quite human and not subject to their own pain as well as the pain of others.
ReplyDeleteLike Alex, particularly noticed the lighting in the sitting room after the meeting. They seem to be comfortable and accept the darkness, like it was natural for them. The fire was unable to penetrate heavy feeling in that room left over from their openly discussing mass murder and accepting it. What struck me as well how it seemed to be dark outside. There was a sense that the darkness was caused by the men at the meeting, but also, knowing that Germany was doing badly at that point, there seemed to be a sense of chaos looming, like there was a calm before the storm. I found myself waiting for something drastic and terrible to happen. It seemed to stay around the same time of day the whole time, from evening to sunset, which enforced the sense of nervous anticipation. I thought it was very masterfully done.
-Eva
I agree with both Alex and Eva that the lighting of the film really conveyed a haunting mood for the audience. Besides the lighting, there were many other specific choices that enhanced the atmosphere of the film. I believe that the purpose of this film was to connect directly with the audience, which it did in a variety of ways. As a member of the conference was speaking, the shot would always be extremely close to their face, showing us all of their emotion at that specific time. In focusing our attention to only one actor at a time, it is easier for us to go through the thought process of that moment. Something that really stood out to me at the end of the film was when the final decision was made. While going around the table, each actor looked directly into the camera while stating their opinion; it almost seemed as though they were speaking directly to the audience. This was the only time when the characters looked directly at the camera. It was uncomfortable for me to watch them stare for so long. Throughout the film we learned of each member of the conference and understood their backgrounds, which allowed us to connect to them in one way or another. Breaking the fourth wall at the end was effective because it brought everything full circle and the characters were now connecting to the audience. Although there was a bit of a comedic style to this scene, it made everything all the more real, saying to the audience that “this happened.” It was an interesting decision that took me by surprise.
ReplyDelete-Leah
The director's ability to shoot an entire feature film in one room, and still hold his/her audience's attention throughout the film, is astonishing. When comparing this film's technicality to other documentary's, it lacks variety in shots and location. However, Conspiracy manages to compel its audience to watch because of its thorough development of its characters. Each character had his own personality and this contributed to creating a new story, a personal moral dilemma, within boundaries of the meeting. Whether a character did not believe in using false terminology such as "evacuation," or someone did not agree with the Nuremberg Laws, each character exemplified certain traits and emotions that gave the film life and movement. Without arguments and conflicts at the meeting, the reenactment would have been dull; the actors were well cast. Even the waiters and soldiers outdoors showed personality and emotions, something that the transcript of the meeting could not tell us.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I was drawn to characters because of their resistance to Heydrich and his ideals. I had thought, previous to watching this movie, that most high positioned SS and people involved with the Holocaust would have been completely for any means of destruction of the Jewish race. It was interesting to watch how even men who led the killings were ambivalent and wary with their actions. It brings me to the question: would you rather be killed by someone who morally wants to kill you, or is hesitant to do so?
--Alex T.
I agree very much with Leah, Alex and Eva very much in the role of lighting in the film, though I question the idea that it is used constantly throughout the film. Through the opening montages, lighting is used to introduce the individual personalities. But for the remainder of the movie, while discussion is happening around the table, lighting is not an important factor: it is a room full of people talking in regular room lighting, where no subtleties can be accomplished because then it would seem obvious that there was something going on.
ReplyDeleteI would love to emphasize Alex's point about when Heyreich is talking with Eichmann. The whole movie thus far has been bright (not in meaning but in lighting sense) and to see such a contrast really gave weight to the significance of the scene. I think that the importance of this shadowy scene is that it shows Heyreich vulnerable for the first time in the entire film.
Physically he is the lowest person in the room, being seated in a chair while others are talking to him. He is holding an alcoholic beverage and speaking slowly and non-authoritatively. These factors add to his sense of vulnerability because he is seen from above. The camera angle is that we are peering down at him showing his "little-ness" or weakness. Looking up at a person shows height and power which the other men do not really have. Heyreich is speaking emotionally giving himself away as somewhat troubled, yet he recomposes with very toxic words regaining control of the conversation defying his physical position.
Another thing I would particularly like to mention is the exiting montage and the post-WWII outcomes of each of the politicians. The different members of the meeting each had a little sepia toned page dedicated to what happened to them; then in the house where the meeting was held, there is a close-up on something that ties them to the meeting being cleaned up or touched. An example would be with Klopfer and his page describing his life after the meeting; then there is a shot of his overflowing plate of scraps from the meeting summing up his jubilant nature at the “party.” Overall I thought the editing and lighting were as good as they could be for this type of movie… yet not “masterfully done.”
Conor
While the contrast between the whiteness of the falling snow and the dim-lit conference room suggests about the injustice of the meeting as Alex mentioned, it also conveys a sense of being trapped. For example in the scene when Rudolf Lange looks out a window during a break, he talks to Kritzinger about the number of Jews he led his men to kill. Rudolf Lange feels terribly for doing so but he has no choice but to obey the orders that are given to him. The sense of being trapped parallels with the structure upon which the meeting is built. The decision has already been made and the method has already been planned prior to the meeting. The snow has trapped them like Heydrich makes sure everyone agrees with him as when he tells Kritzinger, “you agree now or you’ll agree later.”
ReplyDeleteAnother scene that has a suggestive quality is the entrance scene of Heydrich. When he is taking his jacket and hat off he looks up the dressing room to the camera. The camera shoots directly down to his bright blue eyes, which were the same color as the badge crystals on his shoulders. His bright blue eyes and the ocean-clear crystals on his badges are the symbol of purity. They represent his vision to “clean” the entire European continent of Jewish people through German military, which to him was almighty.
At first instance, I thought Heydrich represents the devil. Even though he expresses a nice smile, his eyes convey a message of anything but innocence. When Kritzinger becomes nervous and questions the justification of the “evacuation,” Heydrich puts him down with words while giving him a smile. Although the shape of his mouth shows happiness and understanding, his eyes clearly resemble those of a heartless authority scolding at a violator. He stares directly at Kritzinger and gives him an admonishing look reminding him of their difference in power. Thus, even though his eyes represent purity, it’s not the purity that we know; it’s a heinous purity that brings about destruction rather than creation.
Paul S.
I thought the cinematography was amazing in this film. Despite the fact that the entire movie took place in one room, with a few exceptions, there were so many directoral choices which created more depth within the symbolism of the film, the characters and the overall plot. The lighting, as many mentioned previously, was very strategic in that it highlighted important characters and objects at specific points in time. I completely agree with Conor and Alex in that the lighting did not play as large a role in the later parts of the film as in the beginning, but I do believe that there were times later on where the lighting is extremely important. Two moments where the lighting was absolutely vital was the first time we see Heydrich, as he enters the house and when the SS officer from Latvia is staring out the window. The scene where Heydrich first enters the house is vital in providing the audience with a clear view of his character. He is clearly aryan, with the white-blond hair, and icy blue eyes, and is first shown in a shot from above. This type of shot is usually used to show a lack of power, so that is decieving, but the lighting shows exactly the opposite, that he is in complete control and has power over all the other characters who are shown in shadow. The SS officer from Lativa, when staring out the window is bathed in a blue-tinted light caused by the snow outside. This light captures a moment where he is alone, and very contemplative, where it almost seems that he is feeling remorse for the actions he has taken against the Jews in Latvia. This, however, quickly changes as Heydrich comes over and leads him by the arm into a dark corner of the room. I also think the camera angles in the last scene where they are all agreeing to the final solution, was very strategic. The camera zoomed up on each person's face so they were alone in the shot. It really drew the audience in, just wishing that one of them would say they disagreed with the horrible plan they were about to put into action.
ReplyDeleteSorry that last post was from Julia R.
ReplyDeleteSince I missed a good portion of the film, I will summarize what everyone has been saying here. It seems to me that the lighting in the movie played an important aesthetic role. The room where the meeting was taking place was always dim, with only a few lamps to provide light. It makes sense that this was done deliberately by the filmmaker to portray a dark, gloomy settings that had no place for brightness. Also, as Alex and Eva articulate beautifully, the dimness of the inside is in stark contrast with the beauty on the outside, which further emphasizes the grim discussions that are going on in the meeting. Another aesthetic feature that Leah reminded me of was the frequent close-ups on the people’s faces when they were speaking. I feel as if one of the goals of the filmmaker was to communicate how personal the decisions made by the people really were, and as Leah pointed out, zooming in on their faces allowed the audience to see the emotions that went with these decisions. Lastly, as Julia points out, it was an aesthetic choice of the director to shoot the entire movie in one room. To me, this emphasizes the gravity of the meeting, and how so many lives would be changed as a result of the decisions made.
ReplyDeletePS – I’ll use one of my late days on this entry.