Applying ‘Where have I been all your life’ to micro/macro elements of short film

In ‘Where have I been all your life’ the narrative is driven through the dialogue between the characters, with what they’re saying to each other leading to an almost chain reaction of events as different secrets about the couple are revealed. In a sense the film does follow the classic three act structure; there is a beginning with the young couple arriving at the house and Liam knocking on the door, a middle as the characters all talk to each other with secrets being revealed and then the twist ending with Liam discovering who his dad actually is. This is all guided by the dialogue, the sound, as the most prominent micro element in terms of moving along the story. The mise en scene, for example, mainly just sets the scene for events to unfold showing the setting of a street in England and a fairly typical married couple but doesn’t contribute a whole lot to the developing narrative or move on the plot of the film. The sound in general within the film is very naturalistic - it’s all diegetic other than a few short sequences with non-diegetic music at the start and end of the film when the couple are in the car, or heading back and forth from it to the door, however it cuts out as soon as the front doors of both houses are opened. This contributes to the importance of the conversations held by the characters as the audience is encouraged to listen to what is being said as there’s no non-diegetic music as a distraction. As well, the film has a point of view structure, shown by the camera ‘following’ Liam and the audience finding out about information, like him having got the wrong house, at the same time he does through his conversations; the dialogue between him and the other characters.

The short film is of the comedy genre and can be seen as a social commentary comedy due to the setting of a home and the characters being shown through costume and hair/makeup as being ordinary people. In terms of cinematography the film does follow genre conventions through the medium shots to see character reactions and natural camera angles which give the impression of the spectator being in the room with them, making it very realistic. Also, the use of only diegetic sound conforms to the genre as the dialogue needs to be heard clearly for the audience to understand any jokes being made. Henry Jenkins’ theory about genre constantly breaking rules can be applied to this film, due to the additional social message which can be interpreted about the modern-day idea of family and the lack of a happy ending. In comedy, typically there’s a representation of everyday life which is normally concerned with the middle and lower orders of society and creating a happy ending is important. However, in this film the ending is left inconclusive as Liam fails to do what he set out to, and it can’t really be described as a happy one because he leaves behind a broken marriage and a man who wrongfully believes he is his parent. Therefore, this is a diversion from a typical comedy and shows how the genre isn’t necessarily a fixed format and that there can be hybridisations of different genres.

Representation in the film can be viewed as supporting Richard Dyer’s theory about stereotypes often being negative and reinforcing ideas of differences between people, however it doesn’t necessarily fully support it. One of the main plot points in the film, is both husband and wife having cheated on each other and the way this is revealed and the consequent reactions to it can be seen as forming representations of the characters. John, the husband, is the first to have been revealed as unfaithful and although it’s surprising, shown by the character expressions of Angela and Liam, as the film continues he appears to be confident and uncaring, the character movement being him slouching in his seat and looking quite relaxed. Contrasting this, his wife Angela appears tense, the character movement being her sitting rigidly and taking up the stereotypical housewife role of washing up at the sink as well as bringing drinks and biscuits out for everyone. However, later on in the film this quiet housewife stereotype is broken through the dialogue between the characters when she reveals that she’s actually been having an affair with another man and is leaving to go be with him. This is an abrupt change in character expression, which breaks the previously potentially negative stereotype reinforcing the idea of a typical housewife and instead, although it isn’t necessarily a positive representation, shows the similarities between the two characters and doesn’t reinforce ideas of differences like Richard Dyer suggests.

Stuart Hall’s reception theory can be applied to how the audience responds to the film. Some may follow the dominant reading set out by the creator of the short, however with the topic of the narrative and hybridisation between a social commentary and comedy, it’s more likely that the audience will have a negotiated reading. Different spectators may find the film funny or sad depending on their viewpoint of the situation, how much they connect to the characters and their sense of humour. This means that various viewers can have their own opinion of the film and the message it’s trying to convey through the character expressions of the characters and not necessarily the one set out by the film’s creator. For example, the editing of cross-cutting between shots of Angela indirectly telling things to her husband, to Liam recounting it to John does contribute to the humorous sense of the film probably intended by the director, could instead be interpreted as sad when thinking about the dialogue that the characters have said to each other, depending on the spectator.