Titanic Scene Analysis - A Character's Purpose

Titanic Scene Analysis 

Scene - Jack's Death/Plank Scene (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1d8THz1Kcbg)

Director - James Cameron

Spoiler Alert!

It has been 23 years since the world first witnessed the tragic love story of Rose and Jack on screen. A blockbuster film, Titanic went on to become the highest grossing film at the time (currently at number three behind Avengers: Endgame and Avatar), besides winning the most number of Oscars for a single film (11, alongside Ben-Hur and The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King). While the film primarily revolves around a fictional love story, it manages to deliver a perfect cinematic blend of history and fiction. Based on the infamous sinking of the RMS Titanic on the 15th of April, 1912, the film also subtly depicts the existing socio-cultural norms and issues that prevailed at the time. 

The story is told from the protagonist, Rose's perspective. It begins with Rose, now a 100 year old woman, narrating her story to researchers interested in finding a necklace, the Heart of the Ocean. We are taken back to scenes from the past, the pompous boarding of the RMS Titanic. We see people from various walks of life board the ship, including a young, lively Jack and a poised, elegant Rose. Their lifestyles are established early on, with Jack being a poor artist and Rose coming from an elite, upper-class family. Forced into an engagement to maintain the family's status, a distraught Rose contemplates ending her life while standing at the edge of the ship. This is when the characters first meet, with Jack persuading her not to go ahead, thus marking the start of their relationship. Rose begins to fall for Jack later in the story, as she finds herself enjoying more freedom with him as compared to her fiance, Cal. 

The movie goes on to highlight the couple's most adventurous and intimate moments, simultaneously depicting the happenings of that fateful night on the ship. Eventually, the ship hits an iceberg and inevitably begins to sink. Although we see Jack and Rose's struggle to save themselves for most part of it, we also get glimpses of real life inspired characters during the course of this grand climax. 

Following a series of events, the couple end up in the cold waters of the North Atlantic Ocean, surrounded by passengers, some barely alive, and floating pieces of the sunken ship. Jack helps Rose onto a wooden panel, well aware that he won't survive the cold for long. 

Today, let's try and understand this moment of the film in depth, making sense of one of the most debated scenes in cinematic history. 

Jack Dawson - Understanding the Character

From the beginning of the movie, Jack is portrayed as a charming, street smart young man. Given further depth by the talented Leonardo DiCaprio, Jack almost evolves as a way of life through the movie. He is established as a skillful painter, an important quality since it helped bring out the sentimental, insightful part of the character. An attractive one from the moment he steps in, Jack's character ultimately has a defined role according to which the story progresses. Apologies for saying this, but unlike most other romantic films that portray both characters as heroes in their own rights, Jack is not the hero of the film. Interestingly put by The Take, "It quickly becomes clear that Rose is our hero. She's the one who undergoes a complete transformation, and this is her story." 

Far-fetched, but this might have also been the reason why DiCaprio's performance never received a nomination for the Oscars. Can he even be classified as an actor in a leading role, or was he actually a supporting actor? The screen time of a character might not necessarily determine the role they play in the film (Anthony Hopkins won the Academy Award for Best Actor in The Silence of the Lambs (1991), but his character was on screen for hardly fifteen-twenty minutes of the film). 
Regardless of the technicalities, Jack's role is set to serve Rose's character. From the beginning, we are taken on her quest, a repressed young female that is bound by her family's elite status and patriarchal norms. At a point where she has arguably hit rock bottom, she encounters Jack. It is with his help that Rose finds liberation, a better, truer version of herself. Therefore, Jack's entire purpose in the film is to support Rose in her journey towards finding her true self. 

She begins this journey without him and ends it without him, but it is his vital presence that triggers the most impactful changes in her character. 

Giving A Character Purpose

"True character change involves a challenging and changing of basic beliefs, leading to a new moral action by the hero."

John Truby, The Anatomy of Story

Rose is introduced to us as a character so weighed down by her problems that she has lost her will to live. We as viewers assume her to be some sort of  'damsel in distress', waiting for Jack to rescue her from all her problems. However, Jack's purpose is not to be her savior, but to make her sufficient enough to solve her problems herself.  Rose's internal struggles pose themselves as obstacles to a blooming love story, which makes us empathize with them all the more. While our goal as viewers might be to watch the couple go on to live happily ever after, Cameron uses the tragic sinking of the ship as the perfect element to disrupt our fantasies and bring us back to what the movie actually is about. Jack's existence becomes Rose's purpose, a will to live and make the most of life. 

In other words, Jack's purpose is to give Rose a purpose.

From a filmmaking perspective, giving your character goals is what leads viewers to remain hooked throughout the film. Good character development involves change, something for viewers to take back at the end of the story. While the plot revolves around Rose overcoming her struggles and finding herself, we as viewers instantly develop a liking for Jack. Not only is this due to his charming, altruistic nature but also because of the way he motivates Rose. This change is not an instantaneous, knee-jerk reaction to some big event. It occurs through a gradual process, a framework that is commonly referred to as the Self-Determination Theory in psychology. Cameron grants Jack the capacity to empower Rose through the help of a well known psychological concept explained by Edward L. Deci and Richard Ryan. According to this widely endorsed theory, humans have three innate needs that drive motivation:

1. Autonomy: People need to feel in control of their behaviors and goals.
2. Competence: People need to gain mastery over new skills.
3. Relatedness: People need to have a sense of attachment to others. 

When looked at through the film's perspective, Rose is introduced to us as having none of these traits. It is clear that she lacks control when it comes to her engagement, despite showing subtle signs of rebellion. We are not given much insight into her individual skills, unlike Jack who is established as a skilled artist right from the start. Lastly, we do not see Rose sharing a genuine, comfortable relationship with any of the characters until Jack steps in. 

As the film progresses, we watch Rose evolve as she becomes more sure of what she wants. Although she was clear about her desires from the start, she is now unafraid to openly admit them (Autonomy).
Eg. "I'd rather be his whore than your wife" - a moment where Rose successfully rebels against Cal trying to dominate her, unlike instances in the past where she has tried but to no avail. 
We are as surprised as Jack when we watch Rose steal the show at the party with her mesmerizing dancing skills, a side that she has felt comfortable enough to exhibit, now that she is more in touch with herself. Another amazing aspect of her skill is when she successfully rescues Jack, wielding her utmost physical strength and determination in order to set him free by slicing his handcuffs in two (Competence). 
The last characteristic takes form in the couple's relationship itself. Besides the strong bond we see developing between the characters, we also see Rose briefly interact with Jack's friends, Fabrizio and Tommy, impressing them with her confident dance display. We finally see Rose in a comfortable atmosphere, one where she has no inhibitions and can be her true self (Relatedness). 

The Importance of Rose's Decision

Now that I have provided you'll with the necessary context, let's understand why the plank scene is one of the most beautiful moments in film history. 
We enter this scene with the hope that both the characters will survive and eventually continue their love story. However, that hope is already threatened when we witness the heartbreaking exchange that occurs between the two. Jack, displaying his altruistic side once again, assures Rose that she won't die, ''not here." It becomes painstakingly obvious that Jack won't survive for long. However, the most important part of this scene is when he gets Rose to promise him that she will survive and have a comfortable life. This is the most integral part of the scene, and arguably of the entire film, since Rose is now faced with a tough decision. She could either have chosen to die with Jack in the cold waters of the Atlantic Ocean or could have decided to go ahead with Jack's promise, thus saving herself. She ultimately chooses the latter, and here's why this proves to be the most important part of the film. 

“True character is revealed in the choices a human being makes under pressure - the greater the pressure, the deeper the revelation, the truer the choice to the character's essential nature.”

― Robert McKee, Story: Substance, Structure, Style, and the Principles of Screenwriting

1. Jack succeeded in changing Rose, making her a better version of herself. 
In contrast to the first time Jack encountered Rose (attempting to end her life), Jack managed to give Rose the will to live. He gave her life meaning, and helped her overcome struggles by simply changing her attitude towards life. Had Rose not lived, the entire film would have lost its purpose. 

2. Jack had to die.
As reported by Indian Express, in an interview with Vanity Fair, Cameron explained that Jack had to die because it was in the script.  “And the answer is very simple because it says on page 147 [of the script] that Jack dies. Very simple. . . . Obviously it was an artistic choice, the thing was just big enough to hold her, and not big enough to hold him . . . I think it’s all kind of silly, really, that we’re having this discussion 20 years later. But it does show that the film was effective in making Jack so endearing to the audience that it hurts them to see him die,” Cameron says.
As mentioned above, Jack's purpose was to help Rose evolve as a person. Through Rose's decision, we see that he has fulfilled his purpose, thus technically ending his role in the story. 

3. The film had a lasting impact.

While watching The Take's video on Why Jack Had To Die, one of the comments I read made me realize how impactful Jack's death was to the film, and to the story of Titanic. 

"I think he had to die so the audience feels the loss most survivors felt."

- Crystal K

Instead of becoming just one of the many tragic events that occur in human history, the sinking of the RMS Titanic felt personal and hard hitting due to the death of the film's most loved character. We as viewers, not only sympathize but empathize with the families and friends of those on the ship. This created a lasting impact among viewers, making it a story that will go on to be told for ages. 

In addition to the brilliant writing by James Cameron, Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet's performance adds to the heartbreak viewers feel while watching this scene. Shot in a giant tank in Mexico, the film's sinking sequences, although controlled, were very unpleasant experiences for the actors. At approximately sixty degrees, the water made the actors' reactions to the temperature genuine. As a result, Winslet got hypothermia and almost quit the production until Cameron persuaded her to stay. Another fun fact is that Rose stared at an incorrect star field in the film's original release while singing to herself. Famous astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson apparently sent Cameron a 'snarky email', pointing out that those were not what a real Titanic survivor would see, given the coordinates in the water. Cameron accepted his mistake, assuring Tyson that the right stars for the exact time will be put in the movie once he receives the same. 

Titanic manages to strike a chord with its viewers, touching upon highly emotional subjects and portraying them beautifully. Its artistic perfection blends perfectly with its technical vision, making the film one of the most iconic in cinematic history. Cameron, known to have a reputation of a perfectionist, truly manages to deliver, making this film a classic for generations to come. 

 

 

Dil Dhadakne Do Scene Analysis - The Advantageous Use of Context

(1110 words)

Film - Dil Dhadakne Do (2015)

Director - Zoya Akhtar

Scene - The Butter Knife Scene (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0rsRJXftPk)

Spoiler Alert!

A Dil Dhadakne Do scene analysis? Well, that brings to mind numerous scenes that have made us laugh, cry and ponder. However, there's one particular scene that stands out from the rest. For those of you that haven't watched the film yet, please do. Until then, this short description should work.

Dil Dhadakne Do is a film about a wealthy, dysfunctional family that is forced to face their relationships with each, other thanks to a shipboard holiday.

Why a ship? As mentioned by Zoya in an interview, the ship sets the tone for the entire film as it brings about the feeling of being trapped. The Mehras have nowhere to go now, the flawless facade won't serve as an escape for long. 

The 'butter knife' scene barely lasts for three minutes, still managing to take you on an emotional rollercoaster. However, the scene wouldn't have been as impactful if not for the previous meeting between the two families.

In this Dil Dhadakne Do scene analysis, I'll be covering how Zoya Akhtar plays with visuals and familiarity.

Let's talk about the context we are provided with and its implications on the 'butter knife' scene.  

The above snapshot is from the initial meeting between the two families. This is when Ayesha first brings up a divorce with Manav. It is important to note two things here. 
1. The nature of conversation. Manav's mother, Smita, speaks to Ayesha in a concerned, respectful way, trying to understand why their relationship has deteriorated. Mindful that she is confronting Ayesha in front of her entire family on a cruise trip sponsored by her own parents, she puts Ayesha's interests before her own son's. However, Ayesha's own family humiliates her and warns her that they won't let a divorce taint their reputation. 
2. The character blocking. Blocking is the positioning and movements of characters, used to tell the story in visual terms. The placement of characters in this scene is crucial. Ayesha sits alone, facing every other member in the room. The other members, facing her, almost seem like they are attacking her. It's clear that Ayesha has no support in this scene. 

Cut to the butter knife scene, where we can already notice major differences in the same room that the previous scene was shot in. It is important to note that this setting is used only twice in the entire film, both to discuss Ayesha's marriage. Zoya, thus, establishes this as the confrontation room. In comparison to the previous scene, we notice the following:

1. The nature of conversation. By now, Smita has realised that Ayesha has no support from her family regarding the divorce. Owing to this, she takes the liberty of raising her voice and openly disrespecting Ayesha's decision. If it weren't for the events that preceded this scene, Smita's aggressive tone would seem overly dramatic and confuse the audience. 
2. The character blocking. Ayesha now sits with her family, but is still at a distance from her mother. Kabir is now a more active part of the conversation.

Most importantly, Manav exchanges seats with Kamal from the previous scene, while Kamal does so with Ayesha.

As the scene progresses, we see that this shift in seating has managed to shift the way we perceive these characters. We begin the scene with the perception that Manav has more control now, while Kamal is simply helpless. 

Quite literally, Kamal is in Ayesha's place this time.

 

Although the scene begins with a furious Smita rebuking Ayesha, we manage to find refuge in two defining moves made by the filmmaker. The first is a short exchange of glances between Kamal and Neelam, indicating that they've understood the mess Ayesha is stuck in.

Zoya doesn't waste time converting this realisation into action, and the audience is left feeling empowered once again when Neelam holds her daughter's hand. These shots are defining moments as we can finally identify with Kamal and Neelam. The Mehras are now seeing what we have been seeing throughout the film. This time, we're on the same team.
Once more, context plays a key role. The only real relationships we have seen these characters share are that of Ayesha and Kabir, Kamal and his brother, and debatably, Neelam and Kabir. For the first time in the entire film, we see all four of these characters express heartfelt affection towards each other. Zoya finally gives us what we've been longing for.   

The scene progresses with Smita threatening to cut herself, followed by Kabir slyly pointing out that she is holding a butter knife. This particular moment is an audience favourite as it boldly incorporates humour during a serious situation. 

The urge to laugh inappropriately is a common feeling, and has a reason behind it. We laugh harder when we are expected not to do so. This is because we are resistant to control and according to Psychology Today, are "evolved to pursue self-interest." Besides, laughter is a coping mechanism for most people during a socially tense moment. Through laughter, they are able to regain a sense of control over these situations. However in the scene, Zoya uses comedy to build up the intensity, and while the audience is left with a split second of relief, we know that this has only triggered something worse. 

Manav now begins to exert power. Interestingly, he does so only when his mother is ridiculed. This simply serves as a reminder of Ayesha's dying marriage. The display, however, acts as a breaking point for Kamal. This segment displays immediate cuts from Manav's harsh behaviour to Kamal's regretful expressions. We are now provided with glimpses of Kamal's strong character breaking, reminding us that deep down, he is still a father. 

The scene concludes with Kamal pinning Manav to the wall, threatening him not to cross his limits. This is a cathartic moment, as we finally watch the entire family's relationships take a joint step towards resolution. Zoya Akhtar beautifully builds this up, pushing not only Kamal but also the audience to their limit through Manav's use of physical force on Ayesha

Delightfully portrayed, we finally get the answer to our Why. From the start, we are left rooting for the family to drop the facade and connect with each other on a deeper level. This moment justifies our need, as we see how strong the family can be once they join forces. . 

The scene would not have succeeded if not for the correct use of context and the gradual buildup. Arguably the best scene in the film, it steadily resolves most of the conflict we are faced with since we met the Mehras. In addition to Zoya Akhtar and Reema Kagti's masterful writing, the deep visuals and impeccable acting is what makes this scene successful. The clever use of multiple OTS shots (Over the shoulder shots - used to show character's perspective and emotional connect) leads to an active involvement in the flow of the scene. 

With an array of emotions, the butter knife scene truly delivers to the expectations of an audience that loves drama with a touch of realism. 

P.S. Honestly, one isn't enough for a Dil Dhadakne Do scene analysis. Filled with wholesome scenes about life and love, this movie always manages to bring a smile to my face. Hopefully, we'll have another Dil Dhadakne Do scene analysis soon.

 

Inglourious Basterds Scene Analysis - Revealing Information Smartly

(718 words)

Film - Inglourious Basterds (2009)
Director - Quentin Tarantino 
Scene - The Jew Hunter (Opening Scene) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ig0815OI9Lg

Spoiler Alert!

When we talk about attraction, we often act according to two principles - the reciprocity principle (eg. people like people who like them), widely discussed in social psychology, and the uncertainty principle (eg. people like people who might like them).
Suspense in films concerns itself with the latter. What drives most films is closure - a quest, an unresolved problem, will the character manage to achieve his goals? However, the onerous task here is to periodically reveal enough information to keep audiences engaged, something that Quentin Tarantino has undoubtedly mastered.

The scene, almost twenty minutes long, begins with LaPadite's seemingly mundane day being disturbed by the arrival of German soldiers. LaPadite does not seem surprised by their arrival, though, as he puts on a calm face and signals his daughters to head inside. 
Tarantino already establishes the existing power dynamic through his closeup of Colonel Hans Landa's firm handshake. However, it is not until Landa grabs LaPadite's daughter by the hand that this dynamic begins to unsettle us.
We now begin to realise that Landa is here to cause harm.

This is followed by the detective requesting for a glass of milk instead of wine. A peculiar but harmless request, we aren't forced to read much into it until we see Landa gulp the entire glass in one go. Tarantino has now begun to reveal the nature of the harm Landa is about to cause.
Through the simple use of milk, Tarantino portrays that Landa has no inhibitions; he's a brute and cannot be stopped from taking what he wants. Who drinks a glass of plain milk in one go?

As the scene progresses, Tarantino gradually reveals the reason for Landa's visit. Despite his loud body language and his surface level politeness, LaPadite's composed facade remains, giving us some respite. Although he is powerless, his cooperation leads us to believe that he has nothing to hide.

The respite, however, does not last for long as Tarantino intentionally breaks one of the most essential rules of filmmaking - the 180 degree rule - whilst LaPadite discusses the Dreyfuses. 
According to StudioBinder, "the 180 degree rule sets an imaginary axis between two characters. By keeping the camera on one side of this imaginary axis, the characters maintain the same left/right relationship to each other."
Here, breaking the rule or "crossing the line" has been intentionally done to disorient the viewers.
It's almost as if LaPadite's excessive knowledge of the Dreyfuses has lead to the scene taking a new turn. 

The wait does not last for long, and Tarantino confirms our worst fears immediately after, by slowly revealing the Dreyfuses beneath the floorboards. The entire scene revolved around this, and Tarantino chooses the perfect time for his reveal. This acts as a breath of fresh air into an already tense scene. Instead of revealing this at the end, Tarantino now burdens his viewers with this information, forcing them to sit through an extremely uncomfortable conversation and drastically rising the stakes. 

As we watch Landa complete his questioning and getting ready to leave, our short-lived relief is crushed when he asks for another glass of milk. The metaphorical discussion that follows only indicates that we're not ready for what is to come. Landa, the Jew Hunter, boasts about his nickname and has already established himself as someone that lives up to it. 

We know he knows.
LaPadite knows he knows.
Tarantino has managed to reveal his information gradually and stylishly, and we're still longing for more.

Once he lets the above knowledge sink in, he jumps from answering "Does Landa know?" to "What will he do, now that he knows?" In a sudden, straightforward exchange, Tarantino kills any doubt regarding the former question, thus adding the finishing touches to one of Hollywood's most gripping scenes. 

What makes this scene an interesting study is the timing and fashion in which Tarantino reveals information. It's noteworthy, how a distant exchange between a dairy farmer and a Nazi detective is built up to a point where we are at the edge of our seats. Through Christoph Waltz' irresistible acting, Tarantino plays mind games with his viewers, occasionally teasing them.
We are completely at the writer's mercy by the end, begging for a worthwhile resolution. 

Tarantino does not fail to give us one. 

What's The Point?

(602 words)

A group of friends were having lunch at a crowded restaurant. The beverages, served without ice, and the butter chicken, too sweet; they had given up on the food a while ago. 
Conversations were the only possible way to make their outing meaningful. 
Aryan, realising this, took the onus of keeping the group entertained. 
"So this one time, I went to McDonald's with my family and there was no place to sit. We waited for almost half an hour, after which we finally saw someone get up from their table. Now, relieved as we were, it was unsaid that the table was ours. But before we could reach, a young couple, that had just entered, grabbed the table and made themselves comfortable. My mother lost it. She opened her purse, removed her - "
"Guys, I cannot drink this anymore. Warm Pepsi is the worst," interrupted Riya, her face contorted. She was fed up of forcing herself to avoid wasting it. 
Her comment was quickly met with nods of approval and similar complaints by the others. 
"I know right? How could they? I'm never coming here again," said Sachin. 
They paid the bill and left.
The End. 


What just happened leads us to debate over two possibilities - Either Aryan's friends were assholes or there was something missing in his story. Let's understand this analogy from the latter perspective. 
I have witnessed incidents like this a number of times, and I've been on both sides. When I look back, I can safely say that I've learnt a valuable lesson:
What makes a story interesting is not just its content, but the manner in which it is told.

The above incident might indicate a number of reasons why the story failed to generate interest, some being that he took too long to cut to the chase and that his friends, already bored, were more enticed by Riya's comment, something that actually made a difference to them. 
A lot of audiences tend to be selfish when it comes to stories, yes. 

And before my own article starts losing its purpose, let me get to the point.

How on earth do filmmakers manage to tell us captivating stories?

Films with extremely high budgets have been disasters. Films with star-studded casts have flopped. What's the secret to a good film?

Emotions. The ability of a filmmaker to tap into the emotions of their viewer determines the experience of a film. Contrary to popular belief, films need not always have the "relatability" factor. However, there's a lot more planning involved when you need to get viewers to empathize through other factors.
Expressive body language and an interesting plot are the bare minimum for a successful story, but over the years, filmmakers have evolved to generate interest not just through these basic requirements, but through a thorough understanding of what works for audiences and what doesn't.

In this blog, I will attempt to analyse scenes from films that manage to touch upon elements of human behaviour; elements that make for a riveting story. While I'm simply trying to understand why I call some of my favourite scenes from cinema so, I will also attempt to explore the "science" of storytelling and the successful tactics employed in order to evoke emotions. While my articles will primarily revolve around the unravelling of layers, those that produce compelling storytelling, I intend for this to be a discussion. 
Any kind of feedback or conversation regarding my writings is highly appreciated. Please feel free to comment or personally message me if there is a particular scene you'd want me to study. 

Happy Reading!