Midterm Exam

1. Describe the video in a sentence or two.
• This video is a lightly edited background video to go on a website about personal creative work. The video intended to paint the creator of the website as a father, which to most people implies that he’s a caring and loving person that they should feel comfortable around.
2. What is your first reaction to the video— how does it make you feel?
• My first reaction to this video was confusion… I expected an actual short film when walking into the classroom, but this video works. This video makes me feel at ease, due to the calm setting and the playful kid doing things a kid would do.
3. Identify 3 emotions that you think the video was intended to elicit.
• This video was intended to elicit a feeling of comfort, welcoming, and homeliness.
4. Do you think those emotions were successfully conveyed?
• I think that these emotions were successfully conveyed, because they would definitely be able to affect one in such a way that would make one feel comfortable with the blog and the idea of the creator of the blog being a father and a caring man.
5. What aspects of the video worked to elicit the elements you defined (Describe?)
• Some aspects of the video that worked together to make the viewer feel comfortable and welcome would be the calm setting of the beach without people, just serene waves and flocks of birds… the whole scene is welcoming. The music also helps bring some emotion into the video, and it helps tell the viewer to feel positive, calm emotions. The final element bringing this all together would be the innocent little boy. When people think of children, they usually feel joyful because they relate those children to the children that they love. This is exactly what occurs in this video… the people watching the video would be told to feel positive by all of the elements in this video, but most prominently the little boy, with whom they relate their loved ones to.

Night of the Hunter Questions

1) In what way do the shadows and silhouettes of the Film Noir style affect the story of The Night of the Hunter?

• The style of the film makes the film a bit darker in a sense… if it were shot in full color, the audience may not know where the main point of the scene is. The Film Noir style highlights certain aspects of the scene and draws attention to them. Also, without all of the shadows and dark scenes, it would look less like a horror movie and more like a family thriller. Also, the dark nature directs viewers to think of the film as a darker story (it highlights the darker aspects of the story, such as Harry Powell killing Willa Harper).

2) What role does music play in the movie?

• The music acts in unison with the “film noir” style, in highlighting the feeling and focus of the different scenes. Without the music, the viewer would have less of a cue to feel a certain emotion or feel for a certain character.

3) A variety of animals were shown in the river scene where John and Pearl are fleeing from the Preacher, Harry. What do you think those animals symbolized?

• The animals added to the serene, yet chilling scene and took the feeling of comfort yet uncomfort home. They also may have symbolized the children’s past of being innocent, sleeping in their beds that were given to them by their loving parents, telling ghost stories, safe from the horrid outside world.

4) Name 2 ways in which the juxtaposition between Good and Evil were represented.

• One way would be the entirety of Harry Powell’s pursuit of the children… Powell was portrayed as this sickening monster reaching out for the children amid the sticky swamp, and the children were portrayed as innocent and frightened. Another way would be whenever Powell sat Pearl on his lap… she is dressed in light, frilly dresses and Powell is highlighted in black. You can tell that Pearl stands out, and that she is good and isn’t meant to be in such a dark place.

5) Select 3 words to describe each of the following characters

• Harry Powell (“Preacher”): criminal, deceiving, greedy
• Ben Harper (Dad): means well, desperate, loving
• Willa Harper (Mom): gullible, thick-headed, agreeable
• John Harper (Little Boy): protective, untrusting, disobedient
• Pearl Harper (Little Girl): naive, innocent, trusting
• Uncle Birdy (Dockmaster): drunk, wistful, lazy
• Rachel Cooper (Rescuer): kind, strict, caring

6) Using the list above, place the characters in order, according to who you believe had the strongest moral character (1 being the highest).

1. Rachel Cooper (Helped the kids get away from Powell, raised them in comfort)
2. John Harper (Stays quiet for the good reasons, a righteous person at heart, too young to form own morals)
3. Willa Harper (Adopts Christian morals instead of her own, goes along with what everyone says, a bit dull)
4. Pearl Harper (Doesn’t stay quiet for the greater good, but too young to form own morals)
5. Ben Harper (Stole money for the greater good, but still selfish)
6. Uncle Birdy (Too drunk to have a stable moral compass, but wouldn’t do anything too outlandish)
7. Harry Powell (Off the charts. Selfish, chases miles after children to secure money and won’t let up. Shown to be a pedophile)

7) What do you think motivates the Preacher, Harry Powell?

• The money motivates Harry Powell to track down the children, as they are naive, frail, and can easily be hurt/killed to obtain the money. He also may have thought that it was a sign from God, because it could seem like a setup that his roommate on death row had a family with hidden money. He says that he wants to use the money to build a church, but he could have other motives given his un-Christian like actions...

8) Which character did you like the most…why?

• The character I liked the most would be Rachel Cooper. She was a daredevil who dedicated the latter half of her life to raising orphaned children in a friendly, healthy environment. She didn’t trust Harry Powell when he came to pick the kids up, and she stayed up all night with her shotgun in case Powell dared to trek near. She also defended the kids in court, and helped them escape from the mobs. She is truly the most righteous character and my favorite.

9) Which character did you like the least…why?

• This has to be a tie between Willa and Pearl Harper. It’s not either of their faults, but they both fell for Harry Cooper’s tricks even though it was painfully obvious that he was marrying Willa for the money. Pearl has an excuse, as she is too young and naive to realize that Harry Cooper was tricking them (even so, her acts of loyalty to Cooper after he tricked her many times before were quite annoying), but Willa is a grown woman. She may be a bit dull and gullible (she doesn’t say much in the movie, she just goes along with whatever the Spoons say), so she has an excuse there, but I hate people who don’t form their own opinions, especially when it comes to religion. Even if one’s dull, one must not let a book written 2000 years ago define their whole life. She married Cooper because she fell for his tricks, and she was easily convinced by the Spoons that a woman cannot raise a family alone and that she must find a man to support her family soon. Actually, I may just hate the Spoons more than these two because I hate people who are like the Spoons (especially the wife), preaching like they know everything. This was in the 50’s, but their views are still misogynistic. Anyway, it was easy to tell that Cooper was a horrible, lying snake and it angered me that all of the aforementioned people put their full trust in Cooper merely because he was the one to swoop in at the right time. That’s for another story, but why wasn’t anyone suspicious that he came in right after Ben Harper got taken away?

10) Would you recommend this movie to a friend…why?

• Right after watching this movie, I didn’t really see why people liked it. But thinking back, I can sort of tell why it’s revered. I’m not sure if my friends would like this movie (because like me and many others of this generation, they have modern tastes and short attention spans), but I could see myself watching this with friends if they were film buffs. If my friends and I can watch A Clockwork Orange, we could probably stand this tamer movie. So, to directly answer that question, it depends on which friend.

2/5

Link to Door Project: the sequel

https://youtu.be/z4Rt7xH_uBw

Link to Halloween Video Assignment

https://youtu.be/H8Xf3nH8MnU

Link to REVAMPED Yearbook Commercial

https://youtu.be/UuCgNSGNHB0

Yearbook Film Project Reviews

First Film (Gabrielle, Madison, Connor)- 

I liked that it was short and sweet (so it’s easier to put it on the news). The endslate has an amateur, clashy aesthetic, and it could have looked a lot more professional. I really liked the fact that it gets straight to the point.

Second Film (Hope, Bryce, Jan)- 

I liked most of my film, but I wish that we could have secured an actual old person. I also wish that I altered or didn’t put the credits in (I am not comfortable with the credits being shown on the news), and altered the coloring of the latter part to make it still seem like nighttime, but still visible. We were very short on time when making this, so next time I would like to have a set time to film WITHOUT SUDDEN CHANGES IN THE TIME WE HAD TO MAKE IT!

Third Film (Alexis, Riley, Toby, Hailey)- 

The background footage was good, and the way that the overlaid voice grows faster as it lists the side effects, but the side effects list cannot be read when pausing (it is stretched out too much vertically), and the whole commercial is a little annoying (due to the chipmunk voice, etc.) The idea was really creative, though.

Fourth Film (Audrey, Cameron)- 

There were actually old people in this video! Hooray! I also liked the continuity with the chair being donated to the senior home. However, the music starts abruptly and it is quite loud. “Joan” also spends too much of the film’s time ruffling through her bag before she’s told to get up. Overall, the cinematography and the storyline is great!

Being There Review

1) Did you learn anything from the movie Being There? If you did, what was it?

• I learned something from Being There; I learned to not be so serious, and to try grow an imagination, like Chauncy’s. I’m not saying that he’s a person I want to be, but the quality of being laid back when needed is very important.

2) What is the message of the movie? Do you agree or disagree with it?

• The message of the movie is that everything is not as it seems… The final scene left the viewer reeling because it was unexpected and unrealistic.

3) Was there something you didn't understand about the film? What was that?

• One thing that I didn’t understand was the final scene.. the movie was semi-realistic before it…

4) What did you like best about the movie? Why?

• The thing I liked the most about the movie was the ending scene. While the other parts of the movie were partially comedic and straightforward, that final scene caught me off guard and made me think, especially with the voiceover overlaying the scene. I also liked Louise’s sporadic remarks about Chauncy.

5) What did you like least about the movie? Why?

• The thing I liked the least about the movie were the sexual subplots. They were completely unnecessary, and they just made the movie uncomfortable to watch. The president and his marriage problems could have been cut out completely, and same with the scene with Chauncy watching TV while Eve comes onto him. It has already been established that he doesn’t care for or understand real life relationships, and that scene was completely unneeded. Was it added for an adult joke? We may never know.

6) Who was your least favorite character? Why?

• My least favorite character was probably the president, and the lawyers. They could have been cut out completely to get the main point across. 

7) What is the tone (mood) of the story? 

• The tone of the story was partially comedic, but mostly melancholic. By the end, it was clear that the movie was not entirely a comedy, but a movie intended to make one think.

8) How does the tone help guide the viewers into an sympathetic reaction to the story? 

• This tone helps guide viewers into feeling sympathetic by the end of the story by

9) How is the character of "Chauncy Gardener" introduced? What does this tell us (foreshadowing) about what will happen in the story?

• The character of “Chancy Gardener” was introduced by showing him getting out of bed and getting ready for the day, all while watching TV. By the beginning of this sequence one would think that he is a normal man, but by the end one can tell that something is off about him. He watches TV when doing everything, and he never talks. He also doesn’t react very much to the Old Man’s death. This sequence foreshadows that he would be addicted to TV later in the story, and that he would later make friends in the story because in this sequence he had none.

10) What comment is the director trying to make about the culture of the characters in the story?

• The comment that the director is trying to make about the characters’ culture is that it’s very different from the normal person’s culture. These rich people have huge mansions, many courses of dinner, get doctors and medical treatment in their own home, etc. The gap in their lifestyles is very large. Their problems (besides death) seem very small in comparison to the viewer’s. Also, these rich white people have a say in the government due to their wealth, in contrast to the average viewer.

11) The personal qualities of the protagonist (Chauncy G.) are often a part of the lesson to be learned in a film. What are these qualities? 

• Chauncy G.’s qualities would include childish, inattentive, and one-track minded. He always stops to smell (or care for) the roses, and only talks in gardening terms and simple English. He doesn’t pay attention to others when he’s watching TV (For instance, he didn’t pay any attention to Eve in multiple scenes). He is also very curious, as he wants to try whatever he sees on TV (I.E. Kissing with Eve, doing a handstand, shaking the lawyers’ hands), but that may branch off of being child-like. One of the multiple lessons learned in the film is to be more like Chauncy, in that he isn’t all that serious, and that he cares for the plants and people around him deeply.

12) Was there anything in the movie that you can relate to our current or recent times? Explain.

• In the film, there are old, white men attempting (futilely) to keep the government and the American people in control. They turn to Chauncy (who is not-so-obviously not-so-intelligent). I can relate this to right now, because the exact same thing is happening (except for Chauncy’s existence of course… oh, wait.) There is still a major gap between the rich and the poor in modern times

13) What were you thinking as you finished watching the film?

• I was very confused. The film was semi-realistic up to the final scene, but then he starts walking on water? At first, I was rationalizing it (Oh, he was walking on rocks), but now I interpret the scene as being entirely imaginary.. Chauncy was probably knee deep in pond water, but in his imagination he could have been walking on the water.

14) Would you recommend this movie to a friend? Explain your reasons.

• I would not recommend this movie to a friend, because it was a little too boring. A few years ago, I showed my friends the Truman Show and they fell asleep, so I don’t think they’d make it through this one. It’s good at times, but there are too many long increments in which there is only conversation

15) What do you think the title of the film, "Being There" refers to?

• I think that the title of the film refers to being in the moment, in the curious state of mind. Chauncy is always in this state of mind. He is easily distractible but curious, as mentioned before. More people should be like Chauncy in that he’s not really serious, but he’s caring and he wants to learn and try out new things.

3/5

Link to Yearbook Commercial

https://youtu.be/WW9Ii3zcoAQ

Harold and Maude review

On your Blog, write a short review of Harold and Maude. Address your feelings about the movie in terms of the main characters (Harold, Maude, Harold's Mother, Harold's Uncle, Harold's Psychiatrist), the production(Sets, soundtrack, editing, pacing) and the story.

I can see why this film is a cult classic. It has very interesting parts at times, but sometimes I’m bored out of my mind. The acting is nice, but I did not like the pacing of the movie. Harold and Maude didn’t actually fall in love until the 3rd quarter of the film, and Maude’s death is very sudden (Although I really like the cut after the scene in which Maude reveals she’s going to die that night… it was gorgeous). Harold’s character is a rare one, but I’ve seen used before (monotone, loves death, etc.), but I really like that Harold does break down multiple times in the movie. Those moments show that he’s human. Although it’s disgusting, I love how he feels about his mother. He has reasons to hate his mother, and his talk with Maude about the first time he pulled a suicide prank reveals exactly why he hates her. Maude is a clear contrast to Harold, in that Harold is young and represents death, and Maude is old and represents life. I hate that she doesn’t talk about her past more, and what lead her to be so carefree. I feel like it’s sort of cliché that they fall in love in the end, and that they only made Maude old to get shock factor (which equals more people coming to watch the film, which equals more money). I also feel that with Maude and Harold, one character was made after the other in order to specifically contrast each other and fall in love (opposites attract!). Harold’s mother is the main antagonist of this story. She is a person looking for attention in everything she does, and she wants to makes sure her voice is heard. She’s the type of person to drug her child then act as if they were sick, getting praise and attention for taking care of him, etc. She makes most of Harold’s decisions for him, because Harold is a submissive character. Most of her decisions would benefit herself, and she seems to care more about herself than Harold (Getting Harold a girlfriend would result in grandchildren, filling out the dating personality form to her liking would result in getting a girl that she would like, etc.). Harold’s uncle is portrayed as an authoritarian figure, and most authoritarian figures in this film are portrayed as not fit for their jobs (given that it was made in the 70’s, a time of political uprising). I would say that he is the second main antagonist to Harold in this story. He is still trying his best, though, and he seems to think a little more of Harold than his mother does. Harold’s Psychiatrist doesn’t have any emotional connection to Harold, and no matter how hard he tries to delve into Harold’s mind, he never succeeds. The psychiatrist is just trying to do his job, and Harold is actively refusing his help and ridiculing him in the process. The sets were realistic and good enough. I liked the contrast between Maude’s small, messy cottage and Harold’s large, clean mansion. The soundtrack was good at times, but it suddenly stopped sometimes and that itself is a bit jarring. Part of me wishes that this movie was made more recently, as I can think of some songs that would go a lot better with the movie than the limited selection they had then. The editing was okay, but there were some sudden, jarring cuts that took me out of the movie. I’ve said this before, but I didn’t prefer the pacing at all. The story was a bit predictable, not to say that it was bad. I did like some quirks in it (Harold’s elaborate suicides, Harold and Maude’s funeral hobbies, Maude’s “borrowing” of cars), but without those quirks it may have been a very boring story. I’m surprised and a bit angered that this movie has a PG rating. Maybe the producers were scared that people wouldn’t come to it if it was a PG-13 movie? I feel like they should have made it longer, and added more scenes of Harold and Maude’s relationship to make the pacing slower, even if it made the movie PG-13.  One thing that I would like to point out is the very last scene. When the hearse went over the edge of the cliff, I was furious. Harold wasted his life all because of his first love, and he can’t go on without her? That’s pretty dumb. I was so relieved when it was revealed that he didn’t die after all. 

All in all, the movie had some flaws and things that I would have done better, but I would watch it again, looking for hints and Easter eggs that would reveal more about the characters and movie.

3/5

"Don't be a sucker" Commentary

1) What parallels can you draw between this 1947 War Department propaganda and today's current political climate?

• Today, with the current political climate (being that the main two parties are currently at a major head due to conflicting political views), I can compare today to 1947 because in both times, we are in a war-like state (conflicting ideas and the threat of nuclear war), there are people claiming to be the “real Americans” (for the same reasons, too). In both times, there are people claiming to be the “master race” because they’re white and a “real American”, but that is simply not true, and quite racist and ethnocentric.

2) How effective do you think that this video would have been when it was first shown?

• I would think that it would be very effective. The country was still reeling from WWII, so a comparison to Germany in that time would probably resonate greatly within people (especially children)’s minds.

3) How effective do you think that this video is when shown today?

• I would think that it would be partially effective. It would resonate within some people’s minds because some believe that a war on our freedom recently happened (Russia on the US Election), while some do not, and that demonstrates the conflicting viewpoints previously mentioned. I’d like to think that this video would convince bigoted people to cease their wicked ways, but some people still support the president after it was revealed that he cheated on his wife so… In conclusion, it would be partially effective, because while some people can be changed with reason, some have a one track mind that refuses to divert.

4) If there is a difference, what do you think accounts for it?

• Today, we as a whole have more immigrants than ever, mostly from our neighbor Mexico (and South America to an extent). In 1947, the major minority would be the African Americans. The racists in 1947 and today claim that the minorities are taking up their precious land and jobs, which is simply not true. In both times, both minorities take up jobs that most people don’t want to do (construction, housekeeping, etc.). The difference is the nationality of the minorities in question, and how we are dealing with them. Another minor difference is that we are not currently reeling from a major world war, so war and death isn’t fresh in our minds. 

Video 1 ("Gift") Commentary

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PKn0hL9aBs

1) Describe what the main concept or "big idea" behind the video is.

• It is a persuasive video attempting to convince the viewer to think before they adopt. They do this by playing with the viewer’s emotions and making them feel bad for the dog. 

2) What is the emotional tone of the video.. Happy? Sad? Optimistic?

• The overall emotion was sad, because this family decided to leave the dog on the side of the road at the end (SIDE NOTE: After one time in which the dog tore up a room? Chickens.)

3) Were there any clues that the adopted child was a metaphor for an adopted dog?

• There were. She was playing fetch with her family, the other girl ran up to her and gave her love as soon as she walked in, she was at another table while the others ate at the table, and more that hinted that she was actually a dog.

4) Identify the message the filmmakers were trying to convey.

• To adopt carefully. They wanted to evoke emotion in the audience so they will take that message to heart.

5) In your opinion, was the message effectively conveyed?  (Use examples to support your opinion)

• In my opinion,  the message was not effectively conveyed. I say this because the change was too abrupt (The music and tone suddenly shifted. A fade in would have been a lot nicer and less jarring to the viewer, maintaining the mood.), the motions were too exaggerated (When the girl tugged on the mom’s shirt, she exaggeratedly slaps her away). This abrupt change and unrealistic motions took me out of suspension of disbelief, making me think critically. I will admit that thinking back on it, I do find it a bit depressing but initially I didn’t feel any emotion upon finishing it, and the twist was sort of predictable. (SIDE NOTE: I really do like the montage of when the adopted girl first arrives home, though. The colors, music, and shots fit perfectly well.)

The Wrong Trousers Commentary

Title/Opening Credits

• The title may have been chosen because the story is literally about “the wrong trousers”, which cause a lot of trouble in this storyline.

Story/Plot/Narrative

• Story: It is Gromit’s birthday. He is sad that Wallace gives him a pair of mechanic trousers to walk him, as he is too smart to be a regular dog and doesn’t need to walk; he uses the toilet. Wallace then lets another guest into the house, who is a penguin. He seems to replace Gromit, and he annoys Gromit quite a lot. Gromit feels rejected and leaves. The next morning the penguin uses the mecha trousers on Wallace, and he goes for a walk around the city to test them out. Gromit notices that the penguin was controlling Wallace, but of course Wallace didn’t. The penguin, dressed as a chicken, leads Wallace in the Trousers, sleeping, to steal a diamond. He succeeds, but barely because Wallace set the alarms off. They go back home and finally realize that the penguin is evil. The penguin, who took over Gromit’s place in the house, then tries to escape with the diamond but ultimately fails. They catch the penguin, give him to the police, return the diamond, and pay off their debts.
• TL;DR - Wallace is mean to Gromit and never apologizes :( He takes Gromit for granted and Gromit should leave Wallace and get a better owner.

Motif

• The penguin putting a glove on his head to look like a chicken, and people believing it.
• When Wallace is put into the trousers, he yells, “These are the wrong pair of trousers!”, making a reference to the title.

Characterization

• Wallace is the main character. He is an inventor (with a cover of window cleaning). He is shown to love cheese, and to have a very “thick skull” We are supposed to laugh at him because he’s just so thick headed in any situation, even if it’s filled with emotion. 
• Gromit is another main character. He is Wallace’s sidekick, and he completes the pair. What I mean by that is while Wallace is thickheaded, not intelligent, and carefree, Gromit is the exact opposite. He is shown to be very smart (for a dog, which is a running gag) and without Gromit, Wallace would not be able to function. (Gromit literally prepares Wallace for his day. Wallace presses a “service” button and Gromit operates the machines to get him ready for the day, and he asks for Gromit’s help whenever something goes wrong.) We are supposed to feel bad for Gromit, as he gets the butt of Wallace’s problems, and has to take care of him.
• The penguin is the final main character. He is shown to be fishy from the beginning, so it’s not a surprise when it’s revealed that he’s evil. He used Wallace and the pair of trousers to steal a diamond. When in Wallace’s house, he takes on Gromit’s role.

Scene and Sets

• The film is shot on a movie set (that was created with clay and other materials).
• Some parts are shot in Wallace’s house, which is a cottage with a lot of mechanical machines due to his inventing hobby.

A Close Shave commentary

Title/Opening Credits

• The movie is about shaving the wool/fur of animals, and the main characters literally almost got killed (a euphemism for a close call is “close shave”), so the title is called “A close shave”.
• A reference to this is when Gromit turns Preston’s Knit-O-Matic to “close shave”, and winking at the camera.
• The opening sequence (Of Wallace sleeping, and a knife falling to the floor between his shoes) foreshadows what the movie is about… In this, the “knife” is Preston’s evil plans and the “shoes” are the main characters.

Story/Plot/Narrative

• The story, albeit unrealistic, was linear. It had suspense and action in the correct places, and most times, the fourth wall breaks were amusing.
• But, it didn’t have a satisfying ending. Gwendoline and Wallace seemed to have good chemistry but after she mentions that SHE LITERALLY CAN’T HAVE CHEESE he is turned off by her. That was an unexpected and disgusting plot twist. I get that it was to reset Wallace and Gromit as characters so they can go on their next adventure without worrying about these throwaway characters but really?
• The story: Wallace and Gromit live together, and clean windows together. They come over to a lady’s house weekly to clean her windows. The lady is revealed to go herd (kill) sheep with her dog. Wallace falls in love with the lady, which is a side plot. The lady has a dog, Preston, who forces her to kill sheep for dog food. Preston frames Gromit to get him out of the picture. The sheep overran Wallace’s life, and they all helped Gromit get out. They spy the lady collecting sheep, and Preston kidnapping her. They are all taken to Preston’s dog food factory and are almost made into dog food until Shaun and Gromit save them all multiple times. It is revealed that Preston was a cyber (robot) dog. Wallace, an inventor, fixes him for the lady, but falls out of love with her after learning that she can’t eat cheese.

Motif

• A motif would be “close shaves” happening throughout the movie. One prominent one is the knife falling between Wallace’s shoes in the opening sequence.
• Another motif would be the newspapers the characters were reading throughout the film (I.E. “Gromit on the run” as a main article, then “Shepard claims Gromit bit him”, then “Gromit in jail for life”)..
• A final motif would be fourth wall breaks. Multiple times the fourth wall is broken. Examples of this include Gromit’s winking at the viewer after he turns the Knit-O-Matic to “A close shave”, and Wallace and the sheep staring at the viewer after they react to his jail sentencing in the newspaper.

Characterization

• Wallace is the main character. He is an inventor (with a cover of window cleaning). He is shown to love cheese (to the point where he dislikes Gwendolyn due to her dislike of cheese), and to have a very “thick skull” (He doesn’t really get angry at Shaun for eating up his house until he notices that his cheese is gone, and when he finds Shaun, the first thought that comes to his mind is to wash him, not be angry at him for ruining his house.) We are supposed to laugh at him because he’s just so thick headed in any situation, even if it’s filled with emotion. (When Gwendoline tells him to duck, he literally thinks there’s a duck around.)
• Gwendoline is another main character. She is a woman who owns a knitting shop, who called Wallace out to her slop to “clean her windows” every week (This isn’t actually stated, but implied.) She is revealed to be the hooded figure we see in the beginning of the movie, and she is also revealed to be controlled by Preston when she collects the sheep. We are supposed to feel bad for her because she was forced into this business after her father died.
• Gromit is another main character. He is Wallace’s sidekick, and he completes the pair. What I mean by that is while Wallace is thickheaded, not intelligent, and carefree, Gromit is the exact opposite. He is shown to be very smart (for a dog, which is a running gag) and without Gromit, Wallace would not be able to function. (Gromit literally prepares Wallace for his day. Wallace presses a “service” button and Gromit operates the machines to get him ready for the day, and he asks for Gromit’s help whenever something goes wrong.) We are supposed to feel bad for Gromit, as he gets the butt of Wallace’s problems, and has to take care of him.
• Preston is another main character. He is ominous and his character design is meant to make the viewer think he is bad news. When he is revealed to be a rogue robot with possession of a dog food company (which is foreshadowed when Gromit kicks over a can of his dog food), we are supposed to dislike him and hope that he dies/turns good again. The latter occurs, in a way.
• Shaun and the sheep are side characters. They are used to help continue the story when the main characters were unable to. (I.E. Shaun saving them all from the Knit-O-Matic after they all got stuck in it, and Shaun rescuing Gromit from jail) They are meant for comedic effect (“How are those sheep THAT smart?!”).

Scene and Sets

• The film is shot on a movie set (that was created with clay and other materials).
• Parts of the film are set in Wallace’s house. It looks like an ordinary cottage until Wallace and Gromit’s inventions start breaking out, bringing an unexpected mechanical aspect into the homely cottage. It is integrated into the action of multiple scenes because when Shaun starts biting everything, it is shown on the walls and items in the house before it shows on Wallace and Gromit’s faces.
• Parts of the film are set in Preston’s dog food factory. The mechanics are suited for this setting, and they are heavily used (Preston’s Knit-O-Matic, Preston’s grinding machine, etc.). The set is integrated into the scene because the characters get stuck in the machines multiple times, and those machines are part of the set.