Mall Lights - Were they on or not?

[SRP76]

Lights on! Lights off! Lights on, lights off....the Clapper! You found Daniel-san's secret lesson! So, by this line of reasoning, if we see the reflection of a film crew in a window in any movie, are we to assume that the characters are walking down the street and dont seem to notice a motion picture crew following them around filming them? If a boom mic sinks into frame during a bedroom scene, are we to assume the couple having sex dont notice a big microphone hanging over there bed? There are some things the audience has to accept as not being supposed to be there. There is no way you can claim the dates are the same thing as a blooper. Fran's marking off of dates is specifically shot for the movie. It is "supposed to" be there.

[Philly_SWAT]

You found Daniel-san's secret lesson! There is no way you can claim the dates are the same thing as a blooper. Fran's marking off of dates is specifically shot for the movie. It is "supposed to" be there. If you look carefully at the posts, EvilNed and I were not talking about the dates on Frans calender, but the year on the football schedule.

[EvilNed]

So, by this line of reasoning, if we see the reflection of a film crew in a window in any movie, are we to assume that the characters are walking down the street and dont seem to notice a motion picture crew following them around filming them? If a boom mic sinks into frame during a bedroom scene, are we to assume the couple having sex dont notice a big microphone hanging over there bed? There are some things the audience has to accept as not being supposed to be there. No, because that's not part of the storytelling, that's just a serious mishap. But everything within the misé-en-scene is fair game when analysing a film. And that calender or footall scores is part of the misé-en-scene, wether or not Romero intended it to be there. (Well, obviously the calenders meant to be there...) A film always has to be able to stand on it's own. No film can stand on what it's director "intended".

[Philly_SWAT]

No, because that's not part of the storytelling, that's just a serious mishap. But everything within the misé-en-scene is fair game when analysing a film. And that calender or footall scores is part of the misé-en-scene, wether or not Romero intended it to be there. (Well, obviously the calenders meant to be there...) A film always has to be able to stand on it's own. No film can stand on what it's director "intended". The thing about what you are saying that doesnt make sense is this.... it is obvious that the football thing is NOT meant to be there. It is something that just happened to be there in the mall office...it was not meant to be part of the story telling process. It was just a mishap (not even a serious mishap, as I said before, the audience isnt even supposed to see that. I doubt they even really noticed it was there when making the movie. It wasnt part of the story, and it isnt important.) I have personally been in that office. There was stuff laying all over when I was there, and little post it notes all over the window. It is a cluttered environment. The crew did not have the time, the resources, or the desire, to find any little thing that might be noticed in the background for one second and move it out of the scene, then put it back where they found it. From wikipedia: Mise-en-scène (IPA: [mizɑ̃sɛn]) is an expression used in the theatre and film worlds to describe the design aspects of a production. It has been called film criticism's "grand undefined term," but that is not because of a lack of definitions. Rather, it's because the term has so many different meanings that there is little consensus about its definition. Odd choice of terms to bring up in a discussion, as their is little consensus as to what the term itself even means.

[CoinReturn]

The lights stayed on during the recent screening of Dawn at Monroeville Mall, I can tell you that. Pretty much made the movie unwatchable.

[EvilNed]

The thing about what you are saying that doesnt make sense is this.... it is obvious that the football thing is NOT meant to be there. It is something that just happened to be there in the mall office...it was not meant to be part of the story telling process. It was just a mishap (not even a serious mishap, as I said before, the audience isnt even supposed to see that. I doubt they even really noticed it was there when making the movie. It wasnt part of the story, and it isnt important.) I have personally been in that office. There was stuff laying all over when I was there, and little post it notes all over the window. It is a cluttered environment. The crew did not have the time, the resources, or the desire, to find any little thing that might be noticed in the background for one second and move it out of the scene, then put it back where they found it. What's your point? It's there, accept it, and thus it's as much as part of the film as anything else. It makes perfect sense, actually. Because what we see, and what we hear, that's what the film is. What George A. Romero says in an interview, that is NOT what the film is. Accept it or don't, it's not my problem. Authors, directors and painters are often very adamant about what they want to say with their art. They are often the ones who get a bit upset when their art is misinterpreted. But art is personal! It's not objective, it's subjective. And that piece of paper is part of that subjective experience, I'm sorry, but not even you can deny that. EDIT: Actually, I can prove that it's part of the storytelling process as much as the rest: We are discussing it. That means someone noticed it. Someone thought it added to the film. And not a damn word that George A. Romero has to say about it is going to change it. We're still discussing it.

[Philly_SWAT]

What's your point? It's there, accept it, and thus it's as much as part of the film as anything else. It makes perfect sense, actually. Because what we see, and what we hear, that's what the film is. What George A. Romero says in an interview, that is NOT what the film is. Accept it or don't, it's not my problem. Authors, directors and painters are often very adamant about what they want to say with their art. They are often the ones who get a bit upset when their art is misinterpreted. But art is personal! It's not objective, it's subjective. And that piece of paper is part of that subjective experience, I'm sorry, but not even you can deny that. EDIT: Actually, I can prove that it's part of the storytelling process as much as the rest: We are discussing it. That means someone noticed it. Someone thought it added to the film. And not a damn word that George A. Romero has to say about it is going to change it. We're still discussing it. I never said that Romero said anything about it at all one way or the other. I am saying it is common sense. Common sense...use it or dont, its not my problem. Regardless of who is right, if you say that we see the football scores, therefore it is part of the film, then the same logic applies to crew reflections in a window. They are both the exact same thing. Either they are both suppose to be there, or neither are. If we are watching a movie that is set in say...the year 1999. It is based on a true story that happened in 1999, and it clearly says on screen "October 1999", and in one scene, a character uses a cell phone to make a call. Some sharp observers notice when pausing it on DVD that the model of cell phone came out in 2005, the year the movie was made. Are we to assume that there has been some sort of time travel not shown on screen, where someone went forward in time, got a cell phone from 2005, and brought it back to 1999? Or are we to assume that the movie isnt about time travel, the cell phone was totally irrelevant to the story telling process in the movie, and that is was just a production flaw?

[SRP76]

I never said that Romero said anything about it at all one way or the other. I am saying it is common sense. Common sense...use it or dont, its not my problem. Regardless of who is right, if you say that we see the football scores, therefore it is part of the film, then the same logic applies to crew reflections in a window. They are both the exact same thing. Either they are both suppose to be there, or neither are. If we are watching a movie that is set in say...the year 1999. It is based on a true story that happened in 1999, and it clearly says on screen "October 1999", and in one scene, a character uses a cell phone to make a call. Some sharp observers notice when pausing it on DVD that the model of cell phone came out in 2005, the year the movie was made. Are we to assume that there has been some sort of time travel not shown on screen, where someone went forward in time, got a cell phone from 2005, and brought it back to 1999? Or are we to assume that the movie isnt about time travel, the cell phone was totally irrelevant to the story telling process in the movie, and that is was just a production flaw? Something that fits isn't the same as something that doesn't. Your phone analogy would only work if the football schedule showed a contradiction. It doesn't. The schedule is like seeing a 1999 model phone in a movie set in 1999. Where's the error? If something fits perfectly with the rest of the things seen in the movie, there's no reason to disregard it as an error. Not like they didn't know the thing was sitting on the desk when they shot the scene, in the first place. They could have just moved it for a second if the didn't want it shown.

[Philly_SWAT]

Something that fits isn't the same as something that doesn't. Your phone analogy would only work if the football schedule showed a contradiction. It doesn't. The schedule is like seeing a 1999 model phone in a movie set in 1999. Where's the error? If something fits perfectly with the rest of the things seen in the movie, there's no reason to disregard it as an error. Not like they didn't know the thing was sitting on the desk when they shot the scene, in the first place. They could have just moved it for a second if the didn't want it shown. Like I already said, I doubt they even noticed it. There are so many production flaws in Dawn, it would be difficult to list them all. To make the argument that they were all intended to be part of the story would render the entire movie worthless. The football schedule was in no way included as a "clue" to the audience as to "when" it is. It is something that just happened to already be in the office. If that is not blatantly obvious, then I guess there is nothing else I can say to make anyone see it.

[bigmonkey2582]

I worry about the status of our lives currently when this is a huge issue.

[SRP76]

Well, it's more fun than watching Law and Order reruns.

[bigmonkey2582]

I wouldn't be so sure. lol.

[DubiousComforts]

Here is a screencap from my Divimax Edition at time stamp 28:30, the first time when Peter and Roger are looking down into the mall. I think it shows, quite conclusively, that the lights were in fact on. Except for a minute during the biker raid which intentionally shows the power going down, the mall lights were always on seeing as they used the actual mall lighting to the light the movie.

[EvilNed]

Regardless of who is right, if you say that we see the football scores, therefore it is part of the film, then the same logic applies to crew reflections in a window. They are both the exact same thing. Either they are both suppose to be there, or neither are. No, because the crew in the window is obviously not supposed to be there. However, everything in the misé-en-scene goes for analysing. Any filmprofessor will tell you this. You think filmanalysts analyse films from the perspective of the director? Think again. They, as we do, look at it completely independently from what the director wants or feels. So again, it's not that hard to understand. If it's in the film, it's fair game for analysing. We can't selectively disregard some aspects of it. And a crew in a window is a blooper, a goof. There is the difference. That paper, however, is not a goof or blooper. Something that fits isn't the same as something that doesn't. Your phone analogy would only work if the football schedule showed a contradiction. It doesn't. The schedule is like seeing a 1999 model phone in a movie set in 1999. Where's the error? Exactly. Well said. Again, the difference between bloopers and what's in the film. Philly, I don't see why you're so hung up on what the crew intended to be there. Do you only view films how people tell you to view them? Must be pretty boring.

[Philly_SWAT]

No, because the crew in the window is obviously not supposed to be there. However, everything in the misé-en-scene goes for analysing. Any filmprofessor will tell you this. You think filmanalysts analyse films from the perspective of the director? Think again. They, as we do, look at it completely independently from what the director wants or feels. So again, it's not that hard to understand. If it's in the film, it's fair game for analysing. We can't selectively disregard some aspects of it. And a crew in a window is a blooper, a goof. There is the difference. That paper, however, is not a goof or blooper. The difference here, in regards to misé-en-scene is this.....there is obviously a difference between a built set on a lot, and using an actual location. Do you not agree with this??????????? If the office had been a built set...for example, like the hideout (which was not in the mall, but in an empty office elsewhere) and the football schedule had been in the shot, then yes, you would be correct. However, the security office was not a built set....it was shot in the actual office in the boiler room of the mall. The football schedule was something that just happened to in the office. Taking into account that the audience is not supposed to "see" the schedule, just as the audience is not supposed to "see" crew reflections, they are the exact same thing. This is not "selectively disregarding some aspects", it is using common sense, as I stated before.