The title sequences I am going to compare are the James Bond Dr No from 1962 to James Bond Casino Royal from 2006.
At the beginning of the title sequence of Dr No from 1962, as the information is appearing, there is the presence of a non-diegetic sound that sounds almost alien-like that is before the iconic, non-diegetic gun shot. This extra-terrestrial sound would lead the audience to suspect that Dr No was a science fiction film due to the use of this sound; even though it is not the true genre as the genre of the film is action. In comparison, at the beginning of Casino Royal there is the non-diegetic sound that is like a white noise, along with the non-diegetic gunshot. The white noise emphasises the gunshot, and instantly connotes to the audience that it is an action film due to the emphasis on the shot sound. This suggests that in title sequences in history, there wasn’t enough attention paid to how the non-diegetic sounds used within the title sequence can represent or misrepresent the genre of the film; unlike presently, where evidently there is attention paid to the non-diegetic sounds connoting the genre as it is successfully done so in the 2006 Casino Royal.
The following shot is the iconic shot of the character of James Bond, through the scope of a gun. The timing of this shot is very quick in the Casino Royal film, as it lasts for about two seconds. However, in Dr No this scene goes on for longer, and has the camera panning across and up and down the screen, before the infamous gun shot. This shows that in the earlier James Bond title sequences, there was a lot of emphasis on the main character and their relevance to the film, as opposed to the representing the genre of the film which is used in title sequences now. However, it could be argued, that due to James Bond being such well-known films, as they have progressed, there is no need to dwell on the character of James Bond. As the audience are already aware of the relevance of his character to the film.
During the gun shot scene, in the mise-en-scene, the audience are introduced to James Bond. However the actor who plays James Bond (Sean Connery in Dr No and Daniel Craig in Casino Royal) in both title sequences isn’t the only things that are different, the costume of both of them are different too. In the Dr No sequence, the shot of James bond is an establishing, long shot, in which his face is not detectable; however his costume is. This costume is a suit that is worn ‘properly’ with the blazer done up, and a hander kerchief in the pocket. Due to the neat presentation of the suit on the character, connotes that James Bond's is a dapper, rich, and always well presented; due to the expensive look of the suit and how it is worn. Bond also has a bowler’s hat on; this is used traditionally in many detective films and cartoons such as Inspector Gadget. Due to this use of the hate this also connotes that James Bond's character is a detective. This is misleading as his character is in fact a spy. However, in the Casino Royal title sequence, the shot is an establishing shot of the character of Bond. Daniel Craig’s face is completely detectable and his costume is also a suit, however it is worn quite differently from Sean Connery. The suit does connote being a dapper, due to the blazer buttons being undone, with the shirts top button un-done, with no tie. This makes the character of James Bond seem suave, confident, with sex appeal. The profession of Bond is represented in better clarity too, as he is not wearing any hat to connote otherwise. This contrast in costumes and shot suggests that the target audiences for the films may have changed throughout the year. As the previous Bond films could have been aimed at men mainly, due to the detective look and the use of guns in the title sequence. However the newer films, such as Casino Royal, target audience may have expanded to also be for women, due to the closer shot of James Bond, and the suave, confident, sex appeal that James Bond has in that shot.
The blood that fills the screen in the aftermath of the gun shot, shot is very different too in both title sequences. In the Dr No the blood quite slowly fills the screen in red. However, in the Casino Royal the blood drips in red segments down the screen; that also have a 3d effect to them. This shows the vast improvements in technology from 1962 to 2006. In this shot in Dr No, the iconic James Bond music begins, and the camera again pans on Bond to ensure the audience are aware the shot is meant to be from the view of a scope. Due to the iconic Bond music and the lingering shot of Bond, shows that the purpose of this lingering shot in the title sequence was to acquaint the audience with the representations of Bond and his character. (As the representations of Bond are the suit, guns, and blood.) Whereas in Casino Royal the blood on the screen shot covers the character of Bond, and the soundtrack begins to play as opposed to iconic James Bond. This shows that the purposes of this title sequences was to contain as much information that represents the film, as opposed to introducing and representing the main character being the priority.
In Dr No the shot than fades into circles, and the titles proceed. The title sequence features many different patterns of different coloured circles that accompany the name of the character, film and the credits. This is accompanied by the iconic Bond music; however without the music and the beginning of the title sequence with all the traditional conventions of a Bond title sequence, there is nothing else that connotes that it is a Bond film, or the genre of the film etc... As the different colour circles have no representations of Bond, therefore it seems as though the circles were just used to show off the technology that was gradually being introduced into title sequences. Silhouettes appear along with the title sequence later on, however, again it only represents the character of Bond; that he is a 'ladies man.' The typographics that are used are very plain font, with a white and sometimes red colour. The white and red does contrast with the black background, therefore it stands out. The typographics also connote the different sides of James Bond's character; being good and bad. In comparison, the rest of the opening title sequence of Casino Royal is completely opposing to Dr No. It is completely contained with representations of the film setting with the use of hearts and clubs that are found on playing cards and therefore represents casinos, which represents the setting. The character of James Bond is included throughout the whole of this title sequence, and again there are representations of his character through him loading a gun. Including representations of the narrative of the film through the guns shooting out clubs, fighting scenes, the 'veins' releasing the clubs and hearts, the pictures of Queens having scopes run across them etc... The images also artistically change into different things, such as the circles turning into black jack boards; this again connotes the setting and the narrative of the film. As well as the agent name of Bond (007), is cleverly put into the graphics, this shows the thought and process there was when producing this title sequence. At the end of the title sequence, there is a close up Daniel Craig, while the non-diegetic background music's lyrics are; 'You know my name.' This shows that this character is well known for his job and character within the films, as well as because the title sequence has given so many representations of his character and the narrative of the film.
When comparing the title sequences it is apparent that the conventions of a title sequence in the 60’s is different to how it is presently. This is due to their being no setting shown in Dr No, along with the neglect of other conventions of title sequences today. However, as the Casino Royal had all the conventions apparent in the title sequence shows just how important there are in an opening title sequence. Without the title sequence being though about in depth, planned, or relevant the audience are not aware of the most important things such as the genre. Overall the comparison of the opening titles for the films has shown me the importance of the conventions in a title sequence, as well as suggesting the fact that a title sequence was not considered as important as then as they are today. Because it is evident through the comparisons, and other examples of opening title sequences (such as the opening title sequences for films such as ratatouille) that title sequences are now a work of art.
No comments:
Post a Comment