“Shelby Holding a Plate Saying to Speed Up”
About the sequences of this movie, there are two particular ones in my mind that are outstanding and interesting for audience to interpret. One this the scene that could be understood as the beginning of the whole conflict, which is the Ford employees went to Italy, expecting to merge or buy out Ferrari. Enzo thought the Ford II was very disingenuous, because he had sent his men instead of himself to the scene. The stubborn old gentleman cursed Ford, humiliated Ford II and his empire, and sold Ferrari to Fiat. These scenes are clear and straight, It was a perfect introduction to a competition of business took place on the race circuit. The flow of the movie is smooth, then it comes the LeMans race and the victory of Ford.
The whole film is based on the narrative film style, because the purpose of the film is to tell the audience what happened in the epic commercial competition of that year. The film didn’t have a lot of suspense or reverse elements, basically solid tells the story of ford made in a nearly perfect machine in a very short time to be able to match the Ferrari race
cars. And ford was the first time to participate in LeMans race but got outstanding achievements —won the championship, defeating the ferrari, Miles and Shelby perfectly achieved the goal given by their big boss. The audience got what they want, a big victory to Ford. One more interesting detail about the movie was that at the Final scene，Enzo took off his hat to pay tribute to the Ford team, but Ford II left early. Enzo was stubborn but passionate about racing, and the Ford II was just a business machine. This leads a deeper understanding of the characters.
The movie is a story, a story of two famous car companies fighting against each other. One of my peers mentioned the story of the movie “Makes the Movie Palpable.” Also the movie is both sided so it make the movie look fair and do not look like a “one side conflict.” In conclusion, This is a film that tells a clear story but at the same time makes people feel excitement.
Moving Pictures constantly compare filmmaking with language. Each shot in a film is a single letter. A scene made of multiple shots, a scene is a sentence. An act is a paraphrase, A movie is an essay. “Just as linguistic meaning is built up from a set sequence of words, phrases, and sentences, cinematic meaning is built up from a sequence of shots and scenes.” (Sharman 165). One of Joker’s most famous scenes is essentially a single shot, Joker shooting Murray. Murray having Arthur Fleck on his show is a single set-piece, And a single shot could have been satisfactory for that scene. Joker is broken up into three chunks, Set up, Descent, and Madness. The setup is showing the whole Arthur lives in, the Descent is the world further beating down on Arthur, and Madness is Arthur turning in the Joker, white face paint, green hair, and red suit.
A good story usually follows a very simple recipe “1 protagonist. 1 goal. A whole bunch of obstacles.” (Sharman 100). But what Joker does is unconventional, Arthur Fleck never reaches that goal. The goal is being accepted by society, which is represented by Arthur struggling to climb a large set of stairs, constantly shown throughout the film. But Arthur Fleck never reaches the top of those stairs. After Arthur Fleck becomes the Joker, He is shown at the top of the stairs dancing all the way down, a metaphor for his descent into madness and chaos. The bunch of obstacles that Arthur Fleck faces is the society and environment around him. People beat him up for no reason, his mother doesn’t love him, his mental health care loses support, and his idle Franklin Murray public makes fun of him. All Arthur Fleck wanted to do in life is make people laugh, and all everyone did was laugh at him, not with him, at him
“Narrative structure may be a critical component of cinematic language, but ultimately, the structure is another word for the plot, and we don’t go to the movies to root for plots, we root for people.” (Sharman 106). The difference between a plot and a story is that a plot is what is currently happening in the media. A plot is a movie, the story is the timeline. If event “2” in the timeline happens first in the film, that’s because of how the film was plotted. When a film goes in chronological order, the plot and story are nearly the same. Joker is in chronological order so the distinction between plot and story is slim to none. The movie does not hold back its information, it directly shows you the kind of hell that Arthur Fleck has both been through and currently lives in. When critics talk about Joker’s story it is usually about how it mirror’s our own society’s look at mental health.
This film is a story, a story of a man and his descent into madness that the society around him cultivated. This story is also kind of a poem, a cautionary tale poem about the effects that the lack of support people facing mental health can lead to. The scene with Arthur Fleck climbing the stairs, only for Joker to strut down the stairs around the end of the film is just the kind of metaphor that poems have. The colors of the film are quite dark and mudded, almost lacking expression. But this doesn’t follow Arthur Fleck and Joker. His face paint is white, his hair is bright green, and his suit a strong red. It contrasts with the moody colors of the world around Arthur.
Moving Pictures: An Introduction to Cinema companies shots, scenes, and sequences to letters, words, and sentences. A single shot is a letter to a scene’s word in a bigger sequence or sentence. The book constantly talks about how the skill of making a film is similar to a language, called cinematic language. Moving Pictures brings to the front the importance of the juxtaposition of shots. Monty Python and the Holy Grail use this Juxtaposition to great effect. There are multiple instances where one shot follows King Arthur and his knights and the next shot shows a pair of 1975 British police investigating an earlier scene as a crime scene committed by King Arthur. Neither of these scenes is unified by space, time, or even genre. Monty Python has many shots that can stand alone as scenes. If I had to pick one, the stop motion animation god is essentially a single shot and acts as a scene alone.
Monty Python and the holy grail is a hard movie to use as an example of good dramatic structure, as it breaks those rules on a consistent basis. The protagonist is King Arthur, he is the most promote character, the first character seen in the film, and the “plot” has him as the most important character. However, the movie doesn’t really have a core antagonist. And because of this, the movie doesn’t follow the common “three-act structure”. When critics write about this movie in reference to the elements of a dramatic structure, it’s always in how the movie successfully breaks those structures for comedic effect. The film famously doesn’t have a resolution. It has a climax, with all of the people King Arthur gained favor in, rushing towards the camera, but that climax is anti-climatic removed as the previously stated 1975 British police arrest King Arthur. The police then place their hand on the camera, ending the movie. The movie ends with what it was doing the entire time, subverting expectations, confusing the time period, and a laugh
“Here’s the recipe for a good story: 1 protagonist. 1 goal. A whole bunch of obstacles. That’s it. Pretty much every story ever told can be boiled down to those three elements: A protagonist pursuing a goal confronted by obstacles. Cinematic storytelling draws from this same narrative source, and in that sense, is not so different from a good novel or even just a good yarn spun around the campfire.” (Sharman 100) Monty Python and the Holy Grail follow this simple recipe. 1 protagonist, King Arthur, 1 Goal, find the Holy Grail, and A whole bunch of obstacles, with each obstacle being hilarious and subverting expectations. The story in Monty Python is purposefully messy, the time period is never consistent, which adds to its surrealist comedy. The plot is supposed to push a story, but the story isn’t the main point of Monty Python. I wouldn’t hesitate to say that Monty Python’s story is its comedy with the plot supporting that.
In Blade Runner 2049 cinematographer Roger Deakins utilizes a lot of move in/move out shots to show the vast sprawl of the dirty squaller that has become LA, SD, and Las Vegas in 2049. For instance the opening sequence mimics the original Blade Runner with an extreme long shot of the city then moves closer and focuses on our protagonist (Ryan Gosling and Harrison Ford, respectively). He used a hybrid blend of classical and contemporary shooting styles that harken back to the original movie while also building on his innovative computer controlled rigs to shoot and make the lights of the cityscape feel bustling and alive. Two sequences that really stand out are the opening tracking shot of K arriving to investigate the protein farm, it sets the stage for the barren wasteland inhabited by the rejected replicants of society seeking to evade destruction by a society that now views them as a liability. The other is the Las Vegas sequence which is dripping in noir and brilliant orange and blue lighting that brings life to the once bustling city. These sequences use space and time to build a world that is both familiar and alien all at the same time.
The film does follow a classical 3 act structure, first following our McGuffin protagonist, K, as he does his menial detective job. The inciting incident is when he finds that the bones that were buried in Sapper Mortons front yard are a replicants bones, and that she had a child (something that was thought to be impossible). This set K off into act II where the rising action takes place. He finds that Wallace is interested in investigating as well for nefarious purposes like creating a replicant disposable work force. The movie compartmentalizes information and for the most part we are learning revelations as K does. He begins to think that he is not a replicant made, but one born, and this changes his entire outlook. Act III dispels that notion and we find out along with K that he was wrong, he is not special, he’s a replicant just like the others. But act III shows us that it is not some lineage or prophecy that can make the protagonist a hero, it is the actions of the protagonist himself. K goes and saves Deckard from being taken to Wallaces off world location where they had planned to torture him for information.
The film is an argument about humanity and about the validity of life. What makes humanity so intrinsically special? Are replicants not valid living beings? Do they have a soul? The film is also a lot like poetry, rhyming and echoing the philosophies and themes of the original movie. The movie doesn’t spoon feed you its ideology and the audience is left to make meaning of the story when it ends. Personally, I feel that the story emphasizes that we assign our own meaning, our own humanity, and purpose to life. We should not be constrained by the rigid rules and ideologies set forth by society, but rather carve out our own path, meaning, and purpose out of life.
A sequence is “a series of edited shots characterized by inherent unity of theme and purpose” (Barsam and Monohan pg. 453). Whereas a scene is “a complete unit of plot action taking a place in a continuous time frame in a single location” (Barsam and Monohan pg. 453). There are many scenes within the documentary Supersize me but the two that stick out the most to me are when Spurlock begin’s his journey with excitement with his first purchase to mcdonald’s. The second scene is when he meet’s with his healthcare team and they all say he should stop the documentary as it is wreaking havoc on his body and mental health. The chunks of the film are expressed with different themes which all lead to the same plot. I would break this film into 4 chunks the first is the. Beginning of his journey to about a week in, then the second week, the third week and lastly the 4th Critics refer to the movie in significant parts.
Some of the the scenes/sequences discussed this week that are readily apparent in Super Size Me and used gratuitously throughout the documentary ate three shots and montage sequences. The documentary loves to show us a shot of the thing: usually an unhealthy McDonalds food item, the person (Morgan Spurlock the film maker and guinea pig), and then a shot of the person with the thing (Morgan chowing down on a Big Mac, Mcrib, Quarter pounder, etc.). These shots really highlight the slow creeping addiction that Spurlock experiences throughout the movie. At first we see him precariously holding up the food, like he is repulsed by it, like it is a danger to him (which it totally is). Then he starts to get addicted to the food, and we see the three shot change, with Morgan holding up the food happily like an elementary aged schoolboy who’s been begging to go to Micky D’s all week and now he’s finally got it, except Spurlock is doing it 3 times a day all month long. Then towards the end he seems truly exhausted when holding up the food, like its heavy, a weight dragging him down (again, it totally is).
The film also uses a very liberal amount of montages showing the marketing McDonalds and other foods put out, with happy smiling in shape folks chowing down on calorically dense nutritionally defunct foods. These montages are juxtaposed with Spurlock narrating about the evils of the food and the myriad of health problems that they are causing to millions around the world. That juxtaposition is where the film really succeeds as it highlights the dissonance between what we’re being told about the food (Its good, it will make you happy, it can be part of a healthy diet) and the morbid reality of its negative effects on our society.
Protagonist is defined by “the primary character who pursues the goal” (Barsam and Monoham pg 120). Whereas Antagonist is defined as “the character, creature, or force that obstructs or resists the protagonist pursuit of his or her goal” (Barsam and Monohan pg. 443). Obstacles are “Events, circumstances, and actions that impede a protagonists’ pursuit of the goal. Often originate from an antagonist and are central to a narrative conflict” (Barsam and Monohan pg. 450). The protagonist is Spurlock. The goal of the film are to observe the changes that occur when eating McDonald’s for a month straight 3 meals a day. The actions of the film are eat the mcdonald’s, visit healthcare team, and discuss with filmmakers how you are mentally doing. The obstacles are health is in a decline. The antagonist is the cashiers if they ask Spurlock to Supersize then he has to and he had to multiple times. The helpers are Spurlock’s girlfriend as she mentally supports his goal to finish but physically doesn’t want him to. The inciting incident of the film is when Spurlock purchases and begins his month-long journey only eating McDonalds. The rising action is realizing every time he visits his healthcare team, he has drastically become more and more unhealthy than the previous visit. This is incredibly shocking news as this only occurred over a month and he could has seriously gotten himself ill. The climax of the film is when Spurlock is in his hotel room and is no longer happy eating McDonalds but still has to continue on for the film. He has began to notice changes in his mental health and feels sluggish and rundown. The resolution is at the end of the 30 days he no longer has to eat McDonald’s and continue down a bad path for his health. The denouement is his last healthcare screening when his liver has pretty much become fat and has gained a lot of weight. The film does not have a 3-act structure. Critics refer to the elements using the dramatic structure.
Being a documentary that takes place a little over 30 days it is sped up and we are only seeing pieces and possibly skipping whole days where we are not even seeing what is going on. If nothing eventful had taken place that day there is no need to film Morgan just consuming McDonalds you can only have so many shots of that without the audience becoming bored. So to keep the attention of the audience they use eventful days or possibly a few different days and merge them to seem like they were one day in the film. For the most part the film in shot in consecutive order being as it needs to be since we are watching the effect this food has on his body over a period of time we need to see it from day 1 to 30 you can’t really jump around too much. I don’t think too much was restricted from this film. We were able to see Morgan go into the doctors office and the medical advise he was given, him going into the McDonalds and ordering the food, of course him also eating the food and sometimes throwing it back up. His wife also interviewed and explain what she thought was going on. I feel they were pretty transparent on what was going on. But that was also the nature of the film.
“Narrative Is a story such as fiction films as opposed to other movie modes, such as documentary or experimental” (Barsam and Monohan pg. 116). Duration is the differences in the movie that separates story and plot. For example, the duration in the film occurs within minutes when in actuality the documentary is occurring over a month, but we only are able to view scenes of different days over the period of the month. The audience does not get to see a clear 30-day representation on all the meals he ate we just take his word for it. Frequency helps to separate story and plot as there are artists portrayals of McDonald’s and the viewer sees many of the images over and over again to invoke fear over McDonald’s. The documentary restricts the viewer’s knowledge of future information until the part of the film is shown. The information is expressed chronologically at the same time Spurlock finds out the view finds out. Critics do not mention storytelling.
The film itself is an argument against fast food being an essential part of our culture and every day life. It picks apart the lies that we have been told about the fast food industry and attempts to reframe the debate about what can be considered a part of a healthy diet. A sequence that is particularly poignant is when he goes and investigates what kind of foods kids are eating in the cafeteria of local middle and high schools. Again, they are all eating calorically dense nutritionally defunct foods that are terrible for regular consumption. Even the “healthy” alternatives (salad with a ton of dressing, cheese, and croutons, lemonade with a ton of sugar akin to a coke) are pretty unhealthy themselves. I also think that the sequence about the prison that switched to a healthy plant based foods and lean meats was a very strong argument, they saw a dramatic decrease in inmate violence after a year of switching as well as increased levels of inmate satisfaction/contentment.
A sequence is “a series of edited shots characterized by inherent unity of theme and purpose” (Barsam and Monohan pg. 453). Whereas a scene is “a complete unit of plot action taking a place in a continuous time frame in a single location” (Barsam and Monohan pg. 453). There are many scenes within the movie Meet the Parents. I would personally have to say the one where Greg lies about milking cats and the second scene when Greg’s cigarette lights up the entire backyard. The chunks are made up of scenes belonging to the plot. I would break up Meet the Parents into three chunks. The different chunks represent the growth Greg goes through during the film. The chunks of the film relate to the dramatic terms of film because the terms represent the plot.
The dramatic key terms are protagonist, goal, actions, obstacles, antagonist, helpers, stakes, and resolution. The protagonist is Greg Focker. The goal is to marry his girlfriend. The actions are learning to tell the truth, attend the wedding and getting his missing suitcase. The obstacles are Dad. The antagonist is Dad. Helpers are Greg’s girlfriend, the mother of the girlfriend and the ex-boyfriend. Stakes are won’t be able to marry his girlfriend and return home single and not earn the trust of his girlfriend’s dad. The resolution is to marry his girlfriend by telling the truth about all the lies he has made during the visit. The inciting incident when he his girlfriend asked him to come home with her to attend her sister’s wedding. The rising action is losing his suitcase and constant struggles with girlfriend’s Dad. The climax of the film is when Greg spray paints a random cat to match the cat that he has lost. The cat, Jinxie, means so much to the family and is therefore forced to go home for lying about the wrong cat. The resolution is Dad showing up at the airport because Greg does not want his bag to be misplaced again and does not fit as a carry on. The denouement is Dad asks Greg a series of questions while hooked up to a lie detector test where Greg confesses to all the lies, he has made up on the trip
The last part about segmentation is the duration in which the film is presented. For example, the duration in the film occurs within minutes when in actuality they’re on vacation and the next day occurs without us noticing that time has skipped over. The audience is unable to witness multiple meals in a day as well as falling asleep. The audience knows more than the characters as we are aware of all of Greg’s lies whereas the family accepts it as truth because they don’t expect people to lie to them because they themselves are not liars.
Barsam, Richard. Looking at Movies /: An Introduction to Film, by Dave Monahan, 6th ed., W.W. Norton and Company, 2018, pp. 116–453.
Garden State in its ability to present a unique a family that was more dysfunctional instead of the typical sitcom styled American family. Garden State made us feel it was okay to not be okay. Our world is not perfect but we shouldn’t run and hide. Garden State has its main character rediscover his emotions he has suppressed while Eternal Sunshine deals with character who are trying to completely erase their emotions they allowed to be released. Both a unique look on how emotions wether good or bad are a part of are lives that need to be experienced.
A traumatic point in the film our Main characters life is dramatically altered. While the accident to which handicaps Zach Braff’s Mother is not shown on film. We are left with a somber reminder when Andrew Largeman (Braff) confides in Sam (Natalie Portman) that broken dishwasher door handle is the reason for his heavy prescribed medications and his estrangement with his family. Small plays in chance separate positive and negative events that truly shape our lives.
Garden State presents small town living as unpolished as one would might expect. High school drop outs and those who were caught in lives maze unable to escape. While the emphasis in the movie focuses on embracing our emotions rather than trying to drown them out with drugs or other forms of medicating. Garden State leaves us with the ideology of facing our fears head on instead of ignoring the problems that life can cary. Do not be safe or modest allow yourself to experience what you only believe you deserve. There are people in our world who often feel they are unworthy and do not allow themselves to feel happiness. Either from past wrongs having done to someone or someone else telling them they are unworthy. The relationship with Andrew Largeman’s father at the end is the most important as it shows some form of development. Talking. And real emotions connected. Honesty not just pander .
Morgan Spurlocks documentary film Super Size me was and still is one of the most incredibly unique documentary films you can view. The film focuses on Spurlock eating McDonalds, a fast food that many people world wide consume regularly, for a month. He ate McDonalds for every meal, breakfast, lunch, and dinner and chronicled his declining physical, mental, and emotional health. The approach is certainly unique and I struggle to think of any other documentaries similar other than Spurlock’s own follow up documentary series “30 Days” in which he adopted all sorts of new habits for 30 days and chronicled how it affected him. Now, there are plenty of documentaries that speak to the unhealthy life-style that many of us have gotten sucked into in terms of unhealthy eating but what really sets Spurlock’s Super Size Me apart is how he put his own body and own health on the line to prove a point. He suffered greatly to make the film and the doctors he consulted to chronicle his declining health all told him he needed to stop well before the 30 days were up lest he cause serious, long lasting damage to himself.
What is truly out of the ordinary is how candid and real the documentary film is, he doesn’t shy away from all the disgusting things that happened to him when he was on the McD diet. Within the first few days we see him vomiting up a Big Mac and fries in a McDonalds parking lot. We see his once flat stomach engorged. He and his wife both speak about how he was experiencing extreme erectile dysfunction. While out of the ordinary I believe these moments are what make the film so successful.
The genre of this documentary film are a mixture of drama, comedy, and shock-realism. In such a heavy film (no pun intended) there are moments of brevity because Spurlock is genuinely very funny and entertaining and that also helps the film succeed. It is not a totally dour affair, I laughed quite a bit while watching it. It helps us to see the absurdity of the lie that McDonalds and the fast food has been selling us for years, that this food can be part of a healthy diet, and that the food makes you happy which is anything but the truth. Studies have shown that nutrient deficient high calorie meals like those served at McDonalds can quite literally make us depressed. We see Spurlock fall into this addiction, he becomes so lethargic and unhappy, and its only until he’s eating his next McDonalds fix that he smiles and laughs and is able to be happy for a moment. Its very akin to smoking cigarettes. The food is actively forming a habit within Spurlock, teaching him that only the food will make him feel better. Again, I believe that this helps the film succeed as it shows us how sick the cycle of addiction is for heavy users of fast food meals.
Blade Runner 2049 is pretty high up there on the uniqueness scale and I actually think that it kind of suffered at the box office because of that. Casual moviegoers who saw the trailer and teaser for Blade Runner 2049 would have easily been duped into thinking that it was just another paint by numbers sci-fi film when in fact the movie is anything but. It is a deep character study of what it means to be human and deals with lofty philosophical ideas that would definitely turn a moviegoer off if they were walking in to see another Star Wars-esque spectacle. The most unique part of the film is K, our protagonist, who again would be really easy to mistake for a Luke Skywalker character on a linear destined path to fulfill prophecy and become this magnificent hero. K, himself, in the film believes this, he believes that he is the first ever replicant to be born rather than made and this makes him uniquely special and a symbol of hope and humanity to all of his fellow replicants, The movie encourages us as the audience to believe the same until about three quarters through the movie when the rug is pulled out from underneath us and K. He is not special. He is not going to fulfill some prophecy. He is a run of the mill replicant, factory made, he is not Luke Skywalker, he is a walking can opener.
There are many out of the ordinary moments in this film, one of my favorite is the fateful meetup between Harrison Fords Deckard and Ryan Goslings K. It takes the movie nearly two hours to reach this point and when we finally see Harrison Ford return in all his Blade Runner glory we get some interesting dialogue that begins with “Mightn’t happen to have a bit of cheese about you, do you boy?” a quote from one of my favorite books Treasure Island. There is a fight, one of the few action scenes in the movie, but what is so out of the ordinary is the way in which the fight takes place. This isn’t the Avengers with big explosions and showy displays of masculinity, even though K is a replicant with super strength he doesn’t really attempt to harm Deckard at all, it a very noir fight in a decaying Las Vegas showroom with snippets of old school Vegas performers like Elvis, Sinatra, and Nancy flashing in the background. K lets Deckard get his punches off until Deckard tires, at which point the realization sets in that he cannot win, again exploring what it means to be human.
The genre of Blade Runner 2049 is again unique in that it borrows elements from so many genres that it almost becomes its own. Theres elements of science fiction, fantasy, action, adventure, mystery, thriller, and Neo-noir. Critics will mostly characterize it as strictly science fiction but again it is so much more than that. It has its own mythos built from its predecessor and builds on that mythos with ritual and ideologies that go so much further than the original.
Since this is a racing biopic that combines business with plot, a lot of effort was naturally put into the script. First, an introduction to the awards season. “Ford vs. Ferrari” is based on the true story of the legendary rivalry between two of the world’s most beloved car brands, Ford and Ferrari. Most notable rivalries in history have stemmed from the struggle for power or the preservation of damaged faces. The rivalry between Ford and Ferrari is one of them. This makes the film very unique. These two legendary companies, instead of competing in the most direct way, did not compete purely commercially, but focused on racing cars. This makes the theme of the story very novel and compelling. Of course, compared to other movies, the racing theme is probably too ordinary, like the Fast and the Furious was also a movie about racing, but this documentary is unique.
The climax of the film was, of course, the car race. Every car and every team is built with money. As for racing, I think most people like me love cars and enjoy the effect of the car element on their brains. But in fact, that’s not the true understanding of racing. I’m just a layman. Racing requires not only the physics of the engineer, but also the technical understanding of the driver. Under the high-speed control of such equipment, a careless accident is unpredictable, which not only tests the driver’s psychological quality, but also the ultimate test of the driver’s physical quality, which is very difficult for a layman like me, it is very difficult to estimate. So when I watch the car racing part of the movie, my attention has to switch back and forth between the tachometer and the psychology of the character, and when the movie takes the audience into the process of the movie, the movie is successful. The scene of the game gave me a very special feeling of the combination of static and static. Some things don’t change in a high-speed car, sometimes the lights, sometimes the car shell, sometimes the rain. All in all, this experience is very special for me.
The film is more traditional, it’s a commercial biopic, and it’s as much about what it wants to see as it can, because the film exists to help the audience understand what happened between Ford and Ferrari in 1960. The result was clear: Ford worked around the clock to beat Ferrari at all costs. There are conflicts, doubts and disappointments between the characters, but in the end, when Ford takes the podium, it doesn’t seem to matter that much. Because the film is an ordinary biopic, he doesn’t have too many critical elements. Perhaps the most important thing he wanted to say was don’t annoy your competitors. In fact, Ferrari has already made two formidable rivals, Lamborghini and Ford. At the same time, biographical subjects delve deeply into the personalities of their characters and have lofty ambitions. The trailer opens with a belligerent greeting from Shelby and Myers. One second fist fights, and the next two are lying on the grass drinking Coke and cheering. This leads the audience curious which is a good technique.
