Notes on Suspense
It is quite difficult to produce a quality film. It is perhaps for this reason that with the advent of a plotline containing qualities that entrance and intrigue the audience are often duplicated following the first films release. Eventually, with the increase in a collection of films that all share the same characteristics, a genre is formed. Any given genre—Comedy, drama, suspense, thriller, tragedy etc…—is distinguished from one another not only in the qualities of the story, but also in the stylistic choices their directors make. Certain conventions in cinema lend themselves to specific circumstances. For example the mood or atmosphere of a setting may be deeply affected by the decisions made while lighting said scene. Although this is sometimes a problem when a scene speaks to the audience in a way that does not fit the story, this method may also be employed to great effect under the correct conditions. It is helpful to view any given film as a tapestry, which follows a pattern—the genre—but is unique and individual to itself. Despite using the same material and method of design no two are the same. At the same time, one can recognize the pattern as part of a certain style.
One genre which requires much thought and consideration is the suspense or thriller film. Many suspense films have been made over the years, and history depicts them as formulated. Indeed, according to filmmaker Jeff Bays’ list of suspenseful conventions, one could deduce a formula for making a suspense film. Yet it is important not to be fooled by the similar conventions used in every film, as they all add a certain aspect in their own unique way. For no one actor or plot can describe a suspenseful film; the true rulebook is to be found in the compendium of works that classify suspense.
First and foremost it is incredibly important for the film to speak to the audience. While a wide variety of motion pictures draw their power from the realism of their scenario, the suspense is not one of these. In fact, a suspenseful film draws its power from playing off the audience, and their expectations. What has so commonly been portrayed in popular culture as tacky plot twists, sudden or unexpected changes within the plotline are frequent and common place in the suspense. For example, the triumph of the effect exacted upon the audience in Orson Well’s 1958 film Touch of Evil toys with the audience and their expectations of a conventional cinematic experience. The length of the shot makes the audience restless, while emphasizing the importance of the scene. Additionally, while the audience is initially led to believe the plot would be centered on the character planting the bomb or the couple in the vehicle, the spectators are further thrown off by the focus on the couple walking alongside the car. The shot itself plays on a characteristic unique to film; limitation of the spectator’s of vision. Because the camera is tracking the action from the front and moving backwards, the viewer is exposed to the world gradually.
In addition to being shot with the audience in mind, the suspense picture contains many other conventions within the actual cinematography. One such technique is using the framing as a catalyst to emotion on film. That is to say, by using more medium and close shots the scenes become inherently more personal. In Andre Truffaut’s Hitchcock he elaborates on just how this technique can be applied to manipulate the audience:
**
**
“The first consideration of where to place the camera should involve knowing what emotion you want the audience to experience at that particular time. Emotion comes directly from the actor's eyes. You can control the intensity of that emotion by placing the camera close or far away from those eyes. A close-up will fill the screen with emotion, and pulling away to a wide angle shot will dissipate that emotion. A sudden cut from wide to close-up will give the audience a sudden surprise. Sometimes a strange angle above an actor will heighten the dramatic meaning.” (—Truffaut, 45)
** **
An example of a perhaps overly-dramatic scene would be the conclusion to the 1942 hit Casablanca in which Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman are both framed looking each other intensely. Although not a suspense film, close ups are industry standards for desired emotional effects. The final sequence includes at least five of the most cliché love related one liners in film—we’ll always have Paris—and some of the most potent emotion eliciting scenes in cinema. The two characters break each others eye contact and in their gazes one can see hopefulness of Bergman’s escape and the shared silent acknowledgement of Bogart’s probable fate; the effect is riveting. Now consider the same sequence shot from long distance.
Ultimately, it would not have nearly the same impact and it becomes obvious that the camera plays a large role in how the story is told. And indeed in the world of the suspense, the camera is as much a character as any actor on the set. Using the camera wisely while navigating the scene is quite characteristic of suspense, as it encourages the audience to become the character and look for clues within the scene. This is often effectively accomplished through the use of point of view shots as a form of visual storytelling (Bazin, 104). The ending of Bryan Singer’s 1995 noir film The Usual Suspects, Kevin Spacey’s lies are effectively unraveled by Chazz Palminteri’s character, through his eyes. In this case the camera assumes the identity of Palminteri as he examines his bulletin board with which Spacey crafted his fictitious tale. Through this method two birds are effectively killed with one stone: the gears are set in motion as to the ultimate conclusion about Spacey’s character, while the audience is also exposed to the feeling of betrayal and stupidity on the part of Palminteri. It is this process that is a main tenet of a suspenseful film.
Equally important to the divulgence of key plot details, is the manner of simplicity with which they are uncovered (Bays). Many unsuccessful suspense films find themselves bogged down in exposition and red-herrings inadvertently leaving logic and clarity behind them. An example of this would be the 2000 thriller A Crack in the Floor. Despite the promising notion of a social recluse confronting a world that has long wronged him, the film fails to play out in a believable manner. The stumbling of the exposition inhibits the plot from ever taking off and is therefore regarded as boring and contrived. On the contrary, the use of montage during the beginning of the Maltese falcon (1941) is immediately enticing to the spectator, and quite simple in its design and execution. Within the first minute the exposition has been unraveled and the adventure begins. The ease of plot is important for an intense experience as it frees the audience to focus on the nuance of the suspense that ensues within the film.
Perhaps the diegesis of suspense is meant to be suspenseful as well. It is not uncommon to encounter a world in which roles seem reversed. Ron Howard’s A Beautiful Mind (2001) is based on the true story of mathematician John Nash’s tormented life. It is told in the form of a suspenseful thriller. The majority of the narrative appears to be portrayed through the eyes of Nash himself—a paranoid schizophrenic. In Nash’s world, he is correct, while the authorities and positions of power appear bumbling and ignorant. Even Nash’s own family, who are conventionally a source of love and encouragement, appears menacing. It is this device that increases the overall feeling of defiance throughout the narrative. It is the intention of suspense to unsettle the spectator. Surprises are simply bolstered by the juxtaposition of a character within a world which is not inclined to believe him/her.
This device, however, is not to be confused with the suspense which results from privileged information. After all, often the main character is put at a disadvantage because of what others don’t know, or have yet to find out. Perhaps one of the most distinguishing of tactics used in suspenseful situations is the use of information and which characters are in the know. In Joel Coen’s 1998 picture The Big Lebowski the entire plot centers on a case of mistaken identity. While Jeff Lebowski is pursued by thugs who believe him to be a rich philanthropist, the audience is forced to squirm as they know that he is in fact and unemployed loser. Additionally, quite often a suspenseful feeling is achieved when the audience is aware of information that some characters are unaware of resulting in conflict. In countless suspense films—although this technique has been over-employed in Horror making it characteristic of that genre—the implementation of a threatening entity sneaking up behind the main character excites the audience and they know what the character doesn’t and have no way to tell the characters; the audience is completely helpless. This feeling of helplessness is akin to the feeling of terror or the emotions one has while watching a car crash: the inability to look away. This is suspense.
Finally, many films balance these heavy, fear-inducing conventions with some comedy (Bays). In addition to affirming the practice of defying conventional narratives, humor actually serves to increase tension. By introducing trivial details as well as ironic situations, focus is temporarily drawn away from the suspense creating a more balanced narrative. The relentless tension in a film may effectively kill it. Hitchcock has this to say: “For me, suspense doesn’t have any value unless it’s balanced by humor,” (84)
This approach is apparent in many stressful situations, including in James Cameron’s 1991 Terminator 2: Judgment Day. When John Conner, visibly shaken, tells Arnold Schwarzenegger he has no quarter to make a phone call and Schwarzenegger—almost instinctually—smashes the coin box open on the payphone. Although this temporarily eases the tension, it subconsciously reminds the audience of the terminator’s power and therefore the threat to Conner.
These are the conventions that weave the tapestry of suspense. Each of these individual processes is a style that follows functionality. They serve important purposes and when applied correctly, come together to tell brilliant stories. While it is true that no ‘ultimate genre film’ exists, there are many pictures that follow the common conventions and have made suspense what it has come to be known as. In Alfred Hitchcock’s Strangers on a Train (1951) Hitchcock employs a style of film making which could be summed up as suspenseful. The film is shot with distinctively low-key lighting, with hard shadows often falling across the character’s faces. This affects the tonality of the film as a whole and gives it an air of suspense.
From the beginning one can tell this film was shot with the audience in mind. Consider how the viewer is introduced to the two main characters. As opposed to introducing the two through action or dialogue, instead Hitchcock decides to use tracking shots of their feet and luggage shuffling to the train. This approach entices the audience and serves as a compelling hook. Immediately the viewer is interested to find out just who these people are due to the inherent mystery within the framing.
Similarly, many shots are designed to illicit emotion. For instance, the initial meeting between Guy and Bruno is comprised of a series of close shots on the two characters. This is simple enough, yet when viewed closer the emotion in the shot is distinctly one sided. The impressions received from Bruno are energetic and friendly, while the impression given off by Guy is cold and obnoxious. Additionally, this style also serves the important purpose of role reversal within the diegesis of the film. From the beginning the viewer is in fact drawn to Bruno as he is charismatic and likeable. Conversely in a later scene after Guy ignores Bruno’s attempts to contact him, Guy sees Bruno perched atop the steps of the Jefferson Memorial as only a black speck upon a white marble façade. The distance between them is great, and yet the audience knows that Bruno is looking directly at Guy! The impersonality of the shot is frightening and creates a suspenseful scenario while hinting at the omnipotence Bruno has over Guy within Guy’s mind.
The use of the camera as a narrative tool in Strangers is visible as well. This technique is profound in the scene in which Guy visits with his estranged wife and proceeds to argue with her in a record-listening booth. Instead of relying on the narrative to express their inappropriate behavior, their exploits are shown through the eyes of the manager and through the reactions of other patrons in the background. Additionally, when guy leaves Bruno’s compartment on the train and leaves his lighter behind it is already apparent—through a POV shot of the lighter from Bruno—that Bruno is planning to ensnare Guy in his scheme, and all he says is “criss-cross.” In fact, by the end of the first scene where Guy and Bruno meet, the audience is already suspicious of where the film will end up. Fortunately in any suspense film this is exactly where the director wants the audience to be, as from here on out defying expectations is where the plot gains power. Nonetheless the ease with which this tale is told serves as a good example for the simplicity of the core story within the suspense film.
Arguably, one of Strangers’ most powerful features is its diegesis. In terms of role reversal, Guy is thrust into the aforementioned scenario of John Nash: A world that is not inclined to believe him. This is in fact quite normal, but not when given the privileged information of the audience. For, the viewers know that Bruno murdered Miriam and it can be particularly frustrating that if guy were to tell the truth he would be arrested for murder. In this case the police are apparently impeding justice more than serving it. This device can illicit a strong response. Later in the film when Guy visits Bruno’s home to warn Bruno’s father of his son’s plan, he finds Bruno in his father’s bed. After returning the gun and informing Bruno he cannot kill his father, Guy turns to leave, while walking out he is followed by Bruno who has the gun trained on Guy’s back. The unease of the scenario is provided solely by the uncertainty in Guy’s face this is privileged information in the respect that Bruno cannot see it, yet Bruno’s actions are also privileged since guy cannot see him. The audience wins twice. This use of lead room is similar to that employed by Wells in Touch of Evil.
Yet as heavy as Strangers is, there is also humor and irony within the narrative. Characters such as the foppish socialite Ms. Cunningham lighten the mood by providing new and somewhat innocent perspectives. Her conversation with Bruno about murder is amusing, yet her laughter quickly turns into tears when Bruno strangles her. Similarly, as Guy risks his life to flee his tennis match and prevent Bruno from framing him, Bruno drops Guy’s lighter—the lynchpin—down the sewer. While these elements are not key to the progression of the plot, they provide important holiday from the monotony of constant fear. Scenes like these also defy the audience’s preconceived notions about the characters.
The thriller is an interesting genre in the sense that so many of the commonplace techniques we see today in a wide variety of genres were in fact pioneered by suspense films. To attest to this, many examples of the techniques employed are in fact not specifically suspense films. Ultimately suspense may be sub categorized into many different genres and has branched off into much of what we see today. Many films, even if they are comedy of romance use elements of suspense films to create a suspenseful situation. It is safe to say that this genre strongly impacted and strongly improved cinema today.
**
**
Works Cited.
Bays, Jeff. "Film Techniques of Hitchcock and the Greats." Borgus. 20 Apr. 2006. 6 Dec. 2007 http://www.borgus.com/think/hitch.htm.
** **
Bazin, Andre. "The Evolution of Language in Cinema." What is Cinema? Sacremento: University of California P, 2004. 31-40.
** **
A Beautiful Mind. Dir. Ron Howard. Perf. Russel Crowe. Dreamworks SKG, 2001.
** **
The Big Lebowski. Dir. Joel Coen. Perf. Jeff Bridges, Steve Buscemi, John Goodman. DVD. Gramercy Pictures, 1998.
** **
Casablanca. Dir. Michael Curtiz. Perf. Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman. DVD. Warner Bros., 1942.
** **
A Crack in the Floor. Dir. Sean Stanek. Perf. Mario Lopez, Gary Busey. Norris Johnson Productions, 2000.
** **
Loker, Altan. Film and Suspense. Chicago: Rafford, 2006.
** **
Maltese Falcon. Dir. John Huston. Perf. Humphrey Bogart. DVD. Warner Bros., 1941.
** **
Strangers on a Train. Dir. Alfred Hitchcock. Perf. Farley Granger, Robert Walker. DVD. Warner Bros., 1951.
** **
T2: Judgment Day. Dir. James Cameron. Perf. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Tri-Star Pictures, 1991.
** **
Touch of Evil. Dir. Orson Welles. Perf. Charlton Heston, Janet Leigh. Videocassette. Universal Studios, 1958.
** **
Truffaut, Fracois. Hitchcock. New York City: Simon & Schuster, 1985.
** **
The Usual Suspects. Dir. Brian Singer. Perf. Kevin Spacey, Chazz Palminteri. Videocassette. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 1995.