Analysing Short Films: 'Get Off My Land' - Alex

'Get Off My Land' (Dir. Douglas Ray, 2007)

'Get Off My Land' is a short film that was picked up by the BBC's Film Network - a website that showcases the best of British filmmaking. The film's début was at the Clair-Obscur Film Festival in Switzerland, and the Aspen Shortfest in America.

This film is classed as a dark comedy, due to it's portrayal of murder in a comedic way.

Like many other short films, 'Get Off My Land' only deals with 3 characters to compensate with a simplistic narrative.

The film opens with a high angle, showing someone prepared for a hike; appropriate boots and trousers suggest they were more prepared for this walk. Following shortly behind, another character (dressed less appropriately) in converse trainers and jeans. The second character takes a moment to brush off his dirty jeans - already portraying elements to the character's 'clean' personality.

An ELS shot is used to show the characters' in their isolated setting (Figure 2) - typically in the thriller genre, this code may suggest helplessness and danger. A fade to black is then shown to reveal the title of the film 'Get Off My Land' - this credit does not last long, and would be very simple for our group to achieve this.

The next scene focuses on the male trying to climb a fence, and there is a clear tension between the couple as the female powers on leaving him behind. The fence is another code for the theme of danger - it's blocking technique and unhinged panels acts a warming to the characters. This is the film's portrayal of unrestricted narrative (knowing more than the characters).

After walking some distance, we are introduced to the final character. This farmer's costume is typical of the British stereotype, and his behaviour comes across as defensive against the couple. His hat casts a shadow, hiding part of his face - dramatised lighting suggests that he is a villain (in Propp's theory of folk tales). There is also a clear binary opposition of good vs. bad portrayed here as an innocent couple on a walk are faced with a farmer defending his land. The farmer uses political power over the two in his dialogue. He reinstates the law on trespassing to fight his battles. This is where character development happens.

The once powerful female has stepped down and decided to walk back where she had come from. Whereas the male, who originally acted cowardly towards mud and climbing a fence has now stepped up his own battles. He even begins to question the farmer on what makes the land his own - this sparks the disequilibrium in the film and later triggers the farmer to shoot the couple. At this point, the couple are on a hill, looking up at the farmer - suggesting that the farmer is more powerful due to his stance. We can tell they are at different heights due to the eye line match used.

The power is then equalled as the male squares up the farmer, preparing to 'fight for the land'. This shot is then met by reaction shots from the male and the farmer - the farmer seems to have a very solid opinion and hardly flinches at the preposition. Rather than replying, he turns and walks away. The couple initially believe they have reigned successful, as the male is visually chuffed - smiling to himself in a close up reaction shot. He then says:

The moral hypocrisy, of the land owned and the upper class."

This has led me to believe that this film is a representation of a white, regional disagreement in which a battle of two social classes believe they are superior - one with pride, one with money. Both demonstrate their views through a patriarchal society view, referencing battles and physical fights as their defence. 

This behaviour still upsets the female as she feels nothing has truly been settled - this is made apparent through her uncomfortable facial expression and grunt of disapproval.

Pathetic Fallacy would suggest that the narrative will develop negatively as the wind begins to pick up. This sudden gust of wind suggests a storm is brewing, but it happens to be the farmer's return with a deadly weapon.

The farmer is shown with a vignette around the frame - this could be used instead of dimming the lighting. Key lighting can suggest a sense of danger, or give away elements of a character's personality. However, as the setting is strictly based outside, this is hard to achieve - a vignette is a simple, yet effective replacement for this. The farmer is tracked using a hand-held camera, only showing a close up of his face - this is also the first time we get to fully see his face up close. The camera then tilts down to reveal a shotgun being loaded up. Barthes once suggest that props such as guns act as action codes - they reveal something that will follow up shortly.

The actual shooting is shown off-screen for many reasons:

• it's cheaper than paying for a working gun
• it's easier, and legal to work this way
• it's less messy to film, rather than showing any wounds
• widens the audience as it is not typical of a horror/thriller genre

In contrast to the farmer's low lighting, the female is given a very bright light behind her. This could be to suggest her innocence, or to suggest a heavenly aura around her (inciting her pending death).

The character's make-up is changed in this shot to reveal her partner's blood on her face. This is a very simple technique to achieve, and would only require a few splats of fake blood to one side of the actor's face. If our group were to follow something similar to this, we would have to look into what makes fake blood realistic.

When it comes to the woman's murdering, her death is also not displayed on screen. Instead, we are presented with an ELS landscape showing the outskirts of the farmer's land. Clever detailing shows three bird dispersing from the scene. Their is also a faint vignette surrounding the frame - this could be interpreted as the farmer's victory, much like how he had a vignette while walking down the hill.

The farmer then hauntingly stares down the hill and his victims while the sun highlights the side of his face and weapon. His positioning on the golden mean shows his importance to the scene, and gives enough room to show the corpses in the background.

The comedic, dark line to finish the short is:

"You know what? I've got a feeling this is a public footpath."

This is very enigmatic for the audience as it leaves us questioning his authority and role as a farmer. Is he really who he says he is? Did he actually own any of the land? Or is he just a killer on the run?