500 Days of Summer: Expectations vs. Reality Sequence Essay

Marc Webb’s unconventional and offbeat romantic comedy, 500 Days of Summer[1] (2009), is told from the perspective of Tom Hansen (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) as he reflects on his relationship with Summer Finn (Zoey Deschanel). The unique ‘expectations vs. reality’ sequence[2] incorporates a split screen that allows the viewer to see the expectations in the mind of Tom juxtaposed to the reality he experiences. This sequence contains a mixture of editing, mise-en-scene and cinematography, which are used differently in each frame to create a dynamic contrast and evoke a range of responses from the viewer. A combination of qualities, such as sound, narrative and conventions of the genre, are used and adapted to depict the director’s vision and create meaning. The sequence ultimately embodies one of the major themes of the film, what happens “when the world you expect collides with the reality.”[3]

The most unique and prominent aspect of Webb’s sequence is the contrast editing, using a split screen, “a method […] of telling two stories at the same time by dividing the screen into different parts.”[4] However, instead of two separate stories happening in reality, the viewer is given an insight into the mind of Tom allowing them to see his idealised expectations. This enables the viewer to relate to the character on a deeper level, as we see his expectations alongside the events as they unravel, undoubtedly seeking to create sympathy and empathy, both which can be experienced at the same time.[5] As Pudovkin acknowledges, “editing is not merely a method of the junction of separate scenes or pieces, but is a method that controls the ‘psychological guidance’ of the spectator”. He also claims that editing of contrast “is one of the most effective”[6] as long as it is not overdone. This is an important point, as although the split screen is very effective in grabbing the viewer’s attention and depicting clearly the character’s state of mind, there is a chance it can become confusing if overdone. However, the editing allows the viewer’s attention to shift between the two sides of the screen, allowing them to understand the developing narrative. For example, the screen splits after Tom enters the building, the left side fading in first and the right a couple of seconds after. Not only does the editing show how already Tom’s expectations are differing from his reality, as in his mind he is a lot faster, but also allows the viewer to focus on the longer, more intimate conversation with Summer at the door, as shown by Figure 1. The timing created by the editing of the two different sides allows for the viewer to compare the interaction between the characters, making it obvious that Summer sees their relationship as purely platonic in comparison to his romanticized expectations. This causes the viewer to feel sympathy for Tom, possibly stimulating them to identify with him and think back to times when reality has not met their expectations either. LoBrutto claims that visible editing, such as this, can “unleash intense emotion in the audience without taking them out of the story”[7], allowing them to become involved with the characters and narrative. However, Dancyger argues that an editor is only successful when the audience “enjoys the story and forgets the juxtaposition of the shots. If the audience is aware of the editing, the editor has failed.”[8] This view is limited however, as it is by seeing the ‘hand’ of the film editor which LoBrutto discusses that causes the sequence to have its emotional impact; depth and powerful meaning are created through the use of this visible, juxtaposed editing. For example, the syncing of the two frames at certain points has a huge impact on the viewer, causing them to expect that everything will once again become synced at the end of the sequence. However, the viewer’s and Tom’s expectations are obliterated as the polar opposite takes place; the split screen disappears as the door closes on the left side, a literal and metaphorical representation of the end of their relationship and the last of Tom’s hope, the screen once again becoming whole.

The smooth transition created by the closing door in the expectation frame mirrors Tom’s realisation that he is never going to be with Summer, while also breaking the conventions of the romantic-comedy genre in which one of them will “make a grand gesture that reunites the romantic duo.”[9] Instead the concept of realism is addressed, “an interest in or concern for the actual or real: [to] represent things as they really are”,[10] and ironically reveals the message that life isn’t a film and not everything will turn out the way one hopes. Alone the expectations frame appears just like a typical romantic montage scene, showing the effect film genres have on our minds and expectations. The juxtaposition with reality allows the viewer to identify with Tom further and supports Tudor’s argument of the audience’s relationship with the actor, in this case “self-identification”. This is a valid point as people are likely to identify with Tom and his unrequited love, the “audience-member [placing] himself in the same situation and persona of the star”[11], Gordon-Levitt’s believable acting helping to intensify the effect. Screen actors are able to “adopt individual styles that communicate emotional meaning through subtle and highly personal gestures, expressions, and varieties of intonation.”[12] It is Gordon-Levitt’s subtle reactions, which contrast between the two frames; making this sequence and the sympathy felt for him all the more powerful. Figure 2, even though this is a very brief moment, taking place after the eyeline match-cut showing the people in the room, it displays Tom’s reaction as different in the two frames, clearly depicting his disappointment after being ignored and setting the tone and mood for the rest of the sequence. The sound in this sequence also helps create emotion and meaning; the nondiegetic Regina Spektor song ‘Hero’ constantly plays throughout, manipulating the viewer’s emotions as well as reflecting Tom’s. As Levinson argues, “a standard function of nondiegetic film music […] is to reveal, confirm, or make precise a character’s feeling or attitudes toward something”[13], which is clearly visible when looking at how the song relates to the character. The lyrics at the beginning of the sequence: “never saw it coming at all”, foreshadows Tom’s shock after the close-up of Summer’s ring, the music then becomes louder and more intense, reflecting his feelings of panic and distress. The lyrics “I’m the hero of the story” again relates to the conventions of genre and how we expect a happy ending. However, as Tom leaves the building the music becomes softer and quieter, repeating “it’s alright” as though speaking directly to him to calm him down and causing the viewer to share the weight of his disappointment. The diegetic sound is minimal throughout, however when there is dialogue it is mostly in the reality frame; Figure 3 shows him doing whatever he can to engage in conversation with Summer, compared to his expectations where the conversation isn’t audible, making it clear that what is said doesn’t matter to him, just being with her is enough.

The cinematography and mise-en-scene go further in highlighting the contrast between the frames in Figure 3, as well as Tom’s isolation and distance from Summer. Reality consists predominantly of medium shots of just one or two characters, purposefully secluding Tom from others in the mind of the viewer, as well as reflecting his seclusion. Simultaneously, in his expectations there is a long shot that slowly tracks towards the characters, Tom and Summer in-focus in the centre of the frame indicating their intimacy and how Tom’s thoughts focus solely on her. The mise-en-scene in this scene also helps to highlight Tom’s isolation; the establishing shot of the roof garden, before the reality frame is edited, quickly but dynamically contrasts the layout of the environments. The props in his expectations consist simply of one table, where everyone is included and part of one group. However, in reality there are separate chairs and people are in dispersed groups, clearly indicating his continued distance from Summer in both space and their relationship. The lighting is also subtly but significantly different, his expectations appearing brighter and the shots including more of the sky, compared to reality which appears muted and contains more shadows. In Figure 4 the lighting in his expectations is slightly lighter, creating a more romantic atmosphere, the sun reflecting of the buildings in the background and a small light featured in the left-hand corner of the shot. In reality, the camera positioning is the same in order to highlight the subtle differences which would most likely be recognised by the subconscious; the lighting is slightly darker and the depth of field is shallower, the buildings appearing more blurred which emphasises his feeling of isolation. Although the contrast of mise-en-scene is subtle, it is still very effective and presents how small changes are able to create such different moods and atmospheres within a shot. In reality Summer is replaced with a beer, the empty space created by the juxtaposed shots revealing his loneliness and how alcohol has become his coping mechanism. Figure 5 shows him moving onto a stronger drink, contrasting to the cliché kissing scene in his expectations. Rowe suggests that the romantic-comedy speaks to the powerful need “to believe in the utopian possibilities condensed on the image of the couple; it addresses the wish […] for moments of joy in relationships constrained by unequal social power”.[14] This is an interesting point as Tom’s utopian expectations depict this power becoming equal, represented symbolically by the colour palette, however in the reality of the relationship nothing is ever equal. The characters are presented as too different, the mise-en-scene subtly revealing this through the colour palette, costumes and décor. Summer is presented wearing blues and whites, contrasting to Tom’s dark brown and black style. Summer’s décor contains similar colours, everything appearing mostly white and the wallpaper in Figure 5 matching her dress, while the curtain appears to match Tom, symbolically presenting a state of equality and their worlds coming together. As Corrigan and White argue, “colour profoundly affects our experience and understanding of a film shot; even black and white films use contrast and graduations to create atmosphere or emphasize certain motifs.”[15] This is exactly what the colour palette aims to achieve in this sequence, creating an atmosphere of isolation, revealing how Tom doesn’t quite fit into Summer’s world, and emphasising the motif of contrast and reality, the colours appearing more muted in the expectations frame in Figure 5 indicating the fact it isn’t real. Figure 6 displays the colours disappearing at the end of the sequence as Tom freezes in frame and his surroundings turn into a black-and-white sketch. This emphasises how Tom has constructed his world around Summer, but it has now been destroyed, the sketch erased and becoming a grey background, his world now devoid of any colour or happiness. This is a powerful visual effect and representation of Tom’s emotions and thoughts, enabling the viewer to sympathise with his heartbreak.

To conclude, Webb’s ‘expectations vs. reality’ sequence from 500 Days of Summer is extremely powerful and emotional, addressing the conventions of the romantic-comedy genre and using editing, cinematography, mise-en-scene, as well as other elements, to highlight the contrast between the frames, while also manipulating the feelings of the viewer.

FIGURE 1

FIGURE 2

FIGURE 3

FIGURE 4

FIGURE 5

FIGURE 6

REFERENCES

[1] Marc Webb, Days of Summer (2009), (n.p., 2009).

[2] https://vimeo.com/20592566

[3] “How to Lose a Girl in 500 Days: Marc Webb Debuts with Offbeat Romantic Comedy,” June 19, 2009, accessed December 3, 2016, http://www.filmjournal.com/how-lose-girl-500-days-marc-webb-debuts-offbeat-romantic-comedy.

[4] R Barsam and D Monahan, Looking at Movies: An Introduction to Film, 5th ed. (London: Norton & Co., 2016): 504.

[5] Glyn Davis, Kay Dickinson, and Lisa Patti, Film Studies: A Global Introduction (London, United Kingdom: Routledge, 2015): 439.

[6] Leo Braudy and Marshall Cohen, eds., Film Theory and Criticism, 6th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004): 11.

[7] Vincent LoBrutto, “‘Visible’ or ‘Invisible’ Editing: The Development of Editorial Styles and Strategies,” Cineaste (2009): 45.

[8] Ken Dancyger, The Technique of Film and Video Editing, 5th ed. (New York: Focal Press, 2011).

[9] R Barsam and D Monahan, Looking at Movies: An Introduction to Film, 5th ed. (London: Norton & Co., 2016): 88.

[10] Ibid, 503.

[11] Richard. Dyer and Paul McDonald, Stars (London: British Film Inst, 1998): 18.

[12] R Barsam and D Monahan, Looking at Movies: An Introduction to Film, 5th ed. (London: Norton & Co., 2016): 277.

[13] Leo Braudy and Marshall Cohen, eds., Film Theory and Criticism, 6th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004): 511.

[14] Kathleen Rowe, ‘Comedy, Melodrama and Gender: Theorizing the Genres of Laughter’, Classical Hollywood Comedy, ed. Karnick and Jenkins (London and New York: Routledge, 1995): 56.

[15] Timothy Corrigan, Patricia White, and Patricia D. Barry, The Film Experience: An Introduction, 3rd ed. (Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martins, 2012): 114.

![endif]--![endif]--![endif]--![endif]--![endif]--![endif]--

#Film #500DaysofSummer #RomanticComedy #MarcWebber #SceneAnalysis #Essay