Film Analysis 2

In the late 1950’s and early 1960’s in France there was a cinematic movement called the “New Wave”.  The New Wave’s style of film making was different from the mainstream ways.  The films were shot with low budgets.  They had no real straight forward narrative.  They were usually shot on location.  They blurred the lines of fiction and reality. Most importantly, they broke rules that were established with traditional cinema and more.  In Breathless (Godard, 1955) there is a scene where Michel and Patricia are riding in a taxi on their way to meet Antonio then to the Champs Elvsees.  This scene is a great representation of the New Wave.

The scene starts out with a fade to the inside of the taxi with Michel yelling at the cab driver to “step on it.”  The camera is in the back seat like a passenger or like we are seeing through Michels eyes.  The camera is not directly behind the driver.  This is probably because if the camera was right behind the driver, we would see the camera through the front mirror.  In the next shot Michel is all of the sudden in the middle of telling a story to Patricia which means there was an ellipses.

In the next shot, the camera is on the hood of the taxi and we are looking at the place where Michel was born. The camera then “pans” to the right at the building Michel finds as an eyesore.  I put “pans” in quotation because even though it looks like a pan all that is really happening is the driving of the taxi.  It should called be a “natural pan”.

Next, we are looking at Michel and Patricia inside the taxi then we are looking through Michel’s eyes again as a passenger.  Michel is yelling at the driver for all the mistakes he is making.  During each insult or between a few insults there are jump shots to the same position.  At first I saw no point in it but at a closer looked I noticed that each insult the cab was in a different location so the jumps shots were used as a way to fast forward time and it also showed that Michel was being rude throughout the that time.

The next shot seems to be a little longer because the taxi is parked.  This was when Michel gets out the taxi to walk down the block to talk to someone.  Instead of following Michel to see who is he talking to and what he is talking about, the camera is stationed in one spot and we see Michel talk through the taxi windows on the left side in a frame within a frame shot.  It is obvious that the camera man is sitting in the front right seat.  I know this because we see Michel’s conservation through the end of the front left window even though the camera is facing more towards the back window (also notice the driver is leaning forward as to not be in the way because his shadow can be seen on the seat).  Also through these windows we can tell half of the taxi is parked in the middle of the street.  While Michel is talking, everyday people are walking past the taxi.  I know they are everyday people and not extras because most of them keep looking inside of the taxi as if they see something interesting and some even look at Michel.  If they were extras they would have walked past as if nothing happened.  I believe Godard wanted to capture this.  If he didn’t he would have had the camera either follow Michel or focus on Patricia.  The camera stays in place as Michel walks back to cab.  As he is getting in, there is a jump cut to the next shot of him sitting down. This jump cut unlike the others in this scene had no point in my opinion except to frustrate me and make me think on why Godard did this.

What happens now is really strange.  Michel is in the cab and he tells Patricia that Antonio left five minute ago.  She responds by asking “The friend who owes you money?” which is a normal response but is said after a jump cut.  The jump cut is also not that big of a problem but the continuity of location is.  When Michel told her about Antonio, the background showed that they were still in the same area as before.  When Patricia asked the question the background seemed to be a totally different area.  I understand the cab was moving again but there wasn’t a continuity of location.

The conversation continues then the next shot is like the beginning where Michel is insulting the driver.  But after the jump cut instead of another insult, Michel is talking to Patricia.  Then there is another jump cut of him insulting the driver.  Then there is another of him talking to Patricia.  After that, I was expecting a jump to an insult but the camera cuts to Michel and Patricia talking in the cab with the camera facing them.  During that conversation there are four more jump cuts in the same position.

After that conversation, the camera cuts to Michel getting out the cab then it follows him as he runs to a girl on the streets and lifts up her skirt.  Lastly, instead of following Michel back to the cab, the camera cuts to him getting out of the cab to his final destination.

There was one little thing in this scene that didn’t really coincide with the New Wave and that was the non-diegetic chase like music. On the other hand though, if this scene was shot without jump cuts and just straight forward, I believe there would not have been music but since the scene was shot in a wacky way, they added wacky music.  All other aspects of this scene were definitely New Wave.  The jump cuts, natural lighting, location shooting, dialogues that added nothing to the narrative, spontaneity, and the realness of using unknown actors went against traditional filming which is what New Wave films did.

Film Analysis

There is a scene in Citizen Kane (Welles, Mercury Theatre, 1941) where Kane and his first wife Emily are shown talking with each other at the breakfast table on various days and each day they grow further apart physically and emotionally.  This scene was just one to way to show how Kane throughout the whole film distances himself from others gradually which is why at the end he was alone in his death bed thinking about his old sled.  Also, during this time when the film was being made, the World War II draft was going on which had many husbands leaving their families so to show this scene was another way of showing a husband “leaving” his family without even having to go to war.  The way this scene is shot helps show this more clearly.

In the first shot of the scene, we are introduced to Kane and Emily by a forward tracking shot to the happily chatting couple. The non-diegetic music sounds pleasant which indicates a sense of security in the couple’s happiness.  What is seen in the shot is important too. Their closeness is shown by the way they interact with each other and how physically close they are to each other. He stops for a second to kiss her on the forehead while he is walking to his chair which is close to hers on her right side.  Once he is seated at the small intimate barely cluttered table, they continue having a light conversation talking non-stop until they gaze into each other’s eyes.  They also look relaxed. Emily is wearing a low scoop neck white dress and is slouched forward in her seat and though Kane is wearing a tux he is also slouched forward. I would call this whole first shot the “before” of “before & after”.

After Kane finishes the conversation with a smile, there is a very quick fade-out to fade-in while the camera very quickly pans to right to show Emily indicating that we are watching something slightly in the future in the same place. This time things are not as pleasant between the couple.  The music has changed its tone somewhat to something not as light as before.  Emily and Kane are sitting at each end of the now mostly covered with flowers table instead of closely together.  Emily’s clothes cover her up much more and are slightly darker. She sits more rigidly also.  Kane on the other hand, is the opposite from her. His clothing is much looser and he hasn’t shaved his mustache nor bothered fixing his hair and now smokes. He is shown leaning back in his chair distancing himself from Emily even more than they already are.  Their conversation has turned a little more serious because she is getting more concerned about Kane working all the time and asks more questions whereas before it wasn’t that serious.

Again after Kane finishes that conversation in a light-hearted tone, the camera quickly pans to Emily at a later date.  The music is faster or spiraling which means that their relationship is heading down the wrong path.  Emily’s clothing has gotten more conservative and darker and her posture is completely straight now. Kane has let himself go a little more with wearing a simple robe.  His posture is that his whole right side is facing away from the table which makes him seem a bit more distant.  Their conversation has gone in a political direction with Emily complaining about the articles Kane writes about her uncle.  But still, Kane ends things on a light-hearted note.

This next future shows more dramatically how things changed.  Though the flowers are gone from the table, they are not any closer to each other.  Emily has stayed the same with her dark colors and posture but Kane seems to follows the trend.  He is not in comfortable clothes anymore but in a dark suit sitting as straight as his wife.  This change in him shows a more serious Kane.  His seriousness is obvious by his darker tone of voice and at the end of the conversation when things are not ended in a happy-tone.

In the next future, Kane and Emily are shown arguing and Kane has become more unlike his earlier self.  Maybe this is because of him getting older or because his work is becoming more stressful each day.  His annoyance is shown at the end of the conversation by that look on his face and his slightly slamming down of the teacup.

The loving relationship is over by the last shot of that scene.  The music has slowed down significantly and has gone somber.  Emily is shown reading the newspaper trying to ignore Kane.  Then Kane is shown reading his newspaper trying to ignore Emily.  No words are exchange between the two just small “glares”. After the camera cuts to Kane it back tracks slowly as if creeping away from a murder scene then stops to show both Emily and Kane in the same frame which hasn’t been done since they were first shown in the beginning of the scene. I call this the “after” of “before & after”.

To get from the “before” to the “after”, I saw many patterns.  The first one being how every conversation started with Emily and ended with Kane.  Maybe there is no real significance to that but I saw it as a power struggle; that Kane always had to have the last word and the last word always went against Emily’s point.  Next were the behavioral patterns that Emily and Kane grew with the course of time. Compared to the first and last shot of the scene Kane and Emily went from relaxed and light-hearted to stressed and serious and their clothing and postures went along with their changing personalities. The way they spoke to each other changed too because they used to be so chatty but as the conversations changed to darker subjects they spoke less to each other. The change of pace of each shot caught my attention also.  The first shot of the couple when they were happy lasted almost one minute. The second to last shot when they could barely stand each other lasted only 10 seconds.  But the most obvious change was their physical distance to each other.  At first they sat close together at a small table, by the end they sat at each end of what is seems a longer table.

Kane and the drafted husbands of World War II were similar.  When the husbands came home from war, their personalities have changed significantly.  Those soldiers probably had fine relationships with their wives until they have seen the horrors that could change anyone.  And so Kane probably has been through a lot in his life that changed the way he acted at home.  Emily probably feels like she was losing her husband just like many other women felt when the war was over.

Early Summer (1951)

I’m starting to really like this genre of film; meaning film that focuses much more on feelings and every day “simple” life than most of the mainstream stuff that Hollywood gives us.  This film in particular is interesting to me for the way it showcases traditional versus modernity and for its cinematography.

When it comes to representing the traditional and the modern the film shows this in many ways; one way being the meaning of etiquette.  During the conversation at a small restaurant in the beginning between Koichi and 2 other women (I forgot who), Koichi says something like men shouldn’t just treat women but that men should be treated too.  Traditionally men had always paid for dinners but this time Koichi said the women should pay.

Next would be the change in clothing.  In the film all of the older women and two of Noriko’s friends wear traditional kimonos all the time and Aya wears it sometimes.  I never saw Noriko wear one and her nephews never wear the traditional clothing even though her father and uncle do.  Her brother tends to switch like Aya.  The fashion for weddings seems to be changing too or else Noriko wouldn’t have asked her friend if the bride was going to wear a kimono or gown.

Next to note would be the children’s behavior towards their elder.  They are very bratty disrespectful children.  I know kids will be kids but I thought in Japanese homes specifically, respecting your elder was big thing but I guess I was wrong or things really did change.

The biggest change obviously is the “rule” on marriage.  Traditional thinking people in the film believe that Noriko should be married by now because she’s 28.  They are pushing her to find not just any husband but a husband from a “good family”.  But Noriko as well as Aya believe that getting married shouldn’t be that important.  They feel like marriage is more like a trap because they wouldn’t be as free as they are now.  I believe Aya said something while she’s at Noriko’s house like “So and so couldn’t come because her husband is going on a business trip”.  She also comments on how not being married lets her go anywhere she wants.

I am not going to say I loved the cinematography because one big thing kept bothering me and no it was the breaking of the continuity system, it was that throughout the whole film except for maybe two times the director seemed to only take tatami shots or “knee length” shots.  I expected tatami shots at the dinner table, but once people started walking around or when people stood up, I expected eye-level shots.  It seems like no matter what, I always had to look to the top of the screen to see an adults face instead of straight ahead.  But from what I learned in class, I guess I should have expected that. I did like the frame within frame shots which were shot and mostly noticeable in the interior.  I liked them simply because they looked cool and added “layers” to the shot. I could only imagine how great they would look in color.

Umberto D (1952)

We were warned about the slowed paced film, Umberto D but after watching the warning wasn’t necessary.  In my opinion, the story was so good that I didn’t even pay much attention to the different speed.  What interested me were Umberto and his relationship with others and the “inner Umberto”.

In the first scene, we are introduced to a mob of old men protesting and Umberto is in that mob.  But I couldn’t tell who Umberto was, not even when the crowd had split up.  He just doesn’t stand out in the crowd.  Maybe this shows that even though Umberto is alone he’s not alone when it comes to his situation.  He’s a poor old retired guy like the rest of the protestors.

At first, I thought Umberto had many close friends because he’s friendly and seem to talk to a lot of people in the neighborhood but we soon find out that even though Umberto can make acquaintances easy he cannot make “actual friends” (aside from Maria).  In fact, people try to ignore him.  I saw this many times like when he subtly tries to ask the people he knew for money but once they figured out what he was asking for, they always made up some excuse like needing to go home or catch the bus when they could have just said they didn’t have the money to give.  Later, people ignored him after he and the landlady fought outside.  I was shocked to find out that he and the landlady used to be friends.  People even seem disgusted by him sometimes like when he was going to his room one night during the engagement party and this woman who is leaving the party gives him this mean look.  Or towards the end when he is sitting on the park bench and looks at the woman near him then the woman gives him a mean look.  Seems like the only friend he met and kept was his dog.

As I wrote earlier, I was interested in the “inner Umberto”.  I had this impression that no matter what kind of trouble Umberto was in he was always happy, optimistic, and able to take on the world.  It wasn’t until toward the ending of the middle that I learned that this seemingly happy man was extremely sad on the inside to the point of wanting to commit suicide.  It makes me wonder about the different situations the protestors in the beginning who all blended in with Umberto could be in and how many of them feel the same way.

Even though I loved this film the emotional stress was high.  I just felt so bad for him, he never won.  Even in the end I feel bad because he looks happy but he’s homeless so where is he going to go now? I wish there was a sequel.

Out of the Past (1947)

This film was “blah” to me mostly because I couldn’t follow the details of the plot very well.  But I understood that there’s a woman who tricks a detective guy and yadda yadda.  What I was paying attention to was the female characters and how they are shown in this film noir genre.

In film noir there are mainly two female figures, the “spider lady” who is the negative character and the maternal “good girl”.  In this film the “spider lady” character is Kathie and the maternal “good girl” character is Ann.  Kathie and Ann share the same appearances and personalities that most film noir women have.

What stands out most is their hair color.  Kathie has dark brown/black hair and Ann is blond.  For some reason in our culture dark represents evil and light is the opposite so when we see their hair color we associate the darkness or the lightness of the hair to some specific meaning.  Next to show that both women are different from one another is their clothing.  We see Kathie wear low neckline fitted dresses and even though it is cold in “current” time where Ann is, I can’t imagine her wearing what Kathie wears.

As I mentioned earlier, their personalities are polar opposites from each other.  Kathie reminds me of Jean from Lady Eve.  She is deceitful and dramatic.  There is a popular line that I notice in film noirs that the “spider lady” characters say which is “Don’t you believe me!?”  That is the funniest line ever because whenever a woman in a film says that, you know that you shouldn’t believe her. So if you didn’t know she was the “spider lady” before, it’s obvious now.  Ann is an innocent woman who believes in the best in others.  When told that Jeff killed someone, she doesn’t believe a word of it not even if Jeff confessed to it.

You can also tell the difference between the women by how men treat them.  In most film noirs the main male character treats the bad woman like she’s a joke.  He’s unapologetic towards her.  He can be violent towards her like shaking or shoving.  He doesn’t give into her demands.  If he does, it’s only because he’s stringing her along and once he has no more use for her, he’ll leave her behind.  The same male character is a whole different man when around the good girl.  He thinks she’s special.  He is gentle towards her.  He tries to not make her worry but she always does; and in the end wants to stay with her.

The last thing that distinguishes the “spider lady” from the “good girl” in this film and in some other film noir films is the female characters’ ending.  As we saw in this film, Kathie died in the end which is like punishment for what she’s done.  In other film noir films the bad girl can end like this or go to jail.  Either way, she does not get a happy ending.  But the good girl doesn’t get a complete happy ending.  Sure she is not dead or in jail but she could have lost someone close to her at some point in the film.

Citizen Kane (1941)

I have always heard of Citizen Kane through TV and film classes.  Everybody called it an amazing epic film.  Even after watching clips, I have never seen what was so special about it.  But now that I have watched the whole film, I can definitely see what people were talking about.

The first question I want to try to answer is why this film was being compared to American baroque.  In class when we were talking about baroque paintings, I think some of the things that were mentioned were the diagonal look, lighting certain figures, and lots of fabric.  One of the few times I personally took notice in the diagonal look was when Kane was an old man in the wheelchair next to his outdoor pool and a statue of a woman was across of him.  It looked that way to me because Kane was screen left front and the statue was screen right back yet both of them stood out. I can’t explain it well but it showed in a way the important relationship between Kane and his statues.  Next, the whole film had many dark shadows but when talking about baroque and lighting certain figures, I took notice in the bar scene when the reporter is on the phone and Susan is at the table in the back (which is also a diagonal look).  Susan is lighted while the reporter is almost pitch black and though the reporter is in the foreground, I noticed Susan more because she was lighted better.  Lastly, the scene where Kane is at Susan’s apartment and they’re talking, we see them talk through a mirror that’s surround by jewelry and cloth which showed the fabric part of baroque because the mirror was centered by those objects.

The next thing to mention would be the use of deep focus.  Three deep focus scenes stood out to me; the first being at the company party, you see everyone at the long table and then later on, when the band and dancers are coming from the background to the foreground. Second is when we see Kane in the news room rewriting the opera critique and from waaay back we see Liebman walking fast towards Kane. Last is when Kane is walking in his mansion after his second wife left him and at one point, we see all these mirror images of him going really far back. Also it seems like any scene involving the hallways of the mansion were deep focus.

Something that definitely can’t be avoided was the use of shadows as a whole.  The extreme shadows that were in the TV news room in the beginning shadowed all the reporters in the room.  Maybe because the lights were supposed to be off because they were reviewing the documentary but the shadows also made the reporters seem sneaky.  And maybe they are because this continues throughout the whole film whenever Reporter Thompson is shown.  I thought at the end we were going to see his face just a little but he has remained hidden.  The film showed that shadows could make someone more intimidating.  That is shown when Susan and Kane are having an argument about singing and he looms over casting his shadow on her body.  It just makes him seem overpowering.

I don’t know if it is just me but there were times in the film when people looked frozen.  Like in the bar scene I spoke of earlier, Susan didn’t move or anything while the reporter was on the phone.  Next was when in the news room, an important man was talking to Kane and three journalists in background seem frozen, I was actually wondering if they were real or not.  Then there was the time when Mrs. Kane was talking to the Politician in Susan’s Apartment during that scandal and in the background Susan seemed to be frozen on top of Kane.

The make-up in the film is something to praise because the characters were able to look old without super special effects.  Though you could tell it was plastic and fake, it was pretty good for something back then.

The Lady Eve (1941)

I really liked The Lady Eve very much because it kind of shocked me and of how Jean reminded me of biblical Eve.  I’m not religious but I heard that Eve was the first of the pair to eat the bad apple because the snake told her to, then convinced Adam to do the same.  Jean who is the Eve-like character in this film is also mischievous in her own way and she also fooled the Adam-like character, Charles.

The biblical stuff starts when Jean was first shown eating an apple then she hits Charles with that apple. The next time is when snakes are mentioned in the film when we see Charles reading a book about snakes.  Then we learn that Jean is DEATHLY afraid of snakes while Charles loves them.  That is probably because in the bible Eve regrets later on listening to the snake and Adam never even met the snake so he has no reason to be afraid of them. Through various scenes, it’s shown that Jean is able to trick Charles many times which makes Charles gullible.  In the bible story Eve “tricks” Adam into eating the apple. Then lastly after all the things Jean puts him through, Charles still ends up with her like when Adam still ended up with Eve even though she’s the reason why they go kicked out of paradise.

As I mentioned before, the other reason why I liked this film was because it shocked me.  I didn’t think a film from 1941 would be so…sexual; especially with the female character being the sexual one.  Jean is really openly flirtatious while Charles is a square. This shows many times in the beginning when she talks to him it is so close ranged that they’re almost kissing.  Then she leads him to his or her room and that whole shoe scene is romantic.  Then she is definitely flirtatious when she was rubbing all over him in the chair, getting him all worked up and leaves him dry.  It is really hard to imagine when she wasn’t being that way.

There is one thing I didn’t like about this film and that was the representation of women.  In the beginning when all of the women are using little tricks to get Charles attention, it showed that women are kind of sneaky.  I think out of all of those women only one approach him directly. Then of course there is Jean who really makes women seem low.  She is mischievous in many ways.  It started out by tripping him to get him to talk to her and later on she pulls a big one by pretending to be another woman to just trick him into marrying her then hurt him.  Plus on top of that it is kind of hard to tell if she truly loves him because she is a professional scam artist.  I don’t know if we ever get to see the real her.  But for sure she is very selfish because she only does things for her entertainment.  I can’t say that I have seen her considered someone else’s feelings.

I can’t feel sorry for Charles though because he is a naïve, clumsy idiot who allowed those things to happen to him.

The Public Enemy (1931)

I honestly thought this film was going to be a bit of a bore because though I like modern gangster films and TV shows, I thought classic gangster films would have less violence.  This one did (I’m guessing because of the time era) but I still liked it anyways.

To start off, I could tell from Tom and Matt’s childhood that they would grow up to be gangsters because of the way they behaved.  They were brats in that they would pull tricks on people, especially on Tom’s sister.  They were in the profit making game by selling watches.  And Tom was fearless because he wasn’t scared when he knew his father was going to beat him.

Camera angles showed social standing and personalities.  For example in an scene from the childhood years Tom’s father is standing on top of the porch and Tom is on the ground and they’re talking/scolding.   When we see Tom’s image its a high-angle shot and his father’s image is a low-angle shot.  This showed the difference between authority.  The father is “looking down” on the son while the son has to “look up” to his father and obey him.   The difference between authority is also shown in the scene when Tom and Matt are true gangsters and they are about to kill that piano man from their childhood.  The high-angle is  on the piano man in the chair showing how weak and powerless he is while the low-angle is on Tom and Matt to show that they are the ones with the power.  Isn’t it nice though to know that Tom went from a high-angle punk to a low-angle “man”.

Speaking of the piano man, I thought it was really really cool the way his death was shown.  Not because he died off-screen but because Tom shot him in a musical way.  The piano man was playing and singing and before he finished the words “her back”, he was shot but it was 2 gunshots on beat to probably symbolize the two left out words.  His death also symbolized the end of an innocent childhood.

Tom’s gestures are another thing to talk about.  One of his favorite things to do is to knuckle people faces which can be seen as a hug or handshake depending on the person.  But I must say, knuckling ones mother is a bit out there.

Though the knuckle gesture was sweet his other movements were violent which is to be expected of a gangster but I was surprised when he was violent towards his wife. I thought a stereotype of gangsters was that though they are rough people, they are gentle towards women.  Tom would also shove his girlfriend and mother so I guess that’s not true. By way another stereotype which seemed to be true in the film is that most gangsters have a wife and girlfriend.

There were 3 times in the film when I felt sympathetic towards the gangster character. First was at Larry’s funeral.  His mother was crying but the police and some other men didn’t care about his death and even said that he got what he deserved.  The second time was when Matt was killed.  Though Matt was a gangster, he was kind and loving and loyal.  Last time I felt bad was when Tom show up to the door of his house dead.  I knew it was going to happen because I had a gut feeling something wasn’t right but I feel bad for his family.  It was like they were one being punished.

Speaking of Tom’s death that was my favorite scene.  When his brother opened the door and Tom’s body was there, the background was PITCH black.  I thought it was a very symbolic meaning of death, emptiness/nothingness, and the ultimate end of a gangster.

M (1931)

Well I liked this movie before we even saw simply because I like a lot of things German.  But I did like the film for what it is.  There were many little things that made the movie cool.

The first thing I noticed was the use of off-screen sound.  An example would be in the beginning of the film when the little girl is going home from school and she is about to cross the street and you hear the sound of a bus coming.  It may have been nothing to worry about but I thought for some reason the bus was going to hit her.  I don’t know, it was just loud and sounded like it was right next to her.  Now that I think about it, of course she wasn’t going to be hit, the movie is a about a murderer not a bus accident.  The other use of off-screen sound I can think about was when the newspaper guy was saying “Extra! Extra!” while the screen was black.  By the way, the screen went black after the image of the now murdered little girl balloon was tangled in the wires.  Maybe they had sound with a black screen to add more drama to her death.  It was like saying after death of an innocent child comes nothing but darkness but when he hear the newspaper guy its like ok we are done mourning now lets move on.

Another thing I noticed was the lack of background music in the movie.  Maybe its just me but it felt quiet most of the time.  In movies today there seems to be a lot of background music (even if its just a low low low volume) while people are having a regular conversation even.

The murder scene of the girl i spoke about earlier was interesting because they never showed the actual murder, just her ball rolling on the ground slightly and the balloon in the wire.  I’m sure that people think not showing the murder and replacing it with those objects was a creepier way of doing things because its lets you imagine what happened to her but it would have been as equally creepy or even creepier if they showed the murder.  But then again, I don’t know if I would be able to stomach seeing a gruesome murder of a child.

One thing that definitely stood out to me and probably to most of you was the whistling.  Every time there was whistling it meant that the murderer was near.  I thought that was a clever way of signaling us that.  It was also strange because the whistling could be seen as both diegetic and non-diegetic sound (and no I’m not trying to use fancy college words, I just really saw it as that). Diegetic because I think one time the murderer heard the whistling plus the person who is doing the whistling is in the movie. Non-Diegetic because it doesn’t seem like anyone else in the film have/would have heard it even if they were near the whistler. Its like the whistle was specifically for our and the murders ears.

Oh now that I think about it, the best use of off-screen sound was at the end when the police came into the mock trial area.  You heard the police but only saw the “mob” raise their hands.  That was definitely cool and made that scene more entertaining because you see the crowds surprised facial expressions.

P.S. Did anyone else notice that unwanted crotch shot of inspector Lohmann while he was sitting at his desk?  What was Lang thinking? Ew.