The Most Beautiful Man In The World
Writer/Director: Alicia Duffy
Producer: Hugh Welchman
Production Company: Break Thru Films & UK Film Council
Alicia Duffy the director of ‘The Most Beautiful Man In The World’ has gained a huge reputation due to the BAFTA nomination in 2003 for Best Short Film as well as being a part of the official Cannes Film festival selection also in 2003. This success has allowed Alicia to direct her first full-length feature film, ‘All The Good Children’, made in 2009. This debut feature was selected for Cannes’ Directors fortnight selection. These triumphs at Cannes are a sign of Alicia Duffy’s prestige within both the short and feature film world.
Within the short film there is an obvious issue of neglect. This can lead to an ideology that the mother should take better care of her child, as the mother should and could be giving the child more attention rather than being on the phone and interacting with others instead, conversely some people would argue that the child may possibly choose to isolate herself from her mother by having the television on so loudly therefore is being entertained and so is not being neglected. There is a view that the mother needs the support from a father, whom is absent within the home. This is conveyed by the fact that the father figure is not present for a long time and is in the places of freedom. Wearing no shirt and being one with nature liberates the father. This freedom and liberation shows his lack of support in the normal struggles of everyday life, obviously felt by the mother. The mother character is disempowered by not being shown fully. Whilst some sets of people would say that just because times are tough doesn’t mean a mother should give up and not try. Themes that can spin-off and attach to issues and ideologies is imprisonment vs. freedom and inclusion vs. exclusion.
Imprisonment vs. freedom is a theme that is vividly conveyed throughout the juxtaposed scene inside and outside. The long shot of the girl laying down on the carpet shows her isolation and that she is trapped because the mise-en-scene of the dull colours and dark lighting causes the room seem smaller and therefore are is restrictive. Then she goes to the window to look out, this window is symbolic of her barrier from freedom. The off camera diagetic sound of the mother talking on the phone is a soft voice that says, ‘no no it doesn’t matter,’ this saddened and almost sulky dialogue gives this scene a repressive feel, which mirrors the girls feelings. These feelings are alleviated when the girl is outside. This is apparent with the use of the long shot of the girl riding the bike, there is a large amount of space and the light is much brighter than inside and therefore is symbolic of her new found freedom. The diagetic sound of the bell on the bike provides connotations of youth and happiness. The mother in the short all the way up through until the one of the last close up shots is not seen in full. The use of only sections of her body being shown gives her no identity and so the audience is easily manipulated into having less compassion for her. The lack of facial shots detaches the audience from the character, this makes the mother almost absent within the short film and could be metaphorical of the her neglect of her child, as she is there in person but not in spirit.
Within the film there is a shot that shows the child level with the dog, this represents the child’s status, she is equal with the dog. This further enhances the feelings of neglect as this shot shows the daughter is as equally important as the dog. This shot also gives the connotations that the dog is more important to the girl than her mother because she is in closer proxemics of the dog, showing a companionship. The dog is an important tool in building the child’s character, when she is inside the dog is with her and when she is outside it is also there, this presents the dog as her only friend and the only person she can trust.
The most striking part of this film is the action outside the home, mainly because of the male character but also because of the complete juxtaposition from inside the house. This film is reliant of the audience being able to read the film language. A very crude reading of the male figure is that he is a paedophile because he does not say anything and the lack of clothing alludes to sexual intentions. The director intends this reading as she could be making a statement about how people are very quick to judge and assume the worst. However this reading is very simplistic and the director has used the film language to show a much more complex male father figure. One piece of evidence for the male figure to be her father or at least someone that the girl knows is the use of the bug. This prop is used effectively by the action that the male uses. The taking of the bug from by her neck is very similar to the classic coin behind the ear trick; this cross over of stereotypical actions of a father is used to establish the male as the girl’s father. Yet the male character is far from stereotypical. The following shot shows the bug in the young girl’s hand, this presents a sense that all that matter at that moment in her life is the bug and her father was the one to give her it. This wonder at the bug is very surreal as it shows the girl’s naivety at even the most normal and often disliked part of nature. This wonder with nature is linked to sensuality within the piece. The brushing of the grass and panning shots conjures up smells of newly cut grass and warmth on the skin from the sun along with the bright colours and sounds of the wind and the wildlife. All of these senses and experiences being recalled by the audience leads to the scene being very celebratory and euphoric, which is in stark contrast to inside. However with all these senses being appealed to sensuality and possibly sexuality is released and therefore the male could be seen as a paedophile, however his actions are not typical of someone doing wrong, this is because he does not run away when he is seen by the mother and when the girl runs away the camera cuts to a close up where the father figure turns his head with a look of anguish. This anguish shows there is pain in the girl leaving, which demonstrates that the girl is of huge importance and that the bond is not sexual but is nurturing and caring. Therefore yet again the audiences that read the film language can see that the male is not simply a paedophile and that he is instead a father that loves his daughter and the daughter is completely stimulated intellectually when she is with him.
This film could be seen as not being very realistic if the male character is a paedophile purely because of one shot. The close up of the mother, the first time the audience see her face, is when she catches her daughter out in the field with a topless man. She does not run to get her does not show any worry or fear, this concretely concludes that the male is not a danger or a stranger, because the whole film has a high sense of verisimilitude and so it is clear to see that this reaction would not be used if the male was a paedophile.
The film could trigger some viewers to construct a very strong view on single mothers and the absent fathers, this is because the only time the audience is show the father is outside of the home in a very euphoric environment where everyone concerned is completely contented whereas the action involving the mother is boring, mundane and oppressive. This is making a statement that the father is only willing to be involved when times are fun and easy but not want to help out when it might be harder or carry responsibility.
All in all this film is an extremely complex one using micro elements to convey and combat macro meaning and ideologies that surround the themes and issues. The film is reliant on the audience interpreting the media rather than simply watching and taking the surface meaning. The film uses sensuality very effectively to trigger the debate about who the male is and is he a danger or a friend. The short also presents the mother as someone who is very neglectful and yet still creates a small amount of empathy. A hugely interesting message given by this film is that the mother is a villain because she is neglectful but the male could easily be a villain but seems to take better care of the girl, this is where the ideologies and the theories on who the male is have real conflict. The ideologies in this film are not simply binary oppositions and so the film has a level of complexity as it has conflict in views throughout.
