Rachel Mensah

I was at first unsure what the moral behind Soft by Simon Ellis was supposed to be but after watching the short film more than once I’ve begun to recognize the purpose and symbolism of the camera work, sound, editing and other details in the film.

When the title of the film appeared, soft, appeared written in lowercase, small white font at the centre of a black screen, it immediately gave me a clue that the plot would involve someone being weak, small or lacking courage. Additionally the film effectively drags the audience straight into the action of the misbehaving teenagers by playing the sound of them running shortly before the visual occurs – which helps build up to the beating. Furthermore I found that the use of a POV shot when tracking the movement of the teenagers allowed me to see the event from their perspective – making the attack look thrilling, especially as young people in the 21st century commonly document and share their activities. The main characters were clearly highlighted in the use of costume as the son wore a school uniform and the main attacker was wearing a white tracksuit, dissimilar to his friends in black hoodies. This signified that the bullies were from a different background to him.

 

By cutting to a bird’s eye view of a residential street, the shot introduces a new location. The general background noise of birds chirping and faint vehicles which suggests it is set in a pleasant neighbourhood, perhaps middle-class suburbia. Inside the house, the low angle camera shot of the father at the bottom of the stairs strategically makes him look less authoritative or vulnerable (this also foreshadows the events in which he is portrayed as ‘soft’). The fact that techno music, that we can assume his son was playing, overpowers the volume of his voice tells us that he may lack respect from him as his authority is undermined. The friendly greeting from his neighbour as the camera tracks him leaving his home solidifies the idea that he’s living in an untroubled neighbourhood.

 

Ellis builds tension by making the shots – as it switches between the two contrasting camera qualities – shorter in length which gives us a sense that something significant is impending. It’s also highlighted by the rowdy sounds made by the young people, such as “murk it”, juxtaposed with the peaceful suburban noise surrounding the man. The idea that the characters are coming closer together is connoted by the characters’ movement towards each other; the wide shot displays the father walking from left to right whilst the youths are gradually navigating to the left. Furthermore, the syncing of the church bells successfully indicate that the two worlds were coming together in real time.

 

When they come into contact the mid-shot allows the teenagers to appear intimidating as we see the threatening hand gestures. The darkly lit corner shop creates a negative atmosphere – which the audience may interpret as a reflection of the shopkeeper and the father’s mood. This tells us that the young people’s behaviour was causing the adults to feel irritated or afraid. The most effective element was the use of editing when the father and the teenagers collide. I was made to feel more concern and sympathy for the father as the shot immediately switched back to the unstable mobile phone footage as soon as he stepped out of the shop. Ellis may have chosen to do this to illustrate how the ‘thugs’ were taking dominance in the conflict by using the distorted camera footage to create a POV shot; we witnessed the confrontation from only their perspective.As he returns home, quick flashback shots and close-up to his face increase the pace. The conversation between them shot with an over-the-shoulder two shot The picture of the cricket team foretells the ending when a cricket bat was used to defend them.