Jessica Engle

The Watermelon Woman like the other movies that we have watched this year, is about a film within a film. We are watching a movie about the life of Cheryl Dunye and her life and how she is making this documentary, as well as watching this documentary about “The Watermelon Woman.” There are pretty much two story lines happening simultaneously throughout the film and we as the audience have to keep them straight. The way in which Cheryl, the director chose to use cinematography and sound in the movie helped to keep the two story lines separate while still smoothly weaving them together into one movie.

As we are watching the film there are two obvious different camera views that we are seeing. One is a home video looking camera lens that isn’t as clear as the other camera view; the other view is more of a standard camera lens. When we as the audience are looking at the movie through this home video looking camera that’s when we are in Cheryl’s camera. We are looking directly at what she is filming. This is when we are watching the documentary that she is working on in the movie. We know when we see things through this lens that the focus is going to be on “The Watermelon Woman” and uncovering her secrets. On the other hand when it is the standard camera lens and it is sharper and clearer, we are following the actual life of Cheryl. We are focusing on her work life, her friends, and her love life. It is almost like we are now watching the behind the scenes aspect of the documentary that she is working on. By changing the camera lens like this it enhances the audiences perception of what the audience should be expecting and focusing on in this scene.

Not only did the cinematography change but also the sound changed in the difference scenes. When it was the home video lens focusing on “The Watermelon Woman” a lot of the times the dialogue came from outside of the view of the camera. Much of the dialogue happened off screen. We as an audience knew that it was diegetic sound and the characters on screen could hear them, but we as the audience cannot see them. However in the case of the normal camera lens where the focus is on Cheryl’s life outside of the documentary all of the dialogue takes place on screen. The audience can always see who is speaking and it is always taking place on the screen. In this way the sound also enhances the audiences realization of what this scene is focusing on. We know that when there is dialogue taking place that we can’t see then we know we are looking through Cheryl’s camera and we are watching the film she is taking through her camera for the documentary of “The Watermelon Woman.”

The director’s choice of making it obvious when the story plot is changing from focusing on Cheryl’s life to focusing on “The Watermelon Woman” makes it easier for the audience to adjust. Sometimes two stories within one film can get a little sloppy and a little confusing. However, in this film changing the camera and sound makes it obvious when the story line is changing its focus. I really like this technique because it made it easy to follow the two inter-weaving stories within one film.

Looking back on watching Peeping Tom I realize that the cinematography kept the audience in great suspense throughout the entire movie, and through cinematography the movie revealed the great secret in the end. At the beginning of the movie we as the audience are looking through the eyes of Mark Lewis, the murderer. The camera does not leave the point-of-view angle through the entire scene. This view gives us only the perspective of the killer and we are watching the whole scene through the lens of his camera, in which he is filming the whole encounter. By using this view we only get limited knowledge of what is actually taking place in this scene. We have no idea what he is killing her with, nor do we know what she is so afraid of when she is looking at Mark. The woman seems to be paralyzed with fear and isn’t moving a muscle. We have limited knowledge of what she is actually seeing and are confused ourselves as to why she is not running or trying to fight.

Throughout the movie we then encounter more and more murders, we  still get a  limited view on the scene. We still don’t exactly know what the women are so afraid of when they are looking at Mark. Are they afraid of the weapon, are the afraid because he is filming or are they just all paralyzed by the fright of impending death.

Not until the last scene when the camera point of view changes do we get the full effect of what is happening during the murders. In the last scene Mark is explaining to Helen why he is killing women, what his motive is in his actions and how he murdered them. The camera angle then shifts the point of view to Helen’s eyes. As the audience we are no longer looking through the lens of his camera at the murder but through the victim’s eyes. What we see is a mirror. There is a mirror connected to his camera so the victims can watch themselves dying. This was Mark’s way of filming a new sort of fear.

The choice of the director to change the camera angle like this takes the film in a full circle. We start the story off on one end of the camera watching from one point of view and then at the end we are taken 180 degrees and watching the murder from the other end. What we learn in this last scene reveals to us exactly what that woman in the first scene was seeing and why she was so paralyzed with fear. She was so scared because she was seeing herself; her scared face, knowing that her death was soon to follow and she was going to see the whole thing. The cinematography allowed for the beginning and end to be in connection and it revealed the final mystery to why he was killing the woman, as well as how he was getting to a deeper sense of fear. It takes the movie from just a simple horror film with a serial killer, to a psychological film that leaves you uncomfortable.

Jessica Engle