Short film analysis - Wasp

A short film can be shown in many different ways, and can be demonstrated as many different things. A short film can theoretically have any kind of genre and setting as it is generally has its own tropes that define it alongside whatever genre it is appropriating.

In my experience short films are; as the title implies, short. This means that a short film does not necessarily have to concise of a concrete beginning and end with all of the ins and outs of the world of the movie completely explored and explained. A short film is simply a slice of life version of any movie, it is a window into the everyday life of whatever world the short film takes place in, while the film’s story may span across the length of weeks or years the amount we are given is limited, compact and concise enough to give us an understanding of the world and its representations.

Most short films do not have incredibly complex plots, as if they did they would probably be required to wrap up any lingering misunderstandings or queries that the audience may develop from a film with too much complexity. Commonly short films have very simple storylines, or potentially confusing storylines that take until the ending for the whole thing to make sense to the viewer, and while all the characters may not feel wrapped up in the end, the aim of the initial storyline of the film should be wrapped up somewhat, with some kind of message to accompany the ending.

This analysis is done in response to the 25-minute short film by Andrea Arnold, simply named “wasp”. The story of the short film follows a small family consisting of a young single mother with four children, consisting of three young children aged 5-8 and a young toddler incapable of speech or the ability to walk.

The short film challenges British stereotypes revolving around young single mothers, child neglect, unemployment and living on government benefits. While initially dismissive of the generic premise of the film I was soon invested in the story, which followed this small struggling family and the trials and tribulations put upon them by their struggling single mother, and her conflicting ideals.

The setting of the film and the characters within it could be generally deemed stereotypically “chavvy”, which most people view negatively and look down upon regardless of who they are judging. This film allowed me to get to know the main characters and understand their struggles, while it didn’t outright tell me these struggles the mise-en-scene used and the capabilities of the actors involved were able to imply them to me. I grew a sense of empathy towards the single mother as found her to be dealing with a struggle between taking care of her children full time and longing for a romantic life and to hold onto her youth despite her living conditions which are clearly unfit for her desired lifestyle.

The film uses its incredible mise-en-scene to its advantage, one might claim that the area of filming is nothing spectacular, and they would be absolutely right. However due to the fact that this short film is tackling the subject of a low-income household with a single mother dealing with several young children, the stereotypically poor and “chavvy” neighbourhood is completely justified. With the main character being in her nighty for the majority of the first few minutes of the film and her walking out on the streets with her children; all bare foot connoting their absolute lack of money, the mise-en-scene helps to convey to the viewer just what kind of scenario this family is in.

The movie seems to portray something of a negative stereotype of the people of the UK, however the stereotype is also not an inaccurate one. The film follows a small family, tackling themes of unemployment, single motherhood, food shortages and living off of government funds. All of these aspects are present in some areas of UK culture, the film representing the typically “chav-populated” areas of the UK, a nickname given to people of the UK who are commonly in low-income areas and are depicted as being rude and foul-mouthed.

The film has several layers of symbolism including the wasp which I initially did not catch at first, and may have yet to catch onto still. The first instance of a wasp appearing is when one is trapped within the family’s house while the mother is chatting to a friend on her phone, during her conversation she notices the wasp however does not show any aggression towards it. Rather than attempting to kill the wasp, an insect that is typically considered aggressive and dangerous, she instead opens the window to let the wasp back out into the wild. This is the first instance where the wasp itself can be compared to the single mother of the short film. Wasps are typically considered needlessly aggressive creatures which generally serve no practical purpose, especially when compared to their more practical similarly coloured counterparts; bees. These traits typically given to the wasp can also be given to the single mother of the short film, she is shown to be aggressive at times, definitely evident at the start of the film where she marches her entire family to another mother’s home to attack her for supposedly hitting her child. The woman could also be considered absolutely useless, with no practical value; a single mother living off of government funds is considered by society to be incredibly lazy and looked down upon. This notion is further supported by the mother whom the main character attacks, as she implies several times throughout the movie that she has been at risk of losing her children to child services in the past due to her poor mothering.

Similarly to the way that the wasp was trapped in the woman’s house, the woman feels trapped herself by the situation she is in. She is not in her current situation by choice, as she lusts for her love and youth, which is rekindled by the reappearance of a love interest in David. In the same way that the woman freed the wasp from her home, the single mother believes that David can free her as well, and that he can life her off of her feet and make her happy.

The second instance of the wasp appearing Is towards the end of the movie, where it lands on the toddler’s mouth as he sleep, attracted by the sauce of the barbeque ribs he was fed by his siblings. It is definitely possible that this wasp is different from the wasp freed from the family’s house earlier in the movie, however it is implied to the viewer that it is the same wasp due to its fixation on this family. As the wasp enters the child’s mouth, all of his siblings scream, attracting their mother back to them. The comparisons between the wasp and the mother are once again evident here, after the wasp was freed from the family’s home it was free to do what it wanted, however wasps are dangerous and aggressive, and may go on to sting people and cause damage if given the chance. The character David is who the single mother believes will free her of her complicated life and let her be able to live the way she wants; similarly to how the wasp was free. However, in the same way as the wasp, with the mother temporarily being blissfully ignorant of the life she had during her limited time of freedom, she ended up hurting those around her; namely her children. While in the end none of her children were actually harmed, her aspirations of romance and freedom caused her children to be neglected and mistreated, to the point where one was nearly stung by a potentially dangerous wasp.