Rough Cut (sequence 0:00 – 0:23)

This sequence was not quite finished at the point we screened it, however I think there are some elements that worked well in it. Firstly I like that we have shots of all three of our subjects interacting with their art work, even if it isn’t them actually creating it. For me this creates a connection to the artist and what they are saying, especially since it is the opening sequence to the film. Secondly, I think although it was unintentional and only there because we didn’t have enough footage yet, the black screen as our interviewee speaks I think enhances what she is saying. It draws attention to the words and forces the audience to only focus on what she is saying. The weaknesses of the first cut of this sequence is the colouring. We had yet to colour grade, so I find that the shots seem quite out of place when put next to one another.

Final Cut (sequence 0:00 – 0:28)

All though the rough cut of our opening sequence and our final cut of it aren’t all too different, I think there are some standout strengths and weaknesses. I think the strongest part of our final opening sequence is the layering of the audio. Creating depth with a dynamic soundscape was important to us and was crucial in creating the feelings of anxiety that we were hoping to achieve. The way the audio seems sometimes out of place, but at the same time perfectly fitting is what I think makes the sequence work so well. Not necessarily a weakness, but when comparing the rough cut and the final piece, I think leaving in the black screen could have worked better than the shot of Kiera and her cat. The shot worked with the audio, but I think the black screen added to the intensity a little better.

Regarding both pieces, our aim was to create the initial sense of stress and anxiety, and I think both sequences did achieve this. There are elements of both that I liked, and looking at them both side by side, combining the strengths of both could have made for a stronger sequence, meeting our overall aim.

Synopsis

Anxiety and acrylic, dissociation and design, mania and markers. Three visual artists share their work and reflect on their experience of dealing with mental health issues. Is the intersection between creativity and mental health as black and white as it may seem? ANXIOUS ART is a 4 minute documentary that sparks a necessary conversation about mental health among young people in a modern society, through a personal visual representation of themselves and exposing hidden and unexpected truths.

Directed and Edited by Josie Mortimer and Brooke Evernden

In my week one blog post, I talked about what my goals were for the semester. The first thing that I mention in my post is in regards to how I have usually stuck to the “stock standard” ideas of documentary filmmaking. My goal was to push myself to explore less traditional forms of documentary. With the experimental piece that Josie and I have created for PB3, I think I have done exactly that. The media I created was unlike anything that I have created before, and was completely out of my comfort zone. I do however mention that I wanted to push myself out of my comfort zone as a media consumer, as well as a media maker. In this respect, I don’t think I achieved this goal as much. As a whole, I didn’t sit down and actually consume as much as I would have liked. I didn’t really even think about doing so, as I was so focused on the hands on elements of the course.

The second goal I had was a technical goal. I hoped to improve my interview skills. I would like to say that I have gained confidence in regards to my interviewing style. I don’t have anyone to vouch for it, but from my perspective, I believe I conducted my interview in a professional and respectful manner. One thing I think that I could still improve on would be improvising questions, which I mentioned in my reflection post. Recalling back to the interview I did with Kiera, I stuck to my planned questions, and only improvised one question, which was really just to elaborate on something that I had already asked.

Overall this semester I’m happy with what I have achieved, but I also know that I have much more to grow in the respect of documentary filmmaking.

The intention of our work, from my perspective was to open up the conversation surrounding mental health, and it’s relation to art. We wanted to create an experimental piece, something that didn’t just have a completely black and white message attached to it. When the audience viewed the piece, we wanted them to view it openly and from multiple perspectives. Creating a biased reaction or point of view was not our aim, in fact it was the complete opposite. I have never created an experimental piece, whenever I have worked in documentary filmmaking previously I have followed a very standard structure. I’m proud of the way I approached this and forced myself to steer away from what I was used to. Creating a piece that didn’t have a point blank conclusion was difficult, but working through how to structure something like this, I think it turned out really well. I worked mostly on the visual side of things, and I’m especially proud of the beginning sequence. We went in with the aim to create initial feelings of anxiety, and I think I was able to achieve that. The quick and sporadic shots edited together created the exact feelings that I think Josie and I had both hoped to achieve. I can’t take individual credit for the soundscape, but I am proud of how well the visuals and audio worked together. At times it feels out of sync, but in an intentional way. It’s something I have never done before, and I think it creates a really interesting and whimsical effect. Every layer of our film is so completely different, and the way we were able to showcase everything together as one fully formed piece I think went really well.

When it came to the collaboration aspect of this project, I found it easy to work with my partner to achieve what we had hoped. In the pre-production process I joined Joise after she had already come up with her idea. It was easy to get collaborating together as we both enjoy creating similar works, and she was open to hearing my input on what she had already established. During the production process, we had a few different interviews and footage sequences to shoot. We collaborated together for one of the shoots and interviews, and conducted one each on our own. I liked the way that we did this (even though it wasn’t exactly planned) as I enjoyed getting to work together during production, but also getting to work on my own and present my own skills individually. We got to do the best of both worlds. Josie is a very confident editor so I felt comfortable letting her have the creative control on a lot of the structure and specifics of the final piece. Again, as I mentioned before, she was still open to having my input and would never finalise a sequence without me having my final say. The only difficulty I found with collaboration was trying to line up our time to come together and work on the editing. Between work and classes and trying to line up our schedules, there wasn’t often a lot of time that both of us were available to meet up. This meant that there was a fair amount of production and post-production that was done individually. Despite this, we would still communicate online to each other during the process. What I enjoy about collaboration is having another set of eyes and ears to view your work from a different perspective. Everyone interprets work differently and has different creative vision, and I think having a broad input leads to a more diverse and interesting film, or just piece of work overall.

When going out to take these shots, there was never a clear intention of what we were going to film, or even what exactly we wanted to. To put it quite simply, we essentially filmed whatever caught our attention, or that we thought would be entertaining to watch back.

I chose to arrange the shots in this particular way to capture the feeling of community within the space, something that I find very specific to Melbourne, along with the diverse culture. I personally didn’t feel any inspiration at all when watching the individual clips back later on, and it wasn’t until I began editing the clips together that I noticed a theme/pattern.

Each clip has an unmissable primary subject, however if you focus in on the background, almost every shot has something different happening. The shots we took of people sitting ‘alone’, appeared more crowded as there was people everywhere at almost all times. However, I don’t think the focus is ever forcibly drawn away from the primary subject.

I chose to alternate between clips of lone people in the foreground of the shot, to people in pairs or groups. There is a stark contrast between the activities, but the feeling and flow I felt when combining the clips, and watching the full piece back was all the same. The people who were alone in the foreground of the shot don’t seem to appear as lonely as they did when we were on location doing the shooting.

The edited piece says a lot about the open public space, and how even if you feel as though you are alone, you are surrounded by people much like yourself so much of the time. In a broader sense to just being a park, I think the piece showcases a lot of what Melbourne values in community and diversity.

Being in my third year of my Media and Communications course, over the past 4 semesters that i’ve completed, I’ve come to learn a lot about documentary, and non-fiction film and writing film in general. A lot of what I have studied, and consumed as an audience member I feel has been very traditional, stock-standard ideas of documentary.

From this course, i’d like to push my own boundaries, not only as a media creator, but also a media viewer. In class I would like to push myself to explore less traditional forms of documentary filmmaking and writing, but also outside of class, I was to explore films and work from directors and artists that aren’t conformed solely to traditional filmmaking ideas and practices.

In regards to the more technical, and practical elements of the course, I’d like to work on my interview/communication skills. In week one, we came to learn how important interaction with your subjects is, in a sense of making them feel comfortable, and at ease whilst you are at work. I have no problem approaching subjects and getting a conversation underway, but it would be interesting to learn how to do this in a more professional manner, in order to get the best outcomes for my projects. I find it hard to improvise questions so obviously like most, if not all interviewers, I plan my questions out prior. I will hopefully gain confidence in my skills, and be able to conduct interviews that flow more like conversations, rather that point-blank questions. Being able to confidently improvise questions based off answers that interviewees give is also a goal of mine this semester.

Even before I write this post, I have a feeling that at least one other person will be writing on this film in some way. After initially putting it off, I finally decided to join in the hype and watch Leaving Neverland, the newest documentary on Michael Jackson’s child sexual abuse accusations.

From a technical standpoint, I could not fault it, however that’s not where the controversy lies. After watching the film, like most people I was shocked, appalled, and to be quite honest, it made me feel pretty sick to my stomach. I am not here to write about whether I believe the accusations, and I am not here to take sides. This is however where my issues with the film stem from.

When it comes to documentary filmmaking, when debating or exploring a topic that has no definite right or wrong, it’s important to express different view points. Ethical filmmaking means that the two sides to a story are told, in an unbiased way. This is not just relevant in filmmaking, but journalism in general.

I believe that the director of this documentary, Dan Reed went into this project unethically, and unprofessionally. Not only was a biased, and one sided viewpoint expressed, the Reed took absolutely no consideration to Jackson, who is not even alive to defend his name. The backlash and torment such strong claims, and one sided views can put on the family does not sit right with me. Again, to reiterate what I mentioned earlier, this has nothing to do with whether I believe Jackson was guilty of these claims or not.

Not only is it ethical to present both sides to a story, on a more lighthearted note, it also creates for a more enjoyable, and exciting viewing experience. Having two or more viewpoints allows audiences to discuss and unpack what they have viewed. Audience members can express their own viewpoints, and continue to converse on the topic with one another, long after the credits role.

What i’m yet to learn, or put much thought into, is where is the line when it comes to having different viewpoints? If a filmmaker does strongly believe one side to a story, how much emphasis must be put on the opposing side? Are morals and personal views intended to be put on the side? I feel like it would be hard to do so. I have always been one to stick very strongly to what I believe, so I want to make sure that this semester I can learn to ensure that I remain ethical in my filmmaking practices.

I’m going to be completely honest when I say this, but F is for Fake confused me. A lot. Maybe I didn’t go into it with an open enough mind, but I left the screening substantially more confused than I was when i arrived to class. This isn’t unusual for me though, but I’m trying my best!

It seems only natural to begin with the opening sequence. The film opens with the narrator, Orson Welles performing magic tricks with a young boy. It almost sets it up as if it’s going to be a fiction film, due to the staging of it. For a documentary style film, I found this really interesting, as it didn’t begin with a normal introductory style statement/image. The main thing I took from this opening scene was an instant interest and fascination with Welles. I couldn’t quite put my finger on what I found so captivating, but I do know that it made me eager to continue watching the film.

It was the order of how scenes were presented that confused me, although I think with a second viewing, it may have made more sense. Instead of a typical documentary that presents ideas and themes in a a chronological sequence, the film jumps back and fourth from different ideas and topics. It took me a little while to understand that was what was happening, which might be why I was a little lost.

As a concept I just found the film overall fascinating. The fact that it was to showcase one of the greatest art forgers of all time, and presented itself figuratively, and quite literally a con in itself. As an audience we are presented with conflicting views and ideas, that leave us questioning our own ideals and morals. It is hard to understand how you could possibly sympathise with a criminal. Not only did I find myself unwillingly sympathetic, I found myself having a laugh along with him. The fact that Elmer’s work was easily believed to be real by so called art ‘experts’ made his actions seem to be less of a negative view of his morals and choices, but more of a negative view on the professionals.

This part is not so much a point on the film, but more as a final cudos to myself, I actually picked up on something! At the very beginning of the film Welle’s states that for the next hour, everything that is said will be truth. However I noticed instantly that the film far exceeded one hour, which obviously means the end of the film was full of lies and trickery. A nice little play on the films theme, setting it apart from stereotypical documentary film.

I wouldn’t go out of my way to watch this film again, but maybe it would be worth it so that I could unpack the ideas further, now that I have a better understanding of it’s format and presentation.

Our ‘signs’ photo series didn’t have any particular meaning when we began shooting. As we walked around the city we began to see a familiar theme, that was much deeper than just the fact that they were all signs. We noticed that a majority of the signs had an essence of warning and a sense of urgency. The signs in a literal sense were important as a present warning, but also signify a future, and what is to come.

To us, it represented a constantly changing and forever evolving city. Melbourne is such a fast paced city, and I find that it’s easy to feel like you’re stuck in a constant, unchanging routine. The signs are almost a physical reminder that everything is changing, and no little thing is ever really going to stay the same. It’s a warning sign of what is coming.

In this image in particular, the sign has been ‘ruined’ by stickers and graffiti. It is as if society is rejecting the change, rather than embracing it. It also shows how little patience we have for what is happening around us, and how little we care. We embrace the change, but choose to reject the process. I feel as though the destruction signifies how as a society, the idea of change can be unnerving, but also exciting.