From what we’ve encountered thus far, the variety of skills needed to set up, run, and keep afloat a film festival is vast (to say the least). Up until this point, I’ve only ever been an attendee, and while I have appreciated the enormity of the events I have been to, learning first hand what is actually required has been an eye opener.

So much is required to run a successful film festival. Beyond that, each role requires the success of each of the other roles to truly fulfil its potential; it is called a team for a reason. It has been particularly interesting seeing just how many hats people can wear back of house. A programmer will undoubtedly link in with the marketing team, the marketing team will link in with artistic director, who will link in with the venue scouts, and so on.

My key takeaway from Andrea Kuhn’s chapter in Setting Up A Human Rights Film Festival: Who Is Organising It? was that beyond the scope of the actually films and their screenings, so much more goes into building a festival. Events need to be organised that don’t rely solely on the viewing experience, guests need to be liased with to speak about the films and awards should be organised. It’s more than just accepting a films entrance and going from there.

From the beginning of this semester, I had an inkling that I wanted to be on the programming team. I don’t know if I possess much experience for the role, other than a pure love of film and the ability to watch hours on end of content, however it’s a role that I have always been interested in. I’m keen to get stuck in to this side of things, and collaborate with everyone else along the way.

References:
Andrea Kuhn, “Who Is Organising It? Importance of Production and Team Members” in Setting Up a Human Rights Film Festival, vol. 2, Human Rights Film Network, Prague, 2015, pp. 71-83.

Online v Offline

Karlovy Vary

Though I found the film quite hard to follow – specifically due to a lack of familiarity with the Czech language – I found it so informative, interesting, and fun to watch. The break up of segments and interviews with the comedy sketches were a particularly enjoyable watch. I had never heard about Karlovy Vary prior to this class or this film, so to get such a comprehensive catalogue of its history was so interesting. From this film and some of the readings we have consumed thus far, particularly Kristen Stevens’ piece on the Australian film festival roots and Dorota Ostrowska’s history of the Cannes Film Festival, we can begin to see some common threads that occur throughout individual film festivals histories.

Each of the film festivals touched on in the above texts, namely the Melbourne Film Festival, Cannes Film Festival and Karlovy Vary International Film Festival, experienced the effect of local and international politics, social pressure, and trends. Melbourne’s initial film festival in Olinda was very much a grassroots affair, born out of the desire to celebrate the visual art of film. Funding became an issue in terms of reaching the glitz and glamour of other national festivals, however its grassroots approach meant that it could bypass demands of industry and politics. Cannes and Karlovy Vary are more closely tied in the issues they faced. Being European based festivals, world wars stood to be a difficult hurdle they both had to face. Cannes reacted to these external pressures by adapting the focus of the festival. In its early years, they focussed on humanist films which intended to act as a vehicle of peace during the Cold War era, offering a sense of unity on the big screen. Karlovy Vary also experienced many hurdles and disruptions during the Cold War. With Czechoslovakia being a socialist country, the inception of the (also A-list according to FIAFP) Moscow Film Festival meant that KVIFF would only be held biennially from 1959 until 1993 where it was reinstated annually. Specific nationalist politics and censorship also plagued Karlovy Vary throughout its history, leading audiences to realise that no festival – no matter its A-list status – is immune from problems.

Each festival also, at some point, has placed a large emphasis on local talent within the film industry. Small scale festivals can take note from this method for a number of reasons. Firstly, accessibility in the early years is extremely important. Secondly, supporting local artists, particular in the wake of the global pandemic, is an extremely important and easy way to give back to the community. If A-list festivals do it, why shouldn’t we?

References:

• Dorota Ostrowska, “Making film history at the Cannes film festival” in Marijke de Valck, Brendan Kredell and Skadi Loist (eds), Film Festivals: History, Theory, Method, Practice, Routledge, New York, 2016, pp. 18-33.
• Film Spa, Czech Republic, dir Miroslav Janek, 2015
• Kirsten Stevens, “Enthusiastic Amateurs: Origins of Australia’s Film Festival Movement” in Kirsten Stevens, Australian Film Festivals: Audience, Place, and Exhibition Culture, Palgrave Macmillan US, New York, 2016, pp. 17-46.

Due to a lack of resources – namely time and accessibility – I decided to hop online to visit and partake in the Melbourne Queer Film Festival. Though this was a vastly different experiences to my previous visits to festivals, there were some major benefits and positives that I took away.

The Melbourne Queer Film Festival’s hybrid model of screenings offered wider accessibility to patrons like myself. The fact that I could view some of the pieces without leaving the comfort of my home meant was paramount in my decision to ‘attend’; I’m not entirely sure I would have taken an interest otherwise. The ability to choose which film to watch and when I would watch it (within the rented time constraints, of course) also gave me the illusion that I had a part to play in the festival outside of that as a spectator. For a moment, I felt like I was a programmer choosing what to play and when. It also gave me the power to pause, rewind, switch on subtitles as I saw fit. I could create my own cinema experience without interference of other spectators arriving late or opening their mid movie snacks at pivotal dialogue points.

This hybrid model adopted by many film festivals of late reminded me of one of the key takeaways I got from Dorota Ostrowska’s ‘Making film history at the Cannes film festival’. That is, the adaptability and change seen throughout many big name film festivals histories including, of course, Cannes. Though for significantly different reasons and starting from different catalysts, Cannes’ evolution throughout the years catalogued in Ostrowska’s piece – from its political roots at its inception to the addition of the Critics and Directors weeks – provide an example to other and emerging film festivals that change can occur without impacting integrity or success. In the case of MQFF, its choice to adapt by partially running the festival in an online manner is reminiscent of Cannes’ changes throughout its history.

It would be foolish, however, the limits that this model comes with. Placing the spectator in a position of power can lead to a lack of ‘festivity’ that makes in person screenings so special. In an online setting we don’t necessarily get the sense that we are partaking in a film festival, and the experience – aside from a few trailers and logos – wouldn’t differ greatly from watching a Netflix film. Yes, this method presumedly does open the audience reach significantly, it comes at a cost. Though I appreciated the control, accessibility, and comfort an online viewing gave me, I missed the fanfare that is so typical of in person Melbourne film festivals.

References:
Dorota Ostrowska, “Making film history at the Cannes film festival” in Marijke de Valck, Brendan Kredell and Skadi Loist (eds), Film Festivals: History, Theory, Method, Practice, Routledge, New York, 2016, pp. 18-33.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/11KOgIwC1Bd9LgAOix9VSco6KZd58NEEj/view?fbclid=IwAR2Eql0raa4GMvJT6E75qS0EC7sdKdbkuMgK4AF5Y0kdGh7p5F1IE-ZKLes

When setting out to complete our short film Vulnerable, I hadn’t anticipated the sheer amount of work that would go in to the entire production process. Until this point, I had never worked on a film of this length and with this amount of people in the crew. We were lucky enough to finalise a rough idea for the plot quite early on in the process, and we’d all concluded that we’d like to create a film that fits within the horror genre; we felt we were familiar with the codes and conventions that contribute to the genre and we all expressed a genuine interest in these types of films. Personally, I found our crew to be quite organised in the preproduction phase of the project. Aside from the mishap at our presentation, we’d planned the majority of our project meticulously. I believe this really aided in alleviating stress pre shoot, particularly having a detailed storyboard, shot list, screenplay and schedule before the day of the shoot. Even with everything planned, things still went wrong during our shoot, however due to the organisation, we didn’t find this to be a set back as we’d allowed enough time to reshoot.

Something that I believe we could have done better was sticking to the schedule and shot list we’d developed when shooting. I had been assigned the role of assistant director, so in hindsight I should have been more stringent when we were shooting and making sure we were getting the shots we had set out to film. This also ties in to something I learnt about my creative process and my style of working. I now recognise and know that I need clear direction and a set plan when approaching and tackling projects such as short films. I found it difficult and frustrating when new ideas were suggested that we hadn’t discussed as a group. Though I understand there needs to be a level of flexibility, it was difficult to stay on track and stick to the shot schedule when we were shooting scenes and shots that were not planned nor discussed. This also happened in the editing process – at times there was no clear direction because we were editing to try new things rather than stick to our plan, so it was quite stressful. At times, this project felt more like we were prioritising an attempt to create an individual’s vision rather than a group project. This perhaps could have been avoided had I been more direct and persistent in my role as AD. In the future, I will know to be more assertive in keeping everything on track.

We also had some difficulty in the postproduction process with the sound design. Because we initially were working from two people’s edits of the film and prioritising that, we did not have a rough cut of the film for quite a while, and this seemed to slow down the sound process. In the end, I had to take over the role of sound designer, as one member was overwhelmed and busy with things outside of this project. This became extremely stressful as I only took up the role the day before our deadline, so I felt rushed. However, I think what was created fits within the horror genre and is something I am proud of. I also enjoyed the process of sound designing and it is something I’d like to try more of.

The film itself is something I am proud of. The content is something that we believe is important to shed light on, and the fact that we could do so in a creative manner without deviating from the message was really great. We intentionally utilised the codes and conventions of horror films to create a psychologically frightening film, in order to reflect the thoughts and feelings young women face when placed in the situation depicted. We chose to film at night, as is typical of most horror films. Daytime is usually paired with a sense of safety, so our intention was to keep both our protagonist and audience feeling paranoid, anticipating what could potentially be around the corner. We also played with the use of dark figures, with just the silhouette visible to further convey a sense of fear. Shadows and silhouettes are traditionally used in horror films to again play with the psychology of the characters, so we used these intentionally in conjunction with quick cuts to make the audience question reality – was she really seeing things, or were they imaginary?

The location we chose to shoot in was also particularly important. The long, dark alleys is also something seen in horror films and was intentionally chosen because of this reason. The protagonist appeared to be completely isolated for the majority of the film, which is a key technique utilised in the genre. This also made the use of the silhouette figures more effective in creating a sense of unease and potential danger for our character. We also used handheld shots to place the audience in the characters perspective, which is something often used in low budget horror films. The sound became a key part of our film too, with the use of a ‘horror cue’ music motif in parts to create unease amongst the viewer. Initially we had planned to use a low, ambient sound throughout the film, however when tried we found this would not work, and we needed something that created fear. We also played with breath to again make the audience feel as though they were there with our protagonist, feeling the anxiety she felt.

Overall, I think we succeeded in creating a short horror film. Even with the challenges faced, I am happy with what we have made and am proud to show it to friends and family.

Class Work #1 –

http://www.mediafactory.org.au/gabriella-hills/2019/08/30/assignment-2-class-work-1/

Class Work #2 –

http://www.mediafactory.org.au/gabriella-hills/2019/08/30/assignment-2-class-work-2/

Yesterday’s News (Part C) –

http://www.mediafactory.org.au/gabriella-hills/2019/08/30/assignment-2-yesterdays-news/

Part C)

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/16H0avUgNcmjjSUDwLFKU9-5Hlb7MpVRf

Part D)

My group and I had such a fun time filming this piece. During the planning process, we came to a quick agreement to shoot a short piece considering the genre of the silent film. We thought it would be interesting to play with the conventions that make that genre so distinguishable, such as a black and white colour palette, smaller aspect ratio and quick, exaggerated jump cuts. We also thought it would be best to keep the shots quite minimal in terms of lighting and setting, so that the actors could emphasise their performance without being lost amongst the background. I think we achieved all of these aspects well, and in the end created a piece that would easily be categorised and distinguishable as a silent film.

Both Ruby and Olivia’s performance created a sense of ‘back then’, as did the black and white colour palette and the scratch disk overlay we added during post production. Knowing that this was the visual we were looking to create, we decided to play with the genre’s use of title slides and took this opportunity to incite a feminist critique. Here, we modernised the message amongst the words, with phrases and situations that are quite obviously something that would not have been the case during the silent era. We kept the titles fonts and imagery true to the era, however, to further emphasise the ‘here vs now’ impression we were trying to create.

While I believe we produced something special as a final product, we did run in to some difficulties throughout the process. The simplicity of the shots made it difficult to create a narrative, however I think we did well to tackle this problem through the use of the title slides, and in doing so furthered the film into the silent genre. The silent era is generally a genre I don’t have much familiarity with, however I found this project really fun and really inspiring, particularly when thinking about how genre conventions work within film.

Part A) 2-

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1cPjwXUG9hnNTyuYQPJV_T0y4w29XqnUC

Part B) 2-

From the exercise given in class, it became obvious that green screening and lighting tend to go hand in hand. Initially the group I was with chose to take a portable green screen outside, as it was an overcast day and the lighting seemed consistent. Though the aims we set for ourselves were met in the end, there was still an element of trial and error involved. Though the subject and screen were both well lit in the natural setting, there were still some shadows cast in the shot, which needed to be eliminated through the subject’s movements. That is, the subject needed to move closer to the screen in order to minimise the shadows across the screen, which is obviously quite an easy solution and something we realised very early in the exercise.

The shoot inside, however, was far more difficult, and required even more trial and error. It was extremely time consuming to figure out the perfect combination that produced the least amount of shadows, however in the end some were simply unavoidable. Initially we thought a three point lighting system would work to illuminate the subject. However, once we had this set up, extra lights were needed because shadows were still being cast behind the subject and were visible on screen. It’s quite hard to reflect on what would I could take from this exercise and pass on to any future projects, as I think lighting will always involve an element of trial – some formulas can be carried through, but each situation will require openness to adapting.

Part A) 1-

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1v_9YDzyMJqmOob4a1iNcLaG29oQE2WKI

Part B) 1-

The green screen exercise was extremely fun and interesting, as I had not utilised the technique before. The pre production element required a lot of trial and error – from figuring out where to place the subject, to making sure the green material had no creases and that the majority of shadows were eliminated through the use of lights. At the time of shooting the footage, it felt as though we had gotten these elements correct. However, during the postproduction and editing part of the exercise it became evident the mistakes we made, and what we could improve on the next time we use this technique. We successfully produced a green screen without many shadows and creases, through a lot of physical manipulation and with the help of the lights we were given to use. This was evident during postproduction, and helped make the keying an easy process.

However, something that we could have done better would be framing the subject and green screen during the shoot. When looking at the footage through premiere, there was quite obviously a lot going on in the background, and a lot outside of the green screen. When shooting, it was difficult to frame the subject without the background, as we started to cut off parts of his head and feet. During the editing process, I used a mask to crop the footage from the background and to mimic a well-framed image. Something to consider for next time would be to make sure the subject’s movements do not overlap the green screen. During the shoot, we were not particularly careful with this, so at some points throughout the footage the subject again appears to be losing parts of his chin, which was not the original aim. Overall, this exercise was an extremely valuable technique to learn, and something I will definitely use again in future projects.