Amelie (2001)

Amelie (Jean-Pierre, 2001)

 I haven’t watched this film for years – and I have found a new love for this film. Not only the meaning behind it but the way it’s shot. It’s incredibly unique (in my perspective) and very strange as well. I am sure many people would disagree with me – but personally I like it. I am very inspired from it – maybe because it reminds me of my childhood. But now I feel like I understand why I use to think it was so beautiful (due to how it was created through coverage).

I have chosen to do the Credit scene plus the introduction to the parents. I think the start of the film is at such a high quality (through the use of whole lost of different techniques) and it takes you into a bit of a journey throughout the duration of the film.

1. ‘Introduction’ – 0:22 – 4:35

After a few titles, the audience is shown an establishing shot with narration (no camera movement). The second shot is where the camera movement begins to start – this time subtly (as moving the camera on tracking shots is used very often in this scene) to again establish the environment (Paris – Eiffel Tower in the background). This slowly moves down to the subject matter of the glasses. In the first few shots it is as though they are establishing the environment but not yet the main characters – like short, but not quiet, unrelated scenes. The audience is then shown a man (still highlighting a similar environment [through the window]) with a tracking shot. I am a huge fan how they have used tracking shots – it makes it feel more intimate and it’s just so smooth.

The next few shots have been done in post-production (I assume) as we are shown another story – but this time the environment has already been established (with the French styled music as well) and we are now going from the very start (sperm and eggs). The next shot (pregnant woman) is magnificent. I would assume this has been done with multiple still shots – as she grows and then there is the birth. This is a fast paced process (even though pregnancy is not fast paced).

New music chimes in and the audience is shown beginning credits and are shown Amelie as a little girl (assumed as she was just born). There is a jittery feel throughout this start – as though it’s been replayed through as old film camera. Post-production (again assumed) there are small details of scratches and colour grading has been done to create an ‘old’ effect. Some shots become over exposed and flared and then the frame is brought back to a greenish/yellow tone – a little bit like sepia but not. The camera almost looks (and it may be) hand held). The camera wobbles towards Amelie, but what I am guessing a home quality feel (parents videoing their children on a hand held video camera). Although the way it’s filmed doesn’t feel like it would be her parents, but an outsider that she trusts. Maybe even herself as it looks like to be her little world and how her mind works.

I think on set lighting would have come from one or two sources – as there is a lot of shadows and tonal gradients on Amelie’s face (also emphasised through post-production). Direct but soft lighting. The camera comes in and out of focus in a fast pace – and some shots are even sped up. This creates a quirky feel – especially against the soft and slow music. There are a lot of shots (or even one shot that kept rolling on hand held) that have been cut and put together timely with the music and as some shots are sped up there isn’t a dull or slow moment and this is emphasised through the continuous cuts to different shots. Although some shots are shown to be ‘real time’ paced (such as dominos) to create a little bit of suspense and the importance of the moment. I think the actor is very controlled but the camera movement almost looks like it has been thought out on the spot. It’s effortless in the way it goes in and out of focus, the camera moves towards and away from the subjects face. Light flare has been used in a way to change to the next edit/shot. The flare and small moment of over exposure then returned to a non-natural light makes what is happening feel real yet still a bit fantasy like. As though it’s a whole different world and we are in the world of the little girl. I think this is to establish her character – and describe to the audience who she is and how she is entertained. The audience is able to see snippets of it. The shaky camera enables a personal feel and relates to the young girl – as the camera (movement) too seems a little naïve and playful. Close-up shots are used very often – but are very quick, almost temperamental. Quick cuts are made constantly and there seems to be no formula of shots. Every shot goes on for a unique amount of time – some are 2-second shots, others are 5-second and it is constantly changing. Throughout Amelies activities – cuts are made to edit some parts of what she is doing. When she is blowing into a piece of paper – the audience is shown parts of the act in segments. But very quick segments. So it seems you aren’t missing much – but a cut has still been made to continue with the fast pace. A film reel sound is heard at the end as the music slows down and Amelia goes out of frame – ending the credits.

The audience in then introduced to her parents. Tracking shots are used in nearly every shot (to highlight them in their environments). This continues with a fast pace – but just movement in general. There is a huge focus on movement. Through the use of this shot – the audience is also establishing an environment. The tracking shots are used to come close to the character and also to move around them. This is more structural as the camera doesn’t make any ‘round’ movements – it’s very direct. There are slight pauses as the end of the shots as well. At the train station it goes from the woman talking and the camera moves at a very fast paces towards the father (there is no focus while the camera is moving towards him and everything is blurred). The pool scene shows the camera rising up in a smooth moment. The camera so far has been very experimental and is showing so many different angles. The introduction of the parents is so fluid (I think anyway). The camera follows in an untimely way – yet making it timed beautifully. The camera movements highlight the mise en scene – establishing the environment. The mise en scene feels very thought out and well detailed – and the camera movements compliment this factor. We are shown the environments of the character and how the character ‘lives’ within them.

In the wife’s section – I like how the camera follows her head movements. This is still at a fast pace but throughout each section, such as when she gets up from her will the camera follows in a head/close up – cropping her head. There is just such a huge range of shots – from above, from below to establish her. Then there are formulas with the husband and wife that the audience can relate them together – and links them. Similar shots are used to establish the both of them (tracking shots coming closer and then another where they are seated (separated shots) and the camera is going from left to right). The music then ends to highlight a new scene.

Looking at silent footage is seriously effective.

I paid so much attention to detail – I saw mistakes, I also saw the flow. Although, pointed out by Paul, our week 3 exercises shown were poorly done. I like the honesty – and I saw what he meant. Seeing them silently though really highlighted the establishment of the shots and make me look purely at the framing.

Friday’s exercise was really great! It was a big group – and therefore there was more pressure to take your role seriously. Which I did… as best I could. I was an actor. Dreading seeing myself on screen – but it really gave me an insight. I was able to view from the outside – even though I was apart of the group. I contributed where I could – but also listened to the Director. It was interesting seeing how the shot was set up and then how it played out… The location was frustrating. But you face obstacles on set – and I guess that’s just one of the things that happen. Because it was so restricted I feel like we had a chance to challenge ourselves with shots. My team had a set amount of shots they wanted to do to fulfil the requirements and finish the scene – while we were at the location a little bit more creativity started to kick in and they wanted to try a few other things. We completed the shots with time left – so we redid a few more. Although – I felt like we didn’t push ourselves enough. We didn’t push ourselves creatively enough – we assumed shots to make the time limit and create a smooth process. But because these are exercises I think this is the time we really push ourselves to think outside the box – and even fail. I would be happy to fail at creating a shot – only to know that I took a risk and tried something different. But failing at a shot that is a go-to-shot would annoy me – because that is playing it too safe. But I think when you are working with a team and they are also reflected in what you make is a pressured environment and you have to consider how they feel about the shots. Compromise – but in teams you can’t be selfish.

I think my group did well in working together and sticking to roles. I liked that everyone took their roles seriously – and did what they could with them.

I haven’t been able to see the footage or edit yet – so I will see how that goes.

This week (although I missed Wednesday) was really fun.

The more this course moves along – the more I enjoy it. I sense that some students are getting edgy that we have a lot of control. A lot of people want the best marks and to create the best things that they possibly can (maybe…) – we are so use to sticking to a criteria / set tasks. I like that we have the control. I like that this is experimental and that we are outside a set amount of tasks. It makes me feel like an adult… It makes me feel more in control of what I am learning and what I am capable of doing. I do understand that people are feeling confused and wondering how they are going to get their marks – but I think we need to learn to enjoy the process rather than the final result. I have complete trust in my tute – I feel like I am in a room of some very talented people. So it’s exciting for me to learn how they think, how they feel about exercises and how they react to being pushed creatively. I find it all very interesting.

The Friday class was great – the exercise we had to do really put the pressure on. We were forced quickly to work with people we didn’t know well and allow them to direct us. I unfortunately wasn’t able to direct a scene (as we ran out of time) – but watching other people think on their feet was interesting. Some people handled it well – some people wanted to make an abstract shot (or a well thought out shot) and others wanted to just get the shot done.

This week I was sick in class.

But as I have been deconstructing my scene – I have realised that I lack knowledge. Camera knowledge that is. Descriptive words for camera work – i.e. coverage. How the scene is covered. Although I do enjoy working out the meaning behind the shots used – but can’t explain exactly what the shots are. Which is frustrating. I have also worked out that I LOVE analysing films. I have done this all my life and have taught myself to attempt to predict what will be the outcome through character performance, what’s in frame and location (among other things).

It’s so fun when I am wrong. I honestly think it’s a good sign when I am wrong. Although not all the time. I appreciate different things from particular films. Such as – sometimes I appreciate the miss-en-scene ( Her, 2013) and not necessarily the storyline. So when I do predict correctly (the ending, even though I know it’s not all about the ending) but enjoyed the film – I consider what I enjoyed in the film that made me not care that is what somewhat predictable. This all sounds a bit iffy and all over the place – but I want to tidy my mind a bit and learn MORE on the theory and why I like particular things.

Can’t Buy Me Love (1987)

I was so stuck on which film to choose. I have a bookshelf of DVDs and decided to close my eyes and ‘point a finger’. I then skipped through to a random scene and that is the cheerleading scene.

Can’t Buy Me Love (Steve Rash, 1987)

4.53 – 7.04 (YOUTUBE VIDEO)

At the start of the scene the audience is shown one of the main characters Cindy Mancini (Amanda Peterson) through some kind of cage. So already the audience is looking at Cindy from the outside – perhaps emphasising that the story is not from her perspective but an onlookers (Ronald Miller – Patrick Dempsey). Cindy is also wearing different colour clothes in comparison to the rest of the cheerleaders (who wear read) but still holds the pom poms to highlight that she is still a part of the team. This shot lingers as she does her routine – then swaps to a mid shot of Ronald.

The audience is then shown who the onlooker is as he is on the other side of the cage and wears no red whatsoever. He is also clinging onto the cage (fence) which could be interpreting as him wanting to get inside – but can’t. The audience is then shown the cheerleaders again to remind the audience what he is looking at. Cindy then begins to walk out of frame. A next shot is above the cheerleading squad looking down – showing the audience how many people are in the team. Cindy is at the mid/front of the shot – showing that she is the leader. The next shot then follows Cindy (movement) with Ronald behind her. This highlighting her lack of knowledge of him and how is in fact ‘outside’ her space which she is practising in. Which could be interpreted at him being ‘outside’ of ‘her world’ and as he is still holding onto the fence – still wants to find a way in. But the audience is introduced that Cindy is the leader and the one he is watching.

The shot is then switched to the cheerleaders as the camera follows Cindy’s movement and how they are listening to her. It switches another time – which highlights the Cindy is in control of this situation. It then goes back to Ronald gripping onto the gate – still fixated. Then another view of him looking through the fence – as an outsider. The camera has changed to a midshot wear both Ronald and Cindy are in the same frame. Ronald is standstill – and not moving, while Cindy is moving freely. It also shows that he is right then but separated by the obstacle. Which the audience finds out later – is getting into the cool group. Cindy walks out of frame and the audience is introduced to another character – and he is on Ronald’s side of the fence – meaning that he is also not a part of the ‘cool group’.

Ronald then begins to talk about the ‘cool clique’ and the audience is again repeated with the shot of Ronald looking through the fence at Cindy and the cheerleaders – showing the audience that they are the ‘cool clique’. Ronald’s friend states – ‘why would you be thinking of them? They are certainly not conscious of us.’ Which literally states the coverage Cindy and Ronald have shared so far in the scene. The conversation then starts to talk about how they have always been there but still can’t get in – and as this happens they move away from the fence. The audience is then shown the group from above INCLUDING the footballers in the background. This highlights the clique.

The camera then goes from below Cindy and her friends – showing that they are superior within the group. A new character comes in and we are shown the main football players – another section of the ‘cool clique’. The conversation continues between them – showing that they do converse (in comparison to the Ronald and Cindy) but through conversation the audience is told that they don’t actually like each other. As the conversation continues – the camera in different shots gets closer to the characters. This is the audience getting to know the characters through coverage – a closer look into their lives.

This scene to me is the introduction of the cool clique – and the distance that Ronald has with them and who he wants to be with (Cindy). But mainly the fact he walks to be a part of the group.