Natalie Milidoni

From the beginning of this course I was excited to have the opportunity to focus on, and develop new skills in constructing a scene. From previous experience, I know that trying to make a film can be quite difficult as you often run out of time during production and don’t always get to film the shots you planned. Being able to focus all of my attention and energy on creating a dynamic scene this semester meant that I could learn more about my method of working as a filmmaker and auteur. Through both theory and practical research, and experimenting with camera coverage and framing, it became clear that there were really no rules on how an individual filmmaker could cover a scene.

The in-class exercises provided a fantastic training ground for us to practice, collaborate, discuss, experiment, and discover different approaches to camera coverage, scene construction, and framing. Through the constraints set, we were able to discover inventive, and creative ways to frame and cover a scene. The constraints set began by being very restrictive and then developed into being more in the manner of the industrial model; with more written pre-production, production log sheets, and number of shots allowed. This process allowed us to discover the positives and negatives of working with or without the industrial model and whether working with more or less constraints would create more interesting scenes.

The very first task of the semester required us to construct a scene in a single shot. This proved to be quite difficult in the beginning, as we had all been used to being able to cover a scene in as many shots as we liked. We had to test and experiment different angles, framing, and actor positioning and movement in order to construct a single shot that was both dynamic and reflected the story appropriately. During this process, my group discussed the subtext of the script and our interpretation of the relationship between the two characters. By understanding the relationship and motivations of the characters in the scene, we were able to construct our framing to demonstrate these in our single shot. We were all quite happy and surprised at how having a big constraint on our shoot resulted in our scene having creative camera coverage and interesting framing.

As we continued with the in-class exercises, not only did the constraints change, but we also worked with either script or prose form. I found that I began to notice a difference with the way we covered and framed the scene depending on the constraints set and the form of text we worked with. The more constraints we had as a group (for example; a single shot compared to six shots to cover a scene), the more creative our selection of shots and framing was. As we worked with both script and prose form, it slowly became apparent that working from a script could be more restrictive than interpreting prose. When following a script, I found that we spent more time as a group trying to dissect it and follow it to a tee, rather than being able to interpret it in our own way. I found that we became overly concerned with showing specific movements that were instructed in the script, and that every creative shot we thought of was changed to accommodate the script’s specificity. When working with prose, I found that as a group we didn’t feel as restricted in our approach to creative camera coverage and framing as we could interpret the scene however we wished.

As the in-class exercises moved more towards the industrial model, I found that as a group we would spend too much time worrying about writing continuity logs during production. It became quite a tedious process to have to fill in the continuity logs in between setting up each take and wasted a lot of production time. Despite being used to assist with post-production, I found that they didn’t really help much at all as when I viewed the clips in the edit suites, some of the lower-rated takes actually cut together better than the higher-rated clips.

During these in-class exercises, constraints also included the number of camera set-ups we were allowed to use to film a scene. For some of the exercises that didn’t follow the industrial model, we had to edit ‘in-camera’ which forced us to think of where the cuts would be in the scene, and when we wanted to move the camera to a different set-up. This process forced us to think about how the scene would look as a whole, and how it would flow from one cut to the next. We had to think about how the camera angles and framing would compliment each other from shot to shot and how to make the scene’s camera coverage unique. As we then moved towards modelling the industrial model, we were able to edit in post-production which meant that we were able to film a master shot of our scene and intercut it with different shots. This is often done in the industry as having a back-up master shot of the whole scene allows the editor to cut between it and close-ups (or other shots) to create a meaningful scene. However, this process made our camera coverage and framing decisions more lazy and less creative as we didn’t have to think about how the shots would cut together and how the scene would look as a whole.

Watching others work during the in-class exercises made me reflect on my own methodology of working. Having being used to using a lot of written pre-production to assist with filming on the day, it became interesting to not be required to fit to this industrial model. However, when we did begin to use some written pre-production and had to interpret other’s storyboards and shot lists, it became clearer to me that I don’t work that well with storyboards and I prefer to work from shot lists and marked up scripts as I can clearly see what part of the scene is being filmed and how it will be covered. I also think that taking photos of the location with stand-ins and the correct lighting that you will be using for the shoot is more helpful in creating a well-informed storyboard compared to a drawn one where the space that will be used may not communicate well on paper.

A huge learning curve for me this semester was the importance of knowing your location before filming. When it came to modelling the industrial model during the in-class exercises, we pre-produced our shot list without knowing our location. When arriving on location, our shot list and other written pre-production changed immediately as we had to adapt to the constraints of the location chosen. Through these exercises, it became clear to me that pre-producing the camera coverage and framing for the scene on location is pertinent to creating a dynamic scene. Visiting the location before filming and getting a sense of which shots would work for the scene is important in informing storyboards and shot lists. When creating a scene without any written pre-production and discovering our shot coverage on location, we created scenes that were dynamic, unique, and made the most of the location.

Director Michelangelo Antonioni understood the importance of understanding the space in which you are filming in and the movement of the camera and actors in comparison with each other. He took careful consideration in directing actors and how each movement and angle in comparison to the camera could create a whole new meaning and an entirely different scene. As a director, his working methodology included spending half an hour on location by himself to get a sense of the space he was working in and then calling in the actors to rehearse the scene. He rarely walked onto location with a preconceived idea of the shots he wanted to cover the scene and allowed the location to inspire the shots.

In my research of camera coverage and framing, I studied many scenes to analyse how other director’s have chosen to cover a scene. As I sifted through many of my favourite films, it became quite frustrating to realise that the camera coverage choices were not unique, but rather the run-of-the-mill shots that you would expect. These films which I adored on first viewing seemed boring and not creative on closer inspection of the shots chosen; with the common shots of a wide shot, close up, and shot-reverse-shots being used frequently across the board. Perhaps these films stood out to me for the way in which the film as a whole worked together (with the script, cinematography, and performances working together) and the scenes themselves were just building blocks towards the climax with nothing interesting or unique about the camera coverage. I began wondering whether this was a deliberate choice by the director, and what reasons a director would have for implementing the common shot construction used in films. Perhaps they chose to use quite simple set-ups and camera coverage to allow the performances of the actors to shine through and not distract the viewer from the action. Questions of the time, and place of production could also influence these decisions.

It became quite difficult to find scenes that implemented camera coverage that was different and creative in comparison to the usual shot construction used. I found that it became quite frustrating to find a scene which used shot construction that was creative and different from what I had seen before. I analysed them closely to determine what possible meanings could be behind camera coverage and framing choices, and what they said about the characters, their relationships, and motivations. In scrutinizing these ‘found scenes’ I was able to understand how certain camera set-ups and framing decisions can change the entire meaning of the scene. By studying these scenes and thinking about how I would have filmed it allowed me to reflect on what I think creative camera coverage is, and how every camera placement, movement, angle and framing decision creates a different tone and meaning to a scene.

In thinking about what specific research I wanted to continue with for the remainder of the semester, I immediately thought of the difference I noticed when filming a scene from a script in comparison to prose. I wondered about how my own method of working as a filmmaker could be effected by the text I worked with and whether the ownership of such text would effect my vision. I wanted to see how these factors contributed to the camera coverage and framing choices I made as a filmmaker.

MY RESEARCH PROPOSAL:

Throughout this semester, one of the main questions I have continued to ask myself is how does the form of text that I am working with, whether it be a script or prose, affect the way in which I direct the coverage of a scene? How much creative liberty does a director take up when turning the words on a page into cinema? And how is this effected when they work with a text written and envisioned by them?

A script is a blueprint for a scene and the level to which a filmmaker follows it or creates their own interpretation of it is up to them. Even though I’m aware of this, when it came to filming the exercises over the past few weeks, I felt quite constrained by having to follow a script. I couldn’t think of creative ways to cover a conversation, and felt overwhelmed by having to show specific character movements. This led me to wondering whether working with prose would allow me to think more creatively about camera coverage. Another question that has continued to perplex me is if I filmed scenes from my own scripts, would my camera coverage and framing be more creative or constrained by my vision?

I want to investigate the relationship between the form of filmic text and camera coverage, and whether ownership of the text influences my framing choices. Does a script leave enough open for interpretation for the director, or is prose a way for directors to implement more creative camera coverage? Does a writer-director feel more empowered by having written the text they are working from, or more hindered by their own vision? Does a director have more freedom when they work from a text written by somebody else, when their level of collaboration with the writer is up to them? These are questions I wish to explore through a series of practical exercises and written reflections.

Over the course of two weekends, I will film four scenes, each of them being completely different stories. Two of these will be written scripts (one written by me and the other by a screenwriting friend of mine) and the other two will be in prose form (once again, one written by me and the other by another screenwriter). I will film the script and prose written by me in the first weekend, and the texts written by my friend in the second weekend. This will allow me to compare the camera coverage I choose for both the script and prose as well as comparing how ownership of the texts may influence this.

In preparation for each of the four scenes, I will location scout and use the camera as a tool for my pre-production in the location, taking stills to create a storyboard. I will then use that to inform a shot list and floor plan to use on the day of filming. I will need three actors from the StarNow page who will be in all four scenes. I will also need a sound recordist and a 1st AD to help me to coordinate the shoot and ensure everything runs smoothly. I won’t set lights and just use the natural lighting of the locations. I will edit the footage and post it and the filmic text I worked from on my blog with a written reflection on the whole process and how it informs my investigation.

For the second part of my investigation, I will be giving Amy my written script and prose and comparing her interpretation of the scenes compared to mine. I will post the edited scenes on my blog and compare the camera coverage and framing choices we have made as individuals. My writing will reflect how Amy’s chosen camera coverage compares to mine, and whether my ownership of the text hinders or allows for more creative framing choices. I hope that this part of my investigation will continue with more than one script and prose, and allow me to reflect upon how my ownership of a text affects my choices as a director.

In my reflections on the I was convinced that I wouldn’t be able to detach myself from my original vision and see what other possibilities there are in covering the scene. Whilst this may be true, I still wanted to test my theory. It may have been that my ownership of the text actually gives me free rein to create really interesting framing and coverage.

The relationship between film text and interpretation, and also how ownership may effect camera coverage and creativity of framing. I asked myself these questions; will I feel more creative and able to interpret a script or prose that has been written by someone else? Will working from prose give me a more interesting set of shots than working from a script? These are questions that I am interested in investigating and testing and if I decide to head in this direction I will ensure that I use the exact same constraints so that the difference in film text is the main factor tested.

When approaching my scenes, I tried to be aware of how a vision can change over time, and to remind myself that it is not only okay, but exciting to adapt and change my perspective on how to film and edit a scene. The whole process of filmmaking is fluid, and changes are made constantly; rather than being afraid of this happening during my practice, I needed to embrace it and reflect on it. I decided that in order to ensure a clear vision is reflected upon, it was important to note that from the very beginning of the pre-production – the conception and writing. Therefore, I have decided to write two scenes (one script and one prose) from scratch so that I can also record what I am visualising and imagining the scene to look, sound, and feel like.

When approaching filming my own scenes outside of class, I reflected on the way I had previously spent a lot of time trying to perfect technical movement of the camera and creating quite fancy shots. I could never pull them off in class, and decided to focus my attention more on composition and framing, and how they add meaning to the scene. I struggled with the question of whether I would film my scenes or if I would get a friend to DOP for me. In the beginning I thought that having a DOP would be more helpful for me as I would be able to discuss the scene and takes with the actors and communicate what I wanted with the sound recordist and DOP. After some careful consideration, it became clear to me that I was trying to avoid filming as I was afraid that my ability wouldn’t be good enough to pull off my vision. I needed to step out of my comfort zone and be confident that with practice and active filming I would be able to not only discover the way I like to work as a filmmaker, but also be able to research my proposal thoroughly.

I initially thought that I wouldn’t set any lights for my scenes as I wanted to focus only on camera coverage and framing, however as I began to film the scene I had written in prose form (interrogation scene), it became clear to me that considering lighting would enhance this scene. My interrogation scene based on the prose I had written became my main focus in researching my own methodology of working. It was a scene in which I had a clear vision of how I wanted it to look, and so I filmed it three times, trying to perfect what I could see in my mind’s eye.

The first attempt I made made use of only the natural lighting of the location. I wanted to make the victim insignificant in the frame to demonstrate his vulnerability. However, the angle to which I positioned the camera wasn’t high enough and far away enough from the victim to achieve the desired effect. As I was restricted with the constraints of the location, I tried to ‘cheat’ some shots around. I didn’t do much pre-production for this scene initially which meant that whilst shooting I was continually questioning myself as to whether continuity was being achieved or not. I was very motivated to continue to re-shoot this scene as I had a clear idea of how I wanted it to look and was determined to get it right.

The Text: Prose

The Scene: https://vimeo.com/126667403

In my second sketch of this scene, I made a conscious decision to make use of the location and create more foreground and background space in the frame. To achieve this, I changed my shot construction and actor’s direction to include character’s walking in and around the space. I also set a dedo light to illuminate the victim and make him appear like a deer in headlights. However, as I was unable to film this scene at night, I couldn’t achieve the almost pitch black look I wanted as sunlight interfered with the location. I deliberately chose to include tighter framing on the victim to not only capture his emotions, but to create an intense and suspenseful tone to the scene. While these changes came about due to my reflections on my previous attempt, some were also discovered through watching similar ‘found scenes’, especially the interrogation scene in ‘Casino Royale’. I really wanted to achieve the lighting used in this scene as it disappears into darkness, while also making use of movement in and out of the path of the light source to create more suspense in my scene. For my pre-production I made a conscious decision to limit myself to 6 shots/camera set-ups so that I would have to think creatively about my shot construction and not just film as much as I wanted for the sake of it. I also created a floor plan which I had previously never used before. This really helped me in thinking about maintaining continuity, eye-lines, and the positioning of the camera and lights in comparison to the actors. This process of pre-production definitely worked for me and I will continue to use it in the future.

Pre-Production:

Second Attempt: https://vimeo.com/128331287

For my third and final attempt at achieving my vision for this scene, I filmed at night and used only one dedo light with a gel filter to illuminate the victim. I positioned the light parallel to the victim to create rim lighting rather than the shadows that were in my previous shoot. I was really happy with the effect it achieved as the minimal lighting made the scene feel more intense, scary and suspenseful; demonstrating the victim’s feelings more accurately. I also ensured that I used tight framing and didn’t use a wide shot at all, to ensure that the right mood and tone was reflected. For this scene, I didn’t write any pre-production and just adapted my approach based on the past shoots I had done.

Third Attempt: https://vimeo.com/129393028

The Progress:

As Amy and I decided to work together, we also had to set some ground rules to ensure that we didn’t influence each other’s decisions in how to film our scenes. We decided that we wouldn’t discuss how we were planning to approach filming the scenes, and to not be on set with each other – only viewing each other’s scenes at the very end of the process. I was really excited to see how her interpretation of my writing would differ from my vision and whether I would agree with her choices and be thrilled with them, or if I would feel that my vision had been lost in the hands of a different director. Upon viewing Amy’s interpretation of my script, I had mixed feelings. While I did think that her choice of location would suit the scene well and offer great opportunities for interesting camera coverage as opposed to my choice of location, I was surprised by the wide angles she decided to use. In my mind, I saw the scene as being covered in very tight framing and making the most of background and foregound space in the frame. Despite my own disappointment in my own coverage of my scene, it is still closer to my vision than Amy’s interpretation. While I liked her use of panning camera movement, the wider framing doesn’t demonstrate the tight and intense nature of the relationships of the characters in the scene.

For my interpretation of my scene I was very conscious of framing as during our previous outdoor shoots in class, it was noticed that because there were no ceilings to give us framing bearings, our outdoor scenes looked quite average. I made a conscious decision to have tight framing as much as possible to avoid our previous in-class blunders.

The main issue I had filming this scene was the location I chose and the distance between the tree and the car. I couldn’t pull off the shots the way I wanted because I had to try and maintain a tight frame on the foreground of the two characters talking, while also keeping the character in the background still in frame. I think I would’ve felt more comfortable in an enclosed space where there would be lines from structures that I could follow.

Despite doing a shot list and floor plan, I didn’t do any pre-production with the camera in the location. This was a critical error on my part as if I would’ve done this, I would’ve realised that I needed to change my plan. Pre-production with the camera in the location has been something that I am constantly reminded is an important process for my method of working. If I could re-film this scene, I would implement more still shots and focus pulling, while also perhaps considering either another location or better positioning of actors and props.

The Text: Scene

My Pre-Production:

Amy’s Interpretation: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0ByqA57pYtN-IT1dvRk5SWE15TlU&authuser=0

My Interpretation: https://vimeo.com/129390752

When filming the prose of my screenwriter friend Harrison Murray, I wasn’t really motivated to film the scene as I didn’t feel any real connection to the story and didn’t have any vision of how it should look. Due to this, I didn’t put much effort in filming the scene, however the camera coverage and the framing worked well in the end. Perhaps this was because I wasn’t constrained by my vision and was able to just film the scene in the moment and allow the location to inspire the shots.

The Text: harrison prose

The Scene: https://vimeo.com/12835976

Overall, I have discovered that focusing my attention on camera coverage and framing for a particular scene allows me to be more creative with my approach and is something I will continue to do in the future. I have realised that letting the location inspire the shots and writing the pre-production from the constraints of the location allows me to be more creative with my camera coverage decisions and make the most of the space I am working in. I prefer to work with prose rather than scripts as I feel I have more freedom to interpret them in my own way. I have also discovered that I can sometimes be crippled by my own vision and that interpreting a scene someone else has written can be more freeing for me. However, I have also come to the understanding that I don’t necessarily agree with a different director’s interpretation of my scene as I have a clear vision of how I would like it to look. Despite sometimes not being able to think outside of my vision and adapt it to the constraints set, with constant practice, perseverance and trying new approaches my vision as a screenwriter and director can be communicated onto the screen.

I am going through all of my previous blog posts, reflections and method of working and taking notes on the main points/reflections I have made. These will inform my substantial blog post structured around my research proposal and findings. I will also be including screen shots from my scenes.

• This course excites me because we have the opportunity to really focus and practice our skills by working on one scene, rather than a complete film.
• Being able to think about scene construction and the many different ways a scene can be ‘covered’ is really interesting as there aren’t really any rules
• Thinking and experimenting with camera coverage means that hopefully we will all as individual filmmakers be able to find our own ‘style’ or even possibly ‘authorship’ that we can continue to develop throughout our careers.
• This exercise proved to us that focusing our energy on how to portray the relationship between the two characters (by thinking about subtext) and experimenting with abstract shots can create something quite unique and interesting.
• The choice to not show Trent’s entire face makes the audience focus on what he is saying to Duncan, making Trent appear arrogant and cruel, and makes the audience empathize with Duncan.
• Positioning Duncan right at the back of the car with the luggage in frame demonstrates to the audience that he is not regarded as important by his family as well as the world.
• The main reason why I found this scene interesting is because there is no establishing shot of the car or road, rather the opening shot of the entire film is an extreme close-up of a secondary character in the film. This results in a quite jarring feeling for the audience, but as it is so close it draws you straight into the action and forces you to listen intently to the dialogue as you can’t see Trent’s mouth (at all in the entire scene).
• The choice of camera shots and framing allows the directors to give the audience the information slowly rather than all at once
• The camera coverage and shot selections reveal more about the characters and their relationships with one another than the dialogue even does.
• The issue I found wasn’t discussing the camera coverage and possible reasons the filmmakers chose to use certain shots, but rather finding a scene that was ‘unique’ in the way it had been covered. I didn’t think it would be difficult at all to find a scene from some of my favourite films, as one of the main reasons why I loved these films is due to their scene constructions, right? As it turns out I was wrong.
• Perhaps these films stood out to me for the way in which the film as a whole worked together (with the script, cinematography, and performances working together) and the scenes themselves were just building blocks towards the climax with nothing ‘unique’ about the camera coverage.
• Did the director purposefully use ‘simple’ camera set-ups in order to allow the actors performances to shine through? Did the tone and slow-burning rhythm of the films mean that using more complicated camera coverage would distract the viewer from the action? Or were the reasons purely to do with the place and time the films were made (eg; Hollywood)?
• We found ourselves spending more time scrutinizing the script and feeling forced to follow the script to a tee. Every creative shot we came up with was then changed to accommodate the script’s specific actions.
• Other concerns about the location were the cramped nature of the balcony and the noise from nearby construction.
• Having to stick to the industrial model and log our takes also became quite tedious. This process might be helpful for a bigger shoot with more shots (eg; a short film) but for one scene it seemed pointless. When I began reviewing and assembling the shots in post, I followed the log sheet, however I found that with a bit of tweaking to overcome the continuity issues recorded in the log sheet, I could use the lower rated shots and actually sometimes preferred using them.
• The time that we spent planning whilst not on location, seemed to be almost a waste as when we arrived on location and saw what we had to work with we basically started planning from scratch.
• While I did have a clear idea of what I wanted my shot to look like, it did change when we chose the location. The location didn’t really allow for the almost 90 degree pan I had envisioned.
• The camera movement in the entire scene could personify the sound moving around the room and reflecting how it is absorbed by the characters.
• The camera movement could also personify Lionel (the King’s speech therapist). While he is not in the scene, the King’s mind is on his session with him.
• The way the scene is currently, it appears as though the revelation is affecting the Queen more than the King (even though she is indirectly affected), due to the scene ending on her in frame.
• I think having more close-ups of him would allow the editors to elongate the length of the screen time and allow the audience to focus on his reaction.
• By covering the scene in a shot to edit style, not only would there have been more opportunities for different edits in post-production, but the King’s epiphany would’ve been given more focus rather than concentrating on the Queen.
• It was interesting to see how they composed their frames, considering they didn’t have to cover their scene in a more traditional manner. There was a lot more movement in their shots than ours, and more lateral thinking about how to frame the shots. In particular, the shot in which X emerges from the door, was probably their best shot of the day. It was so beautifully composed and framed and they utilized both background and foreground space.
• Simone was really good at communicating, however I found it difficult to follow the storyboard and found myself asking continuously about what was happening in the shot. Personally, I prefer to work off a marked up script or shot list to understand what will be covered in the particular shot.
• As our group was given the brief of covering the scene in a more traditional, industrial, shoot to edit style, we had a few shot-reverse-shots. We also had a few wide shots to allow the action to take place in the area, and using both background and foreground spaces. All of our shots were stationary, except for an experimental hand-held shot we decided to add right at the end of the shoot as we had extra time.
• I think that if my group had gone to the location together before the day of filming, we could have adapted our original thoughts on the coverage to create more interesting or unique shots, while still shooting to edit. Knowing your location extremely well, and even going there with a camera to see how it looks in the viewfinder is really important, as I’ve discovered from this exercise.
• Everything from the space in the location (vast or cramped), the shape of the location, the backgrounds (or lack of), the lighting, etc, can all alter the way you end up filming a scene. As I have experienced through the class exercises so far, when I look at a script and have a clear vision of how I would like it to look, it becomes hard for me to let the shots go and adapt to the requirements of the location. In these situations, my creativity becomes crippled, and I can’t be spontaneous or adapt in the short time I have to direct the scene. The way in which I would like to work in the future, is to not look at the script until I am at the location, possibly with the DOP and/or Producer (or maybe alone), during pre-production rather than waiting until the day of filming. This way I can let the location inspire the shots, and use it to my advantage in creating interesting coverage of the scene.
• In previous courses, I have taken photos of the location with stand-ins as a storyboard, rather than drawing one. I find this works a lot better as you’re able to not only visualise the scene within the specific location, but also when you take a photo you are also able to see how the lighting is and if you need any artificial lights to illuminate the scene.
• The framing of the first shot is also a bit awkward in that if the stairs were more centred in the frame, there would be less empty space to the right of screen and Van could have still walked past the camera. The empty space to the right of frame suggests to the audience that something or someone will emerge from there, however this doesn’t happen and makes it feel awkward and unnecessary to show empty space.
• If this shot was tighter on Cine and maybe even positioned Cine closer to Van, the cuts would flow together better. It would also prevent all of the empty space that surrounds both of them and makes them look small in frame (especially Van).
• I have attempted to create some interesting moving shots through some of the exercises, but have failed to create something impressive every time. I have discovered that I am fairly confident with operating the camera and framing, however my confidence with panning and tilting is quite low. Gaining more confidence in panning and tilting, both with pacing and smoothness may be one of my goals for this semester and something I may try to implement in my end of semester scene.
• Perhaps rather than trying to be too technical with my shot construction, and using lots of movement, focusing on beautiful framing may be a better, more achievable, and sophisticated goal.
• “It was as if each time an actor stood, moved or made a sound in front of a camera a new and different meaning began to be produced.” This careful consideration of directing actors and what each movement or angle to the camera could mean and how it changes the frame is quite extraordinary and something worth investigating in other directors, and also implementing in our own work.
• His working method was to spend half an hour alone on location to get a sense of it and get an idea of what shots he would like to cover the scene. He would then call the actors onto the location and rehearse the scene with them. He rarely has his shots already thought out before going to the location.
• Bazin believes that depth of field allows for ambiguity, and makes the audience more active in their interpretation of the meaning of the images before them.
• Lighting choices will be dependent on the script and the way in which I wish to interpret it. It is also dependent on the location chosen for the scene. My current thoughts are to not worry so much about setting up lights unless it is pertinent to my interpretation of the script and is a mood piece.
• There are already so many other concerns to do with the camera positioning, framing, composition, angles, movement, as well as sound, that adding another element of lighting may become overwhelming. While lighting can add another dimension to a scene, it is not necessarily something that I want to worry too much about and would rather focus on beautiful framing and scene coverage.
• One of the main questions I have going forward is if I want to DOP for my own scene or not. Although I would like to be behind the camera for my own scene, I also think that it may be a bit too much to take on considering I will be directing as well. This has led me to lean towards allocating someone I trust and have confidence in to DOP for my scene, while I direct.
• I have found that the more restrictions placed on the exercises, the more I thrive creatively.
• I feel as though no matter how much pre-production I do, the most beneficial way to research shot construction and framing is by actively filming. The exercises set so far have challenged the way I think as a filmmaker, and as a result I often analyse film or TV scenes and find the shot construction most of the time, quite boring or tame.
• I was convinced that I wouldn’t be able to detach myself from my original vision and see what other possibilities there are in covering the scene. Whilst this may be true, I haven’t tested this theory as of yet. It may be that my ownership of the text actually gives me free rein to create really interesting framing and coverage.
• The relationship between film text and interpretation, and also how ownership may effect camera coverage and creativity of framing. Will I feel more creative and able to interpret a script or prose that has been written by someone else? Will working from prose give me a more interesting set of shots than working from a script? These are questions that I am interested in investigating and testing and if I decide to head in this direction I will ensure that I use the exact same constraints so that the difference in film text is the main factor tested.
• I also thought about how I might feel having a different director work on filming my script, and whether I would agree with Amy’s choices and be thrilled by them, or feel as though my vision had been lost.This will inform the second part of my investigation, in a sense examining the roles and working methodologies of the writer-director VS the director. It will be interesting to see how much collaboration Amy wants to have with me as the writer and her as the director. In my mind, it would be best for us to not discuss our directing choices at all until after the fact so that we don’t influence each other’s work.
• I still want to get a sense of my style of filmmaking and methodology of working, and I’m becoming more aware that in order to do this, I need to step out of my comfort zone and be confident behind the camera. Gabby’s research proposal really struck a chord with me as I can relate to her wanting to gain a confidence with directing and filming. Her presentation really made the penny drop for me that in order for me to get the most out of this process, I need to step up and get behind the camera.
• My movie is born first in my head, dies on paper; is resuscitated by the living persons and real objects I use, which are killed on film but, placed in a certain order and projected on to a screen, come to life again like flowers in water.
  – Robert BressonThis quote really resonates with me, as I have always been told by media teachers even from high school that a film is made three times; when it is written, when it is filmed, and when it is edited. I have found these statements to be true with previous projects I have worked on, where the finished product is always different to the original vision that had been written by the screenwriter.
• It’s important to be aware of how a vision can change over time, and to remind myself that it is not only okay, but exciting to adapt and change my perspective on how to film and edit a scene. The whole process of filmmaking is fluid, and changes are made constantly; rather than being afraid of this happening during my practice, I need to embrace it and reflect on it.
• His discussion struck a chord with me as to how actors can create a whole other meaning behind the dialogue written on the page, and how this may alter or even enhance the writer’s vision. He describes the actor as a collaborator, and that they will bring a performance to the film because of the director allowing them that collaborative freedom. “As a writer I got very used to that because I saw actors create meaning in lines that I never thought or intended.”
• I decided that in order to ensure a clear vision is reflected upon, it was important to note that from the very beginning of the pre-production – the conception and writing. Therefore, I have decided to write two scenes, which will most likely come from film and TV ideas I have jotted down or written rough summaries of; writing the scenes from scratch so that I can also record what I am visualising and imagining the scene to look, sound, and feel like.
• This meant I had to carefully select my shots to ensure the clutter wasn’t framed, which restricted the camera set-ups. This meant that I had to ‘cheat’ the background of the shot of the hands tied and had to be strategic about the door opening shot. During filming, I liked the wide shot of the victim, and decided against doing the close-ups of his eyes darting around the room and gulping, as I felt the wide shot demonstrated his vulnerability. In hindsight, I wish I had shot them so that I had the choice in post-production as to what shots I would like to use or not.
• After doing a sketch shoot of the interrogation scene, I realised that lighting is super important in creating a suspenseful, dangerous mood for this scene. I would like to try and implement a hard yellow light to create interesting shadows on the victim’s face while keeping the rest of the room as dark as possible.
• For the script that I wrote which is set outdoors; I would like to use the natural sunlight to my advantage and in particular utilizing the soft light that comes through the tree branches in the location I want to film.
• While lighting does pose another element for me to consider and think about, the benefits of utilizing it to my advantage are high and therefore I will try and experiment as much as I can with it to achieve the best result for my vision.
• Excited to film own scenes. However, it could also be an insight into my research proposal and discovering that perhaps having more creative control over a project makes me feel more creative and free to experiment with my vision, rather than trying to adhere to someone else’s vision. I feel quite obligated to adhere to the texts he has provided me with as I don’t want to disappoint him and make him feel as though I have let his written idea down. However, I also feel quite constrained by this feeling of obligation and just want to change it up to suit my own ideas. This is a bit of a conflict I am having at the moment and I am wondering whether it might be a good idea to try and film something written by somebody who I don’t know to see whether I would feel the same.
• I would really like to test out different shot constructions, framing, focus pulling and lighting to enhance the scene I have written. While I do have many of my own ideas on how to achieve the visuals I have in mind, I thought it would be a good idea to investigate similar scenes to see what other choices other directors have made. I decided to watch the scenes without listening to the audio so that I could focus my attention on the visuals completely.
• The lighting used in these scenes tended to be quite hard, creating shadows and definition on the characters’ faces, while also furthering character development. In the more creative examples, the director’s choices meant that characters moved in and out of light, creating a dynamic illumination within the scene. One of the main challenges I am facing is trying to create an almost pitch black room with one direct light source but still allowing the camera to “see” the characters move in the dark space. I have found a couple of examples of this, as well as having only a character’s face illuminated and the rest of his body in darkness, almost as if his head is floating within the space.
• Another interesting shot I found was the captor moving towards the camera from complete darkness into the path of the light, creating a sense of uneasiness as well as demonstrating that he is the person to fear in this scene.
• The challenge of creating a scene with very limited lighting to create an almost pitch black setting that will still allow the camera to operate and function well is something I am facing.
• The light source is direct and hard, creating strong shadows and narrowing the illumination to only light a small portion of the character’s face.
• The next shot shows the victim illuminated, while the rest of the room is dark – another thing I want to use for my own scene.
• This perspective shot is quite simple, but effective in demonstrating that there is no escape. This is something I struggled to show in my sketch of this scene as the location only permitted me to shoot in one direction. The set dressing is really dynamic and I definitely want to include multiple perspective shots to demonstrate the victim trying to plan his escape, and the doomed feeling of the reality that he can’t. Location depends on this kind of shot to work and I need to think more creatively of ways I can create something as dynamic as this shot.
• The camera tilt down from the captor’s face to his hand holding the rope/weapon and pans from right to left to reveal him walking towards Bond who is at a 90 degree angle to the camera.
• The Dedo was the appropriate choice for my scene as it can be modified to create a small or larger spotlight and the brightness can also be adjusted accordingly. The barn doors on the light also gave me more control in lighting the offside of the victim’s face.
• In my last shoot, I didn’t do much written pre-production which meant that I became a bit confused as to what shots I wanted or still needed to do on the day. Therefore, I decided to write more detailed notes in terms of what shots I wanted, but also a basic floor plan to understand eye-lines and maintain lighting continuity.
• Unfortunately, due to the availability of the people in my scene, I couldn’t film at night as I originally planned. This meant that the room was not as dark as I wanted it to be as blacking out the high windows posed a danger. The sunlight that came through the windows meant that I couldn’t completely achieve the really dark setting with one light source (dedo) that I intended to.
• Despite not shooting at night, I was quite happy with the effect the dedo light gave compared to the last scene I filmed. Lighting the offside of the victim’s face allowed for interesting shadows that were especially dynamic in the low-angle medium-close up of the victim. Having a lighting source also allowed me to experiment with characters moving in and out of the light, something I particularly liked in the Casino Royale scene, and created a mood and tone that previously wasn’t there.
• As the director of the scene, I chose to take my own liberties in how I interpreted the scene and decided (as you can see in my notes) not to include Rhonda and Chris in this scene as I just wanted to focus on Liam.
• I had some ideas about using a particular location and decided to use my phone to take some test footage and photos according to my shot list. I then decided to just film it on my phone to test my camera coverage choices as a sketch with the aim of re-shooting it in the future.
• I wasn’t very motivated to film this scene as I didn’t have any grand ideas of how to make it visually interesting or unique. I didn’t feel attached to the project and so deciding to film the scene on my phone wasn’t a big issue for me as it would have been if I did for my own text. In a way it felt a bit freeing to not be constrained by large equipment and to just capture the image in a very immediate way, without having to worry about setting the tripod to the correct height, etc. However, this scene has definitely suffered due to my lack of ownership of the text/project as I would’ve taken much more care and probably made more creative choices if it was my own text.
• For this shoot I hired the EX3 in the hope of testing out some focus pulling between the two characters under the tree and the character who is at the car. However, I also wanted to use hand-held to follow the motion of the characters walking so they were kept tight in the frame. I couldn’t really achieve both as I didn’t have someone to focus pull for me, however if I did, I think the shot would’ve looked more interesting.
• The main issue I had filming this scene was the location I chose and the distance between the tree and the car. I couldn’t pull off the shots the way I wanted because I had to try and maintain a tight frame on the foreground of the two characters talking, while also keeping the character in the background still in frame. I think I would’ve felt more comfortable in an enclosed space where there would be lines from structures that I could follow.
• I definitely believe that my ownership of this scene really hindered my vision as I had a clear idea of how I wanted the scene to look, but when it came to putting that into practice, I became frustrated with not being able to achieve what I wanted. Instead of trying to adapt to the situation, I just pushed on and the result suffered from this.
• Despite doing a shot list and floor plan, I didn’t do any pre-production with the camera in the location. This was a critical error on my part as if I would’ve done this, I would’ve realised that I needed to change my plan.
• To create a heightened sense of suspense and to evoke the terror of the victim, it became clear through the process of re-filming that I needed to implement tighter framing as well as re-positioning the actor to the left of the garage rather than the center to create the feeling of a closed and confined space.
• The lighting was a lot closer to my vision than the previous shoots of this scene. I filmed this scene at night and used only one dedo light with a blue gel filter to light the victim. Taking Paul’s advice to position the light more parallel with the victim to create rim lighting gave the effect that everything else disappears into the darkness, which is exactly what I wanted to achieve. The lighting created the intensity and suspense that was missing from the previous versions of this scene.
• I have discovered that creating what I see in my mind’s eye isn’t necessarily something I can achieve on my first attempt, and that I learn best through reflecting on what I have filmed and then working towards improving it. I have also found that while I was always quite motivated to film this scene (as I wrote it), I also couldn’t quite think outside of the box and needed to really push myself to think of creative ways to approach my framing and camera coverage, compared to filming someone else’s scene.

https://vimeo.com/129393028

This is my final version for my interrogation scene (based on the prose I wrote). After filming, editing, reflecting and reconsidering shot construction, framing, lighting, actor positioning (and many other factors), I am happy with the progress I have made in becoming closer to achieving my vision.

To create a heightened sense of suspense and to evoke the terror of the victim, it became clear through the process of re-filming that I needed to implement tighter framing as well as re-positioning the actor to the left of the garage rather than the center to create the feeling of a closed and confined space. I decided to use minimal shots, choosing from my favourites from my previous versions of this scene.

I liked the tighter framed medium close-up from my last edit and decided to use that as my main shot of the victim, rather than using a wide shot of him. Although I wanted to try and cheat a pan of the captor walking to the victim (similar to the one seen in Casino Royale) I could not get another actor which meant I had to be in the scene and could not test this out. This shot is still something I would like to try in the future. As I didn’t like the previous shots of the captor walking through the door as I found them to be too cheesy, I decided to just film the door opening, implying that someone is entering the room. I also used the shot of the tied hands struggling in this version.

The lighting was a lot closer to my vision than the previous shoots of this scene. I filmed this scene at night and used only one dedo light with a blue gel filter to light the victim. Taking Paul’s advice to position the light more parallel with the victim to create rim lighting gave the effect that everything else disappears into the darkness, which is exactly what I wanted to achieve. The lighting created the intensity and suspense that was missing from the previous versions of this scene.

Through re-filming this scene and trying to figure out different ways to achieve my vision, I have learned a lot about my own method of working. I have discovered that creating what I see in my mind’s eye isn’t necessarily something I can achieve on my first attempt, and that I learn best through reflecting on what I have filmed and then working towards improving it. I have also found that while I was always quite motivated to film this scene (as I wrote it), I also couldn’t quite think outside of the box and needed to really push myself to think of creative ways to approach my framing and camera coverage, compared to filming someone else’s scene.

https://vimeo.com/129390752

Script (written by me): Scene

Shot List & Floor Plan: 

This scene was one that I wrote and had quite a clear vision of how I wanted it to look. The script does have a female character, however I could only get males on the day. The actors who are my friends, didn’t really perform the lines the way I would’ve liked as they were worried about remembering them. Even though I told them that it didn’t matter if they improvised, they rushed through some of the lines. It was a new experience for them, however in hindsight, perhaps having more rehearsal time would have made them feel more comfortable.

For this shoot I hired the EX3 in the hope of testing out some focus pulling between the two characters under the tree and the character who is at the car. However, I also wanted to use hand-held to follow the motion of the characters walking so they were kept tight in the frame. I couldn’t really achieve both as I didn’t have someone to focus pull for me, however if I did, I think the shot would’ve looked more interesting.

I was very conscious of framing as during our previous outdoor shoots in class, it was noticed that because there were no ceilings to give us framing bearings, our outdoor scenes looked quite average. I made a conscious decision to have tight framing as much as possible to avoid our previous in-class blunders.

The main issue I had filming this scene was the location I chose and the distance between the tree and the car. I couldn’t pull off the shots the way I wanted because I had to try and maintain a tight frame on the foreground of the two characters talking, while also keeping the character in the background still in frame. I think I would’ve felt more comfortable in an enclosed space where there would be lines from structures that I could follow.

The location also made it difficult to achieve shot 3 of the character’s hand on the door handle while also achieving his point of view. Instead I decided to go with a shot of all of the characters taken from the car side. It didn’t have the same impact that I was looking for, however on the day I became too concerned with keeping the characters always in frame that I didn’t think outside of the box to fix the shot.

I definitely believe that my ownership of this scene really hindered my vision as I had a clear idea of how I wanted the scene to look, but when it came to putting that into practice, I became frustrated with not being able to achieve what I wanted. Instead of trying to adapt to the situation, I just pushed on and the result suffered from this.

Despite doing a shot list and floor plan, I didn’t do any pre-production with the camera in the location. This was a critical error on my part as if I would’ve done this, I would’ve realised that I needed to change my plan. Pre-production with the camera in the location has been something that I am constantly reminded is an important process for my method of working. If I could re-film this scene, I would implement more still shots and focus pulling, while also perhaps considering either another location or better positioning of actors and props.

I filmed this scene over a week ago, however I only edited it recently. I wasn’t that happy with uploading the content as I only had access to a camcorder and my iPhone to film the scene. I chose to use my iPhone as the screen is larger and the camcorder (like my phone) couldn’t add anything in terms of manual settings (focus, exposure, etc).

The scene is taken from a screenwriting friend of mine’s script (Harrison Murray) called ‘Presence’ which follows a young boy who is enlisted with the task of cleaning up crime scenes. I chose a scene that could convey the action without dialogue as my test for filming prose written by somebody else.

The prose and my notes towards filming the scene are here: harrison prose

As the director of the scene, I chose to take my own liberties in how I interpreted the scene and decided (as you can see in my notes) not to include Rhonda and Chris in this scene as I just wanted to focus on Liam. I didn’t believe that Rhonda and Chris really added anything to the scene and in the context of the script were moving between locations which is why they are included in the script for this scene. In hindsight now, it would be interesting to include these characters to practice focus pulling and how that could effect the scene.

I had some ideas about using a particular location and decided to use my phone to take some test footage and photos according to my shot list. I then decided to just film it on my phone to test my camera coverage choices as a sketch with the aim of re-shooting it in the future.

As I am researching the director’s vision and ownership of the text as well as working with prose VS script, I should reflect on how working from somebody else’s text effected the way I worked. I wasn’t very motivated to film this scene as I didn’t have any grand ideas of how to make it visually interesting or unique. I didn’t feel attached to the project and so deciding to film the scene on my phone wasn’t a big issue for me as it would have been if I did for my own text. In a way it felt a bit freeing to not be constrained by large equipment and to just capture the image in a very immediate way, without having to worry about setting the tripod to the correct height, etc. However, this scene has definitely suffered due to my lack of ownership of the text/project as I would’ve taken much more care and probably made more creative choices if it was my own text.

With my interrogation scene, I have been much more motivated to investigate different shots, implementing lighting and set design, and researching similar scenes to inspire me – all of which I didn’t even consider when filming this scene. The shot construction is quite simple and crosses the line (I think?), however I think if next time I wrote a floor plan, maybe used a better location and used a camera with a tripod I may create something much closer to what the writer envisioned. I really wanted to get a bird’s eye view of Liam with the case, however I couldn’t reach my arms over enough to get the correct angle and still see the screen – something which could definitely be corrected by having a camera and tripod.

In re-filming this scene, I need to believe that this text is important to me in order for me to take the camera coverage and treatment of the text more seriously and create something of a higher standard.

https://vimeo.com/128359767

PLAN FOR SUBSTANTIAL BLOG POST:

My plan for writing the substantial blog post is to go through all of my past blog posts and take notes of the main reflections and how they brought me to investigating new things. I will create a flow chart for myself of the key points as a starting point for the substantial blog post.

I will evaluate what my initial thoughts and processes were in working as a filmmaker and how that changed over the semester, and reflect on my methodology as it stands now. I will also evaluate what I discovered specifically in terms of camera coverage and how it has helped my grow as a filmmaker.

I will also use screenshots and videos to help inform my blog post and my learning over this semester.

SCREENER TEXT:

I investigated how the text a director works with (script VS prose) and the ownership of the text can effect the camera coverage of the scene and a director’s vision.