I have an idea of a short film, which just takes place in a study room or common area in building 9 RMIT. The plot is very simple: in a quiet study room, some people are studying or doing their homework, it starts with the camera giving close up from different perspective of a person who is writing his or her essay (extreme close up of his finger, the laptop screen and medium close up of his or her face and body), and then a wide shot indicating the location. Then a girl opens the door and the sound of it attracts his attention. He stops writing and looks at the person coming in and the camera cuts to her after that. The girl comes to him and politely asks if she can sit next to him, he said OK, of course, and continue to write. But then the she starts to make noise: playing music, watching video and laughing loudly. The camera should frequently cut between her behaviors and his reactions. The man tries many ways to remind her not to do that (should be some actions really funny, like showing his headphone to the girl, which suggests using this rather than your speaker please), except saying you are making too much noise directly, but she just ignores it. As a result the man gives up with leaving the room. But interestingly, after seeing he gone, the girl immediately stop making noise, and shows a mean smile of triumph, which means she might deliberately do such behaviors in order to make that man gone because she doesn’t want to sit with him, wants to occupy the table alone or just doesn’t like him (whatever reasons you like).

 

So it is not complicated at all, but very useful to practice my camera shooting and sound recording skills. The story might not be amazing but has its narrative and logic, at least I think so.

On Friday this week, we watched some films which are quite controversial in terms of what they are: documentary or drama? This reminds me what I studied last semester about documentary, so I decide this Initiative pose should focus on those hybrid films which exist on the boundary between documentary and drama.

 

Janus Metz, a famous Danish filmmaker who has made feature documentaries like Love on Delivery (2008) and Ticket to Paradise (2008), called the blurry boundary as ‘grey zone’ in an interview (Sim, G. 2011). He said ‘Making documentaries is all about truth, it’s all about having a certain relationship to what realism as a representation of truth entails’ (Sim, G. 2011). What he points out is the very nature of documentary film. As many critics think, a documentary is usually expected to be objective and real, and the director has the responsibility to make his film the closest to the truth. But in actual practice, filmmakers sometimes pursue the things more than that. As Metz also said ‘But I think what’s important to me is, through a poetic appropriation of reality, to get closer to some of the things that are not necessarily immediate – to see some of the hyperreal structures or mythological implications of the moment’ (Sim, G. 2011). Here, simply uncovering the immediacy of realism seems to become the duty of journalists, but the filmmakers seek the aesthetics, the approaches and most importantly, the questions behind the immediate, because a documentary is not just an introduction of actuality, it is also a sort of art. Hence, it becomes much easier to understand why there is a grey zone between documentary and fiction film – dramatic features and artist re-creations are sometimes significantly involved in documentary filmmaking, especially like Waltz with Bashir and Nanook of the North, the hybrids exist just on the boundary.

 

David Balfour also mentions this in his article on the Vertigo Magazine that ‘By creating a fictional character we were able to explore something which traditional documentary or fiction films cannot do, and which was relevant to our subject’ (Balfour, 2006). This point has been well proved in Nanook of the North. A fictional character Nanook in this case helps a lot to explore the life of Eskimo in the past, which makes the film much more effective to tell the story than traditional straight documentary. Even there were never a Nanook in reality, it does not affect the fact that this fictional film is also a documentary which tries to tell the truth of the primitive life. Therefore, as Guarneri suggests, maybe it is not meaningful to have a strict definition or clear distinction to figure out which side those hybrid films do belong to, because it already becomes a new form of film, which carries the features from both documentary and fictional cinema.

 

So is the line or boundary too blur for us to make a meaningful distinction? Do we have to make a distinction between them at all?

 

Michael Guarneri, an Italian film scholar, answers this question in his article. ‘Doubting (the boundary) is legitimate but, if taken to its extreme consequences, it leads us in a cul-de-sac where no discourse is possible’ (Guarneri, 2012). It leads the debate from where is the boundary to a very practical question that is it really necessary to have such a boundary at all. In his opinion, since more and more contemporary filmmakers are deliberately practicing the films which blur the lines between fiction and fact, why ‘…waste time and energy providing strict definitions and clear distinctions between “documentary film as a whole” and “fiction film as a whole”?’ (Guarneri, 2012). This argument is as same and reasonable as the criticism on Nicola’s documentary modes, which doubts the necessity of separating documentaries into the six fixed modes.

 

Guarneri’s reasoning of not having strict definition and clear distinction between fiction and documentary film is supported by some other filmmakers and commenters for the reason that the hybrid film like Waltz with Bashir brilliantly demonstrates its function as both documentary and fictional film. For example, ‘Good films that are talking about the truth are welcome right now’ said by Mary Lea Bandy, chief curator of Film and Media Art at New York’s Museum of Modern Art, ‘In telling what you’re trying to tell, a narrative story can be more truthful than a straight documentary, creating a narrative fiction can be extremely effective’ (Svetvilas, 2004). According to her theory, in Waltz with Bashir, although a strong narrative of director’s personal experience is involved and there is no attention to have perspectives from both sides in the war to ensure the objectivity, it is still a documentary because subjective and fictional narrative is just effective to express the truth in director’s memory. Since there is no truth for everyone, the director does have the right to show his own truth, in his own ways, through his own film called documentary.

 

For me, the answer is simple: why not ask the director? Of course not simply ask the director that is your film a documentary or fiction, but exploring the film from different perspectives, to assess and speculate that does the director really have a strong will of making a film which tells the truth to audiences. If yes, ignoring the subjectivity, fictional and dramatic elements and any kinds of re-creation, the film is a documentary, maybe not for everyone, but certainly for someone. Everyone has his or her own opinion of the truth and own understanding of the truth as well. Sometimes it is insignificant to whose truth is the real truth, the guaranteed truth and the objective truth. Back to the very nature of documentary, it aims to explore and reveal stories in our real lives, and therefore the both sides of humanity can be seen in an artistic form. As a result, the only thing that matters becomes if the director truly desire to tell his truth, which is just a blurry but also meaningful boundary.

 

Bibliography

Balfour, D., 2006. Real Fiction – Blurring Lines Between Documentary and Fiction. Vertigo, Ⅲ(1).

 

Barnouw, Erik (1993). Documentary: A History of the Non-Fiction Film. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 33–35.

 

Elliott, S., 2008. A Series and Its Sponsor Capture a Shared Link With History. [Online]

Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/29/business/media/29adco.html?_r=0

 

Guarneri, M., 2012. c. Between Documentary, Fiction and Appropriation Art. [Online]

Available at: http://www.photogenie.be/photogenie_blog/article/c-between-documentary-fiction-and-appropriation-art

 

McLane, Betsy A. 2013, A New History of Documentary Film, e-book, accessed 29 May 2015, <http://RMIT.eblib.com.au/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=1190703>.

 

Reidemeister, H., 1982. On documentary filmmaking. [Online]

Available at: http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/onlinessays/JC27folder/ReidmstOnDocy.html

 

Sim, G. 2011, “A Gray Zone Between Documentary and Fiction: Interview with Janus Metz”, Film Quarterly, vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 17-24.Svetvilas, C., 2004. Hybrid Reality: When Documentary and Fiction Breed to Create a Better Truth. [Online]

Available at: http://www.documentary.org/feature/hybrid-reality-when-documentary-and-fiction-breed-create-better-truth

On Thursday, we have learnt how to use the sound mixer with Sony Ex-3 camera. To be honest, it was quite challenging for me because I haven’t used any sound mixer before, and this one seems quite complicated. There are so many buttons on the machine, and some of them work independently or together with each other’s. It took a while for me to remember what they do. But just knowing what each button does is not the most difficult part. For me, connecting the mixer to the camera and make them work together is the most difficult part: when it is not working, there are too many possibilities that may cause the problem, and you need to check them one by one until you find the reason. For example, there are signals on both the camera and mixer, but after shooting you find there is no sound or the sound is not from the place you want (like it was recorded by the built-in mic rather than the plug-in mic), it could be because the cable connecting mixer and camera was not working properly or you forgot to select the external mic on the left side of camera or maybe there is something wrong with the channels. If any of these happens it could cause the problem, but it is your duty to find out and handle it.

 

This reminds me again that being a camera operator, or a director, there are much more things you need to know besides those filmmaking theories, devices and techniques. Things written on books are useful but real experience of using camera and other equipment for shooting is also valuable and essential. I should borrow those equipment and practice not only in class but also whenever I get chance.

This week I was absent for the class on Thursday, later I asked Lisha and Mona about what they did, and they told me basically they did a writing exercise and used Premiere to edit the footage we took last week. I will do the exercise later in my next post and in this post I will focus on the shooting on Friday class.

 

On the Friday morning we watched some abstract documentary made by Dutch and American directors. I was quite impressed by the way they filmed, because there is usually no clear narrative and meaning of the shots. You even don’t know what they want to say through the film. These we call abstract films are interesting but hard to define. And after watching we went outside to shoot our own six shots. Although these shots are not directly relevant, but while the discussion and shooting we did make some plans and consider about how to edit them together later next week. So what I try to achieve is to take some abstract and confusing shots, and put them in a certain order to make them somehow meaningful. And while planning this, I really find it is interesting: I might not deliberately make up the story, but when you look at and think about it, a ‘rough’ story appears, and it seems reasonable and logical.

 

However, there were some problems worth noticing during the shooting: again, a little bit over exposed, camera was shaking and not realizing there was a better location for the camera. The only way to improve it, in my opinion, is to practice more frequently and get more familiar with it.

Here is a reading log I wrote about David Desser’s <Eros Plus Massacre: An Introduction to the Japanese New Wave Cinema>, which analyzes the Japanese New Waves films made during 1960s and compare them with the French New Waves films. After reading the introduction of this book and watching a film called Tokyo Drifter made by a Japanese New Waves director Seijun Suzuki, I wrote this log.

 

This part of the book illustrates the necessity of discussing Japanese new wave as an independent phenomenon in film history. As the author has pointed out, indeed there are some western film scholars who did research on Japanese new wave, but their studies and understandings are somehow biased: some of them usually compare it to the French new wave, and simply describe the Japanese as an imitation of the French, or criticize its lack of originality. This is because of their lack of understanding on Japanese politics and traditional culture. I strongly agree with the author’s opinion that if you don’t have sufficient knowledge on Japanese cultural and post-war political background in 1960s, or just simply use the Hollywood standard to value Japanese new wave films, you probably will not get a clear understanding on it.

 

However, I do see some common points between the French and Japanese new wave film: both made by the young and rebellious directors who like to challenge the authority of old generation directors, and their themes of films are usually relevant to the constant conflicts between ideologies and political point of views. But the Japanese seems focus on rethinking their culture and tradition, and as a result this rethinking brings a confusion to the young generation in Japan.

 

‘Introduction’ in Eros Plus Massacre: An Introduction to the Japanese New Wave Cinema. Indiana University Press. Indiana University Press. Bloomington and Indianåpolis. 1988. pp. 1-12

In this post I want to focus on one of the most important techniques used in filmmaking, continuity editing. This common technique is widely used in both narrative dramas and documentaries, and to explore it, I will use the content and examples in the chapter 6 of <Film Art: An Introduction> written by David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson as a reference. This book is extremely helpful for beginners to understand how the filmmakers make films and basics terms and concepts in filmmaking.

 

As its name suggests, the continuity editing means to deliver the information of narrative smoothly, to make the shots logical and easy for audience to understand. In order to do that, filmmakers created The 180° system, which is also called axis of action. As shown below, to include the two characters’ actions, we just need three cameras on each side. For example, if a conversation happens here, we can switch between the three cameras and have all their expressions and actions.

 

 

This is the system how the continuity editing works. And many specific techniques are derived from this system. For example, as explained in the book, tactics like reverse-shot, eyeline match and match on action. These are the frequently used techniques even in modern cinema. Reverse- shot means cut from an end point of the central line to another, usually used when a person is waiting for another. Eyeline match is used when the character is looking at something off the screen, and next shot is a close up of the thing he or she is looking at. Match on action is also a common and powerful one, it means carrying a single movement across a cut, like the action of the person in this shot will continue, but from a different perspective in the next shot. This makes the transition really smooth that we often just follow the action and ignore the cut itself.

 

There are so many devices based on 180° system, however, not all of them strictly follow the rule. The system can be refined in various ways. For example, if there are more than two characters in the scene, the action of axis will become a circle around them, and cut between the most important characters. The less important characters may also be included in the shots of important characters, but usually to make audience focus on the important, the camera position, focus and close-up settings become significant here. Besides, there are some exceptions in continuity editing that not following the 180° system. For example, sometime, especially in the chasing scene in action films, the director may have to cross the 180° line. But to do this, it requires the physical layout of the scene must be well defined and not make audience confused. Like being analyzed in the book, John Ford’s Stagecoach gives us a good example of using this technique.

 

After all, directors also can make their own creative decisions while using this system. In our short film project this semester, I think I will practice some of the techniques introduced above, to further my understanding of continuity editing.

According to my current understanding on the Film 3, this is a course which focus on our practical skills of shooting and manipulating our own footage, rather than talking about so many readings and theories. We are allowed and encouraged to create our own work with creativity and passion, and out tutors will give feedback on it, point out the thing we shall notice and improve next time. This is exactly the model I want, and I feel after studying so many kinds of theories of film making, I finally can do something by myself.

 

So basically, what I want from this course is the same thing that the course wants to offer us. I am doing my second year now, and at the end of next year, I will graduate from school. Now it should be the time I start to practice myself and gain some experience from it. In this semester, my goal is to create a short documentary or drama project by myself by the end of this course, as one of my show reel. Then I will use this as an example of my work to find a relevant internship in film and TV industry, to gain some real experience which will be extremely helpful for my future career.

 

Besides, I read the course guide and find the short film project will be made by group, and the idea of film will be proposed by each student. This is a good idea, but I am a little bit curious that is there going to be a procedure of selecting the ideas which will be used? After all we cannot do all, so we have to choose the most practical ideas. And after the ideas are decided, are we able to choose the one which we like the most and form groups according to that?