The course has lived up to my expectations, in the way that it delivered the practical knowledge for films students to be able to produce good film. However, it lacked the excitement and the unity, as I found multiple groups leaving it until late, not really talking much throughout the weeks, and also having a general sense of hopelessness when it came to their ambitions for their film. I think that where this came from was due to the subject matter of a documentary, being encouraged to be ‘experimental’ in its style. Not many people are too excited about experimental film. However, it allowed us (my group) and others to explore themselves as filmmakers without the constraints of particular styles, or filmic formulas. We were able to try different things and create visual images which weren’t necessarily seen as narrative film, but as individual canvases of art work at twenty five frames per second. I believe the course lived up to my expectations in its structure. It guided us through each step from pre, production, and post production. We learnt it step by step and more intensely than last year. I found it a great transition into become true filmmakers in third year, and a great way to find out how to express your inner artistic, philosophical and technical capabilities.

In Paul Ward’s ‘Documentary: The Margins of Reality’ the point that excited me the most is where he talks about ‘reconstructing reality’ in documentary re-enactments, and how it may cross the line between fiction and non-fiction. I love this concept. It reminded me of Documentary: True Lies last semester when we watched ‘Beyond The Blue Line’. The whole documentary (based around the murder of a police officer) featured a series of re-enactments based on individual recollections and ‘evidence’ of the murder. This idea that the documentary was a ‘drama documentary’ because it used re-enactments to empower the films’ integrity and also increase the suspense & tension, would suggest that most documentaries (featuring re-enactments) would fall into the line of being a ‘drama-documentary’ and therefore not a wholly accurate representation of historical events. The plot thickens! In the reading Catherine Bennet (‘Dr Shipman: The Man Who Played God’, 2000) states that “acknowleged reconstructions do not deceive…but they short-change us, deal in a currency inferior to the truth”. This is so spot on! They do not deliver the 100% truth, but they almost give us a scenario that will play in our minds when thinking about the context of the historical event, which may not be entirely accurate. “Short changing us” is the perfect expression. While this reading presented ideas about the factuality and veracity of documentary, no point excited me the most more than this one, and readings are a hard source of excitement and interest for me.

Consider: the quality and usability of your recordings; the effect of layering and juxtaposition of both the audio and the video and; the things you learnt from working with this kind of audio and video.

What Went Wrong:
I found this absolutely excruciating. This was one of the worst exercises! The reason being is that I saved all my work to the media server as soon as it got wiped. I thought I had lost all my progress, but found the work without the media being online, to which I had to link the footage and audio one by one to their original files on the media server. I then decided to scrap it because it wasn’t going to work and I made another project. This one was not bad! I was very happy with it…except my score (audio track) wasn’t working. It was mute. I tried everything. I was told to restart the computer, but save my work first. I saved it…to the desktop of a guest computer *smack to the forehead*. Square one again. I started from scratch. Finally, I had made my project.. only to find it wouldn’t upload. I had to transfer the file over to my laptop, convert it using AnyVideoConverter Lite, and upload it to YouTube. Total time on project – 8 hours.

What Went Right:
Despite this horrendous experience, I liked the way in which I contrasted the sped up images of the hustle and bustle of Melbourne, with the beat of a pedestrian walk signal beeping at every second. It gave rhythm to the piece and sort of stylistically framed my work. I noticed that the patterns I chose of using sped up, and then jarringly slower and calmer footage, was fine. I wasn’t as jaded by the experience as I thought I would be. Somehow I managed to order the use of footage in a way that was coherent and symbolic of what Melbourne city life is like. It gave more attention to the content of the piece, rather than the editing itself. What I did like, as well, was the use of speeding up the footage of a crane. I remember always watching cranes as a kid and trying to catch them moving around, but I never could. Now I created a clip of sped up time, allowing me to see the crane swing two and fro. I really like this, just for the sentimental and visual value. The tram pulling up and cars going past is awesome! I intentionally used the red car zooming past from the left as an Edgar Wright-y (Sean of The Dead, Hot Fuzz) transition, like an automobile screen wipe transition.

Select from one of the readings and briefly describe two points that you have taken from it. Points that excite you, something that was completely new to you.

‘Imagining Reality’

“Where the process of making the film became also a process of spiritual and formal discovery. For me, making a documentary involves a degree of schitzophrenia: I try and enter the subject, see the world through its eyes, accept its logic, while at the same time maintaining an aesthetic and often ironic distance from it.”

This quote really excited me because I love the idea of finding something deeper in film. The ability to think outside the realm of technical work, structure and sticking to schedule, and being able to delve into a philosophical and spiritual discovery is incredible. I seek to experience this myself. This quote describes the approach that I want to take to my documentary for FILM-TV 2 documentary. I want it to be an experience which is more than just an assignment, get it done, due date, freak out, pass, forget about it. I want to invest myself in it. Obviously this particular sentence really sparked my creative energy for this course, mainly because of its mention of ‘seeing beyond the physical’ in the love of art.

“Challenging the viewer doesn’t necessarily mean being didactic or boring. The documentary, like any other film, should try to seduce and entertain its audience, if only for the sake of its own survival.”

THANK YOU! There is way too many films that try to test the attention span of its audience, and those left standing (or seated if youre in a cinema) are narcisists who pretend to know exactly what they saw, what it means, all while smelling their own farts and sipping on some 1941 pinot noir from the far reaches of nonna’s vinyard in southern Italy. My main belief is that “if you create a film (or documentary) and it fails to either engage or entertain an audience, then you have failed to make a film.” The reason being, is because film is meant to impact us, create an emotion from what we can see on screen. It’s a beautiful window into the most valuable attribute to human beings, emotions. Therefore, I completley agree with this sentence, and love the use of the word ‘seduce’ to describe a films engagement with its audience and vice versa. Excellent reading.

In the lecture we screened a short film called ‘End of the Line’ – the film shot in Broken Hill.

Please describe in 300 words or less if you think they achieved what they set out to do.
You may not remember much detail, if so, it could be helpful to talk about your first impressions, after all this is what most of us are left with after one viewing.

I think they achieved what they set out to do, to some extent. The way in which they captured the towns weird and quirky atmosphere, parallel with the weird, conservative, bible-bashing locals, encapsulates the tone of the entire piece. The interview with the woman who claims that she had come to Broken Hill to die, because it’s a nice place, is disturbing, but also beautiful. I think this is what the filmmaker set out to do, but they did not make the film in such a way that it had a obvious message or purpose. The film captures this rural town to be somewhat strange. It’s different. My first impression was that I was quite bewildered by it and, to be honest, I was quite tired. I couldn’t focus on this short film abotu a small little town, I was too weary. However, the film left an impression, so I guess that is somewhat important.

INTEGRATED MEDIA 2 – TUTORIAL #2 – 29/07/14

in this project we want to encourage a participatory engagement with our followers/participants.

We want to give something back to them as a reward for their participation in our project

It must cross multiple elements of social media; Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube; as well as be physically engaging.

WATCH ‘Generation Like’ Documentary – 45 Minutes

What happened today?: We discussed the reading about flash-mobs to which was really dry and we didn’t really learn much other than flash-mobs are a) apolitical b) leaderless c) controlled through social media and telecommunications d) a part of participatory culture. We then gathered in our groups and discussed how we are going to form the pitch by next week.

**SUGGESTIONS**
James Nice suggested that there be multiple ‘Wallys’ around Melbourne

Patrick (Tutor) suggested that there needs to be an incentive and a exciting way to get people engaged in this project

Patrick (Tutor) suggests ‘levels’ of rewards for participants

**ATTENDANCE**

**ATTENDED TUTE**
James Nice
Angus Ward

**ABSENT TUTE**
David Lo Monaco
Chris Connors
Elaine Yilling Yang

RESULT:

We have created a post on our closed Facebook group ‘Astro Ether’ with polling options of what day and time our group would prefer to meet up weekly to discuss this project.

We have chosen the ‘Where’s Wally Melbourne’ idea as the event/project we’re going to execute

Listen to the audio you recorded in Tute #1. Here. Write a paragraph or two about your recording from a technical and/or “poetic” perspective.

The audio that I recorded in my tute evoked a sense of awareness for me. My senses were heightened and every sound and volume became filtered into singular sound streams that I could hear clearly and individually. I was recording in the open areas on Bowen street, moving my microphone 180 degrees, around the landscape. I could hear conversations about various things taking place, the sounds of thousands of shoes clacking on the ground. My hearing senses became widened to even the trams going by, and the humming of the airigation/ventilation systems around RMIT. Sometimes were so busy at Uni that we don’t focus or realise how much is actually going on, how much sound goes unnoticed and unheard. The sounds evoke images of groups of kids walking around in their high school class of 11′-13′ jumpers, talking about the weekend or their assignments. It’s a imagined visual of a mass post high school social gathering taking place in a public area. Familiar friends still finding them selves and their securities through the earlier years of their lives. So, obviously these sounds evoked a very philiosophical thought process for me. Maybe the focusing on simple sounds and then being questioned about them has brought me into thinking beyond a general “what did you hear?” and rather a “what does it all mean, and why is it so important?”

Listen to the first 10 minutes of Glenn Gould’s radio documentary, “The Idea of North”.

The idea of North 10min.wav or Files are here (experimenting with different sizes and file types) If possible, use headphones. Record your impressions in a paragraph or two.

My impression of Glenn Gould’s ‘The Idea of North’ was that it was really hard to follow. I found myself not so much listening to what he was saying, but what could be heard in the soundscape. At first, the overlapping foreign voices began to confuse and overwhealm me. However, as they progressivley became more ‘one at a time’, I started to understand what they were talking about. They were talking about venturing to the north, whether it be Hudson’s Bay, Canada, Iceland or Morocco. On the other hand, I found that I kept zoning out of what they were saying and continously drawn back to the soundscape of their environment. I could hear train breaks screeching to a holt on the rails at a station. I could hear crowds of people talking, forming an ocean of incomprehendable mutter. The subjects’ accents were foreign to me, like as if they were from Canada, Germany, or somewhere with a European twang. I could hear it in their voices, and it distracted me. I couldn’t focus on much else when the first subject began to talk, as I was too busy trying to uncover the origins of her accent. All in all, the radio documentary, while confusing, was interesting at times to listen to. It made me think about what I could hear, as well as making me think or imagine the origins of the sounds I could hear.

In this week’s lecture, scenes from Scott Ruo’s ‘Four Images’, Brian Hill’s ‘Drinking for England’ and Chantal Akerman’s ‘D’Est’ were screened. Choose one of these, and consider, in a single paragraph, what might have intrigued, interested, displeased or repelled you.

In Brian Hill’s ‘Drinking for England’, what made me question the whole concept of documentary, was that this documentary was a musical. It had singing, choreography, harmony, melody, the works. It kind of made me feel a little alienated, but that’s because musical documentary was and is foreign to me. However, I did find it interesting how the subject matter was something that a lot of men could relate to. As a ‘youth’, I felt like I was looking into some arid future which could be a possibility for myself if I don’t play my cards right in life. It could happen to anyone. This made me feel engaged and somewhat disturbed. It was almost like a Monty Python ‘Always Look on the Bright Side of Life’ skit; just the upbeat tempo and charisma of the music, singing about spending every last dollar he made, right up to his 40th birthday, on alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, and a good time. From an analytical filmmakers point of view, the only thing I can say that I found a bit jading was the fact that in one shot, he was pressed up against a roller door, or wall, in an alleyway, singing along about his sorrows. The bright light and the urban mise en scene, along with his casual pose up against the wall only portrayed a 1980’s N.W.A or MC Hammer kind of feel, rather than an anglo-saxon ‘drowning my tears in a pint of Fosters’ contrasted with a juxtapositional happy musical kind of vibe.