Okay, so a bit unrelated again. But I watched one of the greatest ‘stand-up’ films ever made. As you may have already guessed from previous posts that I’m really into stand up comedy. Well, I tend to download the stand up performances that comedians make into films.

So I found Scott Dooley’s. He’s a rather attractive 32 year old comic from Sydney and he used to work on tripleJ as a presenter. He’s a household name…at least in my household. Anyway, his film was more a documentary than anything on his first time performing a live stand up show. He accompanied footage of time on the road and seamlessly edited together with awesomely angled shots (that were vignetted) of him on stage performing. I’d never seen a stand up film like it. I thought it was creative and insightful. I was very impressed.

Upon doing further research I found out that Dooley received a stellar rating for his show at Melbourne Comedy Festival in 2o14 – this is the one he made his film after.

I really like how someone like Scott Dooley explores through different mediums and forms of the media and broadcasts himself in different ways. As an artist he doesn’t seem to stop adapting and I think that’s very important. Dooley has really impressed me. I hope as an aspiring filmmaker, and as a general human being, I also never stop adapting and learning new things and exploring the media in different ways so that my point is never lost and always heard.

Here is a trailer for Dooley’s film. I recommend a watch.

So in yesterdays lectorial we looked at Community Media, and, by some strange coincidence, RMITV (a community broadcaster) got back to me and agreed to an interview with us. I think yesterday’s sessions gave me a new insight into community media and what makes it run. So, with this newfound knowledge, I’m going to go over the questions I have written for RMITV and ask some better developed ones to fit around RMITV being a community broadcaster.

Knowing that RMITV is mainly run by students so that they have opportunities to better their skills as filmmakers/actors/producers etc. I want to ask if the internet has changed this at all. Is student engagement in community broadcasting, especially at uni, still a big thing.

And maybe even about the future of community media generally? Will it survive against the big corps.

As a big fan of Australian Comedy, I’ve begun to notice the real core of GREAT Australian Comedy. That is that it’s a reflection of the audience it’s broadcasted too. We’re a nation built on satire and idolising the underdog. The simple suburban family or the flamboyant house wife become so satirised by the media and the comedians who present it, that it becomes something that is iconic to us. We, as a national audience, love them because it’s us that’s being represented. We know those people, we are those people. Chris Lilley’s material wouldn’t be as popular as it is if it wasn’t so relatable. Teenagers wouldn’t love his content as much if they didn’t all know someone exactly like Ja’mie King or had a teacher like Mr G.

As a nation we’re an underdog. We’re awesome, but we’re sometimes forgotten amongst the powers of the world. But the media that is created for us, reflects what we are – simple people, no bullshit. And we love it. 

My favourite Australian film of all time is The Castle. Even the way it was produced and filmed is so typically Australian. It was filmed in less than 11 days and on a budget of $750,000. That’s amazing. Something just so small about the typical suburban family becomes one of the most iconic films for Australians. Although it wasn’t acclaimed globally, I don’t think the rest of the world could understand the world in which Kerrigan’s inhabit. It focusses on the main demographic of Australians – the working class- and represents them in an accurate and entertaining way.

In my opinion, this is what we, as filmmakers, should aim to achieve – a reflection of the audience we are creating for.

Jasmine, in this weeks lectorial, talked about sound which got me thinking about sound within film and tv and how it’s utilised. Sound for me, as an aspiring filmmaker, has always been a difficulty that I find hard to overcome. I’ve talked about this on the blog before, but even though I am confused by the technicalities of sound, I do find it very interesting – especially when it’s been manipulated by filmmakers to have particular meaning or to put their audience in a particular position. I also find it very poignant and very masterful when filmmakers utilise silence. Sometimes, when silence is used, it can have a more dramatic effect than having the scene or sequence filled with sound.

When thinking of films that use silence in a masterful way, my mind always goes to Tom Tykwer’s 2002 film Heaven. This film has minimal sound and when it is used it is quiet and creates a world of suspense. The final scene of this film is particularly tense – it has little to no sound. It begins with the background sounds being muffled so that all that can really be heard is the sound of the helicopters propellers and the gunshots. As the closing sequence progresses, however, sound itself is completely omitted and it compliments the stillness of the camera shots. I feel this is a powerful use of silence and really draws the audience to be sitting on the edge of their seat. The audience is focussed in a state of suspense as the silence makes the viewers wait for something else to happen.

If I’m being entirely honest, I don’t really enjoy this film. I do think, however, it is made beautifully and I very much enjoy how Tykwer has developed and enhanced the narrative of the film through the use of sound.

• Mr. Mister. (2009). Heaven (Tom Tykwer – 2002) – leading up to the Final Scene. [Online Video]. May 24th 2009. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDLNnCwq4dQ

I know that this might not be much of a connection, but seeing as we’ve been talking about collaboration for a few weeks, I thought I’d do a review of my favourite Melbourne International Comedy Festival Show to date. Don’t worry, it’s got something to do with collaboration. 

AUNTY DONNA

What a group performance! What an energetic show! I was in stitiches for the full hour of the show that felt like it went for fifteen minutes.

The sketch comedy trio pumped out the most energetic comedy show I’ve ever seen. They didn’t stop for one minute of the show. Even when they declared ‘INTERVAL’ they jumped and climbed through the audience, yelling and screaming. So enjoyable, so funny. As an audience member, I felt so apart of the show as thew trio constantly broke the fourth wall in the most amusing methods.

The pace that they were performing in  was so fast it looked physically exhausting. And you could see the performers getting tired, with sweat dripping from their foreheads five minutes after the show had begun, the performers pumped out sketch after sketch after sketch with no break in between. This just proved to the audience the amazingly well rehearsed script and the connection between the trio that existed on stage and most probably off as well. Their preparation as a group was clearly visible and this easily engaged and drew in an audience.

As a group of comedians, I don’t think it’s hard to compare Aunty Donna to such comedy legends as  The Doug Anthony Allstars and I can definitely see a future for the group that will come to define a generation of comedians.

If you want to have a peek at Aunty Donna’s sketches, I suggest looking at their youtube channel. 

• Aunty Donna, (2014), Aunty Donna: MICF 2015 Poster [ONLINE]. Available at: http://auntydonna.com

On the subject of using found footage within television, I’ve been noticing how it’s used in different tv shows that I watch. I was watching MTV’s Catfish and I noticed how they use footage of messages to display and enhance the romantic depth of the situation. Alright by definition, that isn’t technically found footage and rather original footage but re-contextualised. If you’ve never heard of the show Catfish or you don’t know what it’s about, here is a simple explanation: Two filmmakers follow the relationships of couples who have developed a relationship online usually to find out the person they claim to be isn’t actually them.

I took note, however, of how they had structured the original footage next to the re-contrxtualised footage. Each text message or picture shown to the audience related to whatever had come before it. I think it’s important, especially in this way, to make the footage flow together and make sure everything is appropriate to the story.

It’s also very interesting to see what’s revealed to you as the show progresses. For example, at first only messages that detail something romantic appear at the beginning of the show, but as more of the ‘Catfish’ or the actions of the ‘Catfish is revealed. more dubious messages or extremely zoomed in pictures of them appear. I see this as enhancing the shock factor of the show and, simultaneously, proving to the audience that this actually happens.  I think this is a very clever component of the show as it’s relevant to the context of the show itself whilst also imposes shock on to it’s audience.

What I take from the editing of this show is the seamless use of footage to enhance the mood and effect the audience. In relation to the next Project Brief 3, it’ll be too easy to edit together found footage that is hardly relatable to the topic.

• Max Joseph. (2012). CATFISH: THE TV SHOW TRAILER. 26 October. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMA4x7aXJT0.

Through the lectorial and the workshop this week, I’m really beginning to notice the power of editing. The Kuleshov effect possibly resonated the most with me than anything else discussed because I really saw what was trying to be achieved. The hunger and the bowl of soup, the sadness and the girl in the coffin and the lustful stare at the girl were all observed in the same picture. It’s amazing to see how ur brains connect a meaning through images that are simply in succession.
Out of all the tricks of cinema, I think the Kuleshov Effect is the most amazing. The fact that a director can create a mood in the film and in the audience through images that may not even relate is simply incredible.
As Project Brief 2 progresses, and the question of editing and transitions is considered a bit more thoroughly, I am starting to notice what a transition like a cross-fade can have different implications to a transition such as a simple cut. In different contexts, one can be more appropriate than the other in terms of flow. But even the movements of each transition can enhance/suggest a different mood. The cut is a lot more aggressive and has less of transition between each piece causing it to create a sudden and fast paced sort of feeling whereas a cross-fade is a lot more gradual and eases the audience into the next piece. It’s easy to see, just by that, that editing, even in the smallest form can have a great affect on the audience.

This weeks electoral on copyright was so relevant for the week. As probably everyone knows, Robin Thicke and Pharrell were S-U-E-D for the illegal use of copyright in their misogynistic hit song ‘Blurred Lines’. They were sued for $7.4 million dollars which I personally don’t think is enough seeing as such a terrible song grossed $14.8 million dollars, but we can’t win it all.

This is a terrible song that really just shows that equality of the sexes is still a massive problem in a society that has supposedly moved beyond the objectification of women. What makes it even more terrible is that it plagiarised an old and much loved song. The ‘artists’ of this song claim it to only be ‘derivative’ of the Marvin Gaye classic. Well, whether or not that is true – I really don’t want to go and compare the songs for myself – I think Thicke and Williams deserved what they got.

I leave you with this beautiful parody of the song by the Aukland Law Revue:

It’s interesting how much you notice when you actually intend to notice.
Living in a world that is incredibly fast paced and digital it’s easy to dismiss the things that are trying to speak to us or that we just don’t see as relevant. When you aim to sit down and notice what is being advertised to you and what is trying to speak to you, it’s easy to really see how inescapable it is.

Because the media is so diverse and is always inescapable, it does cause us, as humans, to connect with each other more. Some people would argue that the media limits our face to face contact, but the power the media has had in revolutionising the way we connect is undeniable. It’s amazing how I could go to university, or to work or even at home and connect with someone about one of the few things that we had noticed that day. It’s even amazing how our brain picks and chooses what we notice and what we simply just see and find irrelevant but can come into your mind out of the blue. For example:
‘Like, i’m not sure but I swear that Glue Store is having a half price sale. I swear I saw a sign in the window as I walked past’

This week, I’ve been thinking about the individual and the self and what is being portrayed by individuals to show others their uniqueness. As our first assessment task is a ‘self portrait’, I’ve started to realise the way people, through media, convey their own self portrait. I also consider whether the way the modern person communicates this is an entirely genuine representation of themselves.

Most people have Facebook profiles these days which, you could say, paint a portrait of themselves to the public. It tells people (although a limited number) a lot more than their name and what they look like. Even by subtle ways an individual portrays them on a social network platforms shows a lot about the type of person they are. I believe, however, that the intention behind what people post about themselves doesn’t truly represent themselves. Using Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and even Snapchat we seem to portray images of perfection and happiness which do not wholey convey a ‘self-portrait’.

Very often a number of pictures or tags appear that show a happy group of teenage girls – always going out together, always wearing nice clothes and always always happy. However, this seems to be a facade put front to the public or people they consider friends or even followers. For, as you dig deeper beneath the surface and figure out the reality of how the girls act and feel about each other, the way they have portrayed themselves in completely made up. I think this is what really shows the difference between portrait as an art form and portrait as a Facebook page.