What on Earth is wrong with me? This remote learning thing is really frustrating, especially since my laptop literally went up in smoke (the laptop overheated which made the battery explode). At least I finally managed to set my desk up.

This week, we took another look at focal length, albeit looking at it from a coverage perspective. We contrasted . Upon watching the examples of Elio Petri’s work, especially To Each His Own (1967), his use of a long, zoomed-in lens as the mourners had an aesthetic that reminds me more of television coverage of a live event. However, for shots with dialogue, the characteristics of a long focal length – especially the shallow depth of field – had a more intimate aesthetic, especially compared to the cold, wide shots in A Clockwork Orange (Stanley Kubrick, 1971).

We also discussed the work of Jean Renoir. It was interesting to see how that some students dislike Renoir’s work due to its use in film classes; similar to how high school English classes ruin the experience of Shakespeare for many. While I can’t speak for everyone, I feel like it is somewhat different, because we are viewing Renoir’s films in the way that they’re supposed to be – rather than just simply reciting the screenplay. I also feel like as university students, we are also more mature, and can therefore study a piece while still being able to enjoy it in its original form.

With that being said, I really haven’t watched enough classic cinema to have an opinion at the moment – something that I know I need to change, though finding where to start is just a bit intimidating, and this is before taking into account what the definition of classic is, because one man’s Jean Renoir is another’s Tommy Wiseau. I’m looking forward to watching more once classes calm down.

This week has been interesting, though I still can’t seem to grasp the idea of working from home, though maybe if I can get my desk sorted out so I at least have a place to study, I might get through this.

This week, we continued to look into découpage, specifically how it could be used in single shot scenes. From the examples that Robin showed us, I believe that utilising a single shot works better for party scenes, as it is better able to capture the background actions and mood than using separate shots.

In My Sex Life, or How I got into an argument (Arnaud Desplechin, 1996), the use of panning to differentiate the characters and conversations, at least in my opinion, was effective, as it managed to differentiate the different conversations while still being able to cover the unique setting.

In Full Moon in Paris (Eric Rohmer, 1984), a stationary shot was used, relying on the actors to change position. This shot was able to focus on just the foreground actors dancing while still managing to depict the crowded dancefloor.

Another advantage of using a single would be in the ease of maintaining continuity. If a traditional multiple shot scene was used, the extras would either be out of sync or unnaturally choreographed to account for those changes; or the actors would need to be in a completely different scene – for example, in another room – which would detract from the “busy party” effect.

We then examined eye-lines. Unlike with the 180º rule, I had always assumed that matching the actors’ eye-lines was more of an exercise in common sense than a formally established practice (though to be fair, most coverage rules probably appear like this to the average viewer). However, it was interesting to see the amount of work that was needed to match them. This was especially evident in the scene from The Wild Bunch (Sam Peckinpah, 1969). I assume that making sure every eyeline was matched with the right actor was very time consuming, especially during production.

So now that the uni have figured out a way to conduct classes, the show must go on – even if it’s hard to get work done at home. Time to switch on my thinking music and get the kettle boiling.

I think it has been great that Robin has decided to split the class into small groups for our group chats, because I personally find it easier to speak up than in the larger groups that my other units use. Sure, at times I feel like I’m talking out of my arse, but at least I have the confidence to do that.

I also worked on some elements of pre-production for a short screenplay, a storyboard, shot list and floorplan. While I was disappointed that I didn’t have the opportunity to film the scene; I found the work that I had done useful, because it helped me recognise the importance of planning ahead – something I had forgotten to do when I started the studio. As well as making production easier, producing the storyboard, shot list and floorplan also make the director and cinematographer determine how they would cover a scene, one of the important elements of this studio. If you’re interested in having a look at the work I produced for that exercise, click here.

We also had a more thorough investigation of the meaning of coverage and découpage. While I learned a small amount about découpage through reading Luis Bunuel’s article, that was just the beginning. One of the things we focused on this week was the different ways that découpage and coverage could be realised during post-production, especially on how much creative input an editor has in determining the film’s coverage. I found this useful, as in previous group projects, it was often confusing to figure out how to delegate that task.