As a class, we discussed the meaning of studying filmmaking, focusing on whether it is even possible to study the more abstract elements of the craft. I understand the premise of the question, as it can be complicated to study subjective topics; but I feel like that subjectivity just means that different questions have to be asked. Rather than asking whether something is good or bad, instead it’s a matter of asking why the director used this shot rather than another one; or how to work with cinematic conventions – or how to break them in a constructive way.

When looking at how competency and expertise doesn’t necessarily pertain to a good film, it made me think of most of the films lampooned on Mystery Science Theatre 3000. While no one can defend any of those films in terms of technical brilliance, the passion and dedication that these “terrible” directors had created entertaining films that have sometimes stood the test of time better than anything good, but mediocre.

I agree with Robin, in that a combination of study and practice is required to get a grasp of the concept of decoupage.

Personally, it has been hard to practice, as I just haven’t had the equipment, crew, inspiration or motivation to “just get out and film”, which, compounded by COVID-19, has made me feel like I hadn’t quite got out as much out of the studio as if classes had not been impacted. I’m hoping that I can meet up with my classmates once we can work together and experiment with the practical lessons that we have learned throughout the semester.

With that being said, I feel like practicing decoupage is an ongoing thing that changes depending on style, genre, culture, cast and crew; with that being said, it is a fun, interesting element to experiment with.

I read an essay about Michelangelo Antonioni, especially how he directed and worked with his actors. It portrayed him as a complicated personality who became a director through unorthodox means – from critiquing films, to be precise.

He seemed to have a somewhat misanthropic view of the world, and he took this out on his cast. I feel like there could be an element of sexism in his behaviour, as he acted nastier towards women – at least according to the essay, though I assume many men of his age had similar attitudes in that era, especially coming from a culture that has hyper-masculine elements.

The main thing that actors did that he disliked was asking him to explain the motives behind the directions he gave. While there were many theories about this raised through the essay, the one that stood out to me was the assumption that he thought the actors were attempting to be “backseat directors” themselves.

If this is correct, I understand his sentiment, but having worked on sets, (I understand that community television and student productions could be different to the industry, but surely not that much) collaboration is important, and productions are markedly higher quality if everyone involved is on the same page.

On the other hand, it was interesting to see how innovative he was in regards to the way that he used actors. He made sure he was able to capture all of the subtleties in things that other directors at the time didn’t even think about, such as facial expressions and tone of voice. The fact that his films were driven not necessarily by the cast, but by everything around it, was fascinating; as it means that actors would work around the film – something that some current directors are starting to experiment with, but still don’t quite understand. I need to watch some of his works.

Faking Authenticity

Research

Week 9 Presentations

Lachlan’s Edgar Wright presentation for Assignment 3

Antonioni and Actors

Study and Practice

Presenting my research project was an interesting experience. I ended up adjusting my assignment, trying to also focus on what Robin calls “facsimile documentaries” – which, from my understanding, are a synonym for docudramas and mockumentaries. I could go for TV series like The Office or Parks and Recreation, though I might look at the “classic” mockumentary film This is Spın̈al Tap.

Robin introduced me to a filmmaker called Peter Watkins, who seems to have popularised the “facsimile documentary”. From a quick look at him, I’m looking forward to watching and analysing at least one of his films. I feel like some of his works have foretold the future, particularly Punishment Park. It would also be interesting to see his shorter films in contrast to his longer – though I think it will have to do it in my own time, as I don’t feel like it would be particularly relevant to this studio. I will take a look at one of his films for this assignment though.

We all presented our ideas for our research projects, and the others in my group all had interesting ideas looking at a variety of different topics. To be honest, all of the presentations in my group – yes, including mine – weren’t particularly polished, which meant that we all had to use our words to portray our ideas, rather than some fancy, polished presentation. The worst thing was that I panicked a bit during the session and had to finish the presentation a bit late. I probably didn’t have to worry about it in hindsight.

Looking back, I feel like my project has suffered a bit of “scope creep,” so I could probably cut it back. Perhaps just focusing on the docudrama/mockumentary side of things would make things leaner and more relevant to the unit. The fact that a large amount of the cinematography in The Blair Witch Project was improvised would mean that there wouldn’t be much to research, even if I looked at other similarly shot films.

Now that I’ve actually got time to think coherently, I feel like I can change my reflection format up a little bit.

The hardest part of starting a research project is figuring out exactly what I want to research. I assume that most of my classmates are probably in the same boat, but it’s still a massive pain in the neck. I think of ideas, and so many of them turn out to have nothing to do with the studio, I can’t find enough solid information from accurate sources, or I just panic from having to find anything useful within a massive block of text.

While I have an understanding of where the concepts of coverage and decoupage fit into the production process, I still feel like there’s a lot more for me to learn. However, looking through some of the studio prompts, it seems like analysing them is still fairly new, and it’s incredibly easy for many to confuse them with other elements of film production – be it montage, or even cinematography in general.

To make a long story short, I think I might have the start of an idea:

Faking Reality (working title)

I analyse found footage films, like The Blair Witch Project; figure out whether its use has any contribution to coverage and decoupage, or if it is only done for aesthetics; and how it is used in different genres.

Upon further research, and consulting with Robin, I feel like just questioning that one thing might be a bit shallow, and if it turns out that aesthetics were the only reason for found footage, then the assignment would be in vain.

I could look at documentaries, but I’m not exactly a fan of them, so it might come across as biased, but I could see through a lens of what Robin refers to as “facsimile documentaries” – which, to me, sound like serious mockumentaries. Perhaps examining the ways that a filmmaker is able to make a scene look “real.”

I’ll keep workshopping it, and hopefully I’ll be able to make my ideas seem coherent enough for the presentation.

The presentation that interested me the most was Lachlan’s project on Edgar Wright. Admittedly, I’m biased as I am a fan of Wright’s work, especially what is now unofficially known as the Three Flavours Cornetto Trilogy (Collis 2013) – Shaun of the Dead (2004), Hot Fuzz (2007) and The World’s End (2013). Lachlan was very engaging and seemed very confident and excited in his topic of choice,  I am looking forward to reading his project.

In my opinion, Edgar Wright is a great director to research for this unit, because, when looking through his filmography, he is always thinking of coverage when working on all stages of production. For example, in Shaun of the Dead (2004), using two almost identical scenes to compare Shaun’s (Simon Pegg) life before and after the beginning of the zombie apocalypse, was used for humour, and to show how Shaun lived life in a zombie-like state, not noticing the literal zombies walking up his street.

I believe that focusing on the coverage and decoupage in Wright’s work will be interesting, depending on how Lachlan approaches the assignment. I am curious to see whether he focuses only on the trilogy, or looks at other works that Wright has directed. It would be interesting to see if Wright still uses those techniques to the same effect in his newer films. Unfortunately, Last Night in SoHo won’t be released until later this year (or most likely next year, due to COVID-19), as it would’ve been fascinating to see his techniques and style translated to a straight horror film.

On a side note, as the conversation of car headrests has come up in classes before, I am curious to see how the grips were able to set up the car cameras in Baby Driver (2017), because they were able to keep the headrests on the seats.

References:

Collis, C 2013, ‘3 Blokes. 3 Films. Many, Many Laughs’, Entertainment Weekly, 23/08/2013, viewed 21/05/2020, <https://ew.com/article/2013/08/23/3-blokes-3-films-many-many-laughs/>

Introduction

As the practice of filmmaking has progressed, common elements have become characteristic of different genres. While many moviegoers often believe that only dramatic works can have specific conventions, documentaries and other factual productions also have these.

While different styles have been used in different eras, the most notable style for documentaries is known as Cinéma vérité. Created in the early 1960s, being influenced by the development of smaller cameras and field audio recorders; filmmakers such as Jean Rouch from France and Robert Drew from the USA, set out to produce films that felt realistic and intimate.

While audiences usually believe that documentaries portray reality; over time, filmmakers have created new genres that use elements synonymous with documentaries, but to depict fictional events. While most of the time, these filmmakers are not trying to deceive their audience, many viewers believe that what they watched were true events. In this project, I will examine the use of coverage and decoupage in facsimile documentaries, how documentary techniques are used in scripted work, and whether they influence the viewer’s sense of reality.

I am looking at this phenomenon from two different perspectives: Drama, through The War Game (1965); and comedy, through This is Spın̈al Tap (1984).

The War Game

The War Game was Peter Watkins’ follow-up to his successful BBC telemovie, Culloden (1964), where he produced a re-enactment of the 1746 Battle of Culloden, following a similar format to television coverage of the Vietnam War. The War Game, however, was based on a hypothetical situation where Great Britain was attacked by the Soviet Union during a nuclear war. While the film was well received and even won an Academy Award (Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences 1967), the BBC refused to air it, believing that the public would see it as a real occurrence.

This is Spın̈al Tap

This is Spın̈al Tap followed a fictional rock band, Spın̈al Tap, on their American tour, both on and off stage, showing a satirical view of the music industry of that era. The director, Rob Reiner, was influenced by the proliferation of documentaries by other bands, such as Gimme Shelter (1970) – showing the Rolling Stones in a similar way. Using the documentary format meant that audiences started believing that Spın̈al Tap were real, with Reiner saying, “When ‘Spinal Tap’ initially came out, everybody thought it was a real band. Everyone said, ‘Why would you make a movie about a band that no one has heard of?’”(Reiner, cited in Yabroff 2009).

Fly on the wall perspective

In documentaries, the camera crew often take the position of an observer, so they remain as unobtrusive as possible, allowing the subjects to go about their business. This is Spın̈al Tap uses this often, most notably while the road crew loaded their truck.

This makes the viewer feel like they’re observing a real-life event.

Long takes

Documentary filmmakers are, more often than not, unable to use multiple shots to construct a scene because most real-life events cannot be repeated. This means that the average shot runs longer than one in a narrative film. In The War Game, this was used at the beginning of the film, where an unnamed person is shot riding his motorcycle and entering a building.

This also has the effect of immersing the viewer in the scene.

Camera movements and adjustments during shot

Due to the use of long takes, filmmakers often need to cover multiple events or subjects in a single scene. This means that they will need to pan, tilt, track, zoom and focus the camera quickly so the entire scene is captured. In This is Spın̈al Tap, they used this while the band argued with their manager.

This provides the effect of actuality that could also be found in home movies.

Interviews on location

Filmmakers typically set their interviews up on location to maintain authenticity by having the subject in their natural environment. In This is Spın̈al Tap, this is shown when the band is interviewed while eating at a diner.

In The War Game, interviews of medical staff are done inside hospital wards.

Vox populi/Talking heads

Vox populi are commonly used in documentaries as a way to show the opinions of people who are involved in the film’s subject. It appears to provide authenticity, as it shows real people in the street, in a similar way to a testimonial. In The War Game, a few people are interviewed outside their houses about the nuclear attack.

In This is Spın̈al Tap, fanatical fans talk about the importance of Spın̈al Tap to them.

Studies have shown that testimonials for products and services – similar to vox populi – affect consumer behaviour, because they believe that another ordinary person believes in the product (Spillinger & Parush 2012). In my opinion, people trust vox populi for the same reason.

Conclusion

Faked reality, as my research has shown, rightly shows that the viewer can easily be duped into believing that footage can be of actuality. As film has evolved as an artform, conventions usually associated with documentaries are now also being utilised in fiction, blurring the line between real and fake. This makes me wonder if the production of these facsimile documentaries could also make the audience question whether documentaries based on “actuality” may not be what they seem.

Bibliography

Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences 1967, The 39th Academy Awards | 1967, viewed <https://www.oscars.org/oscars/ceremonies/1967>.

Axmaker, S 2015, ‘Cinema Verite: The Movement of Truth’, Independent Lens, 14/12/2015, viewed 26/05/2020, <https://www.pbs.org/independentlens/blog/cinema-verite-the-movement-of-truth/>.

Hall, J 1991, ‘Realism as a Style in Cinema Verite: A Critical Analysis of “Primary”‘, Cinema Journal, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 24-50.

Hassard, J & Holliday, R 1998, Organization-representation work and organization in popular culture, SAGE, London.

This is Spın̈al Tap 1984, Embassy Pictures, Los Angeles.

Spillinger, A & Parush, A 2012, ‘The Impact of Testimonials on Purchase Intentions in a Mock E-commerce Web Site’, Journal of theoretical and applied electronic commerce research, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 51-63.

The War Game 1965, British Broadcasting Corporation, London.

Webb, A 2019, The War Game, British Broadcasting Corporation, viewed 28/5,<https://www.bbc.com/historyofthebbc/100-voices/coldwar/war-game>.

Yabroff, J 2009, ”The Real Spinal Tap’.(Entertainment CULTURE)’, Newsweek, vol. 153, no. 16, p. 55.

Week 4

Week 5

Week 6

Scene Analysis

For this Assignment, I have decided to analyse a scene from Mad Max: Fury Road (George Miller, 2015), specifically the scene where Max Rockatansky (Tom Hardy) first meets Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron).

At the beginning, while I had decided on the film, I had so much trouble picking a scene to study, as there are so many great scenes. Director George Miller, and cinematographer John Seale did a brilliant job capturing the sheer enormity of the film. Hence I’m running a bit (more like very) late.

In its entirety, Fury Road is an interesting modern film to explore in regards to coverage, as co-writer Brendan McCarthy – an illustrator of graphic novels and comic books, drew elaborate storyboards before writing the screenplay with Miller and Nico Lathouris.

It starts with what, at first, appears to be a wide shot of a sand dune, though the dune slowly begins to move, revealing that it was a medium shot of Max, half buried in the sand, waking up. This was a nice, playful touch to the scene, subtly subverting the convention of starting scenes with an establishing shot.

Keeping the same shot and angle, Max jumps up quickly, creating a massive cloud of sand, which then cuts to a split second shot of an explosion. This flashback acts as a transition, as the shot now shows Max almost upright, sand still flying in the air. There are a number of similar short flashbacks in this part of the scene, as Max gradually gains composure. The camera zooms into Max as he removes the IV drip from his neck, with Max then stumbling backwards and wearily climbing the chain to get to Nux (Nicholas Hoult).

The camera is quickly walked in towards the car where Nux – presumably dead – is lying in. The camera also pans a small amount, emulating the camera operator’s eyesight, as if they’re trying to get to Nux before Max does. It quickly cuts to a point of view from the car window, with Max slowly making his way towards the car. The cutting during action is used throughout the scene, and it adds a layer of suspense, and makes the viewer think that the camera operator and actors are chasing each other on set.

When Max gets to the car, it cuts to a wide shot of Max pulling the door off the car, with the camera operator slowly walking closer to the action. The camera then captures Max pulling Nux from the car and attempting to remove the IV from his neck. A combination of a low camera position, and a high angle are used to show Max struggling to free himself from Nux. Max is then distracted by loud noises and the sight of something on the horizon. The scene cuts quickly from Max to an unseen person working on the truck – later revealed to be Furiosa.

From a distance, Max is shown walking towards the truck with Nux on his shoulders. It then cuts back and forth between different parts of his body as he arrives at the truck, and pulls out his gun. The movement of the camera, along with the cutting, making this shot work as an establishing shot for both the new background and characters.

As Max reaches the truck, the camera zooms into his face, and cuts to a wide, point of view shot of Furiosa and the five wives washing up and Furiosa working on the truck, with a rack focus at the beginning of the shot – adding to the effect that the point of view shot had created. It then cuts between medium shots between the different wives while they wash, though I’m not sure if it’s an act of fanservice, showing that Max is just another human like the rest of us, or something completely innocent.

He drops Nux and the car door, startling everyone. Furiosa getting ready to defend the group. One of the wives then cuts off her chastity belt, which could answer the question I had before, but I assume it’s probably more to signify that they’re free from their former captor, Immortan Joe, and that they believe that Max is there to help them flee.

Max holds the gun at Furiosa, who fears his presence, and point of view shots go between the two of them. It then cuts to the ground, which is flooding from the use used by the group. The wife who cut off the belt moves forward, using a mid shot as she walks towards Max, while some of the group remains within the periphery. The shot widens out when he snatches the hose from her, and shakes the gun around. This constant use of point of view is successful in making the viewer feel immersed in the scene.

Max stumbles around, keeping that layer of realistic delirium in his actions. A short shot of Nux on the ground is used while Max struggles with drinking from the hose with that muzzle on his face. This makes the viewer realise that he’s still alive, which is confirmed when he moves his head as a response to being splashed.

While Max has his gun pointed, the shots avoid showing him, instead showing the other wives fearful facial expressions and Furiosa getting her gun. As another wife walks towards him, a point of view from her perspective is used, though she seems more focused on objects in the distance. Max attempts to get her, and the viewer’s attention, by moving his chain into the centre of the shot, creating possibly one of the most natural and powerful attention grabs I’ve seen.

The camera remains on the wife struggling with the chain, while Furiosa enters from beyond the field of view and tackles him. The shot switches between angles, before focusing on the now awake Nux, who is probably in a lot of pain from his arm being tugged by Max via the chain. When Furiosa takes Max’s gun, it uses both a closeup of the barrel digging into his chin, as well as one of her attempting to pull the trigger. The shot stays the same as she sits up straight to beat him with the empty gun; cutting to a wider shot when she’s about to make the blow. The shots then show closeups of the fighting, cutting to show the wives pulling the chain back, like a game of tug-of-war, changing the dynamics of the fight. The scene keeps cutting between all of the characters during the fight, using low angles when looking at Max. A few short two-shots are also used to break up the constant point of views.

As Max finds a pistol on the side of the truck, he has another brief flashback, with Furiosa replaced with an unknown woman surrounded by a convoy of other trucks – as if he was about to get hit. More close up combat is shown, and as he is about to shoot Furiosa in the head, Nux distracts him and the off-centre two-shot is used to show Max removing Nux’s jacket.

This scene, with all the action, and the number of somewhat major characters looks complicated on paper; but, at least to me, is fairly easy to follow, and most of all, is engaging.

Download scene from here

Mad Max: Fury Road 2015, DVD, Roadshow Films, Sydney NSW Australia, Directed by George Miller.

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.