How it all worked out.

Ah fuck. Well those first and last paragraphs are depressing. Here’s what I wanted out of this semester:

I’d like to come out of the course with a polished, semi-professional looking creative film piece that would improve my portfolio. I’d like to learn how to collaborate with other people well, I think this definitely could have been improved last semester in Broadcast.

I want to be able to talk about film, and understand what makes films good or bad, critically. I want to better understand my taste in other people’s work and to better understand my own style in my own work. I’d also like to improve my technical skills with Premiere and camera handling.

More than anything I’d like to do my best work. As in, to the best of my potential. I let lots of little things slide all the time, things that I know could be improved, out of laziness, or not wanting to say anything, and I want to stop doing it and start producing my best work.

So, didn’t come out of the course with a polished creative film piece. Didn’t collaborate well and if anything my enthusiasm for working in a team sunk even further. I did learn a lot from the experience though. I learned that I need to voice my opinions early on, before it’s too late.

I also learned that even morons (not saying any people that I worked with were morons) have something to offer to a creative project. I can definitely see that working in a team is a much better way to do things, not only because there are more hands on deck but because there are multiple minds working on one project and different people create in different ways. You can take the best of everyone’s ideas and collaborate to make something better than any thing that one person might have thought up on their own, even if that person was a genius. Our group didn’t manage that unfortunately, but I can see how important it is to seek out and be open to different ideas and perspectives. Even just talking to other people about an idea is really beneficial. Other people can see what you can’t, and have ideas that you won’t have that might work better than your own.

I do think that I’m better at talking about film, and I notice cuts and choreography and lighting etc much more than I used to now that I know how  they are created. I now find films more inspiring, because I notice different elements and how those pieces contribute to the whole thing. It’s awesome to know how much effort goes into producing a piece of film, but also how achievable it all is.

Another important lesson was the importance of the story. As film makers learning to use equipment I guess a lot of our focus went into being technically good. Mostly, getting great shots. But when it came to post production and the first screening in class, it was easy to see that the story is the most important. If the story is great, and the footage tells the story well, it’s a great film. A well shot film with no story, or a story that you can’t follow, is a good-looking, shit film. Kind of like an attractive guy with a shit personality, who is terrible in bed. Someone is going to like him, but that person is going to be incredibly boring and probably not very smart.

My skills with the camera and with Premiere were definitely improved, a lot. Ta.

With that last paragraph I really failed myself though. I feel like I really should have just said, ‘nah, let’s not go with that script’, or, ‘I know it’s a pain in the ass to have to do auditions but let’s just do it anyway’, or, ‘for fuck’s sakes it’s only one fucking night let’s just do the movie night thing,’ or, ‘please don’t bring your shitty DSLR’.  If I had have I think things would have gone a lot better. It was laziness and it was being too nervous to speak up, just as I predicted at the start of the semester. And because of it I didn’t do my best work, just like I predicted at the start of the semester.

But all in all, it was worth it and an absolute pleasure, most of the time.

Film and TV 1 Reviews

The Chase

Extremely well shot, loved the colour grading, sound, actors and range of shots and choreography of actors was all really well done. The tension was built really well but the story lacked. It ended before anything had happened. Also I feel like the decisions that the girl made in that situation were unrealistic. I highly doubt many young women would run into a secluded alley if they felt they were being followed. It would have been more powerful if it was shot at night, and then that might have made more sense. I liked the suspense, but I think the ending would have been better with closure. It felt like the entire thing was leading up to something big, and then it just ended. Really well shot and cut together though. This team worked really well with moving shots, angles and perspective.

 

Budgerigar

Budgerigar was really funny. I liked it. The colours were fantastic and the way that tension was built and the fast cuts were used was fantastic. I particularly loved the brave use of dramatic lighting, it came out really well and wasn’t unnecessary or showy, it just fit the scene. Didn’t like the twist of him being in love with the brother that was like himself.

 

Sliced

Cutting the scene with the girlfriend was a really good decision. I loved the symmetry of your shots. It was really well shot. The script could have used some tightening on the details, and some tiny improvements, but so could most films. It was really good, it was genuinely funny, the story was clear and well told, the shots in the supermarket (despite the unfortunate placement of the bread haha) and the dramatic outdoor shot of him taking the bread out of a baggie were superb. I do think ‘White Bread’ was a better title though, kinda emulates ‘White Powder’.

 

Shelter

I liked it, but the story was a little cliché, and seemed more like a small scene from a feature film rather than a short film, that wasn’t really an issue I’m just not sure if that was the intent.  I thought it was well shot and the space was used really well. The sliding door thing was really cool, and the use of light was great, whether done in post or during the shoot. I didn’t get the vacuum nozzle gun and the calculator wall thing though. The film didn’t seem like a comedy so to have those rather novel props in there was just confusing rather than humorous. It detracted from the storyline, distracted the viewers and killed the tone of the piece a little.

 

Milk

I really loved Milk. It was relatable and funny. It had a shaky start though, that first scene didn’t really flow well. The cuts of the second housemate were a little confusing; something didn’t fit together well there. However, from the moment that the non-empathetic-pickle-eating-housemate says there is no milk, the piece flows. Some of those moving shots are insanely good, but one was a little too shaky. That one shot might have been better with a stationary camera. The ending was great though and loved the “ethnic kid stole my scooter” thing. I love comedy that picks on racism itself and how stupid it sounds rather than any particular race or person. The story was perfect for a five minute short. The film was built up really well and there’s nothing like an ironic ending. I can’t really remember that well but I think the audio could have used a little fine tuning.

 

On directing

I couldn’t make it to the lecture on directing so I discussed it with Arthur outside of class.

He explained that the directors’ specific role on the day of the shoot is to get the actors in the right frame of mind. I thought this was interesting because honestly in the past I had assumed it was solely the actors’ responsibility to be in the right frame of mind and create a convincing performance. The fact that the director is more responsible for this is surprising but makes sense. I’m not sure if that’s the right role for me but some ideas I had for getting people in character would be to create inspiration or mood boards, with media and pictures and words that suited the character that the actor is trying to portray.

Arthur also said the director was responsible for making sure the scenes were done in order of priority so that the most important scenes were completed first. This was something I tried to put into practice when we were filming our project and it is harder than it sounds with practicality of locations and the logic of the orders getting in the way as well.

Blood Simple, by the bloody Coens.

There are cuts between extreme close ups of props and details (the envelope, the photograph, the lighter etc), shots of actors, mostly mid shots and close-ups, and wide shots of the entire scene, as well as birds-eye-view shots. Obviously the scene was filmed multiple times from different angles, including a wide shot from far away, over the shoulder shots, and clean front on shots of the actors. The editing cuts elegantly between them to tellthe story, for example, when the actor goes to put his cigarette out on the bull’s head, we see his body move forward in a mid shot and notice a slight extension of the arm and then we see a close up shot of his hand putting out the cigarette on the book stop. This is clean editing with close attention to continuity, so that the story moves smoothly and aids in the experience of the story as any discontinuity problems make it obvious to the viewer that the story is not real.  There are several shots in which the camera moves, pans or tilts, this as been done with the camera when filming, not during editing.

As for audio, several sounds have been recorded outside of the filming of the scene and added in during editing, such as the sound of vomiting, some dialogue (or possibly even all of it) hand washing and the fly buzzing. There are also foley sounds that were probably recorded off screen and added in afterwards, such as the creaking floorboards and footsteps, the squeaky chair, the click of the gun and the bullet, the swing of the fan blades, the sliding of the gun across the floor, even the sliding of the paper across the desk, all of which have been added in to increase the tension of the scene.

When people are nervous they become acutely aware of the sounds and movements around them. This has been recreated in the scene through sounds and also the video cuts which zoom in on details that are not necessary for the plot but develop the tension; such as, the lighter on the desk where the quick cut is aided by the loud noise of the lighter hitting the desk. There are also atmosphere sounds, such as the cricket chirping which gives a sense of the heat and the time of day, in this instance, night.

Martin Scorsese on Cinematography

I love what he said about deciding what goes into the frame. It’s like he’s treating film as an animation, whereby everything that exists within the frame is created and intentional, it doesn’t just happen to be there.

I also love the point that he said about the limitations of the frame. There’s a lot that you can do with film and a lot that you can’t, and I think limitations aid creativity rather than extinguish it. By understanding your limitations you can try to push the boundaries on what can and can’t be done. For example, you can’t physically touch someone through film, but by putting the right thing in the frame you can elicit the feeling of intimacy and being touched.

I was also excited to read that Scorsese and who he calls the greats all prefer long takes. This is because I do too, and I thought that perhaps it was a naive thing because in film and in particular in TV, directors seem to prefer quick, fancy cuts. This is more technically difficult but easier to cut together, whereas in one take it is easier to set up but harder to execute well. I prefer the latter. As he said “it seems like an older style of filmmaking” which makes me feel that it is old fashioned and unstylish, but it may be classic according to Scorsese. However he is right when it comes to editing in the best shot.

I love his style so it was awesome to read how he goes about constructing a frame, using a normal lens and avoiding zooms and long lens shots. Then he uses an effect, something fancy, something noticeable, whether it be lighting or the aesthetic or a prop etc. It has to be interesting for him and I think that’s a rule I’d like to apply to my own filmmaking, where if the shot doesn’t interest me it isn’t right.

Lighting Class

We noted key light and off key lighting, soft light, diffusion, reflection and hard lighting. We learned to set up lights and dismantle them. How to adjust them and which colour temperatures would work in which scenarios and how to adjust for this, eg blue tones lights or blue gels when working outside in the daylight.

Our project will be difficult to light as we are shooting outside, however half our shoot will be at night so we will definitely need lighting. We’ll be using the handheld LED lights, that have no wires, for safety reasons and convenience.

We will have to use a yellow gel to make the lighting look like artificial street lighting and add warmth. We will also use a C-stand and reflectors, so it is fantastic that through the lectures we learned how to use and dismantle these. As many of our shots will be wide shots the lighting will be diffused as we don’t want it to appear like a spotlight, it must be soft and dreamy.

 

Lighting Class, Film 1

I am really excited by the fact that the lights are easier than expected to set up and operate. As a videographer who uses natural lighting for all of my work (as a low budget events videographer must) I was used to making do and working with what was there. The idea that I can manipulate lighting, and quite easily, is really exciting and opens up so many possibilities. I know that soft lighting is really dreamy and easier to work with, but I really like the theatrical possibilities of using direct, hard lighting. Films such as Sin City and The Graduate did it so well!

The aesthetics of sound

The FilmTV 1 reading was about Sound Design and as I have begun to understand and be fascinated by the significance of sound in media, I really enjoyed it.

Two major points that excite and inspire me are:

Narrative sound: the ways that sound can aid the plot and particularly the way that commentative sound uses sound to tell the viewer something about the plot that they can’t see.

Sound design itself: This idea that sound is constructed the same way that the visual scenes are constructed. That we can manipulate everything about it and use it to our advantage and to progress the plot.

Clown Train and Her

Clown Train utilizes sounds extremely well. In the beginning it sets the tone, as it overlays a blank, black screen and we hear the creaking and squealing of trains and engines running. It is extremely unsettling. There are also SFX that emphasize important or emotive moments, such as the quiet booms that happen when we first see the creepy clown. There is tentative silence beneath the dialogue at first, which really makes the tension between the clown and the boy, and also the film and the audience, palpable. The buzzing when the lights go out is creepy and gets on the viewers nerves, as it accompanies the frightening darkness. There is also creepy ‘music’ that plays in a crescendo in moments of building drama.

In, Her, the film creators use music, dialogue and silence incredibly well. In particular silence is used to create a feeling of loneliness. In both the beginning and toward the end of the film, there are a lot of shots of the subject alone, and these shots are silent. Sometimes these shots are accompanied by sad instrumental music in the minor key. During the middle of the film when Theodore is dating his OS, Samantha, there is laughter and dialogue and warm music. The film also really utilizes Scarlet Johansson’s voice incredibly well as it is warm, playful and immediately loveable. The movie really captures the way that solitude life is full of silence, therefore emulating the emptiness of a lonely life, whereas a loving relationship is full of joy, conversation, laughter and warmth.