Tag Archives: film

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.

 

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.

My thoughts on the Bordwell reading

Thoughts on the Bordwell reading, I was Well Bored. Ha ha, ha ha, ha ha. But no it was actually quite interesting and got me thinking about my own creative practises.

Of the different forms of film covered in the reading, experimental, abstract, associative, categorical documentary and rhetorical documentary, which will I concentrate on in my documentary? Abstract aesthetics, conceptual or visual connections, will I make an argument or will I simply categorize my film? And how do abstract film and associational film fit into the sphere of documentaries?

The Korsakow films I looked at were categorical and associational. The associations had to be made by the viewer, this was the interactive element of the documentary, but the selection of clips that each main clip lead to was carefully selected by the maker, so that the viewer would draw connections, and thus it is a categorical and associational documentary.

So documentary can involve more than one element. I really like the idea of making aesthetic and conceptual associations using a categorical documentary form. I think I would prefer to leave it up to the viewer to interpret meaning rather than make an explicit argument.

Week 3 Class Notes

Reality:

Must have verisimilitude- it can be verified. It is of this world, and not a world (eg. fiction). In interactive documentary we make claims about reality. Between the user and the artefact, claims are made about reality.

The tools that we use have limitations. Take these limitations and ask ‘what can it do?’ The limitations set the groundwork for what cannot be done, and also help you to understand what it can do. Therefore we enhance our creativity.

Simplicity is best.

It is difficult to negate in film. In some media forms, like film and picture, it is easy to show what something is but not what it is not. In something like a documentary it is possible to negate what something is, thus creating a multi-dimensional point or points of view.