The framing of the Giselle and Tony is almost there but didn’t quite work. I think that our intentions were good and that we set out to frame something that would have been aesthetically pleasing but what we have finished with isn’t all that polished. We wanted to have the camera position behind Tony so that Giselle would be framed from his perspective. The result though was too low and Tony’s head took up too much of the frame, Giselle being too far away to see her expressions clearly. This I believe was partly to blame on the room and its fixed furniture. The tables were too far away from door and this part of the reason we went with a wider framing. For further exercises and the final project it will serve us well to stay aware from these classrooms and explore a new space (with moveable furniture). I think that a similar framing would have been more successful if we had the camera higher and the framing tighter on the Giselle so we could see her facial expressions.

When watching the original, it was interesting to see that the boss was moving around which provided the scene with some movement. In our own sequence our framing of Tony’s head blocked the movement. When Giselle does move and create some interest she moves behind Tony’s head. When we started shooting we wanted the scene to feel somewhat awkward. We achieved the awkward feel we were attempting but I think we ended up over doing it somewhat with our unconventional framing.

From this scene it also appears that I haven’t learnt my lesson with mic placement. I placed the mic above Tony for the shoot but realistically I should have explored placing the mic far closer to the character of Giselle. I think my decision was dictated by the fact that I though she would be closer to Tony and that the dialogue would be more evenly spread between the two. If our initial choice of framing and setting had been different so would have my choice of mic placement, potentially providing a better audio track. The positive to be taken from this was that the mic placement was perfect for Tony’s dialogue. In future I’ll need to think more carefully about a scene and pay more attention to the blocking of actors, their movements and how they are going to be treating the script.

 I don’t know where to begin with the second scene. I think from the outset our approach was probably wrong and we fell into the trap of having very rigid camera movements. In our haste we didn’t block out the script and find a way for the actors to move in the space. Watching the original I was impressed by the ingenuity of the framing and once again it highlighted the fact that often film’s most powerful aspects are nowhere to be found on the script. Maybe this might be something worthwhile to reshoot again and see how influence the original will have on my own choices.

Initial Plan
For this exercise I intended to use an interview (initially just an improvised dialogue) as a way to facilitate practise with audio mixer and camera. I decided to follow this course of exploration because I feel that it would be beneficial to get more experience in recording and editing audio. Conversely, the skills I wanted to explore will hopefully be pertinent in terms of either drama or documentary production. Obviously in this plan there wasn’t to be all that much camera movement but I did attempt some over the shoulder shots and close ups. In terms of coverage I knew that I was only going to have one camera for the shoot so in editing I’m not able to cut between different shots. I planned to shoot some B-roll such as close up of hands and other things to hide any jump cuts I would have to make in editing.

Production
During the shoot a number of things became apparent that I hadn’t initially anticipated. One that I should have been more wary of was time constraints and not rushing when shooting. It was difficult to direct people, ensuring they were comfortable on screen whilst also focusing a shot and exposing it correctly. Beginning this semester I had this same trouble with shooting quite hastily. In recent weeks I had started to curb this and take more time to frame and ensure the shot was composed properly. With the introduction of sound recording, a larger crew and actors I regressed to my slapdash behaviour. I haven’t yet seen the footage I shot yesterday but I do feel that there will be some underwhelming shots.
Due to my inexperience at directing actors and lack of script, dialogue often descending into obscure tangents. Unfortunately, a lot of the interview descended into black humour and although in other scenarios I would have loved the direction it took but in this instance I feel it is somewhat inappropriate. This has taught me to ensure that I choose my talent wisely and to be present as a director. In this instance I left too much creative control to the actors and the direction that they took wasn’t exactly what I hoped for. This is a not a fault of the actors but more a reflection on my inability to articulate was required from the exercise and their role within it.

Post Production
As I have mentioned already I haven’t watched any of the footage yet I have a feeling that there is only a small slice of what was shot that I can use. At this stage I’m not sure how I intend to edit the footage, and I believe this stems from my somewhat vague plan for this exercise. I hope that the audio recorded yesterday is of a high standard however we did experience some difficulties with the mixer. If the audio of his a reasonable quality I will have at least fulfilled an aspect of my plan for this particular exercise.

I had wanted to write small reviews for each film that I saw at the festival but struggled to find the time to sit down and explore my thoughts on each. Maybe in the mid-semester break I’ll revisit my experience at the festival and attempt to reconcile my memories from a very busy two and a bit weeks.

One film I did really want to write about was Josh and Benny Safdie’s Heaven Knows What (2015). Visually  it was an incredibly powerful and visceral film. For the most part the film was shot using immediate close ups and as an audience member I felt confined in its chaos. The film contained little if no spots for calm reflection and afterwards I felt disoriented and a little exhausted.

Is this the sign of a good film?

I’m not sure if I would say it was a magnificent film on all fronts. However, it was a film that was completely gripping, removing the audience from their own universe and hurtling them into the gritty and frightening world of New York drug addicts. In saying that personally I found it hard to relate to any character onscreen and found myself disgusted at their behaviour. Many people would have dismissed this film based purely on their disgust at the onscreen action. Surely though a film evoking such a raw emotion is doing something right? Although this film evoked alienation and horror it did so to honestly represent its subject matter and to banish any form of romanticism.

In relation to Film III I think it’s an interesting exploring in its treatment of reality. The film is based on the memoir of its leading actress Arielle Holmes who plays a fictionalised version of herself. Many of the extras are people from her life and a lot of the dialogue appears to be improvisational. As Holmes’ relives the darkest moments of her life in character, we struggle to see where the character ends and Holmes starts.

The video above is edited from the content that Luke and I captured for exercise 3A. At the time we weren’t too sure on our theme and struggled to find something to focus on. It wasn’t until after we exhausted handheld filming various birds that we settled on the theme of rubbish. The composition of each shot we got of rubbish was always a little off. Certain shots needed to be tighter and others weren’t thought out and composed poorly. I think if we had had employed greater care when looking at this theme something of some form of decency may have eventuated. I also think that if we had explored the theme ‘rubbish’ a little bit more metaphorically, instead of chasing literal rubbish we might have come up with something with even the slightest amount of merit. This isn’t my initial edit of these clips and was only thrown together as a reference point when looking at the next couple of attempts at Ex. 3A. This edit which I spent some time on is fairly indicative of the one that I threw together in five minutes in class.

When first reviewing the footage of rubbish we realised instantly that it would be nearly impossible to fashion anything from the clips. So with some encouragement from Robin, Luke and I decided to go out and shoot something else. We decide to focus upon a single subject so that our attention would be drawn to composition and how we could frame a number of different shots. We decided upon the fountain for a number of reasons including the geometry of its design, the juxtaposition of nature and fabrication, and of course because the kinetic aspect of the water. Our approach in this instance was far more methodical and concentrated than in our other exercises. By picking the one location we were able to spend greater time ensuring the focus was right and the composition of each shot was pleasing. That isn’t to say that there weren’t flaws in what we captured but compared to our other work there is an improvement. We were also focused on capturing an everyday object/artefact in a different or new way. Instead of setting just setting a tripod at a right angle to the fountain and shooting a slow zoom; we explored a number of camera placements. In doing some we changed the height of the tripod, the width of its legs, the positioning of the camera on the tripod and at one point we attempted handheld once again.
This first edit of Ex. 3A was intended to be a chronological journey of the water as it makes its way through the fountain. The exercise finishes on a wide shot revealing the location of the fountain whilst also revealing that the water is confided to continue this cycle perpetually.

I completed this second edit as means to hone my Premiere skills and to play around with editing. Instead of using chronology to direct my choices, I looked at the aesthetics of the various shots we had captured. I then grouped the clips we had captured into themes such as geometry, water movement and leaves. In hindsight this thematic split seems quite simplistic and purely based on the aesthetics of each shot. Once I had assemble each clip in the sequence I then looked at finding movement or aspects of each shot that would tie it to the one that preceded it.

I’m not certain which edit I prefer and it both I find things that are frustrating. In the second edit the cut from a tight shot of the fountain to a wider shot of the same thing is arbitrary. I don’t think it is really necessary and my decision to keep it was mainly because I used the same clips for both edits. I definitely realise that in terms of grouping shots thematically I could have explored more abstract themes or tangents.

Due to the terrible combination of my own disorganisation thus far in semester and being slightly time poor I haven’t really scouted a proper location. After I had initially written the idea concentrating on mood, I started to think of locations to shoot. In terms of convenience and the ability to set up shoot for an extended amount of time, I could only think of friend’s family homes. As I’m writing this I’m sitting in my own bedroom, a location I thought about for the first shot, and I realise there is very distinct difference between the aesthetics of a share house and a family home.

When writing initially I had this idealistic notion of a share house in mind. A place where the party never stops, discussion never falters and something is always happening. Obviously, I’ve never lived in a share house but that’s what I have imagined it to be like and that’s what I though about when exploring this idea. Family homes have a very different mood; they bear artefacts of childhood and are usually very idiosyncratic. In terms of a location I wanted something bare, utilitarian and uncluttered by history.

In terms of the first shot that came to mind, translating this to my own room works to an extent. However, the floor to ceiling window beside my bed makes my devised shot somewhat awkward. I’d be concerned I wouldn’t be able to get the smoke to blow out the window. In terms of composition I think having a smaller widow would allow for  more interesting lighting within the shot. Conversely having a frame within a frame could prove to be visually interesting and highlight the smoke as it drifts out of the window.

I believe that the location will have a fairly drastic impact on the creative process for one main reason. I feel that by shooting in my own home a story intended to raw and gritty would become bland and a little too warm (If that makes sense). I just know that as a director I would not believe this story could take place in a house like mine. This doubt would then become evident in my direction of actors in the space and also just how I shot the space. In opposition to his though, shooting in my own home would provide me with unlimited access to the location. I would be able to rehearse every scene meticulously and I would also have a greater knowledge of lighting conditions and spatial issues. However, these benefits do not sway my belief that I wouldn’t be able to shoot a share house drama in a family home. I guess I better start scoping friend’s houses for potential locations that I could take over for a weekend or so….

My relationship with Premiere is precarious and quite on and off. Throughout the last couple of years I have used it for projects but have never been all that confident in my ability to navigate its many features. I can sit in front of the program and roughly edit a sequence together, add titles and do some basic colour correction. However, I felt that my knowledge of how mouse clicks related to physical film processes was absent. After Paul’s introduction class I began to finally realise the scope of the program’s capabilities whilst simultaneously realising I had been missing so much. Even a concept as simple as Bins was something alien to me In previous days I would have dumped all of my footage into Prelude, maybe changed the names of some films and then finally attempted to edit everything in one sequence. This made organising a nightmare, often wasting time attempting to retrieve particular clips lost in cyberspace.

Whenever I was uncertain of a how to achieve a technique I would often YouTube it or try to find a tutorial on any number of blogs. It never occurred to me that I could look up a tutorial on how to actually set up and organise my editing. In terms of Paul’s suggested way of organising like the idea of separate bins and sequences, however, I feel that I working in a single project file is daunting. I would be constantly scared I would delete my entire semesters work or lose it somehow. On the other hand I feel that it may be a hindrance on my creative approach to certain tasks. New work will perpetually sit beside the rudimentary work I’ve created thus far.

As Paul explained in relation to new sequences, having a clean slate allows bold decisions to be made and I feel that I will work best with individual projects. Within each project I feel that I will follow Paul’s system that has finally cleared up a lot of my confusion and apprehension towards Premiere. I’m eager to continue to expand my knowledge of the program and hopefully explore to a greater extent how the program is intrinsically linked to editing physical film. This in turn will hopefully provide me with a greater scope of understanding when using the program to make creative choices.

I’m not really sure what this idea was really about. I guess I just went on the idea of capturing a particular mood. In this instance I wanted to capture the depressing  mood of the morning after a party. What better why to heightened that mood by having one of the party goers die?   

A Cold Sunday morning. Bottles a strewn across wet grass. Cigarettes ash covered decking.
Each room is curtain less; bodies lie in various states of undress on beds, couches and mattress thrown on the floor. One figure sits upright in bed, fully clothed smoking a cigarette. The smoke exits through the open window above his shoulder. The figure’s face is grim, stoic. His eyes are red raw from lack of sleep and the inability to continue crying.  In another room two girls are asleep gripping one another tightly, their faces contorted by nightmares. In yet another room a young man sit’s on the toilet, his head in hands whilst his shoulders shudder as he sobs uncontrollably.

The aftermath of a party. An event more sombre than a funeral, as people clear away what mere hours ago brought them joy. In this instance these housemates not only clear away what it is left over from a joyous event they also clear away the memories of their fifth housemate who now resides in the mortuary.
Throughout the day these four housemates grapple with the events of the preceding night. Cleaning the house they share and sharing the secrets they hid from one another.

For this post I looked at the chapter: Life does not tell stories: structuring devices in documentary filmmaking  from Creative Documentary: Theory and Practice by Wilma de Jong,  Erik Knudsen & Jerry Rothwell. I decided upon this chapter because it seemed to begin looking at the production side of documentary and though that it would raise some questions and ideas I could continue to explore throughout semester.

When discussing the structure of documentary it is so often explained with links to fiction. Surely the separation between the two is minimal yet why do we segregate them so as a viewing audience and as producers? Throughout this particular chapter the de Jong constantly refers to fiction films as examples for both the structuring of documentaries themselves and also how they segregated into sub-genres. However, the notion that they are separate identities is constantly reinforced as if they are mutually exclusive. When examples of documentaries that blur the line are mentioned it’s as if they are a pure anomaly of the documentary form.

What makes these two genres so different they both typically contain actors, a narrative and have a director at the helm of production. This segregation was central to our theoretical stories in True Lies last semester yet I’m now eager to explore this from a practical viewpoint. I decided to particularly focus upon this chapter to see how production practices and traditions reflect this discussion present within theory. It’s obvious from this excerpt how central fiction is when thinking about non-fictional content, yet in essence is there really fiction content? Having exhausted my capabilities of a scholar on this topic I’m eager to explore it from the view of a filmmaker.

In reference to class last week we watched a variety of Lumière clips each with it’s own varied degree of realism. Even the first filmmakers grappled with the fiction/non-fiction duality. Once a camera is present, what is captured is selective and is no longer the complete truth. The Lumière’s are also a perfect example as they often wielding a great degree of control of their subjects and aimed to capture a particular shot.

Moving back to the excerpt, the last section of the chapter on short documentary appeared to give the best practical advice. Earlier on in the chapter the various discussions of structuring were something I was familiar with from last semester but it was beneficial to read about which circumstances these structures suit. The overarching theme of the chapter seemed to be to ensure structure and formal decisions were chosen to best suit the content.

It also appears that all of these structures can be thought about and planned for in pre-production yet it is the content that is captured for a film that ultimately directs how the film ends up being structured. It seemed to be wise to have a fair idea of how you want something structured so that in production you aren’t lost without an idea of some end point. I doubt that this end point envisioned is ever realised but it seems to be a very practical consideration.

I was keen to read about advice for short documentary films however the section seemed to amount to the fact you need to be specific and concise. It was interesting to explore how wider themes can be explored and arguments made use a specific small-scale story. These smaller narratives become embolic of far wider issues that would be near impossible to explore in a short documentary.

Last semester I strayed away from a studio I believed would be heavily theoretical which turned out to be very practical. I am somewhat frustrated at my myself for that decision.  Instead I spent my studio exploring narrative, transmedia and creation of story through other platforms. I really enjoyed the studio and relished the freedom it provided in exploring the conceptual groundings of story. At this point in my degree I feel that I have a fairly grounded understanding of the principles of production, and I feel that I have a firm grasp on the theoretical aspects  associated with shooting and constructing a product in editing.

This semester I’m intent upon improving my technical capabilities and production skills. Sometimes I still feel relatively lost when standing behind the camera and I want to find the confidence to call myself skilled (to an extent). I’m eager to get a solid grounding in crewing for video production, so that I can then explore other avenues to expand my abilities. Not only am I excited to explore the intricacies of camera but also to explore audio recording and to learn more about sound in the context of film. I also hope that this studio will provide me with skills I can then translate to either interning or crewing on other people’s productions.

I found a great passion for documentary last semester and I’m incredibly eager to create my own documentary content and to further expand my knowledge of the genre. Alongside my existing love for drama I found the opportunity of this studio particularly fascinating. The documentaries that I enjoy most typically blur the line of non-fiction and fiction and to explore these boundaries through production is an exciting prospect. I think it will be beneficial to explore the production methods of both forms and then to explore how these methodologies can be mixed or translated to the other form.

In terms of the Studio Brief I think that by exploring the rationale behind protocols will provide a beneficial balance of theory and practise. We are no longer looking at theory and practice as separate identities, instead exploring how one is indicative of the other.

Allowing the content to determine our course without necessarily making a commitment to one form or the other. This is a concept I find really intriguing and the slightest bit confusing. I’m quite eager to explore this and to develop an understanding how this form blending (or maybe free)  production can be achieved in particular through creating our own content.

Returning to the Lumière brothers is an incredibly worthy exploration. Having first properly studied their work in the earlier stages of first year, to review their actualities is a treat. I now feel I have a greater appreciation for what they captured in their short snippets of life and in particular their framing and shot composition.

After completing our own task of capturing ‘actualities’ regardless of the years and technological developments between our work and the Lumière’s some links were evident. Most noticeably the way, in which action is framed, in the Lumiere brother’s instance they were trailblazers. In our instance we are trained content producers aware of film theory. Viewing the Lumière’s clips just after capturing our own revealed our fantastic their composition and layer of a frame was. Considering they were the first filmmakers they used both line and balance to fantastic effect. What was also intriguing was that although separated by a great number of years our clips shared trams, busy streets and the unavoidable pedestrians glancing at the camera. Even in 2015 people still find camera’s intriguing and their behaviour changes when realising its presence. Surely by now people are more desensitised to cameras, everyone carries one in their pocket and I’m sure we’re monitored to some extent by CCTV cameras. Why should a camera sitting on a tripod make us feel any more uncomfortable?

At the end of the day I believe that the Lumière brothers did a fantastic job of Exercise 1A (on a number of occasions). The clip below reveals how even in the earliest days of film directors were intent upon capturing the best shot even if it meant weeks between takes.

Recording Audio

Although it has been a while the return of the Zoom recorder is a welcome one. This time it is nice to be using the technology with a greater appreciation of the role that it plays in production and understanding the importance of having a separate and well-recorded audio track. Obviously during this exercise we weren’t all that serious in our approach but I feel that we were still able to capture some good quality recordings. Whilst recording in building 12 (The Hub) we found it was incredibly difficult to get a good signal to noise ratio. There was an excessive amount of background noise mostly due to the hum of a lot of computers. As we progressed through the exercise we noticed this and decided to shift out focus from the open area and moved to the stairwell. In a fairly rudimentary and amateur way we attempted to mix in a live setting, playing with the placement of the Zoom recorder. The skills associated with sound recording for film is something I’m eager to explore this semester as poor audio can be quite frustrating when watching amateur short films. It is for this reason that audio has always been something that has cause me to be somewhat apprehensive when filming.

During the final exercise working with Luke we shot two 50 seconds of footage in an attempt to document a place, event or activity. Overwhelmed with choices, we meandered for half of the time struggling to settle upon a particular subject. Our initial idea of wandering down to Swanston Street allowed us a vast plethora of material; the only issue was then selecting what to shoot. Finally settling upon the expanse in front of the state library we set up intent upon capturing pedestrians as they walked. The shot itself also included the backdrop of the state library and some aspects of QV. Once we set up we felt somewhat pressured for time and in our haste I feel they shot my have been slightly over exposed. At this stage we were more interested in capturing our first 50 seconds.

As we set up to shoot I thought a bit about what Robin had said in class about ensuring that you’re happy with your shot before filming. Ensuring that what you’re capturing is useful and interesting alleviates much of the stress of shifting through countless footage in editing. Reflecting upon prior projects for various subjects it seems that my thinking prioritised quantity over quality. The truth though is that bad footage cannot be saved by editing, what is captured in camera needs to have merit for the final edit to also have merit.

After our first 50 seconds we changed our position this time capturing pedestrians at a right angle to their direction of travel. In doing so, we believed a greater emphasis would be placed upon the walking of the commuters. In our haste once again the exposure of the shot is slightly off. Attempting to compensate for the prior over-exposure I believe this shot was somewhat under exposed.  Due to the fixed focal length we found with the first shot that most things we’re in focus and those walking from a far would then move into focus. Within the second 50 seconds we found that with the new positioning, much more of the scene was in focus and provided a crisper image. The framing of this second shot also provided the sense of a tighter frame, capturing the motion of walking in more detail.