Paul said “why can’t production be the pre-production”, or vice-versa, and that is the approach I am taking with my project.

Too much of my time is spent trying to figure out the film; each shot, what is involved, etc, when really, taking out your camera and just shooting is the best thing to do. That’s not to say don’t come prepared, but trusting and acting upon your first instincts allows you to learn more and more crucially, have a clear understanding of what you’re trying to do.

We went to the cemetery, and I didn’t really know what I wanted to do. We found a spot under a tree, surrounded by narrow rows and columns of graves, and I asked Kerry to just walk. We did a few takes, none were outstanding, but I fell in love with its potential. It looked so nice on the camcorder; looking through the viewfinder (which is black and white) made me realise that this must be just that.

The main problems with the shot were that I didn’t really think about headroom (there is far too much), and my panning ability was pretty poor. Though to be fair, camcorders are especially shaky. I knew with a few more attempts, I could get the shot how I wanted it to be. We decided we would return to cemetery in a week or so.

Over the next few days I asked myself why I wanted Kerry to just walk. It made me think of Philippe Garrel’s films, in which nearly all of them involve shots of character’s walking. I came to the realisation that Garrel had as much as an impact on me as a filmmaker than pretty much anyone else.

I could analyse one particular shot on walking from his films, but to me, the above videos all demonstrate Garrel’s ability show walking as so much more than just a simple everyday act involving movement.

I think there is a level of self clarity and inner peace that is established from walking; it’s an opportunity for the mind to wander and/or to reflect. It’s therapeutic in nature; you are alone with your thoughts and sometimes the very act of walking can help maintain a level of focus.

To me, Garrel’s use of walking is an experiment in mood and atmosphere. First and foremost, it reveals the inner conflict of the subject in a subtle way. Much can be found and understood of the character by merely taking notice of their facial expression, or the manner and shape in which their body moves. It’s pure cinema. Secondly, the black and white photography (in his more recent films), and the often narrow space in which the character wanders through enhances feeling (often isolation), which establishes this mood and atmosphere.

Following my recent obsession with long takes, walking and zooms, I crafted this scene by giving little direction to the actors, letting them follow instinct, and allowing the camera to ‘follow’ and work spontaneously.

Let me preface this by talking about two of the elements; the lighting and the sound. Firstly, the lighting for both shots is pretty poor. I’m not great when it comes to shooting outside and finding the right balance. We shot on a balcony, and while the space on the left side (with the concrete and shadows) came out okay, the right side, with the backdrop of sky and distant buildings, was too overexposed. Secondly, the sound was a disaster. It was a windy day, and to be honest, the crew members were not fully focussed on their role. It was also difficult considering the distance between the mic and actors, but it still could have been a lot better.

To me, the first shot is okay. The first six seconds is fine, but there is probably a bit too much headroom. As the shot goes on I improvised with the zoom, and I probably went more ‘out’ than I should have. I really like the blocking (not my doing) when they first interact; I just wish there wasn’t so much space is the background.

The second shot is far worse. The exposure level is more distracting, the zoom is too long and ends too far away, and it overall, it doesn’t have the same sense of urgency as the first shot.

Overall, this was a pretty fun exercise. I like making these mistakes as I honestly believe they make me a better filmmaker. I wish we did it again, but it was ultimately a pretty fulfilling experience.

Yesterday Kate, Kerry and I went to Melbourne General Cemetery. It was our first meeting, and a very successful day.

I went into the day with no real idea of what I wanted to shoot, other than some shots of walking. Our approach to this project is really about getting a sense of location, and trying to work with the space.

I brought my Camcorder, and after 20 or so minutes of walking around, understanding the space, and keeping an eye out for any potential staff/mourners (this was guerrilla filmmaking after all), whipped it out and placed it on a tripod.

I instructed Kerry to walk along an aisle of graves; slowly, meticulously, and I (the camera) would follow him. We did about 2-3 shots and each one was better than the last. The footage looked fantastic on the camcorder. Kerry was wearing a white t-shirt and a hat, and it made the shot(s) so much more powerful by the sheer simplicity of it all. Unfortunately my camcorder died after this.

I shot another scene, this time directing Kate to pick up some flowers, walk and throw them one-by-one as she passed graves. I had to shoot on her DSLR and it didn’t work; the pan isn’t very nice, it’s not an interesting picture, and I had to use a manual zoom as opposed to an auto which was good for practice but not what I wanted.

Since leaving yesterday, all I can think about is the incredible nature of the space. I am desperate to go back there and re-shoot my shots.

Typically the way I approach filmmaking is that I have an idea, a piece of content, whether that be a scene, a piece of dialogue, an action, and with that content, I try and think of ways to present that content. This is something that recently I have found more frustrating as I’ve come to the realisation that it should be the other way around; the form, or my own formal ideas, should be the mechanism that informs the content.

Recently I have been thinking about the formal possibilities of cinema. In particular I am keen to experiment with split screen and slow zooms.

Split screen is something that has been on my mind since watching the films of Brian De Palma. It is a tool that if done correctly, can further explore space and its information. I am wrestling with the ‘right’ way to use split screen; I don’t want to use it for the sake of it, and I don’t want to do something boring like show a phone call in each screen. I have been thinking about the idea of cause and effect and think split screen is a way in which this idea can be explored.

Slow zooms have been on my mind since toying with a camcorder. I find the zoom in a camcorder to be particularly smooth; it’s almost like the frame itself breathes in and out. I have some ideas of using slow zooms, like filming walking or a simple action, but again, do not want to use it for the hell of it. 

Our group has come up with the constraint of meeting and working in a designated location. I like the idea of having formal ideas and working with them around a location. I see this as a way that will inform my ideas for content.

I don’t know what my work will look like or end up being. At the moment, I am approaching this project as creating a series of experiments, though this could change as my work and ideas become more refined.