So, someone had to go first and today I took one for the team, sort of. Alphabetical order didn’t give me much choice.

It felt like I hadn’t quite caught my breath and as first cab off the rank my brain started to fire too many thoughts at once.

I was overly conscious of time. Screw you time. Can’t think of many occasions in life where it ‘has been on my side’.

And after attempts at trying to explain how I’ve come to this concept I didn’t even go through what I’m really hoping to make. To be honest, I felt deflated after the pitch and once again, disappointed with myself. Boo. How can it be so clear in my head and then turn to rubbish as soon as I try to speak? Maybe I should attend one of those getaway meditation camps where you sit in silence and only eat an apple a day.

The variety of ideas from everyone was inspiring.

However, I was frustrated to see the different standards and depth of each presentation and would have invested more in my presentation style had I realised the overall standard. This was a case where clearer guidelines may have helped us all.

Feedback from the panel was to be clear if the main intention was purely abstract or contained a narrative, particularly so the viewer understands what they are in for. Also recommended to explore RMIT resources available for conducting surveys/focus groups and potentially looking into technology similar to the eye scanning DIEM project currently being used in RMIT.

After allowing time for my pitch idea to settle, my intentions are much clearer. I hope to explore the audience’s ability to connect the dots and create meaning. Or in short, test how we interpret what we see on screen.

Films that need our participation always give me a buzz, the sort of stories that need some energy and attention to ‘figure out’ (Don’t get me wrong, we all occasionally need a sit back and glaze over kind of movie/tv to fry our brains). It’s crazy that we can produce multiple interpretations from the same image and I wonder what power this gives us a filmmakers. When an audience watches a film, what do they actually notice on screen? What goes unnoticed?

My exploration has eventually lead me to the question, “How far can we push the audience until they stop connecting the dots?” So I suppose this is the ultimate purpose of my ‘project’ this semester.

So far the plan is to take two approaches, a practical and a research both geared towards producing a final piece. Ideally, the final piece will have a narrative that is conveyed symbolically and abstractedly that may or may not be clear to the audience – that will be the whole point!

Practical

• Series of test shoots that begin to explore the influences of mis-en-scene, lighting, etc. e.g. EVA and colour
• Test shoot at 60fps (regardless of smaller Frame Size 720p) on the 5DMiii
• Test shoot milk and ink reaction in studio set up and possibly explore other liquid combinations. Research how to light this situation.
• Test shoot white and red washing in front loader at 60fps

Research

• How particular forms influence an audience interpretation: colour, character definition, mis-en-scene, lighting, composition, setting, camera movement
• Kuleshov effect
• The DIEM project that monitors how audience eyes track across a film frame and where the masses linger
• Experiment if our state of mind influences our response to a film one day to the next.
• Consider directors and previous bodies of work that require audience participation, eg. David Lynch, Lars Von Trier, Maya Deren

Pre-production plan

• Loose script
• Storyboard
• Scout for locations and book with owner/operator
• Audition/screen actors

Still focused on Paul’s suggestion from last week, I attended class with an open mind and without a plan. In our Tuesday session a few example clips were screened and for some reason a scene from The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada came to mind and immediately I felt inspired to recreate it.

To aid as a springboard Paul supplied scripts and so with the collaboration from a stellar group (including two first year students) we set off to shoot in the Building 80 basketball court. Our group also improvised the concept of no spoken dialogue; instead subtitles would deliver the dialogue and in addition another experiment to explore during post production.

Side Note:

The Two Burials scene includes two men seated in conversation, covered by mid shots. Their background settings and eye lines match, however only at the end of their conversation/scene a final wide(r) shot reveals the men are seated metres apart and divided by a doorway.

Screen stills from ‘The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada’ (2005)

The sun was shining, the courts were packed and a peculiar “gym” group session provided entertainment; picture a self-conscious bunch that just discovered the fitspo hashtag.

The first year students generously volunteered to provide on screen talent and we captured the scene traditionally with a MS reverse MS and a revealing wide. Last minute we grabbed OTS reverses in a final attempt to convince the viewer the subjects were sitting closer.

Have yet to edit the footage so will post results soon, but after a quick review and assembly edit I think we got it! A few lessons and/or reminders:

• Continuity is distracting, no matter what level of production quality.
• ND filter for greater control of aperture worked on the Sony.
• Matching eye lines when people aren’t actually seated together is tricky.
• Subtle technique in The Two Burials case, as its purpose is symbolic and not a huge plot reveal. In our production it is clearly a big reveal. How could this technique intentionally development plot, character and setting?

I’ve been going about this all wrong.

The week felt like a pile of bricks was dragging behind my every step. It made the group discussion harder to navigate and I was so disappointed how much I struggled to articulate my thoughts cohesively. Nonetheless, the process was therapeutic and although I left feeling scrambled, my thoughts have eventually sorted themselves out.

The relaxed group discussion with Paul and the 3 other students revealed how vast everyone’s ideas are. Both the simplistic or complex nature of each idea is exciting and I look forward to hearing these initial concepts develop. My concept was centred on abstract cinema and how this form can still achieve an audience response and or interpretation without a narrative structure. After fleshing out why I was focusing on this, an epiphany came when Grace highlighted how I am “running away” from a narrative or story that will always exist, even in abstract cinema. And there it was. The realisation that I’ve been going about this all wrong. Abstract cinema is not what I’m interested in, it’s the interpretation or response the viewer can produce! It has been through ‘abstract’ cinema’s ability to realize this that I’ve been leading myself down the wrong path.

I’m fascinated by how each person can find different meaning in the same piece. The way we project our current state of being onto what we watch. How one viewer may notice a prop, a character’s minute reaction and another viewer may miss or dismiss something. How you might view and read a film differently from one day to the next.

After reflecting deeper on the group discussion and taking on Paul’s feedback, I have also been reminded that it is OK to not have a plan. And as much as I resist, there doesn’t always need to be a reason behind everything we do.

The freedom we are given in this studio is simultaneously invigorating and crippling. I struggle with the unrestrictive culture, the fundamental no right or wrong approach. And yet these same reasons inspire me, pushing us to explore unchartered terrain without consequence.

AIM

Explore how colour and light placed in a scene influences a viewer’s interpretation of the subject.

PLAN

• Scout locations with bold colours and interesting light
• Compose the frame with the same focal length and distance to subject using a MCU
• Maintain the same neutral performance from the talent (avoid any display of emotion)
• Edit to collage the shots back to back

REFERENCES

Made in U.S.A (1966, Jean-Luc Godard)

Images sourced via Film Grab

Working together with a creative and supportive group, we set out to find a unique location that would help us all achieve our ideas. The State Library was suggested and after we gained approval to film within the building, we quickly became inspired by the space. It provided authentic mis-en-scene and a soft, textural light. Together we helped one another execute our experiments and troubleshot as a team. I finished the shoot feeling inspired by the girls and the chance to work with like-minded people.

Eve’s experiment was really interesting and probably the most successful (…not that they needed to be). I learnt a lot from viewing her final edit, as it was so simple but engaging. Considering my reflection of Gus Van Saint’s Elephant, Eve’s experiment proves how a long tracking shot pulls you in as a viewer and demands your ongoing attention.

For my initial edit, I aimed to simply align the shots back to back. Not surprisingly, the results did not produce an response from me/the viewer for the subject. I wondered if with additional shots, say a dozen, maybe the viewer would have more time to form a response. I collaged and repeated some of the shots to further experiment with the footage and concept. Although I may not have achieved an emotional response the final product is still interesting and effective. However, it has sparked a critical reflection on how we, people, always look for things (faces, gestures, objects, etc.) to create meaning. And although we are perceptive and astute at connecting the dots we still need a certain level of information or influence in order to develop a response.

    

     

Keen to try this experiment again but incorporate an action or expression for the actor that is repeated against different coloured settings. By adding a new layer of interest for the viewer to interpret, will they form an emotional response?

Observations of Action

• The pepper tree in the wind
• A mother juggling her four kids off the train
• A stranger captivated by an Indian baby girl
• Two ex-cons talking about prison life
• A man falling asleep
• A magpie searching for breakfast
• People waiting in line for coffee

Interesting People

• Allan
• Trevor
• Tova
• Josh
• Mum
• Henry
• Emma
• Dad

Intriguing Locations

• Kuitpo Forest
• Sunset
• The Ocean
• Byron
• Boston
• Cathedral
• Mt Lofty Lookout
• Al’s car
• Yulara
• Ooodnatta track
• Valley of the Winds
• The Milky Way
• A Dirt Road
• The Bush
• Warrakurna
• Flinders Rangers
• Lighting Storms
• Nail Salon
• City

As I wrote down these thoughts in class there wasn’t much inspiration coming off the page but after looking back at the lists a few things stand out.

My observations of the world around me are an accurate reflection of how I would take in the world. It can offer insightful moments of raw beauty but in contrast can illuminate the darker sides of life.

The list of locations might become useful for triggering an idea to set a narrative in – which I suppose I have begun doing with Lone Wolf that is set in the outback. And I think I will always be inspired by anything out bush.

I suppose I’ve never thought critically of the people in life and ‘summed’ them up in a way that deems ‘interesting’. My interesting people list also surprises me how male dominant it is. Reflecting on these people is almost a can of worms… You might say when someone is no longer interesting they aren’t in my life any more… Yelp, what a scary, shallow thought. And as much as I hate to admit, over the past few years I’ve realised how I seem to be searching for my dad within the men around me. It’s a strange, kind of uncomfortable thought but its motivated by the impossible hope of finding him and re-living him one more time. One final glimpse of him in someone else. Does that make sense? Is that fucked up? Or do we all do that after death…

 

As we breakdown the conventional methods of filmmaking and start to consider staying true to form, I reflect on the films that may have already set out to achieve this.

In 2004, Gus Van Sant directed Elephant, a controversial film inspired by the mass shootings at Columbine High School, Colorado in April 1999. The Columbine Massacre preceded 9/11 and culturally was (and still remains) a devastating blow to the American people and the affects of their country’s gun laws.

Elephant depicts the insignificant, mundane daily routine of several young adolescents at high school as an impending tragedy awaits them. The film attempts to make sense of a senseless act and achieves this by denying the viewer conventional film elements.

Gus Van Sant omits a traditional three-act structure, a plot that unravels, our expected character development, formal dialogue and the usual visual cues in cinematography. Instead he pursues a voyeuristic, abstract approach with a non-liner structure.

The film is divided into 8 sections, each representing a slice of a teens’ life. You trace their movements and observe their interconnectedness, angst, loneliness, clichés and tired routines. However the abstract approach originates through the use of time-looping. As each teen’s chapter begins the clock resets and we see the same day unfold through another teen’s perspective. It almost feels like Gus Van Sant is trying to pause and rewind the day, attempting to avoid the cruel fate that awaits them all. The film’s use of multiple perspectives shows us the similarities in the youth and how the disconnected become gravely connected. In traditional cinema multiple perspectives in a film would usually provide a new insight into the events or the plot of the film and so the time-looping provides a clear example of Gus Van Sant flipping these traditional forms

. 

Another unconventional approach is the director’s attempt to convey realism. Although a fictional representation of the Columbine shootings, Van Sant doesn’t shy from portraying the reality of how senseless, unmotivated and random the shootings were. His actors are non-professional actors who in fact play themselves and use their own names. The performers improvised their ambiguous dialogue further blending reality and fiction. However, the main technique, and definitely not conventional, is the regular use of long takes. We feel a sense of ‘real time’ due to the sparse number of cuts and lengthy, candid takes. The film was shot on 35mm in a real high school using little to no lighting set ups and the picture painted looks authentic. Each protagonist is respectfully observed at a distance and the audience passively witnesses their lives. Obscure composition filled with empty space dominates over the standard rule of thirds or balance.

In a 2004 interview with The Guardian, Van Sant addressed the film’s casualness towards violence. “Modern-day cinema takes the form of a sermon,” he said. “You don’t get to think, you only get to receive information. This film is not a sermon. The point of the film is not being delivered to you from the voice of the filmmaker. Hopefully, there are as many interpretations as there are viewers.”

It feels like Gus Van Sant has done everything possible to remove himself (and Hollywood) from this film in order to deliver a chillingly realistic but fictional tale.

For the Week 2 Expertise exercise I was only present for the second phase on Thursday, which required us to shoot footage motivated by audio and incorporate sound bites previously recorded on Tuesday.

We divided into groups and I was immediately reminded of the dynamics when collaborating with new people. My group was very welcoming and kind enough to discuss the purpose of the exercise and what was covered on Tuesday, however they were unsure of what the expertise video was trying to achieve. For me the exercise became my icebreaker to acclimatise to the studio’s environment and learn the nature of our weekly exercises.

As we set off to shoot, I began to grasp the intentions of the exercise – how can we find new approaches to filmmaking? Capturing something motivated by audio provided a fresh set of eyes when looking at the world around. We planned to film the juxtaposition between someone walking in bare foot and the distinct sound of walking in shoes.

Although I began to appreciate the purpose of the Expertise video, the real ‘aha’ moment was a personal one and not necessarily one to be proud of. As I entered post and began reviewing the rushes, I quickly became frustrated with what was shot and creatively hit a wall. I have noticed this pattern in my work practices and struggle to move forward when I fail to meet my high expectations (of myself). I often seize up and have to fight the urge to walk away and consequently lack productivity.

Last year this became a personal hurdle during my yearlong cinematography classes and my lecturer, Andrew Harrison, helped breakdown the issue. It felt like for several weeks the work I produced was useless shit and self-doubt and lack of inspiration consumed me. Andrew suggested I aim to focus on perfecting only one or two areas in my work and recommended to although push myself, not aim so high my goals are unattainable. Above all, be conscious through my failings as in the long run would become a better cinematographer… I am still trying to learn how to manage this response and unproductive self-criticism.

So, to push on and complete the exercise I edited a short 7 second abstract piece that establishes its subject and context quickly but not in a literal form. Upon reflection the idea is too underdeveloped. So, in hopes of being able to flesh out the original experiment I have attempted to shoot another piece in my own time.

VIEW THE IN-CLASS RESULTS.

The aim was to find spaces or subjects where the viewer would expect or not expect to find audio. However when I returned to edit I was surprised how dominating the in-camera audio recording was and became inspired to explore the sound quality unique to each environment. This time, my ‘aha’ moment came when I realised how effective the audio was in helping form part of the scene’s identity and therefore our interpretation of it.

VIEW THE HOME EXPERIMENT.