This week we looked at the rise of the Blockbuster and high concept films which were born out of, and elcipsed New Hollywood. Films which are easily marketable and defined, but have more depth and complex themes if you look deeper. They can be explained in thier most basic form in a single sentence, for example Jaws is a movie about “a shark terrorising a town”, which may sound similar to a B-movie, but they differ in several major ways.

Budget, the Hollywood blockbuster, high concept film has a massive budget for production value, stars and marketing. Unlike previous itterations of “monster movies” the High Concept films that began appearing in the late 70s and lasted well into the 90s were not done on shoe-string budgets, using no-name and only accesible by the devoted few who knew about them. Instead they had top-of-the-line special effects, Hollywoods biggest names and world wide hype building marketing campaigns.

Complexity, while they appear to be simple (and the concept is indeed simple) the films have more depth than one might intially consider. The sub-plots and characterisation contain the subtexts and themes of the film, while the “Concept” (EG “shark terrories town) provides the basis for all this to be built around.

This week in class we watched Christoper Nolan’s Inceptionas an example of both a High Concept film (debatadly) and cinematography. After arriving almost half and hour late because the building was a maze, I watched the film for the second time in my life.

I hadnt seen it since it released in cinemas in 2010, so my memory was a it hazey of the nuances of the plot and how each action set piece came together, like in 2010 I thouroughly enjoyed it. However after leaving the lecture hall one thing stuck in my mind, and it wasnt the plot or the cinematography or even thinking about the concept of all they layers of dreams and the implications of the ending.

All I could think about was how utterly boring Limbo was.

The amount of wasted potential was mind-blowing, not only does Kobb tell us that he spent 50 years down there doing nothing but building and “being a god”, but the film also shows us that architechs can create impossible shapes such as the paradoxical stair case and the gravity bending Paris.

Yet what did Kobb do for five decades? He built a grid city of skyscrapers, all bland rectangular prisms. When Ellen Page’s character asks him “you built all this?” its jarringly off putting. If I spent 50 years in an endless void with the abiltity to both construct ANYTHING (even things that arnt possible) and be able to maniplulate physics and all I did was place boring city building everywhere with some taller ones in the centre, I’d be pretty ashamed of myself.

Where is the giant catherderals? The castles made of impossible shapes? Recreations of acient civilisations? Nowhere, thats where. Instead all they did was create something that is somehow more boring than a real city and a couple recreations of buildings they lived in. Dream big Kobb, dream big.

This week we had to submit our proposal’s for the semester’s big, final Project Brief in which the majority of the “method” of how we do it is up to us, this required a 1500+ word written proposal and a presentation in class in front of various important people from the Media section of RMIT. This blog post is a reflection on both my Written and Oral proposals as well as my general reflection on other peoples and my plans going forward for my Project.

I feel my written proposal was quite well done, for most of the break-week I was frankly stumped at what I was going to: I knew I wanted to make a film, but I needed to find a suitable excuse to make something I wanted to make. Luckily, late into the week I was hit with a burst of inspiration and decided to base my project around manipulating framerates and thier affects on audiances, and wrote what I feel to be a rather decent Project Proposal.

As a filmaker I am not a very subtle artist, and in the pricavy of this Blog litterally 1 person is going to read, I will admit that self consciousness issues mean that almost all my creative expression is almost a half parody of itself, as I dont have the guts to commit to something that isnt shielded from critism by cutesy or ironic shortcomings. This direct approach would be easy to demonstrate the requirments I have set, I can (and will) make a short film with wacky and unconventialonal uses of framerates, and this will be an easy starting point for my own disire to make

As for the Presentation portion of the assigment,  that went less well……

I was woefully underprepared, and putting my idea into spoken words with minimal rehersal was tough. Following on from many mature and well thought out explorations of the frame I felt decidedly out of place and childish. My PowerPoint was an attrocity of visual design, and honestly I would have probably fared better without any text and just had the examples of videos/gifs (side note, the Framerate altering on Fury Road is much less prevelant on Youtube clips, on the Blu-Ray I could easily tell everytime it happened, on Youtube it took considerable effort to find an example that was easy to see, I dont know why this is).

Explaining my desire to film a super slow-mo, high FPS red goop filled balloon exploding as a mortal wound to a characters head was cringe inducing, and the 4 Judges seemed less than impressed, however a slight chuckle from Dan was reasurring, since he has read my Proposal and spent time with my in class, so he might have a better understanding of my intentions.

As for the rest of the Presentations I was very impressed, and almost all of the them put mine to shame. One in particular that stood out was Maggie’s, perhaps it was just the excellent production value of her Slideshow, but it was definetly the most memorable for me.

As for progress on my own project I have begun to formulate some key ideas of how I will use speed and framerate to enhance the stylistic elements of my short film and throughout the week I will continue to work on these and consult with Dan. Before (hopefully) begin filming next weekend when I have contanct with High School friends and wide open spaces, preferrablly involving a Balloon, red food dye, some chunks of pork and an array of iPhones set to Slow-Mo.

During this mid-semester break I have been doing a lot of things (job interviews, job training days, catching up with friends, desperately working on my Project Proposal in the last 24 hours etc…) one of which was playing lots of video games. Now with literally minutes before the week is up Im making a blog post

I recently purchased the new Mad Max game because I adore the franchise and everything about the game looked promising. While I could talk about it in many ways, one aspect in particular I thought was quite connected to this course.

The game has included in it a “capture mode” where you can the ability to manipulate many aspects not usually available to you as a player. Including Field of Vision slider, Depth of Field slider, a free camera that can go anywhere, even a multitude of filters and an intensity slider. All of this is so you can indulge in two options “Photo” or “Video”, that allow you to take a snapshot of your current view or record a short clip, respectively.

These options allow you to make much more cinematic look to the game.

Here is a link to a Youtube video of regular gameplay

Here is a link to a Youtube video made using the Capture mode in the game

The difference is massive, in terms of camera placement, colour grading and well everything the “Capture Mode” allows users to get creative and produce images and videos that have high production value. This harkens back to my earlier blog post about how Metal Gear Solid attempted to be “cinematic” and emulated techniques and styles used in movies. Modes like this (there are similar modes, but this is fresh in my mind and the best one I’ve experienced) go one step further and allow people to make their own “Cinematography” in a video game.

Its cinematography inside a 100% digital/fake environment,  I find this very interesting and I’ve been having lots of fun messing around with it. If I make something worthwhile I’ll export and upload it and put it in a later Blog post.

In week 5’s class we were given a set of questions to answer, I answered them in a word doc, but forgot to put them on my blog. So here they are:

Can film have subjectivity?

The concept of subjectivity is difficult to grasp. The word has many meanings, that could all mean different things relating to film. Obviously any critique of the quality of a film is subjective, but I also believe that film can contain subjectivity inside itself. A film can show events or narrative that are not defined in an objective sense, and are up to the audiance to interpret. Film can also employ a mirad of techniques to show things from a certain point of view, giving the film its own subjective take on a thing. Its difficult to explain, especaillay in words.

Can film think?

In a literal sense? No, a roll of celluloid or a file on a Harddrive is not capable of though. However in a more abstract sense, I do beleive film (and any creative medium) is possible of presenting critical ideas and asking questions, which inspire the audiance to follow.
Whose point of view are you getting in drive?

The Driver, the film follows him and we are only showed his immidete surroundings. We the audiance, see’s whats in his general vicinity and knows the same things as he does about the events taking place. However this is not 100% true, there are instanes where the film breaks away and we are shown something entirely seperate from The Driver, such as the welcome-home party next door.

How does your subjectivity become the films?

The audiances own subjectivity becomes the films because every single person watching will see different things in a slightly different light based on their culture, age, upbringing and more. This subjectivity becomes the films because it is impossible to watch the film without judging it and its contents by your own values.

How important is the camera to subjectivity?

The camera is very important to subjectivity because it chooses what is shown, and how. The camera (or more correctly the finished frame) is how the film shows its subject matter, and thus affects how it is viewed. Different angles, lighting and motions can all alter how something is displayed, as well as the ability to show or hide different aspects or events, limiting the audiances knowledge and affecting how they respond.

Last thursday (I know, im pretty slow) we were given an activity to “recreate” and “reinterpret” one frame from a selection obtained from the films we watched that week. First re-doing it as accurately as we could, then doing something interesting with it in relation to one of Deluze’s theories.

I chose this iconic frame from Once upon a Time in the West.

Re-creating it was fairly simple in concept, just do a close up of my face and squint. You’ll see however, that my most intimidating stare is pitiful compared to Jason Rohbarbs. (I also had no hat)

For the next image the task was “re-interpretation” in relation to one of Deluze’s theories. I found quite a lot of the reading to be confusing and rather abstract, but one concept that appealed to me was Montage, and the art of putting 2 frames or shots together to create meaning. This was also relevant to the “Kuleshov Effect”, where meaning can be placed on an image simply by what accompanies it, even if the image stays the same and the accompaniment changes.

Here is my reinterpretation of the shot.

I copied the “close up of eyes staring at something” from the original, but replaced a rival who is engaged in a gun fight with a chocolate cupcake, completly re-defining the emotion behind the stare. It is no longer an intense, emotional showdown with a man who wronged me many years ago, in this image I am simply very interested in the muffin.

In Thursdays class of week 3, we were tasked with using some very fancy cameras to film short sequences of footage, attempting to encapsulate one aspect of the frame we had been learning about. I decided to shoot some footage showing the 180 degree rule in action. The 180 degree rule is a method to frame action or conversation in a way that is not confusing or disorientating for viewers. The way that it works is a “line of action” is placed through the center of two edges of the scene being portrayed.

This crude diagram I made with WordArt explains it:

As you can see, once you have established the line of action, the camera **should** stay within a 180 degree angle of this line. This means that the 2 “edges” of the action (for example two humans having a conversation) never switch sides in the frame. The camera can move anywhere along a 180 degree ark, the two people will stay on the same sides of the frame. The camera can sit at a perpendicular angle (which will put each person in equal size ratio) or it can sit at an extremely narrow angle to the line of action (which would put one person in the foreground, taking up much of the frame), in both scenarios the two people stay on the same side at all times.

However, if the camera is placed on the other side of the line of action the two people will swap sides in the shot, which is both confusing and disorientating for audiences.

Here is my video, which showcases how the 180 degree rule works in practice.

The video showcases Alex (the other one) and Sandy (the other one) having a (mute) conversation. My video switches between 3 different angles, and demonstrates how as long as you stay within 180 degrees of the Line-of-action (in this case the bench) both participants will always stay on their respective side.

Week 3

 Something I found very interesting from this weeks class was the short documentary on “bullet time” and the new cinematographic tecniques that wouldn’t be possible without computers.

Interestingly during the late 90s when the technology was being developed and showcased in The Matrix films were using it to create shots that weren’t possible previously in the medium, this was also the same time period when 3D animation and 3D polygon based video games were becoming incredibly popular.

The example I’ve chosen is 1998’s Metal Gear Solid published by Konami and interestingly directed by Hideo Kojima, a game having a director is no oddity, but the difference is MGS displayed its director as would a film, it even had an opening credits sequence listing all the major developers and voice actors for characters as they appear. Throughout the games many cutscenes every effort was placed on making it as cinematic as the lowly power of the original Playstation would allow. In a 3D digital environment the camera could be placed anywhere, and move around at any speed, but Kojima chose to display it through pans, tilts and emulating trolly or crane shots.

As seen in this extract from Metal Gear Solid, the times when gameplay stops and an important story moment happens the game looks very much like a film in its camera placements.

Conversely, looking at this iconic shot of the matrix (alas in low quality .gif form) the slo-mo 360 degrees camera spin is not something that would be classed as a “film technique”, at least in the classical sense, because it would have never been possible without extensive computer work.

Ironically, a 360 degree camera spin was (and is) common place in video games, allowing the player to judge their surroundings, and give the impression that an invisible camera is tethered to the player character and not existing in any real world parallel.

So as The Matrix had real people fighting in bullet time framed from angles no real-life set could replicate, video games were trying to legitimize themselves by drawing from film and film techniques for storytelling and showing action.

Week 2

The “50 frames” assignment has been interesting: Taking 50 photos knowing 46 of them will go unused, and the 4 that will be used are for an assignment worth 0%, is a strange task as there is no real incentive to put effort into it. However despite no tangible insentive for quality I have been trying to make my 50 frames good and varied.

The question posed on the board for a blog prompt is “Reflect on methodology for the 50 frames exercise. Did you complete it all in one go? Do you remember the story on your situation each photo?”

My methodology for taking the 50 frames was to at various moments of inspiration takes some photos of anything remotely interesting in my general vicinity. My photos were captured over many days, sometimes lots in one day, other days I wouldn’t take any, towards the end I was running out of time so I began desperately taking photos of random items around my parents house where I was staying the weekend.

I remember the “story and situation” for each photo, I tried to make it interesting and unique, attempting to capture a different aspect of stuff we talked about in class or something else related to film/photography.

Some examples include my time lapse photos of me eating an apple, it’s a series of 10 photos starting with a complete apple and then a “progress shot” after each bite until its gone. I soon realized I wouldn’t be able to use this for the assessment task since the sequence was more than double the required number of photos, and making all of them part of a sequence would make it hard to write about each one.

Ever since I was a kid stop motion has fascinated me, and I would create “movies” using action figures and a webcam that would create GIFs of fight scenes I choreographed with Dragon Ball Z characters, multiple Spidermans and the occasional Lego monstrosity. In my first project brief last semester the title screen was a stop motion progress shot of a hand drawn title card, and its definitely something I would like to continue to develop my skills at.

For my studio this semester we are required to do 1 blog post per week on a seperate blog, but we are encouarged to cross-post here so I will.

Here is the first blog.

Week 1

This weeks first class didn’t do too much that was worthy of a blog post, so I’ll have to stretch to reach the required 250 words.

Tuesdays tutorial involved standard introductions and overviews of the course, but also some interesting discussion on films and the notion of “frame”. Everyone in the class was asked to name their favourite film as well as a so called “guilty pleasure”.

The answers given were extremely diverse, with favourite films ranging across all genres and spanning many decades. It was noted by several students (my self included) that it was impossible to pick one film above all others, but we had many films that could all equally qualify as our “favourite” depending on what type of mood we were in.

I found some peoples answers interesting, there was the usual spread of genres that’s to be expected, but what surprised me was the appreance of very recent films, 2014 in some cases. I don’t mean to say modern film is somehow inferior, but for me to put a film/TV show/video game/song into my “top tier list” I must wait for quite a while. This is because I need to give it enough time to be comparable to others in my memory, which means re-watching others and then the new contender to “mix it in” to my psychological list of movies. I find the notion that a brand new film could instantly overtake ones you’ve held in high esteem for years an unsettling thought.

The class word association with “FRAME” was also very interesting, coming into this studio I wasn’t really sure what the term would mean in the scope of a semester’s study. The array of terms we came up with was almost everything to do with film study. I’m still not entirely sure what we’re going to learn about, but I’m excited to find out, especially Project Brief 4 and the prospect of making a 5 minute short film.

Reaching 250 words was not an issue at all, and I hope this style of writing is correct for the blog. While im at it, I commend whoevers decision it was to make a forced submission every week, it means that there wont be a repeat of last semesters industrial grade procrastination that led to me frantically finishing the required amount of Blog posts in the minutes before submission time.