Category: Uncategorized

💀

Assignment 2: Interview Portfolio

Subject: Ben White, manager of Wunderkammer

Equipment: Canon 650D, 18-55mm & 55-250mm lenses, H4N Zoom recorder with lavalier mic

Edited with: Adobe Premiere Pro CC

 

First Iteration 

For the first iteration of the Wunderkammer documentary I decided upon a more conventional structure and aesthetic, using only footage shot within the store. I made the choice initially to film the interview without a camera, as I felt it was lazy and unnecessary to include talking head footage in such a short documentary; and this way I could make the subject feel more comfortable, and create a more relaxed atmosphere for him to speak calmly and coherently. This first edit is more inline with my usual style of documentary and I feel works effectively to give an impression of the store and the line of work despite not having the time to go more in-depth. The choice of vision is used to affirm the image of the store created in White’s narration. In editing the documentary, I left the title sequence to last, and would have preferred to integrate it into the film, however it could did not fit well anywhere without appearing while White was speaking. Ultimately however, by placing it at the start of the film, this sequence works to set the tone of the documentary. In future I would also like to spend more time upon editing, mixing and mastering audio, as although the recorded audio for this film is fairly clean, it could be far better with some time and knowledge applied to it. If I were to re-shoot this documentary I would perhaps include more shots with movement to create a more dynamic work, and incorporate music in order to allow longer stretches of film without the subject’s narration. Despite this, the relative stillness of the film ultimately reaffirms the setting, overall working effectively to replicate the tone of Wunderkammer for the viewer.

 

Second Iteration 

For the second iteration of the documentary, I was interested to see how much of a difference just a very small change could make. Without the manipulation of music, the full effect of this can be seen. By simply shifting the frame inwards, and blurring its edges, an entirely different tone is created within the work.

Wunderkammers in the old sense, were small rooms piled high with historical artefacts, scientific anomalies and the like.  A cabinet of curiosities, they afforded the viewer a peak into a particular microcosm of the world. The intention behind this iteration of the documentary was to replicate the feeling of peering into such a world. As White states, the Wunderkammer’s effect is like stepping into another world, stepping back from our own. Whereas the first was clearly more conventionally documentary – merely observing the scene, this iteration is more concerned with authentically replicating an experience, impressing the real life feeling of the Wunderkammer upon the viewer through its on-screen interpretation. The small frame invites the viewer in, drawing them to look closer, and making them feel as if they are a part of the film. It permits the viewer to feel as though they are looking into a time gone by, not least because the keyhole effect of the blurred, squared edges of the frame are reminiscent of Super 8 film. The result of this is a replication of the feeling encountered when one enters Wunderkammer in person, consequently showcasing its appeal and reaffirming the subject’s point of view.

 

Third Iteration

For the final iteration of the film, I was interested to see the effect of continuously contrasting the skulls and taxidermy from the shop, with vintage footage of their living counterparts; if it would taint the appeal of the shop, create a sinister undertone or undermine the subject’s narration. I experimented with editing in the living animals both before and after the dead. When placed after the dead artefacts, the living animals sharply remind the audience the reality of what they are admiring. When placed before, they offer a stark contrast, as the juxtaposition between alive and dead halts the motion of the screen. The film flicks between two subjects: hunted animals, or those in a zoo, and dead animals. In both these scenarios the animals are possessions. The resulting effect of the footage subtly remind us of our treatment of animals, whilst somewhat undermining the subject’s narration and the magic of the Wunderkammer that is felt within the other two iterations of the film.

Overall I am quite pleased with the films I was able to create, and the differing tones produced within each.

🕶️

Notes on Blindness

Is creating a ‘fictional’ scene within documentary ethical? does it make it less of a documentary?

Notes on Blindness, while based in truth through the tapes recorded by the film’s lead subject, John Hull, the film’s vision is largely re-enacted or entirely created – as can be seen clearly in the scene wherein the filmmakers have created ‘rain’ inside the house. Can this be seen as a fallacy? Or is it indeed more representative of the truth as although it isn’t a recording of true events, it is a representation which offers the audience emotional insight into the subject’s true experience. Mirroring the subject’s blindness, here the vision is less important than the emotional and visceral engagement it allows. In this context, does this then present a more truthful representation of the story, as it affords insight that simply documenting the action as it unfolded in reality could not have?

When Errol Morris’ Thin Blue Line, was released, many criticised it for its use of re-enactments; which critics remarked as removing the film from the documentary realm, and fixing it within the fictional. Although many years on, such use of re-enactments has become a staple of the documentary genre, does this statement still hold any relevance? By re-enacting, are the filmmakers simply injecting falsities, conjectures and interpretations into what would have otherwise been fact? Or, through their use, are we the audience afforded further insight into the truth as we may better understand the situation, and become privy to the emotional, psychological landscape in which the depicted events played out?

For a film such as Notes on Blindness, wherein the visual landscape of the film is used to depict the emotional landscape of its primary character, such scenes are integral to the audience’s understanding of the subject, enhancing our ability to connect to and understand an experience which most have not lived.

💀

Assessment 2 Development 

For assessment two, I looked at the store Wunderkammer, which specialises in ‘scientific curiosities’ primarily featuring specimens of entomology and taxidermy. The following are untreated screencaps from some of the footage I shot. 

The store was particularly dark, which made some shooting difficult, however I intend to use this as feature of the film’s aesthetics, as it adheres to the ‘creepy’ or ‘dark’ aspects of the subject matter. 

Equipment

• Canon 650D
• H4N Zoom Recorder with lavalier mic. 

🙋

After learning that Errol Morris’ infamous ‘Interrotron,’ (responsible for his signature interview style wherein subjects speaking directly to camera) was actually invented by his wife, despite limited credit ever being given to her. A classic tale with film directors (and women in every sector – see Rosalind Franklin, or Lise Mietner), it is crucial to give credit to female directors as it is due.

Alice Guy 

The first female studio owner, and one of the first female directors, of her time. Despite creating one thousand films, just 350 survive. Despite her achievements, and pioneering work exploring the sound syncing system, colour tinting, interracial casting, gender roles and special effects, Guy has historically been overlooked by historians, with much of her legacy lost, attributed to her husband, or utterly unrecorded in cinema academia.

 

Lina Wertmuller (Seven Beauties), Jane Campion (The Piano), Sofia Coppola (Lost in Translation) and Kathryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker): the only four women to have ever been nominated for Best Director at the Oscars. Bigelow is the only woman to have ever won the award.

One of my favourite short documentary films, which I adore for its simplicity and stunning cinematography, is by Elizabeth Lo – hopefully she may become one of the future pioneers for women in film.

Each night in Silicon Valley, a public bus transforms into an unofficial shelter for the homeless. Hotel 22 captures a single, dramatic night on the Line 22 route. 

So why are women overlooked so often in the film industry, and denied the accolades they deserve? 

Why is it that documentary film appears to be the only section of the film industry where women have any semblance of a foothold? 

Deep-seated, insidious, internalised sexism and delusions concerning the abilities of men vs women, are the driving forces of cinema’s drought of female directors. It provides barriers to securing funding, and favours first-time male directors over women who are seen as ‘higher risk’ investments. In documentary film, the flexibility of filming, small budgets, lack of authority and ability to work solo or in small groups enables more women to break into the documentary film world. Although this is true, the majority of big budget documentary productions are still reserved for men; the most renowned and popular documentarians that instantly spring to mind (Louis Theroux, Michael Moore, Werner Herzog, David Attenborough, Errol Morris, etc) – all men. Women simply aren’t afforded the same opportunities. Further, these opportunities extend to when a documentarian tries to make the leap to feature films, or fiction films. Women are rarely supported in these endeavours, whilst men are far more likely to find support and funding for their projects. A clear unconscious bias runs through our culture. In an ironically recurring cycle, culture absorbs the messages broadcast to them through film. While women continue to receive a pittance of funding and opportunity, their stories will continue to be absent from screen, and the message this sends to our culture only perpetuates the messages that have created these conditions in the first instance.

🚓

 

How does the sequencing of a documentary, the positioning of interview subjects in opposition to each other – they can work to undermine or support each other – and may highlight, inform, or illuminate specific elements of a story

The fallibility of the subject – why it’s important to interview many people – the skewed memory – the false witness

The Thin Blue Line is a classic example of the fallibility of memory and unreliable subjects, which often may lead a film to present a skewed version of events, with half-truths or complete fabrications. This makes for good drama, however poses ethical questions when it comes to representation and fact. In the case of The Thin Blue Line, the positioning of conflicting interviews against each other, and the layering of audio from one subject over the image of another, worked to create tension by bringing the witness testimonies into direct conflict with one another, forcing the audience to attempt to discern just who is telling the truth.

 

🗒️

Interview notes

• prepare your questions before your interview
• edit your questions down to 10 questions – not to fatigue the participant, that way they are more likely to accept a second / follow up interview
• don’t overload the questions – keep them short, simple, focussed
• first few questions – warm up questions, easy to answer, provide context
• bulk of questions are a framework for retelling the story in chronological order
• final few questions are about the future / the impact of the event
• always add – is there anything else you would like to talk about?
• avoid giving out questions in advance, but if pressed, offer them the topics the interview will cover
• be warm and make small talk
• give them a glass of water if they are on your turf – take the water if on theirs!
• dont delay, look at the room/lighting/powerpoints – set up quickly
• in a larger crew than one, the person asking the questions establishes rapport
• think about light sources – face windows
• explain that you need full sentences and demonstrate it, especially if they think they know what they mean – give us much detail as they can
• offer an escape – if theres anything you dont want to answer…. however I don’t think there’s anything in these questions that will warrant that
• acknowledge the camera once (only) ‘know you can look at me whilst you answer, or around the room, but don’t look at the lens.’
• be an attentive listener, and use your facial expressions to support and encourage. Avoid making sounds.
• ask follow up questions if something interesting pops up. Ideally as it pops up, before moving on to the next question.
• silence is golden – if you want someone to talk more

technical pointers

• check the mics before you begin and monitor sound with headphones – just wear headphones while you’re interviewing – explain beforehand, and enter the room wearing headphones
• fix audio problems as they occur (pops, handling noise, lack of topic sentences)
• consider eyelines ( the interviewer should sit close to the camera)
• consider framing (rule of thirds, the framing of other interviews)
• consider reframing (moving closer as we move from general to specific – put down in sheet of questions to remind to reframe – get closer as more emotional, deeper questions are asked)
• in order to get the best eyeline, sit right next to the camera
• film action sequences after the initial sitdown interviews – participants are more likely to be more comfortable, and also to be less ‘performative’

sound 

• lapel mics are best used for interviews, as they capture sound close to the subject, minimising background noise
• boom mics are also good, however more fallible when held (contact noise), or when on a mic stand, as they do not move with the subject
• can hide lapel mics from view using moleskin tape, wrapped into a cone which encases the mic and then sticks to the clothes

📝

INFORMED CONSENT

 

Informed consent is often a point of contention in documentary films. As a medium which is regularly assumed as fair, balanced, and accurate in the information it presents, documentary films which do not fulfil this criteria will be subject to scrutiny. Informed consent is often a major part of such discussions, as the absence of informed consent from a documentary’s subjects precludes perceived documentary ethics and calls into question the reliability of the filmmaker. In the case of The Wolfpack, questions of informed consent were raised in regards to the age of the subjects, the editing of chronology, the mental stability of various subjects throughout, as well as the interference of the filmmaker herself.

 

Release forms generally include:

• agreement to participate
• the lack of financial reimbursement
• understanding they’re going to be filmed
• understanding their vision, voice, likeness and biographical material will be used in the film and in publicity
• reproduction of the film in any format now known or not yet created
• statement that the subject will not lay claim against the filmmaker (legally fight their representation)

also

• use of biographical information
• exclusivity
• story rights / life rights (filmmaker could write a screenplay, sell that script and not pay any money to the subject for it – morally this is out of fashion)

 

RMIT Release Form

 

Insert your name/s where it says producer/s and delete this line

 

In consideration of producer/s for RMIT Media agreeing to produce the

‘Film’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (working title), and shooting scenes in which I appear,

 

I, . . . . . . . .

 

of , . . . . . . . (address)

 

agree to appear in the Film, and acknowledge that any recording made by you of any performance or appearance of mine in connection with the production of the Film is an authorised use of my performance or appearance.

I further agree that my appearance in the Film may be edited at your sole discretion, and acknowledge that you are not obliged to include me in the Film and that you may make any changes in the Film that you deem appropriate.

I consent to the use of my name, likeness, voice and biographical material about me within the film and for the purpose of publicity and promotion of the Film, and acknowledge that there is to be no payment to me for any authorised use of my performance or appearance referred to above.

I also agree to the producer/s for RMIT Media exploiting and distributing the Film as produced in any and all formats and all media whether now known or later devised throughout the world.

I release you from any claim by me, or anyone, on my behalf arising out of my appearance in the film.

 

. . . . ./ . .  . /2012                   Signed: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

Parent or Authorised Guardian of: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .      (if applicable)

 

The Case Against Informed Consent 

A case often used to lay claim against a filmmaker is that informed consent was not present:

• if a person cannot read or understand the release or the situation fully
• disability
• mental illness
• misleading of the film’s direction / change of film prerogative after filming
• (questionable, & if release form is signed prior to interview) the interview took a different turn than was anticipated / explained before filming – misdirection

 

Personal Ethics Charter (to create throughout the semester)

• informed consent is present

🎯

As my final studio in my degree, I hope to use this course to acquire as much practical knowledge about documentary filmmaking as possible.

I entered this degree with the intention of developing my practice so as to become a documentary filmmaker, hence this is the perfect capstone, and a great opportunity to learn from a professional solo documentary filmmaker.

I hope to finish this course with a solid understanding of the true process of creating, marketing, funding and distributing a feature documentary. Filmmaking is a difficult path to pursue, so demystifying the more practical aspects of documentary production, beyond the art of the film, will be incredibly helpful in pursuing my practice.

In this process, I further hope to create pieces which are meaningful, useful, and well-made, which I may be proud to include in my portfolio of works.

🌈

The finished product is exporting! (hopefully this time adobe doesn’t crash)

My final installation video (comprised of all the portraits and the interviews – the file that would be used in the installation) is re-exporting, and I have to watch it to make sure if premiere crashes for the hundredth time, I can start the export again without wasting any more time *stress.* While that’s happening, I thought I’d talk a bit about the project.

 

At the start of the semester, I was hoping to do a documentary project, however I liked the idea of experimenting with different forms of documentary outside of documentary films which is my main focus. The project I’ve created for this final assignment is thus something that I’m really excited about. Not only have I created something new in a new style, but I’ve created a work that’s important, especially today. For that I am immensely proud, and will try to find a way to screen the work outside of this assessment as I think it works effectively to humanise and showcase LGBTQ+ issues in a way I haven’t really seen before. Even while watching the abbreviated interviews in the demo simulation I cut together (embedded below), I can see how effective the work is, and that was something I was always worried about in creating it – what if it fails to get the right message across?

I’ve taken a lot of care in editing the interviews to show exactly what effects queer people, and how different aspects of our lives shape who we are. It calls attention to the struggles that queer people face, and the way these issues come about.  Each interview shows different aspects of life as a queer person today, and highlights the diversity in experience that is crucially important to recognise when speaking about queer issues. Ultimately it’s a work that asks its audience to reexamine how they think about and interact with these issues. And I think it’s successful in that task.

 

 

🔊

Progress Update – Soundscape finished! 

Exported my final edit of the soundscape today. Am really happy with the way the layering turned out as throughout there’s usually one slightly raised focal voice that you hear, and then multiple other layers of other voices, which you can hear coherently if you concentrate and focus on them individually – otherwise it just appears like a wash of sound, just as I intended.

Slight issue is whenever I play it through my laptop speakers it loses all of its depth and the sounds become very separated into one loud main voice and then just quiet chatter in the background. Through headphones however its magnificent. Sound extraordinaire Ed assures me nothing sounds good through laptop speakers so I shouldn’t pay it any mind however, so I’m running with that.

Time to focus back on editing the interviews now!