Lighting and exposure and indivisible

by lighting subjects a couple of stops down it may draw the viewer, make them want to look deeper into the image.

the importance of production design

understanding the exposure latitude is part of being able manipulate its expressive potential.

Alright, so although the scene isn’t polished yet I will hopefully update it in another post once its finished.

For now I’m just going to reflect on the production itself and include a few notes that got left out in my Pre-production post.

Characters and actors

Sarah – Steph Tsindos

Richard – Juilo marchado

To work out the script we decided that we should improvise the scene first and then work at it from there. after a few run throughs I nailed down a couple of points which acted as ammunition for the actors to fire at each other during the argument, this turned out better than expected and allowed to get a somewhat consistent script.

The biggest issue with the production was that I only had Steph available for this improv section so during the shoot Juilo had to effectively guess the timings and delivery of the lines. During production this seemed like the best method and the pacing and delivery seemed to work giving adequate breaks for responses, however once we hit post production it urned out not to be the case as some of Steph’s responses lasted much longer than expected. This meant that I was at a lack for footage of Julio listening to Steph ,The result meant that the editing was forced to work to keep illusion of temporal continuity by cutting away to unsuitable shot, or by stitching audio snippets together to shorten the conversation. This meant that the visual rhythm was not as desired, especially in the argument, however overall I think it is still passable. This problem could have probably been avoided, given more planning, however seeing as the improv and shooting all occurred on the same day it seemed the only solution. I also think I could easily remedy this problem by simply reshooting the side shot, but with more specifically rehearsed timing.

Another smaller issue which was also effected by the audio was that the music at the beginning of the piece was meant to be diegetic, and lower in volume as we see Richard turn it down. Due to framing and audio timing however this is not as obvious, or evident as I would have liked it to be.

I think was the tracking shots went better than expected considering I was the old office wheelie chair method.

At the start I was planning to use elliptical editing, to expand the time in which the conversation was occurring and also to circumvent scripting a whole conversation. I was also planning on having Sarah’s voice be inaudible through the phone. These ideas both went out the window once we further than expected writing the characters and the backstory.

Other thematic ideas which crumbled due to the enforced editing where using Richard proximity with the camera, as a symbol for his distance in the relationship( this was aimed to be during the start of the conversation). Another idea that fell short was that I was planning to use Richards swivel in the chair during the argument to correspond with a turn in his character. The lighting ideally was meant to reinforce emotional tone as he was meant to be lit with more contrast once he turned around, casting half of his face in darkness. This idea also fell a bit short, however I think that the lighting still looked nice and worked to an extent.

Here’s my shitty storyboard:

Here are some rough pre production notes for my upcoming first real scene of my final project. I will attempt to expand and structure the notes in a friendly format, however I may leave some as dot points.

Scene Descriptor

The task as given by Robin:

Background:

Background: Richard lives in Melbourne

Long time girlfriend Sarah, lives in Geelong, it’s unfortunate.

they have a phone conversation one evening ending with a fight

One says, they might as well end their relationship – probably Richard

Sarah  says – fine, I’m ringing Blake – Richards long time rival

Shoot a scene with Richard on the phone. When they hang up, Richard goes to his car to head off.

Constraints:  can’t show Sarah, can’t show Richard driving

Character Notes

 Richard:

In his early 20’s Richard has moved from Geelong to Melbourne to finish his final placement year of his teaching course.

Richard grew up with one brother and a single dad.

His father was good to him, but struggled with depression as a result from his mother leaving. This left Richard to take up part of that role in the care of his brother.

RIchard has been in a relationship with Sarah for 2 1/2 years, they met in college at Geelong.

They have flirted with the Idea of marriage but never considered it seriously.

Richard has a lot of spirit and loves his job working with kids.

His job has been taking up a lot of time recently and he has been unable to visit Sarah has often as he likes, this makes him guilty to an extent as he feels the onus is on him as he was the one that moved away.

He is an avid musician, often spending spare time writing, and playing.

Since moving to Melbourne Richard has been getting involved in lots of social circles. Meeting new people, has not taken away from his feelings for Sarah. Given the opportunity of his youthfulness however Richard is sometimes left with a slight feeling of not wanting to be trapped in a relationship.

Sarah:

Sarah lives in Geelong and is one or two years younger than Richard.

She still lives with her large, chaotic family – Richard enjoys being around her family given his upbringing.

She is still studying psychology in Geelong, sharing some units with Blake.

She is attractive but modest about it.

everything is going well for he, she knows that her life is a bit too perfect.

She secretly wants to experience some form of hardship so she can prove her own self worth

Sarah sees Richard being away as the first time she as experienced this ‘hardship’ – Richard seems to be handling it well

Sarah isn’t handling the distance as well as she thought she would and is feeling less confident in herself, like she is less courageous and feels that in a way she is failing the relationship.

Her grades have dropped slightly as a side effect, her identity is unstable.

Blake:

Blake is still at uni in Geelong with Sarah.

Used to be good friends with Richard, almost like brothers.

Blake and Richard grew up together in Geelong.

When they where kids Richard would always find ways to create excuses for the pairs’ mischief. In a way this thought Blake not to take responsibility for his own actions.

Blake, Sarah and Richard used to go to college together.

Blake met Sarah first, making a strong first impression he wanted Sarah before Richard.

The falling out – At some kind of pre drinks event Blake was talking up having some pseudo intellectual debate, Blake is antagonising Sarah as part of his act of picking her up. Richard spotting Sarah’s discomfort, steps in and in stops Blake, taking away his responsibility. Once Richard steps in Sarah is able to see through Blake’s facade.

Although Richard was not initially attracted to Sarah, the couple find common ground  constantly agreeing with one another leaving blake out of place. Richard realises how self-centred Blake is or has slowly become.

Richard and Sarah hookup that night. Blake finds out the next day and interprets it as Richard taking a stab at him.

Richard and Blake stop talking Sarah continues to act as the middle ground.

Blake has learnt from his actions and maintains a friendship with Sarah,

Richard is always warning Sarah about Blake, and Richard now interprets any involvement Blake has with Sarah as an attempt to get back at him,

Recently Sarah has been meeting with Blake more often for uni, occasionally telling Richard on the phone.

Description of the conversation:

Starts as a routine conversation, Sarah calls Richard, small talk asksing about family etc.

She casually mentions Blake helped her with a uni project, pause, Richard questions her, holds back on his approach because he is uncertain.

Richard tries to change the subject, Sarah is aware and doesn’t give much of an answer, this annoys Richard.

Sarah secretly wants Richard to fight for her over Blake to reaffirm their relationship.

Richard asks if everything is okay – becomes a question of the state relationship

Richard bringing it up affirms to Sarah that there is a problem, Sarah brings up that she is going to finish a project, Richard questions if it’s the one with Blake, Sarah fumbles with her answer, Richard starts questioning more forcefully, Sarah is initially confused, then guilty, then becomes annoyed, argument ensues.

Sarah brings up trust – Richard is making it about Blake, in the heat of the moment she suggests they should take a break, Richard is taken aback, then question as to why it was even an option, Sarah panics is confused and says she has to leave, Richard asks if she is going to Blakes, She apologizes and says she has to go, hangs up.

Extra notes:

Sarah doesn’t want to say anything to fuel Richards jealousy, tension rises, Richard tries to settle but his tone gives his jealousy away

Duration reinforces tension on relationship as audience gets a sense that nothing is happening

Awkward pause, you can feel them mentally questioning the relationship, something has changed

I will add a few key scripted lines, and the story board once I get a chance to transfer them from my book.

So although It’s not finished here is the basic edit of the Shave scene – https://vimeo.com/127236591

I didn’t work quite as well as I aimed for, partly because I think I did not plan the action enough. My basic idea was that while shaving the alien would cut itself, the first hint of its alien properties would be the blue tone of the blood, I thought this might be a bit cliche although on second thought I think it was a decent solution. The idea was then for the alien to enter kind of repair state in which we would see the cut reversed and time rewinded, the shaver would remain bloodied however to signal the continuation of real time. This again did change a bit after I shot, the time reversal didn’t really work as I did not plan the action enough, the visual motion ideally would have been slightly more blurred / abstracted. I also wanted the order of the shots to be symmetrically ordered, with the aliens transformation occurring in the middle, then revisiting and juxtaposing detail shots of the shaver and the sink etc, this time with the addition of the blue blood. This was meant to reinforce the idea of time being reversed, but only for the alien, as we see the objects around him continue temporally. Again, this initial idea did not end up coming off quite as I had envisioned yet though after showing the clip to Robin, much to my relief these alien ideas seemed to come across stronger than I perhaps thought.

I think another area I could have improved upon or utilised more was the sound, thinking back it would have probably been possible to achieve the sense that the guy was an alien purely through the sound. However this Idea only really occurred to me during the editing process so I inserted some ambient sounds and shaving effects, but after searching for far too long I found it was extremely difficult to pinpoint or find the sound I desired. I think it works up until the transformation shot, as such an intense visual moment I could not find a sound piece that supported movement. Everything I found seemed to be cliche or perhaps too overstated or too technological. I think that in a way having a lack of sound detracts from the transformation given that I used so many sound effects before it.

This thought emerged after a discussion with a friend. To convey an emotion it is in some cases more powerful to act out the emotion opposite to the situation, letting the audience sense the juxtaposition. That was a bit tricky to put into a sentence so here is an example, we follow our character a small boy who’s family suddenly experiences severe hardship. He recounts changes and events he notices in his family as a result of the hardship, i.e. his dad stops XXXX with a sort of happy ignorance, rather than direct sadness. This happiness and innocence is juxtaposed the dire tone of the situation, the boys limited understanding of the seriousness of the situation is also juxtaposed with the audiences deeper understanding of the events unfolding. The audience then experiences a different kind of sadness instead of a kind of pity for the child, there is a certain level of emotional tension left hanging as the audience is aware that at some point the boy must confront the events with himself in the future.

This example works in part because of the assumed innocent ignorance of the child, I wonder how it would apply to other situations. My gut feeling is that it would take the form of denial which in turn I think could produce another kind of sadness, but perhaps not as emotionally potent to a child’s loss of innocence.

As part of my preparation for my final project Robin has given me a series of scenes, or stimulus paired with a set constraints. A few took my interest in particular, they provided me a good challenge and here they are

the first

Charles Bukowski wrote

—————————————————

I have seen dogs with more style than men,
although not many dogs have style.
Cats have it with abundance.

Shoot a scene that explores this notion

—————————————————

I found this really challenging, partly because I could not seem to fully grasp his concept so I sought out the full poem.

—————————————————

Style is the answer to everything.
A fresh way to approach a dull or dangerous thing
To do a dull thing with style is preferable to doing a dangerous thing without it
To do a dangerous thing with style is what I call art

Bullfighting can be an art
Boxing can be an art
Loving can be an art
Opening a can of sardines can be an art

Not many have style
Not many can keep style
I have seen dogs with more style than men,
although not many dogs have style.
Cats have it with abundance.

When Hemingway put his brains to the wall with a shotgun,
that was style.
Or sometimes people give you style
Joan of Arc had style
John the Baptist
Jesus
Socrates
Caesar
García Lorca.

I have met men in jail with style.
I have met more men in jail with style than men out of jail.
Style is the difference, a way of doing, a way of being done.
Six herons standing quietly in a pool of water,
or you, naked, walking out of the bathroom without seeing me.

—————————————————

Now I’m not really one for poetry reading but It seemed to me that there was a pattern in the middle three verses. In the last line seems to in some sense contradict the rest of the verse, but I think it is in this contradiction, or distinction that actually helps define Bukowski’s concept of style. For example the line Bukowski states that doing something dangerous with style is what he calls art, then listing boxing, bullfighting, loving and opening a can of sardines. Opening a can of sardines does not seem dangerous in any sense. Joan of Arc had style, John the Baptist, Jesus, Socrates, Caesar, García Lorca,  I had to google this last one, Garcia Lorca seems to be a french poet, another anomaly in the list. This leads me to my selected verse, ‘Cats have it in abundance’ now it seems there is something more in this line than Bukowski simply noting stylish nature of a cat. Although what I’m still not sure, I think I found this task a little to abstract, or perhaps I just needed to give myself some more constraints.

This brings me to the next task, which was

depict a man shaving his face and/or a woman shaving her legs as a

1:An explanation for aliens;

This one really took my interest, as I’ve been thinking about it over the last couple of days my thought process has felt different to that of a dramatic scene, solving it seemed to pose more of a logical problem, or perhaps a riddle in which  the tool to solve it is the camera.

Here a few of my thoughts on the scene

the problem it poses is :how to convey a sense of an alien without props or any special effects.

I felt that using a voice over might be considered cheating, but may need to resort to it in some sense to explain, however if I do it should be indirect otherwise it would defeat the purpose.

A: through using association, somehow pairing the act of shaving to an alien movement. potentially by juxtaposing movements

B: by manipulating the action somehow, could potentially include filming the shaving in an abstract was to distort human features

C: As a mini narrative, in which we see an the alien watching someone else shaving, then in an effort to assimilate attempting to recreate the action himself.

This weeks epiphany was sparked by a combination of Robin’s ‘ellipsis’ pitch and my research question on decoupage/montage. It occurred to me when watching the ‘Carlos’ clip, the elliptical sequence of the car bomb, when compared to the clip from Breathless that this was a kind of visual distinction between the decoupage and montage. As Robin identified the action within shots from Breathless seemed to perhaps be pre-determined whilst the action in Carlos has clearly been cut and dictated after filming the sequence. As I touched on earlier in my research post, I think that this is possibly another way to define the approach of decoupage from montage as we can see the at which point the meaning was inflicted upon the scene.

It would seem that this definition is more complex than I initially thought, these sequences share both elements of montage and decoupage. Looking at the clips as two separate montages, or perhaps, with different approaches of decoupage. Let us assume that in the clip from Carlos all other elements of decoupage other than the length of the shots was predetermined as we were still destined to see Carlos checking the car for the bomb with that particular setting/acting etc. the only change was that the rhythm was decided most likely, in post by the editor. In the clip from Breathless the rhythm of the shots was decided before they shot, but the temporal continuity is still ruptured by the cuts, which perhaps defines it as a montage.

The rhythm of each sequence is then their defining features, the clip from Carlos manipulates it after filming, whilst the clip from breathless manipulates it before filming. Both clips use elements of decoupage and montage yet the point in which the approach with which the rhythmic characteristics are decided is what defines them.

Talking about this really just made me realize that there might be some kind of visual evidence ito separate decoupage and montage in their approach to filmmaking. I’m sure there would be more and I shall have to think further on this to discover them.

Montage and Decoupage are two very important terms which have been used throughout film history. Varying definitions, functions and methodologies of such terms have been widely theorised and practised upon within cinema. In this blog post I will attempt to analyse these terms in their historical relations and unpack central concerns they relate to on filmmaking as practise.

The two texts I will be using for this post are

Aumont, J. (1992). Aesthetics of film. Austin: University of Texas Press.

and

Timothy Bernard’s Essay – Decoupage

published in the Caboose series Kino-Agora in 2014

Montage is an term which largely describes “the combining of two film elements, resulting in the production of a specific effect that could not be produced by either of the two elements“(Aumont, 1992)

Aumont first redefines the term montage arguing that over the course of history the vocabulary relating to the term has been loose, primarily in the use of the word ‘effects’. Aumont preposes that instead we define montage via its ‘functions’ as the term functions is more abstract and does not posses the same connotations of concrete proof inherit in the term ‘effects’. Marcel Martin proposes montage bares its three creative functions, the creation of movement, rhythm and the ‘idea’. Aumont defines this more systematically as three functions, the first of which is a montages syntactic function, or the way in which the montage assures formal relations between the parts it assembles. The second function, the semantic function is the most important as it is the center of the production of denotative and connotative meaning within the montage. Finally the rhythmic function, in which  “Film rhythm presents itself as a superimposition and combination of temporal an plastic, both of which are heterogeneous“(Aumont, 1992).

To give these functions a more tangible context, a common match on action cut would yield the following results; a syntactic effect of liaison due to the apparent continuity of the movement, a semantic effect as the action is part of a greater narrative which aims for temporal continuity and finally a possible rhythmic effect which is tied to or produced by the break within movement.

Aumont groups the theory surrounding montage under two different philosophical approaches to film with their leading figureheads. One approach is to understand film as an art of representation in which film aims to share as much ambiguity as the real world, this stance was taken by renown film theoretician Andre Bazin and his french new wave followers. The other is to approach film is as a signification for mass vocation, one which functions as part of an articulated discourse as theorised by filmmaker Sergei Eisenstein and other soviet filmmakers.

Eisenstein believed in the film’s duty “not to reproduce the “real” without intervening but to reflect this reality by simultaneously making an idealogical judgement“(Aumont, 1992). Eisenstein’s theory is centred around film fragments and conflict they produce with one another. Eisenstein defines these fragments one unitary piece of film or a ‘film unit’, it is important to note that these units are not necessarily limited to the definition of a single shot.These fragments form an element of the films syntagmatic chain and are defined by their relations to their surrounding units. Each fragment is able to be devised or broken down into its material elements which are limited by the film parameters, these includes elements such as luminosity, contrast, sound quality, shot size, duration etc. Fragments also contain a certain relationship with a referent, each fragment is extracted from the ‘real’ also operates as a break within the ‘real’, as Aumont puts it “Thus, Eisensteins’ frame always has a more or less value of a clean cut between two heterogeneous worlds – those of the onscreen and offscreen space.” (Aumont, 1992).

Eisenstein theorises that the production of meaning within montage is built upon a model of conflict, a conflict which is that is created by the interaction of any two film units of the film discourse. These units like before, can then be deconstructed or divided and analysed by their different parameters, Eisenstien lists some examples of these conflicts, graphic conflict, conflict between planes, conflict between volumes, light conflict, conflict between an event and its temporal nature, spatial conflict, etc.

Another important note in Eisenstein’s theory of montage was his concepts regarding sound/image relationship. Eisenstein was one of the first to significantly develop the idea of the ‘audiovisual counterpoint’ a idea which Aumont describes as “an expression which attempts to describe sound cinema as a contrapuntal play generalised among all the elements or film parameters”(Aumont, 1992). Aumont notes this as a crucial concept because Eisenstein considered sound to be on an equal level of the production of meaning with the image.

Bazin’s theory of montage is based upon two ideological assumptions

1. “ In reality, or the real world, no event is ever endowed with an priori meaning. Thus, Basin designates the idea by expression “the immanent ambiguity of reality”

and

2.

“The cinema’s ontological vocation is the reproduction of reality by respecting this essential characteristic as much as possible. The cinema therefore, must produce, or strive to produce, representations that are endowed with as much ambiguity as exists in reality itself.”

Bazin’s theory deemphasised the power of montage compared to Eisenstein, as Bazin saw montage as limiting the potential of cinema’s ability to communicate a continuous transparency of reality. Bazin’s montage was one that aimed to mask any discontinuity as much as possible as part of which Bazin set out defining certain limitations of the montage,

“when the essence of a scene demands the simultaneous presence of two or more factors in the action, montage is ruled out. It can reclaim its right to be used, however, whenever the import of the action no longer depends on the physical contiguity even though this may be implied”

One issue  that Aumont highlights with this statement is that Bazin uses the term ‘the essence of a scene’ with the same “famous ambiguity, which is the imposed absence of signification to which he attaches such a high value“(Aumont, 1992)

Aumont simplifies this further to note that “it will be ruled out, for example(at least in principle), every time the event’s outcome is not foreseeable“.(Aumont, 1992)

another issue Aumont points out with these theories is that both theorists, abandon or fail to properly define their criterions for ‘reality’. Despite this these theories are not in opposition to one another as the systems and functions which they discuss share little similarities as Aumont states,

“What interests Bazin is almost exclusivley the faithful, “objective” reproduction of reality that carries all its meaning within itself, Eisenstein does not conceive of film except as an articulated and assertive discourse that can only maintain a figurative reference to reality.“(Aumont, 1992)

Decoupage

A term which Bernard initially describes as enigma one that is full of paradoxes and contradictions, its meaning has fluctuated over time changing with the author and the language. The term was initially split into two meanings ‘decoupage’  and ‘decoupage technique’  the initial relating to concerns of film form whilst the latter was roughly defined as the process of cutting up the script from the narrative, a detailed plan for shooting complete with camera indications, stage directions and editing directions. Luis Bunuel makes the important distinction of dividing decoupage from the editing, seeing editing as a mere manual labour, similar to say a grip or a camera assist. Geroges Sandoul also sees this division between decoupage and editing, defining decoupage as a centrifugal process, existing in the three unities of space, time and action. Gergoes states that decoupage cuts up the space of a scene by fragmenting a united space into pieces, editing on the other hand creates a linear narrative out of scenes which are remote from one another in space.  George’s defines editing as a centripetal process which joins distinct spaces together, using the film the Lonsdale operator as an example, as the final scene demonstrates the differences as the film attempts to create a united spatial continuity via the editing rather than decoupage.

Bernard says that it is as if decoupage lacked an equivalent word in English to describe “the aesthetic and industrial operation for conceiving films both pictorially through camera work and temporally through image sequencing.” (Bernard, 2014) and so it seems much of the confusion in concepts stems as much from a language and translate barrier as it does from a any of idealogical differences of the term. Bernard argues that influential authors such as Bordwell and Thompson have misunderstood the term making the common mistake of mixing it somehow in with the editing process or visa vera.

Another distinction Bernard makes it that decoupage is a highly collaborative and collective process for it is the process in which the film is mapped out, planned divided up to establish spatial relations. authors such as Jean Miitry insisted that decoupage stresses the articulation of the camera in the cutting process. Editing acts materially on the abstract whilst decoupage acts ideally on the concrete. Bernard suggests that what has been termed as classical analytical editing is in fact analytical decoupage. Finally Bernard defines decoupage as
“sequencing derived from camera set up to constitute what Noel Burch describes, in a discussion of decoupage, as the fracture or formal treatment of a film: its style, in common paralance“(Bernard, 2014)

After reading these two texts it would seem that as Benard notes in history both the terms montage and decoupage have been used to regard similar concepts, sometimes so similar in fact that they have been confused for one another. I think this is due to the fact that they can, in some cases share very similar functions, for example to the functions of montage that I made an example of above with the match on action could also be said to be the functions of decoupage for the same sequence. They both can evoke these syntactic, semantic and rhythmic functions and they both share a place as the process of production of meaning within film. A key difference that I found is that decoupage seems to apply to a single unified space, whereas montage can apply to multiple spaces(parallel montage) or a single space. In the end the terms are largely context dependant on whose definition you refer to them with, although each author has attempted to define a particular the terms as a particular process, the terms themselves seem to be somewhat dependant on the individuals philosophical approach to filmmaking.

A couple of thoughts have occurred to me, If i am aiming to break down my own preconceptions of decoupage then to eliminate any possible conscious or unconscious tendencies, I should have someone else set the obstructions for me.

I was thinking if I should remake a scene such as the perfect human, or if I should remake my own scene. to do this  Lets weigh up the pros and cons

– Own scene –

Pros: new interpretation, full creative control (possibly a con?), parameters could be more manageable even though parameters may vary from obstruction to obstruction (location, actors. etc)

Cons: don’t want to write own script, previous films do not have enough development/layers, distinct lack of films to use.

– Other scene, The Perfect Human –

Pros: don’t have to create a script, developed concepts which can be reinterpreted,

Cons: Will be compared to original(possibly a pro), will have inherit preconceptions (which are more defined than my own),

——–

The scene needs to be exploring a notion or concept rather than been restricted to a dramatic situation because dramatic situations have preconceived

Over the past couple of week we have been completing a series of exercises, these have often been comprised of a script, or description of a scene coupled with a constraint. These constraints have often been formal in nature, to revisit some examples in one week we had to cover the whole scene in one shot in another we were not allowed to return to previous shots. One thing that we were not told until after the exercise was that these constraints had a purpose, a hidden motivation that we were often unaware until afterwards. For instance, to cover a scene in a single shot aimed for us to utilize actors with a single space moving them around the frame to generate different compositions and in the other exercise aimed for the camera to evolve through the space with the action.

The success of these motivations has varied, producing the desired effects and perhaps some unexpected but nevertheless interesting results along the way. One observation I took away from these weekly exercises that I’m sure we could all agree on is that the best classes were the ones in which we produced a wider range of results and interpretations. These were the most revealing, and through practice and reflection we gained both theoretical and practical knowledge. The moments that were not so revealing however were when we fell back on what we were comfortable with, back to learned conventions which I think stem from a set of preconceived ideas and conventions that we have gained from a lifetime of consuming and producing media. Now before I start sounding too much like a conspiracy theorist lets take the shot reverse shot for example, a known device and an efficient solution for a two person dialogue, one that I’m sure we’ve all used it once or twice during these exercises, I know I have. But why did we use it? Because it engaged us and conveyed a central concepts in the scene? Maybe, in some cases yes it may have? But I think many of us chose it because we knew it, we knew we could make it look good, we knew we could frame it, where to place the actors etc.

In my project I will aim to transform my own conceptions of coverage by stripping back these preconceptions and applying a good deal of critical thought. To do this I will begin to explore how different varieties and combinations of restraints effect my reinterpretation of a text by recreating a scene or part of film multiple times each time with a different set of constraints. The constraints are to be set by another person, or perhaps multiple people as to separate me from influencing their parameters; They must however contain shall be a mixture of formal and arbitrary restrictions, and their motive if any, must also remain hidden from me until after the production stage. The film or scene must also be centered on a notion or concept, instead of being buried in a particular dramatic situation or mode. This is to free me of any reliance on conventions that may be carried by a particular genre or tone. Hopefully through this practice and reflection I will yield some interesting and experimental results which would serve to broaden my own conceptions of coverage.

I have actors, and I will film it myself. I do need a sound recordist and if you have any ideas for constraints or a piece of film they would be more than welcome, Thank you.

.