Cinema Studies

Sound and Vivre sa vie

The following is a blog post written for my Introduction to Cinema Studies class, re-published here so all my work is in one place.


Conventionally, sound is used to support or reinforce the visual and narrative elements of a film. In Vivre sa vie (1962), director Jean-Luc Godard plays with the conventions of sound just as he and other French New Wave practitioners often experimented with accepted cinematography and editing techniques.

The perceptual properties of sound (volume, pitch and timbre) as well as the dimensions of sound mixing and sound editing (rhythm, space, perspective and time) are all manipulated in calculated ways so that the sound track actively engages the audience, rather than remaining perceptually invisible as sound tracks often do.

As just one example, under the opening titles we see Nana (Anna Karina) shot in close-up with an orchestral theme that abruptly stops after a few seconds, with the rest of the shot continuing in silence. Silence, or a close approximation to it, occurs in odd or unconventional places throughout the film. By drawing such prominent attention to elements like dynamic volume and nondiegetic music and sound, Godard foregrounds the sound track’s unreality and further provokes his audience to question the rules and limits of cinematic form.

In a film thematically concerned with performativity and the parameters of cinema, featuring a number of nondiegetic elements that draw attention to the fact that Vivre sa vie is a piece of art, manipulation of sound in this way has a significant impact on the experience of the film.

Standard
Media 1, Workshops

The elements of a podcast

In our Workshop this week we spent some time listening to the “Sleep” episode of Radiolab, a science/discovery podcast produced by WNYC Studios, and noted down some of the elements that make up narrative audio:

  • Music
  • Narration
  • Interviews / conversations
  • Sound effects
  • Atmosphere / sync sounds
  • Archival recordings
  • Vox pops

Apart from archival recordings and vox pops, the Radiolab episode used every single one of these elements — and in fact, often several were in use simultaneously.

Personally, I’ve tried to listen to Radiolab in the past (because the subject matter interests me), but in general I find their style far too busy and overly constructed to comfortably listen to. Compared to a show like This American Life or Planet Money, which are relatively unadorned and mostly let subjects/interviewees speak in full sentences, Radiolab barely goes a second without using some kind of audio edit, either by the host chiming in to lead the narrative, or an inserted sound effect, music, etc. This cacophony of sounds overwhelms my ears and I lose track of the narrative thread, which is a cardinal sin for documentary podcasts like Radiolab.

This episode of Planet Money, which aired this week, seems by comparison much easier to follow:

It still uses all the same elements as Radiolab (plus vox pops), but they are layered in a far more spacious way so they don’t conflict with one another.

A narrative documentary podcast is one format my group is considering for the audio essay in Project Brief 4, so seeing and dissecting how the professionals do it will help immensely.

Standard
Cinema Studies

A close formal reading of Zodiac

In his 2007 film Zodiac, David Fincher precisely controls the visual aspects of film language to drive story action, develop characterisation and convey meaning. A formal analysis of a single shot, which occurs at timecode 02:19:04 on the Director’s Cut Blu-ray version of the film, reveals the contribution of lighting, colour, focus and staging to the overall experience of the shot and the meaning it conveys. In the scene, Robert Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal) visits Bob Vaughn (Charles Fleischer) after receiving an anonymous tip that a former workmate of Vaughn’s may be the Zodiac killer, with handwriting evidence linking the workmate to the Zodiac’s letters. During a conversation in Vaughn’s kitchen, which immediately precedes the shot being analysed in this essay, Graysmith learns that the handwriting sample actually came from Vaughn and not the workmate, implying that Vaughn himself may be the killer.

In the shot that follows, by meticulously controlling the visual properties of the frame in the context of the scene and the film as a whole, Fincher suddenly and immediately evokes the mood and atmosphere of a thriller. After over one hour without seeing a murder on screen, the audience is manipulated by a combination of cinematography and mise-en-scène to believe that the Zodiac killer may spring back into activity by striking against the film’s main character.

Taken in isolation, the most immediately identifiable characteristic of the shot is its extremely dark, low contrast lighting and slightly yellow hue. The colour yellow has a centrally important meaning in the visual style of Zodiac, and this meaning changes in the context of various scenes and time periods throughout the film. In early scenes in the San Francisco Chronicle newsroom, yellow (along with similar colours orange and brown) are warm visual signifiers of the 1960s and 1970s, the retro colour palette helping the film establish its setting and year. By the time the film arrives at the scene set in Vaughn’s house, which occurs in 1979, yellow has been stripped of its nostalgic properties and is now more strongly connotative of bruising and decay, as the toll of investigating the Zodiac killer begins to destroy the lives of those investigating him. By grading this scene with a dark yellow tint, Fincher further illustrates the damaging frustration and obsession that has gripped Graysmith while also drawing visual parallels to the murder scene that opens the film, which is similarly depicted in shadowy yellow tones.

In terms of staging, the shot is deliberately composed to convey a change in the power relationship between the two characters. Before Graysmith realises that Vaughn might be dangerous, they are shot in a relatively standard manner and roughly on equal terms — medium shots follow the dialogue from one character to the other as they discuss the handwriting evidence in Vaughn’s kitchen. But in contrast to the earlier shot, after his realisation Graysmith is placed in the foreground to the far right of screen and shot in close-up, taking up roughly fifty per cent of the frame. Behind him, to the left of the frame, Vaughn stands deep in the background over Graysmith’s shoulder. The shot is photographed with a shallow depth of field to keep Graysmith perfectly sharp while Vaughn is almost completely out of focus, his dark brown and grey costume blending in with the dark background. Graysmith is clearly the most visible subject of the shot, but Vaughn looms over it in such a way that he controls the action and demands the audience’s attention. This shot would likely have been photographed with a long focal length through a telephoto lens, which in addition to a shallow focal plane also has the effect of visually compressing the depth of the composition and making it appear to the audience as if Vaughn is mere centimetres behind Graysmith, when he’s actually metres away.

The combined result of all these visual choices is that Vaughn looks as though he is towering over Graysmith’s shoulder, watching over him like a hunter stalking its prey. This heightens the sense of imminent danger and also plays into the genre associations the audience is being manipulated to make. The shot lingers on Graysmith’s face and eyes in close-up as they dart from side to side, emphasising his fear and paranoia as he starts to put together what he’s just learned, realising that he’s stumbled into danger and trying to figure a way out. His hair and make-up is styled in such a way that a mixture of sweat and rain glistens on his forehead and facial features, visually separating him from the darker surrounding of the frame and emphasising that he is foreign to this environment, an interlocutor who is no longer in control of what happens to him.

Approximately three seconds into the shot, Vaughn indicates that he wants them both to go downstairs and turns on the basement light, which throws a flood of diegetic yellow light into the background of the scene. Previously the shot had been lit primarily from above, which gave each character’s face sunken features and a death-like quality. The basement light hits Vaughn entirely on the left-hand side of his face as it streams out of the basement from the extreme left of screen, without producing any significant change in the lighting on Graysmith’s face. The right-hand side of Vaughn’s face plunges even further into shadow, distorting his features and making him appear even more obscured and menacing in the background. This reinforces the character’s mystery, as neither Graysmith nor the audience can yet tell what his true intentions are. The light from the basement also creates a vertical line of shadow that bisects the frame between the two characters, enclosing each in a small, tight square of space. This foreshadows Graysmith’s confinement in the remainder of the scene, as he finds himself locked into a potentially dangerous situation without any obvious way out.

These visual signifiers rely on the audience’s familiarity with the thriller genre and some of its associated tropes to be effective — particularly the idea that basements are dangerous places with no escape, that villains are generally lit with dramatic shadows, and that breaking into a sweat is associated with fear. At nine seconds long the shot is the longest in the whole scene, and the spacious shot duration allows the dark mood and negative associations to settle over the frame slowly, giving the audience a sinking feeling to go along with Graysmith’s. Had Fincher cut away at any point during the shot it could have undercut the moment of emotion and empathy that slowly builds as Graysmith realises his predicament. By looking directly at Graysmith’s eyes, shot from a level angle, head-on direction and in close-up, the audience is directed to experience the scene from his perspective, and left there for several seconds of agony.

In a film that is generally concerned with power, control and unfulfilled obsessions, with a main character that systematically pieces together a case from disparate and conflicting sources, it’s the first time Graysmith feels like he’s not completely in control. Due to precise manipulation of cinematography and mise-en-scène, it’s also the first time in over an hour that the audience feels the same way.

Standard
Media 1, Readings

Non-narrative cinema

Since I’m doing a Cinema Studies contextual stream I’ve previously blogged about non-narrative form and experimental cinema. Doing this week’s reading1 has been handy to consolidate the forms of non-narrative cinema:

  • Categorical form: Enumerates subject matter and organises it into categories and subcategories. Examples: The Fog of War, Tokyo Olympiad, At Berkeley, The Clock.
  • Rhetorical form: An attempt to persuade the audience to adopt a certain position. Examples: The Hunting Ground, The Invisible War, Bowling for Columbine.
  • Abstract form: Manipulates shapes, colours and lines in experimental ways. Examples: Stan Brakhage, Len Lye.
  • Associational form: Poetic juxtaposition of mismatched elements to create associations in the audience’s minds. Examples: Baraka, Samsara, La Jetée.
  1. Bordwell, D. & Thompson, K. (1997), Film art: An introduction, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Standard

Last night I watched a great little short documentary by Jon Ronson on the archive of boxes Stanley Kubrick left behind after this death. The boxes contain vast amounts of research for his films (both completed films and those that never made it off the ground), threatening crank letters, odd memos from Kubrick to his staff, and much more.

It’s a fascinating insight into the level of minute detail Kubrick obsessed with, which definitely shows through in his films. I think above all a producer/director needs to be concerned with detail.

Cinema Studies

Narrative and Mystery Road

The following is a blog post written for my Introduction to Cinema Studies class, re-published here so all my work is in one place.


Narrative form is a framework in which a series of events is arranged in time and space, governed by the effects of causality. Narrative films may or may not be presented in chronological story order, the plot duration may or may not match the story duration (usually not), and the space may be real or imagined, but just by operating in such a way that causes and effects occur in some kind of temporal order, in some kind of defined space, means that a film has a narrative.

The plot of Mystery Road is a tiny keyhole through which a sprawling story is viewed. The story stretches back years in the past, across many locations involving hundreds of characters, but the plot is restricted to Jay’s experience investigating a single crime in a relatively small number of locations. So while the story duration is several years, the plot duration is mere days, and the screen duration is just over two hours.

The story information is meted out as Jay discovers it (the narration is subjective), involving the audience in the processes and procedures of detective work as he uncovers the real causes and motivations that lie behind the crime. The story space is quite vast, involving cities, towns and other locations across Australia, but the plot space is restricted only to the locations Jay visits in investigating the crime. Interestingly, the screen space could actually be considered larger than the plot space, because there are a number of gorgeous extreme long shots of vast outback locations that stretch far further than the spaces in which characters interact.

Causality in Mystery Road, as is often the case in thrillers and crime films, is meticulously controlled. Causes turn into effects, which spark more causes, and the plot continues along a narrow thread of story information. The climax of the film resolves the major chains of cause and effect, but there are also significant events that happen off screen, or are presumed to have occurred before or after the plot sequence (most notably the inciting murder).

Standard
Assessments, Media 1, Workshops

PB4: SWOT analysis

Today we were given Project Brief 4, which is a collaborative portrait of a “media idea”. I’m in a group with Emily and Katrina, and from our first discussion in the Workshop today I can tell I was pretty lucky with the random assignment of group mates because they are both totally switched on. I’m looking forward to seeing what we can achieve.

As part of the group process we’ve been asked to complete a SWOT analysis on ourselves, so here is mine.

SWOT analysis

Strengths: I’m glad we were assigned the Texts & Narrative topic, because I feel like I have a strong working knowledge of media texts (cinema, music, literature, television) and, in particular, the history of film.

Weaknesses: I’m not a super creative person when working alone. I respond best to group brainstorming exercises and feeding off other peoples’ ideas. I also tend to take over if I feel like no one is taking the lead and if I feel strongly about something.

Opportunities: I’d really like to use this project to genuinely collaborate with other people, just to see what the process is like. I’ve seen what I can do if I’m working on my own, so I’m really keen to put our heads together and come up with something that honestly reflects the entire group, rather than just collecting individual contributions and smushing them together.

Threats: I can’t think of any threats in particular. I have a pretty flexible schedule and am happy to travel for meetings and the like, so I hope I’ll be a good group mate logistically.

Standard
Media 1, Readings

Flow

I really responded to the reading on Group Flow this week. 1

When I was younger I worked in my spare time as a freelance web designer, building websites and doing design work for local bands and musicians. It was in doing this work that I first experienced “flow” or being in The Zone, as I better knew it. On occasion I would get so into the work I was doing that I would work all through the night and into the next morning, well past sunrise. This happened multiple times, and I’ve never in my life been so productive as during those all-night sessions fuelled by music and terrible junk food.

One of the best articles I’ve read about The Zone is “A Precious Hour” by Rands, an engineer and artist who has worked all through the technology industry. As someone who is easily distracted and expert at procrastinating, I really jive with the idea that The Zone should always be a destination you’re striving to get to. I can get so much more work done in one hour in The Zone than I could in a whole day in what Rands calls the Faux-Zone, which gives you all the positive chemical feedback of productivity but without the actual productivity.

I’ve already discovered that I can’t get any study done at home – I need to travel into the city to base myself in the library or another quiet study space if I want to get anything done. Just being in a distraction-free environment goes a long way to getting me to The Zone.

(Incidentally, Rands has a few other fantastic articles including one about the psychology of being an introvert, and the importance of having a cave. (Note: this is not the same as a “man cave”, which is a concept I detest.))

But in terms of group work, the rules that govern flow are a lot different. With disparate voices, opinions and desires all forced to coexist, there needs to be a more rigid structure supporting the group to collaborate in a productive, pleasant way. Sawyer (2007) dictates ten conditions that should be met for group flow to be achieved:

  1. The group’s goals need to be aligned and recorded
  2. Group members need to practice close listening
  3. Complete concentration
  4. All members should feel in control, heard by the group
  5. Blending egos is of utmost importance, lest people feel overwhelmed or crowded out of decision making
  6. Participation should be equal amongst all members
  7. Familiarity
  8. Communication
  9. Moving it forward, always building on ideas with progression in mind
  10. Accepting the potential for failure
  1. Sawyer, K. (2007), Group Genius: The creative power of collaboration, New York: Basic Books, pp. 39-57.
Standard
Assessments, Media 1, Workshops

PB3 critical feedback

In today’s Workshop we watched each other’s PB3 films, and it was really great to see how excellent most of them were. In PB2 there were a lot of common themes/shots/ideas across films (including mine), but I think as we’ve become more confident with our skills we’re all starting to creatively branch out a little more.

I’m going to do a little critical reflection exercise for the people sitting at my table – Isobel, Rosie, Riah and Hannah. I’ve decided to use two of De Bono’s thinking hats – the yellow hat (positivity) and black hat (negativity) – to frame my feedback in a constructive way. For the most part I’ve really had to try hard to find things to criticise for the black hat. On the whole everyone’s films are fantastic, and they all make mine look boring in comparison.

Isobel – “There’s No One Like You”

Yellow hat:

  • The opening/establishing shots are really nice, with the camera focused on a small detail and everything else blurred. These shots combine well to ease into the interview.
  • The layering and compilation of B-roll footage is fantastic – probably the best of all the videos we saw today. I particularly liked the transition from footage of the subject performing in The Rocky Horror Picture Show into an original shot of her pointing herself out on the poster. So good.
  • This film shows the importance of having a subject who can talk at length and lead a conversation. I’ve interviewed actors in the past and there are some who are very comfortable reciting lines but couldn’t have a natural conversation on camera to save themselves, but the subject of this film has some really interesting and compelling things to say and knows how to speak in complete sentences. A really good choice of interviewee.

Black hat:

  • Even though I love the big colourful patchwork chair the subject is sitting in, I feel like it might be a little too noticeable and overwhelms the subject in some of the wider shots.
  • The answer about Rod Taylor comes out of nowhere and isn’t completely explained. From context I think the audience can piece together that she’s talking about her favourite actor to work with, but that could be made clearer.
  • This is a bit of a nit-pick, but there’s a television on in the background of some shots which is slightly distracting.

Rosie – “Escapism to the Country: The togetherness in isolation”

Yellow hat:

  • The shots of travelling are great – combined with the music bed they really evoke the feeling of taking a long trip out to the country.
  • I really like the found footage explaining the golden triangle, and it’s integrated very well into the surrounding parts.
  • The moments of humour are genuinely surprising and funny. I particularly like the visual framing of the “toxic gas” shot, which emphasises the sign by shooting it from two distances. The joke probably wouldn’t have worked if it was shot differently.
  • Ending on the best moment of the video, “finding that one thing”, is brilliant and really ties the whole piece together.

Black hat:

  • The subject speaks very quietly – this is obviously something that might be hard to control, especially if he’s naturally a quiet speaker, but perhaps some coaching/direction to speak loudly would have resulted in better quality audio (the hiss is quite apparent in some sections).
  • On a minor technical point, most of the found footage is shown very small in the centre of the frame. If this was scaled to fill the screen I think it would have been easier to see.
  • This isn’t even really a criticism, but I loved the shots of the landscape taken at sunset. I wish there was more of it.

Riah – “Finding Passion with Phoebe Rose”

Yellow hat:

  • I really like that this film has a subject matter to explore (keeping passions alive), rather than functioning as a more general portrait. I feel like I was able to get to know the subject just as well this way, and it gave the film a more concrete direction.
  • Found footage is integrated exceptionally well – the music video, the photos, the screen test, and the footage playing on the iPhone are all perfectly timed to support the voiceover narration.
  • The French accordion music that comes in when the subject starts talking about learning French is fantastic.
  • The credits, which highlight the photo of Phoebe and Riah, is a great idea executed beautifully.

Black hat:

  • Is that footage from Queen Live at Wembley really Creative Commons?
  • The music overwhelms the audio and could probably stand to be lowered a few decibels.
  • The transition into the music video could have been cleaner, maybe by having the audio fade up well before cutting to the footage.

Hannah – “Conor Grace: A Portrait”

Yellow hat:

  • The opening credits are really nice. I’d like to learn how to make titles like that.
  • Found footage is beautiful, particularly the tracking shot of the rower at sunrise.
  • Having a rower for a subject leads to some really fantastic on-location action footage. This is another great choice of interviewee.
  • The shot where the rower has to dodge a swan is surprisingly hilarious.

Black hat:

  • The audio levels could be adjusted a little – it’s very loud, and the music occasionally overwhelms the interviewee.
  • Beautiful found footage is great, but it highlights how ordinary the footage from the Sony MC50 looks in comparison.
  • Some of the editing transitions are a little abrupt and jarring.
Standard