My initiative post begins with my first ever appearance in the afi research collection facility, I began by searching for a text that explored documentary in a way similar to how we explored it in class. Trying to find the prevalent idea that documentary is not definitively and exclusively non-fiction and that in fact, to put it bluntly- it really is fiction. The book I chose was Representing Reality by Bill Nichols, I explored the chapter ‘Telling stories with evidence and arguments”.

The author writes of a director ‘Jill Godmilow’ who ‘inverts the expository mode of a documentary’ doubting the truth behind documentary topes such as talking heads, archival and witness footage. About a documentary film ‘Far From Poland’ Godmilow states that Poland is not depicted as a reality ‘where people live and die’ but as a place reduced to ‘textual figures’ within the context of the film. This seemed to me like a very negative light to frame documentary in and in turn got me thinking about  significance and truth behind fiction films.

There has never been a documentary in the world that has conveyed complete truth or done justice to the place or the people it is documenting, most will argue- like Godmilow that many documentaries are merely  watered down fabrications of a much more potent reality. Whereas a Drama film romanticises places and people-building on the dreams and imaginations of a culture. This to me seems much more honest. Woody Allen, in his film Midnight In Paris does this; he actualises global cultures idea of Paris, that it is indeed a romantic, mystical place, forever rooted in the past. I consider it a very purposeful, fulfilling film, because I share societies vision of what Paris should be. Allen begins the film with plain shots of Paris that seemed more foreign, more distant from me, than the romanticised filtered version of Paris the rest of the film plays on. This is perhaps because the my idea of real Paris is a mediated, watered down version of the truth fed to me by mass media and so called ‘documentaries’. Nonetheless Allen’s juxtaposition at the start of the film was purposeful and truthful, highlighting the reality of our dreams and the filtered truth we are exposed to. Pairing the reality against the dream is something I would like to explore and think more about throughout Film 3.

Later on in the chapter Nichols sites a Paul Rotha quote who states ‘Hollywood did little to further humanitarian uses of the cinema’. This is a quote I strongly disagree with, as I hinted at above, Hollywood builds on dreams and ideologies. What could be more humanitarian than actualising them? Articulating them? To me this is a trade, its a necessary ability that defines an important, not to mention beautiful aspect of our culture.

This idea links into the clips from the Peter Watkins films we saw in class, like Jil Godmilow, who ‘inverts expository modes of documentaries by fabricating her own versions of historical figures’ Watkins does the same with Drama. He hides fiction behind a standard self-conscious documentary. This is important because he poses questions about both forms, contending that there is an abundance of truth and humanity in Drama, along with ‘drama’,’fictionalised plots, characters, situations and events’ within documentaries. I think this couldn’t be any more evident in todays current television climate-these reality shows aren’t reality, it is everyday people portraying fictionalised, stylised versions of themselves-which mass audience buys and accepts, no questions asked.

Another example of the blending of truth and fiction is Nick Caves film 20 000 days on earth, Cave uses his stylised prose and intimate, self conscious film making to describe himself as an artist-not because he is being pretentious but because it is the best medium for him to convey the truth-as an artist he is stylised yet intimate, it makes only sense that his autobiographical film blends and interestingly combines the two genres, its as if he is using fiction to tell the truth that a documentary couldn’t. This ties into the Bill Nichols quote ‘The notion that any reality exists out there is beyond us’ ‘the sooner we realise this the better’. Cave knows that the moment him and his environment is put on film, the reality, his reality changes to something filtered, and what is left is only a historical representation of him, not the truth, not the reality.

Another point that stood out to me in Nichols reading is the idea that ‘the world we inhabit is a social construct’ and that the ‘reality’ we find depicted behind our screens in documentaries are also social products is interesting. The fact that society manipulates culture, and society manipulates media means that the two are innately tied. Even though a documentary may not depict the actual truth, it demonstrates mans attempt and to a degree mans inability to depict the greatness of his surroundings-which is an innate truth.

In this article Nichols states that the intent of the filmmaker does separate from drama and documentary. The effect the filmmaker has on a text, the result of that consequence e.g The text and the viewers expectations going into both formats effect not only the readings of these two broad genres, but also how future practioners go about creating them-the future of the genre.

BRYDAN MEREDITH s3547569 Film 3

Here is a link to my footage.

https://vimeo.com/135317987

For my initiative blog post I decided to film outside the media and communications building with a smaller Sony camera (and relevant tripod) in comparison to the much larger EX3 cameras we have been learning and using within class. The reason I chose this camera opposed to the other, larger one is due to its portability/ The camera and tri-pod I used were quite lightweight, which is handy because I wanted to be able to move around the back courtyard and perform shots of many different areas. The first place I went was the place I shot my first 50 second film with the larger camera last week, there are some nice leafless trees there, that frame an old doorway-it’s quite a picturesque image. The second place I went too was the big tent on the synthetic grass at the top of the courtyard; I got some interesting shots of people coming through the tent and down the stairs-but nothing too spectacular, most of it was quite boring. I felt as though the shot lack depth and personality-it looked quite ordinary, with a cold, silver table and flimsy black seats as the rather placid point of interest. I also felt the angle my camera was on couldn’t present the personalities of the individuals walking past it.

With my third shot however, I (rather coincidently), created quite a rhythmic and layered film. I think all up the film goes for about a minute and appears choreographed. The film, as it runs, presents itself like a piece of music, that starts with one instrument and builds-before ending on the same instrument-going full circle creating a satisfactory resolution. It begins with a lone window-washer dwarfed in a long shot by Building 9 and its surrounds. As he washes its windows, a small number of people enter its surrounds and quickly and quietly disperse (exiting the frame) until a group of people enter from the front of the shot before seemingly splitting into smaller groups and evenly exiting the frame on both sides of the bottom stairs. As this occurs, a fellow window washer renders assistance to our protagonist, washing the highest window-a happy ending.

Some things I thought worked well with the shot were:

• The positioning of the camera at the top, to the right of the stairs. By having the camera here I could create quite a layered shot with a prominent foreground and background.
• The colours: The mild colours of the courtyard, particularly the auburn walls, matched the mild environment outside creating a cool, succinct colour palette.
• The rhythm of the people within the shot. I felt as though no one distracted the viewer from looking at who they should be looking at, as the group of walkers entered the shot-the background subjects became somewhat less active-whilst the group of walkers dominated the audience’s attention. And as they disperse out of the shot, the other window washers actions eventuate.
• I thought the pace of the film was quite nice, it was slow and relaxed.

Some things I thought didn’t work well:

• My framing was ever so slightly off, If I had my time again I would have moved my camera slightly to my right a little bit more, so the left side of my screen captured the end of the wall (not a little bit of the walkway)
• The sound was a bit horrible. There were constructions happening around the area I was shooting-and instead of getting nice background noises like the wind, people talking, or birds I got muffled electronic work tools.

Some Final Questions:

How should I approach this task, or this idea? When doing these Lumiere Brothers-esque 50 second films I think it’s good to approach filming with an idea of what you want to capture. Though I did some shooting beforehand of just places, I knew I wanted to capture a human in the act of doing something quite commonplace and everyday-like window washing. There is something that has always been quite mysterious about everyday things being caught as they are on film.

Did my approach work? I think it did. It meant I documented the surrounds without interfering with anyone’s practices. Had I have asked the window washers and walkers to do what they did-it would make my film quite un-authentic and would have no doubt affected the honest result I ended up getting.

My Link.

https://vimeo.com/135317987

Reflection #2 Brydan Meredith

The main thing that drew me towards selecting Film 3 was the line ‘develop a competency in filmmaking skills’, the reason I chose to study media over other fields was because I have always been attracted to film, and the process of making film as a storytelling and educational medium. My school unfortunately didn’t offer ‘Media’ as a class so I haven’t (aside from Media 1) developed much film making experience.

In the first film 3 class I was glad yet apprehensive when the cameras were brought out-because technology has always confused me. I think a big learning curve for me was when I did the task of filming my own 50 second shot-the whole process from getting and returning the camera probably took me roughly an hour, but in the end I got a somewhat decent shot, and the next Thursday where we explored the cameras again, I set one up in about 10 minutes. This won’t come as a surprise, but I feel as though the more I’m with the equipment the more fluent I become in operating it (even if it is only to a basic level). And the more I get used to the basics, the more I can work towards and explore subversive filmmaking.

I have also been particularly interested in how the presence of a film crew (more specifically their practices in making the film) effects how the subjects/actors go about portraying themselves and others. Would an actor portray a character differently on a big set rather than a small set? Would they stylistically change their acting, if I was to record the audio later? Even in the first 2 weeks of this course I have picked up on the different ways people interact with cameras and I believe with further experience these actions can be manipulated or controlled to create something quite interesting.

What I want to gain from the course?

• I want to be able to have some control over filming and editing-to be able to produce a series of well manipulated, cohesive shots that are united by lighting (and how the camera responds to that), colour, brightness………
• I would like to be able to look at specific ways certain filmmakers go about making films. We have already started this by looking at Meilies over the top work and the Lumiere Brothers naturalistic films (Even though they may not be as naturalistic as they seem)
• To be able to edit on better programs (I did Media 1 on Windows Movie Maker).

Reflection #1 Brydan Meredith s3547569

When trying to decide on a place to document, my mind became instantly set on describing a place that would be easy for listeners to identify; hence I chose a lift. The lift has always been a place where sound takes precedence over vision, with our eyes we see a simple, large, boring door. Our ears however are exposed to so much more. Sound always indicates something eerily post-modern about lifts, with the loud neon buttons, the calm, robotic voice and the quick, pitchless crescendo of the giant carriage being tugged up an invisible wire. Lifts are a perfect symbol of the overly computerised world we live in-and it was this that I wanted to convey.

The way my partner and I approached this was to simply walk in the lift and move/position the microphone towards whatever button or voice over would play next. Interestingly as people entered into the lift there was dead silence and a complete lull, until one loud student decided to strike up conversation with me. ‘Are you guys recording now?’ he sharply said. I replied hesitantly ‘Yes, I umm- I’m doing Film 3’ ‘I’m going to swear into this thing’ exclaimed the young man. And so he did.

The purpose of me describing this incident is because, the moment my partner and I walked into the lift, we could never say we were honestly documenting the location of the lift-we instantly became an extraneous variable and instead documented the nature of a lift with an audio crew within it, which is in stark contrast to the standard environment of a lift. It also blurs the line between Fiction and Non-Fiction, was the student being more sanguine because he was on tape? I doubt he would act the way he did if I was not holding a huge microphone near him. Is the fact that he was more sanguine good for the purposes of entertainment? Most consumers don’t want to watch everyday life; they want to see eccentric behaviour-things a bit beyond the ordinary. And the last question I should ponder ‘Is that a fair trade?’ To elaborate Is it worth trading pure observation and truth for, as I said previously more ‘eccentric behaviour’? In the film, its title escapes me, maybe it was ‘Far From East’? We saw the subjects/actors behave very naturally, performing standard tasks not out of the blue yet they were camera conscious ever so slightly manipulating their behaviour albeit unintentionally due to the presence of camera.

In terms of an approach, due to the open nature of the task, and the fact that me and my partner were both new to the equipment I would not have approached it any other way. However, If I was to approach this task whilst shooting a drama film I would ask the people in the lift to be quiet, so the sound file is filled with beeps and robotic voices overs. If I was shooting a documentary I would hold onto a smaller recorder and record the environment in the lift that way.