It was decided on the Dream Team Council (that’s right, it’s what our group calls ourselves), that I will be doing a montage documentry. So, naturally, I had to do some research to deepen my understanding of the technique. I did find some interesting videos, but it’s not what made me stop and think. While browsing youtube, vimeo, netflix and vk searching for montage types of videos, I came to wonder: can some music videos be called montage documentary?
Let me explicate: a lot of music videos don’t have a structured storyline or any kind of narrative at all. They are just a sequence of videos that make no sense on their own but create a certain atmosphere, a vibe so to say, when out together. It doesn’t really sound like a documentary, but some of the videos we watched in class last week could hardly be called documentaries too. For instance, the one entirely consisting of shots of a carpet? Or a split screen with images opposing each other in meaning? Or, and this is my personal favourite, a GoPro dropped from a boat and dragged through water??? I mean, as discussed in week 1 class, anything is a documentary, really. Any CCTV camera is creating a documentary 24/7 but we just refuse to see it this way. So. Since we are “reimagining” documentary, could we go further and call a music video a type of open documentary as well?
Let’s have a look at the video below.
This music video creates a feeling of being “intoxicated” by putting together a series of weird, colourful, nonsensical videos. And they did their job well: this video does make me feel like I’m on drugs (or more likely, the ones who made it are).
My point is, the video I am planning to make for this assignment is not that different from the one above. Although the imagery will be completely different, it still uses the same technique of putting together a bunch of videos trying to create a meaning. I am not sure what I want to say with this, but I guess the borders of a concept of documentary keep on expanding.
In this week’s reading, I was pleasantly surprised to find a mention of a Soviet documentary Battleship Potemkin (1925). In Russian schools we study and analyse this film from a historical point of view, and it was very interesting to learn about it from a point of view of a filmmaker.
I particularly enjoyed Einstein’s take on evoking viewers’s feeling by creating conflict and clashing incompatible rather than giving them a set of coherent and consonant videos. I never really though about it before, but I would have thought that its the shots that work well together that create a stronger impact.
He argued that editing should not create continuity, but rather conflict— conflict of light, mood, rhythm, graphical properties, and ideas. Meaning in cinema did not come from the individual shots, but rather through ideas spawned by their collision. Each edit should clash formal properties and cultural ideas against one another, provoking audiences to make new associations about society and its structures.
F. Broderick 2010
This new intake works especially well with my previous knowledge of Soviet ideology and way of life. The ruling Party controlled people’s minds by constantly evoking strong emotions and emphasising contrast between glorious Soviet Union and “others”. In Soviet Union you are not indifferent, you LOVE the Party, you HATE bourgeois, you DESPISE capitalism, etc. The society worked because people believed and love their ideology with all their heart, and react to any other opinion with passionate hatred (and because everyone who disagrees was sent to Gulag but that’s a different story). No surprise that the documentaries of that time adopted the same principle.
And by the way, the red flag in this documentary is the first time a colour occurred in Russian cinematography. It was hand painted on each of 108 frames it appeared in, which made the already strong impression even stronger.
I am really excited about trying this technique of conflict in my own works. For this second assignment I will be doing a montage (99.99% sure) and I think that this technique will work especially well with this approach. When there is no voice over or a “guide” to talk you through the experience, the more powerful a video sequence is, the better. I am also interested to see how it will work out for a video without a political agenda and no intention of propaganda. I guess, we will see!
P.S. Oh my God! I just realize that I already subconsciously knew the strong effect of this technique before! In my previous post on “Don’t Think I’ve Forgotten“, I already talked about clashing two different ideas together, without even realizing it!
I really enjoyed how the director managed to combine the feeling of warmth, happiness and music-filled freedom of pre-civil war Cambodia with cold silence and painful destruction of Khmer Rouge dictatorship. The constant contrast between colourful shots of smiling and singing people and gruesome shots of war enhance the experience and invoke empathy in a viewer.
This is amazing. I love those moments when you re-discover something you knew deep down already, but didn’t really think of. Yes!!!
References:
F. Broderick (2010). Documentary Media : History, Theory, Practice. Taylor and Francis.
Okay, so we did this activity quite some time ago, but I only realised that it’s useful for my blog now. Oh well, better late than never, right?
One of the most successful of my group work experiences was last semester’s studio project: a live late night talk show “Midnight Snack”. I loved every aspect of the production and I aspire to work in professional TV or cinema industry, which probably had to do wit the success. But let’s focus on the reflection.
What did you contribute?
We filmed two episodes for our final project, and I was working as a floor manager on the first episode, and as a lighting technician on the second. Hands down I preferred being a floor manager. My job included keeping track of time, making sure everyone knows what’s happening and is on track. I served as a link between every crew member, connecting camera operators with the director, assistant director with the talents, and producers with the lighting techs. I feel like I contributed a lot to the overall success. I mean, we filmed everything on time without any delays or problems. Of course there were problems during the filming, but I was able to communicate with others and solve it on time. I can proudly say that I contributed successful management, my problem solving skill, precise timing and relaxed atmosphere on the set.
As for the second episode, I was in charge of lighting. It wasn’t nearly as much fun, but I was able to design appropriate lighting for different parts of the show and successfully execute them during the live filming. Not as exciting, but still helpful.
How did the group function?
I can answer that in one word- perfect. Everyone did the best they could and put the heart and the soul in doing their job. Whenever there was a difficulty others always came to help, and no one tried to slack off or do something they weren’t supposed to do. 30 people worked together as a clock. Now, it’s not in the question, but I will talk about it anyway: WHY did our group function so well? I believe that it had to do with genuine interest in the project. Everyone liked what they were doing, and it served as motivation and inspiration for us to progress.
What did you learn about the group process from your success?
Something I’ve noticed: the larger the team is, the easier it is to collaborate. In a group of two or three people it is sometimes difficult to collaborate and there tend to be creative differences. It’s just easier to work alone at this point. In a bigger team, however, the situation is completely different: the responsibilities kind of regulate each other. And because of a large team there wasn’t as much pressure on individual crew members.I can’t claim it it be a rule or an exception yet, but it’s definitely an interesting observation.
What does this suggest about the kind of group you’d like to be a part of for the flipped lecture presentation and project work?
I have to be honest here: I have been struggling with social anxiety for quite some time. Thankfully, it’s getting better step by step- it used to be severe and often lead to panic attacks- but it’s still work in progress. This is why the first and the most important criteria for me is to work with people I feel comfortable around. Secondly, I really like to work with hard-working, determined people who, like myself, only consider HD to be an acceptable grade. The groups I end up with a normally absolutely random, so I keep my fingers crossed for luck.
I am attaching the links to both Midnight Snack episodes. It’s not much, but it’s something I am proud of.
I have recently watched a documentary that I really want to talk about. It’s one of those films that speak to you on a deeper level, touch your feelings and make you reevaluate different aspects of history.
It’s called “Don’t Think I’ve Forgotten: Cambodia’s Lost Rock and Roll “.
This documentary investigates a huge part of Cambodian culture that was destroyed during Khmer Rouge regime and Cambodian genocide. Before 1975, when Cambodia was captured by Khmer Rouge and forced into highly repressive and xenophobic regime, the country was enjoying rich culture and some of the finest rock music of the time. Today, most people would be very sceptical of such a statement: who has heard of Cambodian rock and roll, am I right? It seems obvious for us that its the US and sometime Europe who produced the greatest rock music of all time.
Sadly, Cambodian rock and roll simply didn’t survive for us to remember.
The director of this film John Pirozzi was filming a completely unrelated movie in Cambodia when he was given a copy of the album Cambodian Rocks. Like any of us, he was quite surprised to find out about existence of rock and roll culture in Cambodia and he was interested to learn more. The album he was gifted turned out to be a collection of untitled music by artists who were presumably killed during Khmer Rouge’s Cambodian genocide. Pirozzi began his research and managed to find some of the survived artists. This documentary focuses on their stories, and on how their talents were mercilessly killed their music was brutally silenced.
This film drove me to realize just how important and powerful a documentary can be. It’s not just a story or an educational tool, it’s not Discovery Channel’s “How it’s made” rubric. This film revived a whole lost culture that would otherwise be completely forgotten over the years. It breathed life in a decade that we thought to be dead. It also made me think of today’s world’s famous K-pop: it could be Cambodian Rock and Roll winning over the planet if it wasn’t for that tragic historical accident.
What I definitely want to take from this amazing film, is the overall directing. Apart from an incredibly meaningful topic, this documentary is very well made in terms of cinematography. I really enjoyed how the director managed to combine the feeling of warmth, happiness and music-filled freedom of pre-civil war Cambodia with cold silence and painful destruction of Khmer Rouge dictatorship. The constant contrast between colourful shots of smiling and singing people and gruesome shots of war enhance the experience and invoke empathy in a viewer.
Here is a trailer to get a general idea, but I would highly recommend to watch the whole movie. Its 1 hour 49 minutes manage to revive decades of forcefully silenced music.
This week’s reading “Reimagining Documentary” got me thinking about the concept of truth not only in documentaries but in our every day lives. With humankind, there is a tendency to divide every piece of information we receive into “truth” and “lie”, which in our minds reads “good” and “bad” respectively. But how exactly do we know what is the truth? Our beliefs, values, behaviours, and attitudes are formed mostly by our childhood experiences and impressions and the older a person grows, the fewer his chances to change his mindset are (Lillienfled 2014). Therefore, personal perception of each individual of what the truth is, mostly depends on this individual’s experiences and social environment, and not at all on logical reasoning and solid facts. We, humans, are irrational creatures and we base our judgments on what we see and feel, not bothering to check the facts and involve logic in the decision making process. For example, look at the optical illusion below:
The shadow on the left wall is a square, and it’s true. The shadow on the right is a circle, and it’s true as well. The truth, however, is that 3D object in the middle is, in fact, a cylinder. So, if we say, pointing at the wall, that this figure is square we will be right and wrong at the same time. Now, if this statement is even partially wrong can it be considered true? A paradox at its finest. The fact is that everyone has their own version of the truth. It will always be different from others, but it doesn’t make it any less true for the person who believes in it. A person’s perception of what is true is based solemnly on what they see, and where they stand. And if we are being honest with ourselves, not many people would spend time and energy to widen their perspective, to try to understand another point of view and to find the big picture they are not seeing. It’s way more comforting to just say “I know the truth and I am right, its the others who are wrong!”. And more than that, even if we admit not to know the truth and search for it, the finding will be interpreted differently by different people, once again shattering the big ruth into million little lies. Therefore, we must come to a conclusion that:
“….the concept of truth is also a myth”
F. Broderick (2010)
It’s especially important to remember that when working on a documentary. If even our brains are not capable of seeing the whole picture, a mere camera can only fit that much in its frame. In the picture below, we see how dramatically a camera positioning can change the meaning of the image and our perception of it. Just a few centimetres to the right or to the left change our feelings and attitudes towards the image completely, forming a certain “truth” in our minds. And even worse, the picture in the middle which appears to be the true representation of the situation is a tiny piece of a huge jigsaw puzzle taken completely out of context.
Sometimes, even when faced with undeniable evidence human minds reject the unquestionable facts in favour of their firmly formed believes and perceptions. In “Reimagining Documentary”, Broderick (2010) talks about an outrageous incident of 1991 when George Holliday filmed brutal assault on a black man by the white policeman. This 12-minute video is difficult to argue with, but three out of four attackers were fully acquitted by the jury. Are people blind or stupid? Sadly, just ignorant. Our minds automatically defend our core believes when subjected to contradiction, even despite all the evidence and facts. Apparently, it was easier for the jury to come up with ridiculous excuses and protects abusers than to admit that their belief in white supremacy was wrong.
The real questions are: how do we make a documentary that is at least close to being true? Is it ethical to make a documentary with a certain agenda? Is it possible not to have an agenda at all? I am hoping to find the answer that throughout this semester. From where I stand now, I would say that it’s up for the filmmakers to stay as unbiased as possible, and for the viewers to question every piece of information and engage into critical thinking without accepting anything as the unconditional truth. What I can take from this reading for my own future projects is try to always remember that we don’t really know anything about anything, and leave our all prejudices or personal agendas we might have.
References:
S. Lillienfled; S.J. Lynn; L.L. Namy; N.J. Woolf.; G. Jamieson; A. Marks; V.Slaughter (2014). Psychology: from inquiry to understanding. Frenchs Forest, N.S.W. : Pearson Australia
F. Broderick (2010). Documentary Media : History, Theory, Practice. Taylor and Francis.
I have always been fascinated with people, their diversity and inner world. The way people’s brains work, the way people with different tempers get, process and give away information fascinates and excites me. The way people’s lives entangle and connect throughout the history is one of my favourite topics of books and movies. For example, my all time favourite movie “Cloud Atlas” and book “Les Miserables” by Victor Hugo explore the topic of delicate yet momentous connections between people’s fates. And, although such faithful links seem to happen all the time, we barely ever notice it. A book, a movie, or a piece of art can widen our horizon and let us see the big picture from a distant observer’s perspective. I keep finding ways to enjoy this perspective as much as possible.
I chose this studio because I saw it as an opportunity for me to learn more about local people, their lives, and stories. To get connected with a piece of history that I would have never otherwise discover. To explore and learn. Although in my future career I aspire to work on the big scale professional production in a world of TV and cinema, I felt like this studio can teach me to notice the little things that make up the big picture. To investigate and put together a story of a person, a place, or even an object, because, to quote The White Stripes, “every single one’s got a story to tell”. And I think it is very important to keep those stories, as they give a soul and a heart to “big scale” history.
Not to mention, this studio is a great opportunity for me to improve my filming and editing skills. Although I have had quite a lot of practice during my previous courses, there is always room to grow, learn and improve.
All in all, I am very hopeful and excite to start my research and put together a little piece of history.
Part B
The most powerful and inspiring non-fiction documentary I have ever seen is definitely an Australian movie called “That Sugar Film”. It’s not just extremely well made and highly informative, but also eye-opening.
In this documentary,filmmaker Damon Gameau explores the effects of refined sugar on a human body by making an experiment on himself. Under the careful watch of nutritionists and doctors, Damon changes his normal ‘no refined sugar’ diet to a diet consisting of products that are marketed and perceived as healthy. Cereals, protein bars, yoghurts, juice, etc. are all low in fat and are seen by consumers as healthy, nutritious food. However, as Damon came to find out, all of that “healthy” food is packed with refined sugar, and it is revealed that an average Australian’s everyday intake of sugar is 200 grams or 40 (!!!) teaspoons. For the sake of the experiment, Damon set a goal to consume this amount of sugar on a daily basis for 60 days, while not eating any junk food or sweets.
Spoiler alert: it did not go well. After just 2 months of only eating “healthy” food (while working out as much as he did before), Damon gained 8 kg, developed liver and blood disease, grew fatigued and moody, and his waistline increased 10 centimeters. All of these terrifying changes were caught on film as they developed. In his journey, Damon also explains a lot about the origins of sugar and interviews other people who were affected.
For me, this movie was life-changing. I never realised before just how much sugar there is in ‘healthy’ food that I used to eat on a daily basis. And I didn’t think it even mattered. This film compelled me to try and quit eating refined sugar at all, and I have to say I was shocked by the results. I’ve always been in rather poor health, constantly suffering from nausea, fatigue, and headaches, not to mention constant mood swings.After just the first two weeks of the sugar-free diet, half my symptoms were gone, and the other half got times better. My skin cleared and I lost a few kilograms without even trying. I would never guess that the solution to my health problems would be a documentary.
I admire that movie for many reasons: its eye-opening topic, of course, but also its boldness. This documentary contains a lot of deeply disturbing images, tells people something they don’t want to hear, and the main character puts himself through an experiment that has many people question its morality. But most importantly, it goes against giant corporations that made their fortune by feeding people sugar and lying about it. I honestly don’t even know how they managed to produce this film, considering it openly speaks against many specifically named companies. I deeply admire such bravery and perseverance that, I am sure, was needed to complete this film. For my own work, what I want to take from ‘That Sugar Film’ is honesty and bravery to tell it. I won’t necessarily look for such radical topics, but if I ever find one, I want to be able to spread it as it is.
This week we had our first rehearsal and I finally got to fully participate! It was an incredible experience and I enjoyed it very much to be a floor manager. I feel like I did well, although there are, of course, many aspects to improve on.
I’ve got to be honest: in the beginning, everything was rather chaotic. Before we started, I printed out run sheets and scripts in multiple copies to distribute among the crew. I felt like it would help us concentrate and keep track of the time, although I have to admit that the first couple of rehearsals were incredibly messy… When we started our first rehearsal I was terrified of how little I was aware of what was happening. To be fair, no one really knew what was going on, but as a floor manager, I felt like I was supposed to be more informed. The start time kept changing and I wasn’t sure if I am the one to set the exact time, or just announce what was told to me. Producers tried to step forward and take charge of the timing, but in the end, no one did anything until the director told them so. We still managed to stay more or less on time though. Communication between two studios was a little messy as well: it was difficult to synchronise during the first couple of tries. I couldn’t talk to studio C and could only rely on approximate timing and the DA. By the way, in terms of group collaboration, I found myself talking mainly to the DA- she was giving me instructions and director’s requests. I thought I would have more contact with the director, but he wasn’t wearing his headset most of the time. The first couple of rehearsals were really messy and people were uncertain of what they were doing, but in several tries, we got much much better. I think it was necessary for us to mess up the first few times to get a feel of what it’s going to be like and learn our roles. I think everyone did their job really well in the end- it took us several tries to get on track but by the end of the day we were able to produce a clean and concise run-through. If I were to say so myself, we are ready for the live stream. Next week, I am going to learn the script by heart to be 100% aware of the situation. Hopefully, nothing will change again. I also want to be more in charge and take more control of the studio: this time I was just learning what to do and was sometimes hesitant.
It’s really difficult to describe the experience in detail because it was really chaotic and sometimes even spontaneous. I was running around trying to organise everyone, helping everywhere I could, and learning the ever-changing script on the way. It feels like the whole day lasted just one adrenaline-fuelled minute. Overall, I absolutely loved the stress and the pressure, and I am proud of what we achieved.
It looks like we are going to film a night talk show after all. I am not quite sure why the producers and the writers have decided to change it, but I am certainly not complaining. As I mentioned before, I don’t know much about breakfast TV, but I definitely am familiar with late night shows.
Although the script keeps changing and it’s difficult to keep track on what’s happening, it is all starting to come together. So far, we have a news segment- as I understood it is more of mock news rather than serious information, an interview with a band, the band performance, a game or a quiz with the audience, and several skits to illustrate the news. I hope that the pre-production people can finish the script soon- I am a little nervous that I don’t really know what’s happening, and its my primary duty as a floor manager. Other than that, I feel like we are on track!
At this point of production, I don’t really have anything to do, so there is not much to reflect on. I am mostly observing the pre-production process and trying to learn as much as I can about our show.
I was very lucky to get the tickets to Millionaire Hot Seat as a part of theire live audience and it was an amazing, priceless experience. It was the perfect timing for me to get this opportunity as well, because this experience has significantly enhanced my understanding of contents of this course.
Unfortunately, no recording devices were allowed in the studio and I will not be able to provide pictures from the set, but I will do my best to describe it.
Upon arrival, me and the other audience members were escorted in a waiting room, where we had to register and sign an agreement form. Friends and family of the contestants were kept separately, as I understood in the same room as the contestants. There were two security guards in the room with us, as well an audience coordinator. All of our phones and other devices were taken away immediately at the entrance, which made the waiting more boring than it had to be. However, it wasn’t too long until we were invited in the studio.
The studio
The studio was incredible. It had very high ceilings covered with multiple lightings, several massive cameras very similar to the ones we use at RMIT, and the stage. There were 7 cameras in total, my favourite one being the giraffe crane.
I was always wondering how they filmed those smooth, wide-ranged zooms in and zooms out that we see on the TV. The answer, apparently, is with this camera. It was fun to watch it swoop around the studio: it could just quickly go from behind the stage to one of the contestant’s face. I also think they were using some sort of a fish lens, because the stage was much smaller than it looked on TV: at least two times smaller than I expected. This camera clearly made it look more spacious.
Another thing I liked in the studio, is the lighting. It was projected in such way that the contestants were always in the white “natural” light, and the audience was more in a coloured shadows. The contestants’ friends, however, were always seated in a specific place in the audience with a much better lighting. I think it’s a really smart way to visually separate the audience and the players, because it is both functional and aesthetically pleasing.
Another thing I thought was interesting is that there weren’t many crew members on the set. There were the audience coordinator, the audience host, the cameramen, and the floor manager. During the breaks a couple of assistants would come out to fix something, but that was it. From my experience at RMIT studios I imagined it would be more crowded.
The Audience
The show, apparently, has two hosts. One is Eddie, who is seen on TV, and the other one was called Marco and he was in charge of the audience warm-up and interaction. He was always there with us and his job was to make sure that the audience reacts at a certain time with certain noises. When we settled in, he explained that Millionaire Hot Seat is a live audience show and that we were there to provide soundtrack. There were 3 basic reactions we had to give on his signal: clapping, clapping and cheering, and the disappointed “ooooh” when a contestant gives the wrong answer. He made us practice several times to make sure it sounded good, as well as explained exactly when we had to react. And we had to do that a lot. A LOT. At the very begging we had to clap and cheer, and then clap and cheer even more when the host Eddie McGuire appeared at the stage. Clapping and cheering again after Eddie introduced all of the contestants, and then again when he announced the fastest finger first game. Every time the first contestant to get the question right was announced, we had to give a round of applause. Then again and again when the winner of the fastest finger first was announced, when another contestant moved to the hot seat, when someone got the question right, and every single time Eddie mentioned the million dollar prise. Of course, we also had to laugh at every joke he made. Marco was sitting between the cameras and directing us like an orchestra conductor, making sure there was always the reaction they needed.
I have to say, it got difficult to sound genuine very soon. We filmed 6 episodes, the first 2 were really exciting and everyone was clapping wholeheartedly, the second 2 were okay, and the last 2 were pure agony. I never realised how much cheering there were on this show. I had mixed feelings about the whole process: on one had it was fun and it looked really good on the screen. On the other hand, however, 90% of the audience’s reaction was completely insincere and forced. It was the exact same structure every time, 6 times over, and everyone got tired pretty fast. I don’t think it would be the same if it was a filming of a sitcom, I feel like people would be more excited if something new was happening every time.
They tried everything to entertain us in between the episodes though. Marco was really funny and kept making jokes and interacting wit the audience, he was asking question and encouraging everyone to ask questions back. It felt great to feel appreciated and cared for, they were really trying to make the experience as pleasurable and fun as possible for us.
Another interesting thing I noticed was that the audience coordinator always moved us after each episode. She explained that it’s a bit weird for the audience watching at home seeing the same faces all the time. Apparently, changing places makes it look more fresh. Makes sense if you ask me.
All in all, the audience was controlled to an extreme. By the end, it felt exhausting and sometimes even demeaning to clap and cheer when I really didn’t feel like. But I can’t think of a better way to get the necessary background sound and the audience to look good on TV, and it was fun experience. This show really cares about its audience.
Mistakes
Although Millionaire Hot Seat is filmed live, it is only aired a few months later. So, even though everyone tries to film everything in one take, mistakes are not crucial. I was there approximately from 10 am to 6pm, and I noticed following slip ups: one time the graphics were put up on the screen too early, and they kind of awkwardly stayed there for a couple of seconds and disappeared. This would have been definitely noticed if it was broadcasted live, but I think they will just replace that with a footage from another camera. Then, at one point, one of the cameras moved abruptly, as if someone bumped into it. The director quickly switched to another camera, but the damage was already done. Lastly, we had to restart the episode. It happened twice actually. One time Marco was late to give us the signal to start applauding, and the second time there was a problem with one of the contestants’ mike.
It was interesting to see that even a professional production organised to an extreme isn’t safe from occasional mistakes. Of course, it wasn’t actually live, and maybe the crew would be more attentive if it was. But it still felt good to realise that it’s not that scary to make a mistake.
To conclude, it was an amazing day. It was exhausting, but I would gladly do it again. With every time I get close to a film or TV production, I become more and more sure that this is what I want to do in life.
This week’s class has been extremely helpful: we had a lighting technician come in and walk us through the studio’s lighting equipment. As I discussed in a previous post, I was rather nervous about my performance as a lighting operator, but I feel much more confident after this week’s tutorial.
We learnt the positioning of lighting equipment in the studio, which can be seen in a picture below.
This scheme is really useful because it provides a visual map of all essential lights, which are quite hard to pin down by just looking at them in the studio. It also illustrates which number stands for which light, and it helps to operate the lighting panel. I was also pleasantly surprised by how many lighting options that panel provides: it has dozens of effects colours and positions available. I don’t think we will be using a lot of them, but it’s still nice to know that you have that option.
It was also an interesting experience to learn to adjust the cameras with a long stick: I imagined they were all remotely operated.
Overall I feel more ready for the filming day, but there is definitely room for improvement.
