I have been researching both my roles for the past few day and I’ve made some interesting discoveries and observations.
Floor manager
Apparently, floor manager has more duties than I previously imagined. I was aware before that a floor manager has to serve as a link between the director and the floor and keep him or her informed on the situation in the studio. I knew that a floor manager had to give cues and time counts, organise the crew, keep track of the programme schedule, control the studio, and be aware of everything that happens on the floor. It was a discovery for me, however, that a floor manager is also in charge of the live audience and is required to seat them and explain their role at the set. I was also quite surprised that floor manager is expected to solve technical issues if they arise, although I don’t think that’s the case for me. As students, we are actually forbidden to try and fix faulty equipment and are expected to ask a professional technician for help. Nonetheless, it was interesting to learn that a floor manager is supposed to have basic knowledge of a technical aspect of a production. It was also indicated on almost every source I found that the role is particularly stressing and pressuring, because of many responsibilities that come with the position. I don’t mind that- I find that I thrive under pressure, and I would be far more disappointed with a tedious, monotone role.
To make it easier to keep track of the busy schedule and keep an eye on the time, I plan to print full scripts and a run sheet in multiple copies to distribute to the director, director’s assistant and myself. I am also trying to keep up with the constantly changing scripts to be fully aware of the filming process.
Lighting technician
I am nervous about taking on a role of a lighting technician. It requires technical know-how and I don’t really have much experience with lighting equipment. I got a chance to play around with a portable lighting kit during my last studio, but I have to admit that I failed epically. That is why I chose this role- I wanted to try it again and better myself, but I am worried about my performance.
The online research didn’t really help: I don’t know what kind of machines RMIT studio has and it is difficult to learn to operate it from a website anyway. I did refresh my knowledge of a three-point lighting, however- I think it will be extremely useful. I also looked at some talk shows and band performances to see what kind of lighting techniques they use. I found two more or less popular morning shows: Breakfast Television (BT) and The Morning Show. They originated in Canada and Australia respectively. Neither of this show displayed some distinctive lighting technique: it is a standard natural-looking light. However, I noticed that these shows are particularly well-lit in terms of brightness, probably to highlight the time of the day.
As for live band performances, I found quite a lot of them and made several peculiar observations. There is something interesting I noticed: most of the band performances tend to use red, pink and purple lights. The 3 music performances I use as examples below are all songs of different genres: electropop/Indie pop, hip-hop, and alternative rock/grunge respectively, yet all of them were shot in red-ish, purple-ish light. It is an especially interesting finding because of a significant time difference between those videos: the performance of Nirvana took place in 1991, and the Lorde’s and Cardi B’s – in 2017. All 3 videos use very similar lighting nonetheless. I am not sure which week producers are planning to bring a band in, but if it falls on my duty I will definitely operate within the same palette as well.
For our final project, I was lucky to get both my highest preferences: during the 1st week of filming I will be taking on a role of a floor manager, and during the 2nd week I will be a lighting technician. Both weeks I will be operating in a studio A.
During a crew meeting today we brainstormed many great ideas and concepts for our final show, and so far it looks like we will be developing a breakfast-talk show. To be honest, I am have never watched this type of talk shows, and I’m not even sure I have ever heard of it at all, so it will be particularly exciting for me to work on a type of show I am not familiar with. Thankfully, I am not involved in pre-production at all, and I have plenty of time to catch up and fully understand that concept. So far, there were talks of a news segment and audience interaction, and I also think someone knows a band that we can bring in for an interview. I too have previously worked with a local band called “Soft Corporate”, but they are always very busy and I am not sure I would be able to get them if needed. It is still good to know we have a potential backup. Nonetheless, the rest of the crew is as excited and motivated as I am. Our writers and producers are already starting to work on the scripts, so, hopefully, there will be no delays or major issues.
Since I am not a part of pre-production, in the next couple of weeks I will be focusing on a deeper research of the roles of a floor manager and a lighting technician: I want to be as prepared as possible on the filming day. I am also going to familiarise myself with a concept of a breakfast talk show for a better understanding of the whole process.
In Åsa Lundell’s “The design and scripting of “unscripted” talk: liveness versus control in a tv broadcast interview”, she raises the topic of the constant battle between appealing to the audience with exciting liveness and having strict control over the process. I was surprised by the amount, and diversity of areas of the production that need to be managed in a specific way to create the desirable “unscripted script”: the clothes, the studio design, the camera work… I was particularly impressed by the careful and throughout choice of interviewers’ outfits:
” The male political news reporter epitomizes public service ‘hard news’ journalism, clad in a suit but no tie to signal that he is serious and professional yet also more casual. The female journalist gets to represent the ‘soft news’ talkshow side of public service, clothed in dressy pants of colourful skirts and tops that give an air of casual flair without being too over the top”.
A.K. Lundell p. 274
Even though it makes total sense when it is explained, I don’t think I would have noticed and/or questioned the clothes of the hosts. It got me thinking of clothes style choices in other talk shows and it was quite interesting to find out that, just like in the example in the reading, most of male hosts wear very formal clothing, even though their talk show formats are relaxed and targeted to make the audience laugh.
The Tonight Show With Jimmy Fallon
The Late Night Show with Stephen Colbert
The Late Night Show with James Corden
Dr. Phil
Conan
The female hosts, on the other side, tend to wear much more casual outfits.
Oprah
The Ellen Show
Chelsea
The Wendy Williams Show
I can’t really explain this observation, but I would guess that the producers are trying to make their hosts look as appealing as possible, and it’s always attractive for men to wear a costume. With the women, however, it’s more complicated: you can’t have all female hosts wear dresses and skirts because it might be considered sexist and your show will get blamed for sexualisation of female body. So, my guess would be that female hosts are more in charge of their wardrobe: Ellen and Chelsea (as seen in the pictures above) clearly prefer casual outfits, while Oprah and Wendy Williams are in favour of bright and colourful clothing.
Another topic that Lundell touched on and that I found especially interesting is interview scripting. I always assumed that talk show’s hosts don’t have a strict script and mostly improvise to get the best out of time with their guest. But, apparently, scripting is essential and takes a lot of time to prepare.
“It is not possible to be spontaneous really, to pose spontaneous questions. You have to have a really good script. The last time we did this kind of interview, one of the interviewers had a kind of special mission to be a little spontaneous and, you know,try and instantly pick up on what the politicians said, but it doesn’t work that way. I mean, you have to be well-read and eloquent or it will go wrong. So, for me … a well-written script is the key.”
p. 280
I partly agree with that opinion. Even the most successful and professional hosts can lose it sometimes: the famous Jimmy Fallon’s interview with Bradley Cooper, for example. Even though Jimmy Fallon is a highly skilled host, he totally messed up this interview, 90% of which had to be cut to air. I also really got to appreciate the script during the filming of our Q&A this week. I was asked to be one of the talents but I realised that I am not ready to improvise on a loose script, or even worse, be a guest without any script at all. I absolutely need to know what is going to happen and when to do a good job on stage. During the filming of assignment 2, for instance, I had no problems acting because I had a script.
On the other hand, I think that everything depends on the personality of the host as well as the format of the show. If the host is professional and experienced, and has a quick wit as well as an outstanding sense of humour, I think producers can trust him/her with a loose script and room for improvisation. And, if the talk show is relaxed and fun-orientated, then improvisation is welcome and even expected. For instance, the famous Nicole Kidman’s visit to Jimmy Fallon show. Now of it was scripted, and it remains one of the most well-known episodes of talk shows exactly because of that unexpected, unpredictable revelation. Not to mention, that, as discussed Scannell, Gadassik, and Mariotte in previous readings, the whole purpose of liveness on TV is the excitement, the feeling of “real” and the intense moment of now. What’s the point of going through all the trouble of live TV if you are going to make it boring and dull?
” Everyone can immediateLy hear the difference be twee n scripted and unscripted talk. To our ears scripted talk sounds flat, dull, lacking in spontaneity and immediacy in comparison with what we take to be the real thing: spontaneous, natural and, essentially, live talk”.
p. 280
All in all, I genuinely enjoyed Lundell’s work. There’s a lot that can be said and commented on, and that reading definitely deepened my knowledge of the talk show’s production and pre-production. I think all of that will be extremely helpful for assignment 4, and I can’t wait to dive right into it.
For this production I have found/made quite a few props to make our talk panel look more realistic and professional. First of all, I have designed and printed name cards for every character, several copies for every name just in case something goes wrong. If weekly reading we’ve been doing taught me something, it’s that you can never be too prepared when it comes to liveness on TV:))
I took the design idea from name cards used at comic-con talk panels, and pretty much followed it: the logo on the side, a straight line in the middle of the card and the name of the person above it. I even tried to find the exact same font they were using, but could only manage to find a fairly similar one.
Another prop I thought would benefit our Q&A panel was a branded mug. I was watching different talk shows to get better understanding of the set and I noticed that all of them had cups with the show’s logo on it and I thought that it really adds value and “coolness” to the show.
The Tonight Show starring Jimmy Fallon
The Late Show with Stephen Colbert
The Ellen Show
Evening Urgant (Russian talk show)
So I though it would be cool to get a branded mug for our show as well. To get it done, I bought three white mugs from the Big W, a two sided duct tape, a normal duct tape and printed out our logo. One hour of careful handcrafting after, I had pretty good looking mugs with our brands on it. (Sorry for the quality, I am not quite sure why mediafactory won’t load my photos in its original resolution).
I also bought a few items from a party aisle, just in case we might want to use it. Here are some of the items I thought might come in handy.
There was also a black bow tie, but I couldn’t find it after the filming. For our talk panel, we ended up using the red hat and the above-mentioned bow tie, which, I think really matched the show’s format and its colour palette as well.
The last and final step was to get a couple of bottles of water, because, again, that’s what I noticed they do at talk panels.
So, after all, I think it looked very well on the camera. I feel like the props matched the show’s format as well as its aesthetics and the colour palette.
Although 99% of my job was pre-production, I had to do a couple of job on the set as well: first, the name of one character changed and I also found out that I was only told about 2 characters, when, in reality there were three. So I had to run down to the printers, make changes in the design and print new cards. Fortunately, we noticed it on time, and it caused no troubles. Another little issue I had to deal with was the actual set. There were three people on the show, and we had troubles finding tables for all of them. The director didn’t want to use big white table because it simply didn’t fit and destroyed the whole characters’ placing. The two other tables we had in the studio were a white round table and a stool that we used as a table, but it still wasn’t enough for three people. Thankfully, I remembered seeing a similar round table at the tech hire corner, so I went there and asked the permission to use for a couple of hours. It worked out really well in the end: two very similar-looking tables by the sides, and a little stool in the middle for the host.
As for opportunities for improvement, there are plenty. First of all, if I had a bigger budget and more time, I would definitely prefer to have the logo printed on a mug professionally instead of sticking it on with duct tape. This talk show was just an assignment, and all the props were there just for decoration, but if it was a real talk panel, I would never have my talents drinking from a duct taped mug, even if it was a new, not yet famous show that was on accessible on cable TV at 2 am.
Secondly, I would get plastic stands for name cards. I did try to find those, but failed. We actually had some problems with the name cards at the set: they kept falling or sliding away, which was really unexpected since I tested them all at home. I solved the problem by sticking random things under cards to keep them from going flat, but it was pretty time consuming.
Thirdly, next time I will definitely read the script very very carefully instead of asking the writers. As I mentioned above, when I was printing name cards I asked the writer about the characters’ names and got the wrong answer and as a result had to run around solving that problem on the day. I could’ve avoided it if I just checked everything myself instead of relying on other people.
Another thing I would like to improve on was the props placing. The director told me to move the characters’ name card so that they face the right camera, but it really didn’t work out. As you can see in the pictures below, when the camera was focusing on the character, the name card wasn’t even in the frame, but in a wide shot it’s just standing sideways which really bugs me.
I asked several times if that’s the way everything should be and if everything is visible, but, unfortunately, that mistake was made anyway. It could’ve been simply prevented by checking the cameras, but it was outside my job for this assignment and I strictly followed all the instructions.
All in all, it was a wonderful experience and I genuinely enjoyed being in charge of props. I don’t think that would be my first choice for a crew role, but it’s definitely something I would enjoy being a part of. I think that every job get more fun and exciting if you approach it with interest and creativity.
For our 3rd assignment, I am in charge of props used for our talk show. It is a very exciting role to try, especially because one of the future career paths I am considering is being an art director. I was a little worried that because the space in the studio we are going to use is quite limited, and our budget is non-existent, there wouldn’t be any props for me to prepare at all, but after a little research our amazing team has come up with a few ideas.
First of all, since we are doing a talk show, it is customary to have glasses of water on the table for the host and the guest. So, first on my list are three glasses (two to be used and a back up one), and two bottles of water.
(Above: The Oprah Winfrey Show: Fridays Live From New York)
(Above: The Ellen Show)
I had a funny thought, that if I would be working with real-life celebrities, I would’ve researched what kind of drink they prefer, at what temperature and in what quantity. But since we don’t have any capricious divas among our talents (I hope), I don’t think it will be necessary.
Secondly, and this idea came from comic-con talk panels, we decided to use name cards. It creates a certain image of fame and importance of the guest and the host, and, makes it a little more realistic.
I am not yet sure how I will make it, the team suggested to simply use a folded paper but I want to try and find a better-looking solution. I am doubtful that I will be able to find anything within my budget, which is, again, nearly non-existent but hopefully, I’ll be lucky.
Another matter I would like to touch on is the collaboration within the group regarding my current role. I am mostly talking to our writer and producer, who are, just like me, are only involved in the pre-production. I expected to get several advice or preferences from the director, but I guess that’s more applicable to bigger, and more creative production (e.g. movies, TV shows, etc.). It’s a big change from my last involvement as a DA, when I had nothing to do with the pre-production whatsoever, and I was connected to completely different crew roles: director, floor manager, camera, and audio. It’s a very different kind of work too, as a DA I had to think fast, move fast, and run around the studio. Now, however, it’s a rather slow-paced work and I am not limited either by space nor by studio space. So far, I think, I prefer the first: I really got to experience the meaning of liveness working as a DA. It was very exciting to see and feel everything around you building up to the final moment of “live” when all the constant movement and noise in the studio stops abruptly and the liveness literally shines from the stage. The atmosphere of concern but also excitement shared by such a large group of people in such a small space just to film a few minutes is truly enchanting. And it’s not even a real live broadcast but merely an exercise. I really hope I will get to experience the excitement of an actual production many times.
“This moment, the moment of the coming into being of an utterance/event is the living moment in which human concerns come expressively to life, in which they are realised: in which they are real”.
P. Scannell “Television and the Meaning of ‘Live”: An Enquiry Into the Human Situation.
However, stepping in as a pre-production crew member is a vital experience as well, it really helps me to see the bigger picture of the production and appreciate its different areas. I have to admit, I do feel a little deprived of being a part of the ‘live’ moment, and of the emotions of the production, but I also strongly believe that it’s important to experience as many areas of the production as possible to find your true place.
What really captured my attention in Gadassik’s book, was the idea of importance of truth, reality, and human emotions in television liveness. It’s true, viewers seek honesty and true feelings even in pre-recorded films, and especially in live TV. They can feel insincerity from afar and then their interest fades away. The case of Joe Biden, which Gadassik takes as an example, proves that “real” and “humane” is appealing to to the audiences. Just a moment of true, unshielded feelings from famous politician sparked a strong response from the viewers, because out of the whole debate it was the only truly real thing.
“From an entire segment of television entirely captured and broadcast in real time, Biden’s barely perceptible loss of composure was singled out as the emblematic moment of something significant and “real”.”
Alla Gadassik
Such honesty from a public person, such unexpected intimacy makes television liveness a hundred time more live and real. Especially when immediately followed by another soulless, rehearsed set phrases from his opponent Sarah Palin:
“Unwilling or unable to acknowledge Biden’s emotional recollection, Palin’s voice awkwardly wavers before she steels her face into a congenial smile and repeats the same scripted phrases she delivered in preceding questions”.
Alla Gadassik
Even in the cinema, all the best movies make you forget it’s only a story and believe in it’s reality entirely. For instance, look at this video compilation of best acted movie scenes. It feels real.
To conclude, this part of the reading really spoke to me. It’s one of those things you always knew but never realised.
Works cited:
A. Gadassik (2010). “At a Loss for Words: Televisual Liveness and Corporeal Interruption”. https://rmit.instructure.com/courses/31160/files/folder/Readings/Week%204?preview=2636779
First of all, I would like to thank our wonderful production crew, it was really an absolute pleasure to work with each and every one of these people. I’ve had some quite traumatic experience with group projects, so, naturally, I was nervous about having to work in such a large group of people, but it was actually a lot of fun. Everyone knew what they were doing and tried their best to do it too. I really hope to keep working with these people until the end of the semester, I feel like we make a very good team.
As for my own performance, I think I did quite well considering it was my first live production experience. I really enjoyed being the DA, I feel like its the right position for me. I love being around people, talking to everyone, knowing what’s going on and helping those who don’t. It was so exciting to be in the middle of the production. I know I wouldn’t enjoy it as much working as a cameraman- I meed much more action and communication. I wish I had my own headset though, I was really excited about having one and was quite disappointed when I found out I wouldn’t get one. It was still a lot of fun to run around from the floor manager to the director, to the cameramen, to the technicians, to the actors, etc. I remember I was trying very hard not to smile all the time during the production, the happiness and excitement were just bursting out of me. I can’t wait for our next production and I really want to try myself as a floor manager as well.
I also really enjoyed acting for other groups. It was always my ambition to become an actress and it felt really good to become one for a few hours. It was very interesting watching other group at work though, observing their individual ways of dealing with many responsibilities and difficulties of a production. I noticed that in every group same types of people adopted same roles: those who don’t talk much and prefer to keep to themselves chose to be cameramen and vision mixers, while the most talkative and friendly ones were happy to be floor managers, DA’s and producers. I wonder if it’s a coincidence, or if it really is like that.
Another thing I though was noteworthy, was when during the 2nd group’s filming, one of the actors forgot his words and the script was broken. I was wondering how the director would cover it up when it was happening, and what would it be like if it was happening on national tv. I guess, as discussed in week 3 reading, that’s the reason people find live tv so exciting in the first place: something can always go wrong.
“… The controlled flow of network television and the unexpected interruptions of media events is precisely what characterises the distinct appeal of television liveness. In other words, in order to support its privileged position in relationship to the “real”, television depends on moments that interrupt the regular flow of programming to offer viewers a glimpse of uncontrolled events”.
Alla Gadassik
Works cited:
A. Gadassik (2010). “At a Loss for Words: Televisual Liveness and Corporeal Interruption”. https://rmit.instructure.com/courses/31160/files/folder/Readings/Week%204?preview=2636779
Although our first assignment didn’t require a lot of pre-production, I have a lot to say about the studio tour we had on week 3. I was absolutely blown away by those gorgeous new studios we were taken to. I’ve heard that RMIT has build new media spaces before, but never in my wildest dreams have I though it would be that amazing. I felt like a child in a candy shop, I just wanted to stay there forever and try every piece of equipment and every crew role. I’ve always loved watching youtube videos and blue-ray specials about the mysterious “behind the scenes”, and the professional life of movie makers, and that day I was finally there myself. It was a really happy feeling of pure excitement and belonging, and I can’t wait to go back there. What I found the most exciting, was the green screen and its cameras that operated inside the virtual reality. I didn’t even realise this technology existed, leave alone here in RMIT. I am really interested in the development of VR and AR technologies and I’m sure it will become a huge part of our lives very soon, and it was amazing to see “the future” so close. I hope I will be able to work with it in the nearest future.
However, that green screen technology also made me a little sad: it kind of kills the magic of the cinema. Directors used to use their imagination and creativity to bring the magic of cinema to life, tones of decorations, props and costumes were made and used during the filming. And today all you really need is a piece of green fabric- everything else is the visual effects departement’s problem. The CGI is used for everything. I feel like in the future we won’t even need the actors: 3D models are even more flawless and don’t ask for a paycheque. This made me remember Ian McKallen during the filming of Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. As he had to film his first green screen scene he was lost and heartbroken: instead of decorations and actors all he had to work with was a green screen and photographs of the dwarves on top of stands.
And I cried, actually. I cried. Then I said out loud, ‘This is not why I became an actor.’ Unfortunately the microphone was on and the whole studio heard.’
Ian McKallen
As for the assignment, as I mentioned before, we didn’t have much to do before the filming, We assigned roles and that was pretty much it, I think. To better prepare myself I also researched DA’s duties on the set and read a few articles on live production process.
T. Soghomonian (2012). “Ian McKellen: ‘Filming ‘The Hobbit’ made me cry with frustration’ “. New Musical Express. Accessed 26/03/18. ://www.nme.com/news/film/ian-mckellen-filming-the-hobbit-made-me-cry-with-f-877575#SRSas3mo2im2rIU7.99
In this week’s lessons we touched up on a topic of embarrassing or shocking things happening on Live TV, and I found it really interesting. It’s one thing when a “friend” posts your awkward photos on a social media, or when a disastrously embarrassing video goes awkward, or even when a celebrity’s private pics get hacked and posted on the Internet. It’s still very unpleasant and stressful, and I hope that it will never happen to me, but it’s still nothing compared to a fiasco on live television. Imagine thousands of people watching you at the very moment you embarrass yourself, and there’s no chance they will miss it, or ignore it, or scroll past it, there is no time to edit it out, or to do anything about it. That must be pretty tough. That definitely reminded me one extra time to plan and supervise live production with double care. Although, sometimes it’s not something you can foresee or even stop streaming. There was a total disaster during this year’s presidential election’s debates in Russia, and no one stopped the broadcast, probably because they were afraid to interfere with a live translation of such importance. One of the candidates got mad and started yelling insults on another candidate, although it wasn’t his time to speak, and when a third (female) candidate told him to settle down, he started shouting at her calling her an idiot, a dirty prostitute and a filthy wh*re, he was demanding to “get her the **** out of here and back to the dirt of the streets where she came from”, after which she threw a glass of water at his face.
I think it was a very entertaining live broadcast to watch, although it doesn’t get any less fun after 10 times of re-watching it. What I was curious about is what’s the protocol for situations like that on Live TV? Should the director stop the broadcast and go to ads, or let it happen, or what? Is it different for different situations? Or was it all scripted? I really don’t know, and I kind of hope that I never will.
I really enjoyed Stephanie Marriott’s “Live Television: Time, Space and the Broadcast Event”, particularly because of the way she takes quite ordinary, well known facts and shows them in a completely different light, bringing the new and the exciting out of it. We all know what Live TV is, and we all know what’s the difference between Live and pre-recorded, but when Marriott explains it in her own way, it feels different. It feels like she takes the subject and dissects it into small little pieces and makes every tiny detail visible and clear. For instance, the very beginning of the article where she talks about the vocabulary of Live streamed events: she gives us clear examples taken from a bird-watching show and them explains why does it have ti be like that.
Here are some examples, taken from the various daily visits to the nest sites:
1. And that’s coming back live now– there they are live again.
2. We’re back live again now .
3.
A:That’s them live.
B: That’s them; live at the moment they’re sleeping.
4. And we can actually see that family right now live, if we go over to Peter Holden over in the birdmobile over there.
p.2
The impact of such programmes depends on seeing what the birds are doing as they do it; to watch it after the event is to be stripped of the enchantment which the programmes offer by virtue of their ability to bring hidden places into the immediate vicinity of the audience in the
moment of their unfolding.
p.2
The way Marriott gives us the information is remarkably perceptible, its very well structured and just easy to understand. What I especially enjoyed is that the text is not only strictly academic, it also creates a certain atmosphere of fascination with “now”. The part where she talks about the physical aspect of the “now-moment” is almost magical, it really made me take a moment and think about the transience of the present, and about the importance of it. Marriott almost got philosophical there, she didn’t just talk about Live TV, but about the much bigger aspect of life behind it, about a fundamental human experience and life itself.
Ineluctably, invariably, I encounter events from the here-and-now of my bodily engagement with the world. Whatever I am doing, the moment in which I am doing it is the generative now, the now of lived experience.
p.7-8
What this part made me think of, is a book “Heaven Has No Favorites” German write Erich Maria Remarque. It’s about a relationship of an automobile racer and a terminally ill young woman. The man doesn’t believe in his own death and takes risks on an everyday basis, and the girl is extremely appreciative of every single moment and is always conscious of “now”.
All in all, I enjoyed this reading very much and it gave me a lot of helpful insight on both practical and theoretical meanings of liveness. I have a lot to say about this article, I only highlighted some of the points that I found especially interesting in this blog posts. I will definitely be coming back to it in my future writings.
