WEDNESDAY CLASS
WATCHING THE EDITS:
Robin showed us the edit that he thought was the best from the other class. What I saw that was good about it was its pacing, which related to not only the cuts but also the strong acting.
The other group’s edits were good. They had some nice shots to work with – a lot of quick, high-action shots as well as a particularly nice tracking shot. They used the space really well during their shoot, and they also timed the action well during each shot. This resulted in some strong edits that – when I watched them – made me really feel involved in the story space and time and events on screen. However, a lot of the edits were extremely similar to one another. I can’t remember if most people had chosen to edit shooting task 1 or shooting task 2, but the majority of cuts had very similar shot selections and arrangements and dramatic styles.
In fact, Jess even mentioned the similarity between the shots planned for shooting task one and those designed for shooting task 2. She contemplated that it was hard to remove yourself from the first plan and start anew for the second shoot. I completely agree with this. As soon as you’ve planned or done something one way, you have a preconceived idea of how it should look. You’ve already built a rigid vision that is difficult to see outside of. So, I guess, in terms of my group, we should have at least devoted an equal amount of time to planning the second shoot. We should have exercised our imaginations harder and attempted to stretch our fixed vision further. It does take a lot of time and effort to do this, though.
Most of my group chose to edit shooting task 1’s footage – the shoot where we attempted to acquire as much coverage as possible. This was understandable, since there are more options to choose from in shooting task 1’s footage. In fact, I’m not actually sure how shooting task 2’s footage turned out. I was acting in it, so (1) I’m not leaping at the opportunity to watch the footage, and (2) I wasn’t so concerned during the shoot with shot selection as I was with performance. I can’t even remember if the shots really differed that much. I know there was a wide of us walking into the building. I can’t recall much else.
It is interesting to consider the difference in shot selection and arrangement that those two shooting styles yield. Maximum coverage and repeated shots afford opportunity for a diversity of edits. The non-repeated shots constraint means that the shots have to develop along with the narrative. It’s difficult to identify which one would yield more inventive shots and edits – the maximum coverage aim, or the no-repeated-shots constraint. I honestly don’t know which one did.
Our group’s edits were also similar to one another. There were different dramatic styles – for example, Gina’s old style, black-and-white edit with its piano music and on-screen dialogue titles, and Karl’s creepy, suspenseful, Furby-music edit – but the shot selections and arrangements were very similar.
DISCUSSION:
Robin remarked that a lot of everyone’s stuff is too loose. Things like framing could have been done better. If these things were on purpose and for a reason, then that’s great. But if they weren’t – if they were oversights that we haven’t reflected on – then we need to re-evaluate the way we work. We constantly have to be tough on ourselves and refine and question our work. Our shots could be really fantastic, but there are little things everywhere that are not quite right and a bit too loose. These oversights are letting each shot down. Our shots are not refined enough. They’re OK, but why are we not making them as fantastic as we can? Why are we not trying to make everything as good as what we would see in the cinema? Our work should be 20% better than it currently is.
People counter-argued that we were limited in time and space. Personally, I agree with us not having the luxury of time to prepare for and attend to all of these required refinements. If we wanted to get through each shot, particularly in shooting task 1, we couldn’t afford the minutes to nitpick each frame. However, I completely disagree with us being limited in terms of space. The point was mentioned that our assigned spaces were small and hard to work in – they didn’t allow for much opportunity with shot setups. I disagree. I thought that they were interesting spaces. I thought that they were inspiring for the camerawork. There were so many opportunities for interesting visual composition and creative camerawork – for example, the stairs with its high and low angles (and multiple levels) and geometric shapes (e.g. square, jagged steps) and lines (e.g. rails) and muted colour palette. I thought that our assigned spaces were conducive to aesthetically-pleasing/creative shots. Or, at least, that they should have been. We should have used the spaces better, rather than have simply ‘worked around’ them.
I wholeheartedly agree with Robin though. Why aren’t we striving for the best shots we can achieve in the circumstances we have? This doesn’t mean they have to be cinema-perfect shots, although that level is good to aim for. We need to be tougher on ourselves. We need to be more meticulous in our approach to planning and shooting. We need to get much better at this, and, preferably, quickly.
There are issues though. Time and skill. We often don’t have the time on shoots to nitpick shots. We might have the time if we were faster and more skilful with the equipment. But it also takes time to become practiced. It takes time to develop skill and understanding. There’s only so much time in each class where we get to touch the equipment. And there are far more people than there are cameras. And usually only one person touches the camera per group during each class. And it’s usually the same person as the class before. And this is the same for the other equipment. So, it’s a little more complicated than simply ‘doing better’. We’re not going to achieve those ten-thousand hours in a heartbeat. Although it will help to raise our standards. And it will generate better quality work. And that is exciting.
Robin also discussed how it’s not enough to simply ‘try to make something look good’ or to ‘invent a really cool shot’, there need to be guiding reasons behind coverage decisions. (I.e.: Don’t make things unnecessarily, “pukingly good-looking” like Road to Perdition. Go American Beauty style instead.) There needs to be some sort of intention surrounding the coverage decision. They should be motivated or inspired by something. They shouldn’t just be arbitrary, clinical decisions. Good technical decisions often require non-technical inspiration in order to occur.
WATCHING SCENE FROM RED DESERT (1964, Antonioni)
I thought that this scene was visually fantastic.
Robin remarked about the director electing to shoot in an open physical space with nothing in it (no props and things) because he thought that it’d be a challenge to work in. I disagree. I do not think that those words sum up this space. It’s an incredibly interesting space, aesthetically, to work in. In fact, it’s the type of space that I’d even elect to work in. Jagged walls. Minimalism. Muted colours. (There’s more but I can’t remember the specifics! I remember noticing the buildings/street in the opening few shots for their visual intrigue as well.) I genuinely thought the space was amazing. It inspired really inventive compositions and camerawork. I also loved the blocking within the space – the characters transitioning to different areas during dialogue.
Parts of the actual shot construction struck me as odd, though. For example, in one section, there is shot / reverse shot of the man and woman in conversation. However, the eyeline appears to be off. The frame of the woman is identical that of the man. They’re both on the right-hand (I think it’s right-hand) side of frame and looking past the camera’s left side. I think this breaks the 180 degree rule too. But it does it well. It does it nicely. Everything else is so simple (well, so minimal) in the frame that it doesn’t detract from what’s happening. It just adds a bit of visual interest. I should watch this movie.