As predicted in my former post about coverage, my perception of the definition has already been altered. My previous post tended to focus on the need to prepare and plan for a shot or a scene in order to film a good piece of coverage. I did note the term needed to be broad in it’s definition, and that the simple act of placing down the camera in front of something would indeed adhere to having covered the scene. However, perhaps I put too much emphasis on the need for planning to create good/watchable découpage.

It seems that it is likely that a great shot could occur by accident. Sure, planning out what we are going to shoot in advance may make us feel better prepared and ensure that we have access to the equipment we need, but over planning does often have the power to blow everything out of proportion.

In the interview we watched in class, a French filmmaker’s use of the term ‘découpage’ was translated to ‘choice of shots’. It is possible that this is coverage in it’s simplest form. But does the suggestion that there is a ‘choice’ even applicable? I would think that if we are trying to get to the bare bones of ‘coverage’, that the selection of which shots will be included in the final cut of the film will be mostly the doing of the editor.

We could suggest that the decision to put the camera in a particular position would require a choice on part of the DOP or director, but if we are excluding the need for preparation prior to filming, coverage could literally comply taking the camera out of the bag, pressing play and walking away.

It still likely that my definition of coverage/découpage will again change within the blink of an eye, but I hope that by reflecting upon how these opinions alter, I will be able to find a more solid definition eventually.

This analysis will be conducted on this scene from Alfred Hitchcock’s RearWindow (1954)

Situated at the climax of the film, this scene depicts L.B. Jefferies (James Stewart) attempting to defend himself from his neighbour, Lars Thornwald (Raymond Burr), after the latter discovers that Jefferies has been witness to his crimes over the course of the film.

The first shot is a medium close up of Jefferies, as he notices that the lights in Thorwald apartment are out. This is indicated to us by a follow up shot of Thornwald’s seemingly empty home. The film then returns to the same medium close up of Jefferies, who quickly answers a telephone as it rings, revealing that he believes that Thornwald has left his apartment.  When there is no response on the other end of the line, and he hears the line go dead, Jefferies realises that the caller is not the person he expected it to be. To demonstrate the danger of this slip up, which reveals to Thornwald that he is indeed being spied on, Hitchcock utilises a slow zoom in on Stewart’s face, ending the shot in a close up frame. Jefferies does not realise what he has just revealed until, after momentarily seeming confused, he glances over at the neighbouring window, and as Stewart conveys the fear of the character, the camera begins it’s zoom. This tightening of the frame in conjunction with the character’s enlightenment helps to convey the importance of the mistake that has just occurred.

Hearing a noise in the hallway, Jefferies turns to look at his front door. This is followed by a shot of light seeping through under the door frame, from the point of view of the main character. This shot is important, not just because it shows us what the character is specifically looking at, but because it subtly indicates to the viewer that this doorway will be important in the scene. This is where the attacker will enter. Had this shot not been included in the final cut of the film, the doorway would not have been set up well prior to Thornwald entering, and would not give the audience an indication of the space in which the scene will unfold. Without this shot, the scenario may have also been made to look as if Jefferies is just over paranoid about a sound of someone passing through his building. The shot of the door in conjunction with Jefferies’ fear signals that the character is not safe from whatever lurks behind it.

We then return to a shot of Jefferies, but this time from a high angle, close up. We are reminded of the severe disadvantage that the character is at when it comes time to fight his attacker, as he slowly and smoothly turns towards the door in his wheelchair. The high angle shows Jeff’s lack of power in the the impending confrontation. The scene again cuts back to the doorway, further building tension and suspense. A eye level mid shot of Jeff in his wheel chair follows, again stressing the character’s disability. This shot continues, with the camera being raised up and tilted down as Jefferies struggles to make his way across his apartment. The awkward maneuvering of the wheelchair around the room is displayed in this and the subsequent shots, proving that without the presence of Lisa or Stella, he is truly alone and defenseless.

Returning to a shot of the doorway again, we hear a switch flick and the light coming from underneath the door disappear. The tension built up in response to prior shots of the doorway is now justified. After returning to a shot of Jefferies as he backs away from the door in concern, we are treated with a close up of his camera flash as he places disposable light bulbs onto his lap. Similarly to the recurring shots of the doorway, Hitchcock is telling us that this item will be integral, and that we should make note of it’s presence.

Using close ups of important objects signifies the necessity of these items within the scene, and ensures that their presence isn’t only just recognized when they are used. For example, without the added close up shot of the camera flash on Jefferies’ lap, it’s presence may have felt coincidental when it is finally used. These care and time taken to include these extra snippets take us through the thought processes of the character as he prepares a measly defense.

It is in these final few shots that the use of lighting becomes especially prevalent. Jefferies returns to his position at the window, hiding in the shadows. Yet his broken leg remains lit, a last reminder of his weakness and the cause if this whole scenario. As the doorway slowly creeps open revealing a portion of Thornwald’s face, lit in the darkness, we view him from a low angle, again reinforcing his dominance in this confrontation.

During this scene, Hitchcock masterfully paces the shots and creates a feeling of claustrophobia in the small apartment. The dark lighting emphasizes the small space, only shedding small portions of light into the room. We, like Jefferies, feel truly trapped and helpless to the impending danger.

I believe that the term ‘coverage’ needs to be broad in it’s definition when applied to the cinematic world. Coverage of a scene can be as simple as plopping the camera down in front of something, anything, and pressing record. technically speaking, the subject would be covered. But this does not necessarily make for a very interesting piece of work.

To have truly covered a scene, I would like to believe that preparation has been undertaken to collaboratively and uniquely record an event in a way that ensures the content can be displayed in it’s intended form to the audience. This does not necessarily mean that the scene is easy to follow, because it’s possible that we’re not supposed to see everything clearly within the frame. A murder mystery would not be so thrilling if we got a good clear shot of the murderer whom we aren’t supposed to know the identity of. This is why preparation is the key to covering a scene. One must know what needs to be seen, and how it should be shown before filming it, even if this planning consists of purely making a mental note or brainstorm.

Coverage is the way in which a filmmaker unveils the action or situation to us. It can be creative, simplistic, or unconventional, but it must adhere to the needs of the rest of the film. We need to see the frame slowly zoom in on Kane’s childhood sled to reveal the meaning of “Rosebud”, to truly understand when the character truly experienced joy. Without these final few shots, we would be left only to witness the billionaire’s hoarded junk.  Though this might be an extreme example of the term, it proves that the concept of “coverage” alone can be a key storytelling feature. It is not simply an avenue to witness an actor’s talent. It has the power to set the tone of a scene, create suspense, and progress a plot forward.

It is extremely possible that the definition of “coverage” that I have attempted to articulate in this post will completely useless and inaccurate to me within the week, but hopefully I will be able to solidify a definition for this term by the end of the semester.

In this week’s classes we split up into two different groups, and each attempted to shoot a scene revolving around a two passengers in a train. With seven different people in each group, we were able to split up the required roles amongst ourselves. Although I feel that audio recording and editing is my weakest point, I put my hand up for the role of the boom operator, mainly because of my height advantage. Initially I was hoping for a more minor role in the production, as I didn’t feel I had enough knowledge in any particular area to perform at a high standard. I told myself that the only way to improve and learn about something new is to actually give it a try.

Most of the other crew members seemed to know most of the technical aspects surrounding the use of the boom mic, which made it a lot easier to get feedback and advice immediately, whilst we filmed. Some of the feedback included wrapping the cord of the mic around the pole to ensure that it didn’t get in the way of the shot and the people involved in the scene and holding the pole loosely so that it the sound of the cord hitting against the pole wasn’t detectable. I was glad to be able to find out about these tips whilst we filmed, so that we were able to produce a better audio quality for the final product.

The audio quality was obviously significantly better when we used an external mic compared to the camera’s inbuilt mic, however, I think there are still some more improvements I can make when recording audio in the future. I believe the biggest problem with our final audio is the sound of the wind which varies from shot to shot, making the audio slightly jarring at some points. I think by learning how to shield the boom mic better from wind in the future, and investigating any camera settings and editing tricks that can be used to fix this problem will improve my future work.

Overall, I am quite pleased with how our scene turned out, and I think that it shows a significant improvement from the last task we performed and recorded in class. I have included the final cut of our footage that I completed with Dusty and Siobhan below.

I will be performing my analysis on the courtroom scene from A Few Good Men (1992). 

The scene I will be analysing is from the 1992 film, A Few Good Men. Likely the film’s most iconic scene, the interaction takes place within a court room, as Lieutenant Kaffee (Tom Cruise) is questioning Colonel Jessep (Jack Nicholson) about the nature of a Marine’s death at Guantanamo Bay.

The interaction starts with a shot, reverse shot of Kaffee and Jessep. Notably, Kaffee is filmed from a low angle, as the only character visible in frame. Comparatively, Jessep is seen from a higher angle, and the shot is filmed over Kaffee’s shoulder, partially obstructing the frame. The decision to show Kaffee’s shoulder within the shot which focuses on Jessep places the lawyer in a more dominant position to the Colonel, despite the fact that he is a higher ranking officer. During these fist few shots, medium close ups are used to show the rising tension in the room.

It is during these shots that, Jessep’s lawyer, Captain Jack Ross (Kevin Bacon) asks the judge for a recess. Kaffee interjects by commenting “I would like an answer to the question Judge”, and Cruise briefly looks to his right, in the Judge’s direction. The scene then cuts away from the heated interaction for the first time, in order to view the Judge’s answer. As he responds, he look down and to his right, towards Jessep and Kaffee. The scene then cuts to Jessep, who angrily looks up and to his left. Although these brief glances towards the judge from both characters seem minor in their importance, they were likely choreographed by the director (Rob Reiner) to give the viewer a better understanding of the character’s placement in the courtroom, as the prior, tightly framed shots, show little other than the characters themselves.

After this interaction with the Judge, the scene then returns to another shot, reverse shot, from the same medium close up position previously used. When the interaction begins to get more intense, however, Kaffee moves away from the stand and back into the middle of the courtroom. The camera tilts down as Cruise moves away, also capturing Ross objecting, although out of focus, in the background of the shot. The action cuts back and forth from Kaffee in this position to Jessep at the stand, still viewed from a medium close up. When Kaffee declares “I want the truth!”, however, the film cuts back to a close up shot of Jessep, as he states “You can’t handle the truth!”. The top of Nicholson’s head is now out of shot, and the change in shot size increases the significance of Jessep’s outburst.

As Jessep explains his actions, the close up of Nicholson is intercut with progressively tighter shots of Cruise. The initial mid shot of Kaffee in the middle of the courtroom moves to a medium close up and finally a close up whilst cutting back to the close up of Jessep in between. This once again shows Kaffee’s building anger and shock, making the interaction even more heated.

As the scene comes to a close, however, the second last shot of Kaffee retreats back to a mid shot, which tilts up as he moves towards the stand. This repeats the action of the earlier shot in reverse order, and ends as a close up on Cruise’s face as he questions “Did you order the Code Red?”. We then cut back to a high angle of Jessep, who yells, “You’re goddamn right I did!”, before returning to the close up of Kaffee in disbelief. The returning use of the high angle in the last shot of Jessep demonstrates the pressure and intimidation that Jessep was undergoing from Kaffee in the final moments, and the significance of his admission to the crime.

The famous scene may seem quite simply shot on initial viewing, but the use of differing shot sizes to create a tense atmosphere. The small measures taken to ensure the audience of the characters placing within the space help to prevent the audience’s focus from straying from the important dialogue, and isn’t disrupted due to confusing coverage. The director ensures that the 180 degree line is not crossed, and that only integral characters are shown during the interaction. Although we hear Ross desperately objecting to Kaffee’s questioning, as well as see Jessep reference Lieutenant Weinberg during his explanation, these characters are given very minimal screen time, if any. This means that the argument is not detracted from by cutting away to less important characters and their reactions to the scene unfolding.

I had never really considered blocking a scene to be an integral part of the director’s job. After reading the excerpts from Tom Reilly’s book and doing some planning in class, however, I believe I have a better understanding of the importance of this task.

It is obvious that long takes and more elaborate shots would need to be choreographed prior to filming, but the reading emphasises that  even less extravagant shots benefit from the extra time taken to be blocked. Reilly states that “how each scene is blocked has a dramatic effect on the rhythm and timing of the film”, and that the timing of the actor’s performances can have a significant dramatic or comedic effect. I have previously felt that the timing of such performances usually relies on the editing of a film, however, after being informed by the reading I can admit that blocking would have a significant effect on this aspect.

Reilly seems to believe that the task of blocking a scene should be primarily undertaken by the director, and that he/she should avoid being too heavily influenced by the opinions of the actors and the Director of Photography. Whilst this may ensure that the director is able to recreate what they envision the scene to look like, I would think that allowing other members of the cast and crew to have an input on the choreography would ensure that the scene can be shot in a manner that will produce the best performance for everyone involved. Perhaps after more experience with blocking I will be able to make a more informed decision about how it should be done, but currently I think that a middle ground could be found that suits most of those involved in the scene.

I also think that blocking would have enhanced the quality of the short scene that we shot in groups last week. When looking back on our footage in class, it was pointed out to us that we had crossed “the line” during our scene, making the positioning of the characters confusing to the viewer. If we had drawn out a floor plan of the space in which our scene took place and where each shot would be filmed from, it is less likely that we would have made this mistake. Although I had heard about the concept of “the line” before, I have rarely considered it when making decisions about filming in the past. After watching the demonstration in class about how to avoid making this mistake, I could better understand how crossing the line can be jarring and confusing to the viewer if not done well.

After this week’ s classes and the reading, I feel I will definitely attempt to employ the use of blocking to my advantage in the future.

Reflect upon your experience in class.  Did anything come as a revelation to you?  Did you learn something new technically; about the camera, or film craft in general?

I come into Media 3 as a second year Professional Communication student and although I had undertaken the VCE Media subject, and participated in the Making Media course at RMIT last year, I still felt severely behind my peers in the first week. This has, however, meant that I have learnt a lot in the short amount of time that we’ve had in class.

Having used only my iPhone to film the projects required for assessment in Making Media, the cameras we used in class were an intense step up. I initially found it daunting to watch some of my peers make their way around the camera like it was a second limb, but I suppose everybody’s got to start somewhere. The discussions we had in class about exposure especially stood out to me, as I had never really considered or fiddled with it before. After seeing the difference it made to some of our shots, however, I could apprectiate that fact that although it may not seem like something of severe importance to the layman, it did increase the quality of the shots we produced.

The discussion we had on Wednesday about the order in which a director may shoot the separate shots in a scene was also insightful. As mentioned in my previous blog post, I had considered this decision making process before, and to be able to find some answers to those questions was enlightening. Learning that the filmmaker/s usually set out a list of the different shots they aim to achieve first, and then order them in the most practical and time efficient way was a process I hadn’t really considered before. We deliberated about whether during a scene that included a shot, reverse shot, and a close up of a person’s phone, if you would shoot all of the first person’s shot and then the close up of them holding the phone, or instead move onto person 2’s dialogue, leaving the phone for later. Although it may require less camera movement and set up to get the shot of the phone whilst the camera was still facing person 1, shooting person 2’s dialogue may be more important to the overall film. It is these decisions that revolve around time management and financial concerns that had a new light shed on them for me, as previously I assumed that the main factor that dictated these decisions was artistic quality.

What do you understand this Studio to be about?  What do you hope to get from it?  What skills, perspective and/or understandings would you like to have developed by the end of this semester?

As a Professional Communications student, I am definitely very new to the Media side of things. When it came time to choose a studio to participate in over the semester, the amount of options on offer left me slightly bewildered and lost as to what I should choose. Being my first major step into the media world, I decided to choose my studio based on questions and scenarios that i’d found myself deliberating when interacting with films and other media content in the past.

I decided on The Scene in Cinema as my studio, because not only am I appreciative of the aesthetic qualities of film, but I have found myself becoming increasingly interested in the technicalities of shots. The decision processes that are undertaken which lead to the visuals we see on screen are also intriguing to me. I often find myself wondering what creative brainstorming took place that lead to a pan, a bird’s eye view or a tracking shot. Is it because of financial reasons? Artistic expression? The amount of time available to actually shoot an interaction? These type of questions are what made this studio, and it’s investigation into coverage, stand out for me. I endeavour to find some sort of answers over the next 12 weeks, gaining an insight into the reasons why a director may choose to film from a certain angle or maneuver the camera in a unique way.

I also hope to refresh myself, and learn new skills in the technical aspects of using a camera. Most of the filming I’ve done in the past has been on a Canon DSLR, or small, handheld cameras, so using the larger equipment in class has been an eye opening experience. By the end of the semester I aim to learn the skills necessary to feel like I can make interesting and unique cinematic choices, leading to the production of work that I can feel proud of. I also hope that my work will show an advancement in my abilities over the semester.