I have decided this semesters project will be that of a girl sitting in an isolated chair in the centre of a white room. There will be no physical diegetic sound, rather an internal monologue from her perspective. I want to experiment with this. I feel as though assignments, because of the fact that they contribute to your class mark, inhibit any risk-taking decisions. It’s great to have an experimental avenue whereby you feel free to simply try things and then evaluate them. To create a great film is fantastic; in my eyes however to create a film with many flaws, ones that, when evaluated enlighten your understanding and thus open countless doors for further creativity, is INCREDIBLE. This is what I’m trying to do here. I’m taking my interest in the long take and experimenting its appropriate uses. I am strongly inspired by Alfred Hitchcock who himself regards that it is easy to shock but to create great intensity is difficult. I want to establish that intensity through the slow zoom of the camera that lasts the entire monologue’s length.

As I was driving into a residence the other day, I chose to record from my Iphone. Here i wanted to test out the tracking shot as opposed to the zoom that i had intended for this project. Without a crane, this is very difficult to produce however Daniel owns a crane, thereby we will attempt to use a tracking shot and compare the results. I really admire the tracking shot because as a viewer I feel I am taken inside this shot ; I become a character in this world. This shot was particularly satisfying to watch because the scenery itself of the Park was stunning. I am filming my project in a white room so I know I have to consider that there is no scenery to draw the viewer’s eye. However, I think at this point the dialogue will take the dominant position and we will filter the shot we are seeing through the words we are hearing. I have never seen a remarkably long tracking shot so I think it’s wise that I experiment with it, even if it is not satisfactory. Again, this entire process is about experimenting and then reflecting on the work to see how to improve in future.

Here is the tracking shot :

In my investigations as I chose to read the written interview in Sight and Sound entitled:‘A Man of Excess: Paul Schrader on Jean Renoir’ (1995).

There’s something about European film sensibility that draws me, particularly the works of Ernst Lubitsch who is still hailed the king of European film elegance.It is Lubitsch’s work that excites me when researching other European filmmakers and their influence.

This interview centralises on French director Jean Renoir. One particular aspect of the reading drew me; that is Paul Shrader discussing how the “secrets of fluid editing is to get the actors’ movements to force the cuts, so they don’t seem arbitrary” (pg.29). I love this insight because it directly links to what I previously discussed in my past blogs, which is the awkwardness of cuts that just frame the character for several moments as they do nothing but prepare themselves for speech. This one quote is really inspiring because now I have more purpose when directing something with characters whereby the jump cuts have impetus and do not awkwardly draw attention to their construction. This inspires me to focus on fluidity when next designing a storyboard and even when editing to consider alternative avenues whereby the actor movement encourages the cuts.

Having been in collaborative teams and having worked on my own I can confidently say I’ve enjoyed working alone on projects. Before you think I’m an arrogant prick let me elaborate. I find myself much more liberal with my creativity when working alone. Sometimes in a group environment I feel somewhat constrained with presenting ‘out there’ ideas because of time constraints and the fact that everyone’s input needs to be considered. Alone, I am much more forgiving with the crazy ideas that I know I need to generate on the path to a solid project idea. I find myself much more efficient when working alone purely because I get to schedule everything around my own timetable and that is much more convenient than scraping to find a common free period for a group. I will completely contradict myself here when I say this term’s project that I am embarking on is that of a duo. Although I love to work alone, there are certain people whose ideas seem to integrate so perfectly with mine and even if our ideas vary, it is very easy to find a medium that suits the both of us. Daniel is a very dear friend of mine who does not study film but has an immense passion for cinematography. On a group holiday, Daniel and I collaborated to make a dance video which I was, at first, weary of because of my history of working alone. However, he took direction so well, I found myself so easily bridging my idea over to him. Having a much greater practical knowledge of camera technique, he offered great insights into the visual design process. Often the most difficult process is trying to elaborate my editing ideas to an editor; the final result seems so removed from what I had envisioned because of subjective interpretations. Despite having no previous knowledge about dancing, Daniel took my editing direction so well. I had to break down the music beats, which coincide with the cuts of the shots and he took it from there. Usually I am pedantic about my cuts because of what I envision however, Daniel suggested many edit techniques that I had not previously planned and admired them greatly. It is for all these reasons that I believe we collaborate efficiently and effectively as a team and are going to embark on this project together. We have our first meeting this coming Tuesday about the project … will update on progress J

I think today I learnt the most I have of any week. All we did was reflect. Don’t underestimate. Reflection is in fact the most underestimated feat of the film making world. Yet how do we grow, or understand our work for what it is if we don’t reflect?

We watched everyone’s staircase scenes and I found a lot of camera techniques and actor blocking. One group manipulated the space so fascinatingly. I know what the space looks like which they filmed and they managed to transform it through the camera eye. The blocking of it is very dynamic because the camera itself is often quite still with movement in the frame. I love the smoothness of the tempo which is a beautiful synthesis between character blocking and editing. They leap around in the space quite confidently even if there is the slightest lack of continuity it really works. It makes me think about how much liberty we have with straying away from the logical and being a bit more experimental even if it means giving up some continuity.

Something fascinating I took from today that Robin mentioned is that not everything we see on screen was purposeful, in fact, much of it was beautifully accidental. That inspires me to be more open to spontaneity on set.

One specific shot drew my attention in a greatly positive way. Aki’s film edit included one tracking shot whereby the camera moves backwards as the subject walks forwards (mcu shot). The subject then turns away from the camera, to which the camera reacts by abruptly jolting forward in the direction of the turning subject. This really fascinated me because it is not a point of view shot but we are taken into the world of this character. The way the camera abruptly jolts forward mimics the character’s movement. We didn’t need a POV shot to experience this character’s perspective which is amazingly unique.

Reflecting on these films I’ve noticed a pattern whereby, during a conversation where we use shot-reverse-shots, many students cut to the receiver in the conversation. The shot seems to linger before the next character says anything so we get a very awkward silence that drains the pace of the conversation in a non-realistic manner.

EPIPHANY: Do not ever plan a storyboard or design camera blocking without having been in the setting. Taking inspiration from Roman Polanski who walked into a space with no clue what he was doing and just let his mind experience the space before bringing in the crew and designing shots, let yourself experience a space and let it speak to you. You will find yourself with a much more poetic understanding of the space and how to film in it

“ They never forget that the world is, quite simply, before it is something to be condemned” (pg.16).

Andre Bazin is indeed the founding father of world cinema theorization. In fact, Bazin was the first to decide he wanted to understand the influence of different world cinemas on each other. For instance, the way in which Italian Neorealism influenced the French new wave movement, Indian Cinema and the Portuguese Cinema Novo. This was revolutionary because it allowed cinema studies a holistic and much more substantial understanding of cinematic influences.

I have been reading Andre Bazin’s ‘The Evolution of the language of Cinema’ and it has some amazing revelations. These revelations inspired my interest in the long take. Bazin admires directors like Orson Welles who resisted the reliance on montage in favour of the long take. Here Bazin discusses how, specifically in Citizen Kane, Welles’ depth of field enables him to cover in on take whilst the “Camera remains motionless”(pp.60). Bazin describes how dramatic effects here do not rely on montage rather, out of the “movements of the actors within a fixed framework” (pp.60). This is interesting because it encourages you to find alternative avenues to create drama instead of solely relying on something like fast editing sequences or multitudinous camera shots. Bazin continues to discuss Welles’ work noticing that Welles’ refusal to break up the action and rather “analyze the dramatic field in time”(pg.61) offers results of which are “far superior to anything that could be achieved by the classical cut” (pg.61).

In my research of Bazin’s work I also found his written piece, ‘An Aesthetic of Reality: Neorealism’. I have always been fascinated with the blurry line between fiction and reality in cinema. Bazin’s view of this concept is fascinating and valid. Bazin discusses neorealism’s use of non-actors, rather individuals truly affected by the situations about which the films are made. I myself had never thought to use non-actors but considering it, there is a great authenticity in using non-actors, in using people who have first-hand experience.

Bazin makes a comment, which really inspires me to believe that film can capture reality. Perhaps not in the physically objective way it pretends to. In relation to the Italian Neo-Realism directors he regards, “ They never forget that the world is, quite simply, before it is something to be condemned” (pg.16). It is recognition of the world as it is, without an overhanging disappointed tone.

Bazin realized that the contemporary world views Italian Neorealism as just a series of techniques such as using non-actors and referring to social issues. He emphasizes that the authenticity is also something that is based on artifice. Every cinematic style encompasses cinematic techniques that must be recognized also.

“Every form of aesthetic must necessarily choose between what is worth preserving and what should be discarded, and what should not even be considered” (pg.20). This is something to remember when watching films, even the ones that appear most authentic. To understand the cinematic techniques utilized to create that authenticity is integral to appreciating the film for what it has achieved. Bazin references Italian Director Robert Rossellini who, in his ‘Paisa’ (1946), did not “show us everything” (pg.22) but selects and leaves things in a way that forms a logical pattern by way of which “the mind passes easily from to effect” (pg.22). Rossellini’s technique involves maintaining an “intelligible succession of events…that don’t mesh like a chain with the sprockets of a wheel”(pg.22).

Bazin sums up reality vs. cinematic reality in these two sentences: “ In the usual shooting script the fact comes under the scrutiny of the camera, is divided up, analyzed, and put together again, undoubtedly without entirely losing its factual natural but the latter presumable, is enveloped in abstraction, as the clay of a brick is enveloped by the wall which is not as yet present but which will multiply its parallelipeds. For Rossellini, facts take on meaning, but not like a tool whose function has predetermined its form. This really opened my mind to the concept of reality and how we can present it abstractly yet it still remains in essence truthful.

Studying Bazin’s theoretical work opens my eyes to the importance of understanding the history of cinematic theory. We must understand how cinema was understood through the ages and what it has developed into now because it will offer knowledge-driven inspiration we otherwise would not have.

… 🙂

I am truly inspired by the inventiveness of my classmates which in my opinion, was driven by the constraints presided to us. My favourite constraint by far is that we had to film a long take.

I have decided this term to undertake my own project based on the long take. I am currently in the conception process but my basic foundation is that I want a long take that encapsulates an equal, if not more intense atmosphere that can be achieved by a fast edited montage sequence.

I was inspired when my classmate Georgia asked me to film her short scene. It was a one take and all I could think of was how beautiful the fluidity of that take was. It was a long take where you could only see the above roof for an extended period of time yet it was encapsulating because you are drawn to the smoothness of the movement.

I would like to do a continuous shot zooming in on a subject. There are in fact many ways to do so. Based on research I have acquired, one can do so manually. One can also set the camera zoom automatically so that it zooms by itself and you have to worry about the framing alone. However, to manually zoom in for such an extended period of time means much more susceptibility to shaking that is quite jarring. What you can also do is film a fast zoom and slow it down in post-production. I will try out each method and get back to you….

Reflecting on our film shoot last Friday, I found that experiencing certain roles is much more eye opening than any theoretical understanding of that role could be.

When planning we decided that this scene needs to have a backstory. A scene is not a film on it’s own, rather a part of a narrative, a larger whole. Creating a story helped us establish and better understand the type of characters we wanted to express. Synonymously, it aided us in creating a scene with actual substance.

During the first film shoot I undertook the role of ‘Director of Photography’. I had initially assumed the director of photography would have more involvement on the shooting day but this film shoot proved otherwise. I did have a large involvement in the planning process where Karl and I primarily organized the shot design. During the shoot I was less directorial in terms of the fact that Karl was the director thus had the final say as to the alterations of any of the shoots. This was a very interesting experience for me because it opened my eyes to the crucial role of the DOP in the pre-shoot plans.

For the second shoot directed by Seonaid, I acted in the role of ‘Lucy’ (The girl being followed by Charlie). Although acting doesn’t appear to be directly correlated with the film crew work it actually offers a much greater understanding of the process holistically and it also teaches you how to work more compatibly and efficiently with actors. Once it that position, you understand how to guide your actors to achieve the framing you want.

Epiphany:

1.You can never understand being in film crew roles from a solely theoretical basis.

2. Even If you never want to act, always be open to the position of acting because it will assist in a holistic understanding of the entire process.

This week in class we watched the single shots we had each filmed last week when we were allowed the position of director and had the assistance of the crew members. I noticed many patterns which were interesting. Firstly, many people made use of the lingering frame. I am not sure whether it is solely impelled by a creative drive or perhaps we are afraid to take risks with hand held camera or tracking/pans/tilts in the single shot because we rely so heavily on montage??

One individual chose to shoot a very tight frame with a girl’s face centered within it. A hand obtrusively enters the frame, to which the camera responds by zooming out to reveal a boy offering to dance. I really like how well thought out this shot is so as to achieve maximum potential in terms of that obtrusiveness. If the frame were bigger then the impact of putting the hand in the frame would not be nearly as disruptive.

I also really appreciated the use of a crash zoom as a girl walks away from camera. The frame switches from a long shot to an extreme close up which in fact has a very satisfying effect.

Interestingly, the shootings were much more efficient. Robin encouraged us to explore why this is so. To reflect on my own experience, it was easier to have the director’s one objective which he informed us of, and guided each of us to help achieve. There were not 10 people on set making suggestions which is often the reason we take so long shooting our scenes.

This session we were divided into groups of 9 and given a scene to plan so as to shoot on Friday. We proceeded to divide roles amongst us. There were 5 key roles ‘director, director of photography, actors, sound and camera’ and other roles included ‘holding the boom mic, first ad’ and so on. I took on the role of Director of photography and from just this one session i have already noticed how collaborative my work is with the director who is essentially looking at the whole project holistically. We planned shots however when we went to the physical staircase space, we realized some shots were unable to be executed so we had to adapt.

Epiphany of the week: I’ve actually had two epiphanies this week so I will name them:

1. No matter how much shot planning takes place, once the physical set is entered things will change to adapt to the constraints of the set.

2. When we are offered a single shot to do we are much more creative with not only the camera movement and framing but specifically with the movement inside the frame. When we only have a single shot, we begin to explore new ways to manipulate the information within the frame to have a more dynamic effect.

#Below is a shot breakdown I created for filming on Friday based on our shot planning last Wednesday

Link to scene

Upon my initial venture of a scene analysis I had decided to analyze a classic: Jean-Luc Godard’s ‘Vivre Sa Vie’ (1962). That decision was compelled by my desire to explore the elegance of films in the French new wave movement. I then reconsidered as I decided my real desire was to explore a more contemporary film with that same elegance, that same sense of refinement. For this reason, I chose to analyze Wes Anderson’s ‘The Grand Budapest Hotel’ (2014).

The elegance is not accredited to the story, which essentially follows a concierge (Ralph Fiennes) who befriends his employee (Tony Revolori) to prove his innocence after he is framed for murder. No, this elegance is assuredly accredited to this film’s form. The film’s narrative is in fact dark, referencing a devastating period of war. The fact that his narrative can still center on this subject matter and remain graceful is what I admire most about Wes Anderson as a director.

I am analyzing a scene whereby the outrageous yet beloved Concierge, Gustave H, receives long time hotel visitor, Madame D (Tilda Swinton), who happens to be incredibly obsessed with him. The scene opens as the narrator offers “ our story begins with the beloved…” which then cuts from the narrators face (CU) to the title ‘M.Gustave’ written in the foreground of a red door. The narrator’s voice abruptly stops as the audience is impelled to read the name themselves. The slight awkwardness of this moment in fact sets up the tone of the remainder of the film, which continues to utilize this type of sudden abruptness through editing. The audience observes a side view of Mr Gustave as he paces across the hotel room to open the door. Here we have a beautiful synthesis between the setting and camera movement. The set, which is almost perfectly symmetrical with bright colours of pink, yellow and red, resembles that of a dollhouse. The moment an off screen knock is heard the camera smoothly pans following Gustave travel across the room in an almost overly choreographed fashion. The lens used her would be a wide angle lens which enables more information into the frame. The camera movement itself basically screams to the audience of its artificiality. The set itself is filmed in a most symmetrical manner, emphasizing the intricately detailed world of the Budapest hotel. Anderson is emphasizing the lack of realism for a particular reason here. A film does not need to mimic the physical world realistically in order to offer some truths about life. Rather, Anderson seems to suggest quite the opposite: the abstract, and overly fictionalized world in this film offers the greatest and most genuine truths about humanity. Gustave’s determinism and intrigued self actually offers an optimistic perspective of persevering despite the grim backdrop of war (war perhaps functioning here as a metaphor for all that is unexpectedly devastating). The camera simply pans back as Gustave returns to the room with an assembly of maids who hurriedly place tables and decorations around the room. The camera crosses the separating door between the two rooms, which further enhances the scene’s artificial set like nature. As Gustave guides the workers, he stands framed perfectly in center of the screen in a wide shot that reveals the depth of the room. The two butlers on each side of the frame enhance the symmetry.

A fast-paced inquisitive sounding harp that echoes the speed of the movement within the frame supplements the organized chaos of the moment. The music itself is even synthetic sounding, in that it does not enhance the realism or the emotion of the scene, rather functioning as another piece of the choreographed puzzle. Similarly, the warm yellowish lighting within the scene emphasizes the saturated colors within it.

Anderson utilizes the technique of repetition liberally throughout this film, further enhancing the choreographed atmosphere. The long shot then cuts to another abruptly silent close up of Gustave. Oddly, it is that abruptness that to me enhances the elegance of this scene because each sudden stop allows the audience a ‘breather’ where they take in the moment prior and prepare for the moment to come.

Here begins a discussion where Madame D begs Gustave to come with her in her travels, as she is afraid of being alone without him. Although this scene is bathed in a beautifully light-hearted finesse, the audience experiences the melancholy nature of an old woman afraid of loneliness. To achieve that level of depth and complexity while maintaining the sensibility of the scene is also a reason why I admire Wes Anderson. The moment is covered by a simple shot- reverse- shot technique; however, there are extended pauses where the camera lingers on the individual before they speak. Although the previous shots seems hurried, moments like this change the pace and what you are left with is a scene that satisfies both needs to immerse yourself within a film that progresses the narrative yet, every once in a while, encourages the audience to stop for a moment, and breathe with the characters. This abruptness is again carried out as Gustave interrupts his kind supportive dialogue as he suddenly notices Madame D’s “physically repul[sive]” nail polish. The melancholy guitar playing synchronically stops as Gustave changes topic matter.

This conversation is also framed in a two shot that sometimes alternates between the shot reverse shot sequences. This medium shot emphasizes a great depth of field where Gustave and Madame D are foregrounded, the food-filled table and the opened balcony doors are middle ground, and the mountains are in the background. It is this depth of field that, in my opinion, adds another touch of delicacy. Instead of constant cuts that simply enhance the action, Anderson reveals beautiful static shots of a stunning, doll house-like mis-en-scene that encourages the viewer to be more active in their watching experience. This particular frame appears to be shot using a zoom lens whereby the cameraman stands afar from the subject and zooms into them. The audience can now look around and focus on what they choose to look at as opposed to being forcefully instructed by the camera movement. The length of the shots is extended to allow time to take in such beauty. I have only witnessed such an elegant atmosphere in the films of German Director, Ernst Lubitsch, whom Anderson himself has admittedly been inspired by. I am particularly reminded of a scene in Lubitsch’s’ ‘ The Merry Widow’ (1934) where Danilo and Sonia engage in a moment of continual eye contact as they are seated at different tables at a ball. There is no speech here rather, long lingering close up shots of eyes as they stare at each other. The elegance of this moment is simply in the fact that things are suggested as opposed to literally. No words are spoken yet the audience is able to experience the character connection within this moment.

I strongly argue that this elegance and sensibility cannot exist without the acting technique of the actors. The camera can linger on an actor yet if that actor is not engaging, the stylishness ceases to exist and becomes quite oppositely unbearably awkward to watch. Fiennes is overly expressive, again in a caricatured way that mimics his artificial surroundings suggesting the characters themselves want to escape the harshness of the way through this fantasy world. The way in which Fiennes delivers his dialogue is encapsulating as he speaks in unnaturally fast pace with perfect eloquence that encourages the viewer to listen closely for every word.

The following shot is inside an elevator draped with the colors red and purple. So much so, in fact, that there is no semblance to the real physical world within this shot. Here Anderson purposely creates an awkward environment where Gustave and Madame D are seated to the right of the screen whilst the elevator man and lobby boy are in the background to the left of the screen

(perfect symmetry once again). The woman in red, as echoed by the elevator colour is distinguished from the workers dressed in purple to emphasize the social class differences. Here, the camera functions as though the fourth wall of the elevator, simply revealing the pair speaking. Again, the audience is not forced to focus on elements within the frame, they may choose to observe Gustave as he comforts Madame D, or observe the focused mannequin-like lobby boys. The audience may shift focus from one side of the screen to the other and take in the difference in dynamics within the elevator.

For myself, a film is sophisticated when it does not try so hard to direct the viewers attention but rather, encourages them to actively play a part in understanding the world presented to them; something I believe Wed Anderson has achieved incredibly in The Grand Budapest Hotel.

So… Week 3 and I already feel as though I’m being pushed into the deep end of a 7meter deep pool.. the thing is.. I like it. Yes I’m being pushed out of my comfort zone but what I’m gain2ing out of it is more practical than I could have imagined.

Last week we were divided in to groups with the brief a scripted scene with yet a different number of constraints: we were to film a maximum of 6 shots that we would then edit into a scene. What was so interesting about this experience is that, we had to  efficiently create a dynamic and emotive scene scene that effectively delivers the narrative elements. These shot constraints spark a quest to find creativity in other cinematic elements such as mis en scene, framing, edit style, setting etc.

This week we observed each student’s edit and it was amazing how, although the individuals had filmed the scenes together, their final edited produced varied, often greatly. Here were some instances that I admired:

– Aki chose to begin his scene with a CU panning shot of feet dancing. As the camera continued to pan the audience is introduced to an awkward girl on a couch sitting isolated in the left of the frame. What I love about this idea is that their did not need to be an immediate contextualizing wide shot that establish where the characters were. It’s great that Aki understood the scene as part of a larger whole – that is the film – therefore, undermining the necessity to contextualize.

– I also loved a different edit (same scene where a girl stood up observing the dance floor whilst the diegetic background music played). When the girl sat down on the chair, music simultaneously shifted from being diegetic to non-diegetic as it suddenly became louder to become a soundtrack. That inspired me to think more about how we can subtly shift between the diegetic and non-diegetic.

Something Robin said really stuck with me and that was that each of the two classes undertaking the same subject had already developed their own film culture in the space of three weeks (we observed the other classes work and found great differences – particularly that they were more creative with the story elements whilst we seems to push the creativity through our shots). That’s something I would love to research further as it will speak volumes about the way in which directors find themselves influenced by those around them.

Lastly, we were shown the original films that our edits were based on and this was fantastic. I was especially struck by the train scene that my team had filmed. There was a combined total of 4 shots in that scene. Meanwhile, we had ironically been worrying about only utilizing 6 shots. The main point of difference is in the pacing of the edits. Each shot lasted much longer than 2 or 3 of our shots combined. It really opened my eyes to the possibilities that can be achieved through pacing. The scene, in my opinion, was much more effective in its emotive nature as the lingering camera shots invited us to enter the world of the characters.

Weekly Epiphany: My weekly epiphany is inspired by the train scene from the film ‘Fizdanti’. Longer shots are NOT BAD!! In fact, they are incredibly effective when used appropriately. However, in saying this, as the long shot lingers on the actor, the actor needs to be captivating. As such, acting technique and camera shots can become an unstoppable duo 🙂