Monthly Archives: October 2018

The act of noticing is permanent, never ending and constantly evolving. That’s probably the first thing that comes to mind. What we notice and what we focus our attention towards is being perpetually influenced by an immeasurable number of factors and stimuli that make honing the skill a real struggle. This is why this form of experimental filmmaking is so important, because we can both explore the “impressions pressing on us at every moment” (Mason 2001) and also negate these actions through the lens of film. The camera is unbiased and doesn’t succumb to outside forces. It simply records what it is pointed towards. Obviously whatever it captures is somewhat biased due to the operator, but it still gives us a framework to eliminate these biases somewhat and experiment with what we notice in the frame rather than what we notice through our own eyes. John Mason (2001) says “We need to be selective to survive” and that’s exactly what the camera offers us as filmmakers. The ability to be selective, without using selective bias. James Benning explores this concept in most of his films by removing the influence he has over the frame and in the edit room with his shooting rules; timed cuts, he doesn’t move the camera once its set up etc. (Palse 2009) These kinds of tools are definitely what I’ll take away from this studio.

Through my first film I explored lingering and priming. And with this latest experimental project I explored wondering, and to a minor extent continued with lingering considering each of the pieces piece lingered on the one shot in the and stayed in on respective location. From making this short film experience, the most integral way that I have evolved my process of noticing to make audiovisual nonfiction are in the rigid rules I implemented before I got to the set/location(s) for my filmmaking. When I am trying to create media centred around noticing, the best way to do it is to ensure that I stay on task. The recipes we create, and the rules I outline before I begin my shoot are essential to this endeavor. Deciding on framing, equipment needs, shot duration, camera movement, shot types etc in advance of the shoot can aid in the act of noticing freely because you remove yourself somewhat from the situation. You aren’t impulsively moving the camera around, and this enables you to capture uniform shots of different locations that is not only useful in the edit room, but also allows for patterns and similarities to emerge in unforeseen ways.

Throughout the course I feel that the three most key learning outcomes I have discovered would be;

The importance of Intentional Noticing And Reflection

Obviously, we are constantly noticing things. But what is incredibly important as a media practitioner is the ability to look inwards and observe our own noticing as a biased, deliberate practice. John Mason (2001) says that reflection is the “vogue term” for this process, but that usually not effectively implemented. This was certainly true for me before this course. I had made several short pieces or films but never really looked back on the project as a whole. This studio has shown me the importance of this part of the media making process. I’ve had countless ideas for this most recent experimental piece just from writing extensively about the previous work I did. And similarly, I’m growing ideas for my next work outside of class from this exercise. This form of “experiential learning” (Mason 2001) is key but it requires intentional noticing. Noticing as an abstract idea cannot be honed, but this act of intentional noticing becomes an inquiry into our own biases and a “practical approach” that can be reflected upon and improved.

The impact of blending two or more semantically opposed elements

Before this studio, I think if I am being honest I was quite rigid in my filmmaking. Cuts had to be timed perfectly, things that weren’t crystal clear needed to be either reexamined or expunged etc. However this studio has taught me that I need to embrace these murky elements within my films/media projects. One such project that is both a perfect example of this and also incredibly beautiful is Mazen Kerbaj’s Starry Night (2013). A minimalistic trumpet improvisation over the backdrop of the haunting sounds of war, gunfire and bombs in Mazen’s city of Bierut recorded from his balcony. Linking two completely unrelated audio/visual elements together on screen can create a powerful impression for the viewer and call upon them to further contemplate the implications within your work.

Limiting yourself is a worthwhile practice

Throughout the various media projects I made this semester, I think an incredibly important tool I will carry forward is to limit myself. Which sounds like a bizarre thing to do, but it can be incredibly useful in honing filmmaking skills. Limiting my shot duration, limiting my framing, limiting my input into the camera work etc were all huge benefits to the projects. There is an inherent quality in simplicity that this studio has allowed me to explore through experimental filmmaking that can create truly inspirational work. There are several examples of this throughout the Studio. James Benning’s films such as Los (2001) or Ruhr (2009) are perfect examples of implementing this tactic.

References

James Benning. (2001). Los. [Online Video]. 26 October 2001. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZGxdGRJ3rg

James Benning. (2009). Ruhr. [Online Video]. 2 November 2009. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVXuEi3tau4

Mason, John. Researching your own practice: the discipline of noticing, (p.29-38). London: Routledge Falmer, 2001

Mazen Kerbaj. (2013). Starry Night. [ONLINE].  July 2006. Available from: https://lautremusique.bandcamp.com/track/starry-night

I’ve decided on a website; Illuminatemelbourne.weebly.com. Hopefully by the time you are reading this, that link will actually be active…

I went with a completely black design on the website, I didn’t want any distractions from the videos themselves. This also had a secondary, and honestly unintentional, creative outcome for the website. On the main decision page, the videos themselves act as lights in the space and reflect the experiment, which i think works well. It isn’t entirely clear at first that these are links so even the experience of choosing the first video is an experiment into wondering and light.

The layout of the website lead me to continuing to explore how I could facilitate the audience into interaction. The entire goal of the experiment is to explore the effect that light sources have on noticing, so I think that this interactive element encourages the audience to contemplate the effect further. If they are choosing what they are watching, they will, perhaps, wonder about why they are choosing the videos they are watching. The website lends itself perfectly to this experience. Each link to a video invites the audience to navigate the spaces freely in whatever order they are drawn towards, I hope that this will enable them to contemplate why they are making the choices rather than just sitting in front of a screen and watching videos play.

All that’s left now is the exhibition.

All my pieces are edited together now, I’ve settled on the first idea of just using the best 6 and I think it comes together to form a really strong experience. At first I experimented with editing them together into one single longer video, but I thought that it was lacking something so I scrapped that idea pretty early on and went with the separate videos.

I’m trying out korsakow at the moment, but I’m really struggling with getting it to function exactly how I had envisioned. Im contemplating maybe exporting these videos to youtube and hosting them online somewhere, though I really like the idea that Korsakow presents in terms of having an interactive experience.

The edits themselves are similar. Pacing is the throughline that binds all 6 pieces together. The light movements are timed with audio cues, and though the audio cues themselves are different in each video (music, diegetic sounds etc) they are reminiscent of each other in a way that I think builds the clips together into a cohesive experience, rather than just 6 separate short films. This was definitely something I was worried about when I first started editing, I didn’t want this to feel like 6 random videos thrown together into one piece. I wanted this to feel like a complete experience for the audience that makes them really question how and why they notice.

Frankham’s dissertation entitled A Poetic Approach to Documentary (2013) looks at many ways that nonfiction filmmaking relates to poetry. It discusses the rhetorical impacts of aesthetic choices in documentary filmmaking that move beyond realist approaches to representation. Using the technique of defamiliarization in order to renew perception and to spark within the audience a reimagining of how they notice and how to break free from preconceived connections.   

Specifically relevant to my exploration into light and environment is Chapter 4 Complexity, Flux and webs of connection. In this part of the dissertation, Frankham discusses how an “openness of form” can facilitate moments of pause and contemplation. Allowing moments for the audience to contemplate will be integral to my project, as I am hoping to invite the spectator(s) to wonder about the formal function of each space. The video themselves will be void of diegetic visual elements to the function of the spaces themselves, but I’m hoping to allude to this via non diegetic sounds and audio accompaniments to the pieces edited into the film in post production to subtly lead the audience down the path of asking where they are. What is making that sound, where is it coming from, why am I hearing this? etc. By keeping the visual elements of the short films simple (static shots, no movement extraneous to the lights) I can allow the audience to contemplate these more abstract notions of space and function while continually maintaining their focus on the and the movement of the light sources without being overwhelmed.

Reference

Frankham, B, 2013. A Poetic Approach to Documentary: discomfort of form, rhetorical strategies and aesthetic experience. Sydney: University of Technology.

So I’ve just got home from the last of my shoots (I filmed over the course of 3 nights). Choosing outdoors, at night time was a bit of a hindrance, because it limited me to only the last 5 or 6 hours of the day and one night it was pouring so I lost another few hours of time to that…but at least it’s done now.

One of my locations, the statue outside of a conservatory in Carlton will probably be unusable even without having watched it back yet. I just don’t think I could find the right placement for the camera because of a water feature limiting where I could place it in relation to the lights. But other than that everything went well.

In the studio this week, I showed a couple of quick edits that I threw together of the first two locations I had filmed this past weekend. The feedback i got back gave me a lot to go on, as I really wasn’t sure whether I was approaching this the right way with one of my edits. In the red triangle car park video (seen below), I have superimposed some projector-esque elements that hint at the function of the space (or rather, the function of the space that owns the car park). I thought perhaps this might be detracting from the main goal of the piece which is to explore the movement of light and its interaction with the space and how that affects the audience’s attention. However, James mentioned that he thought that it added a certain element of uncertainty to the piece, and this fits in perfectly with the exploration of “wondering” that I am trying to delve into with these pieces. Anything that invites the audience to wonder about the space is definitely something I want to include in the piece.

Los is a one and a half hour experimental film documenting the city of Los Angeles by filmmaker James Benning. It contains 35 static shots, each a different location in LA, that all have a uniform duration of 2.5 minutes. This is an example in using the cuts for your editing process. The cuts are all time based, which removes subjective input from the filmmaker in an aim to eliminate any bias the filmmaker might have about what to include in the shot and when to cut etc.

In terms of exploring noticing and non-fiction filmmaking through this medium, it is an attempt to explore what the camera notices rather than what we notice. Benning himself also outlines the importance of movement in this type of filmmaking. With zero camera movement any minute piece of movement within the frame is noticed by the audience “because the camera doesn’t, because it has a fixed gaze.” (Panse 2009). The shots being completely devoid of deliberate focus or movement hones the audience’s attention completely to anything that changes within the frame.

This is something that definitely directly applies to my project. I want to ensure that there is very little movement within the frame, and zero movement from the camera. By doing this, I am trying to ensure that the shifting lights are the sole object that the audience focuses its attention towards. I want the light sources to jump around the screen and continually disrupt the audience’s attention and draw them to those specific spots in the frame. This will help to explore how the light source changes the environment as well, because with the lack of other agents or movement in the frame, the light sources will be the only changing variables.

Reference

James Benning. (2001). Los. 26 October 2001. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZGxdGRJ3rg.

So I’ve decided to shoot at about 8 locations, The target I set for myself when I decided on several short films rather than one longer film was 6 one minute pieces. So I think if I get footage from 8 locations, if 1 or two don’t work the way I anticipated/just aren’t usable then I still have 6 strong ones to form my interactive experience. And if all 8 are acceptable I can either submit 8 or just pick the strongest 6 and ensure a cohesive experience that way.

I want to pick places that are… uninspiring. I don’t want incredible landscapes or beautiful locations. The reasons are twofold, firstly because I don’t want it to distract from the main aim of the piece which is the light sources. The lights are the centrepiece of this experiment and they need to have the audiences full attention. But secondly, and perhaps more importantly, I want the space to be subservient to the noticing. I want the take a space that is rarely considered/noticed (i.e. an ally, a car park, back entrance to a building etc) and illuminate it in the mind of the audience. I want to transform these mundane spaces into something more.

One thing I need to worry about when choosing these locations as well is the framing. I have two relatively powerful lights that I can move around the spaces, but they will get lost if I am too far away from the scene, and they will be too prevalent if the shots are too close up. There will be a definite middle ground that I need to find at each location so experimenting with the physical camera placement will be very important.

Dry Lights is an experimental film using “virtual site-specific installations and surreal performances of choreographed lights in organic landscapes.” by a Toronto based filmmaker, Xavier Chassaing. It combines organic structures (specifically focusing on cactus plants) and artificial light sources edited into the scene during the post production process to turn something completely barren of technology (the desert) into an electronic environment.

The video is a good lens to explore noticing through. It completely controls the audience’s attention at every point of the video, directing them through the virtually created lighting patterns. It’s a great exercise in non-fiction filmmaking, as there is not plot or narrative, simply the choreographed light show twisting through the desert completely changing the environment.

As far as how it relates to my project, I see two important links. First of all, since I’m exploring light sources and their impact on the audience’s attention and how they change an environment, it’s incredibly linked to this piece. Obviously there are differences, as Im looking into using multiple spaces and I’m going to use a static camera but it, at the very least, strongly demonstrates that the endeavor I’m taking on can produce incredibly visually striking results. Secondly, it shows the natural relationship between light and noticing. I don’t think that people actively notice light sources too often, but within the frame of a film, they are incredible at drawing the eye and they can completely change a space. Hopefully this effect light has on drawing the audience’s attention can be exploited throughout my piece. This film also convinced me to shoot entirely outside. I was considering using a mixture of interior and exteriors but I feel that shooting outside, at night will give a more striking visual experience.

Reference

Dry Lights –  Xavier Chassaing. (2016). Dry Lights. 24 November 2016. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXSKhohnmos.

Matthew Flanagan’s thesis “Slow Cinema” explores a “stylistic current” present throughout a specific sub genre of experimental films dubbed “Slow Cinema”. It delves into the evolution of this genre throughout the last 3 decades and the genre’s thematic throughlines, namely long takes, undramatic narrative or non-narrative structure, realist or hyperrealist representation and a pronounced stillness of composition and visual content.

This thesis is incredibly relevant to my own endeavor into non-fiction, slow cinema, non-narrative filmmaking. I still haven’t fully decided on the medium of my piece (whether one ~10 minute short film, or perhaps breaking it up into smaller pieces) but the exploration into various themes I’m hoping to draw from is critical to my project. Specifically, non-narrative structure and its relationship with the audience. How do we hold attention when there is no narrative for the audience to follow? The article talks about how the filmmaker can “lose” their audience without a narrative at times in their film, so perhaps I could combat this by experimenting with some form of an interactive experience? This would enable me to not only maintain the audience’s attention, but allow for the audience to have some input into what they notice, and what aspects of the project they are drawn to, rather than being completely imposed upon by the completed film.

Another tool I will be utilising in my project referenced within this article is, as Flanagan describes it, “stillness of composition.” I am hoping this will further constrict the viewers attention and focus solely on the light sources and their movement within the space. So for this, a tripod is obviously crucial, but I also want to pick locations that will have none or very little unintended movement. Places like roads, rooms with people in them etc will be avoided.

Reference

Flanagan, M, 2012. ‘Slow Cinema’: Temporality and Style in Contemporary Art and Experimental Film. Exeter: University of Exeter.