Week 1 Response:

“For this semester of Film and TV 1, I would simply like to gain experience undertaking and attempting multiple roles of the many that are required to produce a (short) film.  It may sound like a basic and uninspired goal to some, however for me, filmmaking is a very new prospect and one I never thought I would be trialling even after enrolling in RMIT’s media course.  I very much feel as though this subject could be a highly influential deciding factor on my future career, and will not hold back when given the responsibility to accomplish set tasks.  I would gladly accept any job given to me, but would particularly relish any opportunity to either write our short film’s screenplay, or even to be handed the seemingly high pressure task of directing; both roles of which I feel I would be capable of tackling.”

Film and TV 1 definitely lived up to the hype that precedes it and my expectations for the subject were constantly lived up to and exceeded.  Though at the beginning of the semester, while I was secretly looking forward to the possibility of the role as director of a short film, I didn’t necessarily feel like I would be the best candidate for the job at all, group members pertaining, as I had zero previous experience as to what the task particularly encompassed, though it was a challenge I would be willing to accept.  As the cards fell, I did end up directing, and is an experience I have no regrets over, even from the mistakes I made and learned from.  It is a role I would definitely like to take on again in the near future, whether for a Film/TV 2 project, or beyond.

While guidance for both pre- and production was excellent, in both the lectures and tutorials, I felt a little like a fish-out-of-water during post-production, being relativelyunfamiliar with most types of editing software, even after attending the extra editing tutorials, which at times still seemed too advanced for myself – I felt like I was missing the in-between steps.  Here, I do feel like I could have tried to help myself further throughout this process, via instruction manuals and YouTube tutorials etc., but skimmed over a lot of it, due to our group having one particularly competent editor, and I feel like I could have put in some more time and physical help in accomplishing our final product.  When she left to go overseas however, I do feel like I sufficiently stepped up to fill her role to put the finishing touches on the film.  Tutors Robin and Paul were always on hand to offer helpful advice, and easy to contact via email outside of class times.

I thoroughly enjoyed this semester of Film and TV 1, and hope to learn as much as I have over the past six months in Film and TV 2.

A Love Lost

I found ‘A Love Lost’ a refreshing subject amidst the many other comedic and dramatic films of the night, and therefore, even regardless of its excellent quality, it would have been memorable.  A story of a man who in recent years has tragically lost his wife, I feel was a bold decision, but reaped the rewards of telling a more unique story.  I found the film quite emotional, which was obviously its intent, and is a credit to all involved.  It was well cast, and very cleverly displayed the passing of time effectively, by changing as little as the man’s facial hair.  Framing of shots both static and in motion was excellent, and the various lighting, such as the candlelit dinner worked to stunning effect.  A fantastic short film, with a heartfelt message.

Pranking Frank

I feel that ‘Pranking Frank’ was the best executed comedy of the night, and set the tone of the film very early in the piece, wasting no time in revealing Frank’s mischievous craze of prank-calling, though he is not very convincing at it, until he accidentally meets another veteran prankster.  Again, the framing of shots was excellent, and stood out due to the fantastic performance of the casting choices.  I found the film a little jarring at the conclusion; I’m not sure whether this was from an acting perspective or perhaps tweaking of the script was required to more clearly demonstrate the character’s motives, but that’s being picky.  A well structured film, with good value for laughs.

The Hole

The stylistic choices of ‘The Hole’, such as the use of the almost silent, slapstick comedy, combined with the black and white picture worked perfectly.  The male actor in particular almost looks like he’s taken from that mimicked time period.  The costumes and setting of the beach and restaurant even looked incredibly European.  Again a short film with an uncomplicated plot provided a personal highlight, and although it was a ‘comedy’, it didn’t rely on its jokes to be a good film in itself.

It’s hard for me to know which keyboard shortcuts are the best when using Adobe Premiere, as I’ve had very little experience in editing video with any type of software, let alone Adobe Premiere in particular.  Regardless, these are the shortcuts I feel could be useful and time-saving:

Go to Previous Edit Point – Up

Go to Next Edit Point – Down

Render Effects in Work Area – Return

Add Edit – Cmd+K

Snap – S

Mark In – I

Mark Out – O

Save – Cmd+S

The clip from ‘Blood Simple’ (Cohen Brothers, 1984, USA) is a clear example of how, despite edits, off screen space is still evident.  As the camera cuts away from one character, the other is still heard, in this example as one character vomits in a bathroom, and then runs a tap.  Sometimes, to help show the two characters are still in the same space together, the shot will cut away from the subject mid-sentence from the character who is speaking, not only gauging the other’s reactions, but also clearly depicting it is that person they are speaking to.  This is also demonstrated with the ‘dirty over-the-shoulder’ camera framing technique, in which an out of focus portion of the person speaking occupies one side of the screen, while the other character is in full focus.

Sandra’s lecture was fantastic, and I was both blown away and reassured by her advice she gave us, as I was to be directing my first film project in the coming weeks.

One of the points I took away from her were to remain outwardly calm, even if everything is going wrong and you’re freaking out on the inside.  By the director staying calm, it both reassures the crew and nullifies any negative vibes you’re demonstrating in view of your actors.  I definitely took this advice into account on the day of our film, even though it was a high-pressure environment and it’s amazing how fast time slips away while on set.

Her advice to know your script inside-out, while also quite evident, applied more-so to this project, as I myself did not write our script (as per requirements for directors in this project), and because actors go to the director for help, it would have been both inefficient and unprofessional to constantly refer to the script-writer for consultation.

One of the things that struck me about this scene was the precise cinematography and framing that would have been meticulously planned out, used when the actors were moving, both separately, through the often confined spaces of the art room.  Both actors almost always managed to stay in the frame, even though a clear sight to them was often obstructed by walls, artwork, or the low-hanging rafters.  This was one thing I found incredibly hard to manage while on our shoot, even though the movements and mise-en-scene was much more simplistic and straight-forward.  It was hard trying to keep both the actors and camera-operator on the same page, and shots with much movement within the frame required many takes, often still not quite as perfect as I would have liked.

The Week 7 Lecture on lighting, as I have previously mentioned in my blog, was incredibly insightful.  It was interesting to listen to Robin discuss that the common principle of 3-point lighting does not always need to be applied, in fact, would not be applicable in many situations.  This information helped to broaden my understanding of how to light a scene and that experimentation and trial-and-error was completely acceptable, with no exact ‘wrong’ or ‘right’ way to go about it.

Conducting the second Lenny exercise; a 2 minute short film, I thought that our allocated 50 minutes to capture the footage we needed would give us more than enough time.  I couldn’t believe how drastically wrong I was; the process reminded me of cooking a meal, where one can spend hours preparing and sweating over a hot stove, and when the meal is finally served, to only deliver a few mere minutes of satisfaction.  While we did go into the shoot with little preparation; no storyboards, shot list, or set location, these elements no doubt would make a huge difference, but not necessarily speed up the filming process.  Nevertheless, it will be of critical importance to have these elements intricately organised on the day of our own short film shoot.  As director, it is crucial that I know what I need from the team I am working with, and know my role and the production schedule inside-out, and ensure both myself and the rest of the crew have a clear vision for how we perceive our outcome to make sure when our time comes to shoot, we are as efficient as possible.  You can view our finished second ‘Lenny’ exercise here.

I found the lecture on lighting a film set highly interesting and a massive eye-opener, as it seems to be such a huge element of production that, pre-lecture, I had almost overlooked, and I definitely underestimated just how much preparation and equipment is required in order to achieve effective lighting for just one scene or sometimes only one shot.  It was interesting to learn about the different types of lighting, and I was astounded to see just how many creative options one holds when dealing purely with lighting, as demonstrated in the lecture.  With our upcoming short film project, lighting is definitely something that will need to be taken into great consideration, with much of our film taking place in rooms lit by various forms of lighting; natural, artificial, candlelight, and even in a darkened room lit by a television.  I would like more experience with lighting before conducting our shoot, with decisions to be made about whether or not to use source lighting or artificially replicate these scenarios, weighing up the pros and cons of each.

In the tute we screened a short film called Rolling – a film made in Film-TV1 a few years ago.  In 300 words or less describe what you thought worked or didn’t. At this stage we don’t expect you to have a great deal of film knowledge or language. Don’t be afraid to use your own words. Things you could talk about – script, casting, timing, camera movement, location. You may not remember much detail, if so, it could be helpful to talk about your first impressions, after all this is what most of us are left with after one viewing.

Personally, I wasn’t a big fan of Rolling.  I felt its biggest problem was the lack of plot direction, along with characters who displayed both little emotion and personal development.  The story seemed like a half-hearted attempt at a romantic comedy, however it was neither romantic nor comedic; instead an awkward in-between which left me, as an audience member, confused.

The film revolves around a young man who while attempting to talk to his muse, a young attendant who works at the local supermarket, nervously tries to initiate conversation with her, stumbling over his words with her and somehow manages to purchase fifty extra large packs of toilet paper; a nice comedic touch, but that’s about as bizarre the film (or at least its script) gets.  The film should have expanded on this gag, and at the very least, incorporated more humour into the film, so that its genre was more defined and didn’t lack emotions.  Alternatively, the film could have been situated in a flower shop, of something of the kind, and play up the romantic interest in the film, however the two leads had no chemistry between them, so perhaps the comedic route was the way to go.  It’s hard to shift the blame solely to either screenwriters or actors, but both elements refused to gel as one.

In addition, the film’s locations, while generically appropriate, simply felt lifeless – much like the film itself.  Camera angles and shot selections were awkward, and emphasised the obvious height difference between the leading couple.