Briefly touching on how we fixed the continuity issue in exercise 8 we did in class last week, the resolution was to put an additional shot in-between the two as a means to make the scene flow a bit better and seperate the dialogue more so it seems less jarring.

In week 6 we got the opportunity to view the final edits of each piece which was extremely interesting to see the difference between the way the two were shot. Having not seen our 3 edits before, seeing how flexible the shots were to create three distinctively different pieces was fascinating. I’ve always been the type of person to have a script and shoot what was on it and nothing more without considering the editing flexibility I would have in experimenting with other shots on set.

In Thursdays class, we learnt more stuff about the camera such as white balance adjustment, which I found interesting however I can’t imagine it being something I would do religiously in the real world. I found the script we blocked out late in the class intriguing in trying and solve the backpack shot. One idea I had in my head was for her to drop the bag down beside her. That way we can have an over the shoulder shot of her, and as she bends down below the table surface, the camera tracks down with her (no tilt). She looks up to Colin to say her line, and then it cuts back to a shot of Colin looking down saying his line, then back to the previous shot, and the camera tracks her back up into her seat to the over the shoulder shot. I think this would flow nicely as you don’t loose that sense of space and position that was missing in the original.

Regarding the quote on how cinematography is the story and what is meant by this, I understand all other production elements to merge to form the story. A films story isn’t explicitly made apparent to the audience by sticking the script in front of the camera, it is slowly uncovered through visual cues only made possible with the production elements. Character dialogue and expression is commonly used to drive forward a narrative, but even this is an example of sound and acting which the audience must piece together. A story cannot be told in visual, film form without these elements, otherwise its just writing on paper.

Week 5 established itself about working in a collaborative environment on set and through production. We split into two large groups and assigned production roles to each individual to tackle a given script as a group in Fridays class. Initially both groups were given two scripts to complete (exercises 7 and 8), however it was settled each group would tackle one separately to allow us to really focus on nailing it instead of rushing through each shot. I felt like this was a good mood as we really pushed to consider the composition of each shot and the overall effect this would have on the scene as a whole. I’m also a little disappointed as i like to be challenged and I believe being tasked with both exercise 7 and 8 would have been interesting to see what the difference would have been if we did the same task under stricter time restrictions. Our group did exercise 8, a confrontation between a suspected creep and two other students. It focuses heavily on movement and is less confined to a space than exercise 7. This gave us room to experiment with tracking and stabilised movement which tested our cameraman Isaac. Our method was well prepared thanks to the pre-production work of Tyler, who went well beyond his role as director to create a storyboard and shot list which was later refined by Matt (First AD) during production. As a result of the work done in the lead up, it presented a clear vision for all involved before we even got to set on Friday. Hats off to the team there. My main role was continuity, however I also sided as a gaffer when necessary. Although shooting went smoothly and no major hiccups were present, we noticed a major continuity problem later in the edit. As the two girls walk up the stairs and one turns around to notice the creepy student, she turns here head again in the second shot resulting in a double turn around, and Marie says her line of dialogue before Sophia turns her head around in the second shot. We experimented with laying that dialogue over the first shot before she turns her head to flow perfectly with Sophia’s response in the following shot, which seemed to work okay. I’ll pick up on this in next weeks reflection once we work out what the solution is. I thoroughly enjoyed this exercise and am looking forward to doing more like it in the future.

First class of week 4 saw us engage in a practical group exercise in which we acted out a scripted scene in relatively large groups of 7. I took it as an opportunity to work in a more industry mimicking environment consisting of many of the roles the would exist on the traditional film set. In this particular exercise, I was an actor, and I learnt that actors have a substantial amount of free time on set whilst those around set up the technical and creative aspects of the shot. Over the course of the hour, we took 5 shots and I only had to do around 20 seconds of acting. This allowed me to observe and appreciate just how difficult it must be to get everyone on set prepped for each shot. Within our group, everything operated fairly smoothly and communication between all areas was concise, yet we still only managed five shots in an hour, which gives me much more respect for those on set and what they do. It must be stressful. For the following class we were asked to piece these shots together in the edit, however I had issues with my computer loading the footage from Google Drive so I couldn’t create my own take on it. After going over the final edits from each group in class and watching the actual scenes on which they were based, I was amazed to see just how differently it was shot compared to ours. I personally believe this is my favourite part of the class, as I find it amazing to see how many different ways there are to cover a scene and achieve varying results, each to their own effect. The main take away I got out of this weeks work was that film can be just as much a work of art through the way the scene is covered as it is telling a story, which has got me excited about the possibilities in future production exercises.

In our opening class for week 3, we participated in a group activity recreating a scene analysed in class as a means to understand the complexity of what happens on set that ultimately makes this beautifully constructed scene possible. Although I personally did not have a set role in the production, it was interesting to stand back and observe the level of communication required to pull off what appears as a technically simplistic shot. In spectating I learnt there is a great deal of complexity behind what we as viewers analyse on screen and it made me appreciate the effort of those on set that make it possible. The main exercise this week involved experimenting with factors that directly determine depth of field, those being focal length, lens aperture, and point of focus. We broke into groups of two and played around with the how these factors influence the depth of the image. It was enlightening to physically adjust these factors as it increased my clarity surrounding how they work. I still get slightly confused with what does what but this is all stuff the comes overtime with good practice and theory. All in all, it proved to be an intriguing exercise I took a lot out of. My best attempt to define camera coverage would be that it refers to the overall visual composition of objects within the space (scene), which is controlled by both camera angles and movement. Moreover, coverage is a measure of how much footage and angles are shot to capture a scene. It’s a difficult term to define in the sense that it is so broad, however at its fundamental basics, that is how I would define it. To ‘cross the line’ refers to breaking the ‘180 degree rule’, whereby the imaginary horizontal line that dictates where the camera should be positioned to cover a scene is crossed. This can result in a lack of visual continuity and can appear jarring to the viewer. Briefly touching on the weekly reading by Luis Bunuel ‘decoupage or cinematic segmentation’, I found it extremely interesting yet hard to wrap my head around. At its most basic level, as I’m trying not to overthink what Bunuel is saying, he addresses the apparent simplicity of cinema that audiences use to overlook the complexities that make a film a great film. This is something he indicates in stating ‘anyone can learn pretty well the basic techniques of cinematography, but only the elect can compose a good film’. My interpretation of this is that we should start distinguishing the aspects cinematography that create a film at its most basic level from the creativity and ‘art’ that makes it a ‘great film’. In that sense, I feel like Bunuel is attempting to recognise the broader creative elements that make a great film beyond the images themselves.

‘Creed’ Film Scene Analysis:

http://www.mediafactory.org.au/jonah-ahearn/2018/07/31/scene-in-cinema-analytical-writing-creed-ryan-coogler/

Week 2 Reflection:

http://www.mediafactory.org.au/jonah-ahearn/2018/07/25/the-scene-in-cinema-week-2-reflection/

Week 3 Reflection:

http://www.mediafactory.org.au/jonah-ahearn/2018/08/05/scene-in-cinema-week-3-reflection/

Week 4 Reflection:

http://www.mediafactory.org.au/jonah-ahearn/2018/08/07/scene-in-cinema-week-4-reflection/