For this Assignment, I have decided to analyse a scene from Mad Max: Fury Road (George Miller, 2015), specifically the scene where Max Rockatansky (Tom Hardy) first meets Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron).

At the beginning, while I had decided on the film, I had so much trouble picking a scene to study, as there are so many great scenes. Director George Miller, and cinematographer John Seale did a brilliant job capturing the sheer enormity of the film. Hence I’m running a bit (more like very) late.

In its entirety, Fury Road is an interesting modern film to explore in regards to coverage, as co-writer Brendan McCarthy – an illustrator of graphic novels and comic books, drew elaborate storyboards before writing the screenplay with Miller and Nico Lathouris.

It starts with what, at first, appears to be a wide shot of a sand dune, though the dune slowly begins to move, revealing that it was a medium shot of Max, half buried in the sand, waking up. This was a nice, playful touch to the scene, subtly subverting the convention of starting scenes with an establishing shot.

Keeping the same shot and angle, Max jumps up quickly, creating a massive cloud of sand, which then cuts to a split second shot of an explosion. This flashback acts as a transition, as the shot now shows Max almost upright, sand still flying in the air. There are a number of similar short flashbacks in this part of the scene, as Max gradually gains composure. The camera zooms into Max as he removes the IV drip from his neck, with Max then stumbling backwards and wearily climbing the chain to get to Nux (Nicholas Hoult).

The camera is quickly walked in towards the car where Nux – presumably dead – is lying in. The camera also pans a small amount, emulating the camera operator’s eyesight, as if they’re trying to get to Nux before Max does. It quickly cuts to a point of view from the car window, with Max slowly making his way towards the car. The cutting during action is used throughout the scene, and it adds a layer of suspense, and makes the viewer think that the camera operator and actors are chasing each other on set.

When Max gets to the car, it cuts to a wide shot of Max pulling the door off the car, with the camera operator slowly walking closer to the action. The camera then captures Max pulling Nux from the car and attempting to remove the IV from his neck. A combination of a low camera position, and a high angle are used to show Max struggling to free himself from Nux. Max is then distracted by loud noises and the sight of something on the horizon. The scene cuts quickly from Max to an unseen person working on the truck – later revealed to be Furiosa.

From a distance, Max is shown walking towards the truck with Nux on his shoulders. It then cuts back and forth between different parts of his body as he arrives at the truck, and pulls out his gun. The movement of the camera, along with the cutting, making this shot work as an establishing shot for both the new background and characters.

As Max reaches the truck, the camera zooms into his face, and cuts to a wide, point of view shot of Furiosa and the five wives washing up and Furiosa working on the truck, with a rack focus at the beginning of the shot – adding to the effect that the point of view shot had created. It then cuts between medium shots between the different wives while they wash, though I’m not sure if it’s an act of fanservice, showing that Max is just another human like the rest of us, or something completely innocent.

He drops Nux and the car door, startling everyone. Furiosa getting ready to defend the group. One of the wives then cuts off her chastity belt, which could answer the question I had before, but I assume it’s probably more to signify that they’re free from their former captor, Immortan Joe, and that they believe that Max is there to help them flee.

Max holds the gun at Furiosa, who fears his presence, and point of view shots go between the two of them. It then cuts to the ground, which is flooding from the use used by the group. The wife who cut off the belt moves forward, using a mid shot as she walks towards Max, while some of the group remains within the periphery. The shot widens out when he snatches the hose from her, and shakes the gun around. This constant use of point of view is successful in making the viewer feel immersed in the scene.

Max stumbles around, keeping that layer of realistic delirium in his actions. A short shot of Nux on the ground is used while Max struggles with drinking from the hose with that muzzle on his face. This makes the viewer realise that he’s still alive, which is confirmed when he moves his head as a response to being splashed.

While Max has his gun pointed, the shots avoid showing him, instead showing the other wives fearful facial expressions and Furiosa getting her gun. As another wife walks towards him, a point of view from her perspective is used, though she seems more focused on objects in the distance. Max attempts to get her, and the viewer’s attention, by moving his chain into the centre of the shot, creating possibly one of the most natural and powerful attention grabs I’ve seen.

The camera remains on the wife struggling with the chain, while Furiosa enters from beyond the field of view and tackles him. The shot switches between angles, before focusing on the now awake Nux, who is probably in a lot of pain from his arm being tugged by Max via the chain. When Furiosa takes Max’s gun, it uses both a closeup of the barrel digging into his chin, as well as one of her attempting to pull the trigger. The shot stays the same as she sits up straight to beat him with the empty gun; cutting to a wider shot when she’s about to make the blow. The shots then show closeups of the fighting, cutting to show the wives pulling the chain back, like a game of tug-of-war, changing the dynamics of the fight. The scene keeps cutting between all of the characters during the fight, using low angles when looking at Max. A few short two-shots are also used to break up the constant point of views.

As Max finds a pistol on the side of the truck, he has another brief flashback, with Furiosa replaced with an unknown woman surrounded by a convoy of other trucks – as if he was about to get hit. More close up combat is shown, and as he is about to shoot Furiosa in the head, Nux distracts him and the off-centre two-shot is used to show Max removing Nux’s jacket.

This scene, with all the action, and the number of somewhat major characters looks complicated on paper; but, at least to me, is fairly easy to follow, and most of all, is engaging.

Download scene from here

Mad Max: Fury Road 2015, DVD, Roadshow Films, Sydney NSW Australia, Directed by George Miller.

What on Earth is wrong with me? This remote learning thing is really frustrating, especially since my laptop literally went up in smoke (the laptop overheated which made the battery explode). At least I finally managed to set my desk up.

This week, we took another look at focal length, albeit looking at it from a coverage perspective. We contrasted . Upon watching the examples of Elio Petri’s work, especially To Each His Own (1967), his use of a long, zoomed-in lens as the mourners had an aesthetic that reminds me more of television coverage of a live event. However, for shots with dialogue, the characteristics of a long focal length – especially the shallow depth of field – had a more intimate aesthetic, especially compared to the cold, wide shots in A Clockwork Orange (Stanley Kubrick, 1971).

We also discussed the work of Jean Renoir. It was interesting to see how that some students dislike Renoir’s work due to its use in film classes; similar to how high school English classes ruin the experience of Shakespeare for many. While I can’t speak for everyone, I feel like it is somewhat different, because we are viewing Renoir’s films in the way that they’re supposed to be – rather than just simply reciting the screenplay. I also feel like as university students, we are also more mature, and can therefore study a piece while still being able to enjoy it in its original form.

With that being said, I really haven’t watched enough classic cinema to have an opinion at the moment – something that I know I need to change, though finding where to start is just a bit intimidating, and this is before taking into account what the definition of classic is, because one man’s Jean Renoir is another’s Tommy Wiseau. I’m looking forward to watching more once classes calm down.

This week has been interesting, though I still can’t seem to grasp the idea of working from home, though maybe if I can get my desk sorted out so I at least have a place to study, I might get through this.

This week, we continued to look into découpage, specifically how it could be used in single shot scenes. From the examples that Robin showed us, I believe that utilising a single shot works better for party scenes, as it is better able to capture the background actions and mood than using separate shots.

In My Sex Life, or How I got into an argument (Arnaud Desplechin, 1996), the use of panning to differentiate the characters and conversations, at least in my opinion, was effective, as it managed to differentiate the different conversations while still being able to cover the unique setting.

In Full Moon in Paris (Eric Rohmer, 1984), a stationary shot was used, relying on the actors to change position. This shot was able to focus on just the foreground actors dancing while still managing to depict the crowded dancefloor.

Another advantage of using a single would be in the ease of maintaining continuity. If a traditional multiple shot scene was used, the extras would either be out of sync or unnaturally choreographed to account for those changes; or the actors would need to be in a completely different scene – for example, in another room – which would detract from the “busy party” effect.

We then examined eye-lines. Unlike with the 180º rule, I had always assumed that matching the actors’ eye-lines was more of an exercise in common sense than a formally established practice (though to be fair, most coverage rules probably appear like this to the average viewer). However, it was interesting to see the amount of work that was needed to match them. This was especially evident in the scene from The Wild Bunch (Sam Peckinpah, 1969). I assume that making sure every eyeline was matched with the right actor was very time consuming, especially during production.

So now that the uni have figured out a way to conduct classes, the show must go on – even if it’s hard to get work done at home. Time to switch on my thinking music and get the kettle boiling.

I think it has been great that Robin has decided to split the class into small groups for our group chats, because I personally find it easier to speak up than in the larger groups that my other units use. Sure, at times I feel like I’m talking out of my arse, but at least I have the confidence to do that.

I also worked on some elements of pre-production for a short screenplay, a storyboard, shot list and floorplan. While I was disappointed that I didn’t have the opportunity to film the scene; I found the work that I had done useful, because it helped me recognise the importance of planning ahead – something I had forgotten to do when I started the studio. As well as making production easier, producing the storyboard, shot list and floorplan also make the director and cinematographer determine how they would cover a scene, one of the important elements of this studio. If you’re interested in having a look at the work I produced for that exercise, click here.

We also had a more thorough investigation of the meaning of coverage and découpage. While I learned a small amount about découpage through reading Luis Bunuel’s article, that was just the beginning. One of the things we focused on this week was the different ways that découpage and coverage could be realised during post-production, especially on how much creative input an editor has in determining the film’s coverage. I found this useful, as in previous group projects, it was often confusing to figure out how to delegate that task.

Week 1

Week 2

Week 3

Scene Analysis

While it could be seen as slightly cliché, I decided to analyse a scene from Quentin Tarantino’s debut film, Reservoir Dogs (1992), specifically the “Professionals” scene.

The scene starts off with a medium two-shot with Mr White (Harvey Keitel) and Mr Pink (Steve Buscemi) having an argument. While the shot itself does not change during the argument, the camera itself is shaky, which would indicate that the camera is handheld.

When White attacks Pink, it moves to a medium-close up. The camera remains in this position while Pink pushes him back – leaving only Pink visible in the shot. White returns into view to punch Pink, who gets knocked down to the floor. As Pink falls, the camera moves to a low position to cover his fall.

The camera moves to a wide shot and tracks to cover the fighting, with short medium-close up shots of Pink being kicked, and White kicking. When the characters pull out guns, high and low point-of-view shots are used. The characters continue arguing, and the camera performs a slow dolly out.

The shot becomes an over-the shoulder behind a new character, Mr Blonde (Michael Madsen). He talks to the other characters during this shot, before cutting to a medium-wide shot of him casually drinking from a cup. It cuts to a wide point-of-view of the other characters recovering from the fight.

It then cuts a number of times between both of these shots – with the shot of Blonde being used during Pink’s line. It then cuts to a close-up of Blonde slowly removing his sunglasses. It cuts back and forth between the wide point-of-view and the close-up twice, before cutting to a medium-wide shot of Blonde when he speaks. It cuts between both shots during the dialogue, before cutting to a wide shot of Blonde leaning on a pole.

It then cuts to a wide pan of White and Pink walking towards the exit of the room, before cutting back to the wide shot of Blonde. It then cuts back to the two-shot, with White walking towards the camera, before cutting to a wide point of view looking at Blonde. White’s hand and gun are visible in the shot. As he lowers the gun, the camera returns to the two-shot.

Most of the shots used are fairly conventional, though they are used to great effect. The dim – mostly natural – lighting and shaky camera give the scene a gritty aesthetic. The use of wide tracking shots during fights give the viewer an almost voyeuristic perspective of the scene. Considering the number of times that shots became either point-of-views or over-the shoulders, I would assume that extensive blocking was done.

Reservoir Dogs 1992, DVD, Lionsgate, Santa Monica CA USA, Directed by Quentin Tarantino.

This week has been a bit weird, as the COVID-19 pandemic has meant that classes were cancelled for the week; but Robin was able to provide us with some work we could do in our own time.

First, we analysed how choices in coverage can change an otherwise similar scene. We were shown scenes of A Clockwork Orange (Kubrick, S. 1971) and O Lucky Man! (Anderson, L. 1973), which both portrayed scenes of an inmate being released from prison. While the two scenes share a number of similarities, even down to the same actor (Malcolm McDowell), the subtle differences in coverage made each scene feel completely different. Kubrick’s use of wide angles and stationary shots – even when the dialogue and action are distant – makes the viewer feel like they’re within the scene; where the traditional shots used by Anderson – especially when considering his use of zoom, pan and tilt – don’t have that effect.

The use of bright lighting inside the prison in A Clockwork Orange was also an interesting decision, at least to me. It made me wonder if the inside of the prison was actually a better place than the outside world – where the yard and warden’s office had a more sombre tone.

We also learned about the 180º rule, where – in a scene with dialogue – the camera must stay on one side of characters talking. This is mostly used to make sure that viewers are able to keep track of the characters, and that the characters appear to be looking at each other. Robin helped explain it to us with a segment from the TV series, Gossip Girl (2007).

It is not always observed, and while it can be confusing to some viewers, breaking the rule can be used to great effect. This was shown to us in The Fire Within (1963). In this scene, the cinematographer moved around the bar, showing the characters from a number of different shots from different directions. While it was initially unnerving, it made the scene visually interesting, and also complemented the layout of the room – with the round bar.

We also watched a scene from Margaret (2011). The scene starts off distant from the protagonist – as if she was part of the background. We only see wide tracking shots of her as she walks along the road, through shop windows, and as reflections. To me, this is establishing that her role is somewhat passive, in that events happen to her rather than her controlling those events. This is also shown where the bus driver is seen in the foreground welcoming his passengers and closing the door, almost making the viewer assume that he is the protagonist. It isn’t until where she starts asking the driver about the hat where it becomes clear that she is the protagonist. For most of the scene, both characters are framed by the door of the bus, which also helps maintain the distance between the protagonist and the events of the film. This distance is maintained until the lead-up to the accident, where it shows the protagonist running alongside the bus.

This week, most of our class was about learning about the different crew roles for a film, mainly focussing on the camera department – especially the focus puller, but also differentiating between the director and the first assistant director. Continuing on from last week’s reading, we also learned how to block a scene.

We converted the classroom into a film set, blocked and filmed a scene.  During the lesson, I learned how and where to place marks on the set, how to make sure a moving actor or prop is able to stay in focus through an entire scene, and which director gives instructions to which crew members. It was interesting learning that many focus pullers are able to do their job without using a viewfinder or monitor, as it seems like a difficult task.

Before learning about blocking – where the scene is briefly run through to see where the camera is moved and manipulated to correspond with the actors – I had always assumed that those manoeuvres were done during a regular rehearsal, rather than in a separate, earlier step. Blocking now makes sense to me, as it means that everything is sorted out before the rehearsal, and the cast and crew don’t have to worry about the camera department attempting to figure movements out during rehearsal.

I believe that the class was relevant to the studio because all of the tasks were designed to give us practical knowledge of an important element of coverage. Without knowing how to block a scene, the cinematographer would be unable to make sure the correct elements of the scene are shown properly; without knowing how to pull focus, the footage would be of poor quality and therefore unusable.

This week, we read an article from filmmaker Luis Bunuel, called Decoupage, or cinematic segmentation. It discusses the necessity of decoupage, which from what I understand, is the process in which the screenplay is translated to film; by planning the images in a way that expresses the emotions and beauty of the screenplay.

Having never heard the term decoupage until this class, I was unable to figure out how to define my major shortcoming in film – in that I couldn’t figure out the creative process of editing footage, particularly to make engaging, aesthetically pleasing videos. Now that I know more about the concept of decoupage, I feel like I can learn more and practice it.

Decoupage is one of the dominant themes in The Scene in Cinema, as it is a very challenging, yet necessary, part of filmmaking. Without it, the cinematographer would produce a boring, dull slideshow, even if their shots were aesthetically pleasing.

References:

Bunuel, L. c1928, ‘Decoupage, or cinematic segmentation’ in Bunuel, L. & White, G. 2000, An unspeakable betrayal : selected writings of Luis Bunuel, University of California Press, Berkeley, pp. 131-135. <https://primo-direct-apac.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=RMIT_ALMA11136895260001341&context=L&vid=RMITU&search_scope=Books_articles_and_more&tab=default_tab&lang=en_US>

When I signed up for The Scene in Cinema, I understood that the class was going to be related to the creative side of cinematography. While I have a basic understanding of the technical side of cinematography through previous classes, as well as my experience as a cinematographer on MyTV; I felt like I was just trying to capture the actors on camera, rather than trying to set a scene up in any artistic sense. Cinematography has always been interesting to me, but I had previously assumed that it would be complicated, and would require all sorts of equipment and crew to do a good job.

Within the first class, I was immediately proven wrong. We were split up into groups, and were asked to remake a scene from Le deuxième souffle (Jean-Pierre Melville, 1966) using only panning and tilting, it was surprising to realise how effective a scene could be created with just a single shot.

Afterwards, we were given scenes from other films – though each group was given a different one. We were given a scene from It was interesting seeing how different groups translated scenes in different ways to the source material. The group working with Tengoku to Jigoku (Akira Kurosawa, 1963) was the most distinctive, with the scene changing from the actors scared in a lounge room, to actors tip-toeing around, like they were escaping or hiding from someone.

With that being said, it took a little while for me to get used to the cameras that were provided, but I found it quicker to learn than the other cameras I had used in other classes; because all the important image functions had direct buttons and switches instead of being hidden in a menu.

The second class was slightly easier for me, as I have some experience with depth of field from photography, however, I was not used to the idea of recording shots using a camera sheet. Because of this, our group managed to forget to fill the sheet in. It would’ve been useful for us so we could reproduce the shots more accurately.

With that being said, I’m looking forward to the rest of the studio, though I still have no idea what a good reflection looks like – it keeps turning itself into recounts.

This week, we also read The Big Picture: filmmaking lessons from a life on the set (Reilly, 2009), specifically chapter 4 (What is a shot, anyway?) and chapter 23 (Blocking is overlooked and undervalued).

From what I understand, What is a shot, anyway? discusses how a shot is defined. Tom Reilly (2009, ch. 4) claims that ‘a shot is merely what is photographed in between the words action and cut‘. It makes a lot of sense to me, as I believe that new filmmakers often confuse a shot with a scene or angle. Reilly was able to use good examples to show how shots of different lengths are used, and when more elaborate equipment is required to translate the director’s ideas to the screen. It was also interesting to learn that many directors and cinematographers develop their shots on the day of filming. It makes sense – as it might be difficult to set up shots exactly until production.

Blocking is overlooked and undervalued is about blocking scenes, and how many viewers and directors have no idea how blocking works – if they know what it is at all. Blocking is where the actors and camera operators find their positions for a scene. Reilly talked about how some directors would just allow the actors to roam free on the set rather than just going to their marks ready for the camera operator. It was interesting to see how different directors and cinematographers block scenes, particularly in Woody Allen’s use of stand-ins, which would solve the problem of actors’ directions.

References:

Reilly, T. 2009, ‘What is a shot, anyway?’ 2009 in Reilly, T., The big picture : filmmaking lessons from a life on the set, Thomas Dunne Books: St. Martin’s Press, New York, pp. 16-18.<https://primo-direct-apac.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=RMIT_ALMA11136956340001341&context=L&vid=RMITU&search_scope=Books_articles_and_more&tab=default_tab&lang=en_US>

Reilly, T. 2009, ‘Blocking is overlooked and undervalued’ 2009 in Reilly, T., The big picture :
filmmaking lessons from a life on the set, Thomas Dunne Books: St. Martin’s
Press, New York, pp. 93-97.<https://primo-direct-apac.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo-explore/fulldisplay?docid=RMIT_ALMA11136956340001341&context=L&vid=RMITU&search_scope=Books_articles_and_more&tab=default_tab&lang=en_US>

Our documentary, The Dream, is largely slick and well-produced, especially considering the circumstances. However, I feel like it was a bit – for lack of a better word – sterile. I feel like the interview was impersonal, and it didn’t really feel like I was entering Jonathan’s world. Granted, this is a complicated effect to achieve, and needs the right type of interviewee; but without it, it just seems dull. I also believe that writing a script between the three of us would’ve meant that we could all edit together and produce something even better. Being able to get to the studio during a class and the showcase would’ve been great too.

Having a look at the ethics charter that we had developed for The Dream, I believe that it is more than adequate for non-fiction productions, though Rachel Boynton’s rule of loving the people that you film sticks out to me, because it seems so easy to misappropriate interviews – most commonly on television shows such as A Current Affair – as the interviewer and producer are more interested in setting an agenda than telling the interviewee’s story.

While we attempted to work well as a group, I felt like I wasn’t pulling my weight. I attempted to perform a few tasks – such as interviewing and editing, but I struggled with both – with Sunny and Richard picking up where I left off  I especially feel like I was a bit too abrupt to Sunny when I asked to swap roles with her. I really need to improve on the way that I speak to people when stressed.

I also could’ve been more assertive when it came to creative decisions. As I largely felt that it was Richard’s story, we relied on him for the creative direction of the film. Unfortunately, I had some trouble getting ideas to work, and there were some decisions that I felt didn’t work – such as the idea of using a voiceover. I was also no longer allowed to edit after the rough cut.

We also had some issues with the music. While it was a condition of the assignment that royalty free music was used, Richard was adamant that using the original songs was fine, “because Jonathan bought the rights to them when they were added to YouTube.” If I had put my foot down more, and provided more input, during post-production, I feel like those small issues would’ve been eliminated.

I have also been struggling with mental illness lately, which, along with ADHD, has made it hard to get out of bed. I keep running late for things, which most likely annoyed everyone – from Rohan, to my group members, to the rest of the class. It probably also meant that I wasn’t giving as much effort as I could’ve in class, or in the group. While my personal issues are major, I am working through them slowly and steadily.

I really liked Uncle Brian Birch – the documentary by Courtney, Rachel and Tom. In my opinion, Courtney’s friendship with Brian translates well to the film, which makes it feel like more than just a typical interview with a member of the public. When it came to the editing, I found that the minimalistic aesthetic and the use of still landscape shots with ambient sound enhanced the ‘informal meeting between friends’ effect.

By showing scenes of his daily life along with his performance and interviews, I felt like The Story of Joshua was able to paint a candid picture of Joshua’s life. While there were still some issues with their soundtrack – particularly with the interviews, as well as a lack of sound for a few seconds in the middle of the film; it still felt like I was walking in his shoes.

I also enjoyed watching Growing Pains, particularly when it came to the post-production. I thought the use of titling, time-lapse and framing were professional-grade, and made the documentary more engaging than if it was just the interview. The content matter was also interesting – particularly as early-onset arthritis is not spoken about in the media.

I believe that my experience with Real to Reel will help me in my future studies and career. While many others in class would probably think that the opportunity to produce or meet group members were the highlight of the class; I found that it was the emphasis on ethics that I found most valuable, as it gets ignored too often, and it makes the whole filmmaking experience amount to nothing.

To be honest, I don’t know if I have a passion for non-fiction film – or even film in general for that matter, but I definitely believe that Real to Reel has opened my eyes when it comes to different styles of documentary filmmaking. I just hope that I can be a better group member next time.