Kimberly Lai

In this week’s lecture, scenes from Scott Ruo’s ‘Four Images’, Brian Hill’s ‘Drinking for England’ and Chantal Akerman’s ‘D’Est’ were screened. Choose one of these, and consider, in a single paragraph, what might have intrigued, interested, displeased or repelled you.

Chantal Akerman’s ‘D’Est’

There were no words and no music, but it was so, so beautiful. I went into Film-TV 2 expecting to make a documentary that was straight up interviews, with little artistic direction. But I’m discovering that documentaries don’t have to be dry and interview-based; they can be minimalistic and poetic, like Akerman’s D’Est. The scene had an observatory quality about it that captured precisely the sombreness of life in Eastern Europe post-USSR. The low angle used was also really interesting. More importantly, the scene showed me that less could be more – allow the images to speak for themselves; avoid overstimulation. I’m amazed Akerman managed to make such a fascinating doco without much description/interviews – definitely something I hope to experiment with this semester.

Listen to the audio you recorded in Tute #1. Here. Write a paragraph or two about your recording from a technical and/or “poetic” perspective.  

Consider:
What these sounds evoke for you. What associations they have. 
Do any of your recordings suggest images? What might they be?
Do any of your recordings suggest the possibility of other recordings?

The first sound Crystal and I recorded was the humming of the heater (? I’m actually not sure; it’s some machine) in building 9. We wanted to evoke a sense of eeriness, as though someone was alone in a long, desolate hallway – something out of a horror movie.

The second sound had us walking towards an automatic door and having it buzz open when we passed the sensor. I can imagine this sound in a hospital during a quiet night shift, where an elderly patient could be wandering the halls, walking through automatic doors. He could be pontificating about life and death, or missing his family, etc.

The final (semi-successful) sound was footsteps up and down a staircase. We recorded this in building 12, where students use the stairs often. I had Crystal walk up and down for me, but there were also others who were using the stairs at the same time. The various footsteps evoke a sense of busyness and urgency. I think this sound could be used in a documentary set in school, office buildings, or even a scene that portrays the monotony of life (i.e. everyone is busy and always rushing for time).

Listen to the first 10 minutes of Glenn Gould’s radio documentary, “The Idea of North”.

The idea of North 10min.wav or Files are here (experimenting with different sizes and file types) If possible, use headphones. Record your impressions in a paragraph or two.

The soundscape in general is confusing. The initial overlaying interviews were chaotic and unpleasant. They were difficult to comprehend, but less so the second time I listened to it. I suppose they were meant as an “introduction”, to display the varying opinions and perspectives of the North. Even as the interviews fade into the background, they remain somewhat annoying. The second half is much easier on the ears, even though some sound effects, such as a train going through a tunnel, don’t seem that relevant.

However, the premise of the documentary is fascinating. Paul said we could also explore an idea/concept in our documentary, so I think The Idea of North is a good example of that. It is also informative; it provides various first hand accounts and sheds some of the mysticism that surrounds the North. Some other things I drew from the doco was the usage of various interviewees to ensure a variety of opinions and insights – it helps keep the doco interesting. Verbal descriptions of the topic are also very helpful (e.g. in the very first interview with the woman where she described the North in vivid detail).

Consider Sandra’s lecture “Directing Actors” and describe at least a couple of points that you took away from it (even if you’re not the director).

I wasn’t the director, but I felt some points in Sandra’s lecture rang true when we shot our short film two weeks ago.

It seems obvious, but Sandra mentioned that the director has to direct the actors, tell them what to do in a concise and succinct manner. Since most of us had no prior experience or knowledge of filmmaking, we wouldn’t have a comprehensive idea of what the role of each crew member entailed. On the day of shooting, we had a schedule we wanted to stick to; there wasn’t time for our director Georgia to dilly-dally and ponder over what to tell the actors. Georgia was fantastic as director though – she was decisive and to the point. She communicated well with the actors and directed them in the way Sandra would have advised us to – with straightforward and succinct sentences.

As there is always a schedule to adhere to, there is often little time to think and mull on set. Hence, I would recommend directors to believe in a good amount of preparation. It is crucial to understand each of the characters inside out, so you have a steady grasp of how you want the actors to portray them and how you can direct them.

It is also important that no one (absolutely no one!) besides the director directs the actors. I’ve heard stories of other Film-TV groups tussling on the day of shooting, e.g. when the DOP attempts to direct the actors. It is confusing for the actors and the director. The actors are meant to listen to the director and the director alone; any other’s opinion might leave the actors (especially inexperienced ones) wondering who he/she should listen to. Also, if the DOP (or any other crew member) directs the actors, there would be an inconsistency in directing and directing style and the director might be unable to follow up.

Blow Up is a 1966 film directed by Michelangelo Antonioni.

In this scene we can see the choreography of the actors, camera, frame and focus. As covered in the lecture describe what Antonioni would have considered when directing the actors and the camera.

In the beginning when Jane (I think?) enters Thomas’ apartment, she stops right at the crack and is perfectly framed. Antonioni must have told the DOP to place the camera at that specific angle and told Redgrave exactly where to stop when she came in. In the following seconds, Jane and Thomas walk out of the frame and continue walking thereafter – evident from the sound of their footsteps. So Antonioni must have paid heed to sound as well.

In the scenes where both Jane and Thomas share the frame, Antonioni probably directed and choreographed their movements such that either of them wouldn’t block the other from the camera. He also might have told them to keep within a certain distance, so that they wouldn’t be excluded from the frame.

There are a couple of scenes where Jane walks out of the frame. Antonioni takes care to note that the following scenes when she reenters the frame, she enters from the opposite side of the frame, i.e. when she exits on the right, she reenters from the left.

During Jane and Thomas’ conversations—carried out via interchanging MCU and CU shots of either party—Antonioni makes sure their eyelines match. For example, at 5:21 when Thomas looks up to Jane, the following shot has Jane looking in a downward direction, implying she’s looking at Thomas even though this scene was shot in segments. This is probably one of the more important aspects here; failure to match eyelines would simply confuse and frustrate the audience.

Select from one of the readings from week 5, 6 or 7 and describe two points that you have taken from it. Points that excite you, something that was completely new to you.

As the cinematographer, I thought the excerpt from Oumano’s book Film Forum: Thirty-Five Top Filmmakers Discuss Their Craft particularly fascinating and useful. In it, Scorsese highlights the importance of deliberate framing, that we must pay close attention to what is included and what is excluded. A cinematographer has to be meticulous, on godly levels. Every minute detail matters, even if it’s just a “normal” shot. Everything from “where you place the camera, the lighting, the look of the film” has to be purposeful; what’s on the table, in the foreground and in the background. Each shot and angle must enthral; framing is essentially a grandiose work of art.

While shooting our Lenny, we had passerbys lurking in the corner of one of our beginning frames. I hadn’t realise how disruptive that was until we were piecing the bits together in post-production. But now I know these unwanted details can be unsightly and distracting, drawing the audience’s focus away.

Scorsese also mentions he prefers to “use longer takes, to let things play out” so he can cut them up (even though he doesn’t like the practice at times) and string the best of shots together. That’s a possibility I had never considered. I’ll probably experiment with a variety of shots and angles and edit to my liking thereafter. There’s a bit more legwork involved in Scorsese’s approach, but it’s obvious he strives for utmost perfection and is far from lackadaisical about his art. His passion for filmmaking is simply inspiring.

List the things that you learnt from this experience – this could be things that went well or not so well.

Check out my group’s Lenny here.

We weren’t given much time to shoot the Lenny, but I reckon it was a good exercise that helped us with time management. Knowing how to work the equipment is possibly the most basic and important aspect; like Paul said, something will always go wrong and it’s vital that every crew member (including the director and producer) has some technical knowledge with regards to equipment.

Pre-production is also crucial. This is where all the planning takes place and like they say: if you fail to plan, you plan to fail. We came armed with a marked up script, a detailed shot list and a well-illustrated storyboard that made shooting Lenny relatively smooth.

As the DOP, I got to experiment with various shots and angles, familiarised myself with the camera’s functions, i.e. adjusting white balance, temperature, focus, etc. Because of this Lenny exercise, I was able to sort through the shots and angles that worked and those that sucked. According to Paul, we had great lighting on the day of our shoot—cloudy and overcast—and we were able to avoid overexposure. It might have been good to have had the opportunity to shoot in extreme sunlight, just so we could learn how to troubleshoot that situation.