ASSIGNMENT #2

REFLECTION 1:

As we’ve been doing online classes for a few weeks now I thought I’d discuss how I’ve found them, and how they compare to an actual full classroom.

I was a little worried at the start that it would simply be a screen of faces, with the teacher talking and not much else happening (and that is how it is in another class I’m doing to be honest), but in this class I’ve found the online classes to be informative and actually a little fun! We’re working in smaller groups for starters, which to me is a far more effective way to learn. There’s no jostling for position to talk or not talk, and it’s far harder to get distracted or zone out. And Robin’s method of showing us various clips and highlighting specific things about each one is always illuminating (and a great way to discover new films to watch!). I try and take notes during class for things that resonate with me, and I don’t usually do that in my other classes as I find I’m usually distracting myself with my writing more than it’s helping me. I usually leave class a little bit inspired by the great work we’ve seen and discussed, and a little bit intimidated by the sheer amount of amazing films that have been made that I should be watching.

The one-on-one feedback sessions have been great also. It’s good to be able to express myself and not feel worried about wasting the teacher’s time or feeling embarrassed about certain things. I’m looking forward to more of those throughout the course and in my future studies also. In the past I’ve felt a little disconnected to my tutors, as though because I’m not a straight As student they won’t be totally interested in what I have to say or ask. But the online classroom this semester has felt very connected and I feel more confident and comfortable with my position in the class and the course as a result.

REFLECTION 2:

This reflection is in response to Part 11 of the Online Resources, this one focusing on focal length.

We’re asked, regarding the two clips from A CIASCUNA IL SUO and PROPERTY IS NO LONGER THEFT, whether perhaps the focal length influences or dictates the coverage, or vice versa. From the first clip it seems that the extremely long lenses are used purposefully in order to achieve this very specific type of coverage. The main feeling I gathered from this example was that of a hurried, almost manic coverage. The hectic soundtrack definitely also influences this.The coverage itself seemed to emulate the POV of someone ‘spying’ on the wedding-goers, from a distance. I haven’t seen the film so can’t comment on it’s thematic relevance but it gives an aura of spectating, but secretly, or from a distance. The way we close up on mouths, as if the words spoken are so important. The way the camera zooms in on the man in the purple outfit as he gets out of the car seems like a home-movie, almost papparazi-esque. It seems the filmmaker chose this focal length to achieve this coverage as a way of showcasing the faces and emotions of those attending the wedding, without the camera influencing the scene at all. It doesn’t feel like we’re there with them, it feels like we’re watching from far away. Having said all this, watching the sequence again, I feel a little dumbfounded at the coverage and focal length choices. Perhaps it is a case of I have to watch the film to understand!

In the next clip, the focal length decision seems to be far more based on aesthetic, and simply creating a dynamic, intimate scene. The close up focuses us deeply on the emotions and expressions of the characters, all of whom are worthy of our entire attention. It’s almost uncomfortable how close they’re talking. I imagine if the camera zoomed out slightly and shot them in a medium shot, how strange their proximity may seem. This specific coverage is completely integral to the success of the shot. As far as the scene itself goes in terms of consequence and drama, it would not nearly be as effective with a different, more conventional coverage. This coverage also allows the actors to covey their emotions without dialogue far more effectively than a more conventional medium shot would.

REFLECTION 3:

Paul Schrader’s interview regarding Jean Renoir and the coverage in his film La Regle Du Jeu was an interesting read, but one where I found that I couldn’t quite grasp onto the concepts Schrader was trying to communicate about Renoir’s work. I can appreciate the modernity of Renoir’s coverage, and it is almost jarring how different it feels from other films from the period that I’ve seen. The camera seems to move freely, as if it is controlling the action not vice-versa. But it feels as though all of Renoir’s interesting coverage choices are strictly for aesthetic reasons, which is perfectly fine and commendable, but the way Schrader talks about it i can’t quite connect with. He seems to focus on the unpredictability of Renoir’s coverage as it’s major success, which I can appreciate but don’t fully understand the significance of. I suppose comparing his vast knowledge and almost religious obsession with cinema to mine, it is fair to consider he might be noticing and appreciating specifics that I cannot. One idea that did cut through slightly was that of the director thinking about every cut as he’s filming, not simply shot for shot and we’ll work it out in the edit, but a specific idea of where each shot will end and start. I guess this is a half-right definition of decoupage, which has definitely helped my understanding slightly. I do know however that there is far more to it than that.

Reading Schrader and him talking about his time at UCLA makes me hope that by the end of this course I will have had a breakthrough of sorts, where I can appreciate something like this to a greater extent but as I write now I’m struggling slightly. But as you said in the pre-text, Renoir’s films will be there, when I’m ready.

SCENE ANALYSIS

Paterson (2016)  – Electrical Problem (2:52)
Directed by Jim Jarmusch

I’ve chosen this scene from Paterson for my analysis as it represents a style of cinema I find so satisfying and joyful to watch. Jim Jarmusch has a fondness and an almost singular skill for creating wonderful cinematic moments from seemingly mundane or unexciting events (see Coffee & Cigarettes, a series of 11 static conversations, with the one connection being the film’s namesake), and Paterson is a fine display of that. Almost no conventional drama occurs throughout the film, with this scene containing just about the film’s most major conflict for the titular Paterson (Adam Driver). Yet the scene remains engaging and I find myself transfixed on Driver’s performance and the ‘boring’ world around him.

I find it very difficult to pin-point what it is that makes these types of scenes so engaging to me, but that’s why I’m attempting this analysis. The film goes back and forth between very realist, inexpressive representations of Paterson (both the character, and the town the film takes place in. They share the same name), and more abstract, moody and expressive scenes, the latter usually paired with a voiceover of Paterson’s dry yet beautiful poetry. This scene immediately follows one of these scenes, with the ghostly and almost unsettling score accompanying a POV shot of the bus’s route through town. Each time these scenes come around, you’re almost expecting something terrible to happen afterwards, as if this simple uneventful existence can’t possibly be the entire subject of the film? This feeling follows us into the scene at hand.

As the soundtrack eases back to full diagetic sound, the chatters of the passengers and the low rumble of the bus are present again, pulling us slowly back into reality. The simple medium long shot of the interior of the bus and it’s passengers (used a few times throughout the film) is subtle but effective. As the world rushes past through the windows, the people on the bus become the subjects of our attention. The kids at the back of the bus, the two elderly women wearing identical jackets, all are worthy of our attention. In most other films, the people on a bus are almost never even considered by the audience; they’re nothing more than set dressing. This shot also allows a terrific perspective of the bus as it halts, and the passengers are flung slightly forward. This moment triggers in the back of the audience’s mind an expectation for an inevitable conflict for Paterson, perhaps the bus crashes, or something worse.

As warning sounds come from the bus, we see a gauge on the bus’ dash going haywire, and the electronic sign on the bus displaying the name PATERSON, fades away. Another coverage decision to very subtly suggest perhaps this could be the end for our protagonist. But alas the bus is simply out of power, and a wide shot shows the bus easing onto the side of one of Paterson’s quaint city streets. We see Paterson, and his equipment, as he tries to call for help on the bus’ phone, which is of course out of power too. We cut back to that same interior shot of the bus, but this time the passengers are all looking toward Paterson. To this point the passengers and Paterson have been separated, he drives his bus and doesn’t have to engage with them. He even drifts off into these daydreams, as if he’s not there at all and is simply spectating the town he drives through, the same monotonous route each day. In this scene that disconnect is gone, and each passenger’s fate is now in his hands. We hear the passengers chattering: “What’s he doing? Is he gonna call someone?” No matter how small the stakes, this moment is a major one in the film as it displays Paterson’s first moment of actual consequence to the world around him, a struggle of sorts. We see a close up on Paterson, he takes a deep breath as he realises he must heed the call, stand up and solve the situation. Now reading this as I write I realise the insignificance of this event compared to the usual conflicts in a drama film. But this goes to show Jarmusch’s talent in creating cinematic tension, and adjusting the audience’s perspective on what makes drama.

As we return to the wide shot of the bus*, we see Paterson instructing the passengers off onto the sidewalk, as he tries to keep them safely off the road. As he helps the elderly women off the bus, the camera slowly moves from behind Paterson to in front of him. We hear the women ask if the bus will catch on fire (“It could explode into a fireball!”), with pained voices if they’re stranded. While not uncommon for an elderly lady to slightly exaggerate the extremity of a minor situation, this is another reference from Jarmusch to the possibility of some actual danger and conflict, which of course never arrives. Without cutting the camera follows Paterson to the other end of the bus, where a soft focus brings the children to attention. This is another reference in the film to Paterson as a parental figure. One of the children hypotheses that it was ‘sabotage’ that stopped the bus. By this point the audience is quite comfortable that nothing major in terms of conflict will occur in this scene, so this comment from the boy brings attention to the possibility, and we laugh it off, quite different to how we felt when the bus initially encountered an issue on the road.

The next shot is one of my favourites from the scene, as the tracking shot almost floats through the crowd of people, looking on at Paterson as if he’s Lincoln at the Gettysburg address. The next shot is a very simple but effective medium shot, showing Paterson bending down so he can speak to the children. His explanation to the young boy that the bus will be taken back to the depot by a big truck is met with an excited ‘awesome!’ from the young boy. I think this interaction sums up the simple beauty and excitement from everyday life and everyday people that Jarmusch is trying to illuminate in Paterson, and that perhaps a childlike perspective on the world (a theme touched on all throughout the film) leads to a simpler, happier existence.

This same medium shot remains for the remainder of the clip, with a dolly out on Paterson as he walks away from the group. The composition (the bus to the right, the matching ladies to the right) and the soft focus turn this simple shot into a beautiful one, and the juxtaposition of the loud and childish phone case with Paterson’s serious ‘we have a situation’ provides a heartwarming comedic moment to tie a bow on the scene. I think this scene is a perfect little construction of how to illuminate the intrigue and beauty in a simple, everyday situation. We expect more drama but we’re given nothing but little moments of joy from Paterson and the passengers on the bus.

 

*   I think it’s worth noting the billboard on the side of the bus. ‘DIVORCE $299, FINALIZE YOUR DIVORCE ON YOUR SMARTPHONE’. This seems inconsequential and maybe it is, but considering how little we’re given throughout Paterson in terms of themes and details of the world around us, this to me equates as a conscious decision by Jarmusch to make the audience expect more conflict than we are given. He puts the idea of divorce in the audience’s head, making us consider that perhaps Paterson and his wife Laura could divorce, that this may be the conflict of the film. I know during my first viewing I was expecting a major conflict between the two, which never comes, their love seems almost too unconditional. This to me is Jarmusch highlighting that these dramatic conventions we are so used to are not necessary to create an engaging and thoughtful piece of cinema.