Today I helped Matt with his investigation Asymmetry which involved Sam and I throwing a ball to each other on the edges of the frame, with Sam sometimes jumping out of frame. This was to experiment with primarily using the sides of frame rather the centre.
I also helped Sam with his shoot which was to experiment with blocking and ‘reframing’. Matt and I acted out a short scene in which we moved around while exchanging dialouge. So we knew exactly where to stand Sam marked the positions with camera tape. We practiced blocking the scene several times before shooting both for the actors sake and for the camera, as Sam had to smoothly pan from character to character as he reframed. I thought it a useful activity to become fluent with camera movement and the process of blocking the scene.
Unfortunately I didn’t come to class prepared with an exercise. I still haven’t prepared a script for my sensor size exercise. I did shoot a brief exercise where I shot Matt at different focal lengths, moving the camera position (therefore focal distance) to maintain the same frame. It was very basic but it does form the foundation of exercise, that focal length can change perspective. I shot him at an f.stop of 3 at 80mm, 50mm, 25mm and 10mm.
I’m currently thinking of how I should proceed with my next experiment. I think it would be best to shoot outside as the classrooms are very bland, with every wall looking the same etc. It would be easier to notice subtle differences in an enviroment with more depth. For instance, outside I would be able to see if the percieved distance between a character and a tree was different on each camera.
I’ve researched the exact sensor sizes of the Sony Z7 and the Canon 5D. The Sony Z7 sensor is tiny measuring a 1/3 of an inch. The 5D is full framed measuring at 35.8 x 23.9 mm (1.41 inches x 0.94 inches). Quite the difference so I think the physical focal lengths I’ll be using to maintain the same framing on both cameras will be quite different.
After speaking to Robin this afternoon I’ve decided to investigate how focal length will appear different on various cameras, due to the size of the sensor or film. I will compare perspective by using two cameras with very different sensor sizes. The Sony Z7 which has quite a small sensor and a Canon 5D which is a full framed DSLR. I plan on shooting the same scene with both cameras with the exact same framing, in which I’ll have to use different focal lengths to acheive. To acurately compare the shots I will have to ensure all settings except for focal length are the same such as the f.stop and color balance. Furthermore, the scene should have depth, by this I mean there should be objects/people in the foreground and background as so differences in perspective are noticable.
I think that the images from the smaller sensor camera will appear to have an increased depth of field as to have an equivalent field of view as the full frame camera it will need to have a shorter physical focal length. At the same f-stop this should corrospond to a smaller enterance pupil size and hence a deeper depth of field.
However, if I was to set the focal lengths on both cameras to same setting the smaller sensor camera would have a decreased depth of field and the fields of view would be very different. That’s why I wish to change the focal length in my experiment to get an equivalent field of view, which will make it easier to compare images.
As a student who often just wants to get things done, I find myself neglecting the potential of controlling the focal length and merely using it as a zoom to frame my shots. But as well setting the frame; focal length affects the depth of the shot, the relationship between visual components of the shot and the sense of 3 dimensional space.
I know that a wide angled lens seems to exaggerate perspective. The apparent distance between objects as they extend away from the camera will seem greater than normal, and the objects in the foreground appear larger than normal in relation. Contrastingly, long lenses appear to compress perspective.
It quite easy to point out the different effects of 16mm compared to 100mm. That’s why I wish to explore more subtle variations. For instance I might shoot a close up of a subject with a 35mm and a 50mm. Afterwards I’ll write in detail on how the perspectives vary. For instance how it might affect the appearance of the subjects face.
I’d also like to explore the effects focal length can have on a film as a whole. I’ve heard that a longer lens may give a film a more observational feel, whereas a wide angled lens might give a better sense of presence. So I’d like to experiment with this.
Basically for the next 5 weeks I’ll be experimenting practically by shooting short exercises with different focal lengths. In which I’ll edit and then reflect on in my blog. By the end of the semester I hope to have a complex understanding of focal length and how it can vary perspective in film.
In this post I set out to investigate the meaning of mis en scene and montage. Mis en scene is french phrase that literally means ‘putting on stage’. Basically in film mis-en-scene is the arrangement of everything that appears in the framing. Including actors, lighting, decor, props and costume. The nature of the frame itself and the camera work is also considered apart of mis-en-scene. Its how the director chooses to what goes where and when within a frame. It’s important to note that mis-en-scene is made up of elements that appear within the shot itself, not the effects created by cutting these shots together like montage.
Mis en scene is collaborated effort between set designers, lighting crew, costume, makeup, location scouts but ultimately the director overseas the entire mis-en-scene and all of its elements. Sometimes mis en scene can evoke emotions the set up precedence for the entire film. In Histories of Film Theory we watched the German expressionist film The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920) which features distorted shapes and confined scenery to disturb the audience.
In france montage simply denotes cutting. At a basic level its the relationship between shots. So the process of cutting of film and editing it into a sequence. Montage can provide alot of information in a short period of time. When I think of montage I think of a juxtaposition of short shots to represent action or ideas. Theorist Sergei Eisenstein believed that film montage could create ideas and have an impact beyond the individual images. A couple of weeks ago I watched Eisenstein’s Battleship Potemkim which was a great demonstration of the power of montage, as he manipulates the audiences perception of time by stretching out the Odessa stair sequence making it longer than it would take in real life. The quick progression of images gives the impressive event even more visual impact. This film also represents ideological potential of montage as it is a call to the people to rise up against oppression.
So Mis-en-scene is the arrangement of everything that appears in the framing and montage at its most basic level is the relationship between these shots. Montage and Decoupage seem to be quite similar concepts that could easily be confused with each other. Decoupage generally seems to apply a single space whereas can also apply to multiple spaces aka. parallel montage. Furthermore , decoupage is about pre production for instance the script with all the technical information for instance the mis-en-scene, camera placement, actor position etc. Whereas montage seems to be associated more with the post production and the editing cuts themselves. Montage is more of an editing style whereas decoupage is the underlying structure of the entire film. Decoupage is the process of how the film is mapped out to establish spatial relations. However from my understanding montage tends to be more about temporal relations between shots.
In class we split into groups of four and each of us had 30 minutes to experiment with something of formal interest to us. We worked efficiently and everyone got their exercise done in under 30 minutes. It was worthwhile practice to aid each other with these experiments as we learnt from our different formal investigations. For instance, Matt wanted to experiment with shallow depth of field by having someone run into focus. We realised to achieve shallow depth of field we had to move quite far away from the subject so we could use a higher focal length accompanied with a wide open aperture. I know generally better to have the lens close to the subject but we couldn’t as we needed to get a full shot and the character had to be easily visible when he was far away. This gave us all a better understanding of how to control depth of field and problems that can come with it.
I choose to explore covering a dialogue between two people. It was quite simple but it’s actually something I haven’t had much experience in. As I couldn’t think of a script I chose an excerpt from the TV series Mad Man but shot it in the way I wanted to. I had a good idea what I wanted to the final cut to look like but I wanted to make sure I had ideal coverage of the scene to give me options in the edit suite. I followed what I had planned and everything went smoothly. To use our time efficiently I made sure we shot all the coverage of each character in a block, avoiding excessive camera setup/movement. For most of the shots I made the actors run through the scene as we had time and it would give me more options later as well as help ensure continuity. Some of the shots, for instance the close-ups I only captured for certain lines that I thought I may want to emphasise.
There are some issues in terms of lighting, exposure and setting but this was primarily an exercise on what combination of shots to use to cover the scene. I think maybe a few of the cuts might be a bit distracting but I’m not entirely sure. I think all in all I did a good job of covering the dialogue.
It was interesting how Sam’s performance totally changed the tone of the scene and actually slightly changed how I shot the scene.
I knew the basis of what film coverage was when I started this course due to doing Film3 last year. However, I understood it in its most simplest form. That is that coverage meant having enough footage to cover the scene. Is this scene covered? I was thinking purely about the function, efficiency and ultimately giving the film editor options.
Ive now come to understand the coverage is equally about creating something visually interesting and dynamic. Coverage creates the flow of a film and can convey emotions and tensions. Bunnel talks of decoupage (coverage) as the ‘cinematic embryo’ of film meaning that it’s the element that brings the medium to life. You may have a great script and great actors but without decoupage you are left with theatre, not film.
I’ve learnt that you can have enough shots to cover a scene but to achieve good decoupage you want ideal segments. A shot by itself hardly means anything, it’s when it’s strung together with a variety of shots that makes it have meaning. This leads me to something I’ve increased my understanding of greatly throughout the last few weeks. That is the idea of creating filmic space. What makes a shot special is its spatial and temporal relationship with other shots that build the scene. Through this we create a 3d space in the viewers head in where they have an idea where the characters are positioned in relation to each other. I’ve learnt how to do this without distracting the viewer and damaging the ‘filmic space’
The studio so far has definitely greatly ehanced my understanding of film coverage. Looking forward I would like to learn how to cover more complex scenes. For instance I was wondering how cover a scene with say 10 people sitting around a round table. How do I create spatial map in the viewers head where everyone is sitting and how do I ensure I don’t cross the line? Maybe this is something I will explore in a future blog.
Last week we split into two groups and filmed a scene given to us by Robin. Ours was a scene featuring two female characters walking up some stairs while being followed by a third male character. It was good to work in a group where we all had our roles in which we worked quite efficiently. We had three actors, a sound/boom operator, camera man and director. I assisted the cameraman, operated the clapboard and made sure none of the equipment got wet. It was interesting working in the rain, it made me appreciate what camera crews go through on bad weather days. We had to be careful when the cameraman was filming the two actors walking up the stars as he moved backwards as the stairs were wet. To be safe I stood behind the cameraman, with my hand on his back and led him up the stairs, prepared to catch him if he fell. It also helped guide the camera along the proper planned path.
I think we did a decent job to film this in one class especially with the range of shots and angles we used. For instance we used a dynamic handheld shot and wide shots with both extremely low and high tilted angles.
During and after the editing process I did notice a few errors with the edit of my scene. For instance the continuity error in this moment captured below. While the man appears in the distance we should see the two after characters continuing up the stairs. This would only be OK if we captured them stopping and heard them talking for a bit and then continued up the stairs.
Furthermore, later in the scene the camera crosses the line and it distracts from the scene. It looks like the characters are in a totally different place within the scene.
Besides a few errors, we did quite a good job of covering the scene. It was a worthwhile exercise. Especially because the location of the staircase made us think more dynamically of how we wanted to cover the scene. It really made think of the audiences spatial awareness of filmic space and how eye-lines, angles and position must match up to create this 3D space.
I’ve decided to experiment with shooting a simple dialogue scene between two characters featuring over-the-shoulder shots, cutaways and shallow depths of field. Quite a simple concept but I’d like to master how to shoot dialogue while keeping it interesting and maintaining the audience’s filmic spatial awareness. By following the 180 degree rule I will ensure the characters are looking in the right direction on-screen. Because I couldn’t think of anything to write myself I have extracted a segment from an office scene from the TV series Mad Men. This scene is originally covered with MS and MCUs with only one characters ever being in the frame at once. I plan on adding some over-the-shoulder shots and some shot size variation to attempt to make the scene a bit more interesting. There’s 6 shots in total and thats without giving me any options in the editing suite. I should be able to get them done in 30 minutes if I shoot the three shots of each character together. Below is the script I copied from a scene from Mad Men and a youtube video of the scene INT. STERLING’S OFFICE – DAY
Harry sits down facing Roger
ROGER
Now.. I think you know that we like to think of this place as a family. And there are certain ways a family behaves.
HARRY
(Worried) What did she say? You have to hear my side of it.
ROGER
(Confused) Your side of what?
HARRY
What– Nothing.
ROGER
You’re always up to something aren’t you Crane.
SHOTS:
Medium Full Shot Pan – Harry walks over to the seat and sits down facing the desk. Shot from behind the desk from the left Roger.
MS OTS – Roger behind the desk from the right of Harry
For my advanced analysis I have decided to pick the scene from Silence of the Lambs Clarice Starling and Hannibal Lector first meet.
The establishing shot tracks around the corner to display Hannibal Lector standing in his cell communicating the full figure of the character, emphasizing his power in the process as he stands strong and confident. Further it displays his confined environment. Through this the viewers are able to get a good idea of the filmic space. This near-full shot is filmed from Clarice POV through two vertical steel beams creating strong vertical lines, leading the audience’s attention within this frame within a frame to Hannibal. From here the filmic space is clear and audience knows that the scene will continue to be a back and forth dialogue through the glass.
Often in drama two characters walk into a room, each wants something from the other bringing about the question of the scene ‘who gets what they want?’. This is one of those scenes. Through cinematography Demme creates a power struggle between the two characters. Firstly, they both look right into the lens examining each other This is displayed with close ups with a shallow depth of field and the characters in focus ensuring the viewers pay attention to their analytical stares. Furthermore this framing shows Hannibal and Clarice as equals, cutting back and forth on the same eye line. The two characters eye-lines are a major signifier of the power shift throughout the scene.
Although once Hannibal lands the first blow the camera moves over the shoulder as each characters builds up a defence. The OSS’ further set up the position of each person and further immerse the audience into the characters point of view. Once Hannibal tells Clarice to sit he gets his first close up signifying his power victory. From then one the camera always looks slightly down on Clarice and slightly up on Hannibal because he has the power in the scene. Demme cuts between close ups of the two as the dialouge progresses in which Hannibal looks the lens in the eye but Clarice looks off camera, putting the audience in her head. Jonathon Demme reenforce this by having the camera look where Clarice is looking with a combonation of pans and tilts, only to bring us back to Lector.
Clarices aim in this scene is to get Hannibal to look at a survey and every time she is to obvious about this the camera frames Hannibal with a stand-offish angle, displaying a certain degree of aggressiveness.
As Hannibal becomes more curious we move inside his point of view. So now Clarice looks the lens in the eye and Hannibal looks slightly off-screen. It also leads the audience to believe Clarice is winning. The close up of the survey emphasises its important. Once Lecture becomes more aggressive and serious the camera dollys closer towards him and frames him perfectly before cutting to wider shot looking down Clarice making her look powerless and off-balance.
From then on the camera captures both characters looking slightly off-screen signifying they aren’t looking eye to eye anymore. Soon Hannibal is framed in a mid shot as he turns his back and walks away from Clarice signaling he isn’t interested in the conversation anymore. This is mirrored in the next shot when Clarice does the same, walking directly away from the camera. The medium long shot is framed so the audience can see the detail in the old ghastly looking prison. This cuts to a profile shot of her detailing the intensity on her face. She turns to the right slightly and the camera cuts to take her point of view, looking at Migs through the bars. The viewer knows its her point of view because she turns her head and then it suddenly cuts. After Mig’s disgusting act the camera quickly pushes towards a prisoners through the bars face as he yells, creating chaos. Demme cuts between the various prisoners and midshots of Clarice being frantic, displaying intense fear for the first time. The viewer is then presented with the first two shot of the entire scene. With both characters together in the same frame, the camera looks up and pushes forward displaying their faces close together, divided only by glass. Through doing this, Demmes’ establishes an on-going relationship between the two characters for the rest of the film.
The découpage of this scene is incredible to me. The shots have been peiced together perfectly to present a back and forth power struggle which is primarily expressed through eyelines, camera angle and position. This is supported by strong performances, good low key lighting creating eery shadows and mostly silent soundtrack focusing the vewiers on the words being exchanged.
By writing this scene analysis I’ve started to think more about the importance of eyelines and camera angles in terms of establishing filmic space and representing the power in which a character may have over another.
In filmmaking we hear people talk about the 180 degree rule or refer to not crossing the line. So what does it mean to cross the line?
The red line pictured above represents the line of action. In this case there are two actors talking to each other. As a rule all coverage of this should be shot from one side or the other of this imaginary line. Therefore the audience can form their mental map of where the actors are located in the scene and from the master they will know Jennifer is on the left and John is on the right. If we cross the line and go to a close up of Mary it will appear as if she has suddenly jumped to the other side. This can be quite distracting and can momentarily take the audience out of the story as they attempt to restablish where everyone is located. We saw this our class excercise featuring the two ladies at the bar where Rob crossed the line and disturbed our spatial awareness of the scene. As a filmmaker you want to avoid anything that draws the audience out of the scene, this is why the 180 degree rule exists.
To elaborate, if we depict an actor walking down the street from left to right and then we cross the line and shoot them from the otherside they will be walking right to left. It would then look like the actor had suddenly decided to walk back to where they came from. You could cross the line however if you displayed a shot of the actor walking around a corner.
It gets more difficult when you have a circle of actors sitting around a table. The ‘line’ will change as the dynamics of the converastion progresses. The director will have carefully plan the coverage so the audience can understand the layout of where everyone is sitting.
