This week’s task was to shoot two exercises (one script & one action description); one being a single-shot (no hand-held) and the other being shot-to-edit.

Beginning this task I thought it would be very difficult for us to get both exercises filmed in the time frame, however I was wrong. It’s possibly due to the fact that we have had more experience now with working together and filming these exercises that we worked quite efficiently compared to earlier weeks.

For the single-shot exercise, I was in the support team. The executive team was quite large compared to our small group of four in the support team, however no-one suggested that we make the teams even. As the executive team was so large, the discussion over their roles took up quite a bit of their time as many of them didn’t want to act as they had acted a lot in previous exercises. After some time, it was decided that both the director and DOP roles would be shared by two to three people. With that being decided, they began to position the actors and frame up their single-shot.

As there was quite a lot of them in their group, we in the support team didn’t have much to do with the filming of their scene, but rather advised them on what we thought looked like a good frame. Watching and listening to them discuss what worked and what didn’t work was interesting as there was little argument over what looked good; everyone seemed to come to the same conclusion. Their framing gave foreground and background to the scene due to the positioning of the actors and the way in which they were directed to move within the frame. The tightness of the frame around Marie ensured that the audience’s eye was kept to the action unfolding between the two characters, rather than a wider frame which may have distracted the audience with unnecessary information. Originally, there was a discussion amongst the executive team about implementing a pan, however that was decided against once they had established their frame. This was a good decision as their frame was well composed and a pan would have only detracted from that in this case.

It was then my group’s turn to be in the executive team, filming the action description in a shot-to-edit style. During the previous exercise, Tom and I began discussing how we would like to cover the scene, and we agreed on the first shot of being over-the-shoulder of the person doing the crossword (foreground) with the person pacing in the background. When it came to filming, our team used the camera to pre-produce our shots and decide on what frames we liked a part from the shot previously discussed.

Tom had some really interesting ideas and communicated them well which made it clear that he should direct the scene. We worked quite quickly as there was no dialogue and also Tom’s clear vision for the scene. As a result, we had many interesting shots from different angles that we could experiment with to cut the scene together in post-production. During editing, I decided to use three out of the four different shots we filmed on the day; the over-the-shoulder shot of me, the close-up of me, and the pacing medium close-up. I decided against using the opposite shot-reverse-shot as I felt as though it didn’t add anything to the scene, and the close-up of my reaction was a better way to demonstrate the action.

As part of my preparation for my final scene for the semester, I want to continue my research through practice via more filming exercises. I have found that the more restrictions placed on the exercises, the more I thrive creatively. Therefore, going forward, I want either to be set challenging exercises by someone or set them for myself.

I feel as though no matter how much pre-production I do, the most beneficial way to research shot construction and framing is by actively filming. The exercises set so far have challenged the way I think as a filmmaker, and as a result I often analyse film or TV scenes and find the shot construction most of the time, quite boring or tame.

I do think that analysing more found scenes will also be beneficial for me in thinking about framing and how to cover a scene in an interesting or unique way. However, adopting these practices and experimenting with the camera itself has been the most valuable tool for me as it is sometimes difficult to put yourself in the filmmaker’s shoes without having a camera in hand. Both of these exercises that we have utilized in the past will be something I continue to do moving forward to my own scene, however focusing more on being behind the camera and continuing research by practice will inform the majority of my pre-production.

One of the main questions I have going forward is if I want to DOP for my own scene or not. Although I would like to be behind the camera for my own scene, I also think that it may be a bit too much to take on considering I will be directing as well. This has led me to lean towards allocating someone I trust and have confidence in to DOP for my scene, while I direct.

However, despite having a DOP, I still will ensure that I look through the viewfinder before calling action to ensure that I am happy with everything about the frame. I think this is probably a better option for me as I will be available for the rest of the crew and actors to ask me questions as the director, and allowing someone with the skills to film the shots. This will ensure that I can review everything happening on set, while still being able to look in the viewfinder and adjust the camera if I feel it is necessary. I will also actively review the clips after filming each shot – if time permits.

I already have some idea of who I would like to crew for me, based on who I have worked well with in the past exercises, as well as who I think will bring their creativity, interesting perspectives, support, and commitment to the project. Having a good and organised First Assistant Director is also highly important for me, as I know from previous experience how much they can assist on the day and ensure everything runs smoothly. I have a couple ideas of who I would like to fill this role, and I hope they will be happy to come on board.

In terms of casting for my scene, I found Paul’s advice on choosing actors based on their interesting characteristics (eg; walk, face), to be a good point. Rather than worry too much about how experienced they are, I will be looking more for professionalism and commitment to the project above everything else. Their willingness and excitement for the project is more important to me than their acting experience, as it is an experiment and their eagerness and commitment is of high importance. I will also be looking for people who bring creative ideas to their performance and can work in a collaborative team, whilst also being able to take direction.

I think it will be highly useful to have rehearsals before filming as in previous film shoots, when rehearsals haven’t been done it has slowed down production and means that there is a lot of discussion and explanation with the actors on set. Having one or two rehearsals where the actors can meet and interact with one another, can ask the crew any questions they have, and I can guide them in what is expected of their performance means that less time is wasted on the day of filming. It ensures that everyone is on the same page, even though there may be changes on the day.

The rehearsals may even inform the storyboards or shot lists as when viewing a practice of the performances, I may get new ideas of how to film the scene. Or the storyboards and shot lists may inform the rehearsals – all of this pre-production will work hand in hand to create a picture of what the finished product will look like.

Throughout the exercises, we haven’t used any lighting rigs, rather depending on natural light to illuminate our scenes. Natural light has been adequate for the exercises we have done so far, however as we are becoming more experimental with our shots and composition, it may also be useful to start thinking about how mood lighting can add another dimension to our scenes.

Lighting choices will be dependent on the script and the way in which I wish to interpret it. It is also dependent on the location chosen for the scene. My current thoughts are to not worry so much about setting up lights unless it is pertinent to my interpretation of the script and is a mood piece.

There are already so many other concerns to do with the camera positioning, framing, composition, angles, movement, as well as sound, that adding another element of lighting may become overwhelming. While lighting can add another dimension to a scene, it is not necessarily something that I want to worry too much about and would rather focus on beautiful framing and scene coverage.

Andre Bazin was a highly influential film critic and theorist whose perspectives are still relevant today. His most famous essay, The Evolution of the Language of Cinema discusses his perspective of editing, shot duration and realism.

He describes two types of filmmakers; those who identify with montage form of editing and in his opinion do not present reality, and those who employ depth of field to portray a reality as captured by the camera.

He describes montage as the “ordering of the images in time” which gives the audience a logic to follow the scene and accept the director’s viewpoint. In Bazin’s opinion, this means that montage does not allow for ambiguity of the meaning the images represent, and does not allow the audience to question or come to their own conclusions. “The meaning is not in the image; it is in the shadow of the image projected by montage onto the field of consciousness of the spectator.”

The use of real time to capture the ‘reality’ before the camera is far more interesting to Bazin. He refers to Nanook in the North in which the filmmaker employs a single setup in a hunting scene as something far more moving than the use of montage. He also refers to von Stroheim who experiments and breaks free from the chains of traditional montage with his frequent use close-ups and single shots; “a cinematographic art the very opposite of that which has been identified as cinema par excellence, a language the semantic and syntactical unit of which is in no sense the Shot; in which the image is evaluated not according to what it adds to reality but what it reveals of it.”

He describes the typical editing of a 1938 film scene where a table is covered with food and there is a hungry tramp; 1 – full shot of the actor and the table, 2 – camera moves forward into a close-up of a face expressing a mixture of amazement and longing, 3 – series of close-ups of food, 4 – back to full shot of person who starts slowly toward the camera, 5 – camera pulls slowly back to a three-quarter shot of the actor seizing a chicken wing. This type of set-up and editing is typical of films even today, and has been used in the exercises we have conducted thus far. Bazin explains that if this scene had been played out in the theater, without any cameras, the effect would be exactly the same. In his opinion, the different point of views offered by the camera don’t add any meaning to the scene. It is the filmmaker’s choice of what part of the scene to emphasize, with the use of framing, composition, shot choice, and shot length that would add meaning to this typical scene coverage.

Bazin also expresses his disappointment that experimental shots are becoming extinct for fear that audiences will notice ‘jarring’ cuts that may be apparent. Optical illusions offered by superimpositions and even close-ups are not used as often, and experimentation is somewhat lost.

Bazin describes Orson Welles and William Wyler’s use of depth of field as breaking from the traditional mould of montage. In Citizen Kane whole scenes are covered in one take by a motionless camera, allowing the actors’ movements within the space to create depth of field. In Bazin’s opinion, this is far more interesting and exciting than the use of montage as it demonstrates ‘reality.’ “Dramatic effects for which we had formerly relied on montage were created out of the movements of the actors within a fixed framework.” Bazin believes that depth of field allows for ambiguity, and makes the audience more active in their interpretation of the meaning of the images before them. “Depth of focus brings the spectator into a relation with the image closer to that which he enjoys with reality. Therefore it is correct to say that, independently of the contents of the image, its structure is more realistic.”

Bazin’s yearning to see more experimental and daring shots, scene coverages, and decisions by filmmakers is something I can definitely relate to. His ideas of how editing can represent a certain reality is also quite fascinating, yet I don’t necessarily agree that a single-shot is the only way on-screen ‘reality’ can be portrayed. I do agree that traditional camera set-ups of establishing shot, close-up, etc (what Bazin calls montage) should be continually challenged and experimented with, however I don’t think that all continuous shots (depth of field shots) are necessarily interesting either. Framing and composition in either of these modes as well as the sequence of shots can drastically effect the story as well as the viewer’s experience and meaning.

I found the reading on Antonioni very interesting as it shed light on his method of working as a filmmaker and his approach to directing. The reading explains the controversy surrounding his directing methods, especially when it comes to communicating with actors, however also highlighting how his eye for frame and composition made him one of the legends of filmmaking.

The controversy over his methods of communicating with actors has been well documented; he has withheld information from established actors to get an authentic performance from them, refused to explain the motivation behind a movement he has requested of an actor and he has famously stated that ‘the actor is an element in a particular shot’. While his methods have divided actors who have worked with him, his approach to directing actors was based on the careful coordination of all of the elements that are in front of the camera and in frame. “It was as if each time an actor stood, moved or made a sound in front of a camera a new and different meaning began to be produced.” This careful consideration of directing actors and what each movement or angle to the camera could mean and how it changes the frame is quite extraordinary and something worth investigating in other directors, and also implementing in our own work.

The author of the reading describes Antonioni as quite an experimental filmmaker who was constantly changing the constraints of filmmaking and putting them together to create something that broke the mould. Critics wrote their praises of Antonioni’s disruption of conventional narrative structure, his treatment of time, and his use of architecture, space and inanimate objects.

His working method was to spend half an hour alone on location to get a sense of it and get an idea of what shots he would like to cover the scene. He would then call the actors onto the location and rehearse the scene with them. He rarely has his shots already thought out before going to the location. “It can happen that a particular scene thought out at a desk doesn’t work when you drop it into that particular environment and it is necessary to transform it, modify it.” This quote rings true to me, as I have previously written in other reflections that I find if I plan my shots before going to a location, they always change once I am on the location.

As part of my research, I will watch some films by Antonioni to get a better understanding of how his particular eye for directing actors as part of the mise en scene of frame is so unique and meticulous.

Throughout the exercises we have filmed this semester, I have discovered that I have a liking for moving camera shots. This has come to my attention through the scenes I have deconstructed, and the ones that have caught my attention through the found scene tasks.

I have attempted to create some interesting moving shots through some of the exercises, but have failed to create something impressive every time. I have discovered that I am fairly confident with operating the camera and framing, however my confidence with panning and tilting is quite low. Gaining more confidence in panning and tilting, both with pacing and smoothness may be one of my goals for this semester and something I may try to implement in my end of semester scene.

Or I may not. I think the reason why I’ve found myself gravitating towards admiring scenes that incorporate camera movement is due to the technical precision good movement requires, and my difficulty in achieving this. Perhaps rather than trying to be too technical with my shot construction, and using lots of movement, focusing on beautiful framing may be a better, more achievable, and sophisticated goal.

Through watching some of the exercises by other groups, I have begun to slowly realise that interesting framing can be just as, or if not, more exciting than trying to incorporate camera movement. Focusing on framing and composition without any camera movement may be a better focus for my research, rather than getting bogged down in the pacing and technicalities of camera movement.