From the beginning of this course I was excited to have the opportunity to focus on, and develop new skills in constructing a scene. From previous experience, I know that trying to make a film can be quite difficult as you often run out of time during production and don’t always get to film the shots you planned. Being able to focus all of my attention and energy on creating a dynamic scene this semester meant that I could learn more about my method of working as a filmmaker and auteur. Through both theory and practical research, and experimenting with camera coverage and framing, it became clear that there were really no rules on how an individual filmmaker could cover a scene.

The in-class exercises provided a fantastic training ground for us to practice, collaborate, discuss, experiment, and discover different approaches to camera coverage, scene construction, and framing. Through the constraints set, we were able to discover inventive, and creative ways to frame and cover a scene. The constraints set began by being very restrictive and then developed into being more in the manner of the industrial model; with more written pre-production, production log sheets, and number of shots allowed. This process allowed us to discover the positives and negatives of working with or without the industrial model and whether working with more or less constraints would create more interesting scenes.

The very first task of the semester required us to construct a scene in a single shot. This proved to be quite difficult in the beginning, as we had all been used to being able to cover a scene in as many shots as we liked. We had to test and experiment different angles, framing, and actor positioning and movement in order to construct a single shot that was both dynamic and reflected the story appropriately. During this process, my group discussed the subtext of the script and our interpretation of the relationship between the two characters. By understanding the relationship and motivations of the characters in the scene, we were able to construct our framing to demonstrate these in our single shot. We were all quite happy and surprised at how having a big constraint on our shoot resulted in our scene having creative camera coverage and interesting framing.

As we continued with the in-class exercises, not only did the constraints change, but we also worked with either script or prose form. I found that I began to notice a difference with the way we covered and framed the scene depending on the constraints set and the form of text we worked with. The more constraints we had as a group (for example; a single shot compared to six shots to cover a scene), the more creative our selection of shots and framing was. As we worked with both script and prose form, it slowly became apparent that working from a script could be more restrictive than interpreting prose. When following a script, I found that we spent more time as a group trying to dissect it and follow it to a tee, rather than being able to interpret it in our own way. I found that we became overly concerned with showing specific movements that were instructed in the script, and that every creative shot we thought of was changed to accommodate the script’s specificity. When working with prose, I found that as a group we didn’t feel as restricted in our approach to creative camera coverage and framing as we could interpret the scene however we wished.

As the in-class exercises moved more towards the industrial model, I found that as a group we would spend too much time worrying about writing continuity logs during production. It became quite a tedious process to have to fill in the continuity logs in between setting up each take and wasted a lot of production time. Despite being used to assist with post-production, I found that they didn’t really help much at all as when I viewed the clips in the edit suites, some of the lower-rated takes actually cut together better than the higher-rated clips.

During these in-class exercises, constraints also included the number of camera set-ups we were allowed to use to film a scene. For some of the exercises that didn’t follow the industrial model, we had to edit ‘in-camera’ which forced us to think of where the cuts would be in the scene, and when we wanted to move the camera to a different set-up. This process forced us to think about how the scene would look as a whole, and how it would flow from one cut to the next. We had to think about how the camera angles and framing would compliment each other from shot to shot and how to make the scene’s camera coverage unique. As we then moved towards modelling the industrial model, we were able to edit in post-production which meant that we were able to film a master shot of our scene and intercut it with different shots. This is often done in the industry as having a back-up master shot of the whole scene allows the editor to cut between it and close-ups (or other shots) to create a meaningful scene. However, this process made our camera coverage and framing decisions more lazy and less creative as we didn’t have to think about how the shots would cut together and how the scene would look as a whole.

Watching others work during the in-class exercises made me reflect on my own methodology of working. Having being used to using a lot of written pre-production to assist with filming on the day, it became interesting to not be required to fit to this industrial model. However, when we did begin to use some written pre-production and had to interpret other’s storyboards and shot lists, it became clearer to me that I don’t work that well with storyboards and I prefer to work from shot lists and marked up scripts as I can clearly see what part of the scene is being filmed and how it will be covered. I also think that taking photos of the location with stand-ins and the correct lighting that you will be using for the shoot is more helpful in creating a well-informed storyboard compared to a drawn one where the space that will be used may not communicate well on paper.

A huge learning curve for me this semester was the importance of knowing your location before filming. When it came to modelling the industrial model during the in-class exercises, we pre-produced our shot list without knowing our location. When arriving on location, our shot list and other written pre-production changed immediately as we had to adapt to the constraints of the location chosen. Through these exercises, it became clear to me that pre-producing the camera coverage and framing for the scene on location is pertinent to creating a dynamic scene. Visiting the location before filming and getting a sense of which shots would work for the scene is important in informing storyboards and shot lists. When creating a scene without any written pre-production and discovering our shot coverage on location, we created scenes that were dynamic, unique, and made the most of the location.

Director Michelangelo Antonioni understood the importance of understanding the space in which you are filming in and the movement of the camera and actors in comparison with each other. He took careful consideration in directing actors and how each movement and angle in comparison to the camera could create a whole new meaning and an entirely different scene. As a director, his working methodology included spending half an hour on location by himself to get a sense of the space he was working in and then calling in the actors to rehearse the scene. He rarely walked onto location with a preconceived idea of the shots he wanted to cover the scene and allowed the location to inspire the shots.

In my research of camera coverage and framing, I studied many scenes to analyse how other director’s have chosen to cover a scene. As I sifted through many of my favourite films, it became quite frustrating to realise that the camera coverage choices were not unique, but rather the run-of-the-mill shots that you would expect. These films which I adored on first viewing seemed boring and not creative on closer inspection of the shots chosen; with the common shots of a wide shot, close up, and shot-reverse-shots being used frequently across the board. Perhaps these films stood out to me for the way in which the film as a whole worked together (with the script, cinematography, and performances working together) and the scenes themselves were just building blocks towards the climax with nothing interesting or unique about the camera coverage. I began wondering whether this was a deliberate choice by the director, and what reasons a director would have for implementing the common shot construction used in films. Perhaps they chose to use quite simple set-ups and camera coverage to allow the performances of the actors to shine through and not distract the viewer from the action. Questions of the time, and place of production could also influence these decisions.

It became quite difficult to find scenes that implemented camera coverage that was different and creative in comparison to the usual shot construction used. I found that it became quite frustrating to find a scene which used shot construction that was creative and different from what I had seen before. I analysed them closely to determine what possible meanings could be behind camera coverage and framing choices, and what they said about the characters, their relationships, and motivations. In scrutinizing these ‘found scenes’ I was able to understand how certain camera set-ups and framing decisions can change the entire meaning of the scene. By studying these scenes and thinking about how I would have filmed it allowed me to reflect on what I think creative camera coverage is, and how every camera placement, movement, angle and framing decision creates a different tone and meaning to a scene.

In thinking about what specific research I wanted to continue with for the remainder of the semester, I immediately thought of the difference I noticed when filming a scene from a script in comparison to prose. I wondered about how my own method of working as a filmmaker could be effected by the text I worked with and whether the ownership of such text would effect my vision. I wanted to see how these factors contributed to the camera coverage and framing choices I made as a filmmaker.

MY RESEARCH PROPOSAL:

Throughout this semester, one of the main questions I have continued to ask myself is how does the form of text that I am working with, whether it be a script or prose, affect the way in which I direct the coverage of a scene? How much creative liberty does a director take up when turning the words on a page into cinema? And how is this effected when they work with a text written and envisioned by them?

A script is a blueprint for a scene and the level to which a filmmaker follows it or creates their own interpretation of it is up to them. Even though I’m aware of this, when it came to filming the exercises over the past few weeks, I felt quite constrained by having to follow a script. I couldn’t think of creative ways to cover a conversation, and felt overwhelmed by having to show specific character movements. This led me to wondering whether working with prose would allow me to think more creatively about camera coverage. Another question that has continued to perplex me is if I filmed scenes from my own scripts, would my camera coverage and framing be more creative or constrained by my vision?

I want to investigate the relationship between the form of filmic text and camera coverage, and whether ownership of the text influences my framing choices. Does a script leave enough open for interpretation for the director, or is prose a way for directors to implement more creative camera coverage? Does a writer-director feel more empowered by having written the text they are working from, or more hindered by their own vision? Does a director have more freedom when they work from a text written by somebody else, when their level of collaboration with the writer is up to them? These are questions I wish to explore through a series of practical exercises and written reflections.

Over the course of two weekends, I will film four scenes, each of them being completely different stories. Two of these will be written scripts (one written by me and the other by a screenwriting friend of mine) and the other two will be in prose form (once again, one written by me and the other by another screenwriter). I will film the script and prose written by me in the first weekend, and the texts written by my friend in the second weekend. This will allow me to compare the camera coverage I choose for both the script and prose as well as comparing how ownership of the texts may influence this.

In preparation for each of the four scenes, I will location scout and use the camera as a tool for my pre-production in the location, taking stills to create a storyboard. I will then use that to inform a shot list and floor plan to use on the day of filming. I will need three actors from the StarNow page who will be in all four scenes. I will also need a sound recordist and a 1st AD to help me to coordinate the shoot and ensure everything runs smoothly. I won’t set lights and just use the natural lighting of the locations. I will edit the footage and post it and the filmic text I worked from on my blog with a written reflection on the whole process and how it informs my investigation.

For the second part of my investigation, I will be giving Amy my written script and prose and comparing her interpretation of the scenes compared to mine. I will post the edited scenes on my blog and compare the camera coverage and framing choices we have made as individuals. My writing will reflect how Amy’s chosen camera coverage compares to mine, and whether my ownership of the text hinders or allows for more creative framing choices. I hope that this part of my investigation will continue with more than one script and prose, and allow me to reflect upon how my ownership of a text affects my choices as a director.

In my reflections on the I was convinced that I wouldn’t be able to detach myself from my original vision and see what other possibilities there are in covering the scene. Whilst this may be true, I still wanted to test my theory. It may have been that my ownership of the text actually gives me free rein to create really interesting framing and coverage.

The relationship between film text and interpretation, and also how ownership may effect camera coverage and creativity of framing. I asked myself these questions; will I feel more creative and able to interpret a script or prose that has been written by someone else? Will working from prose give me a more interesting set of shots than working from a script? These are questions that I am interested in investigating and testing and if I decide to head in this direction I will ensure that I use the exact same constraints so that the difference in film text is the main factor tested.

When approaching my scenes, I tried to be aware of how a vision can change over time, and to remind myself that it is not only okay, but exciting to adapt and change my perspective on how to film and edit a scene. The whole process of filmmaking is fluid, and changes are made constantly; rather than being afraid of this happening during my practice, I needed to embrace it and reflect on it. I decided that in order to ensure a clear vision is reflected upon, it was important to note that from the very beginning of the pre-production – the conception and writing. Therefore, I have decided to write two scenes (one script and one prose) from scratch so that I can also record what I am visualising and imagining the scene to look, sound, and feel like.

When approaching filming my own scenes outside of class, I reflected on the way I had previously spent a lot of time trying to perfect technical movement of the camera and creating quite fancy shots. I could never pull them off in class, and decided to focus my attention more on composition and framing, and how they add meaning to the scene. I struggled with the question of whether I would film my scenes or if I would get a friend to DOP for me. In the beginning I thought that having a DOP would be more helpful for me as I would be able to discuss the scene and takes with the actors and communicate what I wanted with the sound recordist and DOP. After some careful consideration, it became clear to me that I was trying to avoid filming as I was afraid that my ability wouldn’t be good enough to pull off my vision. I needed to step out of my comfort zone and be confident that with practice and active filming I would be able to not only discover the way I like to work as a filmmaker, but also be able to research my proposal thoroughly.

I initially thought that I wouldn’t set any lights for my scenes as I wanted to focus only on camera coverage and framing, however as I began to film the scene I had written in prose form (interrogation scene), it became clear to me that considering lighting would enhance this scene. My interrogation scene based on the prose I had written became my main focus in researching my own methodology of working. It was a scene in which I had a clear vision of how I wanted it to look, and so I filmed it three times, trying to perfect what I could see in my mind’s eye.

The first attempt I made made use of only the natural lighting of the location. I wanted to make the victim insignificant in the frame to demonstrate his vulnerability. However, the angle to which I positioned the camera wasn’t high enough and far away enough from the victim to achieve the desired effect. As I was restricted with the constraints of the location, I tried to ‘cheat’ some shots around. I didn’t do much pre-production for this scene initially which meant that whilst shooting I was continually questioning myself as to whether continuity was being achieved or not. I was very motivated to continue to re-shoot this scene as I had a clear idea of how I wanted it to look and was determined to get it right.

The Text: Prose

The Scene: https://vimeo.com/126667403

In my second sketch of this scene, I made a conscious decision to make use of the location and create more foreground and background space in the frame. To achieve this, I changed my shot construction and actor’s direction to include character’s walking in and around the space. I also set a dedo light to illuminate the victim and make him appear like a deer in headlights. However, as I was unable to film this scene at night, I couldn’t achieve the almost pitch black look I wanted as sunlight interfered with the location. I deliberately chose to include tighter framing on the victim to not only capture his emotions, but to create an intense and suspenseful tone to the scene. While these changes came about due to my reflections on my previous attempt, some were also discovered through watching similar ‘found scenes’, especially the interrogation scene in ‘Casino Royale’. I really wanted to achieve the lighting used in this scene as it disappears into darkness, while also making use of movement in and out of the path of the light source to create more suspense in my scene. For my pre-production I made a conscious decision to limit myself to 6 shots/camera set-ups so that I would have to think creatively about my shot construction and not just film as much as I wanted for the sake of it. I also created a floor plan which I had previously never used before. This really helped me in thinking about maintaining continuity, eye-lines, and the positioning of the camera and lights in comparison to the actors. This process of pre-production definitely worked for me and I will continue to use it in the future.

Pre-Production:

Second Attempt: https://vimeo.com/128331287

For my third and final attempt at achieving my vision for this scene, I filmed at night and used only one dedo light with a gel filter to illuminate the victim. I positioned the light parallel to the victim to create rim lighting rather than the shadows that were in my previous shoot. I was really happy with the effect it achieved as the minimal lighting made the scene feel more intense, scary and suspenseful; demonstrating the victim’s feelings more accurately. I also ensured that I used tight framing and didn’t use a wide shot at all, to ensure that the right mood and tone was reflected. For this scene, I didn’t write any pre-production and just adapted my approach based on the past shoots I had done.

Third Attempt: https://vimeo.com/129393028

The Progress:

As Amy and I decided to work together, we also had to set some ground rules to ensure that we didn’t influence each other’s decisions in how to film our scenes. We decided that we wouldn’t discuss how we were planning to approach filming the scenes, and to not be on set with each other – only viewing each other’s scenes at the very end of the process. I was really excited to see how her interpretation of my writing would differ from my vision and whether I would agree with her choices and be thrilled with them, or if I would feel that my vision had been lost in the hands of a different director. Upon viewing Amy’s interpretation of my script, I had mixed feelings. While I did think that her choice of location would suit the scene well and offer great opportunities for interesting camera coverage as opposed to my choice of location, I was surprised by the wide angles she decided to use. In my mind, I saw the scene as being covered in very tight framing and making the most of background and foregound space in the frame. Despite my own disappointment in my own coverage of my scene, it is still closer to my vision than Amy’s interpretation. While I liked her use of panning camera movement, the wider framing doesn’t demonstrate the tight and intense nature of the relationships of the characters in the scene.

For my interpretation of my scene I was very conscious of framing as during our previous outdoor shoots in class, it was noticed that because there were no ceilings to give us framing bearings, our outdoor scenes looked quite average. I made a conscious decision to have tight framing as much as possible to avoid our previous in-class blunders.

The main issue I had filming this scene was the location I chose and the distance between the tree and the car. I couldn’t pull off the shots the way I wanted because I had to try and maintain a tight frame on the foreground of the two characters talking, while also keeping the character in the background still in frame. I think I would’ve felt more comfortable in an enclosed space where there would be lines from structures that I could follow.

Despite doing a shot list and floor plan, I didn’t do any pre-production with the camera in the location. This was a critical error on my part as if I would’ve done this, I would’ve realised that I needed to change my plan. Pre-production with the camera in the location has been something that I am constantly reminded is an important process for my method of working. If I could re-film this scene, I would implement more still shots and focus pulling, while also perhaps considering either another location or better positioning of actors and props.

The Text: Scene

My Pre-Production:

Amy’s Interpretation: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0ByqA57pYtN-IT1dvRk5SWE15TlU&authuser=0

My Interpretation: https://vimeo.com/129390752

When filming the prose of my screenwriter friend Harrison Murray, I wasn’t really motivated to film the scene as I didn’t feel any real connection to the story and didn’t have any vision of how it should look. Due to this, I didn’t put much effort in filming the scene, however the camera coverage and the framing worked well in the end. Perhaps this was because I wasn’t constrained by my vision and was able to just film the scene in the moment and allow the location to inspire the shots.

The Text: harrison prose

The Scene: https://vimeo.com/12835976

Overall, I have discovered that focusing my attention on camera coverage and framing for a particular scene allows me to be more creative with my approach and is something I will continue to do in the future. I have realised that letting the location inspire the shots and writing the pre-production from the constraints of the location allows me to be more creative with my camera coverage decisions and make the most of the space I am working in. I prefer to work with prose rather than scripts as I feel I have more freedom to interpret them in my own way. I have also discovered that I can sometimes be crippled by my own vision and that interpreting a scene someone else has written can be more freeing for me. However, I have also come to the understanding that I don’t necessarily agree with a different director’s interpretation of my scene as I have a clear vision of how I would like it to look. Despite sometimes not being able to think outside of my vision and adapt it to the constraints set, with constant practice, perseverance and trying new approaches my vision as a screenwriter and director can be communicated onto the screen.