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.
DOORS SCENE: Chris, Jessie, Gabby, Maddy & Natalie.
NO. OF SETUPS: 7
SHOT LIST:
- Wide shot of Van walking down the stairs & past camera.
- Medium close up of Van who walks into frame & Wide shot of Cine. This becomes a shot-reverse shot – Van over the shoulder.
- Mid-shot, over the shoulder shot of Cine as part of the shot-reverse-shot. Wide shot of Van.
- Medium close up of Van & Wide shot of Cine as part of shot-reverse shot. They walk out of frame.
- Wide shot of Van and Cine who walk towards camera. Their end point becomes a mid-shot and X walks into frame.
- Mid-shot of X. Also an over the shoulder shot (shot-reverse shot) of Cine and also Van.
- Mid-shot of Cine and Van. Also over the shoulder shot of X as part of shot-reverse shot.
- Over the shoulder shot of Cine as Van and X exit frame.
- Wide shot of both doors closing together.
DECONSTRUCTION & ANALYSIS:
The camera coverage in this scene is steady and still throughout, implying that a tripod was used for all of the shots and there was no hand-held camera. There is no movement at all in this scene, no pans, tracking or hand-held camera. As the characters are always bumping into one another out of nowhere, perhaps utilising some movement to show this would’ve added some variance and emulated the character’s feelings and/or movements.
For example; in the very first shot of the scene, Van walks towards and then past the camera, however if the camera followed her movements either by using hand-held to follow her either from the front or behind, or even a pan to follow her as she passes the camera could have added some urgency to the shot. The framing of the first shot is also a bit awkward in that if the stairs were more centred in the frame, there would be less empty space to the right of screen and Van could have still walked past the camera. The empty space to the right of frame suggests to the audience that something or someone will emerge from there, however this doesn’t happen and makes it feel awkward and unnecessary to show empty space.
The (almost) over the shoulder shot of Cine (shot 3) feels too distanced, both in the distance between the characters themselves, and the distance between the characters to the camera. When cut with shot 2 as a part of this shot-reverse shot, the distances don’t match up. While shot 2 remains nice and tight on Van, in shot 3, Cine is a lot further from the camera than Van previously was. It looks clumsy and doesn’t flow as nicely as it should. In shot 3, Van is so far away from the camera that her dialogue isn’t given much importance at all, even though technically in this shot-reverse shot sequence, she is the one that should be in focus. If this shot was tighter on Cine and maybe even positioned Cine closer to Van, the cuts would flow together better. It would also prevent all of the empty space that surrounds both of them and makes them look small in frame (especially Van).
Shot 4 utilises background and foreground space in a nice way and introduces the third character X. However, there is quite a lot of head room in this shot that once again makes the characters seem quite small in the frame, and makes it look a bit awkward. This could have been easily fixed by lowering the tripod and eliminating the head room. Perhaps the DOP got a nice frame in the beginning of the shot, but didn’t account for the end frame which once again had quite a lot of empty space surrounding the characters.
The following shot (shot 6) is really nicely composed in the way in which there is little headroom and the camera is nice and tight on the characters. Van and Cine whose backs face the camera in this over the shoulder shot, fill the frame nicely and the camera is close on X who is speaking. The closeness of this shot also demonstrates the cramped nature of the location which is pertinent to the location and the script in explaining how these characters just happen to bump into one another. This kind of closeness is what is missing from the previous shots.
The following shot in the shot-reverse sequence (over the shoulder of X) frames all of the characters nicely as well, however it isn’t as close as the previous shot. Cine who has the main dialogue here is the furthest from the camera, which isn’t such a bad thing in that she feels a bit threatened in this part of the scene. While her positioning may add to the way in which her character feels at the time, it doesn’t match the closeness of the previous shot in the sequence and does feel a bit out of place. To remedy this, bringing the tripod up a bit and maybe zooming a bit closer in on Cine could have closed the empty space between the characters. While this was an awkward shot to film due to the cramped nature of the location, it is possible that it could have been closer in on the characters to demonstrate this constrained location.
As this was shot in a shoot to edit style, the shots do cut together nicely. However, if a closeness and tightness of frame was established and remained for the entire scene, it would feel more united and reflect the cramped nature of the location. Perhaps some moving shots could have also reflected the character’s movements and added another dimension to the scene.
Through the practical research we have undertaken so far, I have become to slowly understand how I like to work as a filmmaker. Being able to focus in on producing just a scene, with or without constraints, and reflecting on these processes each week has made me closer to discovering what my working methodology may be.
One of the things I have discovered so far is that reviewing the location and creating a shot list from knowing the location well is very important to me. In many of the exercises, I (or the group as a whole) would have clear ideas about how I would like to cover a particular scene, only for this to completely change once I had arrived on location. Everything from the space in the location (vast or cramped), the shape of the location, the backgrounds (or lack of), the lighting, etc, can all alter the way you end up filming a scene. As I have experienced through the class exercises so far, when I look at a script and have a clear vision of how I would like it to look, it becomes hard for me to let the shots go and adapt to the requirements of the location. In these situations, my creativity becomes crippled, and I can’t be spontaneous or adapt in the short time I have to direct the scene. The way in which I would like to work in the future, is to not look at the script until I am at the location, possibly with the DOP and/or Producer (or maybe alone), during pre-production rather than waiting until the day of filming. This way I can let the location inspire the shots, and use it to my advantage in creating interesting coverage of the scene.
I have also discovered that I prefer to mark up the script initially during pre-production and then create a shot list from this. I find it to be quite a fluid process to mark off where and which shots I want to cover certain parts of the script and use the marked up script as a basis for the rest of my pre-production. I feel as though a shot-list it would help with the organising of filming as not everybody may find it easy to follow someone else’s marked up script. While I haven’t used a storyboard so far in the exercises, this would also be beneficial in visualising the way the shots will look. In previous courses, I have taken photos of the location with stand-ins as a storyboard, rather than drawing one. I find this works a lot better as you’re able to not only visualise the scene within the specific location, but also when you take a photo you are also able to see how the lighting is and if you need any artificial lights to illuminate the scene. This is something that previous groups have also found to work well, and is something I will employ in the future.
The major epiphany I have had in terms of my working methodology is that in the past, I have used the script as a basis for my visualisation of the scene. However, using the location as the primary source for pre-production is far more helpful and interesting to me. By waiting until I am at the location before I even look at the script will allow me to be more creative and use the location to my advantage.
This week’s task was probably the closest to the industrial model compared to the previous shoots we had been on. It’s been an interesting transition so far, to begin with the highly constrained task of the single shot in the first week, to this week having really only a time restriction. We had the freedom of shooting as many or as little shots as we wanted and had around a whole hour to shoot.
My group was group A, which meant that we were to shoot the scene in the traditional shoot to edit style. During our pre-production, we initially discussed the executive roles (director, DOP, and 3 actors), however no-one felt strongly about directing, so we initially decided we would share it around on the day. We marked up the script and felt confident we had enough coverage to shoot in the traditional shoot to edit style. However, we didn’t go down to the location as a group prior to the shoot and create a floor plan, which in hindsight may have assisted us on the day if we had.
On the day of filming, we initially shot Group B’s coverage of the scene. It was interesting to observe how they chose to cover the scene considering they were able to shoot in a way that was less like the industrial model. This meant that they were able to use interesting and creative shots. It was also interesting to see how everyone communicated with one another to make it a great scene. It was also interesting to see that they used a few hand-held shots. I almost questioned them (as in some previous shoots we weren’t allowed to use hand-held) but then remembered there were hardly any constraints on this particular shoot. It was interesting to see how they composed their frames, considering they didn’t have to cover their scene in a more traditional manner. There was a lot more movement in their shots than ours, and more lateral thinking about how to frame the shots. In particular, the shot in which X emerges from the door, was probably their best shot of the day. It was so beautifully composed and framed and they utilized both background and foreground space. Even though I wasn’t behind the camera, I think everyone in the room got the feeling that the shot being framed was something quite special. They used the space really well and created something really inspiring and interesting.
For Group B’s scene, I asked Simone (who was directing) if she wanted me to be the 1st AD for them. which she agreed to. Their pre-production consisted of mostly a storyboard, compared to our marked up script. In my role of being the 1st AD, I talked to the crew mostly while Simone talked to the actors about the shot. I tried to make sure that the DOP and sound crew were all ready and knew what was expected for the particular shot, as well as trying to ensure that the group moved along quickly enough to give them enough time to finish. Simone was really good at communicating, however I found it difficult to follow the storyboard and found myself asking continuously about what was happening in the shot. Personally, I prefer to work off a marked up script or shot list to understand what will be covered in the particular shot.
In our initial pre-production meeting, our group thought that we should swap the roles around and allow everyone to be able to direct, seeing as none of us felt strongly that they really wanted to/didn’t want to direct. However, on the day of filming, once we saw how the group before us ran out of time and missed out on filming one shot in particular, we decided that rather than spend time rotating the roles, one person could direct. We quickly nominated Chris, who appeared to be the most confident with directing. Everyone was happy with that decision, seeing as we had previously discussed the coverage of the scene anyway during pre-production.
As our group was given the brief of covering the scene in a more traditional, industrial, shoot to edit style, we had a few shot-reverse-shots. We also had a few wide shots to allow the action to take place in the area, and using both background and foreground spaces. All of our shots were stationary, except for an experimental hand-held shot we decided to add right at the end of the shoot as we had extra time. As we were in quite a restricted space, that called for more static shots, as any pans would’ve been quite short and awkward.
I was quite surprised at how well everyone worked together, and I think this is mainly due to having more pre-production time. Having this time allowed us to agree on the way in which we would cover the scene, therefore on the day of filming, everyone was working together to achieve the shot list we had come up with. Chris was a great director and natural leader of the group, and communicated really well with everyone. Filming our scene was actually quite relaxing and we felt at ease with what we were doing, which was a nice surprise. We even ended up finishing before the time was up, so we decided to try and experiment with some more shots, giving us more coverage to work with for post-production.
I think that if my group had gone to the location together before the day of filming, we could have adapted our original thoughts on the coverage to create more interesting or unique shots, while still shooting to edit. Knowing your location extremely well, and even going there with a camera to see how it looks in the viewfinder is really important, as I’ve discovered from this exercise.
The single shot from The King’s Speech interested me in terms of the way it broke from conventions of traditional scene coverage as it wasn’t ‘shot to edit’. While I think the director Tom Hooper took an interesting approach to conveying the story in this scene with the hand-held single shot, covering a scene in this way is restricting as there is very little variance for post-production.
When I first watched this scene, I thought that it was covered with a dolly shot, however after watching it a few times, I realised that it was most likely shot with hand-held camera. While the hand-held works in some of the more emotionally unstable shots in the film, I think it’s quite clunky in this particular scene. By covering the scene in a smooth dolly shot, the actor’s movements would’ve been emphasized more rather than being outshone by the shaky hand-held camera movement.
The main critique I have of this scene, is that it ends on the Queen. Story wise, the scene marks a huge milestone for the King who has just heard himself speak without stammering for the first time in his life and now has hope that he can overcome his speech impediment. However, the continuous single shot chosen to cover this scene restricts the way in which the scene can be covered. If the scene was shot to edit, the editors would’ve been able to end the scene on the King in frame if they wanted. The way the scene is currently, it appears as though the revelation is affecting the Queen more than the King (even though she is indirectly affected), due to the scene ending on her in frame.
Personally, I would’ve covered the scene in the single shot, but then also covered it in a shot to edit style so that I had more variance of shots to work with in post-production. I would’ve shot the King sitting from a high-angle to demonstrate his feelings of being insignificant before he hears himself speaking. I think having more close-ups of him would allow the editors to elongate the length of the screen time and allow the audience to focus on his reaction.
Even having a shot-reverse-shot of the relationship between the King and the record player could have added another dynamic to the scene. Rather than how the scene is currently, filming from the King’s perspective rather than the record player’s the entire time, would give the scene more depth.
By covering the scene in a shot to edit style, not only would there have been more opportunities for different edits in post-production, but the King’s epiphany would’ve been given more focus rather than concentrating on the Queen.
Film: The King’s Speech (2010), Directed by Tom Hooper.
Quick Film Summary: Based on the true story of King George VI’s rapid rise to the ascension of the throne and the speech therapist who helped him overcome his speech impediment.
Chosen Scene: In this scene, the King has given up hope that his speech impediment can be overcome until he listens to the recording of his previous session with Lionel.
Shot List: This scene is shot in one continuous shot. While it seems as though it is hand-held, I’ll still refer to the movement as a ‘track’ even though a dolly may not have been used. The camera movements in order are:
- The camera tracks left to right from behind the record player with the gramophone taking up most of the frame (in close-up).
- The camera tracks forward and tilts down slightly, stopping on the King lying on the couch (wide shot).
- The camera tilts up quickly as the King stands up and walks to get the record from the drawer (wide shot).
- The camera pans from right to left as the King walks back to the record player and closer to the camera (mid-shot to medium close-up).
- The camera tilts down to show the King’s hand changing the records (medium close-up).
- The camera tilts up to the King with the gramophone in frame (medium close-up).
- The camera pans right slightly, and tilts down to show the gramophone taking up most of the frame, similarly to the first frame of the scene (close-up).
- The camera then tracks around the left side of the gramophone slowly to show the King sitting on the couch, listening to the record of his voice (mid-shot).
- The camera continues to track but in a forward motion towards the King, with slight tilt down to capture him sitting on the couch to the right of frame as he listens to himself recite Shakespeare (close-up).
- The camera tilts up and focuses on the Queen who is left of frame, and continues to tilt and track forward left to frame her in a mid-shot.
No. of Camera Set-Ups: 1
Analysis:
The first frame of the scene is of the large gramophone represented as a looming presence over the King. The camera tracks from right to left around the gramophone, and then in a forward motion towards the King who is lying on the couch. This first tracking movement is quite musical in nature in the sense that it is smooth and is paced in a way that it seems to match the tempo of the music being played on the record player.
It then stops to frame the King who is lying motionless on the couch. The camera stopping to frame him, gives the audience the expectation that he is about to do or say something. He satisfies this expectation by standing up and walking over to the chest of drawers. As he stands, the camera tilts up quickly and a bit shakily to match his quick jolting movement. This movement is quite jarring as the previous track and tilt was quite smooth, and gives the audience the impression that the King is feeling unbalanced. It marks a shift in the scene and makes the audience wonder what the King’s next action will be.
The camera then pans right to left as the King walks over to the record player with a record in his hand. The camera begins moving ahead of the King so that he remains in frame as he walks over. If the director had let the King lead the shot, he may have been lost out of the left side of the frame and the motion would’ve felt awkward and rushed. As the King has moved closer to the camera, he is now framed in a medium close-up and his appearance is quite dishevelled, further emphasizing his emotional instability.
The camera tilts down quite quickly and a bit shakily to show the King changing the record on the record player. Once again the camera leads the motion and moves ahead of the King to show his actions.
Once it has been clearly established that the King has changed the record over, the camera tilts up quickly again to frame him in a medium close-up, once again showing the King in his emotional distress.
The camera then mimics the King’s movement of sitting down on the couch as it tilts down behind the gramophone so it becomes large in the frame and the King can barely be seen. The movement is in time with the King’s movement as the tilt stops at the exact moment that the King sits. This frame is almost exactly the same as the first frame of the scene, with the gramophone being a threatening and looming presence over the King; something that he has failed to conquer thus far. However, the first frame of the scene is not focused on the gramophone, rather the King in the background, whereas in this frame the King is out of focus and the gramophone is in focus. This reflects that the sound from the first frame is not important, however the sound in this frame is very important. Using almost the exact frame suggests a second chance for the King as it is if the scene is beginning all over again, but this time with a different emotional outcome.
The camera tracks around the gramophone again, similarly to the first frame, however it moves at a slower pace. This emphasizes the importance of the sound heard, and the dawning on the King that his speech therapy session with Lionel was a success despite what he had previously thought. It mimics the King’s slow realisation that his speech impediment can be overcome and emphasizes the emotions of the scene. The movement is quite smooth to demonstrate the smooth way in which the King delivers the speech.
The camera movement ends on a close-up of the King to demonstrate his emotion towards hearing himself recite Shakespeare. The camera frames the King to the right of screen, giving the audience the expectation that something or someone will appear on the left of screen. This expectation is satisfied when the Queen enters frame in the background. The camera then tilts up and focuses on her to show her reaction to what she is hearing. The camera then tracks around towards her slowly, almost as if it is mimicking the sound waves reaching her ears. The scene ends on the mid-shot of the Queen, surprised at the miracle she has just witnessed. The choice to use a close-up of the King compared to the mid-shot of the Queen, reflects the importance of the revelation to each of them. While her husband’s speech impediment effects her greatly, the prospect that it could be overcome is far more important to the King who lives with his problem everyday than it is to the Queen.
The camera movement in the entire scene could personify the sound moving around the room and reflecting how it is absorbed by the characters. In the beginning, the camera movement is quite smooth and matches the tempo of the music first heard in the scene. The movement becomes quite shaky and quick as the camera follows the King’s brash movements. It then returns to a smooth and even slower movement than before when the King’s Shakespearean speech is heard and reaches the characters in the scene.
The camera movement could also personify Lionel (the King’s speech therapist). While he is not in the scene, the King’s mind is on his session with him. It is almost as if Lionel’s presence is sneaking up on the King in the beginning and taunting him which then makes him take action. Lionel’s presence is then shaken when the King moves brashly to listen to the record and he hides behind the gramophone. His presence then peeks out slowly to see the King’s reaction to the record and then moves to see the Queen’s reaction. The first frame of the following scene shows the Queen and King sitting in Lionel’s office discussing the business terms.
Director, Tom Hooper employs quite a lot of camera movement throughout the entire film. He uses hand-held camera often, which becomes more shaky when the King is at his lowest and most emotional. The hand-held camera gives the audience the impression that they are witnessing first hand the historical moments in the film, and getting a personal insight into the King’s life. He also uses a lot of tracking shots to cover scenes to create a sense of grandiose and royalty that the historical drama requires. This scene is the only one in the whole film that is covered in one continuous shot.
Hooper’s other great film success has come from the 2012 film ‘Les Miserables’ which is a film adaptation of the musical theater production about the French Revolution. In this film, Hooper also uses hand-held quite a lot throughout to mimic the character’s movements and the tempo of the musical numbers. He rarely uses dolly/tracking shots in this film, perhaps due to the fact that the characters are not of royalty but rather lower class. The camera is rarely still throughout the film, and is only still during some of the more slower musical numbers. Much like ‘The King’s Speech’, the hand-held camera varies from smooth to shaky to reflect the character’s emotions, being more shaky during moments of emotional instability. He has not covered any of the scenes in this film in one continuous shot. As the dialogue is all sung, the camera is almost always constantly moving to match the tempo and emotion of the songs.
3-6 SHOT EDITED EXERCISE:
The planning process for the 3-6 shot edited exercise involved two members from our group going on a location scout while the rest of the group began discussing possible shots based on the script. However, we knew our ideas for our shots during the planning and discussing stage were subject to change based on the location chosen. The time that we spent planning whilst not on location, seemed to be almost a waste as when we arrived on location and saw what we had to work with we basically started planning from scratch.
The location chosen was a balcony with a view of the Old Melbourne Jail grounds and the city skyline which provided a nice backdrop to our scene. However, the space was quite cramped and there was piping and other objects crowding our space. Acting out the scene in the space helped us decide on the shots we were happy with, and we planned the maximum six shots that we were allowed. Having decided to swap the production roles as much as possible throughout the shoot, we managed to all get behind camera except for the two actors due to us running out of time. It was difficult to review the shots in the location as the space was so cramped, we could only have one person behind camera at a time. Having to move along quickly, we trusted that the shot was good without reviewing it and moving on to the following shot.
Filming the over the shoulder (Amy) with the phone was probably the most difficult shot to film, however it was the one we were most excited about. Our aim was to try and get both Amy and Tom’s reflection in the phone clearly, then pan right to frame them together facing each other. Due to the fact that we didn’t have a mirror and had to work with the reflection from the phone, the reflections weren’t as clear as we had hoped, however, it still turned out quite nicely. The other shot that excited everyone on the day was the close up of Amy looking into the camera lens as if it were the mirror on her phone. Being something quite different than what we had seen before made us all quite excited to see the final shot. The shot turned out quite well except for the fact that the camera lens was dirty.
During the editing stage, I was able to review all of the shots and see what I had to work with to create the scene. When I began cutting it together, I realised that one of the cuts in particular was a bit awkward – Tom introducing himself to Amy’s over the shoulder shot. To try and make this as smooth as possible, I shortened the clip with Tom walking into frame as much as possible. I also created a J-cut with Tom’s voice coming over the top of the close-up shot of Amy looking into the camera. These two things helped to create a smoother scene.
For a couple of the shots, the tripod wasn’t level and the boom also ended up in frame. To fix this I used the motion feature on Premiere to rotate and zoom the clips. I also used the brightness/contrast, and three-way colour corrector to correct the blueness throughout all of the clips. I also added some wind sound effects to add ambience to the scene.
Watching other people’s cuts of the scene, it became clear that they were all quite similar, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing, however if we had chosen to film less but lengthier shots, we would’ve had more opportunity to create different cuts of the scene. The main lesson I learned from this exercise was that even though we had more freedom to cover the scene (a maximum of six shots) if we had focused our energy on covering it in two fantastic shots we could’ve been more creative with our scene. Putting more constraints on a shoot can mean that the outcome is more creative and adventurous than expected.
FIRST INDIVIDUAL DIRECTING EXERCISE:
The first individual directing exercise was really exciting. Having the freedom to pick whichever part (or all) of the scene and how you want to cover it was an exciting prospect. When I looked at the script I was immediately able to visualise the shot I wanted to direct. I decided that I wanted to try shooting the first half of the script with the first frame being a mid-shot of the two characters crouching down looking for the book and then panning to follow the book in close-up and then the last frame being the two characters in a mid-shot sitting down with the book.
The first decision we all had to make was which exterior location we should use. We tried to find somewhere that wouldn’t be too noisy or too bright. After deciding on our location we began setting up the equipment and organising the roles for the first shot. We came across an issue with the white balance on the camera where if we tried to set the white balance to A or B, the image would appear either green or red. After trying to troubleshoot, we decided we were wasting too much time trying to fix the issue and so we used the preset white balance, which wasn’t quite right but was better than before.
Allowing the person who was directing to have complete control over the shoot ensured that their visions were (hopefully) met. It was clear that everybody felt a lot freer to choose what they wanted and how they wanted it done, and it was really nice to see everybody’s creative sides.
While I did have a clear idea of what I wanted my shot to look like, it did change when we chose the location. The location didn’t really allow for the almost 90 degree pan I had envisioned. With the time constraints putting us under pressure I decided to still try and film the shot the way I had planned, but with a smaller pan. The experience was fantastic and I would be able to do it again, now understanding that you need to be quite flexible and work with what you have (eg; the location). The main epiphany I had during this exercise was that while I’m not really confident that I pulled off my shot the way I envisioned, I tend to gravitate towards moving shots as I find that they can create depth and you can be quite creative in what you focus on. My intention was to focus on the book during the pan, however my camera position wasn’t correct and it didn’t quite work the way I thought. However this exercise gave me a lot of confidence in my ability to think outside of the box and focus my energy on creating an interesting shot.
Unfortunately not everyone in my shooting group had a chance to film their shot as we ran out of time, this would be the only thing that I would change going forward – to allow for more time for the shoot as a whole.