Month: September 2017

So, after my long and heartfelt post about why we’re stopping Human Resources, things have changed (which really shouldn’t be a surprise at this point) and we’re going back to Human Resources. Bridie and Amber met with Birrin (who was representing the other three disappointed and seemingly offended writers) on Friday to talk about it and the outcome was to forego Serial 2.0. At the end of the day, it is a little disappointing that we didn’t get to create something else (within the course), but it is more disappointing that we wasted a whole week on this kerfuffle and will now consequently be set one or even two weeks back in our original plan.

Overall though I don’t mind that we’re going back to Human Resources. I know that might seem incongruent to my previous musings, but at the end of the day, I just want to make something. In that way, I am happy to (and have to) agree with the majority/group decision, because no more time can be wasted on group politics or indecision. Furthermore, I have gotten to such a point of frustration within this studio that I now really don’t care about what the project is, I just want to move on and get it done. So that’s what we’re doing. I’m sure with this behind us we will be able to work coherently together and efficiently create something we are (hopefully) happy with.

 

 

Well. The last week or so has been full of twists and turns, but I think we’ve just hit the biggest ones. We have decided to release ourselves from the burden of trying to continue our current project, Human Resources. We are not going to reshoot an of the pilot nor shoot anything of the second episode. We proposed this in class on Tuesday to Robin and received the green light to go ahead with a different project yesterday. Serial 2.0 is going to take us back towards the beginning of the semester and ‘Car Wash’- the dialogue prompt that Jen, Bridie, Joan, Gianella and Eve created. We all talked and decided this was a project that we not only enjoyed (creating and consuming) more but also thought it was a lot more reminiscent of the concept and examples of the Web Series that we’d discussed earlier in the semester. Of course, this is a massive change and it’s not one we’re treating lightly. I will now go through some reasons we’re stopping Human Resources, why we’re going back to the ‘Car Wash’ stage and what our plan is from here.

The heart of our decision lies in the fact that our own hearts weren’t in the production of Human Resources. This semester has been incredibly all over the place, for everyone. But we want to come out of the studio with someone that we’re proud of, and something that we have had input in the initial creation of. Human Resources hasn’t always been a lost cause, but we have gotten to a point where none of us have any motivation to continue or finish the project. It has become a seemingly un-achievable task that will reap no rewards for us. We have felt disengaged with the process of creating and writing the script, and feel that it is not the kind of thing we wanted to create when we came into this subject. Plus, the script did not fully adhere to the location and actor parameters that we established in the beginning, which has made shooting more difficult than it could have been.

Now, I understand the un-professionalism of abruptly deciding to stop a collaborative project. However, as university students, if we feel we are not getting as much out of the subject as possible then we have the right to change our direction and work if that decision is in our hands. We also felt that we were putting more into the project than some of the writers, even though they were the ones who had given us this script which we had such limited input in yet had no choice in making. Furthermore, our plan for shooting was crumbling before us. We didn’t have an actor for a main character, didn’t have access to our (strongly) preferred locations, and didn’t even have a day when the majority of the crew could actually attend. Overall, we didn’t believe we’d be able to create anything worth the time and effort we’d have to put in.

More than a specific desire to stop our current project, we want to make something that we are passionate about. Something like ‘Car Wash’ that is short, snappy and clever. We have gotten so caught up in the production of Human Resources that every shoot feels like a weighty, rule-bound and somewhat forced creative process which is not what creating something should feel like, especially when we wanted to make something dynamic and fresh. Going back to ‘Car Wash’ doesn’t necessarily mean creating something related, it just means going back to the creative space and energy that helped give life to the idea. I believe that this will reinvigorate our motivation for this studio and help us finish the semester on a much more positive note.

 

The last three days have been rather intense in the serial-sphere. The start of the week was uneventful for myself as I was stuck at home, sick. In class, they continued pre-production for our re-shoot, including writing an almighty to-do list that has already proven to be very useful in keeping grounded and focused (I love lists). I came into class on Friday feeling very upbeat (recovered from tonsillitis and the weather was genuinely divine) and positive about the imminent shoot and general production of Human Resources.

Friday was a productive day for me as I learnt about writing a call sheet and everything that I had to do to prepare it, along with my other AD duties. It took me a while to get my head around the process, of working out which scenes we had to shoot when based on actor availability and then the order we would shoot them based on location. We were still receiving actor’s availability throughout this process and so our plans continued to change and develop accordingly. By the end of the class we had three days of shooting (two of them half days), each with different assortments of actors, planned for the next week. We were having some difficulties with location as the most favourable locations weren’t free for when we needed them, and the others felt that the locations we could book wouldn’t do the trick. Regardless, I felt confident in my duties as AD and knew what I had to do in preparation for the shoot on Monday.

However, I left feeling somewhat uneasy. We had gotten a lot done but we were still relying on something imperative to our success- a confirmation from Birrin that he would be available for the shoot(s). I had the feeling this was going to be an issue for us, which got me thinking. If we did not have our ideal actor, nor our ideal location, and not everyone was available for the shoot also… would our re-shoot even be worth it? Would it produce something of better quality than our first attempt?

On Saturday evening, my prayers were answered, but it wasn’t God who got back to me, it was T H E   D E V I L. That’s a bit dramatic, but Birrin said that he wasn’t available for much time on Monday. I asked him if he could come before or after his commitments, but didn’t get a very encouraging response back. He still thought we were getting Christian to play Duncan (we’d talked with him about the re-cast a few weeks ago), and he wasn’t available on Tuesday either. I talked with Kelly and Bridie (Director and Producer) and we decided to try and plan something else. I was disappointed and frustrated that Birrin wasn’t available when we made the decision with the writers to cast him as Duncan, especially considering they were the ones who were so critical of Christian’s performance. However, it must be said that we were also at fault in this situation. It was very silly of us (and I should have been more involved/thought about this earlier as AD) to go ahead and plan a shoot when we weren’t certain of one of the main actor’s availability. We had asked him for it but we shouldn’t have gone so far in the planning before we knew for sure.

Once that decision had been made we had the task of working out a plan B. We soon messaged Cam, another writer, to see if he’d be interested. We didn’t/don’t want to get Christian back in the role because only on Friday did we tell him he’d be playing Christian, and it would be unprofessional and plain rude to jostle him around. Bridie messaged Cam and we waited for a response. By early afternoon Sunday, we hadn’t heard back. We had no actor for a main character for a shoot the next day. We made the painful but ultimately necessary decision to cancel Monday’s shoot. Cam wrote back Monday morning and told us he wasn’t interested.

We now have today (Tuesday) set out for crisis management and to work out where we go from here. It’s such a pity that after such a well organised and disaster free first shoot, we’ve had to cancel two days of our second shoot this week. It is in part our own fault but it is also disappointing to be working with writers who seem un-engaged and unreliable. I don’t know what we will do next but we will need to decide soon, as we have less than four weeks until our final assessment is due. We will see.

Friday’s class saw a rather fundamental decision we had made being changed: we have decided to completely reshoot the pilot episode, rather than shooting the remainder of the script which we hadn’t originally shot, and merging it with our existing footage. While it throws our well-formed plan out the window and makes the task at hand more time consuming, I think it’s ultimately for the best. We have now received a lot of feedback, both technical and conceptual, and we have the chance to re film the pilot with all this feedback and criticism in mind, as well as the decisions we had made regarding what we would change for episode 2.

These decisions and changes for the new pilot include:

• casting Birrin (the writer) as Duncan, and having Christian (the first Duncan actor) to play Christian (the character)
• Having a more ‘realistic’ set that looks more like an office space, including a reception and break room
• Fixing the technical mistakes (framing shots incorrectly, setting the wrong exposure)
• Filming the entire original script after necessary adaptation from the writers to include Christian and make other small necessary changes

It will be more efficient than our first shoot as a lot of decisions that had to be made then will still be relevant and effective, meaning we won’t have to waste time making them again. We’re also all more exposed to the set structure now and so the hierarchy and roles should work even better.

We have started scheduling this shoot, beginning with a week of pre-production next week. As first AD, I will be heavily involved in scheduling, pre-production, and planning. I think I will be better in this role than a practical or creative one, so I’m excited to get to work.

We also had a guest speaker today, from Melbourne’s WebFest. It was interesting hearing about web series from a more industrial and critical perspective. A lot of what he said reinforced in my mind, the ideas I have talked about previously regarding the possibility of using industrial models to create web series. He spoke about many different funding initiatives, and if you are receiving funding from an external organization, you need to be efficient and professional and hence it is more than likely industrial models would be used in the production of funded series.  Of course, noteworthy or funded series need to be adventurous, fresh and innovative, but once again, this does not necessarily distinguish them from being industrially made.

 

On going reflective writing 

Derailed Dialogue

Seven Scripts

Production Preparation Part 1

Production Preparation Part 2 

Shooting

5th of September

Artisinal Vs Industrial 

Substantial Film making and Reflection

Reflection

Pilot episode:

https://vimeo.com/232603186

 

 

I have already briefly touched on what I think of our pilot episode of Human Resources, both in the way it was produced and filmed and the final outcome. On a holistic note, I am happy with and proud of what we made. My pride does not relate specifically to the episode (there is a lot that could be improved), but rather to our ability to create what we did despite the circumstances we had to make it.

A lot of my reflection throughout the semester thus far has focused on the confusion and instability of this studio. We have faced a lack of direction, unreliability, miscommunication, a very large array of skill sets, and a lot of general frustration throughout the last nine weeks. Of course, some of this is evident in our episode, but as our very first attempt at an episode, based on a first draft script, I really don’t think it’s that bad. I also think saying its bad undermines all the work that some of our crew, like Kelly, put in. Obviously, we need to be critical of our work to determine where exactly we need to improve, but it is still our first go, and so of course, it’s still going to be far from perfect.

With that being said, I will get into my own reflection and technical criticism of the episode. We’ve had many discussions in class about the actors and whether we will ask them to come back in the future. While initially, we were thinking of recasting Duncan (a particular passion of one of the writers…), we’ve re-evaluated and decided to go ahead with him for the time being, and try change or strengthen the direction of his performance first to see if that will fix any issues we had.

The main issue I found with his character/performance is that it is clunky.  It is not bad, it is just awkward sometimes. This is manageable, we all agree we need to focus more on the actors in preproduction. Through providing the actors with more character information, table reads, rehearsals on location and allowing for improvisation, all actors should feel more comfortable in their role and be able to be more immersed in their character.

Another issue is the effect of the abridged script. The second part of the episode doesn’t make a lot of sense. Duncan’s werewolf reveal isn’t meant to make sense, or more so, it’s meant to be a surprise. Even his rapping is just an aspect and example of his silly, fun character. But what he is saying- “getting sweaty in the office” doesn’t make lots of, or any sense because the context came from the part of the script that we cut out from the original. While shortening the script allowed us to be more efficient in production, it also interrupted the flow of the storyline and made the episode slightly incoherent. Working more with the writers and getting more help from them would have helped us create a more cohesive abridged script. In the end, we will still have a cohesive, whole episode as we are filming the originally un-shot parts of the pilot episode.

A lot of the feedback that we got in our studio presentations regarded what we said in the presentation, such as the way we work as a group, our plan going ahead, and our own reflection on our work, as well as direct feedback on our episode.

Both of the guests focused on the direction of performance, particularly in regard to Christian, who played Duncan. We presented to them our aforementioned thoughts about potentially recasting him due to a lack of energy, and they both said to work more on working with him and directing him to strengthen his performance. Helen particularly focused on the importance of being able to work with actors and how to direct them. I found this feedback interesting, especially their stance (that of Stayci also) to be less critical of, or less harsh to, Christian (Duncan). While I did think he felt slightly uncomfortable on set, and I genuinely did think parts of the episode in terms of performance were clunky, I didn’t automatically think to recast Duncan. I could have taken a stronger stance in earlier discussions around his performance, but I didn’t have a particularly strong opinion in either way. Consequently, it was very easy for me to agree to a recast when I may not have thought it through enough. I do find that I am susceptible to influence from those with strong opinions, and I think this may have happened in this case with the writers who had such a strong opinion against Christian/Duncan.

On the note of the writers and influence, I think it’s important we keep in mind that this is our production and we are the ones making decisions about the filming and style, regardless of what the writers want. We have followed the script (or our logistics based adaption) almost completely, and definitely to the industry expected extent.

Another dominate aspect of the feedback we received, or one that we focused on, was that regarding the “shaky cam”, or our use of the term, and the zooms we incorporated. Regarding the shaky cam, I think Helen noticed some incoherency between us saying we chose to use a shaky cam, and the fact that our footage was relatively still, in addition to the fact that we referenced The Office, which is an observational documentary, where our own Human Resources is not. I don’t think there is any issue, we are inspired by the comedy of the office but are definitely not making a mockumentary, and we can note for the future to use the term ‘handheld’ instead of ‘shaky’.

Finally, the zooms. I understood Helen’s comments to be surrounding our aims and intentions, not the actual zooms themselves. She did say they give the filming a dated look and make the episode goofy. Whether or not everyone would interpret them in this way, she was mainly making the point that we need to know why we are using them and know what effect they are having, which I believe we do. Kelly and Amber (DOP) specifically chose to use them, they had a purpose and an intended effect. Consequently, I acknowledge and appreciate this feedback but do not take it as criticism.

At the end of the day, I am proud of my group. We worked efficiently and well together, and I truly believe the episode is a testament to that. I have a lot of hope for the rest of the semester.

https://vimeo.com/232603186

The final prompt for assessment 3 reads “neither content nor form [of web series] need to be ‘corporate compliant’”, and declares this as a strongly admired web series characteristic. While I agree and believe this characteristic would be better described as the web series being able to do whatever it wants. It’s less eloquent, but the point is that I think the freedom belongs to the concept of the web series, and if particular web series chose to use industrial models or have a more commercial aesthetic, it shouldn’t be relegated to being unadventurous or unstimulating. I think a lot of web series are naturally non-corporate compliant because they are made by people outside of a corporate setting because the people within the corporate setting probably have the money and resources to create content for traditional media mediums.

I think trying to define and characterise web series is dangerous territory, as the quintessential and really only characteristic they have is they can be anything logistically possible and legal to produce. Of course, some web series are better than others, and we can analyse them to see what makes them better. It well could be that the most stimulating ones are more artisanal and low budget than commercial and fancy. I just think such a conclusion is limiting. A non-industrial product doesn’t automatically make it a good or even better than something made with industrial practices. What’s more, someone could have a totally crazy and fresh idea for a web series and have the resources to make it industrially. How many arthouse and independent films are made with traditional practices and models?

Maybe, people perceive lower budget or less corporate series ad more adventurous because they know it was made by someone “just like them”, and that is exciting and novel. Maybe we should say that artistically made productions have a batter ability to connect with people on a more personal level, and that engages them to a larger degree than an industrial series would.

In regard to our own production, I don’t think using an industrial model has undermined our possibilities. We definitely have used an industrial approach, and it has been necessary with such large groups. But this approach has ensured we have been efficient and professional. The possibilities have been incredibly open from the beginning, and it was from there that we chose our method. Furthermore, we are students working with no budget and relatively little skills. I really don’t think we are at risk of being too traditional, commercial or corporate. And once again, if we were, it wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing.

We have a finished webisode! Or at least half a webisode, but a finished half. I didn’t help out with any of the editing so had no idea what it was going to look like, but I think they (editors) did a great job. Apparently, there were some issues that stemmed from problems in filing and one of the actors looking into the camera (whether intentional or unintentional, I don’t know). They managed to cover that all up though, as I didn’t notice anything out of the ordinary. So, on Tuesday in class, we got to show the writers. Overall, they liked it. I don’t recall an overwhelming response in either direction but I didn’t expect that it would illicit any extreme reaction because it was just our first go after all.

We got some feedback from them, mostly surrounding the actors. It wasn’t all coherent, some initially said they liked the casting but then later they said that they didn’t like the actor of Duncan, who wasn’t energetic enough. Maybe they meant the actors looked right but needed more direction in the acting. We also got some more trivial (but still important) criticism like needing to change Duncan’s costume/hair. They really liked Arabella.

We mostly agreed with their feedback. I think we’re still trying to settle the dynamic within our collaboration, and determine the extent to which the writers can give feedback that we have to take on board. After all, it is our interpretation of their script. Smaller details that weren’t even mentioned in the script don’t necessarily need to be followed.

As we have the half way point presentations this Friday, we started talking about how we are going to work going ahead (a necessary step regardless of the presentation). While I was under the impression that the whole class was going to split into three groups, i.e. we would have limited choice in the matter of becoming smaller groups, apparently this wasn’t the case. The other group was determined to remain as one group, which is fair enough, but it left us with the choice of whether we wanted to split into separate groups or just smaller production teams or not at all.

Prior to this class I had apprehension about separating our group (particular in relation to merging with the other group) but thought it would be ideal to work in smaller groups to ensure everyone had an opportunity to try out different roles, and no one was left with a small or short job. In the end, I think this will not be an issue, even though we are remaining as one large group. We are going to break the pre/production and post production apart, and so there will be fewer people present during production and more tasks per person. We are going to first shoot the remainder of the pilot script which we abridged, and then move onto the second episode. After learning a lot through the shooting of the first episode, we are going to aim to make the second episode as completely polished as possible.