As I naturally overthink every filmic aspect, writing a script that “must be uninteresting” put me in a weird headspace. It was hard to truly embrace that demand; I struggle with letting my biases go and thinking with the expectation of creating something with little or no aesthetic purpose. I thought of the everyday – what is recognisable? Surroundings, questions, interactions. I reflected on my reluctance to talk to strangers, and how I could overcome that fear. From there, I found myself in an imaginary world where I asked a stranger for a cigarette, and let the brief interaction play out in my head. The words then came out on the script with ease, and it was a very honest moment. I tried (and failed) to think about how I would shoot this.

We were thrown into groups, and I was tasked with directing Zayne’s script. I felt ambivalent about shooting someone else’s material. On one hand, I wanted to experiment with my work, and on the other hand, I felt it was a good opportunity to detach myself from what I know. After getting over my ego I thought about how I would shoot the script. The content was strange, but I thought about Truffaut’s “There are no good and bad movies, only good and bad directors” quote, which I wholeheartedly agree with. In the hands of a talented director, anything can be interesting.

I gave the actors a lot of freedom, and we rehearsed how the scene would play out with me giving minor feedback on blocking and timing. I instructed Adrian (the DOP) about the two shots I wanted. The first, a slow zoom out on a tripod, the second, a handheld close-up/mid-shot. Paul didn’t want camera movement, but I felt it changed (for the better) the dynamic of the first shot. I love slow zooms (in & out), and the first shot (to me) is something I’m very happy with. Sure, we caught the boom mic in the shot, it was all very amateur, but it didn’t bother me that much; next time I’ll be sure to not make that mistake again. I was too focussed on the acting and trusted Adrian’s ability. The second shot was perfected in one take, and the cut between the two is, in my opinion, wonderful. It was a smooth shoot; everyone was focussed and it turned out very nice.

I don’t think this was the exercise; trying to make something mundane interesting – but that is how I certainly approached it.

I don’t like shooting at Uni. This is not all a criticism of the Media program, where the hell else are we going to shoot? However, the constant, almost mindless construction is beyond infuriating. So loud, so very very loud. And distracting! We lucked out on our location (the purple and the light made it more lush), but no matter where we went, we were still interrupted by the sounds of the tradesmen. Again, this is not anyone’s fault, but it is incredibly frustrating to work in that environment.

Kerry, Adrian and I were put together in a group, and after looking through the script, it was clear we all had vastly different approaches to how we would shoot the first half of the page.

I wanted to open with an establishing shot, but not a static one. My two ideas were as follows: one, the camera starts with a low angle shot of the sky and building, and tilts down to a wide shot of Lenny stumbling towards the camera. Two, a birds eye shot (from a few levels above) of Lenny turning a corner and stumbling.

We compromised on a version of my first idea. The change was that when the camera had tilted to Lenny (who we agreed would be played by Adrian), he would be walking away with his back turned, rather than towards the camera. At first I didn’t have a problem with this, my point being that I didn’t want to reveal too much information straight away. If you see someone stumbling away, their back turned on the camera, you as the audience want to find out who they are, why they are doing this, etc. It adds a level of intrigue. But on reflection we probably should have (at least) done a version of him stumbling towards the camera, just to compare the power of each image.

We did the shot twice. The second was clearly better, and is the one I have chosen to write about. The shot is okay; the problem is that the tilt is too slow. It is laborious. However, I think the shot is nicely synchronised and has a nice palette (just by chance Adrian was wearing colours that suited the landscape).

We toyed with shooting other shots. Some believe it doesn’t hurt to, but for me personally, I think it does because I find too many options to be overwhelming. To each their own though. We shot a close-up of Lenny’s feet stumbling. I’m personally against close-ups like this, and I find a lot of Uni students like to use it. Again, this is just my personal aesthetic, but I think it’s not particularly interesting, effective as a wide-shot (for stumbling), and it feels like it’s there just because it has to be, if that makes sense. In other words, we as amateur filmmakers think it’s the right thing to do, for no real reason other than we’ve seen it before.

Blow Out (1981) – dir. Brian De Palma
Watching Blow Out is watching a master performing at the peak of his powers. De Palma’s films from the early-to-mid 80’s (Dressed To Kill, Scarface, Body Double) are my favourite because I think this is when he has a true understanding of his aesthetic. The violence is thrilling but just watching each scene unfold is purely intoxicating. The filmmaking is flawless on every level.

Baby Driver (2017) – dir. Edgar Wright
I love the ambition. Wright may struggle to move an audience with his words, but his penchant for the spectacle is something to behold. Baby Driver’s action sequences are some of the most exciting moments of cinema I’ve seen for years. But besides that, there was nothing I really responded to. I found Elgort to be too smug for my liking, and Jamie Foxx literally plays Motherfucker Jones from Horrible Bosses. The script is weak, too many of the jokes fall flat, and the whole rhythmic ideas that Wright tries to impress us with come off as nothing more than a gimmick. Still an enjoyable watch.

Blaise Pascal (1972) – dir. Roberto Rossellini
Random borrow from the library, wholly worth it. Stunning. Easily some of the most incredible blocking and framing I have ever seen. The camera moves with such grace; each angle so very precise but played out with such coolness. Each sequence unfolds with some kind of ambient loop in the background that is haunting, subtle and mesmerising. And it was made for television!

Soldier (1998) – dir. Paul W.S. Anderson
Some pretty inventive camera movement, exciting moments of pure cinema, but ultimately a pretty disposable movie. There’s some interesting editing ideas but all its worst aspects are a distraction. Not as bombastic as the Resident Evil franchise, namely the 6th. Next!