Week Three Reflection – https://www.mediafactory.org.au/ryan-rosenberg/2018/03/16/film-light-week-3-reflection/
Week Four Reflection – https://www.mediafactory.org.au/ryan-rosenberg/2018/03/21/film-light-week-4-reflection/
Scene Analysis – https://www.mediafactory.org.au/ryan-rosenberg/2018/03/22/film-light-analysis/
General Post – https://www.mediafactory.org.au/ryan-rosenberg/2018/03/25/film-light-general-thoughts/
During the shooting of a short film Adelle, Kerry, Max, Andrew and I worked on last Wednesday, I was reminded of a few things. Firstly, that time is money. I have been on a few different sets and it’s not until you get firsthand experience that you truly understand how crucial time management is. We allocated about 3 hours (3PM-6PM) to shoot and ended up finishing around 7PM. This wasn’t a problem as I didn’t have to be anywhere, but I thought too much time was spent getting the right ‘image’ in terms of frame, colour temperature, contrast, lens, etc. Which brings me to my second point.
Andrew and I had a chat about how becoming too knowledgable about camera’s can be a problem. Too much time is spent perfecting small elements, and less time is given truly thinking about the cinema of it all. Perhaps this is a wholly ignorant point of view, but that’s why I felt the need to write about it.
My approach to filmmaking has never come from a ‘technical’ approach, purely in terms of the camera settings. I like spontaneity, imperfection, ambition, and these things can be held back when too much time is spent obsessing over minute differences. The filmmaking process, or my own, should be spiritual, not contrived. This is not to say that the camera, or all settings should be ignored; that is not at all where I am coming from. I am merely suggesting that for me, personally, I feel I can often achieve my aesthetic without a nuanced understanding of the camera.
I think back to a short film I shot last year on a camcorder. It was located at a cemetery, there was one actor (Kerry) and I had no idea what the film was, what it would look like, etc. All this came by instinct; placing the tripod somewhere, directing Kerry to perform some kind of action, getting the camcorder out and hitting record straight away. There was one particular shot that went for about 30 seconds, and between each take (we probably did about 15) I only spent about 30 seconds thinking how I could improve the shot. It has been the most fulfilling filmmaking experience to date.
Of course this brings out other questions, such as working on a budget, or with a bigger crew. I guess what I’m trying to articulate is that I’m not interested in working in the orthodox way.
I haven’t really thought this out properly as the feelings/ideas are new but I will return when I have inevitably thought a bit more deeply about this. I should also say that I do want to understand the basic principles of camera operation. Robin, as a cinematographer, I hope you’re not cringing when you read this!
Knock Knock (2015) – Eli Roth
First, let me outline the story before I deconstruct the shot. Evan (Keanu Reeves) is unable to join his wife and two kids for a Father’s Day weekend trip as he is tied up with work. While working on a rainy night, Evan hears a series of strange noises which puts him on guard. He gets back to work but hears a knock on the door. He answers.
The first 5 seconds are brilliantly paced. The door slowly opens and bam, our two villains appear. When the camera does a reverse shot to Evan, he can’t believe his luck. So much of Roth’s work is about deception; lulling you into something that seems right, normal, too good to be true (The Hostel movies and The Green Inferno come to mind), when really, you don’t know what you’re about to get yourself into. Having two beautiful young women appear at your door, deliberately soaking wet, is the everyday fantasy of the middle-aged man. But the fantasy is our nightmare. There is no escape from our desires; we are human and act on impulse. We have no control.
It takes the girls a minute or so to trick Evan into letting them into his house. Their conversation resembles B-grade porn; Evan tells the girls “I’m sorry, but I can’t help you” with such impotence that he’s practically telling the girls to beg him for his almighty help. Roth’s self-awareness pulls this exchange off with sublime grace.
The porn continues with Roth seducing us with a shot of the women crouched down, taking their clothes off because they “wouldn’t want to mess up the house”. Evan’s crotch is deliberately left in the frame. The girls continue their play-dumb act and we buy it, because we want to buy it. We want to believe the fantasy, to play the game. One of the girls is wearing a shirt that says in capital letters ‘IT WAS ALL A DREAM’ for heavens sake.
The first clue that something wrong is about to happen begins when the camera follows Evan as he gets the two drenched girls some ‘towels’ (excuse the irony). Antonio Quercia’s cinematography in this film is incredible because it encapsulates everything Roth wants to say about his core themes, and gives the film mood. Evan walks down a narrow corridor and we see photos of his family on the wall. Any hesitation or anxiety that may be building is shut down when one of the girls says “Nice house!”, just to remind us to keep playing the game. We continue to follow before the camera stops at Evan opening the door and gathering the towels. The lighting in this moment (but also the entire film) is remarkable, almost Hitchcockian in the way it creates tension through the mere angle of the blinds. Evan collects the towels and keeps moving, and the moment he turns to walk back down the corridor, the women are no longer seen. For a split second, we become worried, before we are reassured that they are just in another room because it is “warmer”. The girls apologise for the hassle to keep nice, and Evan tells them “don’t worry about it, make yourselves at home”. And so they do.
The two aspects that bring atmosphere to the sequence are the location (family house) and the sounds of the rain. We associate our homes with safety, but Evan is anything but safe. As for the rain, it works on a number of levels. The ironic aspect (being ‘wet’ and all), its gloomy nature and the sound itself brings suspense because it doesn’t tell us how to feel like music would; it’s all up the air (literally).
In November/December of last year, I AC’d on a feature film that my friend was directing. The pick-ups day was a few weeks ago, and in the lead up to the shoot I was scheduled to AC once again, which was fine (and obviously expected), but didn’t really provide me with any excitement. About 2 days before the shoot the director told me that the boom/sound recordist had injured his shoulder and was unable to perform his duty. As he didn’t want to spend money on hiring a professional, I was offered the role despite having close to zero experience, which I accepted. I learned everything on the spot, and was surprised with how much enthusiasm I had for the role. I have been itching to do boom work again, and as Kerry/Max showed greater eagerness for directing (which is my preferred role), I jumped at the opportunity to do sound for this exercise. However, I was more preoccupied with operating the boom pole (which was broken), my observation of the lighting for this exercise was somewhat limited. So please note that I’m more reflecting on the result of the footage, rather than my thoughts on the actual shoot.
Shoot #1
We had some technical difficulties in the lead up to the blocking (sound + camera) which gave us about 10 minutes to shoot everything.
I really like the level of exposure; it enhances a defined patterned symmetry of the lines on Kerry’s shirt in the foreground and the bricks in the background. This is a ultimately shot of lines – along with the shirt and the bricks it is Kerry’s sunglasses, the tree, the pavement, the shadow on the ground, how Lydia and Andrew are standing upright. It’s really nice to look at and as an establishing shot, it succeeds its purpose of drawing you in.
I think this shot is too overexposed. Andrew’s white shirt has lost its information and it’s somewhat of a distraction. There is too much shadow on Lydia; as an exercise it’s fine but in a ‘real’ shoot, would look contrived.
Shoot #2
Kerry directed this, and before we started shooting discussed the opening establishment shot. We agreed that a POV shot out the window was most appropriate – Kerry opted for a slow pan whereas I preferred a slow zoom in (a shot that I’m practically obsessed with). We both had a go at operating the camera and trying our particular way. I struggled to manually zoom and decided to try the auto zoom. I am usually okay but on this occasion found it way too sensitive to get any consistency. The irony is that, in my opinion, a camcorder performs this function more smoothy! The first shot below is Kerry’s pan.
Slow zoom, slow pan; little differences but ultimately provides a similar atmosphere.
I think the blocking of this shot is pretty messy, and not nice to look at. I think the light that we bounced onto Lydia is subtle, but the overexposed light from the window distracts us from this.
The soft light that hits the side of Andrew’s face is at a decent level, though I think the frame is a bit too tight on him.
While we would have all obviously benefitted from serious planning of each shot, acting on instinct and without a lot of time made this a worthwhile experiment. I would have liked to have had a go at directing/camera, but understand that time constraints make this difficult.
Depth Of Field Exercise
I partnered with Kerry and we went to this empty corridor(?) outside the Building 13 theatre to do the exercise.
This was an exercise that I think I really struggled with. I find depth of field, or moreso the ingredients that make it up quite confusing. Not that it’s a lot to remember, but that it’s hard for me to translate the theory into the practice of getting a camera out and trying and execute it. My lack of camera technique/understanding was clearly exposed and it’s something I really need to work on.
I wasn’t really certain of what I shooting on the camera, and this would show in the final product. Even if it wasn’t glaringly obvious, I know that I can’t cheat my way out of these things.
Week One Reflection – https://www.mediafactory.org.au/ryan-rosenberg/2018/03/07/film-light-week-1-class-1-reflection/
Week Two Reflection – https://www.mediafactory.org.au/ryan-rosenberg/2018/03/07/film-light-week-2-class-1-reflection/
Film Scene Description – https://www.mediafactory.org.au/ryan-rosenberg/2018/03/09/film-light-scene-from-buffallo-66/
Painting Description – https://www.mediafactory.org.au/ryan-rosenberg/2018/03/09/film-light-painting-description/
What strikes me first about Rembrant’s Syndics Of The Drapers’ Guild is the blocking (is that a term used in painting?). It’s masterful and reminds me of how Rosselini used blocking in his film Blaise Pascal.
The colours, or moreso the shades that are used in the painting blend into one another until closer inspection. The light source seems to come from the window (out of frame) on the left hand side. It hits the faces in different ways, some shades are darker than others, but it is most pronounced on the end of the table cloth that sits closest to the window. Another aspect that alters the lighting on each drapers face are their hats.
The main question that I have is at what time is set? Is it morning? Is it afternoon?
Vincent Gallo’s 1998 film Buffalo ’66 is a film truly free from any ideology. It is a pure aesthetic investigation of observation, mood and atmosphere.
Each scene has its own unique characteristic that stands it apart from one another, but Gallo still manages to make the film a wholly cohesive experience. This scene is of Billy (Gallo) and Layla (Ricci) in a photobooth.
What’s first noticeable is the frame, which acts as the camera from the photobooth. Billy and Layla react to the light source that comes as the photobooth performs its task; they can be seen adjusting their eyes as each shot is taken.
Another lighting choice is how they are both lit. The key/fill contrast is more defined on Billy’s face. As Layla is sitting on his lap, her physical movement also draw additional shadows to his face. The lighting on Layla is more overexposed; it is clear that the primary key light source is directed to arrive on her face.
The orange curtains that are used as the scene’s backdrop kind of mesh in with the characters faces. The main contrasts are drawn from their hair (darker shades) and the drab colours from Billy’s jacket.
For the second time around, I was once again in my comfort zone; behind the camera. But despite this, as well as having more lighting resources at my disposal, I felt less in control than the previous exercise.
We had 4 people (including myself) in the group and our roles weren’t clearly defined. Alec kept adjusting the frame I had originally set and I didn’t really know what he was going for. Ultimately, it felt like one too many people. This is not a fault of Robin; there is only so much equipment available for hire, but I felt I would have had more of a grasp on the experiment if it was in a group of 3 – one person the subject, one the cameraperson and one the gaffer. And maybe because we had a lot of time we could have had 10 minutes each (probably more than enough) and swapped roles another two times so each member had a go at DP’ing and gaffing.
Because of the aforementioned, it’s hard for me to really comment on the lighting choices, because they weren’t really mine. The best I can do is analyse them, albeit from a more detached perspective.
As somebody who hates the aesthetic of digital colour photography, I will (almost) always prefer the black and white option (if available).
I guess what I really respond to in this shot are the multiple contrasts that exist with or against one another. The jacket and the shirt, the hair and the face, the light and the blind, the table and the wall, etc. There’s a certain form that has (unintentionally) emerged from the mere placement of the camera and subject (primarily), and to me this is what makes film, or moreso the actual practice of filmmaking so magical.
Despite my reservations above about digital colour photography, this is still a fine image. Perhaps the fill lighting on Andrew’s face is a bit strong, but it’s hardly a distraction. I think you can get away with these types of errors(?) when shooting on black and white, or maybe I’m totally wrong.
Lydia was generous enough to offer herself as the subject for the exercise. Andrew and I placed her near a window, and to be totally honest, not a lot of other thought went into the lighting.
If I had my time again, I would probably elevate the tripod, just ever so slightly. It’s situated at probably too much of a low-angle for liking. As for the way in which the shot is composed, I don’t see any issues in the context of what we were doing for the exercise. If this were a ‘proper’ documentary interview, then yes, I would probably make the background less of a distraction.
If you watch the whole of the footage, you would realise how often Lydia is moving her head from side to side. In terms of keeping a tightly composed frame, this presents itself as a concern, moreso for lighting than anything else as it eliminates the consistency of the choice.
I think the black and white shot is more sympathetic than the one with colour. I don’t know why and I’m trying to figure it out. Perhaps the contrasts are sharper? But then again, I’m not sure why that makes a subject more sympathetic. Perhaps this is something to explore further.
As for the other groups, I selected my favourite coloured image and my favourite black and white one. And I must admit, I don’t respond to them in their opposite form. The coloured image of Michael is nicely framed and key lit. The black and white image (my favourite) of Kerry is really quite spectacular. I love the different temperatures and shades, though it could perhaps be framed a bit nicer!