Our second activity in Deliberate Film involved shooting scripts which were provided to us. Pre-production and production were completed in class, with post-production subsequently done from home.
The first step (aside from forming groups) was to read the scripts and decide on shot coverage. We did this as a group, deciding on exactly what coverage we needed for each section of the script. We then set this down on the page, also allowing for some overlaps between the shots so we wouldn’t then be restricted in the edit.
We also created a list of potential props we needed – which included fake blood and a box. Ultimately, we could source neither. So, the blood was substituted with a jacket held over the wound, and the box with a backpack.
We then created our story board, deciding on which order to shoot to minimise camera movement. This order then allowed us to assign roles. As the aim was to allow each person to rotate through each role, we had to be strategic. We knew that we had to change out the actors, but wanted some consistency so the actor would not change between shots in the edit – meaning, if we had a two-shot, then we were to cut to a close up, that the actor in the close up would remain the same. The other actor could then be different in the next shot (so we could explore the effect of eye line) but it wouldn’t be as confusing.
The only way to do this was to have one of the actors being consistent between the two-shot and their close up. In the order we were shooting, this became the character of Sharon. As she was consistently in three shots in a row – two, three and four on the story board – I had to remain in her role (she was then changed for the final shot).
But having Sharon the same for three shots then meant that we had to change out the character of Lenny. The issue we found there was that Lenny was consistently in three shots – and would be during the edit. The remedy to this was have him lean back at the end of shot two, so he’s out of shot for a brief second before cutting to the two-shot. This worked well, and allowed us to change the actor.
After choosing the actors, it was easy to assign directors to their shot (top/underlined name is director, below is cast).
Hunting for a location was then our next step, and we found a nice one up near the SYN studio. There were no seats, but after a brief search we were able to find two as well as a small table. We popped these in, and then took photos to confirm that we were happy with our coverage.
All this said and done, we were ready to film.
During filming, the only real issue we found was the lack of lighting. The light in the hallway is both low and patchy, but we were able to get some improvement by moving the actors backwards/forwards so they were in the stronger light. We then had to turn the gain all the way up, though this then introduced a significant amount of noise.
We also found ourselves having to shift chairs between takes to find light.
We took every shot more than once, each time the director of that shot deciding on at least one thing to change. Some of the direction was technical – such as ensuring the actor didn’t move out of the bright light – and some was performance-related. There was a definite difference between giving technical direction and performance-related direction. Technical direction was probably easier to give, because you don’t feel as though you’re criticizing the actor. You still have to be clear and concise – explaining why the actor can’t move as far as they did, how far they can move – but there’s no concern of offending them. Giving performance-related direction, while not too difficult, had to be given in a way that encourages the creativity of the actor. No matter how understanding the group is, it doesn’t take much to destroy that. We all found ourselves starting off with, ‘that was really great, but can we try…’.
It’s then really important to be clear with the instructions – and this was the most valuable lesson. If you aren’t clear enough, you just waste a take, and it’s demoralizing to everyone else on the set. And as much as that’s a lesson for the director, it’s also for the actor or anyone else who has a role in the take – if they don’t understand, they need to question it. As much as it’s a non-issue on our university set, if it was on a professional set, it costs time and money.
After that, we downloaded all the footage from the camera and uploaded it to Google Drive. Then, it was put into Premiere Pro for editing.
Much like the previous exercise, I had decided to try editing three ways. The first was meant to be basic, patching it together in the order we shot. For the most part, I was cutting at the beginning/ending of lines, simply wanting to explore how changing the actor affected the scene. I think that I was skeptical when Paul had said that as long as the eye line is consistent, you won’t notice who is acting… but he was totally right. Lenny changing appearance wasn’t as jarring as I thought it would be. Yes, you notice that the actor is different… but I don’t think it occurred to me that the character was different. I’d also used the motion of Sharon crossing the camera to make a cut, and really liked how natural it seemed.
I did also notice a minor inconsistency between the second shot and the third – being that my hair was initially in front of my shoulder, and in the next it was behind. This would need to be watched during production – whether by me or someone assigned to continuity.
In the second sequence, I wanted to increase the number of times that Lenny changed. To do this, I just cut to the mid shot of Sharon more frequently – and sure enough, it still worked. The actor changed, but the character didn’t. I also tried to cut midway through the lines to see how well it worked, and I was not disappointed. It actually felt more natural – had more flow, and that just made the scene feel better. And that included when the voice changed at 1:19… you almost can’t notice it.
In the third sequence, I wanted to test if you could get away with the actor changing from one shot to the next… the answer is; yes (about 2:11). Admittedly, you had seen Ayu as Lenny before, but it definitely didn’t feel as though we were cutting to a third spectator. I’d also tried to cut even more in this scene, and though Lenny still seemed to be the same person – it also felt like too much. It was too jarring, but for the sake of the exercise, defiantly seemed to demonstrate the importance of eye line.
Aside from all that, though, I still felt like there was something wrong in the beginning of all of the sequences. I initially thought that it was because the first shot was too long – because it is quite long – but then Paul explained what the real issue was – and I can’t believe that I hadn’t noticed.
When Rory is walking down the hall, he sits camera left. Then, when we cut to the next shot, he is sitting camera right. It’s enough that it’s disorientating – and when you flip it, it makes all the difference.
He also pointed out that it looks better if Rory has stopped moving before I cut to the mid… I had intentionally gone the other way – trying to cut with movement – but in this case it looked better as Rory was completely still in the second shot.
Finally, I did a little colour grading so it wasn’t as dark, and edited all the scenes… this was the final product.
