Tag Archives: epiphanies

Week Five: Reflection/Epiphany

I felt that this week’s exercise was a lot more organised. We have the opportunity to plan our first exercise. Not only that but because we started straight away on our 3 hour class, we got to do 2 exercises. Our first exercise was a little uninvolved given that we had a crew of 10, and there wasn’t enough for everyone to do. That is not an issue though as sometimes that’s just how it is in a real production.

Performance:

In the single take this week, the script was a very suitable to explore performance and focus on the little gestures and the actors’ interaction with space. Reflecting on our groups’ choice to have the camera transition between different framing as the actors moved from one composition to another was quite effective (as opposed to having a static frame where they move back and forth in). It was challenging to perfect with such little time, but the concept was an inventive one.

The edited scene this week was the most efficient and organised shoot I have participated in so far. Everyone assumed a role and our director (Amy) did an awesome job! I find that having a first A.D and allocating very specific roles to each team member is the key to making a film shoot run smoothly and a pleasant experience. In terms of performance, we gave our actors the liberty to interpret the role they were given, in this case the ‘robot’. The executive team did have to suggest and guide the performance in some ways such as speech tone, movement, gesture, and timing, but it was the actor’s ‘flamboyant charisma’ that brought the character to life!

Although I didn’t direct the performances for this week, it was a chance to observe and compare how others approached the task. In the exercises which I did assume the role of director, I generally focused on getting the actors on the same page as the way I planned it. Communication is a very important part of this. I would walk them through each action and even explain the motivations behind why they were doing something, this included things like looking out of a door before walking, turning around to close a door before spotting someone behind the wall, etc. A big part of my process was determining motivation and causality in the scene (which may seem a bit too literally at times) or creating or including a gesture or movement that makes sense.

To me, it was also an effective strategy to try to incorporate all the timing into the physical movements and actions and curating the sequence of events based on how they would actually proceed in reality. For example, in the shot (week 7: own scene) where my mother had to walk into frame the moment I closed the fridge, my initial instructions was to walk towards the kitchen from the center of the lounge. I predicted that this will allow some time for me to open the fridge and close it. We had to make slight adjustments but it was a much more natural way of timing and synchronizing the actors. Rather than telling them to just wait and walk in. I also believe that the natural progression of the action also make it seem more natural. They get into character before the actual shot.

This is my epiphany for this week.

Methodologies: 7

“The difference may be the difference between finding a world and creating one; the difference between using the preexisting materials of reality and organizing those materials into a totally formed vision; the difference between an effort to discover the orders independent of the watcher and to discover those orders the watcher creates by his act of seeing. Voyeurism is a characteristic visual device of the closed film, for it contains the proper mixture of freedom and compulsion: free to see something dangerous and forbidden, conscious that one wants to see and cannot look away. In closed films the audience is a victim, imposed on by the perfect coherence of the world on the screen. In open films the audience is a guest, invited into the film as an equal whose vision of reality is potentially the same as that of the director.” – Leo Braudy 1977, The World in a Frame, p.49

Another passage from Leo Braudy’s book triggered an epiphany of an idea for a scene that could potentially be my research topic:

A character (represented by appropriate camera movement) who somehow became invisible to the world around him. The scene is of him/her watching a scenario between two other characters (or maybe one). The invisible character’s reactions or gestures are not signified. The only way the audience know of its existence is to imagine. Maybe hands and body may appear in the edge of frame to indicate a person; or simply, more subtle, by head movements and sudden panning. Humanly movements but no physical presence.

A few days after this epiphany, I came across this short film The Girl Chewing Gum by John Smith who also directed Blight.

The Girl Chewing Gum, 1976

Blight, 1996

Week Four: Reflection/Epiphany

In this week’s exercise we had more time and actually got time to plan and discuss ideas before the day of the shoot. This was quite helpful. During the shoot I discovered that as a director, I was more focussed on curating and making sense of the performances and it wasn’t until production that I realised I had paid less attention to the framing captured and the sound quality than I should have. I realised I should have taken the time to check the shots and look through the camera more. Another thing I realised was that we had a lot of problems with the reflections of the crew being in the last shot. This would have been avoided if we all bobbed down below the frame.

At the end of the shoot we were told that we are doing individual edits of the scene, this was a surprise to many of us in our group, as we assumed it was going to be a group edit hence we only covered the scene to be edited in one particular way. So my biggest epiphany for this week is: no matter what, always cover each shot from alternative angles to allow options in post production.

Week Three: Reflection/Epiphany

On Friday, we didn’t have enough time to film everyone’s scene for our scene coverage exercise. We only managed to do four set ups. While enjoying the fresh approach of this new course, I feel like the lack of structure and routine within class times are preventing us from using our time efficiently for research and practical purposes.

It is now week 4 and we have not discussed the major assignments throughout the next few weeks. We need more information to begin planning whether we will choose to write an essay or research by practice.

And getting 40 minutes of practical exercise time out of a 3 hour class is not exactly efficient. Maybe we could have the 2 hour class time dedicated for reviews/lectures/theory/research tasks and the 3 hour classes mainly for practical group exercises. Or even setting group exercises outside of class times so that we actually have time to plan out something more sophisticated. I think if we just had a little more consistency and routine to the course, everyone will begin to find a good rhythm.

I mean it was very interesting and fascinating to see what we could achieve in 40 mins with 6 different scenes or shots, but we have been doing slightly different variations of the same exercise for 3 weeks now. And I feel like 5 mins each per exercise is just not enough time with the equipment or getting to know the roles properly. Those were excellent introductory exercises, but I am hoping for some more in depth explorations where we can actually investigate into the nature of the production roles and have enough opportunity to engage with them in practice as well as research, which seems to have not yet begun.

Epiphany:

The use of a black screen needs legitimate justifications. When we watch something, we tend to expect something visual to be happening every millisecond. As an audience, we are all very much conditioned by popular media to be constantly entertained, taken through an experience that we hardly do that work ourselves.

P.S. – I still do not know whether we are suppose to write 2 weekly reflections/epiphanies or 1 fortnightly one about both weeks…

Week Two: Reflection/Epiphany

Week 1

Wednesday 1: script, Tony’s office, group of 4

In the setups, we had a director, camera operator and two actors. The director decides on a camera position, gave directions to the camera operator and directed the actors. We each took turns to construct our own versions of the scene. Eventually building up a more complex coverage by combining the ideas we liked from each attempt. After trying out a few different layouts that we individually had in mind, we made our decisions based on the majority of the group.

The script provided very little context and visual details. On one hand, it allowed us to interpret the spatial dynamics of the scene freely (in fact, we all had very different ideas about the layout of the office). On the other hand, there was no real context for the characters and the scenario, no meaning or message to convey through the scene. Towards the end of the exercise, we all discussed how we should interpret the meaning behind the last few lines of the script, especially the line: “do you still want me?”

Week 2

Wednesday 2: script, girls at restaurant, group of 6

This script was more straightforward than the first one. Our individual interpretations were quite similar. That led to very swift decisions when it came to scene composition and coverage.

Friday: scenario, two strangers on train, group of 7

After having gotten scripts for the last two exercises, I was glad to be able to work on something different. Paul suggested that we each own a shot in the scene, which meant that we disregarded the consistency of actors to focus on the rotation of rolls. Although this affected the storytelling of our end product, it was a more efficient system during the exercise. Not only did we save time as we were only filming each shot once or twice, but we also saw diversity within the scene when it was put together.

Epiphany:

After working off a script for first two times, the scenario format was less restricting in comparison. There are less details such as dialogue, but it provided meaning and context to the characters and their situation. We feel more encouraged to interpret the story and really get creative with it. For instance, throwing in comical twists and create alternatives to the setting of the scene. I felt like there was more creative freedom, control and authorship in the production.

Though there is still a sense of vagueness in the script and room to play around, it tends to take away the authorship of the work, as if we are adapting someone else’s vision. Hence, not generating as much creativity. A lot of team members have to struggle to get into the picture that is painted by the script.

Week One: Reflection/Epiphany

Initially, I was quite confused and could not understand how the investigation of scene construction can be studied with a theoretical approach. But since doing the group exercises, I discovered that there is no one way of film making or constructing a scene. We were reminded of the difference between the industrial model of filmmaking and the current post industrial methodologies that allow more organic approaches to be explored. And that these organic processes may not necessarily involve scripts or script writing, one of the areas I am least familiar with.

Paul mentioned that this studio is an attempt to bring cinema theory and practice together. This is something very similar to the practice I have been trained in previously in Fine Arts. Knowing this, I am now more excited and comfortable about the course. Also the idea of doing individual research and perhaps making individual work by the end of the course seems to be an interesting approach where we can all figure out our own styles and see what we are purely capable of.

My goals:

to become technically comfortable with the variety of film making processes such as shooting with cinema camera, sound and post production
to explore and develop my own approach and methodology to film making
to apply research of existing films to my own practical experiments.