Antonionis actors – David Forgacs pt.3
Antoioni believed that the freedoms of the conventions of film making could completely alter the reception of a scene. The lighting, mise en scene and camera angle will all determine the meaning given to the lines being spoken. For this reason Antonioni would assess the space in which he is working. He would spend 30 minutes familiarising himself with it before he introduces and choreographed actors. If something felt wrong, unbalanced or out of place he would change the way it was utilised in order to give the scene new meaning. Antonioni strongly believed this is the role of the director. He believed that the role of an actor should be entirely separate and not overlap at all. The actors job is to deliver the lines and the directors job is to construct meaning in them by the use of film techniques. Maybe this is why he liked he actors to be uninformed. He wanted them to be spontaneous and natural. When an actor has too much knowledge and understanding of their surroundings, co workers and even of themselves their performance may become more staged and less naturalistic. Robert Breeson believed in similar things, he favoured using the non actor over the actor. He believed that actors often overcompensate their emotions and become un-naturalistically expressive. When the mind is alert and aware of the acting process it can hinder spontaneity. Actors can often try to ‘show’ the audience their emotions rather then just experiencing their subtleties for themselves. In real life we try to conceal our emotions. If someone asks us how we are we generally reply ‘good’ when someone asks us whats the matter we generally reply ‘nothing’, if we are really upset we generally try to mask our tears rather then parading around sobbing. We are aware of our surroundings and often feel that we should deal with our emotions ourselves rather then subjecting anyone else to them. The trained actor can often feel a need to be expressive and compelling and in this pursuit they loose authenticity.

Antonionis actors – David Forgacs pt.2
Acting for screen and acting for stage are 2 very different things. Stage acting requires large gestures and overdramatised movements in order to communicate meaning and emotion to audience members who are positioned a great distance away from the actors. There is also allot of emphasis on voice, volume and annunciation, again essential to communicate with a expansive audience. Screen acting doesn’t require this, the camera and microphones are able to zoom in on the actor and capture small movements, sounds and micro expressions. In this was screen acting is more natural because actors are not required to over exaggerate their performance in order to compensate for distance. Another major difference between the 2 types of acting is their structure. Stage actors preform their role in chronological order, they let the story line take its course and run their performance entirely through once before starting from the beginning. It is sequential and methodical and allows for a more natural progression of emotions from scene to scene. Screen actors often shoot out of chronological order due to location and equipment restrictions. They may have to play an angry seen right before a sad one and follow that with a happy one. They are required to jump from one mental state to another rather then gradually progress and evolve like the stage actor. They can also be asked to do numerous takes of the same scene which can hinder the actors spontaneity and cause performances to become tired. In this way screen acting can be seen as less naturalistic and authentic. Another thing that differs from stage to screen is films ability to frame shots and zoom into particular action. This enables them to highlight things such as a nerves finger tap which in turn gives the audience clues about the character and their emotions. Does this ability to direct the audience make film more or less authentic? It enables film makers to highlight important information but also excludes surrounding information by removing it from the frame. This means the audience are unable to view the exterior action and are therefore unaware of it. Could this be seen as less realistic as film makers are directing audiences of what to think about rather then enabling them to view the entire scene and read into it themselves? I suppose this helps strengthen the relationship between audience and subject. It helps the audience to feel involved and gives them an insight in the characters life rather then just as an onlooker or bystander. It allows the audience to focus in on small details and gives them a better understanding of the character then they would get if they were viewing the action to scale like we do in our day to day lives.

Antonionis actors – David Forgacs
Face, body, voice and movement are 3 pinnacle divisions of acting. In order to achieve a good performance actors have to bring all of these elements together seamlessly to create 1 cohesive and comprehensive character. Michelangelo Antiononi had a very specific way of dealing with his actors. He put emphasis on them as the important and focal point of the screen. He was seen as an actors director whose primary focus was on getting the most authentic performance out of his actors rather then constructing a film scene and requiring the actors to fit into it. Antonioni was a big fan of the method acting technique, requiring actors to genuinely experience the emotions of their character in order to make their performance real and believable. He withheld information from actor Massimo Girotti to keep him in a state of confusion and uncertainty. This would then subconsciously translate it to his character on screen. He slapped actress Lucia Bose to ‘undermine her natural cheerfulness and make her cry.’ Antonioni considered actors as ‘moving space’ He would often not explain his decisions to actors but expected them to obey. Selfish or self aware? Antonioni would retreat into his own little world during the production of his films maybe in order to achieve a clear mind set and remove himself from his life and other distractions or infiltrations. Antonioni liked to carefully coordinate and choreograph everything, including his actors. This method assumes that it is difficult for humans to draw the line between acting and real life. Therefore they must blur the lines and experience these emotions and events in their real life in order to portray it on screen.

Bruzzi, Stella. New Documentary, pp.1-7.
This piece is about the decoupage of documentary and what constitutes authenticity on screen. The use of the ‘family tree’, created by Bill Nichols categorises different types of documentaries. Nichols grouping of documentaries is often negative in that the modes are defined by what the documentaries do not contain rather then what audiences do see on screen. Nichols modes force documentaries to coexist as hybrids rather then fitting into specific categories. Everything overlaps and interacts. Nichols use of inverted commas around the word ‘real’ suggests that reality can never be represented. Can an on screen representation of a subject be a trustworthy account of that subject? Documentary does not have the capacity to bypass its own representation tools and establish a direct relationship with reality. Theorist Renov contends that the act of plucking reality and recontextualising it is a kind of violence that morphs the truth of reality. ‘There is nothing less inherently creative then non fiction representations both (fiction and non fiction) may create a ‘truth’ of the text.’ This means that within documentary the process of decoupage causes the film to become unfaithful to the source. Bruzzi suggests that theorist Renov is wrong to say that documentary can be as creative as fiction. Bruzzi speaks about technology advances and how that has enabled directors to create a realistic representation that deceives audiences of the truth. How will we tell the difference between imagery and reality? Do we require the mise en scene to consist of tangible items rather then virtual recreations in order to trust a documentary? All too often documentaries are considered failures because of audiences inability to accept that the representational qualities are used as tools of reproduction rather then contamination of the truth. Documentarians are expressing their point of view creatively through the lens and editing process. It is impossible to put their subjects onto screen without these processes. Films of Emile di Antonio are often categorized as ‘collage junk’ containing experimental montage sequences. When viewing documentaries people are people less likely to accept creativity of film decoupage? Do they want to see a direct portrayal of reality rather then a film makers rendition of it? Documentary film makers are unable to give truly reflexive, undistorted picture of reality. The second a piece of footage is cut and placed next to another piece of footage, that juxtaposition will create meaning. Even if the film makers sole intention of the cut is to shorted the footage from real time to a length that is viewable by audiences and will maintain their engagement. Cutting footage will loose detail, even minor changes will alter the overall meaning, The use of ellipses and montage is therefore impossible in documentaries without loosing authenticity. This severely limits documentary filmmakers ability to treat the material creatively whilst trying to adhere to its honesty. In Robert Flahertys ‘Nanook of the North’ he chose to re record an interview in the staged studio environment. This was a creative choice that enabled him to structure the interview as he wanted vocally and physically. However this caused the audience to question the authenticity of the interview. Removing the original interview and reacting it with this construction drew a boundary between the audience and their direct relationship with the subjects. Choosing to include the original interview, although more flawed footage as far as technique goes, would have enhanced the audiences empathy for their subjects. When consuming documentaries audiences are more likely to trust footage that is less polished and contains more imperfections. This makes it challenging for documentary film makers to have control or creative influence over mise en scene, decoupage, editing and montage techniques and the general aesthetic of their film without risking loosing audiences trust.

Barnard, Tim 2014, Découpage
Decoupage is a French term, which refers to coverage, the footage shot and edited and the way a sequence of clips is strung into one final piece. Editing and scene dissection. Combining segments of film and footage to create meaning. The editing process can cut, join and juxtapose images. Emission and inclusion determine decoupage. Visual clues provide a richer and more informative communication of material then written text. Decoupage can be considered a combination of elements including mise en scene, editing or montage. Montage in French means to join things together. This could include pipes, electrical wiring e.c.t. This should be done seamlessly. There should be a sense of motion and fluidity and it should not be disjointed. Many contemporary uses of montage consist of rapidly cut scenes with fast paces editing that can often be jarring and disorientating. This type of montage serves a purpose of its own but does not align with the French meaning of the word. Fast paced jarring montages require the audience to accept the fact they are watching an artfully crafted audio visual piece. It may distract from the authenticity and naturalistic progression of the narrative. Fast paced montages are high in energy and demand the audiences attention. They are bold and impactful and make a strong statement. Baz Luhrman is one director who often uses this type of montage. He has suggested that in doing this he requires audiences to be active rather then passive and therefore that are more likely to be engaged and connected with the artefact they are consuming.

Michelangelo Antonioni – Red Desert
Judging from the clip we watched in class of Antonionis film Red Desert his style of film making is very visual and aesthetic based. He seems more conscious of the space and then environment then the actors. It seems as though he composes the shot visually, allowing for the surroundings and then places the actors within that shot. There is a strong awareness of composition and balance is highly prevalent. The scene starts on a rustic still image of the white paint chipping off a concrete wall. Without altering the position of the camera, the actor then moves into frame. This sets the mood and ensures the audience is aware of the concrete, bare and rustic environment. This contributes massively to the way in which an audience reads into the scene. High importance is put on mood and emotion rather then simply the script and dialogue between the characters. The surroundings are unique and Antonioni ensures the audience is aware of this creating a stronger emotional connection between audience and film. The shots almost seem like a series of carefully composed still photographic images. When the man in standing outside he is framed by a series of provincial doors and windows that create a sense of culture and location in the scene as well as providing balance in the shot. By framing the shot to include these things at Different levels they frame the actor but also create balance by drawing the eye to different areas and levels on the screen. There are always props and substance in the scene to draw the eye in, this includes a stool, a phone, a light, a car, a newspaper and various patches of paint on the wall. Antonioni always seems to compose his shots to the surroundings form a series of lines and shapes that contribute to its symmetry and aesthetic beauty. Careful choreography has been put into place to move the camera and the actors around the space in a fluid motion that does not hinder the beauty of the shot. It is almost musical in the way that the actors and the camera glide around the room. There is a strong sense of flow and the action is not disjointed in any way. This could be due to meticulously planned and rehearsed scenes. There is almost an architectural style to his work where the corners, crevices and archways in the shot all come together to create a sense of space.

Pull Focus, (Longer – Focal Length/Wider – Aperture/Closer – Point of Focus)
To achieve a pull focus you need to create a shallow depth of field. This requires a long focal length (wide iris), allowing in allot of light into the lens. Therefore this is best achieved in darker environments. Facing away from the sun/light source will help. It is also useful to move the camera far away from the subject and zoom in to achieve the shot. To get a sharp focus on the subjects zoom right in to subject 1, focus the camera and mark the f.stop number, then zoom in on subject 2, refocus and mark the f.stop. Then you can zoom out to the frame you want and experiment with the transition and different speeds between f.stop.
(Large aperture-wide iris-shallow DOF-f/2.8) – (Small aperture-closer iris-depth DOF-f/22)

Shooting diagonally in plain square space can create more interesting visuals in the background. It gives a more enticing scene with corners and shadows in the background rather then a flat wall. It dives the essence of dimensions in a frame. If an actor is shot against a 2 dimensional image it can often flatten the shot and give it the appearance of being superimposed.
The key source of lighting, is the dominant form of lighting (not necessarily the brightest light in the shot but the one that gives the shot its atmospheric essence). E.g if a shot contains a bright desk lamp that may be a stronger and more intense light then the windows in the background but it is not the key lighting source that determines the mood or aesthetic.
Leaving a camera on the key side of the light will create a softer and more complimentary shot. Placing the camera of the fill side of the shot (with the camera facing the light source) will mean you are shooting on the shaded side. With more shadows can come harsher view, neither is correct or incorrect it depends of the desired effect of the scene.
Eastern European traditional film, long shots, premeditated camera movement and actors blocking. Less cuts. Mor realistic, less jarring, appreciate silence, simplicity, subtle moments and movements. Pre meditated but can be restrictive when it comes to editing, have to use the takes that have been filmed, cant just cut between best segments, pick and choose. Actors will have varying performances in the different scenes

Too much headroom, is a common mistake made when doing a mid shot of close up of a single character. People tend to centre the face in the middle of the screen. This would seem to be the obvious choice as the face is the focal point. This can throw off the balance of positive and negative space. Although the bottom of the frame will show the persons neck and shoulders the top of the screen will have too much headspace and ultimately distract from the focal point. When shooting one persons close up in a conversation it is important to leave negative space to one side of their head. This creates the illusion or implication of the presence of other people and will feel more natural when cutting between the other person or other people in the scene.
Does the other background action in a frame determine an audiences ability to accept when a camera has crossed the line? If there are lots of extras and lots of movement it may make it more difficult to follow the actions of the main character. If a scene is more static with less distractions and minimal actions it makes it easier for an audience to follow. Less disturbances may mean that the audience have more attention focused on the main character and don’t find crossings of the line so disorientating because they are so absorbed in the action anyway.
Simplistic scenes with minimal shots in number can require shots to be on the same side of the line. If a scene consists of only 3 shots and you cross the line it can be disjointing to audiences. It is not something that will go unnoticed.
So if a director is going to cross the line maybe they should attempt it in scenes that are simplistic in nature and mise en scene but more complex in the amount and diversity of coverage of the scene.

The wisdom of the unrehearsed scene – Riley Tom
Toms article begins by comparing the differences between a soccer and football game. He notes that football is a very strategic game, there are lots of rules and guidelines by which a player must abide. Football teams spend a large amount of time talking about tactics and game plans and pre meditating their match. Soccer on the other hand is far more fluid and unpredictable. Tom calls it a creative sport. A player has much more freedoms to move in the way they want and maneuver the ball as they feel in that moment. Tom likens this to 2 different directing styles, one style of director who is organized and plans and maps everything out in order to avoid any unforeseeable events. The other kind of director goes on gut instinct, they live and work in the moment to achieve a more naturalistic and less rehearsed result. In a soccer game the players have to be constantly on their feet and aware of their surroundings. They have to have spatial awareness and try to anticipate future moves. This is also relevant to the ‘in the moment’ actor. They have to listen to their fellow actors, work with their current and ever changing environment and attempt to predict what is coming. Tom gives the impression that football is much more of a team sport, players are required to plan things out together and work like clockwork. Soccer is much more of an individual sport, you could effectively play soccer with 2 members as long as they are skilled and competent. The ‘in the moment’ actor is also highly skilled and trained, they are a self aware individual. They are tuned into their emotions, which makes it easier for them to read and bounce off others. Should acting be a team or solo sport? Should actors be able to transition from one team to another like soccer players? Moving from set to set like chameleons due to their versatile nature. Should actors be able to slot in instantaneously with a new cast and crew because of their self awareness and understanding of their individual responsibilities or is it more important to work as a team and build a group dynamic in order to achieve natural relationships and interaction?

Continuity can often determine whether multiple cameras have been used to capture the scene. If the action matches up well you can presume that the footage is taken from a single shot with multiple cameras recording the same piece of action. The editing has been done in the editing room and this gives the scene more freedom as you can cut between the different angles at any point you like without having to worry about cutting out certain inconsistencies and ensuring that the action matches up.

Shooting from behind often gives more of POV perspective. When shooting dialogue between 2 characters it can be more intimate as you see what the character sees. It also often enables the camera to get closer over the shoulder shots with the other character dirty in the frame. This can help build and strengthen relations between the audience and characters. It can give more of an insight to characters emotions and make them appear more vulnerable and therefore endearing to audiences.

If I was compiling shots for a film I would be worried about the overall edit looking disjointed. It is important to be able to get a balance between having enough different shot sizes, angles and movement to create intrigue and give a naturalistic, or other desired effect. This needs to be done whilst maintaining continuity and consistency, you don’t want to leave an audience feeling dizzy. You don’t want to distract them from the action that is occurring by requiring them to reposition the characters and take a moment to reset their understanding of the shot composition before they tune back into the dialogue.