Wk 10 Lectorial

In this lectorial we talked about institutions and how they implement themselves in our society. Focussing on marriage as an institution has made me question the things I’ve been told about it already. As it turns out marriage is not about love.

Recently my cousin got married, the wedding was beautiful and of course so was the bride. I watched as the crowd lined up to sign custom made wedding photobooks. Perhaps I’m rude for even wondering but why do people spend so much on their weddings days? Surely if its the “happiest day of your life” it would be just as nice going out for a cute picnic with the family and having a dressed down bbq. At least that’s what I would do. When I go to weddings I find myself secretly estimating the cost of catering and decor and wondering why? Is marriage for the couple or for the show? Either way it feels like an obligation to create highly stylised, sophisticated weddings nowadays. Modern couples higher photographers and at the wedding I went to there was a professional film made during the day and shown that very night at the reception. Couples are finding new ways to get creative to make their wedding the most aesthetically pleasing day of their lives.

Weddings have a striking influence in pop culture inspiring a countless array of rom coms. Screen Shot 2016-06-03 at 8.07.55 PM

And in all of them, getting married seems to be a women’s ultimate goal and often the 30-something-year old feels that the world has ended if the heavenly gates of marriage threaten to close on them; banishing them to singleton island.

Generally wedding flicks seem to focus on the woman but in the past that was hardly the case.

I’m sure we’d all like to see marriage as a beautiful covenant of love and romance.  Marriage ceremonies from a historical perspective show that they really had nothing to do with love, let alone equality. Marriage as an institution developed principally out of political and economic needs; the protection of assets; exchange of wealth; a geographical foothold, even!  Whether or not the two people would even get alone was totally irrelevant. Sadly, love-marriages happened to just a lucky few. 

Marriage used to be a business deal between the father of the bride and the groom. The standard father daughter walk down the aisle then the traditional placement of the daughters hand into the grooms by the father symbolises the long sexist history.

Maybe one day I can add my own flare to a wedding through the trimmings of the placemats of the reception but for now I’m hoping to live with 7 cats and own an ice cream business alone in the outback.

Sound Exercise

imgpsh_fullsize

In pairs we imagined the kinds of sounds would fill an explosive street scene like this.

Figure: screaming, grunting, scuffing metal clashes

ground: crackling of flames, screaming, running, glass shattering, bursts of flame

field: distant panicked voices, sirens, mummering, car breaks,

 

I think it is important to remember that visuals can conjure up sound just like sound can evoke memories and images. In film, when we take away sound it forces us to come up with our own mental soundtrack and that can be very powerful when it used used in film. For example in a war scene when a soldier becomes shellshocked, all we hear is ringing and we fill in our own sounds with the knowledge of what a battle field sounds like.

Wk 7 Lectorial

Exploring non-narrative has been confusing to me and I am curious to see and make film that follows this style. I still have questions about it like:

How can meaning be conveyed without story?

How do I invest myself in a film without a character, or even sequence of cause and effect?

My favourite film out of the ones we saw was Gap-toothed women (1987).  Gap-teeth have always fascinated me because they are a minor detail yet distinct feature. One of my friends had been gap toothed her whole life, then one day she just became fond of her own flaw; I think it had something to do with the “London-look ads” ahh the power of advertising! I feel a little envious and I don’t even know why.

london book

My eyes were always drawn to the gap instantly after the repetition of similar shapes. Graphic matching was particularly effective in portraying the diversity of women with a similar trait. I had a good laugh at the anecdote about the lady who left unique bite marks on all her snacks.

 

Screen Shot 2016-04-18 at 10.43.51 PM Screen Shot 2016-04-18 at 10.43.29 PM Screen Shot 2016-04-18 at 10.43.38 PM

 

Frederick Wiseman’s “fly on the wall” approach to capturing human conflict was quite disturbing to me. The lack of cut aways and hand-held following of the camera made me feel like I was trapped in the scene of a woman being choked and all I could do was watch. In comparison to newer hollywood cinema with sharp editing, the lack of interruptions seemed odd and forced me to think about what was happening, rather than relying on direction from structure.

I was interested in his “stick it to the man” attitude to institutions so I went off and watched the clip from Highschool (1968).

Screen Shot 2016-04-18 at 11.04.20 PM Screen Shot 2016-04-18 at 11.11.57 PM

“Hey, you listen, you better come in a gym outfit”

I could feel the tenseness in the room with this scene which felt more like a police interrogation rather than a teacher nagging a kid for the right uniform. I’m glad I didn’t go to school in the 60’s. Wiseman’s erratic use of zooms emphasised the teacher’s growing anger and framed him as the unreasonable one. It’s interesting how he manages to stay in the background while getting into the action, but of course the subjects are aware of the presence of the camera.

Screen Shot 2016-04-18 at 11.09.39 PM

In a more modern context this approach reminds me of trashy reality shows like 16 and Pregnant, Keeping up with the Kardishians and Here come the Habibs. The camera follows in the background as the contestants argue and entertain us and we all seem to forget that they know we are watching.

WK 6 Lectorial and a bit about my philsophy

The impulse to make narrative sense of our lives has always been at the back of my mind and after openly discussing it at the lectorial I’ve been silently debating its usefulness.

If I had to place a genre on my life it would be a comedy tragedy with hints of melodrama.

The problem with applying my life to the magical art of story telling is that I don’t know what my driver is. What is my motivation? Where is the beginning middle and end?

After some research I’ve found there are 7 archetype stories.

 

  • Overcoming the Monster
  • Rags to Riches
  • The Quest
  • Voyage and Return
  • Comedy
  • Tragedy
  • Rebirth

“Overcoming a monster” might be the most accurate if the monster is procrastination.

I’m not sure; as an optimistic existentialist the idea of clinging on to hope (like the protagonist of an action film) for the very sake of it sounds like a good idea to keep me occupied.

In the lectorial we also discussed cultural features of narrative. The first that comes to mind is: in asian film why does someone always die from a disease/ car crash? I grew up watching that stuff which may have added to my general gloominess. A stereotypical chinese film generally shuts down the idea of cause and effect we so often see in hollywood cinema because the love interest dies before the protagonist can do anything about it.

If I could choose a genre for my life it would be bollywood; where nothing can’t be fixed without a vibrant dance and electrifying chorus.

 

The Art of Interview- wk 5 Lectorial

Louise Turley’s presentation got me thinking about a range of different interview styles after seeing her some of her work. Turley’s said that she stuck with interview’s because she loves capturing real stories about real people. I think now I should focus on establishing an interesting and professional relationship with my interviewee then deciding how to shoot and portray them. Too often I get caught up about thing like what questions I should ask and where I should film when really these decisions should come after I know what the person’s message is.

In Turley’s first TV show about Patrick White. Using 2 different styles informal and formal interviewing she quickly establishes the main point of whether or not people will “read [him] when [he’s] dead” The public perspective is relatable and humorous filming the subjects with a hand held camera in the daily environments  eg butcher/ cafe

Cutaways of people guessing his occupation emphasises the lack of knowledge in regards to White which builds to the professional opinion of him when the tone moves to a more professional from experts. The set up of the interviewees indicates the we are receiving an expert opinion with conventions like bookshelves, key lighting placing the subjects under a subtle spotlight which add credibility and a serious tone. This contrasts the the conversational style and background noise when filming in the general public. I’d like the play with the idea of using multiple styles in one film.

Circus Oz had an energetic inclusive feel to it- like a circus. This was created with rapid zooms and upbeat quirky music. The interview felt like a welcoming peak into the behind the scenes of the circus as we followed the guide through the building. There were no questions being asked or conversation which contributed to the fast paced snapshot of circus life.