1. In what ways do you hope your practical work engages its audience and communicates a key concern of this studio? 

Perhaps not my favourite exhibition, my production of exercise Six did in fact exhibit a nice sense of continuity across the multiple shots captured over three separate locations. This was achieved by virtue of our group’s performative tone and ability to implement a conventional usage of eye-line matching to convey a connectedness between our locations. Not only was this achieved solely by our use of these methods, a level of this was executed in the post production stage where I provided my edit with a basic colour grading attempt. Using Irene’s footage as a reference point, I matched the overall look and feel of my provided footage with her’s. Beginning the process by altering the white tone of my footage until there was a similarity with that of Irene’s, then slight adjustments to the temperature, curves and tints, followed by the addition of an adjustment layer which saw all footage have an equivalent overall tone. 

As mentioned in my more in depth reflection of this piece, I think minor edits to the assembly and edit itself would see a slightly more refined film. However, I am largely happy with the aesthetic provided by the use of colour alteration and thought the final look and feel of the piece was clean and consistent. As stated in previous responses to this piece, there is very little question of whether or not the two characters are in the same location. I hope the seamless nature of this piece is also realised by future audiences, as that is something I desired to achieve before the commencement of production.  

1. Imagine you are going to keep working on that media piece (e.g. to screen it somewhere else like a festival, or develop it into a different kind of work) – what core things would you want to change, improve and/or extend, and why? 

If I were to further refine this work, I would definitely have the main interaction play out in the one location. While the way in which this work was originally filmed was due to circumstances beyond our control, the piece definitely lacked a degree of spatial communication. As a result of trying to mask parts of our respective locations for easier consolidation of shots, much of what we filmed was quite tight. Instead, if shot with both actors on site, I would opt for the addition of some much wider shots to establish the mood and environment.

In my current version I began with an establishing shot of the exterior of Esme and Irma’s house. This was used to justify that both characters were in the same space. However a shot of this nature would not be necessary if redone with all cast on location. In a redo, I’d like the scene begin with a mid-shot on Esme as she recites the first few lines of what she is reading, then a shot of the laptop to reveal who she is interacting with, followed by a wider shot to also reveal Irma and the rest of the space. 

As the script (and maybe more so my original interpretation of the text) alludes to Irma’s disinterest and almost opposition toward what Esme is saying and doing, the use of wider shots throughout the interaction may highlight the awkwardness of the scene by showing a possible emptiness of the space. Instead of cutting back and forth between tighter shots of Irma and Esme, a wider shot will capture both in frame at once. This will allow the audience to see the slight hostility or rudeness of Irma’s body language as Esme is speaking, while also adding more diversity in coverage and showing us more of the environment the two are in. A wider shot would also be beneficial at the end of the scene when Irma exits the space, leaving Esme by herself. This would amplify the sense of Esme’s loneliness or mellowness. Once established for a moment, I’d move to a medium close up to capture the subtleties in Esme’s performance.

Though an adequately covered peice overall, this was perhaps the hardest exercise to edit. While not entirely sure why I found this particularly hard to assemble, I did note some of my thoughts about our process and the noticeable difficulties I encountered while editing. I feel that this exercise lacked proper group consultation prior to the commencement of production. With the absence of adequate preparation, and the presence of some odd editing choices made by myself, particular moments in the piece lacked proper conviction. However, considering the circumstances, the quality of work wasn’t inhibited as much as I would have thought.

The first of my noticeable difficulties saw me struggle to understand the on screen movement of Esme within her location. For example, slightly jarring entrances and exits were made noticeable due to the direction in which they occurred. This was due to the decision of performance and camera set-ups being influenced by the layout of the space, rather than accommodating for on screen translation. This was most prominent in Esme’s navigation from the dining room, through to the kitchen, then to the hallway.

My initial inclination towards the edit saw me apply a horizontal flip to some of the footage. However this was not a viable solution, as it would have required me to flip a majority of the remaining footage to maintain continuity. The decision to leave footage of the opening sequence as it was intended, was a much more suitable option for the piece. Understanding that this footage may or may not have been captured with conventional methods in mind, it was neither captured correctly or incorrectly, but its readability determined by audience interpretation.

Upon reflecting on my group’s display, I have noticed some quite distinct editing choices across all individual edits. Much of the difficulty I encountered was due to the relationship between Esme and Irma’s footage. If viewed logically, together, both lots of footage lacked a proper depiction of the location. However, initial viewing of my edited work may not have made these deficiencies as clear. To convey the best analysis of my edit, a comparison of Irene’s edit with mine is necessary to highlight facets of my work that I think would have benefited if particular choices were made. 

Throughout the majority of Esme and Irma’s bedroom conversation, Irene’s edit displayed a much truer sense of space, using a wider shot that displayed Irma looking further towards the right of frame. Compared to my edit which had a mid shot of Irma’s gaze more towards the center of the frame. My logical analysis would have both edits translate a different positioning of the door in the room. There was a definite disparity between my chosen shots which resulted in a slightly “off feel” of the moment, which has left me unsure of whether the eye-lines of both characters technically meet. In comparison, Irene’s edit is a much more comfortable and less distracting edit to watch. A combination of my own editing choices and a definite irregularities across multiple shots made consolidation of both filmed locations difficult. Whether due to my own skewed interpretation of the footage or the errors made in the presentation of conventional methods, I found myself very disoriented throughout the editing process. With better preparation I feel much of this could have been avoided. 

Exercise 6

This exercise was particularly difficult, as it was the first time our group attempted to produce work from a text that presented more than One character in a given location at the same time. Requiring substantial planning beforehand, my team and I were able to translate the geography of our respective spaces through a group discussion, where we were able to understand where particular camera set-ups, shots and actor positioning would best suit the scene and provide the desired illusion of two characters present in the same space. We came to the decision that the best way to translate the locality of both characters was to utilise clean space and white walls. By having Esme and Irma’s respective shots filmed against a majority white backdrop, and with slight colour grading we were able to provide a sense that both performances were happening only meters apart.

I approached the edit with the intention of best communicating a well established rhythm of the character’s interaction. For the most part the piece had a good flow, especially with the presence of Irma’s non-verbal performance, which added some visual diversity throughout Esme’s longer bits of dialogue. While largely happy with the edit, a few minor tweaks would have made it an even better display. Following the outside establishing shot, I decided to present the majority of the Zoom call reading by using the slightly low angled MCU shot of Esme. However, once Irma was introduced into the scene, that same MCU of Esme wasn’t as much of a suitable choice. Reflecting on this, I noticed the angle of Esme’s MCU during her interaction with Irma was a little bit too low and could have benefited from a slight adjustment.

As the zoom call reading had a more intimate feel, the choice of using a lower angle MCU was suitable. Though this wasn’t the case for when Irma was introduced into the scene. A change of mood, required the scene to visually open up. Looking back on this, I feel the use of slightly wider shots of Irma and Esme would have been more suitable for this sort of interaction. This would allow for the closing CU of Esme to once again signify a change of mood and pace, as we direct attention towards Esme’s visible mellowness.

Exercise 7

Being some of my group’s best work to date, the success of this exhibition was largely due to our strong collaborative process which I mentioned earlier. Due to the nature of the provided text, we felt compelled to approach our shot construction and editing in a more creative way. The text’s opening dream sequence allowed us to provide an unconventional display, which saw us make use of dutch tilts and editing choices that presented the audience with imagery that gave off a subtle uneasiness. Our desire to create an odd display of this sequence was driven by the need to differentiate Esme’s dream-world with her ordinary world. Each group member approached this a little differently. Though working with the same collection of footage, each member of the group produced slightly different interpretations. In comparison to other edits made by fellow members, my edit took a less measured approach which quite quickly implied that what was being shown was in fact a dream. With the use of a strong colour grade, a treatment of the audio track, which contained additional reverb and a deep droning sound effect, it was clear that this was In fact a dream. Other interpretations of this sequence had a more simple display, which left room for the audience to wonder what was going on for a little longer; and question whether or not this was a “real” occurrence or Esme’s mental recollection of past experiences. 

This exercise once again showed a great attempt of editing different locations together and making them look as if they were the same location housing the one interaction. However, difficulties executing moments in the script saw some performative errors that had to be resolved through editing techniques and decisions. A moment in the script required Esme to exit out the same doorway Irma was standing in, followed by Irma’s glance at the laptop. This was not physically possible for obvious reasons. Nevertheless, it was possible to achieve this through editing and performance. Though, an oversight in our plan saw minimal consideration for this moment, which ultimately meant we did not meet the performative requirements to make this an easy editing fix. 

The absence of a clear relationship between Esme and Irma’s footage in the final moments, meant it was hard to edit together Irma in the doorway and Esme’s exit. This was due to the absence of a shot capturing the moment Irma makes way for Esme to exit through the same doorway. Luckily there was footage that showed Esme leaving her chair and walking out of frame, which allowed me to hold the same shot for a little longer. By laying footsteps, shuffling sounds and Esme’s V/O dialogue underneath this footage, I was able to provide the illusion that the exit occurred. Then by ending the sequence with Irma momentarily stationed in the doorway, visibly affected by the interaction, followed by her own exit, I was able to complete the moment.

Collaboration

Since exercise 4 my production group and I have been fortunate enough to have been able to develop strong creative consistency. A solid working style has had all our work driven by the even distribution of roles and dedication to the creative process. This great working relationship has seen much of our work produced at a standard which we have all been very proud of. Over the weeks, we have acquired a great team rhythm and have built a noticeable performative chemistry that can be seen in much of our work. This is something that I am particularly proud of, considering the nature of our working constraints. Much of this chemistry has been built by our attention given to the process of preparation prior to the technical execution of filming and performance.

Though much of our work this semester has been driven by this fluid team dynamic, a proper realisation of this only came following the completion of exercise 7. The reshuffling of groups had an extra member placed into our team. Luckily enough the integration of a 4th member was seamless as we had an already strong way of working together. The addition to our team not only strengthened our work, it prompted a realisation of the importance of building a group dynamic guided by a focus on communicative strengths. 

Exercise 8 proved to be our most difficult script to work with, however we were able to work through the challenges and create edits which translated the text well. As a team we deconstructed the text in relation to our planned shots to assist us in understanding the narrative in a visual sense. Once again this was a successful process, largely due to the level of communication carried out between us.

Work of others

As a result of the semester’s reshuffle, weekly exercises were no longer carried out sequentially by every group, seeing the completion of particular exercises shown in different weeks. This has allowed for groups to view the work of others, before beginning their own production of corresponding texts. This allowed teams to have a preview of how particular texts look visually, which can possibly assist in the formation of ideas for when they produce work out of the same text. In addition to this, groups are able to find out potential challenges they may come across, thus allowing them to formulate solutions for those very hurdles.

My group was the first to produce work out of the ‘Esme & The Woman’ script. Though a great adaptation, we did encounter some difficulties. These difficulties were further discussed in the following group discussion, where we highlighted particular challenges that we found hard to navigate within the text.

We were very pleased to see resolutions to some of these challenges displayed in the following week, with Izzy, Elli, Ahrin and Maya producing their interpretation of the same script. Very Impressed by the evident consideration for shot construction and diversity, I believe this was the benchmark for creative visual display shown so far in this studio. Izzy’s depiction of the dream sequence was beautifully done with jump cuts displaying Esme’s bizarre dream. My only critique of the sequence was that it could have gone on for a few moments longer. Though very familiar with performative depictions of Zoom interactions, I feel that I’m yet to really take advantage of the many ways in which a display of a zoom conversation can be shown. Elli and Ahrin’s Zoom segment was very inspiring, as Elli’s creative decision making had an unconventional yet very believable method of positioning reshape how the zoom call can be displayed. Beginning with a shot of Esme sitting on the end of a bed while folding clothes and in conversation with Eduardo, who can be heard from off screen, breaks the conventional idea of how such interaction has been seen in most works completed in this studio. Then by revealing the laptop in the foreground, with Eduardo on screen and with Esme out of focus making their way towards the screen, allows us to establish what medium Eduardo and Esme’s interaction is taking place. The following shots further establish the interaction by interchanging between the image of the laptop on Esme’s Lap and Eduardo on screen, as we remain in the perspective of Esme’s environment. 

Amongst other well executed shots, another element which stood out to me was Maya’s performance of Irma, which was not only entertaining but also proved to be an important part of conveying elements of the text, which my group found difficult to show in our version. As this script specifies, Esme is to exit out of a doorway which Irma stands in. Obviously more difficult to show when two performers are in different locations. In Maya’s performance of Irma, a gesture to Esme is a perfect aid to Esme’s exit. Accompanied with the perfect camera angle, Maya performs a light side step, then a cut to Esme walking around a corner provides us with the illusion that the very same doorway was used in their exit. 

My admiration for my own team’s chemistry also extends to this team as well. It is clear that the success of this piece was very much due to a solid foundation of preparation and great communication, which saw this team operate like a well oiled machine that produced such brilliant work.

1. Non-Verbal performance and Decoupage
2. Collaboration and Work of Others 
3. Reflection on Exercise 6 and Exercise 7
4. Reflection on Exercise 8, Exercise 9 and beyond
5. Presentation Reflection
6. 5.1 Reflection