Post 1 

Post 2 

Post 3

By working in a group, I have not only benefited from creative collaboration, I have also gained a lot from seeing how my fellow group members edit together the same bits of footage I have. Not only is it interesting to see an individual’s thought process and how it may or may not differ from mine, it is also insightful to see what ideas and decisions from others benefitted particular elements of their work. Often after watching edits by other individuals in my group, I have many realisations about how I could have possibly navigated my own edit.

Upon watching all edits of exercise 5 made by my group, I was able to see clear differences and similarities. Both myself and Irene’s edit began with a shot of the road, with the voice of Steve appearing before we see him. Both our J-cut attempts would have benefited from the use of audio editing to establish perspective. Our introduction of Steve’s dialogue was presented as if we were already in the car. However, if we presented the audio as if perspective had us outside of the car listening in, we would have displayed more nuance in our editing. This was a note given by Robin, which I will definitely implement next time, as this is a mistake I often make and something I don’t normally consider.

 Throughout its entirety, I opted to present the whole phone sequence as a mid shot, instead of starting wide, then cutting in like Bronte’s edit, which began on a wide, a move to a mid, followed by Steve’s glance out the window, before cutting back to the same set up as the opening shot of Steve. My Intention in this sequence was to be simplistic in my approach, as I feel jumping around with shots was unnecessary. Of course this is a subjective decision that is open for interpretation. 

Following Steve’s look out the window and the perspective shot, I cut straight to an interior shot of Steve entering the apartment. I noticed in this part of the piece, Bronte, Irene and myself all made different decisions. Bronte’s decision saw her cut back to Steve after the window perspective shot, then a fade transition into the interior view of Steve’s entrance. I saw this as a decision to possibly display passing of time. Irene’s display of this, had the window view of Serge cut straight to him inside the kitchen, as we hear Steve enter before appearing. For me, this decision did not allow for a sense of time to pass, as I interpreted the interior shot of Serge to be within the same moment as the shot of him from Steve’s outside-in perspective. I feel Steve’s entrance erases a sense of passing time. However, understanding that film doesn’t always need to explain, this decision may have been fine. This is something that I’d like to further discuss, to get other opinions. In my version, I thought it would be wise to cut straight from the window scene, as it shows Steve’s desired destination, then to the interior shot of Steve’s entrance. These choices were made in an attempt to allow for a less jarring introduction of Steve. At the end of the day our decisions were neither right or wrong, but merely interpretations that tell the same story. 

The process of on-going making has allowed for creative momentum. Learning a craft such as filmmaking is an ongoing process of discoveries and realisations. I’ve found over the numerous weeks creating different work, I come across new challenges and have new revelations all the time during the process. Ongoing creation has not only meant that new discoveries are made by developing the work alone, it has also meant that in-class discussions are forever diverse. Each week, having something different to present, has allowed for me to gather further insight into the outcomes of my creative decisions. I have found a great appreciation for presenting my work and allowing for critique and constructive feedback. Following each presentation of work, I consider all given feedback and find ways to implement them into my next piece. The regularity of weekly exercises has allowed me to quickly implement new ideas and learnt techniques and really benefit from quick turnovers. I feel as if the forever process of making has allowed me to keep the finger on the pulse, especially throughout lockdowns. During a time where it isn’t always easy to find motivation, the need for regular creation has kept me busy. Though of course, I would much prefer to work with larger teams in person and have the luxury of using diverse space and personnel, the texts that have been provided have been exciting enough to be able to produce enjoyable works.

As some of our works are created solo, or if done in a group, our given roles see us work in our respective spaces by ourselves; it is almost impossible not to have some sort of directorial input in the decision making of a performative or technical display. The role of the director is very much about interpreting a body of text and finding ways to bring to life what is written. As we are given texts and sent away to interpret them and provide a visual representation, we are always making directorial decisions which are evident in the pieces. A good example of my own directorial decision was in the Carol and Jim script, which had Carol on the phone speaking to Jim. Instead of having Carol on a mobile phone, I decided to have them converse by wireless AirPods. This decision was made because I felt it would aid in smoother transitions and physical navigation of the space. I also made this decision based on the performative freedom it would give myself, while playing the role of carol. By freeing up my hands and not relying on an object to lead the story, I removed a potentially distracting element. This allowed for the full effect of facial expression to be the main focus in the shot. This decision also made it a little easier to capture the shots. With a more central focus on Carol, compared to if had them on a phone. By having a phone, I’d’ve needed to consider working the camera around an arm or hand covering the face. Without having to do this, I was able to make a much more fluid edit.

Since the beginning of week 4, more stringent collaborative exercises have seen more technically complex work and of course, more focus placed on collaboration. Having been grouped up with fellow class members, distribution of roles has allowed for more creative freedom. Being able to work with other people has meant further ideas and suggestions are seen in completed works. Allowing for more diverse and interesting pieces. It has been very enjoyable to work with a team on longer bits of text, compared to the much shorter scripts from earlier on in the semester. Longer bits of text and more constraints has meant much more planning is needed to figure out execution of the exercises. As someone who enjoys working in groups, I’ve really enjoyed constructing pieces of work with other people.

Exercise 4 saw my fellow group members and I construct an interpretation of the Esme and Eduardo Zoom call script. When given this text, we went through numerous rehearsals to figure out the best casting for the piece, then guided our focus towards designing a camera set-ups and shot list. As part of our execution we decided that all members will take turns recording the zoom call, have over the shoulder shots of both characters in their respective spaces and stand alone shots for Esme’s bathroom scene. This preparation time proved to be very valuable at the conclusion of shooting. When it came to editing the piece we had many shots, with different and angles, which covered the entire zoom call scene. By having zoom recordings and a camera set up in our locations, we were essentially working with a multi-camera set up. This made for a much easier editing process. Once all the footage from the zoom call scene was in the editing suite, I found each shot and lined them up with their respective takes. This allowed me to make numerous versions, with the different takes. Once this was complete, the only thing I needed to do was select which shots I wanted to use and cut between. A lot of emphasis was put on the technicality of coverage, we unfortunately missed out on the entire scene of Eduardo looking at the library books online, following the end of the call. This mistake was made because too much focus was put on how we were going to capture the call. I definitely learnt my lesson. Always read the script properly! 

One of my favourite parts of this studio is watching each other’s work and the discussions that follow. This is a very informative part of each class, as it helps view my work from a different lens. After each discussion, I am usually left with different suggestions that I can think about and consider implementing in my future work. Not only do I gain insight from analysis of my work, I learn just as much from hearing the thoughts of other students on other work.

In exercise three, I gave my interpretation of the Carol and Jim script. It was interesting to see the feedback given on my performance, especially on the subtleties in my performance of Carol reading. It was interesting to find that interpretations of this saw that Carol was moved In some way by what they were reading, however it wasn’t clear exactly how this affected her. Whether this was a weakness in the piece or not, reflecting on this I can see how there was something missing in the nuance of my display. This highlighted that subtleties of performance are not always explicit enough to provide much needed information. It also made me wonder how this could have impacted a story which was more reliant on the performance of this part.