Focal length can result in distorts on a subjects face, for a full-frame camera, 50mm is the focal length that is most similar to the human field of view.  Another characteristic of a different focal length is the compression of space that occurs.

As the focal length becomes longer, the subject appears to be closer to the background and our field of view is narrower. Apart from the characteristics that different focal length creates (such as depth of field), a longer focal length allows filmmakers to save money. With a smaller field of view, there is less area in the shot to treat and the shallower depth of field means that the background can be less detailed.

This week’s discussion on focal lengths also brought me to investigate different lens characteristics. The example here compares Arri Ultra Prime, Cooke S4I and Zeiss CP lens. The most prominent difference can be seen in the lens flare generated.

Both Arri and Cooke lenses create lens flare in the image, Cooke S4 is more visible. The Zeiss CP lens, however, does not have lens flare at all.

These characteristics allow filmmakers to achieve a different feel. Cooke lens with its warmer and lens flare gives off a unique cinematic style that can give a more natural feel to the scene especially outdoors.

The Zeiss CP lens does not result in lens flare and its cooler temperature may be more suitable for filming harsh, geometric objects like architecture. Doing further research, I learned that Zeiss have a specific line of lens called Radiance that can create lens flare.

Chromatic Aberration is the failure of a lens to focus all colours to the same point. This can be seen in the edges of the bokeh of Zeiss Supreme lens, whilst ARRI signature lens’s lack of chromatic aberration is a selling point for them

There is a green edge around soft highlights, therefore it does not blend smoothly into the background.

In summary, different manufacturers make lenses with different characteristics. These differences will ultimately result in a slightly altered image in the form of lens flare, bokeh, chromatic aberration and more. To take these factors into account requires a deep understanding of the kind of scene you want to create and what lens is most suitable for it.

We started off this week’s discussion with eyelines, particularly in a shot-reverse-shot situation where the actors do not occupy the screen at the same time. If eyelines is incorrect, the suspension of disbelief is broken. The need for matching eyelines is for the audience to perceive that the characters are looking at each other. To match eyelines I can follow the 180-degree rule, but this assumes that both actors are in the same physical space to each other. If, for example, only one of the actors is on set in a dialogue scene, how do we maintain eye lines? If it is known where the other actor’s eye would be, I could place a marker in that area with tape and instruct the actor to look there when talking. If it is not known (if this was the shot-reverse-shot with the first actor), I would note down the camera position in relation to the line and the angle at which it is placed. With the reference of the previous shot, I can deduct the angle needed for the reverse shot for matching eyelines.

When viewing films this week, I was looking for instances of eyeline mismatches and was unable to find any. For me, as soon as the scene demonstrated the spatial positioning of the characters and that they are speaking, I would not notice any eyeline mismatch.

From the notes this week, a clip from My Sex Life, or How I got into an argument piqued my interest. It was a scene where characters move inside an apartment in one take. The lighting setup for this shot was intriguing. Previously, I have experiences in lighting for a single position, actors could move around in a zone where the lighting works best. For this scene, as well as the scene in Carlos, was what Robin described as a modern style of lighting. Meaning that the exposure priority as not always on the face of the person talking. Indeed, there were moments of talking where the actors would be shrouded in darkness before they reach a predetermined lighting setup and a dialogue exchange would talk place. It depends on the purpose that the shot was attempting to achieve. I believe the shot from My Sex Life, or How I got into an argument amongst other things, sought to establish the location and the atmosphere that these characters are at. Therefore, it can use moodier, low-key lighting to emphasise that. In the future, I will consider the purpose of the scene in the context of the film to determine what sort of lighting is appropriate.

In this week of classes, I was unable to complete the exercise to shoot a scene, instead, I did a storyboard, shot list and floor plan of the scene. The process of turning the script into something visual made me realise the number of choices that must be made prior to covering the scene. I chose the cafe scene with Rachel and Barney. With the restriction of using only 4 setups, I had to discard giving every notable line in the script its own shot. Instead of giving Barney his own shot to show him fiddling on his phone, I decided to start the shot with Rachel coming into focus. Robin mentions that this shift in focus to Rachel was different from how the script describes the scene. When creating the storyboard, I did not think about the character focus, by making Rachel enter the scene first, I essentially made her the focus of that shot. This is something I want to investigate further, as deciding whose scene it is can have a major impact on the story and the characters. Looking back at my storyboard, if I replaced the first shot with the camera pointed at Barney on his phone, the scene becomes more closely connected to him instead.

In Tim Barnard’s commentary on decoupage, he identifies the difference between it and montage. He states that decoupage “cuts up … the script in its narrative form to create a detailed plan for shooting the film, complete with camera indications, stage directions for the actors and even changes of shot” (2014, p.4). I believe the exercise we did this week is also a form of decoupage where we segmented the script into another form which enables us to shoot the scene in our heads. In the future, more effective and in-depth insight into the process of storyboarding and shot listing would be beneficial.

The Scene in Cinema Week 1 Reflection

The Scene in Cinema Week 2 Reflection

The Scene in Cinema Week 3 Reflection

The Scene in Cinema: Invictus Descriptive & Analytical Writing

In the notes provided for this week’s class, we looked at the difference in form/style in Kubrick’s “A Clockwork Orange” and Anderson’s “O Lucky Man!”. In this discussion, we noted the difference in coverage for both directors. The former seem to utilise locked down tripod shots with a wide lens, whereas Anderson uses standard focal length lens and moves the camera according to the action. For Anderson, there are more closeups of objects to guide our attention. Kubrick, on the other hand, uses long takes and lets the audience to see what is most important in the shot. This had me thinking about other directors and how they might plan coverage for a scene. 

We also looked at the coverage of a bar scene in Gossip Girl and A Flame Within. In the two clips, we see a dialogue exchange between two people. In doing these shot reverse-shots, the concept of the 180-degree rule came into discussion. Most notably, how the scene in A Flame Within did not follow this. The result of which was a feeling of disorientation, as the positioning of the characters become difficult to understand. Yet I believe there are ways to cross the line without it becoming disorientating. One such example is in Parasite by Bong Joon Ho.

In a shot-reverse-shot dialogue scene between two characters, the camera crosses the line and delivers the rest of the conversation with the character looking at the same screen direction. Yet, in this example, the positioning of the characters was not confusing. I believe this is because, in a shot, the camera itself moved as it crossed the line, this gives the audience a better understanding of the space they are in.

In addition, the shot-reverse-shot are dirty, and more than half of the frame is taken up by the back of the other character. Through this, we can still understand that a conversation between these two characters is taking place.

1:28-2:56

After Nelson Mandela (played by Morgan Freeman) is elected president of South Africa, his personal bodyguards have joined by additional white bodyguards who were also assigned. Jason, one of the bodyguards confronts Mandela and voices his grievances having to work with them.

In one of the first racial conflicts presented in the movie, Clint Eastwood covers this conversation between the bodyguard Jason and Nelson Mandela in only a few key setups. The scene features three characters, only two speaks. The secretary character is largely overlooked in the coverage of this scene, likely situated here to demonstrate how busy Mandela’s first day in the office is. 

In terms of blocking, both Jason and Mandela are directed to move around. Jason enters the scene and serves as the motivation for the camera as it pans around to reveal Mandela and his secretary. His dialogue with Mandela establishes a line between them; by which the camera setup is based around. Jason brings with him his complaint about the new white bodyguards who were assigned, through the over-the-shoulder shots, we can see that he is the only one standing in this scene, demonstrating his initial agitation over this decision. However, Mandela defends his decision. He too stands up and walks around his table and closer to Jason. As he walks around, the camera pans accordingly to maintain the line, keeping both of them in the shot whilst cutting off the secretary. As Mandela encourages Jason towards reconciliation and forgiveness, the camera too becomes tighter on their faces using a longer lens than the wider shots which precedes it. The camera placement in this scene follows the 180 degrees rule, this is effective for a conversation because cutting between naturally guides our eyes left and right when one character speaks.

The light source in the scene comes from outside the windows, this is used to simulate sunlight. Special care is taken as there are no other objects in the scene that is brighter than the windows, further creating the impression that this scene takes place during the day. The white linen curtains serve as a diffusion for the characters’ faces as this is a dialogue-heavy scene. Apart from this light, many of the lighting choices are to create background separation. I believe there is also a top light created by bouncing off the ceiling. This can be seen also to separate Jason from the interior in the over-the-shoulder shots. The windows behind Mandela acts as a backlight to separate Jason’s brown jacket from the wooden interior of the room as he enters the scene. 

The News is a Joke: Week 7 Reflection

The News is a Joke: Week 8 Reflection

The News is a Joke: Week 10 Reflection

The News is a Joke: Week 11 Reflection

The class time was spent this week doing a final run-through of the script, correcting any grammatical and logical errors. We made sure that Aaron could read through the edited script without any issues. Later, we also spent time completing the safety checklist for Friday. I noted down some final changes to the graphics and EVS footage that will have to be added or replaced on Friday.

On Friday, our group rehearsed first. We had a different desk this time, it came with a lighting strip, the colour of which can be adjusted. We came up with the idea to change the lighting colour in relation to our gag of singing the national anthem. To do this, the lighting manager, as well as an assistant, must coordinate the timing to alter the colour. Additionally, we decided that we should have an announcer introducing and hyping up the audience before the show began. This meant that we had another mic in the control room for James to use, the audio was then sent to the floor so the audience could hear him.

When the time came for the taping, we noticed an issue with the lighting. The lights were not shining onto Aaron’s face properly, resulting in shadows whenever he leaned forwards. We paused the taping after an EVS played and started from the beginning when the lighting was fixed.

Insufficient lighting on the host’s face

The announcement made on our second take had a mistake, therefore, we would have to edit together the two take we have in total. The lighting during the national anthem segment was done well, by overlaying the EVS footage of the flag, we made the set look more red than usual. During the national anthem segment, to our surprise, people audience stood up for it too, however, that moment was not captured. I believe this moment would have been better if we switched the vision over the audience camera.

Overall, the execution of our segment was successful to a live audience. There were many laughs that could be heard from the control room. I think this is due to the time we spent giving the audience sufficient background on the issue and showing relevant clips to them before making the jokes. For our satire to work, we needed to create a sense of community amongst those who get the joke (McClennon, 2011).

I can not imagine doing this from the ground up without the collaboration with the rest of my group. Each and every member contributed to a crucial role of the taping and development of the script.

McClennen, Sophia (book excerpt). “Satire as Public Pedagogy” America According to Colbert: Satire as Public Pedagogy. Palgrave Macmillan, 2011. pp. 71-95.

Due to the absences of a few group members in this week’s class, a team member and I mainly focused on completing the paperwork for the assignment. We decided that whatever script we have by Friday will be the final script we present in the live taping, meaning no more new bits were to be added into the script.

When doing the graphics on Thursday, I noted some points near the end of the script that could be adjusted in order to set the tone. Prior to this adjustment, the tone throughout the script is largely cynical and sarcastic, therefore, when we do arrive at the end with the call to action, the tonal shift may be too large. Therefore, I made the adjusted before the final call to action to include more reflective and sharp comments to set a serious tone. This makes the shift to the call to action more subtle.

In the studio, we had issues with the EVS footage not displaying properly in midst of the run-through. However, we just kept rolling, whenever an EVS footage was supposed to be displayed, we just cut between two cameras and continued on. Eventually, one of the techs were able to come in and resolve the issue, allowing all the EVS footage from that point on to work as normal. Ruth mentioned that if we were actually live, that would be the best way to resolve it. If a similar issue occurs next week during the live taping, it could result in jokes not landing due to no EVS being displayed for the audience. I think a good way to resolve this would be for us to stop recording when EVS is supposed to play, fix the issue, and then continue from that EVS. This would make it easier to edit together afterwards and would make the audience get the joke.

During class, we discussed the presence of bias in TV. Ruth highlighted that often in Breakfast TV, they would often have debates where both sides have one person advocating for their view. Visually speaking, it appears as if the argument is 50/50, or evenly divided. This becomes counterintuitive when the issue is something where the evidence for and against something is far greater than 50/50. In the John Oliver segment, we see him engage with this concept by creating the “mathematical accuracy” of the ratio of the scientist who supports evidence of climate change. Leading to a room filled with 3 scientists against and 96 scientists for the existence of climate change. I think this visual way of depicting debate based on the public’s or researcher’s consensus is a useful way of educating the public.

Due to our group going last this week, I had time to design more graphics in class. By doing graphics with my team members around me, they tend to provide me with suggestions on how to make something look better. I find this to be more effective when doing graphics, especially since members who wrote a certain joke would have a certain graphical representation of it in mind. By listening to their advice, I could make a joke land better more coherent with the writer of said joke.

During the run-through this week, there were a few things that we learned and will improve next time. Firstly, we chose to use the studio lights pointed towards the curtains as a backdrop. By altering the colour of the light, it would also give a different feel to the show. If nothing better comes along, this background will be used in the final taping. Additionally, there were a few timing issues this week with the EVS and the host. Since the presentor has no way of knowing when the EVS footage ends, it is hard to pick up immediately when it ends; resulting in the presenter starting his lines before it is over. In the future, it would be wise to discuss the length of the clips before taping so that everyone knows when the footage ends.