ASSIGNMENT 5 PART 2
In what ways do you hope your screenings/exhibited/screened work (whether individual or group produced) engages audiences and communicates a key concern of the studio?
I feel that our final film, What Was Left Unsaid, was a successful exercise in the drama genre. We relied on the narrative style of a romantic drama, while trying to experiment with the film’s form. We hoped that using projectors would feel ‘experimental’, but also distance the film from being too obviously ‘made in lockdown’ (that meaning – made with a lack of options), as we felt that we wanted a work that we could be proud of regardless of the conditions in which it was made. By this I mean, a film can be ‘good work for lockdown’, but we wanted it to just be ‘good work’ that could’ve been created any time, we wanted to make our limitations look intentional.
It seems that goal of (De/Re)constructing Genre was to investigate what defines genre, and analyse the specifics of how certain genres work, so we could then take that knowledge and push the boundaries or expectations the viewer may have.
We wanted to push those boundaries through our form, and this in turn affected the way the script was written. The ‘talking-to-an-invisible-other’ is something done regularly in drama films (it seems that all monologues are an example of this), but we wanted that structure to be the foundation and entirety of our film.
We wanted to experiment with our effects and colour grade, trying to ‘deteriorate the image’ as we got towards the end of the film, and pushing Freya towards cooler colours, while washing Alex with the warmer colours (although this doctrine of grading is nothing special and arguably a key part of the drama genre). I think drama is a very broad genre, but I would argue our film sits nicely within that genre while also experimenting a healthy amount.
(this scene from Annie Hall was a key inspiration for our film)
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, and so on) – what would be the core things you would want to improve and extend and why?
I think I would like to think more about the structure of the editing. I’m not sure whether it felt slow, or what the issue was, but something about our final cut just didn’t feel quite right with me. I’d like some time to think about re-arranging things, rather than just keeping directly to the script as we have done, and perhaps there’s a more effective cut for our footage. Sure, I think the edit we have now is fine, but it feels like there’s a better one in there somewhere. I also think it was a difficult film to edit, as it was shot to be shown in this particular way, and there wasn’t any real action in the script – just dialogue.
From your studio, reflect on an aspect of two other students/group’s media work on the website in terms of specific insights they produced about a key idea addressed by the studio?
The two works I have chosen to reflect on are Zoom by Bridget, Tom, and Jesse, and Knock Knock by Isabella, Laura, and Xiaoju.
I felt both films worked really well as horror shorts. And there were similarities between the two, each with their man character being ‘haunted’ in their apartments (sidenote: it feels like the ‘apartment’ has become a symbol of social isolation throughout this year in film, doesn’t it?). I like the way the both films were left open ended, as this allowed them to focus their screen time on the story ‘before the event’, which seemed more frightening. I should probably note at this point, that I am rather clueless when it comes to horror, so please take my opinions with a grain of salt.
Both films were edited very well, with Zoom’s glitch effects and ‘disconnecting’ jump cuts, and I found that the sound in Knock Knock was particular effective (and probably what made me legitimately scared when watching the film). The use of drones to build the intensity of certain moments had me looking away from my screen to avoid a jump-scare, even after I’d already seen the film multiple times!
I think another notable part is the way both films use light and shadow. Whether this was intentional or not, they seem to use very strong point lights, which cast shadows on the walls around them. I really liked the way we would see each character’s shadow growing and shrinking as they moved around their spaces, and I imagine this kind of hard lighting where actors are moving around relatively close to light sources is also found in other horror films.
For the other studio website you engaged with, describe a key idea that you think the finished media/studio work communicated with reference to a specific example (i.e. a particular individual/group work)
For this response, I have chosen to reflect on the work created in Rohan Spong’s Real to Reel, specifically on Great Guide, by Maddison Weeks.
I did this studio in 2019 (when classes were still running on campus), so I was interested to see how the course adapted to the online and summer delivery modes. When investigating, I watched several of the films from this studio – but the one that caught my attention the most was Maddison’s work about a Melbournian who created his own career running free tours of the city. I’ve seen Matt’s tours running in the city on many occasions, but had no idea how they started, so I loved hearing his story. I also learnt a lot of facts about the city of Melbourne which I’d never heard before- I’d love to take one of his tours some time so I can learn more!
I think this film really captures the impact of Covid on Australians who work independently, and I felt like I knew a lot of people who were thrown into the same situation as Matt this year. To me, Real To Reel is about figuring out how to tell interesting stories of real people in an engaging manner, and I think Great Guide absolutely nailed that. I love short documentaries on obscure subjects, and I think this is one of the better ones I have seen lately.