I think that what made my film most engaging was the consistent changes in subject matter, which was intended to create a sense of confusion. When my film was screening to an audience, I head someone say “what is happening?” which may have been disheartening in other circumstances but it was definitely the intended effect of my short film. By splitting my film into three parts: conversations, miscellanious shots, the train station shots and jumping between these scenes to create a disjointed visual representation of the feeling of dreaminess, confusion and discomfort. I think that it encourages the audience to put the pieces together and try to figure out what happened between the two main characters. I think that my film does make the audience uncomfortable, through an non-linear editing style, jumping between seemingly unrelated shots. However, I’m not sure if this is because of my intentions or if it’s because I experimented so much with the entire editing process.  

 In the future, I would like to work more on audio, both in production and post-production to encapsulate the desired mood and level of discomfort. This would include choosing more suitable music and working on the overall soundscape of the film. In terms of making a feature film, I don’t think I would be able to recreate what I did in my short film. It wouldn’t work in a feature film format, as I think it would get repetitive and the audience would not be as engaged with the story. I think that I would like to work on building a more clear narrative as a foundation and to use subversive acting techniques to exemplify discomfort between characters. I think this would bring another level of technicality to a film.  

I think that the importance of collaboration is one of the biggest lessons I learned from this studio. In the process of planning and filming my short film, discussing ideas for the dialogue and shot ideas with my cast and crew (Kadee and Nia) really aided in making me feel more confident in my dialogue points. What I mean by this is that I have no experience writing dialogue scenes and I struggled to make it seem more natural (which is also part of the reason I left so much space for improvisation). Editing my dialogue scenes made me feel a lot better about the rushed production process as well, because I had a more clear vision for what I would be editing together (I knew I would utilise the audio in many different ways so it was important to know what I would be emphasising through it). I am eternally grateful for Nia as well, as she agreed to help out on the day of filming, and successfully helped me in making my vision come to life. 

When crewing on my friends Sarah and Seth’s short films, I saw that receiving feedback and guidance from other Media-makers can really elevate a film and make the filming process more enjoyable.  

I was unable to help on Sarah’s first day of filming, but despite the long filming day and everyone being exhausted, they all expressed how much fun they had on set. I think this pretty much sums up filmmaking when it’s well prepared for. I helped on Sarah’s 2nd and final day of shooting (which was on the 7th of October), mainly helping with the audio aspect of things, and it was so rewarding to be able to wrap and be a part of such a professional shoot. We finished filming ahead of schedule, and we may have been exhausted and cold from the carpark, but it just felt like something I have wanted to do for so long. 

On the other hand, Seth’s filming day was not as step-by-step planned for. However, it was clear he had a vision and he was sticking with it. He went by his instincts and he was able to tell the story that he wanted to, despite being overwhelmed by the end of the shoot. This was so different from the experience on Sarah’s set, but I enjoyed seeing the ideas come to life and on the spot, it makes me feel excited to create. 

What I want to do in the future is share my creative ideas when I’m crewing, because I know how helpful this was to informing my final product. I think this will require me to practise more in making things and stop being afraid to do so. I definitely need more confidence when it comes to my ideas and with my creations in general, and I think that being on student film sets is a really good way to share ideas without having anything to lose. 

So, the final plans had been made. I had casted my friend Kadee whom I would act alongside with, and my friend Christina (who is in another studio), offered to be a crew member and was available on the same day as Kadee.   

However, on the day of intended production, October 5th, Kadee informed me that she was sick and unable to film. Despite this being very last minute and it feeling like disaster had struck, we decided that the next day would work. I had to bear in mind that I’d be crewing on another film on the 6th, but my film had to be filmed afterwards anyway, due to my vision for the natural lighting being darker. Unfortunately, Christina was working and unavailable, so I asked my friend Nia, who was also crewing on the earlier film on the 6th of October, and I am so grateful she said yes, especially as she had stayed up the day before crewing on another film.

In the end, we filmed within 5:30-8:30, with a total cast and crew of 3 people (including myself). Next time I would need at least one other crew member for audio. If I had another crew member, I would have used a boom mic. I think that fleshing out the idea earlier would’ve made the filming process feel well-prepared for and less stressful. I’m glad I made these mistakes though, and I feel so much more prepared to make things over the holidays for fun and for my improvement.  

As for editing, I took it slow (maybe even too slow) at the start. However, I had been sick for nearly a week when I filmed and was still sick at the end of the editing process, which is why I wasn’t as efficient with my time (I was so exhausted). By the end of it, I had accepted that the audio I recorded wasn’t perfect (all the more reason to ensure I have more crew members in the future), but I did take this as an opportunity to experiment and test this new style of editing that was so much more subversive than anything I had ever done in Media-making before. I am probably most proud of the visual aspects of the film. This is probably because it is the aspect I had focussed the most on during pre-production, as seen through my very cohesive moodboard, and I had a very clear vision when it came to that.  Overall, I’m proud of myself for finishing the film, especially with all the hurdles I had crossed to get to that point, and I know that I will do even better next time.  

After the pitch, I knew it was time to take my production schedule seriously, and I begun writing dialogue, especially because I knew that the conversation scenes would be very important in my final product. Instead of making a fully fleshed-out script, I drew up a storyboard and dialogue points. These dialogue points were very simple, reminiscent of the A/B scenes used in Assignment #1, but they did the job. I left a lot of room for improvisation, especially once I knew I was going to be an actor in the film with no acting experience. This also led to me casting a long-term friend of mine to act alongside me, as I knew the main characters would have to act natural next to each other, and I wanted it to be believable. I also knew that filming week was very hectic (as not only was I filming ‘Unreliable Narrator’ I was also crewing on 2 of my classmates’/friends’ short films), it would be too difficult to ask a classmate to act in my short film, so I decided to take on the role. This is especially as I knew some of the conversations in the short film would be very awkward for people who’ve never met to perform together, so this worked out for the better.  

As for the storyboard, instead of making a comprehensive step-by-step angle-by-angle storyboard, I planned out my opening sequence and some key shots for the conversation and escalator sequences. I already knew that I wouldn’t lean on the storyboard much, as this short film is heavily dependant on the editing to achieve a more ‘uncomfortable’ or unconventional short film. I did want to make some shot and transition ideas, though, which is why I didn’t just scrap the storyboard. The scene that I did the most planning for with the storyboard was the ‘escalator’ scenes. This is because I knew I may have to get some parts in one take, as I had no idea what condition the train station would be in (such as how busy it would be), so I wanted to plan it well so that retakes would run smoothly if necessary. 

In the leadup to the pitch, I was concerned I would not be able to come up with an idea for a short film, particularly one where I could use a a tool for causing discomfort, because I’d been experiencing a slight creative block and was aware of deadlines for this final product.  

Luckily, though, once we got closer, I knew what films, songs and books I had been inspired by that all fell under a similar mood that I wanted to recreate in a film. For example, I wanted to pair the content of Paprika (2006) and the visual aspects of Wong Kar Wai’s Fallen Angels (1995). I think this made it clearer to me that I inform my ideas through inspiration from multiple media forms. I think being able to draw inspiration from different forms made it easier for me to figure out the type of audio I wanted to use in my short film as well. Although I didn’t mention it in my pitch, the strong drum beats in Fiona Apple’s ‘Sleep to Dream’ helped paint a picture of what I wanted my final product to feel like.

What I was then most worried about was being unable to put my ideas into fruition, especially as I knew I would have to depend a lot on editing to encapsulate a dreamlike and uncomfortable feeling. I don’t have a lot of experience with this style of editing, so I know that I’ll have to spend a lot of time using YouTube to teach myself how to achieve the visuals that I want.

This week I performed my pitch for my short film and received feedback. Personally, I think I could have used more eye contact and been less dependent on my script, as pitches are often used to sell your idea, but it was still a good experience. My aim with my pitch was to verbalise the feeling I wanted to evoke in my assignment. The feedback I received from the industry guest was to have a more clear narrative when describing my idea in my pitch, although my studio leader understood that this was going to be more mood-based rather than narrative-based.  Overall, I think I could have verbalised this more in my pitch to make it clearer, such as explaining my intention to capture the feeling of confusion, melancholy and dreaminess but to elevate the uncomfortable aspects of these emotions. 

Video 1: subverting narrative structures

Video 1 fits into the horror/thriller genre, which is most known for using a three-act narrative structure. Within this, act one tends to introduce a threat, in act two, “the characters learn the meaning of the threat and begin to fight back [,] and in act three, the characters face a final confrontation [with the threat] – either surviving (forever changed), or dying,” (Bell, 2020).   In simplest terms, the focus of this video is that our character is lost in a building and looking for someone but never finds them. The intention of the video is to have multiple interpretations, for example, the experience of grief and the inability to believe a person is gone. Another example of what the video could be interpreted to be about is addiction and/or a parasocial relationship. Generally, the key concept highlighted in this video is loss; whether it be the loss of a person or loss of control. If it were to follow traditional horror conventions of narrative structure, we would introduce the secondary character as a threat and our main character would have to prepare to defend themselves or run before they either survive or die at the end. Instead, to subvert this narrative structure, we interpreted what a threat can be differently to a traditional horror movie. There was no confrontation with a threat, even at the end of the video, where it ends quite unexpectedly.  

video 1.mp4

References: 

• Bell, Neal (2020) ‘Basic horror movie structure’, How to Write a Horror Movie, Routledge, Oxford, UK. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/mono/10.4324/9780429055416-3/basic-horror-movie-structure-neal-bell 

Video 2: subverting cinematography/performance

Video 2 is intended to recreate the feeling of panic. It falls under the genre of liminal horror, described by Turner (cited by West, 2021) as a complex series of episodes in sacred space-time, which may also include subversive and lucid events. Likewise, Video 2 consists of short, dreamlike clips spliced together rather than relying on coherent linear events. The video lacks dialogue throughout, instead relying on jarring, sharp sounds to invoke the viewer’s feeling of panic and discomfort. In tandem with Turner’s description of ‘lucid events’ appearing in liminal horror, the footage was colour-graded to consist of warm green hues, darker shadows, and disorienting ‘double-vision’ visual effects. Towards the end of the video, the camera slowly moves towards a door in an empty room. However, the door is never opened and the video cuts to black, anticlimactically subverting the horror convention of a jumpscare after building anticipation. Had a jumpscare been placed after opening the door, it would be defined by Cherry (2009) as a shock cut: a sudden, violent eruption or peak moment in a film narrative. Although two brief cuts to a close-up shot of a bleeding mouth interrupt the shot moving towards the door, they are placed in the middle of the sequence rather than at the end, intended to insinuate a macabre, more terrifying presence behind the door. 

video 2.mp4

References: 

Cherry, B. (2009) Horror. London, UK: Routledge.  

West, B. (2021) At the edge of existence: Liminality in horror cinema since the 1970s. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers.  

Video 3: subverting editing/continuity

Video 3 fits best into the drama genre. The video follows the theme of guilt, in which two characters have a gradually discordant argument between characters ‘Confusion’ and ‘Now’ about Confusion’s moral and emotional past choice. The video cuts to a third character who emphasises devotion and care for their wellbeing, contrasted with Confusion’s distraught excuses for their own behaviour, and ends with Confusion greeting the first character again like they did at the start. This was intended to convey the loop of psychological stress that comes with guilt, part of which involves obsessing over memories and questioning whether or not remorse rectifies a moral issue. Bordwell et al. (2020) argue that in listening to a piece of music, audiences expect repetition of a melody or motif. Video 3 breaks this expectation through the change from a suspenseful, low score playing during Confusion’s argument with Now to light-hearted jazz music when Confusion converses with ‘Then’, despite the sombre and bitter tone of the dialogue still being present. Had the score been edited conventionally, suspenseful music would have been used in place of the jazz music, as suspenseful music amplifies the sombreness of the scene whereas the jazz undercuts its emotional impact. 

References: 

• Patterson, J. (2021) Dramatic Structure in Stories: 5 Elements of Dramatic Structure, MasterClass website, accessed 24 August 2023. https://www.masterclass.com/articles/dramatic-structure-guide 
• Bordwell, D., Thompson, K. and Smith, J. (2020) Film art: An introduction, twelfth edition  New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education. 

video 3.mp4

As someone who thoroughly enjoys comedy, I really appreciated how Monty Python and the Holy Grail gave me a new experience when it comes to the genre. This was the first time I’ve seen the film, so I didn’t know what to expect. I think rather than making me audibly laugh, I was more appreciative of the creative directions the filmmakers chose, such as utilising animation, due to budget cuts. What makes the film enjoyable and unforgettable is how incomparable it is to other comedies, even decades after its release. It’s understandable why it’s been labelled as timeless by many. It may not have been the typical style of humour I would seek in a comedy, but I was definitely inspired by the unique approach the filmmakers took to reach its abrupt conclusion. 

Monty Python and the Holy Grail intends to make its audience laugh through bits, using both dialogue, shock humour and sometimes slapstick comedy. It acknowledges that it is a film by using written words in the introduction that makes it evident to the audience that it doesn’t take itself seriously. This has been influenced heavily by its low budget as well, including changes to the original script to ensure that they could film more of what they intended to. Part of its humour, either intended or not, is that it is evident that the filmmakers had to change their ideas throughout the process of filmmaking due to lack of budget leading to a lack of structure as a whole, even up to the final scene. This is where they had no more budget to film a final fight scene. The lack of closure by the end of the film is basically a form of shock humour as well. It is also evident that they had to lean into the violence and shock humour aspect because they could afford to make those scenes and was generally humorous due to the sheer intensity of it. Not being afraid to kill off many characters throughout the movie desensitised death and made it feel comical and more comedic. As for the credits scene(s), the bit from the start of the film makes a full circle and makes the audience feel a part of an inside joke, with the filmmakers themselves and those around them who are also watching. In a sense, this, paired with meta humour such as the scene 24 bit makes the audience feel like they’re a part of the story and the world.

The first two weeks of starting my first studio – Uncomfortable Filmmaking – have made me extremely excited to discuss different cases of unconventional methods of filmmaking.  Our first case study was the adult swim short film Unedited Footage of a Bear. It reminded me of Black Mirror, but shorter than the regular episodes and had less of an inherent focus on technology. It had a combination of typical horror/gore violence, but whilst watching it, I got this sense that there was a deeper meaning looming. I think when rewatching, I was able to link imagery used throughout the short film and dialogue used earlier in it, as it gradually focuses more on non-dialogue audio and visual aspects. When focussing on the audio alone, I realised how important the audio was in creating an overall mood and how it was part of what made the short film uncomfortable to watch. The layering of audio such as sound effects and music that was seemingly off-beat made me feel more overwhelmed (in a good way!) when watching it, as it felt like there was so much happening and the audio matched this feeling as well. Discussing the short film as a class has made me appreciate how everyone interprets media differently, and I feel like this is even more prevalent in ‘uncomfortable’ films. I’ve found it really interesting how our upcoming case studies have seemingly very different intended impacts on their audiences.

As for Monty Python and the Holy Grail, I really enjoyed how the filmmakers embraced their obstacles and used them for comedic effect. As someone who really enjoys the comedy genre, I did feel that this film broke expectations and looked past traditional rules of filmmaking as well. I definitely enjoyed watching it, and I thought a lot of the bits were clever and timeless. It didn’t make me audibly laugh as much as I have when watching other comedies, but I did have an appreciation for the form and ideas used. I personally can’t compare the experience of watching it to anything else I’ve seen. There were also discussions about how we can redefine ‘Uncomfortable,’ which made me feel even more excited about the creative freedom we have, particularly in this studio course.  

The reading was an introduction to rule-breaking in filmmaking, and what impact it can have on the audience. I really enjoyed how this reading would spotlight a rule in filmmaking and how this can be challenged in order to create a different impact or surprise the audience. It definitely gave me more ideas for angles and mise en scene when experimenting in this studio and my other courses too.