Instagram Gallery, Jan 1st

I posted it on the 1st of January, although the video was taken a few hours before. I was at my friend’s house, since he had a joint birthday/New Years party after high school had just finished. A friend and I had taken the video because we thought the idea of me sleeping in a cardboard box was funny. I was feeling really happy and excited, hanging out with all my high school friends one last big time right after school had wrapped up. I can’t fully remember the weather, and what it was like, but I remember it was fine enough that we could hop between the outside and the inside of the house. I feel pretty nostalgic about this time, a little bittersweet and melancholic about it too. It’s good to remember the great times that I had that night, but it also feels sad that I’ve lost touch of some of the people that I was friends with since then.

Real-world media. Something only truly defined by its relationship to newer, more digital forms of media:our phones, devices, or entire libraries of content that were created, hosted, and observed without ever being present in the physical world. Without digital media, real-world media would just be media.

It was also something that I had paid no attention to.

My view of real-world media was through the lens of a filmmaker: the use of CGI vs practical effects. The finest example of this being the Star Wars Special Editions — versions of the original Star Wars trilogy that had been ‘updated’ with CGI effects after their release. HelloGreedo (2015) reveals the true extent of the changes; A Youtube series by him shows the majority of the alterations made over the years. They’re essentially the same films, but their ‘digital’ vs ‘physical’ effects have small changes that can alter meaning and reading of the Star Wars saga (Allan, 2011). 

Why bring this up? Because at first, I thought this class was going to be the same. However our very first task, creating origami, changed that. When I realised that the origami I had been making was real world media, it broadened my view of real-world media referring to physical ways of creating media to the actual physical media itself. 

Reflecting on it, it also brings many questions to light. Is a film real-world media if it was edited digitally, then printed on a film reel? What about one that was filmed using 35mm then uploaded digitally? Questions like that are ones that I had no idea I’d be asking myself, all because of a simple origami session.

References:

Allan, S 2021, ‘Star Wars: 12 Ways The Special Editions Changed The Original Trilogy’, CBR, viewed 4 March 2023, <https://www.cbr.com/star-wars-special-editions-changed-original-trilogy/>.

What Media Do You Use Everyday?
– Social media (Youtube, Reddit, Instagram): Information, entertainment

– Streaming sites (Netflix, Disney+): Entertainment

– Games (Halo Infinite, ect.): Entertainemnt

– * Books (Star Wars, Star Trek): Entertainment

– Phone/Computer: Entertainment, information

– Messenger: Social, connecting with others

Choose 3 Platforms and do Research on them:

• Youtube:
  • Owned by Alphabet Inc (Tech company)
  • Based in California
  • Mission statement was ‘Broadcast yourself”, although it has been removed from their website
  • They collect data on their users to feed them content tailored to their tastes (and also to sell to advertisers)
  • Probably no philanthropic endeavors, although Alphabet may on some occasion
• Instagram:
  • Owned by Meta (Tech company)
  • Based in California
  • Goal is to help connect people together online
  • They collect data on their users and sell it to advertising companies for profit
  • No philanthropic endeavors
• Star Trek Pocket Books:
  • Owned by Simon and Scheuster
  • Based in New York City
  • Does not collect data on their users
  • Creates other novels aside from star trek ones, so has a wider user base
  • No philanthropic endeavors

Apart from your uses, do the media have any other affordances?

• Instagram and Youtube could also be used for informative and educational purposes, as well as sharing your own content and broadcasting to others, but I prefer to use it for mostly entertainment and watching.

Is there a hierarchy of your media?

• There is a hierarchy to my media, I do need a phone/device to use all of the forms of them (I could purchase star trek books physically but I don’t)

Overall, I was pretty happy with the showcase for our studio. Not many people outside the class showed up, but I assume it’s because it was at 10:30 and for no other reason at all. Watching everyone’s manifestos was simultaneously entertaining and interesting, mainly due to seeing what everyone’s different takes on the canon were, as well as what their manifestos ended up becoming. Our group was the only ‘satirical’ take on the manifesto, making it stand out from the others more in my opinion; many other groups decided to take it seriously and directly address the canon, and it was very interesting seeing the groups’ different takes on it. 

I thought that Isabel, Roisin, and Shaun’s had very interesting ideas, taking the form of the canon’s past, present and future, akin to A Christmas Story, delving deeper into how the canon originated, how it is functioning now, and what they would like for it to resemble in the future. Segmenting their manifesto like this allowed them to really explore the topic fully, almost creating 3 entirely separate manifestos, yet, when combined, formed something that was coherent and had running themes and similar ideologies throughout. I also quite liked their incorporation of film titles, specifically in their ‘present’ section; it felt like a pretty unique idea that takes films and moulds it into parts of a statement against the majority of them. Their future segment, felt the most like a proper manifesto (however one could define a ‘proper’ manifesto) in the sense that it was a person dictating to the audience what the canon should look like, without any regard for how it would get to that point, or a proper solution from point a to point b. Having segmented parts allowed a more ‘manifesto’ segment like that be connected to more grounded segments like the past (and to some extent, the present), but framed it in a way that it somehow all tied together and made a singular point about the canon, which is something that I found myself really enjoying as it progressed. 

I was also quite intrigued by Jade, Antony, and Finn’s manifesto, both in its form as well as its content. I liked how there was almost no spoken dialogue, with many of the main points and ideas given to the audience through both coloured and white text on the screen. It set that specific manifesto out from the others, and was a nice choice in my opinion. Their manifesto also included a montage of the Vertigo zoom in other films, showing how it’s been copied over and over again, which I think really sold the main crux of their manifesto; that the canon has a problem with originality. Simply showing us how that single shot had been reiterated so many times throughout film history lent very well to the point they were making, and was a really powerful and easy to understand way of doing so. The final section, where they dictate what the canon should represent, was also done really well, with the montage of words dictating what the canon should represent sounding like a very compressed version of a manifesto, stating to the audience how something should be done.

Another studio that I watched was The Video Essay, which delved into the processes of making a video essay, with a final assignment of creating one themselves. Damian’s one was one that stood out to me, with its slick editing and clear structure when talking about the body of Nathan Fielder’s work. Another element of his video essay that I appreciated was his personal anecdote used in the video. It was a nice element that really personalised him, making Damian seem more ‘real’ in a sense, going from faceless video creator to a person made of flesh and blood with his own experiences, and I think that using it really helped him drive his point across by associating it to something that more people can relate to. Using these strategies really helped ‘create’ his video essay, giving it a clear introduction, conclusion, and main point to the whole video, and something that I really enjoyed.

Shene’s video essay about Studio Ghibli films and nostalgia was also something that stood out to me, whether it was because of its construction and techniques or simply the subject matter I still don’t know. I did like the comparisons to other animated films, comparing them in this way and then analysing them made me think about both films being compared in a completely different light. Having text only, instead of speaking to the camera, was also a unique touch, but one that allowed me to replay the footage and help me properly understand some of the more wordy elements of the video essay.

All in all, both studios and projects in those studios did help me understand the point of the studios more in-depth, and watching them definitely left me with something to take away and learn. 

Manifesto:

How to Make the Greatest Film of All Time.mp4 from Media Factory on Vimeo.

Reflection:

Overall, I’m really happy with how our manifesto turned out. We managed to get it all done in a pretty reasonable amount of time, with enough class time to make any major changes and go over the final manifesto to make sure that everyone was happy with it. 

We were put together, not because of any specific element we brought up in our manifesto statements, but just because of a ‘general hatred and style’ against the canon at large, so we were essentially the leftovers. At first, I was worried that meant that Liv, Ben, and I wouldn’t gel based on our opinions on the canon, but after getting to know the rest of my team I must say that it was the right choice to group us this way. We were surprisingly all on the same page, and our thoughts towards the canon were surprisingly similar. 

When working as a collective, I think that an element of success was that original planning stage, and the fact that we all had similar feelings toward the canon. It made the process of working together and figuring out exactly what we wanted to say on the canon much easier than if we weren’t, since we weren’t constantly butting heads on what to include and what to cut out. A problem in the collaborative phase, however, was the editing phase of the video. The video could only be edited on one computer, meaning that one person had to edit the thing before sending it off to the others. While we did go over the work-in-progress version in class, taking the time to go over it while it was being edited might have helped the overall timeline of completion when finalising the product. However, this might not have been feasible, due to the amount of time it would take to edit the manifesto, and the (lack of) power in our laptops. 

In terms of thinking creatively and the overall production, I think that giving us such a blank slate to work with was both a positive and negative. By grouping us based on general distaste of the canon, not specific elements of it like other groups, it let us run rampant with the number of possibilities that we were allowed to pursue, letting us choose exactly what element of the canon we wanted to revolt against in our manifesto. However, by being so non-specific, it did add an extra step for us in the planning stage; it meant that we had to actually decide what we wanted to say in our final piece. We decided to elaborate on the fact that we think the canon is stuck in the past, and should embrace more elements of the present in its formation, but it did take some time to finally figure out what we wanted to say about the canon in particular, rather than just a gung-ho revolt against its entirety. 

The rest of the production did go relatively smoothly, we ended up creating a ‘mocking how to infomercial video’ on how to make the greatest film of all time; one that would dictate to the audience what we thought the problems with the canon were by elaborating on how hard it is for anyone — besides a tiny minority of filmmakers — to get on that list. We split up the scriptwriting; we each handled a few sections then brought them together and made sure they all carried the same themes and feel that we all wanted, and that no single part felt out of place with any other part of the script. We also decided we wanted to film in Studio A, to give it a more professional and authoritative look to sell the premise even further. However, the studio was only able to be booked either quite early in the timeline to completion, or the day before it was due. Our group ended up booking the earlier session, and I think that actually ended up making things run smoother overall; it meant we had to get the script done and the bulk of the project done earlier, giving us a lot more time to refine and work on the final piece compared to if we had decided otherwise, and I think that our final manifesto is greater because of it. 

Insights that the work gave me about the canon include just how old the films accepted into them are; when discussing the ‘greatest films of all time’, I expected more films from not just the 21st century, but also the 80s and 90s, however many of the films on the list stem from the 40s to 50s. While yes, I understand to a degree that a film must withstand the test of time to be accepted into the canon, so that its wider ramifications can truly be seen, it truly stunned me how antiquated the list was, mostly focusing on films early history and using films that creates many modern techniques to justify itself. I also learned quite a lot in terms of actually creating a manifesto — the most interesting part in my opinion was the fact that usually did not have to provide a solution to what they were arguing against, and were essentially a highly vitriolic and emotive piece talking about something that someone didn’t like. 

When it comes to the manifesto itself — I’m really happy with it. It pretty much covers all that we wanted to cover, it looks slick and well edited, while adding that signature manifesto flair composed of highly emotive shouting while not really saying anything at all. Viv’s acting was superb; it really helped sell the farce of a semi-legitimate instructional video at the start, and the fact that it was a full blown unhinged manifesto by the end of it. The extra time that we had really helped flesh out the final product, and the advice given about sound and adding a soundbite really helped elevate the manifesto to make it more believable in the end. I hope that it engages audiences throughout, particularly hooking them in at the very beginning and then surprising them as it progresses into full lunacy, and I hope they enjoy it and can follow along properly with the slow descent into madness. 

I think that it communicates a key element of the studio in the fact that it addresses how old and antiquated the film canon is; we really wanted to highlight the fact that (for the most part) only old, white men from a bygone era are on the list, with many newer styles, modes, and talent in regards to filmmaking in the last 30 years being completely ignored. Hopefully this is communicated properly through the steps of the manifesto: going over exactly how to get on the list demonstrates exactly how hard it is to get on the list in the modern day. I also hope that the fact that a very specific type of critic dictates the canon is also communicated well to the audience, which was another part of the studio that I think really struck a chord with us. 

While I’m really happy with how it is currently, if I were to keep working on this and screen it again, I’d probably want to turn it into a full manifesto at the end. Not just screaming at a camera, but fully emulating actual manifestos, such as all the ones Cate Blanchet recited, having Viv repeat the same lines over and over again, similarly to how Damian and Sabrina’s group last year ended theirs. I feel like that would be the icing on the cake, and truly turn the latter half of the video into a manifesto. I’d also like to try and stretch out the first half a little more, we really wanted to take the advice given to us during our pitch to keep it as straight-faced and serious as possible, but couldn’t find a way to, because Step 1 was one of our favourite gags, and the indicator that this video is satirical, yet is only the first step. We added ‘the fundamentals’ at the very beginning and tried to keep that more serious, but if I were refining the manifesto further, I’d like to try and stretch that out, and make it more serious and corny, adding intentionally cheesy and humorous lines to reel the audiences into a false sense of security before hitting them with the satirical parts. 

Overall I’m super happy with the final manifesto that our group created, as well as our work over the semester in general. Learning about the canon (and all of its strengths and flaws) was really interesting; discovering the ins, outs, and theoreticals when it comes to the ‘greatest movie of all time’ was one of the more fun and interesting things I’ve done this semester, and I’m really happy to have taken all the information learned and to have turned it into a manifesto revolting against all of it. 

Part I: Reflection

Weeks 3, 4, and 5 have now passed, and with them, some illuminating information about film canon, and challenges to them that I might agree with. 

Many films were watched over the last 3 weeks, the most important one (at least to me) being Citizen Kane. Before seeing it, my impression was that it was a film that was good at the time, but one that, like many older films, was showing its age in pacing, story, and filmmaking practices, and, above all, a clear example of why the Sight and Sound poll favoured older influential films over more modern ones that build off that groundwork. Instead, what I got was a genuinely good film that stood the test of time. The pacing was really well done, and the story and framing of a whole man’s life in the form of flashbacks was done really well in my opinion. As the film still did hold up quite well for me in the current year, I can only imagine how audiences at the time would have felt seeing it, which explains why it has been heralded as ‘the greatest film of all time’ and used as the benchmark for other great films to be compared to. 

I do genuinely think that it was better than Vertigo, however. The latter didn’t really grab me, and felt more by-the-books compared to Citizen Kane, so I don’t really understand why it topped the Sight and Sound list (to be honest, I don’t understand why any of the films are on that list, but by their own metrics I think that Citizen Kane is still the better film). To me, Vertigo’s main issue was the pacing, which, at times, felt all over the place, going from a meandering second act to a brisk third, and while I can sympathise with the characters, they did feel a little weak: I never really believed the love they had for each other. Citizen Kane, on the other hand, was essentially a deep dive into a single character, Kane himself, which was done really well and the pacing didn’t suffer at all because of it. I still do believe that it, and Vertigo, should be replaced for the ‘greatest film of all time’, and that many still confuse ‘most influential’ with ‘greatest’, but after seeing it, I do understand why so many hold it in such high regard. 

Short films were also a topic for discussion and viewing over the last 3 weeks, and were a lot more experimental and abstract compared to their feature-length counterparts. I understand the reason: some experimental ideas for short films are great to experiment with, but don’t hold enough content for a 90-minute feature, or would be prohibitively cost or labour-intensive for it to be worth it. Needless to say, the sheer abstractness and form that was in some of these truly took me away. Begone Dull Care was probably my favourite; the fact that it was a short that was produced on film without the use of a camera, and every frame was quite literally painted onto each film cell was insane to think about, and gave me a deeper appreciation of the short as a piece of art. The same could be said of Fast Film, not so much because it was a form of film I had never seen before, but because of the painstaking effort it must have taken to create a stop motion made up of other films, yet still somehow being able to tell a story in its own right. The amount of planning of shots and figuring out every frame, specifically when the car drove out of the train, really stood out to me, and I think should honestly be on the Sight and Sound list. It ticks many of the checkboxes that they have for film; while lacking in story, the innovation, form, and the meta commentary about films made by other films seems right up the critics’ alley, but alas, they’re too focused on old films that created a single camera technique to care. 

Another short film that was interesting to me was Powers of Ten, not because it was breathtaking and something I had never seen before, but precisely because it was something I had seen before. I had previously watched a video on youtube about metric paper, and it is essentially Powers of Ten but framed around doublings and halvings of metric paper rather than powers of ten, which is much more gripping and visualising compared to Powers of Ten. While I think the Youtube video does it better, I do appreciate the innovation of creating this in a time without heavy digital effects, and it stands out as a clear example of something that was innovative at the time, but is now outclassed by its more modern counterparts. 

It is curious why these short films aren’t in the Sight and Sound poll, with only a few making it to the top 100, and it could be part of the troubles with creating such a list. Schrader makes reference to how painstaking it was to create a list, creating multiple criteria a film must hit in order for it to make his canon, and short films don’t really fit the mould. Many of them don’t have stories or characters to speak of, and most serve as an experiment to see if one can change how film can be made. 

I also watched a MIFF film during this period, however, opted to watch Neptune Frost online rather than in person, due to the convenience and not having to commute into the city in order to watch it, and was fully expecting to pay a full ticket price in order to get an (arguably) lesser experience. What I didn’t expect was to still have to endure 5 minutes of ads, and for the film to only go up to a supposed 540p quality, which are both things that I was not expecting to come across when watching a film at home, probably due to an acclimation of watching things at home on streaming sites which contain neither of the two constraints. As for Neptune Frost itself, I found myself barely understanding the plot, or what semblance of a plot there was in this film. It felt like the film was trying to say something: I gathered a vague plot about digital realms and a hacker sending a message throughout to encourage revolution and to overthrow the corrupt powers, but everything else seemed like a wash to me. Characters would start dialogue and just get lost in it, to the point where I barely understood anything they were trying to get across. To my knowledge, the film was meant to be a time-travelling science fiction drama with LGBTQIA+ elements, but I only gathered science fiction and drama elements before the film just decided to stop. 

To my shock, the film was highly regarded online, at least on Rotten Tomatoes, and, to me, is just another example of an artsy film that’s trying to convince people that it’s deeper than it actually is (although maybe I just didn’t understand or was too tired to fully comprehend the message).

Another large part of the last 3 weeks was getting ready to create our manifestos, and reading and watching some, I have a much clearer idea of what a film manifesto contains. Manifesto was a really interesting experience because it recontextualised so many in completely different contexts, allowing the audience to focus on the emotion and rhythm of what is being spoken rather than what is being spoken itself, which I think is arguably as important as the content of a manifesto. The vitriol and sheer acerbity contained in them helps get their point across, cutting into the hearts of the readers and forcing them to pay attention to what they have to say. However, parts of them do get so wrapped up in metaphor and emotion that they get obfuscated and, unless you are deeply invested in cinema and its culture, it becomes very hard to understand or make any sense of it. In Herzog’s manifesto specifically, it devolves into talks of nature and springtime to the point where I was completely lost by the end of it. It was also intriguing that Vertov’s manifesto was the only one that I could recall that contained an actual invitation to the audience to change the film sphere, rather than just talking of ‘we must…’ and ‘there shall be no…’. It highlighted that manifestos don’t really need to give a better alternative to what is, or even to provide explanation of why what is isn’t sufficient, but all they really need to do is just be a highly emotive metaphor-filled rejection of current cinema. 

Overall, these last 3 weeks have been utterly enlightening in terms of what I think of the film canon. While I still believe that it needs to be radically changed from what it is generally accepted as, my experiences watching films at the top of it, such as Citizen Kane, films that have almost no chance of making the list, such as all the short films, as well as a spattering of MIFF ones in between really informed my opinions on why some films are in the canon and why others aren’t. What I also learned was the makeup of the manifesto, the general rejection of the current canon, and how, by watching and reading many of them, a clear blueprint of how to make one can be formed. 

Begone Dull Care, dirs Evelyn Lambart & Norman McLaren, 1949, 8 mins

Dimensions of Dialogue,  dir. Jan Švankmajer, 1982, 12 

Fast Film, dir. Virgil Widrich, 2003, 13 mins

Dziga Vertov, “We: Variant of a Manifesto “, in Kino-Eye: The Writings of Dziga Vertov, ed. Annette Michelson, trans. Kevin O’Brien, University of California Press, 1984, pp 5-9.

Paul Schrader, “Canon Fodder” in Film Comment, vol. 42, no. 5, September-October 2006, pp. 33-49

Werner Herzog, “Minnesota Declaration”, 1999

Part II: Manifesto Statements

The Cult of Canon needs to drink the kool-aid.

The canon is

bloated

with incomprehensible food and drinks from the poisoned chalice of men, for the critics of the world

eat that shit up.

Films must be eliminated from the canon if they are approaching a mid-life crisis.

Part I: Greatest Films of all Time Video

Part II: Reflection

The first two weeks of Canon Fodder have passed, meaning it’s now time to reflect on them and how they’ve changed and illuminated my views of the film canon. Going into this class, I had no idea what defined ‘film canon’. I had never explored it to any reasonable depth, so having it clearly laid out and defined was a great start. 

I almost immediately began to disagree with some of the decisions made to dictate said canon. The Sight and Sound “Greatest Films of all Time” contains almost no films after the turn of the century, with the top film being made in the 1950s. Surely film hadn’t peaked 80 years ago, and, in my opinion, many more recent films deserved to be on that list, taking the places of more older, outdated counterparts. 

It was then I realised how difficult dictating canon truly was. When finding the ‘Greatest movies of all time’, how do you take into account the influence a film has? A film like Vertigo was insanely influential for its time, but with its context in wider film history taken away, and evaluated as film in current times, it lags behind more modern mystery thrillers like The Usual Suspects and Memento. However, just because a film is highly influential, does that automatically make it one of the greatest movies of all time? If that is so, surely the Lumière Brothers’ L’Arrivée d’un train en gare de La Ciotat would be the greatest film of all time, since it invented the medium itself. In my opinion, L’Arrivée d’un train en gare de La Ciotat is to Citizen Kane and Vertigo what those films are to modern ones created today: films that were insanely revolutionary and mind-boggling at the time, but ones that, once stripped of their context and taken as just films, have been supplanted by greater ‘films’ that execute their ideas better, and I feel that should be represented more in the Sight and Sound poll. 

I also think there is something to be said about the biases that informs the ‘canon’ too; the poll is bereft of comedies or animation, mostly populated by serious think pieces that break film conventions, which appeal to their tastes more than other genres. The Gleiberman reading highlights this, with him believing that Vertigo’s more unsatisfying ending and how it breaks convention is one of the reasons critics placed it at the top of their lists. I agree with this; I do believe Citizen Kane is a better film than Vertigo, but I also think this exemplifies the fact that the people who dictated the canon like very particular films, such as Vertigo and L’avventura, and if a film does not fit into that category, such as Hot Fuzz, an extremely well executed comedy that’s a fun time with no particular deep meaning, it doesn’t make the list. 

One part that struck me about the canon was how easily it can change, however. The Fernandez reading about Alice Guy-Blanche, as well as Be Natural were enlightening, showing how many ‘firsts’ and great films in cinema can be falsely attributed, and how film canon can change on a dime based on discovery, whereas Forgotten Silver showed how easy it is to manipulate the canon in the eyes of many. If the canon is so easy to manipulate like that, then why do we hold it to such a high regard as the ‘be all and end all’ of great films and film history?

Overall, these first two weeks have opened my eyes to so many aspects of film and its canon, ranging from how its dictated and who dictates it, to how great films are decided, and how the history of film can be manipulated and (often) corrected, even if it is decades after the fact.

Final Reflection:

For our studio, our last major assignment where we were put into multiple groups was assignment 2, where we produced game shows independently of each other, as opposed to The Charlie Show, where we all worked as one group to complete the production. Along with our group, the other productions for Assignment 2 helped both their respective crews, as well as me, multiple aspects key to the production of live-camera productions, and would be integral to the creation of The Charlie Show. 

Mr. Matchmaker, for example, was a great trial run on how to cater and adhere to a general storyline while utilising improv and chaos, while keeping that chaos controlled to a degree, so that the production did not go out of hand. The responses to the questions were improvised, and did devolve as the production continued, but the team managed to keep on track and hit the markers needed to continue the production and story they had laid out. Not only is this emblematic of the real live-studio industry, where production teams have to adapt to things going awry during the production, but it allowed us to prepare for The Charlie Show, where the end of the second episode relied on that kind of controlled chaos in order to seem authentic and real. 

Liar, Liar also gave us many insights to working in a studio space, many of which would later be used to produce The Charlie Show in the smoothest and best manner possible, one of which includes the ability to create different spaces and cutting between them. Liar Liar does this by having one portion of the space dedicated to the contestant area, and another to the basement, even though both are within the same studio. By positioning cameras positioned so that neither set could be seen when the other was in frame, it created two distinct areas that felt isolated from each other, and could therefore be crossed to and from, similarly to many live-studio news and talk shows.. This would come in handy when filming our final assignment, where we would end up cross-cutting between Studio A and Studio C for infomercials and studio guests, which would not have been possible without the practice from Liar, Liar and Assignment 2 as a whole. 

Both EVS and graphics were used by both productions, and both are a mainstay of the live-studio production space. Audio EVS was used in both, however the people on set were not able to hear it piped through from the control room. This gave us an opportunity to learn, however, as we rectified the issue for the voicemail on The Charlie Show. 

Both these shows helped us to streamline the process of producing The Charlie Show, as well as give us a chance to use the studio space, one of the key ideas of the studio. It also helped us experiment and try different things, which I feel is helpful for the media industry at large, if not just the live-studio production space. 

This Scene In Cinema also dabbled in experimentation in media, specifically how different elements of film production can create different meanings and interpretations for the audience. Many of the short films shown experimented with multiple different elements of cinema to create different meanings, both through mise en scene as well as sound. 

The Deal showed us the same sequence of events through different shot styles, which created a different interpretation and therefore audience connotation for each one. Some shots focused on the document being signed, omitting the faces of the two making the deal, leading to more importance on what the document being signed was, and less focus being placed on the characters themselves. In other instances, shots only focused on the characters’ faces, placing more emphasis on the impact that the deal has on them, instead of the deal itself, giving more emotional attachment to the characters instead of the literal events. It showed how different shots in cinema can lead to emphasis being placed on the different aspects of a scene.

Similarly, Jessie & George replayed the same sequence of events, only with different music, shots and therefore meaning. Through the use of mise en scene and music, the short attached different emotions and meaning to itself. In some, the meeting is seen as a meet-cute, with George being sympathetic, whereas in others, he is played much more sinisterly and distastefully. Both the shorts show how experimentation and different elements of cinema can be used and manipulated to create different meanings, therefore warping and distorting the audience’s view of the literal events through the lens of editing and film. 

The Charlie Episode 1 and 2:

Episode 1:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/13AWUxbKS2VZpZXSe4wrvdLmjs0g_Nszf/view?usp=sharing

Episode 2:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/13yIYG5DuBVaOS2iXrZIbXgB2zhfos1P7/view?usp=sharing

Blog Post 1:

For our pitches for Assignment 3, I think our group did really well, from the ideas, to the execution, and overall just our ability to work as a team. I think that everyone in the group gelled well together, with each of us contributing to the overall idea and keeping on top of everything. Our idea was also very strong in my opinion, only added to by the creativeness and additions from both our group and others; a talk show that devolves into a soap opera is rife with content and ideas you could use for it, and has the advantages of starting off as a run of the mill talk show, a genre we’ve practised many times in this class. It’s a tricky concept that, if pulled off well, could look really good and could act like a victory lap for this entire studio. 

Most of the feedback we got was positive, although looking at other group’s presentations I did think that we would have benefitted from a studio diagram that showed our plans for a set and camera setup, but one line from Rohan stood out to me in particular. We had mentioned that we had planned to do a tracking shot, but decided to scrap it due to the troubles that we had on Assignment 2 trying to pull it off, and he mentioned that we should still try and do it, since this was the exact time to experiment with the professional equipment and crew that we have. It was a really fascinating way of looking at this assignment, and has been stuck in my head ever since the presentation, and I think it’s how I’m going to look at this assignment from now on, trying to push the boundaries and pull off the most stuff possible. If it doesn’t end up working, it was still worth a try, and if it does end up working, it’ll end up looking amazing, so from now on, the sky’s the limit in terms of the scope and experimentation for this project. 

Another group whose project I was really intrigued by was Group 2 (I think?) and their pitch of a live crime sitcom. It is super ambitious and I was really impressed, since they planned to essentially write, block and shoot 2 proper episodes of a sitcom, as opposed to our project, which, while scripted, allowed time for the actors to improv to extend or cut down on time. I’d really like to see that project completed too simply for the fact that creating 2 episodes of what is essentially a proper television show sounds like a challenge I’d happily undertake. 

Blog Post 2:

I’m writing this blog post in Week 10, a week before we plan to shoot the first episode, and while I am very nervous about whether we can get it all the pre-production done before then, I do think we have a great crew that can get it done. Most of the EVS has been shot and just needs to be edited, and much of the planning and scripting for episode 1 has been completed. I am a little worried that we’ve been focusing on episode 1 too much, getting the script and EVS shot and planned for it, while episode 2 has fallen a little to the wayside. We have the basic timeline and some sections on it completed, but nowhere to the level of polish that has been done for episode 1. I know that episode one takes precedence because it is being shot first, but I feel that if we don’t get started on episode 2 soon, at least before episode 1 is filmed, then there won’t be enough time to get it ready for the next shooting week. I’m especially worried about the ending,  since it is probably going to be one of the hardest segments to pull off, with more and more characters being introduced in a chaotic, yet controlled manner, but nothing but the most basic scripting on it has been done. I probably shouldn’t worry too much, however; many of the writers and producers are split between both episodes and once we get episode 1 out of the way, then we can all focus on episode 2 and get it done faster, but I feel that more attention needs to be paid to the ending especially so that we can pull it off properly. 

Overall, I’ve been really impressed by all the things we’ve managed to do in such little time, but am worried about all the work we still have to do, although I’m confident that we can pull it off. 

Blog Post 3:

The final episode has been shot, and thus it’s time for me to write my final reflection. I think that this class has been an overwhelming success, not just because of the final product we produced, but the whole process of learning, creating and working in the studio space. The episodes of The Charlie Show did have hurdles, and they do have their flaws, but the fact that we were actually able to create two episodes of a live show that we pitched, planned and wrote is so impressive to me that the flaws look miniscule in comparison. On the shooting day, we were able to think quickly on our feet to work around multiple problems that arose, such as the fact that we didn’t have access to Studio D, or as many lapel mics that we needed to, and although I regret not having that extra time to rehearse due to having to film the infomercials and musical guest in Studio A, I didn’t think our final take suffered greatly because of it.

In terms of the goals that I had set for myself at the start of the semester, I’d say that I succeeded in pretty much all of them. I had set a goal to try out as many roles as possible and get a feel for the studio space and how it operates, and I think that I did that to the best of my ability throughout the studio. I learned how to operate the cameras, and most of the control room, but what I didn’t expect to do was be involved in the idea making and pre-production processes of studio production, something that I really appreciated and learned from. 

In terms of teamwork, I think that, by the end of the studio, everyone knew how to work in a team and what areas of the studio they would be best suited for, which helped the whole production run more smoothly, and is something that I feel could be applied to media-making as a whole. Without the collaboration conducted by everyone in the class, then the live camera studio would simply not be possible, as mustiple people who are collaborating and working in a team need to be utilised when filming. The director needs to coordinate with the camera operators to ensure the shots line up with their vision, and the DA needs to coordinate with the floor manager, who coordinates with the actors to make sure everything runs on time, and I feel that is the same case for media productions at large, with similar roles, just not exactly the same. Without that collaboration, the whole process would fall apart and the final product would be worse off for it. By the time we got to planning and shooting The Charlie Show, I feel that everyone was comfortable enough with each other, and knew how to use their strengths to shore up for other people’s weaknesses, and vice versa, that the production ran much more smoothly than if it hadn’t been the case. 

I think that this studio taught me invaluable lessons in media production, from the timeline from pitch to creation, to what it feels to truly work as a team who are all passionate and firing on all cylinders when filming a piece of content, and the lessons and memories made from this studio will stay with me for a very long time. 

Blog Post 4:

One of my favourite parts of the whole process of creating episodes for TV was the writers room that we had in week 9. It reminded me of my prior studio, Social Scriptwriting, with the major differences being that it was in person, and that we were writing something that would actually be produced and shown on screen. I really enjoyed the session, not only because having so many writers allowed us to have many different points of views and ideas for us to use in the final project, but having producers present also helped us realise exactly what we could get done and what we had the capabilities to do. It was really interesting to have the more creative and production focused sides of a studio crew in one space, all with their own unique perspectives and takes on what we would like to get done, and if it was feasible to do. 

I think that having the producers there to assist with the writing process also really helped set up the production timeline and allow them to plan exactly what needed to happen when, since they were directly involved in the process. Another thing that I had never done before was delegating the episodes to both the producers and writers once the main ideas were hashed out, so that we could all focus on small parts and bring them together at the end. I felt that it allowed a lot to be done in a shorter amount of time; splitting up the work meant that everyone always had things to do, instead of all working on the same thing at once, so that progress was happening on all parts of the production at one time. Overall it was one of my favourite parts of this production, if not for the fact that it was something completely different from the rest of the course and was a real eye-opener experience. 

Blog Post 5:

Another aspect of this final assignment I’d like to reflect on is the table read, which was, again, an eye opening experience into how the writing process, as well as the pro-production process in general, works. Much like many parts of the pre-production process, it was something that I had always seen and heard about, but never done personally, much less with so many people. After having done one, I think that it’s a vital step in the pre-production process for all the crew, including the writers, actors, producers and directors. For writers, they get to hear the words they’ve written being spoken, and can see how their dialogue, stage directions, and descriptions of the script feel, as well as its overall cohesiveness in general. This is especially true for the episodes of The Charlie Show we had written, since everyone was in charge of a different section, and we had only just put everything together and given it a quick read-through to make sure that everything made sense. Having actors read out the different sections in one go helped us determine if there was anything we needed to change; any continuity errors or general cohesiveness issues that needed to be ironed out. For the directors and producers, it helped them see how the story was progressing, allowing them to keep time to amend their time sheets properly so everything ran on the day, as well as giving the director a chance to voice any ideas on what the production would look like when properly filmed. For the actors, it let them start to get a feel for the characters they were playing and start learning their lines for the shooting days. Overall, it was a really good experience, and pretty much the first time the whole crew was together and finally started to collaborate as a class on The Charlie Show. Having so many different voices, ideas, and thoughts based on the different roles people had (asking about EVS, timings, certain lines, ect.) was really interesting, and the process of the table read was definitely another standout part of the pre-production process.