This reproduction piece of photograph is based on a still image from the film, The Third Man, 1949. As evident, the image is of black and white and therefore the reproduction should also be a black and white image. As of the production context of the original image is during the WWII in Vienna , the reproduction is portrayed to be a modern-day or contemporary Melbourne context instead of being exactly a replica. Though, the framing, position and setting are all an imitation of the original still.

 

Based on Gilles Deleuze’s idea that ‘The out-of-field refers to what is neither seen nor understood, but is nevertheless perfectly present’ (p.16), I’ve made another reproduction that demonstrates the idea. The stop-motion piece shows a frame that replicates the original given frame from The Third Man, while followed by other different frames, which shows the out-of-field of the original still. In this case, what we as viewers would understand is that the subject (man) is waiting for a girl outside her window and when she shows up unexpectedly, he gets shocked. We would understand at least that he is waiting for something even before the frame of the girl is shown. Therefore, our perception and comprehension of the world outside and also inside the film means that we are able to interpret the film based on how our world (in the out-of-field) works.

Our week 3 studios focuses on narrative and time. As Dan said, frame is time, not just a signifier of time. The idea that everything in the film is moving sounds a bit confusing let alone our minds respond, what about still shots on the frame? But even in stills, time is moving. In terms of narratives, having either plots that moves forward or flashbacks or jumbled up in different chronology, the story still begins and ends in linear order. That is the difference between a plot and a story, which in my popular cinema seminar I’ve learned two new vocabularies identifying these two conventions. These includes Fabula (or story) which can be defined as the purpose and meaning of the whole narrative, and Syuzhat (or plot) which is the order that the story is presented.

We are able to manipulate time through filmic codes and conventions including the popular technique of flashbacks. If we see a shot or a scene that is framed in a different colour, hue, filter or even sound than other scenes, as viewers we interpret this distinguishable content as a different part of the narrative. Another technique of time-manipulation is the use of slow-motion movement that is developed into a more advanced mobile movement called the bullet-time.

When thinking about frames, my mind automatically visualise the physical outskirts of an image. But this week, I’ve learned that framing means much more deeper than that. It is also about the image composition itself and how an image is constructed the way it is through visual codes. It is just what we are doing when taking a photograph. From the readings that we did for this week, my favourite quote from the readings so far is that “Photographs alter and enlarge our notions of what is worth looking at and what we have a right to observe” (Sontag). We all have different perspectives on each certain image and it is up to us how we interpret those visual compositions. “They are a grammar and more importantly and ethics of seeing”. With this being said, framing acts as a guidelines and a “position of thinking” (Frampton, 2006). Therefore, while working on my 50 frames in this week 2, it has implanted in my mind that the subjects in my photographs has an allegory. For example, the photograph of the origami jar that I took may be interpreted that the artist of the origami is Japanese, having it originated from Japan. But it can also mean that a passionate origami maker, not necessarily from Japan, has created the colourful mixture of origami papers. Its allegory also leads into a perception that it is about a journey of a person who loves colourful and brightness life setting.