I wasn’t able to go to the first class of week one, so my experiences were only of the Thursday class. The Thursday class was a lot more theory-based than I believe the Tuesday one was, and focused on the larger view of photography and how it has grown as a medium.

My main takeaway from the week one class I attended was listening to “The decisive moment.”

(HENRI CARTIER BRESSON – The Decisive Moment 1973_2007, 2007). Cartier-Bresson discusses several elements of photography – some even somewhat contradicting each other – and tries to demonstrate that the world needs constant re-examining to try and see the world in new ways: “There’s no new ideas in the world there’s only new arrangement of things, Everything is new, every minute is new. That needs re-examining, Life changes every minute” (HENRI CARTIER BRESSON – The Decisive Moment 1973_2007, 2007). I found this quote in particular rather uplifting. The belief that any idea I may have from here on may have been done before, but it won’t be done through my lens. The way I experience it is uniquely mine, and so my work will be even if inspired by others. This was also particularly noteworthy considering the mimesis assignment, with the idea we are actively intending to copy another person’s work. This has inspired me more in the edits of the photos than in the production I have done so far, as I have begun to take deviances from the source material if I feel it benefits the composition. I have also particularly focused on my own decisive moments, trying to remain patient to line up the perfect shots when I believe they are upcoming or I can see them beginning to take shape. Whether that pans out in my work is yet to be seen, especially considering I have not picked particularly easy shots to replicate.

References:

Bt465 (January 7 2016) ‘HENRI CARTIER BRESSON – The Decisive Moment 1973_2007’ , YouTube website, Accessed 20 Jul. 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14ih3WgeOLs

I liked how the studio website came out, although in some ways I feel it sells the feeling of the actual production a little short as it highlights more what we created than the process, which was what encompassed the entirety of our thoughts for the semester.

I did really enjoy Clodagh’s edit of our assignment two project, Recess Stress, as it probably made the show look less janky than it actually was, and highlighted the theme for visitors of the website of live broadcast and game-show-esque content that we made throughout the semester, though it missing the excellent EVS clips Matt produced perhaps was a missed opportunity.

Nicole’s poster for The Improv Games was fantastic. I think it did a perfect job of finding the mix between that local theatre-esque vibe, but also looking professional and highlighting improv, or more specifically, the idea that one person may have to perform many different caricatures through the multiplying of Jamie on the poster. In retrospect, we should have gotten him to do a few promotional photos to make her life a lot easier.

I hope people can take away from the website the intended idea of it being a studio that heavily promotes collaboration and liveness, and is a great place to learn the ins-and-outs of live media production, especially studio productions. If all they get out of it is some shows that were a bit peculiar and unhinged, that’s okay too. That was half the fun.

I’m not sure why it particularly caught my eye, but I decided to look at Poetic Video, as it had some former classmates I really enjoyed working with in it, and I have always enjoyed poetry in both its traditional and more alternative and video forms.

I am presuming that the idea of the studio, or at least their final assignment, was to make a piece that reflected a real-world issue or phenomenon in a non-linear form, that was stylistic and deliberate in its way of promoting that message. In that vein, I thought Em Cox and Isabella Cook’s Life is Plastic was quite good. It definitely achieved its purpose: a pseudo-documentary that showed the life of a plastic bag, and how its lifespan goes far beyond the commercial and capitalistic ways we often envision their use. But the style in which they did it I found very engaging. I loved the blending of the 1950’s salesman voice, combined with the plastic/junk remnants of the on-screen text, to provide the style promoting plastic, whereas the one that was a lot more eco-friendly was more solumn and tempered, which gave the effect of showing what it spends the majority of its lifespan: in the environment, not rotting away.

SURGE by Nick O’Brien, Auley Ryan and Kal Zhang’s was similar in reflecting a real-world issue in a non-linear form, and stylistically chose to manipulate their film to highlight the dangers of drug use, and how you can feel on them. It was incredibly non-linear, which may have led to some confusion if it weren’t for their composition, as many of the effects they used to demonstrate drug use I found clever, where they used a lot of visual distortion and blending of images to create the sensation of being under its influence.

When we began the pre-production for The Improv Games, my biggest concern was a lack of engagement with the idea from both contestants and production. It definitely felt unique in the sense I was letting twenty-five-plus people toy and manipulate my brainchild into something that I didn’t have total control over, but I was looking forward to seeing what other people did with my idea. However, I guess I was also hesitant in that I was nervous about whether people would run with the idea or heavily adapt it.

Ultimately, I think that ended up being a fair enough reason to be concerned. On the one hand, I think it was an ambitious idea that required some adapting to make an engaging piece, and many of the changes we made I think ended up helping the pace of the show. On the other hand, I think it lost some of the spirit of the show and a lack of engagement with the idea from certain members of the crew meant we were stifled in our possible outcomes. The transition to being more game show-esque may have been necessary for formatting and flow reasons, but I think the focus became a bit too strong on it and took away from the improvisation and risk-taking element of the contestants, and ultimately, it became less funny and engaging.

And those are aspects I’d definitely change if I were to continue production of The Improv Games in future. I definitely felt the essence of the show disappeared from my original idea, and would like to put more of a focus on just highlighting good improv and actors. The gamification of the show to me felt shallow and made it lose a bit of its soul. I found myself as director wanting to trust the process and lean into what the other crew members had come up with and not over-step my role, but I definitely feel I should have probably had a stronger voice in pre-production, particularly as the person with the idea originally, to help guide it. I would also allow for more time and try and get some theatre actors, as the show was always going to be as good as the talent made it, and we should have allotted time to find the best we could rather than focusing on logistically who was gettable. This isn’t to say the actors were bad, but with more refinement and with actors that would bring an energy to the show and play with it, rather than just responding to the prompts we gave them, it would have improved the quality of it.

I was also disappointed with some members of the class, who were consistently on their phones during production and didn’t ever really engage with the idea. I think the people who really immersed themselves in the thinking and world of improv really brought a lot to the table, and people who didn’t do much beyond when their name was called definitely meant we had strong and weak points of the broadcast that could have looked more seamless with stronger engagement and understanding of the ideas. This particularly irritated me on the episode I directed, as I consistently found myself repeating directions or questions to problems and ideas that had already been established or solved before we ever reached the point of rehearsal.

Regarding my role in episode two, where I was rostered as the floor manager for studio B – but ultimately ended up also being director’s assistant and the second floor manager in studio A, – I enjoyed it but the episode was clearly less prepared than episode one. While part of that was just the schedule and time we allotted for it, another I think was a lack of engagement with episode two’s quirks prior to production. When I was directing, I think people found it arduous but I was really glad we rehearsed as much as we did. Without that for episode two, it definitely showed in the chaos of production and lack of conviction with what people were doing. I found myself constantly having to adjust the schedule and direct people where they were needed (and not in the way of information relay that the role contains – as in, they weren’t where they needed to be), and I felt I was always putting out fires (which was ironic cause no fire alarms went off, unlike episode one) or adjusting for things that hadn’t been (and should have been) accounted for. I could say that rehearsing would have helped, because it would have slightly, but truthfully, I think a lot of the people for episode two hadn’t considered their responsibilities or engaged with their role for the episode prior to the shoot day (some people I found weren’t even aware of what their role was, which I truthfully found very disappointing), and more engagement would have prevented half the issues and created the more controlled chaotic energy that was prevalent in episode one.

This reflection has been fairly negative (and anecdotal), and that’s likely because when it’s your own idea and you are directing or managing it, it’s easy to be highly self-critical, which I acknowledge. One thing I would really like to highlight is that for a large majority of the class, collaborating and working with them was a real genuine highlight and made the whole process enjoyable. The producers did a fantastic job of keeping people in the loop and plugging holes where they appeared, and Jacob and Cecilia in the episode I directed were insanely helpful throughout. Clodagh did a fantastic job directing in episode two, and – as mentioned earlier – I ended up floor managing both studios and being the director’s assistant in studio B, which required a lot of back-and-forth with Clodagh, who did a phenomenal job in communicating her wants and needs, and in pre-production we came to a good point of finding an aesthetic and “look” for the show that was consistent between both episodes. It was good to see everyone really adapt to their preferred roles over the semester and the different assignments, and really start to find their groove in a larger-scale production. If there was one thing I took away from the semester, but particularly the final production, it was that your product is as good as your crew’s passion for it and their ability to collaborate with you. In that respect, I think The Improv Games speaks for itself: a show with a lot of potential, but a lot more to discover and refine.

The LA Times article by Robert Lloyd ‘The Big Bang Theory’ is ending, but we shouldn’t let multi-cam sitcoms die. Here’s why’ is a deeper-dive into the comparisons between live, multi-cam sitcoms versus single-cam ones. Lloyd demonstrates that our perception of multi-camera media has faded to being dated, traditional, and more low-brow. Comparatively, the best of single-camera productions are viewed as “[miracles] of television”, and deemed high-brow and culturally significant. He argues that “single-camera comedy is more ‘realistic,’ which is to say, it is more like film than like theatre”, but that it misses a key aspect of multi-camera sitcoms: that it looks at “people, at close quarters, talking, talking, talking.” He goes on to say that “the fourth wall is whatever wall’s behind you. You become a witness, participant, family.”

The reason I highlight his particular viewpoint of the comparison is because I believe it’s an important distinction when choosing the medium for a show. While the premise of ours is a multi-camera production and by design of the assignment it should be, I think it’s important to consider what formats work best with what technique. Part of the reason I advocated to pitch The Improv Games was due to this idea and I’m glad the concept came up later in this reading. While it may not be a sitcom, I think the premise of a chaotic show where you can bounce between characters and really highlight actor performances, in particular, playing up to a crowd, is vital for multi-camera productions and is actively hindered by a show with a single camera. We were presented with an opportunity to film a show we never could otherwise, isn’t that worth a risk of trying? It’s not everyday you have a black box studio and 5 state-of-the-art cameras to experiment with. Particularly when the style is reducing in popularity, it’s experience that is vital to working on any live productions, and I was grateful for being given the opportunity to do it.

As for the argument of which is better? They have their pros and cons, and while the traditional filmmaker in me definitely misses the single-camera production techniques and ability to meddle and adjust at every whim, there is absolutely something to be said about the chaotic, fun, and exciting space of working in a live production, not knowing exactly what you’ll be airing that very same day.

References:

Lloyd, R. (2019) ‘The Big Bang Theory’ is ending, but we shouldn’t let multi-cam sitcoms die. Here’s why, The LA Times. Available at: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/la-et-st-big-bang-theory-multi-camera-sitcoms-20190505-story.html (Accessed: 08 May 2023).

I think the Washington Post article (and accompanying video) “Behind the scenes with Seth Meyers” (Izadi, 2018) was a great resource to get our head into a show format that constantly changes. I think as a crew we found ourselves worrying about the content turn-around, but also about how to quickly think on our feet and adapt. This article (and video) demonstrates there is no true formula to making that work, and it just relies on being savvy and quick-thinking to come up with a solution. I personally found watching the video something of a relief: as long as we found a solution to our problems that worked for us, they were adequate. In the article, segment writer for the show Sal Gentile summarises this idea really well: “You have to be less precious and just come up with a joke as quickly as you can.” I think that’s something I definitely struggle with individually; that perfectionism to try and do things as best as they can be, and not prioritising your time to just have everything done well. I was glad I saw the article before we got heavily into the production, because doing things that worked instead of being perfect definitely resulted in a more balanced product.

The other thing that the article demonstrated was the timeline for a show with daily turnaround times. It definitely helped to ease the idea that a show like ours can run on a week-to-week schedule and the chaos of ‘what am I going to be doing today?’ is part of the charm. This is also why I was less stressed about episode two going into it, as I knew that as long as we found solutions as mentioned earlier, the episode would take shape around them. This turned out to be true, though there is something to be said for extended preparation, as I do believe the first episode of The Improv Games probably came out better than the second one.

References:

Izadi, E. (2018) Behind the scenes with Seth Meyers, The Washington Post. Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/style/wp/2018/05/29/feature/inside-the-writers-room-with-seth-meyers-how-to-make-late-night-tv-in-the-trump-era/ (Accessed: 01 May 2023).

The entire focus in the pre-production has been on episode one, and as a result, my focus has been entirely on directing. In the pre-production stage, I sometimes feel as if I am sitting on my hands a bit: everyone else is doing work and unless I over-step my responsibilities, I don’t have a whole lot to do prior to studio rehearsals and tech runs of the show. As the creator of the idea and the person who has to direct it, I did try and suggest a few things to the writers and have sat in on a few of their meetings, but ultimately I am trying to trust the process and allow them to do their roles to the fullest. This is, however, eating me up on the inside; giving away your idea, it being moulded into something else, then given back to you to direct, is a weird sensation. Perhaps I should have asked Ruth to see where I should stick my head in and where not to, but to be frank, I don’t think many people are considering the director’s opinion on things anyway unless I reminded them that I probably needed to know. I think the collaboration between others is great and I think it’s worth allowing people to explore their roles to the fullest extent, but the exchange of ideas is a bit haphazard and in my view misses some steps or people (not just myself, for that matter). I’m also aware that my hands are likely to be very full when it comes to the studio days, so I am not trying to overload either.

Other then that, I planned a “look” for the show about a stage within a stage, which allows for the two episodes to have a consistent aesthetic while we are constantly changing sets, and helped Jacob plan out how the run-sheet is likely to look, trying to balance the logistical elements of the show versus the core parts of it that make it engaging.

I was definitely curious to see what others had come up with for the pitches. When I saw the assignment prompt, I immediately had the idea for The Improv Games, more specifically, a show in the sort of light of Thank God You’re Here (2006), due to the nature of us not having to heavily script the show, creating something original, and would highlight the best bits of what we had filmed so far: improvised discussion. This was highlighted pretty well in our feedback, as we were told that the best bit about ours is it’s straightforward in terms of execution, and the quality of our talent would likely dictate largely how the show comes out. We were also given credit for our original spin on the idea, particularly the game Coco devised, ‘Concept Clash’, where two people have to figure out who the other was. The feedback from the whole class was great and spoke to pretty much all the reasons I chose the idea (straightforward but unique, builds upon previous assignment experience, etc), and I was super grateful that it was chosen by the class.

The other idea that most excited me was the post-apocalyptic talk show that Hamish’s group pitched. I thought that was a really clever spin on the talk show formula, and meant we would be making a more structured piece that allowed for improvisation but with some guiding rules. I honestly thought it was well-thought out and constructed, but perhaps lacked some ideas in the form of content. The other pitch that most caught my attention was the meta-comedy pitch from Jamie’s group, however it appeared they had considered the gimmick of the meta-comedy a lot more than the content itself that the gimmick would work around. It would also require a lot of pre-production work, which is probably why people ended up moving away from the idea when voting. With a lot more time and a crew performing their ideal roles, I think both ideas could be super fun and engaging to work on.

References:

Cilauro, S. et al. (2006) Thank God You’re Here. Melbourne, Victoria: Network 10. 

My expectations for the assignment were that good pre-planning would allow a fairly straightforward production for these game shows.

That wasn’t strictly true, nor was it totally false.

I think my group’s preparation meant we knew what we wanted on screen and when we wanted it. Our problem was a lack of rehearsal that meant how each component segued into the next was, at best, sketchy.

We weren’t given a lot of rehearsal time, as we were the third group. This proved to be an immense challenge as the first group ran through several rehearsal runs, where we were only able to have a singular one.

Speaking of the first group, as a camera operator in that show, listening into a lot of the control room communications, the show appeared very hectic and unprepared. I am not sure if that was due to lack of experience or lack of planning, but it made me anxious listening to it, and I wanted to try my best to communicate clearly and prevent that for the group that I was directing.

When it came around to being our go, with limited time and people in roles they weren’t familiar with, I wanted to try and get everyone on the same page about my direction and what was going to occur, which I believe I did quite a good job of. However, what I think I could have improved significantly was organising the rehearsal in a manner where everyone got to test their transitions and abilities. I think we did well considering the time we had, and the lack of a proper rehearsal, but I definitely could have done better. Also, maybe streamline the process between the director and the director’s assistant, because I think Matt and I probably could have worked a bit closer in tandem with my ideas and the execution of them, because while we had good communication, him being a bit more privy to my specific vision of the show may have allowed some easier communication workflows.

My primary takeaway from this assignment was that it’s important that all roles get to have a basic run-through of their components, and practice segues between segments so transitions are seamless and un-jarring. A secondary takeaway was that pre-planning reduces significant amounts of prior stresses in the early stages of production, but mid-shoot still requires a few practice runs of its own.

Ben Lamb discusses within his article on narrative form and British TV the structure of television conventions and how they’ve changed over the decades. His points on mise-en-scene I found quite interesting, as some aspects of it have held with time while others now definitely show their age. Talking about character interaction around a scene’s set, referring to a sitcom from the 1950’s, Lamb states characters in the front room “do not interact or interfere with the immaculately placed objects that populate spaces”, which still applies in a lot of more formulaic sitcoms of this era, but otherwise has slowly been transformed into making the sets work for the action playing around it, with more interaction and subtle details, such as referenced in class with sequel series That ‘90s Show (Mancuso, 2023) where details of the show were updated from its predecessor, but maintained important details and continuity that allowed the cast to engage with the environment that felt familiar to past viewers, without feeling dated.

I thought this was quite a cool way of doing set design, particularly for a show that is set in an era that has passed us, with our connotations not only of that decade, but also its era’s shows. It definitely helped inform me when it came to doing our set design for our show, because I wanted to gain some level of inspiration from previous shows of a similar ilk, without actually copying them, but providing a feel that is similar with the genre and shows within the “high-school quiz show” subgenre. I think I achieved that to some extent, but I probably could in future use shows like That ‘90s show as an example of how to date things to their era or place, without them feeling dated in the technical sense, just aesthetically.

References:

Lamb, B. (2014) Narrative Form and the British Television Studio 1955–1963, Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television, 34:3, 357-368, DOI: 10.1080/01439685.2014.937181
Mancuso, G. (2023, January 19). That ’90s Show. Netflix.

Something that stuck out to me a lot when watching the video on Jeopardy! in week six was that the process of these productions can be streamlined to almost a point of automation. The director’s assistant knew what the director wanted often before they vocalised it. While on the one hand, doing over eight-thousand episodes would probably make one fairly proficient at that process and would be easier to learn another person’s style and ways of doing things, I also think it demonstrated that proficiency in the form of repetitive reiterations of a program is probably one of the best ways for things to be streamlined, and the more you communicate with your crew the more likely you are to be able to prepare for something going wrong because you’ll have a better understanding of usual go-to’s, or also general conventions of that genre of show or even specifically of the show itself, like what is mentioned in the week six reading by Su Holmes, who discusses game show formulas and how moving away from them is often “precisely it’s negotiation of difference” (Holmes, 2008) between shows.

Holmes also talks about the distinction between game shows and quiz shows, and the differences between them, and whether their classification should be lumped into the same category or not. Across the three pieces we made for assignment two, one was a game show and two were quiz shows. I hadn’t really considered this classification before now, as game shows maybe biggest property of difference in my viewing experience was whether they were a serious game show (i.e. people won something of importance or value), verse a entertainment game show, which I view as the types of programs where the participation is pretty much the award in itself, and doesn’t actually get you anything (and there is less cultural significance for “winning” it). I guess if I had a takeaway from that reading and my experiences afterwards, it would just be that I have a larger appreciation for the differences between these formats and how they work, as functionally they operate in a fairly different manner behind the scenes, comparative to a quiz show, which has different formulas and conventions to make them engaging, such as more refined rules, EVS clips and history behind them.

References:

Holmes, S 2008, The Quiz Show, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. Available from: ProQuest Ebook Central. [24 April 2023].