As our semester comes to it crescendo, I’m finding it increasingly difficult to analyse scenes or watch TV or movies, without my group project in the back of my mind. How can I emulate this lighting? What about this camera movement is so natural? How I can I do the same? It is a constant flow of conscience surrounding how to best bring to life our film. SO MUCH INSPIRATION!!!!!
Our group created a google drive folder where we could compile screen shots of shots we liked. Whether it be production design, framing, lighting or shot composition, these inspo screen shots proved to be a really useful tool to refer back to again and again, as we finalised what our own shots were going to look like.
Here are a tiny example of buckets worth of inspiration our group came up with:
Credits:
Angel Olsen – Shut Up & Kiss Me (Angel Olsen)
Arcade Fire – Sprawl II (Vincent Morisset)
Julia Jacklin – Leadlight (Julia Jacklin)
Julia Jacklin – Pool Party (Julia Jacklin)
Lorde – Green Light (Grant Singer)
Lorn – Acid Rain (Pavel Brenner, Julian Flores, Sherif Alabede)
Louise Wilson – DSLR Night Shots
Sticky Fingers – Gold SNAFU (Rhys Day)
Tame Impala – The Less I Know The Better (CANADA)
The Knife – Pass This On (Johan Renck)
Yall – Hundred Miles (Manson)
How much planning is too much planning? Is there such a thing? This is a question I’ve been asking myself as we draw closer to the first of our shoot dates. I feel like with an open studio like Box, where there is no one final film we are working towards, but rather a collaboration of many small and contained film projects. Having an open mind and unrigged attitude is necessary. I want to arrive to a shoot day with a shooting schedule, a shot list, a script and a badass producer who is going to keep everyone to it. I really value structure (in all things) but especially in filming, it alleviates stress and helps envision the film. However, I also want to be able to have the maturity to recognise if something is not working on set or if something wild and surprising is working really well, and be able to throw everything planned out. Is this made more difficult by having a watertight production plan in place? I’m leaning towards probably not. I feel like, as long I am conscience of on-the-fly opportunities, and not being ruled by the production plan I’ll be ok.
Here are what I have of my production plan so far, albeit in their draft form:
For one of our upcoming shoots, there is a hand-held tracking shot. I really want to nail this shot. I’ve always wanted a steady cam rig to add to my filmmaking kit… specifically a Freefly Movi m5 3-axis motorized gimbal stabilizer, if I’m being exact. However, since I defiantly do not have 3 grand to spend on buttery smooth hand held camera movement, I’ve experimented with 3 poor man work arounds.
1.) Camera mounted on a tripod. (Paul suggested this for a documentary shoot I did recently) This is better then holding he camera directly for sure. Yet still is pretty shaky. However, I feel like I will probably return to this old reliable method.
2.) Using warp stabiliser in post, this only really helps if the shake is super marginal. Not really applicable for the big movements of running with the camera. When used with such footage, it looks super super weird and gross.
3.) The latest experiment is building my own fig rig stabilizer. I watched a couple of YouTube tutorials and made my way to Bunnings. $18 dollars and some elbow grease later, I had my fig rig. While it is defiantly no Freefly Movi, it’s not bad. I would probably rate it maybe the same, or a little better then using the tripod. I think if I added more weight to the bottom part of the PVC pipe frame, it would improve.
As you can see I’m super proud of my DYI job. (better homes and gardens come scout me) If you want to give it a go, heres the link!
All in all I feel like one shot amongst 20 (or so) will not make or break the quality of our film. However, it is still interesting to experiment with different methods to achieve smooth hand held footage. I’m still undecided as to the winner. Cast YOUR vote below.
Today was studio pitches day. In our little groups we pitched our ideas to a panel comprised of Paul, Dan and an impressive lady whose name I shamelessly forgot, so I shall refer to as ‘impressive director lady’. It was interesting to listen to each of the groups ideas, however, more so to listening to our own feedback. For the most part it seemed the panel was satisfied with how clear and formed our pitch was. Dan noted that he could very clearly see the look we were going for, and that it was quite david lynch-esque. That was pleasing. However, when impressive director lady suggested that since we planned to work with older and experienced actors, it might be a good idea to allow them to get a feel for the location and create their own narrative that we would capture. My fellow group members nodded thoughtfully, my stomach dropped to somewhere around my knee. “No!” I yelled internally, “don’t encourage them to throw out the script! Anything but the script!” After our turn was over, and I got over the initial shock of impressive director lady’s feedback, I thought about it a lot. I think at the core of it, she was saying, “don’t get married to any one idea. The location you have selected, is a character in of itself, listen to it. Allow it to influence your narrative.” At least that’s the message I took away from it. Discussing it with my other group members, that’s exactly what we did. We re-wrote the script to better utilise the space. Like a character we wanted to write more dialog for, we wrote more scenes to now include additional exterior shots, the locker room, and the powder room.
In analysing and deconstructing the opening scene of Inglourious Basterds (Dir. Quentin Tarantino, 2009), I will focus on the use of exposer, production design, performance, shot construction and camera movement. Through these production elements, I hope to achieve a greater insight into how Tarantino created one of my all time favourite opening scenes.
The exposer of the scene is an interesting one. The majority of the scene is composed of wide shots, including the details of the darkened corners of the farmer’s cottage, while also the details of the sunny landscape outside. (I’m inclined to believe that was probably CGI, added in post, but I couldn’t find confirmation.) Nonetheless, to include such a large spectrum of light within the scene, the camera operator set the exposer so in the areas of light, streaming in from primarily above, is a little blown out. When Col. Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz) slides his hand, holding the glass of milk, into the light, it looses significant detail. We are unable to tell how full the glass is anymore. However, we can still clearly see the rumpled details of his dark Nazi uniform. It is a curious exercise to imagine if the camera had used a zebra pattern, and what it must have looked like? I assume the table top would have been filled with stripes to highlight too much light falling on the image sensor. In a scene with such variance of light, and so full of detail, it must have been difficult to set the exposer. At least, I imagine I would have struggled a lot. I feel like I would have felt inclined to reduce those zebra stipes, and set the exposer so that I would loose all of the darker details of the lower third, in the name of not having blown out whites in the centre of the table. However, after watching the entire scene through multiple times, I realised that would be incorrect. The scene looks entirely natural. If I placed myself at that table across from Col. Hans Landa, the light from above would in fact blow out the table. Through the use of exposer, Tarantino has created an aesthetic that feels as rustically real and believable as the characters sitting at the table, byway of its imperfections.
The use of production design in this 17-page, dialog heavy scene, tells a story in of itself. The glass of milk prop is introduced early in the scene, and is purposely kept in frame in every shot there after. In fact, Tarantino cheats the shot to include the glass of milk alongside the German colonel’s peaked hat, in Perrier LaPadite’s (Denis Ménochet) shots, as well as in being centre stage in Col. Hans Landa’s shots. The milk acts as an omnipresent reminder that Col. Hans Landa is in total control. He can take their milk, he can take the Jews hiding under their floorboards, and he can take their lives if they should try to stop him. Christoph Waltz’s performance is extraordinary in this scene. Through an unpredictable combination of polite smiles and dead serious facial expressions, the audience is left unable to foresee how the scene will play out. Evoking a strong emotional response, increasing tension, and leaving them on a razors edge. Through the guise of politeness, by Col. Hans Landa acting as if Perrier has any control in the situation, (e.g. asking his permission to switch to english) reminds Perrier how little control he has. Subtly flexing his power.
While the scene is mostly composed around a sit down conversation, the camera movement is not locked off. When Col. Hans Landa leans back in his chair, the camera ever so slightly pans to follow the movement. It is subtle, but I really like it, it brings the scene alive. Side note: I reflected back on our in class Lenny exercise. Also a sit down conversation, in comparison, our locked off shots looked a little stale. This is defiantly a tool I will utilise with our group shoot (also a planned to revolve around a sit down conversation)
The slight camera movement adds to the tension that is already on a slow boil, like a coiled snake (or more appropriately, a hawk) ready to strike at any moment.
In conclusion, the combination of exposer and actors performance, contribute to the believability and authenticity of the scene. In addition, the use of production design adds to the narrative tension and power imbalance between Col. Hans Landa and Perrier LaPadite. Which at its heart, is what makes this scene one of the best.
1.) The disappearing and appearing lady act: panning/ zooming exercise
For our upcoming shoot, our genre is one that is best described as experimental and surreal. I want to create the feel that the Thronbery bowls club is suspended in not only time, but also reality. Some weird things are happening at the bowls club and I think I can convey that with camera movement. For this exercise I had the goal to experiment with panning and zooming with the aim to best introduce someone to a scene. I had an idea how it would look but I didn’t really know how to go about it. The logistics of the actress movements were much easier then I imagined. For the first one – the zoom, I began the shot as a median long shot of my sister sitting beside an empty chair at a table. I had my mum hide behind a pillar out of shot, and then verbally queue her to sneak into the empty chair when I was zoomed in on my sister. (I recorded atmos sound to add over the shot to cover my directions and the sound of the chair scrapping as mum pulled it out.) When I zoomed back out it seemed as if my mum had appeared out of nowhere. I really liked the effect. It worked exactly as I envisioned and has given me the confidence to use it in my shoot. I believe the effect will add to the weirdness of the eerily bowls club aesthetic we are aiming for, and is a much more engaging way to introduce a character then have them just walk into frame. Comparatively I think I like the zoom better then the pan. I feel with the pan it is easier to deduce that the actress just walked to the chair while the camera was panned away.
Since I was interstate for a family affair, and filmmaking was not on the priority list when packing, unfortunately I didn’t have access to a tripod. Consequently the handheld was not a creative decision but one out of necessity. An easy point for improvement, I think a locked off shot would look much better due to less movement in the frame, and therefore look more eerily. Additionally on a tripod the pan would also be much smoother. Also, I wasn’t happy with the joltyness of the zoom, I believe this was a result of using my canon 70d, and could be improved by using the Sonys.
I was happy with framing, I don’t think it was partially good or bad, but was certainly good enough for the purpose of this exercise. I really liked the actress’s decision to act totally bored. Maybe because my family are used to me using them for little films all the time, and they just cant be bothered to do anything interesting when I call action anymore, or maybe now they are just pros. Either way I like it. It makes the ‘appearing mum’ even more weird since no one is acting like anything weird has happened at all.
word count: 515
2.) Light bulb moment
Lighting is bloody tough.
My only experience with lighting has been in interview settings at work, where we aim to light the subject as evenly and as naturally as possible. In class we experimented with using light to convey narrative meaning and add to the cinematic beauty and mood of the shot. We somehow gravitated to creating a moody, bold, dramatic and kinda scary lighting. It was actually really cool. Our end result reminded me on a Game Of Thrones (2011-) season 6, episode 8 scene where Arya Stark Kills The Waif.
The epiphany I had whilst working through this exercise was that I don’t yet have the lighting vocabulary and by extension knowledge. Like at all. It was a quite strange experience to be watching the monitors of the scene, and not be able to articulate what aspects we should change to improve the lighting set up. As an experienced audience member I could, like a robot capable of only seeing the world in 0s and 1s, say if I did or did not like the lighting. I could easily say whether or not it was working, but for the life of me, I couldn’t step up to the c-stand, do this, add that, and change the set up to match my minds eye. It was a weird disconnect. I ended up sitting back and observing the others in the group navigate the lighting set up. Upon reflection I really shouldn’t have let myself sideline myself just because it was hard, I should have jumped in there with the others.
Using light to create a mood, and using light to well… light stuff are two completely different things. The latter is truly an art form and one I am most keen to practise and learn more about.
Sometimes realising how bad you are at something is the best thing that can happen in a learning environment such as our class. I’m looking forward to failing again, and failing better with lighting in the (very near) future.
3.) How exposing
You know how you can have a song stuck in your head for days? This in class exercise did that to me, the song was called “Exposer” – a 2017 Box studio classic.
Exposer is something that is quite foreign to me. I have lots of what sometimes felt like silly, and obvious questions: What is the purpose of exposer? What is exposer? Can exposer be used creatively? I hope to address these questions.
The original purpose of the exercise was to practise pulling focus, however, as we were setting up the exposer, we were recording. (Not quite abiding by the practise of the having everything perfect before hitting record, as Paul told us in our very first lesson.) Consequently, we captured two completely different looks. One where the foreground and subject (Rosie) were exposed properly, while the background was overexposed. The other look was where the background is exposed properly, while the foreground and Rosie are completely underexposed, creating a beautiful silhouette. Can exposer be used creatively? I ask myself again, the epiphany I had whilst working on this exercise was that, yes it can! I totally love the silhouette of Rosie dancing, it’s mesmerising. I can really see myself using this discovery in films in the future. It was also very satisfying to realise through this exercise, that this is how other silhouette scenes are filmed in big movies. It was like finding a puzzle piece that falls into place perfectly- adding to the bigger picture that is my filmmaking knowledge.
More on the knowledge front:
I decided to do a little research into what is exposer. Here’s what I found out. Exposure determines how light or dark an image will appear when captured by your camera. It is determined by three camera settings: aperture, ISO and shutter speed (the “exposure triangle”). I also found an interesting analogy. Comparing achieving the correct exposer to collecting rain in a bucket: “While the rate of rainfall is uncontrollable, three factors remain under your control: the bucket’s width, the duration you leave it in the rain, and the quantity of rain you want to collect. You just need to ensure you don’t collect too little (“underexposed”), but that you also don’t collect too much (“overexposed”). The key is that there are many different combinations of width, time and quantity that will achieve this. For example, for the same quantity of water, you can get away with less time in the rain if you pick a bucket that’s really wide. Alternatively, for the same duration left in the rain, a really narrow bucket can be used as long as you plan on getting by with less water.”
The imagery of the analogy was really useful in understanding how exposer functions. However, I think there can be no replacing getting behind the camera and, like in this exercise, practising and experimenting.
The scene of Melanie delivering divorce papers to Greysmith, is a pivotal and incredibly important scene in Zodiac (Dir. David Fincher, 2007). By exploring a single shot of this scene, (2:22:16 – 2:22:26) Narrative meaning emanating through the use of production elements: sound, acting and mies en scene, conveys Melanie’s discomfort in her own (former) home and signifies the end of her relationship with Greysmith.
The use of exclusively ambient sound in this shot manages audience expectations. The ambient sound of the rain falling softly on the roof creates a hypnotising and calming effect for the audience, creating an atmosphere that does not foreshadow a fierce fight to reconcile a broken marriage, but rather one of acceptance. The acceptance of the loss of a husband and consequently the ‘nuclear family’ construct for Melanie and her children.
As Melanie stands in the living room, she is still wearing her wet overcoat and handbag. With her hands holding the white envelope motionless in front of her, Melanie emits no outward intention of removing them. Once, the sequence of actions of removing her coat and handbag and putting her keys down on the bench would have been habitual (As seen in early scenes). Melanie does not do that now, consequently making her intention of not staying long clear. This is Greysmith’s space now. She is a visitor.
The prop of the white envelope Melanie holds furthers this sentiment, representing Greysmith’s copy of divorce papers; it acts as a barrier, physically taking up the space between her body and his. In a way, Melanie’s actions and overcoat act as a shield. Much like they would against the elements of the now muffled rain, they now act as a barrier against the man she loved, and in many ways, still loves. This sentiment is conveyed as Melanie asks Greysmith: “when’s the last time you ate something?” An audible juxtaposition to all else translated visually in this shot. Demonstrating an ability to care and love someone, and yet not be able to be with them.
The Fincher’s approach to Zodiac was to create a look “mundane enough that audiences would accept that what they were watching was the truth.” This theme can be noted throughout the film, Fincher’s attention to detail created a portrayal of the everyday of late 1960’s and early 1970’s America that was noted amongst critics as “exceptional”. However, the shot in discussion breaks away from the mundane and enters the obsessive, unhealthy and idiosyncratic clutter that is Greysmith’s current headspace, physically manifesting in the composition of his home.
Homework Item #1
When I was younger one of my biggest inspirations was filmmaker and YouTuber Casey Neistat. In his videos, the combination of quick cuts and shaky, hand-held, self-portrait, close ups, created a frenetic yet personal energy. Furthered by the omnipresent backdrop of NYC, like a second character, Casey’s videos were fun, wild and exciting. The rudimentary style made his videos somehow more relatable, especially as a young aspiring filmmaker.
He was making these relatively shit videos that were raking in millions upon millions of views. I thought it was the coolest thing ever.
For our first homework task: Pre-produce & film for a 30 second sequence, I attempted to recreate a sequence from one of Casey’s videos Stolen Bike in NYC, 2013. (1.16 -1:33)
As is often the case, my reflection and epiphanies occur after the fact while I am editing my videos. As I was cutting the action of me putting on the raincoat, comparing my own cuts to Casey’s, I realised how insightful being a copycat can be. Something felt sacred about mimicking this creator I used to like. The highest form of flattery (Casey wouldn’t see it this way – he has a video called Copycats And Rip Off Artists. It has 1.7 million views. )
This creative exercise of copying Casey meant I had something to directly compare my own work to. Something tangible I can put next to my sequence, and think ‘whom does it better?’ I deconstructed Casey’s sequence so I was able to recreate it, and in the process, I was able analyse what I liked, why I liked it, how it worked and what made it work. This exercise was incredibly fruitful and interesting. I will defiantly attempt to replicate other filmmaker’s work in the future.
One point for improvement worth noting is sound. I didn’t use sound for this exercise, I think that was a mistake. A key aspect of what makes Casey’s sequence good is the sound effects paired with the playful soundtrack. Again, bringing the piece alive with his unique energy. Mine was dull in comparison.
345
Homework Item #4B
Our latest in class exercise, 4B was quite educational. We got the band back together and attempted the same exercise we completed on Tuesday. This time, a full day wiser, we changed some things up. First off we rotated roles. Secondly, we entered the shoot with some points of improvement from the last shoot, in the forefront of our minds. Such points included: framing -too much headroom, and selection of lighting – therefore set location. I think we really improved on these fronts.
Constantly learning, after reflection in editing, there were still some things to improve upon. For example, the focus of the camera. The overall feel of the shot was a little soft. From past studio shoots I have experienced this very thing with these cameras when outside. Our previous class exercises were all inside, and for the most part looked pretty sharp. Leading me to believe it must have something to do with the great outdoors that is not so great.
I’m not too sure how to remedy this, since as director, I was standing behind Sam the camera operator, looking at the viewfinder before each shot. I thought it looked fine. I wonder if there is a rule of thumb to test this while on the shoot? Definably a question I will raise to Paul in class. Perhaps the answer lies with always having a monitor on set to check? Not sure, but by George, I’ll get to the bottom of this. Watch this space.
