https://www.mediafactory.org.au/khang-nguyen/2018/08/09/the-scene-in-cinema-analytical-blog-2-scene-in-casablanca/

https://www.mediafactory.org.au/khang-nguyen/2018/08/10/the-scene-in-cinema-reflection-blog-3/

https://www.mediafactory.org.au/khang-nguyen/2018/08/10/the-scene-in-cinema-reflection-blog-4/

There are just too many exciting things happened in class in the last two weeks and now I don’t even know how I should begin. Alright, let’s start with a pleasant Tuesday in week 3, which was so fun that I suddenly forgot the stress of deadlines coming at the end of that very week (and thank goodness it is now long gone). We were shown a scene from the movie The Red Shoes and then Robin, our tutor explains to us the different roles that make up a film set. I have always been curious to know the size of a film crew, which I presumed to be enormous. Back in high school, I was involved in the production of West Side Story of the school and that alone had 80 people involved for three nights of two-hour performances (not exactly the same thing as a film set but pretty much the same idea in terms of scale). I didn’t know the exact roles besides actors, cameramen and one or two directors. Robin then broadened my knowledge, as he told us that it would involve many more roles such as a focus puller, a clapper person, a continuity supervisor and a sound person. The director also has a first assistant director (or a first AD) whose job is to supervising the crew and managing the production. I then figured out that the first AD would probably have the most complex job of all, as it would involve managing both resources and personnel. We then got a script and attempted to be at the set of that scene from The Red Shoes. I was allocated to be an actor. We didn’t have enough time to shoot anything in full, but from the actor point of view, I got to see how energetic a film set would be as many people carrying out different tasks at the same time. Being able to perceive this makes me acknowledge the complexity of filmmaking ever further.

We were also given a reading by Luis Bunuel who emphasises the importance of decoupage – editing process. But the part that I found really interesting is when he says that everyone can learn the basics of cinematography, but only an elect can produce a good film. This pretty much sums up to me how cinematography is not just a process, but a delicate art. This concept didn’t come up to my mind before, hence I find it highly interesting as sometimes, I would not think certain movies being produced as something to be considered “the art of filmmaking”. This idea of Bunuel really aids me in starting to perceive film craft in a more intellectual and artsy approach.

The knowledge I obtained during week 3 in studio simply blew my mind. I have always thought the art of filmmaking is a sophisticated yet logical and delicate one, but it was all abstractive before I attended this studio. For example, when I was watching La La Land for the first time nearly two years ago, I would constantly go “Oh my, this is spectacularly astonishing” but I could not explain in any bit of detail why the scenes were “astonishing”. Seriously, if you ask me two months ago what I think “blocking a scene” is, my mind would concept around the image of some strangers awkwardly passing into Hollywood filming locations like in some parodies on YouTube. Well well, I always like to learn something new everyday, and week 3 were full of something new around technical camera terminology and in a sense theory.

It all started around the focal length, which I learnt its purpose is to change the field of view. That is just one of many new words to aid my vocabulary on this matter, with depth of field, point of focus and aperture being other ones. I find out different focal length would affect the field of view as well as the depth of field, which is the part of the picture both in front and behind the component that is in focus. For example, a shorter focal length would result in a shallower depth of field and vice versa. Not gonna lie, this concept is very problematic and confusing to understand. We got access to a sheet that logically states the effect of different focal length, but I still often have to stop while we practice with the camera to say to myself “Hang on, that doesn’t make any sense”.

Anyhow, on the Friday class of week 3, we did an exercise with a camera using only two shots: one with the shallowest depth of field possible, and the other with the greatest depth of field possible. It proves to be a good practice in better understanding all of the new aspects that I have mentioned. However, surely for me, it would take much more time of experimenting to conceptualising focal length to a deep extent, considering right now, I am still so so confused! Maybe now I have got a goal that I should achieve at the end of the semester: understand all of these aspects proficiently and put that in evidence through constructing a scene on my own – something that right now I am not too confident or capable of doing…

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAlzmRjixr0

Casablanca was released in 1942 during World War II, directed by Michael Curtiz and features Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman. It is widely considered as one of the best Hollywood movies of all time because it contains many elements that a great drama should have: a superb plot full of romance and tragedy, remarkable acting, iconic lines as well as a memorable tune being played throughout the movie to aid its greatness. The scene that I pick to analyse is one of its greatest in terms of camera coverage.

Being shown in the scene as it starts is Rick, the main character being played by Humphrey Bogart. Rick has just met the woman, Ilsa, who left him and broke his heart some years before. He is seen drinking and contemplating the difficult and downhearted situation. At start, a medium close-up is used to portray him sitting by the bar alone in his nightclub. This indicates his being of loneliness and at lost, as his facial expression is exposed of being quite clearly baffled through this angle.

As Rick pours some liquor and takes a sip, the camera zooms out to a wide shot, revealing that he is actually not alone as Sam, his friend and pianist, walks in. From this angle, the panoramic view of his café is seen as being gloomy and shadowy, which could be said to be a metaphor to his mood. Hence, high aperture is used through the camera to allow limited exposure playing a fundamental part in setting the context for the scene. It is worth mentioning the effect of the searchlight which appears at exactly the moment Sam is presented. It immediately brightens the context, which could be a metaphor of how important Sam is to Rick as he arrives to give his friend and boss some company, hence lights up the room.

As their conversation goes on, the camera zooms in again to the original angle as Sam tries to persuade Rick to go to bed. When his effort proves to be fruitless and he walks to the piano to play in brightening his friend’s mood, the angle changes to a close-up at Rick. Again, his deep expression is clearly exposed. Occasionally from there, a close-up of Sam is also used to show his concern, but Rick’s frustration is the most significant showcase from the use of close-up with the climax when he hits the table as he cannot escape the thoughts on Ilsa. Then, as Sam continues to play, a medium shot is angled as the audience is able to see both characters. Arguable, Rick’s expression seems more faded at this angle, which emphasises his feelings even further. When Sam plays “As Time Goes By” which is the song that reminds Rick his old romance (in other words, it is their song), the camera zooms in again to a close-up and focuses at Rick as he struggles to hold his tears. Then it all fades as the scene comes to an end, transitioning into a scene of Rick’s memory.

Overall, this scene effectively uses close-up to highlight the painful expression of the main character. The low level of exposure helps setting a dark tone to the context in order to fit in with the character’s mood. As this is in black and white, this process creates a more powerful effect and is completely successful in showing the vulnerabilities of the character.

During the first session in studio last week, we were assigned a task to transform a short script into actual scenes using only 4 different angles. As a group of five, the script that our group was handed required two of us to be actors and three to be behind camera. It was about a character, Elizabeth, looking for a seat in the cinema and awkwardly annoys the other character, Juliet. As we started, not all members of the group were interested in acting. Hence, I volunteered to act as Elizabeth for I wouldn’t mind acting so we can arrange the roles more easily in the benefit of the task. However, looking back, I haven’t had too much time behind the camera during the studio up to that point and I wouldn’t say that I would know exactly how to operate if it is my role. Getting into a certain unfamiliar role would benefit me more in understanding the concept of camera coverage, as I would say that this is better perceived via the camera operator.

We started by looking for a location. I learned that where the scene would take place can significantly impact coverage as many factors would have to be considered, such as the lighting or the positions in action. We actually found a perfect location in a theater that can be the identical resemblance of the cinema scene context. However, as we were going through the script before shooting, we were thrown out as it turned out to be a “teaching space”, while we were allowed in at first. This made choosing where to shoot even more problematic than it first was as we could not find somewhere that is quiet nor being similar to what we originally aimed. We had to make do with a busy area, and it is noticeable in the end that the background noise affects our product in a bad way as the dialogue couldn’t be cleanly recorded.

Anyhow, we went for a medium shot, an over the shoulder shot, a close-up shot and a wide shot. The different in variety and position of the shots provided us with the opportunity to perceive the different effects and coverage that each shot brings. For example, the medium shot and over the shoulder shot could show me and my partner clearly having a conversation, while a closer shot like a close-up shot would allow us to view clearly the expression and frustration of one character. Nonetheless, we found that apart from the quality of the sound, exposure was another problematic issue that we did not pay attention to. If given another shot at the task, we would probably aim to adjust the amount of light to make it more perfect. Another aspect that we certainly have room for improvement was the continuity in transitioning of shots at different angles. But overall, this exercise proved to be valuable in helping us to see how many shots, times and how much effort needs to be put in just for the completion of a short script. Camera coverage is problematic, hence extremely exciting.