https://www.mediafactory.org.au/khang-nguyen/2018/09/14/the-scene-in-cinema-reflection-blog-5/
https://www.mediafactory.org.au/khang-nguyen/2018/09/14/the-scene-in-cinema-reflection-blog-6/
https://www.mediafactory.org.au/khang-nguyen/2018/09/14/the-scene-in-cinema-reflection-blog-7/
https://www.mediafactory.org.au/khang-nguyen/2018/09/14/the-scene-in-cinema-reflection-blog-8/
https://www.mediafactory.org.au/khang-nguyen/2018/09/14/the-scene-in-cinema-an-experiment-1/
This week, I missed the first tutorial as that fine Tuesday afternoon was my only opportunity to get the footage completed for my little shooting experiment due to timing restriction. I found out that the whole class divided into two parts to shoot what seems to be a very interesting script. What a shame for me. But looking at the footage on Friday helps me to pick out various things. Exposure and lighting is a concept that we have discussed in class, but perhaps not to an extensive level yet. Hence, I was very impressed with the product of one group as the lighting seemed really really well used. It is also, as usual, interesting to see how different the two groups interpret the script. Even the two edited footages of one group were different, as one focuses on a character while the other focuses on the other character.
We then divided into two groups again and tried to re-shoot Exercise 7 – the one that I discussed in Blog 5 where I acted as the phone thief. There were many problems last time, as we shot outside in an area that has many people walking around which made it hard to pull the focus. The end products, therefore, was a lot out of focus to our disappointment. The changing exposure due to natural light was also a problem affecting the quality of our footage as well. This time, my new group decided to film it right outside of the class. I am the clapper/actor-who-acts-as-a-sleeper-and-got-phone-stolen-from-named-Matilda. I simply took two roles because we lack human resources, and it would be fun to enhance the role dynamic too. In fact, the job of clapper was very flexible. When I needed to be in frame, someone else would take the clapping board. We all found that this scene, even for some of us now that it is the second take, is extremely hard to visualise. Robin set us the deadline of one hour, and it took us “slightly” more than that… Anyhow, our footage so far looks really good, but back in week 5, we also said that when we wrapped up so I could only remain hopeful and try to edit it before the next class. It would be also interesting to see how the other group would approach the script as well (well this is getting repetitive…).
Last week was the semester break. Amazingly, I had the opportunity to spend some time of the week to act in my friend James’s short film named “Dear You” in his studio, Screen and Sensations. Because as I reflected on my experience in the two days of shooting and found that a lot of that experience is also to do with what I learn in my own studio, I decided that it would be a great thing to use this blog to discuss about it.
But first, here is that short film:
Where do I start? Okay, blocking. When the studio started, I did not know what blocking is as I have said in one of the earlier blogs. As the semester progressed, I learned about it as a concept and got used to it slowly from the exercises in class. But it is through this exciting project that I had the right opportunity to truly appreciate blocking as well as experiencing it. It all came in the scene that I acted with the co-actor (who is a real actor by the way) who plays the father. As I had not had the chance to act or practice with him before, we blocked it quickly but then it all came naturally after only one turn of doing so. It just gave the sense of where objects are and where we as actors should be. We did not have a continuity person, so blocking is even more important because of that.
It is also through this project that I witnessed the hardness of being on the set. The exposure is not always beneficial, so sometimes creative ways of enhancing the light is needed. I saw the crew closing in curtains and using light bulbs and some files to create a colour effect. Extraordinary. I should also note that I do not like to act a scene many times, but as a director, I would certainly push my actors into doing so as it gives more choices to refine a scene. I can’t remember how many shots were taken, but the final refinery from the guys is astonishing.
It is these opportunities that make me love being a Media student. I could only hope that it gets better and better as semesters go on!
This week, Robin has provided us with a few more extracts from Tom Reilly’s book, “The Big Picture”. The last chapter that I had the chance to read from this book was his interpretation on blocking, which really opened my eyes about cinematography in a whole as it was an aspect which I did not pay much attention at beforehand, if not at all. From that chapter alone, I felt that his words really benefit me in understanding film craft more intensely in an uncomplicated way as his way of explaining is quite plain to understand. The fact that he brings many of his insights from his own experience working in the industry truly enhances my understanding further, as this kind of information brings a practical and reality sense to the broad concepts.
The first aspect that I learn of film making from him this time is about background action. When I again truly think about how I have always watched films, I only pay a minimal amount of attention on the background details. Reilly shows that this is, in fact, a slightly problematic aspect. According to him, it has to be authentic, not distracting the main action and can be replicated precisely in different shots. This can only make me think of the tremendous amount of attention needed to pay into the smallest of details in order to capture that kind of precise sense. Interestingly, building a background requires the director’s own experience in life; while in many other scenarios, experts are needed in tough scenarios which the film makers are not familiar with. Truly problematic.
In another chapter, Reilly discusses about the concept of single master shot. I found the concept totally tremendous because it seems to be a simple method of taking a shot but at the same time is sophisticated due to the requirements needed to set it up. Being actors on various occasions myself, one of the aspect that I dislike is having to act a certain scene more than once in order for it to be captured in different angles. This type of shot makes that process unneeded. Plus, actors can be creative and brings an authentic sense of natural to the shot. Personally, it is this kind of sense that normally helps me value a film. There is one particular quote in that reading that I really like: “(It) is not to say that standard coverage isn’t the way to go for certain scenes and certain films, but it’s worth considering that it’s not the only way to go”. This enhances the sense that there is not a one “right” way of making a film. Film making highly regards creativity, and it is the difference in ways of possible interpretation to a scene that I found the most interesting thing to think about from the early weeks of being in this studio.
Finally, Reilly discusses about unrehearsed scene in another chapter of the book. If I am an actor, I would really like an approach of laissez-faire coming from a director, as it would motivate me to be creative. Acting, for me, should be a highly creative job. Reilly discusses the amusing approach of directors to block the scene with stand ins but not real actors, while the real actors only have a sense of direction and basic requirements from the directors. I feel that the trust between actors and directors has to be very high in order to make it work, otherwise, it could be the recipes for disaster. Interestingly, Reilly discusses that many would say that the directors are surrendering the power of control to actors, but in fact by doing so, they force actors to comply with how they want the scene to be without negating the power of creativity. This is getting more interesting week-by-week for me and I will certainly be sad once the semester ends.
Group exercises have always been a favourite kind of mine. It is the sense of cooperative environment in a large group of people that I find intriguing, as there would always be things to observe and learn from different individuals and even at times when I don’t have any task, watching people of different roles collaborating is always interesting. Choosing this studio turns out to be an extremely really good choice to me due to its highly practical nature with many group exercises. In particular, Exercise 7 and 8 divided us into two large groups, with each group taking one exercise/script. The task was to shoot it in as many shots as we would like to, which at first I found to be very amusing because it allowed us to be creative and able to try many different ways in order to interpret the best out of the script.
Our group was handed Exercise 7. Robin was optimistic for both groups to complete both exercises, but almost all of us thought this would not be possible to do in a three-hour tutorial. Personally, when I first read through the script, I thought it would not take too long to complete the shots. In reality, we nearly ran out of time. We began by assigning our roles and discussing some types of the shots that we would attempt as well as the location to conduct the shooting. This left us a whole tutorial to shoot. The script has no dialogue, which I thought would undermine the role of the sound person but thinking back, the background noise would prove to be a fundamental part of the scene. I was one of the actors, and I tried to experience that role as much as possible to identify the good side and bad side. I find that being actors, sometimes it is confusing when shooting a shot, as occasionally I did not understand how I should act in a scene. I think that effective communication with the director is highly needed, as the director shows me the direction to come in from or the place I should steal the phone (in the scenario of the scene only!). The acting, hence, should come naturally. As I felt more comfortable, I tried to discuss more with other group members in how to carry out a shot as we found what was discussing beforehand could have to change due to the location and other external factors. In the end, I found the shooting to be enjoyable and the footage seemed to be very fine, but sometimes the end product might not be what we expected it to be.
That was the case when we viewed the edited footage in the next tutorial. Somehow, many shots were out of focus, which shows that we did not pay full attention to every single detail, considering the point of focus is something very important in a shot. We also found that the rhythm of the scene was not straightforward, but rather incohesive. Maybe as a group, we did not communicate effectively, hence many shots could have been directed, acted or shot much better. We could have done more shots to give the final product many choices as well, as more ways of shooting enhance the dynamic of a scene. I can see it as the case for the other group that did Exercise 8. They edited the footage in three different ways and each interprets their scene with different effects. This was done because they did the same shot in more angles and more types. In the end, there are many things I can learn from this exercise in both how we did as a group as well as seeing the final product of the other group.
I am not going to lie. I was anxious for weeks when I first acknowledged this assignment (not to the point that I was losing sleep because of it but it was certainly always on my mind).
I have certainly learnt many new concepts about cinematography from the start of the studio, but to put them into practice was a scary thought as excitingly, there are many things to conduct an experiment on to a point that I had no idea what to do. Consulting with Robin certainly helped. He said that it could be about anything, which totally didn’t help at first. No matter what I would conduct on, I would have to shoot. My camera skills would be tested. Scary. Considering my skills are still fairly novice, as I have touched on the camera in several exercises but not extensively, I reckoned I should try something not too sophisticated. This was backed by Robin saying to me “Just shoot something, it doesn’t have to be complicated”.
In one of the analytical blogs I’ve done this semester, I’ve discussed about a particular scene in La La Land that was very simple but effective. I mentioned that it authenticates the statement “Simplicity is the best form of sophistication”.
I was very impressed with the shot – reverse shot used, as with the combined use of medium shot and close up, the intense of the scene is slowly built up. I also noticed that the camera is quite stable in the scene, and remarkable, if you do not count the extreme close up at the vinyl player, the whole scene is done in five shots. I wanted to replicate this with a “sort of” similar script to see if I can build up the intense of a scene using only five shots. Also, I was curious to see how different it would be to shoot this in three shots only – using medium shot and close up only and end both scenarios with a same wide shot.
To begin with, here is the short script I came up with:
Dining room F and M are seen at the dining table. They sit opposite to each other. M concentrates on his food, while F glances at M occasionally. F Do you like the food? M ignores her. F pauses for a few seconds. F I said do you like the food? M still doesn’t look at F. M It’s alright. F What is wrong with you? M Nothing is wrong with me. F Don’t you know I know? M stops eating and looks up onto F. M Know what? F laughs painfully and tries to hold her tears. F You know what? I’m done. F makes her way to the door. M stays at his same place and continues eating. F exits the door.
It is fair to say that this is a rather short script, but I feel that the scenario in it is adequate enough for me to achieve what I wanted as well as finding out new things for myself. Equipment wise, I remember in a tutorial not so long ago, Robin stressed that sometimes, we could not get the best piece of equipment possible and many of the times, we have to make do with what we have got in hand. I own a Sony a6000 but so far, all I have done with it has been shooting photos, not videos. Hence, I felt this is a good occasion to test what it could bring as well as get more familiar with my own camera.
I managed to get two of my friends to help me conduct the scene. Timing was an issue, as I had precisely one hour to do five shots. Below is the refined version of the five-shot-scenario:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1MoU3B41FIJJYzK-0A6Q1QVCZf4I3vL8D
I think it is fair to say that there are many flaws. I struggled to pull the focus as I later found out that this function on the video shooting function works differently from taking photos. The footage is blurry and to many extent out of focus. Combining with the mentioned timing issue, I did not have many chances to function it right. To add up, we did not even block the scene. The whole thing seems to contain recipes for a foreseeing disaster. To be fair, I was rather complacent as I did manage to get the camera on focus when I tested earlier on. However, it was during the day, and the exposure was different. I could have done more in setting the right amount of light, and it is an aspect that I would have to put into extreme consideration in the next experiment. It is also worth saying that the sound is also not quite right, as the background noise was too noticeable. I should use an external microphone the next time I shoot something to minimise it.
Apart from the flaws, I feel that the shots were quite alright. The shot – reverse shot functioned well within the scene, just like it does in the Argument Scene of La La Land. I also feel that for the medium shots, I could have been more ambitious and shoot them as over the shoulder shots where both characters can be visible in the same frame. There, I can test out the aspect of eye lining and over shoulder shots just fit the scenario more anyway.
Here are also two three-shot-scenarios that I created:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RD_MLpgoWF29UNEtSqWGQ1O7MmGPh-Cw
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1WDjtYVMWP5EINzJzvN_wlogLmuvAyOBo
Watching these, I feel that using only one type of shots do not bring out the intensity that the script requires, at least not to the level of when using two different shots. I think it is due to the lack of dynamism and makes the scenario rather dull. Robin once discussed with us that there are many different ways of interpreting a scene, and it pretty much comes down to the necessity of choices. From this experiment, I can pick out that I should always shoot as many different shots as possible, as the dynamism of the scene is really important in interpreting it towards viewers.
Overall, this is an experiment that I feel I could have done better in many aspects. However, I can pick out a lot from the mistakes to do better in future experiments.