I enjoyed the decoupage reading by Barnard, Tim 2014. It commented well on the importance of understanding film language while pointing out its frivolous side and being understood as a bit of a ‘gimmick’. The reading expressed how language accounts for a great deal of our understanding when it comes to film, and that a lot of the time the words used to describe various techniques and ways of working are quite literal, and that could be because when a craft is poorly named, it effects our ability to understand it so much that we might overlook it completely and not use it to enhance our work dramatise it if we are focusing on the genre of drama. It was interesting to learn about the etymology of the word decoupage, which means literally to cut up. It reminded me of the other meaning of decoupage which involves cutting and pasting paper cut outs onto things like Jewlery boxes and items of furniture and it made me think about how cutting up pieces of paper in a way to make them appear attractive on a box or piece of furniture isn’t so different from how one might  translate a narrative into a detailed outline of visuals for the camera to capture, for both you are using two mediums to set up a visual product.  

Today Robin spoke about how the priority when filming and creating film is often what is the most difficult to capture, and in this case its best to leave the less dramatic and interesting elements of what you’re shooting until last as they’ll usually be the easiest to capture and will not rely on as much cast, crew and wont require as much time. Super useful as it stresses that you do not have to shoot in order of how the story unfolds, you could shoot the opening last and the ending first if that is what will deliver the best collection of scenes and will allow for the best coverage.  

After watching the senes from the two versions of ‘A womans face’ it was interesting to find out how coverage is often tailored to actor’s abilities and strengths, so it is not exclusively dependent on camera and filming technicalities but also the cast and how they move around/dress. After watching the first US version featuring Joan Crawford, followed by the Swedish version featuring Ingrid Bergman I noticed how a scene that may appear alike to begin with can turn out to be quite different once you take note the second time around. Once I stopped focusing on the similarities the differences stood out clearly. For starters, the USA version is far less dramatic and seems to focus more on Joan Crawfords presence in the scene than it does the narrative.   showed that while the location and environment prescribe for the coverage of a scene, so do the cast. For example the US version while featuring the talented and credible Joan Crawford wasn’t as dramatic. This showed me how coverage is inseparable from your performance. It was agreed that Joan Crawford didn’t have the right hair for it and her performance is less emotional and she comes across as more aloof, Ingrid seems more effected by her role and shows more emotion when saying goodnight, it’s like she has more empathy for the child and is conflicted which dramatizes the situation. The two versions of the same shot also show how the cast prescribe for just as much of the coverage as the location may. If you shoot in the same location, with different talent the shot will still have its differences just based on the energy the talent emits when they act and move through the scene; and as mentioned earlier even their appearance will affect how we read the shot. It was helpful to draw differences and similarities to understand the importance of casting carefully as the coverage can be so easily changed from what you may initially envision or plan, because of who features in your scene.  

I feel like I got a lot out of exercise three. It required us to focus on the fundamental narrative to filmmaking and knowing that a lot of the time films me watch are shot in pieces as opposed to a single running shot. We had to choose from two scripts and bring them to life by shooting. It was a bit difficult as I had to shoot it myself as I didn’t have anyone around at the time of shooting. I set up a very unconventional tri pod from a chair and some magazines to shoot each piece, this meant that all my shots were locked off and static. Before filming I wrote out a short shot list to make the filming process more organised, and so I would have a clear idea of how each shot would look. It made me realise the importance of pre-production, particularly when you don’t have many people to assist you while filming. The execution was limited to me filming it and being in it, so I did miss the chance to experiment with overhead shots, pans and tracking shots. I am happy with how I interpreted the script and feel as though it was consistent with all elements of the script including the acting and subtleties of the space. I’m happy with how I filmed the shot of me opening the letter and reaching for it as I wanted to have an element of shape to the shot, and I feel as though me reaching for the letter showed that it was old mail and I had to seek it out- as I had no other mail to read. I received some constructive feedback from my classmates and Robin based on a section where the editing was lumpy. And the editing was a little jarring as I couldn’t film longer shots that involved more subject matter.  

It was useful to watch Campbell’s piece as he also filmed and featured in it. I learnt a lot from his piece that I feel I will certainly apply to my own work when I am in a position of filming alone. I didn’t know the term having a ‘bridge’ from shot to shot, not for any purpose other than to get a character to a place so that it is consistent with their movements. Campbell had a shot where he pulled a chair out from the table so that he could sit down for the next shot as he didn’t have a tall enough tripod to film standing. I now know I can use strategies like these to help carry onto a shot if there are obstacles. I feel like Campbells piece was strong because it had depth and this feeling of mobility between shots, despite it all being shot on a tri–pod.  

Brooklyn 2015 – Last scene 1080p 

This boot scene in Brooklyn is captivating and sensitive, as it pulls the audience in it gives off a touching aura and mystique with a profound sense of beauty– as Saoirse shares offers advice to a young girl to a girl on a boat drawn from her own experience. This is achieved through filming tropes like control of depth of field and camera positioning. The scene begins with a close-up shot of Eilis played by (Saoirse Ronan), we see her in focus looking outward speaking piece to camera. The composition of the shot stays the same for some time, the only thing that alters is the focus between Eilis and the young girl who stands to the left of her in the background. The scene is edited lightly and relies on the change in focus to, we see dialog in a less conventional manner as they don’t face one another to begin with. This level of disconnect suggests their relationship is formal and fresh, as Saoirse has her back to the girl for some time before facing her. The composition of the shot doesn’t change much either, Saoirse is to the right of allowing space for the young girl to be seen in detail while being in the foreground, so it is an intimate scene as the depth of field is short. The act of them pulling in and out of focus allows us to see their individual reactions to one another’s questions and thoughts while not being distracted by what is happening in the background. Each character’s performance seems isolated and while the young girl speaks the focus often stays on Saoirse so we can see her level of emotion as she reacts to the naivety and essence of the girl’s hopes for Brooklyn. The dynamic of the scene is dramatized through the juxtaposition of camera positioning, for a period it is quite static as the focus alters from Soiarse to the girl, and then it changes to a more conventional position for dialog which depicts Soairse to be open to talking directly to the girl as opposed to reflecting on herself as she speaks.  At pivotal moments of dialog shared between the two characters we see Eilis turn to Rose from Roses point of view, as the camera is positioned behind her, each time this happens Eilis has an answer for Rose that she delivers as forms of advice, commands on what she must do when she’s travelling alone. At the end of the scene there is a shift, we are left to listen to Eili’s words through voiceover, as footage of the young girl travelling through customs is shown, this sets apart time between the shot of them on the boat and in customs while the voice-over of Eilis continues so it foreshadows what her life will entail, based off what Saoirse experienced.