This week we were given a script and were to interpret, plan and produce this in our Friday’s class. Our group picked the main roles out of a hat. I was picked to direct the scene. During our initial planning I thought it would be more beneficial if we went down to the edit suites and analysed the location. Angus and I worked together mapping out particular shots that would allow us to get effective coverage. Incase we missed anything, I wanted each shot to continue throughout most of the drama/dialogue. As time was our biggest constraint I didn’t think that continuing through the drama would have an impact on it. I assumed that as we were already set up, we could just fly through all the actions.

The second task we were given was to change roles and produce the script without the intention of cutting back to any previous shots. This constraint sounds quite difficult, although, I was surprised to learn that this shoot was ran more fluently than the one I directed. This may have been because as a crew we had adapted to our roles and environment. Only shooting what was necessary and not considering cutting back and forth between shots made a huge difference in efficiency compared with the first shoot. I would be interested to see whether if we had shot the second shoot first and the one I directed second, would mine run more fluently considering everyone was familiar with the script and environment? It will be interesting to compare the final edits of both shoots to see whether there were an gaps in the coverage.

This week I analysed a scene in the film, ‘Inglourious Basterds’. I was intrigued by the dialogue within this scene. It was quite witty and clever, the way that it referred to relevant, crude analogies. There was a history context to this scene but other than that it could fall on its own and still have an impact on its audience. The mise-en-scene captured my attention along with the cinematography style. It gave me some inspiration that I am going to use to brainstorm some ideas for my final scene.