For our first class activity in Deliberate Film, we used Sony EX3 cameras to film a short sequence. The requirement was to include a single action, covered in three shots (close up, mid, wide – in that specific order), with each shot filmed in one take. It was my first time using an EX3, and although it will never beat my Fujifilm X-T3, I did like having the ability to crash zoom.
The simplicity of the activity certainly allowed our basic skills to be tested – that is, we didn’t have to think much beyond making the shot look good. That involved looking for the best location to film (keeping in mind that we had to remain indoors) and setting up the camera to capture the best that the location had to offer. The actor could then be positioned in the shot, and small adjustments could be made to get the best result. I found that I was mainly making minor adjustments to my actor (Oliver) rather than the camera, though if there was a large amount of movement in the scene, this might not have been as simple.
Lighting was also something I found myself contesting with – the lighting in that part of the building was fairly poor, and while a few key lights would have yielded a much better result, it wasn’t possible. I made do with getting Oliver to angle his face this way and that (sorry Oliver!).
I was fairly happy with my shots (particularly my mid shot), although I can see room for improvement in all of them. In particular, in the wide shot, I would have made more adjustments to the camera so Oliver was better centred (and perhaps less head room!) and so there was less of the left wall. I also think that it would be interesting to explore more angles – rather than continuing from straight on. Covering more angles would have also created a more interesting final product, as it would have explored different POVs. As it is, the camera simply looks as though it is zooming out in stages – not the most interesting film ever made (though, in some way, the drabness speaks to the actual boredom of the action).
I also think that it was really interesting that we had to shoot the close up first. Usually, you’d shoot the establishing shot first. Just like the establishing shot familiarizes the audience with the scene in the film, I think that it familiarizes the filmmaker with their content. It gives context about the environment, therefore changes the feeling – which may not be captured if the close up is filmed first. I’m not entirely sure how correct my theory is – but I think that there might be merit to it. Certainly, the audience likes to see the wide shot first – which is what I found myself defaulting too in the editing portion of the exercise.
To the right (on the top layer), you can see the three sequences that I created. Two of the three of them, start off on the wide shot. The third, I purposefully started on the close up to confuse the audience.
The first option (and probably the default that any film student would revert to) is definitely the most basic. Starting with the wide shot, it sets up the scene – a student standing in a hallway. Nothing is happening, so the audience is able to observe the setting without distraction. Then it cuts to a mid, nicely fitting in the action – the student looks at his watch. Then, close up, focusing on the reaction of the student. For some reason, I had decided to tell Oliver to give no reaction. I think that this was because I wanted the sequence to be boring, but this would be the ideal shot to have something happen – maybe Oliver realises he’s late to class and dashes off, going to the next scene. Or maybe he rolls his eyes, because he has ages left to wait.
The second option is also pretty basic, again starting on the wide. Then it goes to the close up. I think that while the shot would have been better if I had left more room for Oliver’s hand (as you can’t really see what he’s looking at), that it also worked. It gave a detailed view of his reaction to actually seeing the time, and something about having the mid shot afterwards certainly concluded the piece.
Then there was option three – which was the ‘random’ option. I tried to mix it up as much as possible, making decisions I would not usually make. I started on the close up, then went to the mid, then the wide (which also happens to be the order that they were filmed in). I think that it provided interesting results, even if not correct nor practical, because starting on the close up (and assuming that the audience is invested enough to care) does instill a sense of curiosity. You wonder what is going on in the sequence, as there is utterly no context. It then goes to the mid shot, where he checks his watch. Although it gives a little more context, it does not yet establish that Oliver is in a university. To the over-invested viewer, there is still a sense of curiosity. It then cuts to the wide, giving the (very unsatisfying) answer.
So, while the last sequence was not in the slightest bit practical (and should definitely never be used for a sequence so boring) it was interesting to explore, because it gave results that I hadn’t been planning on. It made me see that in some contexts, leaving the wide until last might be an effective tool. It would only work if you wanted a sense of insecurity – like in a horror film – but I’m sure there are applications out there.
I also edited two other sequences. The second one was probably the hardest, simply because there were only two shots and a very simple action.
Again, the first option was basic. I think that I timed the high five perfectly, but the shot was still boring.
The second option was an attempt to stir interest in what was about to happen. I wanted to recreate something akin to the third shot of the previous scene, but it didn’t work. I think that it didn’t work because there was nothing of interest in the shot of the gas meter room… so there was nothing to captivate the audience. Had there been a person – or maybe even an interesting object – there would have been something for the audience to focus on so they would have waited for the clap.
Option three was an attempt to further develop option two. I wanted to see if it was possible to get that obscurity that I had created in the first scene, but it just went even further away from my goal. Opening on the wall was a complete throw away. There was absolutely no interest or investment in the gas meter room. The final shot as well – I might as well have just left it as the wide.
I’m still curious as to what I could have done to make this one more interesting, as that was challenged by the lack of options as well as the brevity of the action. Aside from filming more shots – perhaps the other student walking towards Ramsay, hopefully aggressively – I don’t think that there was much that I could have done.
Having realised that the second scene didn’t give me a lot to work with, I went for something with more actions for my final sequence. This was a clip of a student washing her hands.
Once again, the first option was pretty basic, It started with a wide shot of the student stepping towards the tap – setting up the scene – and then cut to a close up, getting more detail on the action. It then pulled out to a mid, finalizing the scene.
But something didn’t seem quite right, and I eventually realised what it was. The mid and close up are almost the same. Yes, they look different, but they give the exact same information. Both focus on her hands under the water – neither have her head. You cannot see the student’s expression as she washes her hands. She therefore has no identity… nor any cconnection with the audience.
I was curious to explore that. So, in the second option, I only used the close up and mid shot. I wanted to see what would happen if you had action without any ‘person’. The answer is – complete boredom. And because there’s no person, there’s no reason for the audience to care, and therefore, no point. (Though, it did look like something you could put on Shutterstock).
In the third, I again tried to mimic what I had done for the third option of my first sequence. Again, I found that it was even less interesting, purely due to the subject. The act of washing (clean) hands doesn’t leave much to the imagination. They might be in the bathroom or the kitchen, but other than that, there’s no real wonder why they were washing their hands. If they were covered in blood or dirt, though… well, that’s a little more interesting.
Two things that this exercise highlighted was the importance of setting up the shot correctly (and therefore getting the best result you can manage) and exploring ways to edit the footage you’re given to make it more interesting. There are going to be lots of times that you don’t have everything you need to get a perfect shot, so working with the bare minimum and curing the ‘fix it in post’ attitude is certainly important, because being able to point a camera and get a decent result is essential. Likewise, there are going to be lots of times that you’re handed footage and that’s all you have, so being able to get different results is a very useful skill. I think that the activity was a very useful one, and I’m curious as to how I can explore it further.
