R4 – https://www.mediafactory.org.au/tully-hemsley/2020/04/19/reflection-4/

R5 – https://www.mediafactory.org.au/tully-hemsley/2020/04/19/reflection-5/ 

R6 – https://www.mediafactory.org.au/tully-hemsley/2020/04/19/reflection-6/

Scene Analysis – https://www.mediafactory.org.au/tully-hemsley/2020/04/19/scene-analysis-2/

Breakfast Club – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5IHNcpa7p0

The Breakfast Club (1985) is a classic coming of age film directed by John Hughes. I really enjoyed this films use of Camera Coverage. As 95% of the film takes place within one room, Hughes has used the positioning and movement of the camera to bring the film to life. I have chosen to analyse a scene in which central characters Andrew and Bender have a heated scuffle.

To Break down this scene I wanted to initially draw a floor plan to conceptualise the camera setups (see below). Within this scene there are 9 different camera setups, however I think they would have shot this scene in three distinct sections based around the location of the dolly track. In the first section they would have shot the dialogue sequence between Bender and Claire, then moved on and gathered all of the shots needed on the dolly track going across the desks. Finally getting the rest of the shots off the dolly track going through the desks. Of course this is just my theory, but it seems like a logical way to structurally shoot the scene with a minimal amount of moving equiptment.

As far as coverage goes the scene starts off with a dirty Close Up dialogue sequence between Bender and Claire. Featuring Medium Cutaways of both Allison and Andrew. The Scene then cuts to Andrew in a medium shot as he gets up and moves closer to Bender as the camera keeps the same size frame, dollying backwards. It then cuts to back to bender in a close up. Bender then moves forward into the space of Andrew and the camera follows. Tracking in behind Bender, stopping at a 50/50 confrontational medium shot as Bender and Andrew stand equally in the frame face to face. With Brian looks on. The pair begin to wrestle as the camera pans down and follows them onto the ground and back up again. The camera then dolly’s back into a wide as Bender pulls out a knife. It cuts to a close up of Andrews reaction showing his fear. Before cutting back to a Medium shot of casual looking Bender. The scene continues with these two shots before finishing on a MCU of Claire’s reaction to the situation.

The shot I appreciate the most in this scene is the 50/50 between Bender and Andrew. Although this specific shot has multiple frames in it, the frame of Andrew and Bender face to face is very good. Both are equally positioned within the frame showing the balance of power is with no one. Brian sits perfectly in between the two characters with a tense expression on his face. Brian’s reaction is perfect, and the audience looks to him to understand how they should feel about the fight. Hughes has utilized a number of framing techniques to tie the scene together and develop tension. While his use of Decoupage helps guide the audience’s emotions.

The eyelines also work really well in this scene. We are able to place every character in the scene without seeing the characters in the same shot until later in the sequence. Hughes’ use of eyelines allows the audience to build an image of the room and the characters placement within it.

In Week 6, during our online tutorials we had a look at a scene from Alfred Hitchcock’s “Stangers on a train”. This is an incredibly complex dialogue scene and an excellent example of Hitchcock’s ability to cover a scene. After watching this scene in our tutorial, I had to go back and re watch the scene half a dozen times. I initially tried to draw a floor plan of the scene, but I couldn’t figure it out. I counted at least 13 different camera set ups within this scene which is enormous and would have taken a lot of production time. Although I did notice that they used some sort of dolly track in the scene, and this got me thinking about the potential to quickly move around the location. The ability to quickly move the camera into required positions could have saved a lot of time. Having said this, I do believe this is a great example of Hitchcock’s finest coverage and is a reflection of his ability to cut up the scene. The blocking should not go unnoticed either, as this is also excellent.

In Exercise 8, We were tasked to draw a floor plan of the camera setups in a scene from Ermanno Olmi’s “The Fiances” (1962). I believe Olmi only had two setups in this scene while using 2 different focal lengths from each set up (see Floor Plan below). My assessment of Olmi’s approach is; that it is a simple but effective set up to cover the scene. This set up was most likely extremely time efficient however I don’t feel as though it was given extensive consideration. I feel the closeup’s looked unappreciated. It looks as though they zoomed in from the existing camera setups needed for the wide’s without repositioning the camera. I do believe a little more effort could have been given to the camera placement of the CU’s yet I am aware of time constraints on set and the impact these can have on production. Having said this, I do still feel the coverage provided by Olmi is overall successful and effective.

In Thursday’s online class we discussed the concept of Decoupage. We analysed and discussed two single take scenes from different French directors. Arnaud Desplechins’s “My Sex Life, or How I got into an argument” (1996) and Eric Rohmer’s “Full Moon in Paris” (1984). Both scenes definitely do have multiple frames within the shot. Despelechin’s scene has multiple sized frames within, going from medium shots, MCU’s, to Close ups all within the same take as the camera moves through the scene with the characters. “Full moon in Paris” on the other hand is a static shot and allows the characters within to move, to create the different frames and dynamics. I think Despechins’s frames are visually more interesting with the movement of the camera motivated by the actor’s movement through the crowd. However, I think Rohmer’s frames are much more comedic and allow viewer to focus on the actors movements within the frame rather than the movement of the camera.

In Exercise 7, we began to analyse definitions of Decoupage to get a more comprehensive understanding of the term. After Analysing the readings, I found Luis Bunuel’s definition of decoupage seemed, for lack of a better word, vague. Perhaps it’s the way I personally digest knowledge, but I prefer things to be more direct. Having said this, I did like a few things he said which did in turn add to my understanding of Decoupage. Things like “Dividing a thing to turn into something else” and “A landscape, if it is to be recreated in cinema, must be segmented into fifty, a hundred and more bits.” I also like Tim Barnard’s quote “It divides in order to join”. It’s digestible quotes like these that allow me to form my opinion and conceptualise decoupage. I think Tim Barnard has done an excellent job at breaking this term down and I find his reflections on the definitions extremely helpful. Henri Agel’s quote was also quite helpful. “The choice of shots and of camera angles and movements is called Decoupage. The order and length of the shots correspond to the task we call editing.”

It’s interesting that there is no real consensus on decoupage and every filmmaker has their own understanding of what it is. But I also think that’s what makes the term so intriguing and worthy of further discussion and analysis.

In week 4, After a long trip back up to Darwin, I had a meeting with Robin to discuss class work from the week before. We had a long discussion about eyeline’s and how framing eyelines correctly can have a large impact on the development of scene. This is not something I’d ever given much thought too, but I found this discussion quite interesting. The idea that a line of sight can give so much information to the audience. While when it’s done incorrectly can have a really jarring effect on the viewer. Since this meeting I have noticed it a lot in cheap television shows. When eyelines between characters don’t match up, it is definitely distracting. In reflection I now think of eyelines as not just a technical problem but something to be used to convey emotion.

In Exercise 6, Robin chose to map out a small script which featured two characters in discussion about concert tickets. Although quite simple I thought Robins approach was interesting. Creating a shot list, floor plan and then creating two story boards. One that depicts the three shots on needed on the day and the other to show how the shots may be edited together.

This is sort of an interesting process to me, but it does make sense. And after looking at the all of Robins storyboards and list’s, although all are useful, the simple floor plan seemed to me the most beneficial in my eyes. If the shoot was in a rush, I think this would be most beneficial tool when deciding how to block the scene and where to get the camera’s in position. Mapping the scene from above seems like a simple and easily digestible method of getting a clear understanding of the scene’s plan, however in more complicated scenes I can see how this could get difficult.