As part of our studio presentations, Jesse did some research and discussed the coverage of Boxing fights throughout cinema. I am usually a sucker for a boxing flick, so I was drawn to this presentation. I thought Jesse’s discussion on how the coverage of these scenes have changed overtime, due to the advancement of technology and new filmmakers wanting to have their own individual take on the traditional conventions of how you go about shooting these scenes, was very interesting.

One scene that Jesse talked about was from the film Creed (2015) directed by Ryan Coogler. This stood out to me because it’s a scene that I distinctly remember from the film. During the first boxing bout, Coogler decided to cover the fight in a single take. The Camera is on a steady cam and moves around the ring for the entire fight, a 4 and half minute shot. The way the camera moves around the scene, choreographed perfectly with every punch is an amazing spectacle and provides a really immersive experience for the viewer. The one take really puts the viewer into the ring. Apparently it took 6 attempts to get it perfect on the day of production and a three months of fight rehearsals before hand.

This shot is a perfect example of how young modern filmmakers are continuing to build on what great directors have done before them to develop the art of coverage and create great films. This shot is more than spectacle, its actually very effective in immersing the viewer into a very intense situation.

Creed Boxing Scene – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onY5Daq6jD0

Research Project – Scene in Cinema

Earlier this week we discussed the idea of consistency in coverage and how this can really help develop the pace and tone of the film. David Fincher does this really well and his consistent decisions on coverage develop a great tone and pace in his films. After writing about this I started to think about coverage as a potential tool to maintain audience engagement. As the world’s attention span continues to decrease, some would argue its more important than ever to keep your audience engaged throughout your film. In a sense this is obvious, In the big set pieces directors often add a lot of movement, and spectacle into the coverage to get the audiences on the edge of their seat. This makes sense, why wouldn’t you want your film to look good?

Directors like Michael Bay are often referred to as Spectacle over Substance. As he moves the camera for the sake of moving it. This type of coverage has become his style and although, visually, it’s entertaining, for me personally his choice of coverage gives me a bit of sensory overload and completely distracts from the narrative of the film.

So, where do you draw the line between movement and coverage for purpose or for spectacle? In Hollywood today, we see a lot of movement for the sake of movement. And yes it’s probably a little more entertaining but it’s got very little motivation and substance. Most of the acclaimed directors of the current era in Hollywood like David Fincher, Quentin Tarantino move the camera with purpose. And I think these films are the most entertaining. Their camera movement reveals or develops a mood. It always has some underlying motivation. And I think this is how it should be. Movement and Coverage should always have an underlying purpose where possible and be more than just spectacle without substance.

In week 9, we discussed the idea of consistency in cinema relating to coverage. Audiences are willing to accept the world the director gives them if the world appears consistent. And this constancy moves across, into the way the director approaches coverage. The idea that the way you cover your scene can have a huge effect on the tone and pace of the film is something I never really thought about. However, I definitely think it’s true. When reflecting on good films, consistency in coverage does have a massive impact on the way things are perceived by Audiences.

A favourite Director of mine, David Fincher, is very consistent in his coverage across all of his films. As his style of coverage has very much become his signature. Fincher is very particular about his coverage, very mechanical and very purposeful. His ideas come across very well on screen and, I believe, really help the tone and pace of his films. All of Fincher’s films have very a consistent tone and pace, and this usually makes Fincher’s work easy to spot. I think a lot of his tone comes down to camera coverage and movement. For Example, He will rarely use close ups, and will only use them when something is important. Because audiences subconsciously or not, will recognise everything in a closeup as important. A quote I like from Fincher is “They know you can do anything, so the question is what don’t you do. Not what do you do”. This is very reflective of his coverage and his coverage decisions. And it’s his consistent decisions about his coverage that create a consistent tone and pace in his films. However, when being inconsistent about coverage, make sure you’re doing it with a good purpose.

Text Messaging has become popular in Films recently as the world has evolved to text more than make phone calls. However, just shooting a closeup of a phone screen can be quite boring for audiences. And can disrupt the pace of the scene as the shot needs to be on screen long enough for the audience to read it. To combat this, Filmmakers have found a variety of different ways to show text in film. Now, more often than not Filmmakers are choosing to show text as a graphic on screen. What this does is it gives the audience the ability to continue to look at the characters reaction to the text and not solely focus on the text message itself. I think this is an effective method as the reaction is just as important as the message. This method allows both to be in the same shot.

BBC’s  Sherlock (2010) series is an interesting example of filmmakers utilizing text messages to develop their narrative. In the series, Sherlock and Watson both have a running texting conversation going throughout episodes, and the creators of the show (Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat) have used the element of texting as more than just exposition but to develop sherlock as a character. In the show He will always text, no matter how dangerous or urgent the situation because he truly believes it is quicker and more efficient. Which is Something sherlock strives to be. The filmmakers aren’t just texting because its an easy plot device, it adds to the story and develops how the audience understands Sherlock’s mannerisms.

Sherlock Texting Scene – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cMvdOr9QEg

In Week 11, we discussed the use of Scripts and the way in which we understand them. As Robin said, scripts are very efficient as they provide the most functional working document for all production departments. But it’s what you can’t read, on the script that we discussed. There’s so much that we see in a scene that’s never been written down. And usually, that’s the result of the interpretation of different artists involved in the production of the film. There’s a scene in the film Fantastic Beasts (2016) where the audience are first introduced to all of Newt’s mystical animals (see link below). There is so much artistic interpretation going on in this scene. Originally this would’ve been a few pages on a script. But this scene does so much more than what words can visualise. The wonder and the magic of this scene provides a complete visualisation of the artist’s interpretation of the scripts. The detail in the movements of the creatures are so unique that the animators have very little to base them off. Little things like these subtle movements of the creatures make cinema much more than the script.

This led us to our next thought. What can cinema give us that we can’t get from any other medium? If the script told us everything we needed to know, then why wouldn’t we just read the script? I feel that it’s essentially the artistic interpretation of the script that leads the creator to make the film he wants to make. Everyone visualises the words differently on a page. But it’s the artists job to illustrate their own vision for the film and that’s why people love and hate films based on books. Because their own interpretation of the text differs from the creator of the film.

Fantastic Beasts and Where to find Them Scene – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwdSrNpzjiU

In Week 10, We discussed a lot about the relationship between scenes. Looking at how the process of decoupage is relevant when discussing how scenes connect with each other. This is definitely a concept that applies to films as a whole but we specifically discussed the relationship between the first and the last shot of back to back scenes. Little things like how shots cut together from scene to scene can have a big impact on audiences viewing experience.

In reflection of our discussion, I feel like I’ve built on my existing knowledge that there is a lot of thinking going on when directing. Of course, I already knew this, but I think as we continue to discuss and reflect in this course, I continue to realise the profound amount of attention to detail that goes into creating a film. Every little thing is worthy of consideration. Every Cut, Every Frame size, everything inside the frame deserves consideration because it all can convey meaning and emotion.

Of course, there are levels to this, and some things definitely convey more meaning than others. However, a lot of little, seemingly meaningless things can collectively convey a lot of meaning. Take the objects on a character’s desk, on their own might seem meaningless but together you can get a comprehensive understanding of who the character is. A messy teenager, a clean freak etc. And I think that’s what makes a good director, it’s the ultimate consideration of everything and how everything relates to each other, that generates a well-rounded film.