Yesterday we had our short film screenings and feedback sessions.
I found the films a little bit disappointing on the whole – our skills just haven’t advanced as far as I thought they had.
Seeing my own film up on the big screen was disappointing as well. I felt that we could have done a much better job on the colour correction, one scene in particular could definitely have been shorter, and in another, the radio sounded as though it was next to the camera rather than in the scene.
The feedback was quite intense in many ways. I had suggested to the tutors that we should reverse the order of the feedback given so that the director would speak last and I think this was a success. They invited Sophia to speak first and I don’t think that she would have said the things that she said if I had spoken beforehand. I was a little bit annoyed but not necessarily surprised that she said she felt she hadn’t had enough input into the shots and didn’t understand my vision properly. The example she gave though was a bit foolish – she said that when it came to shooting the shot that I was going to use for the title she wasn’t aware of this, however I had noted that this would be the title shot on the storyboards and all four drafts of the shot list! The other students mostly had good things to say about both me and the production, although Jonas felt that he could have done better with the colour correction. I thought RJ’s comments were interesting because he was quite self-critical (which I believe people should be in these sessions) and because he saw the same problem that I did in that we needed to have a more formal, more structured way of working – he said there was a point that we needed to stop being friends and start being professionals.
The tutors feedback was very interesting too, because there were so many differing and strong opinions. Some tutors felt that the acting was excellent and the pacing was good and that I had found the nuances of the story very well and treated it with great sensitivity. Other tutors felt that the music choices were very bad, some of the camera choices were dull or inappropriate, and that the film was too long and the weighting of the scenes was all wrong! I was glad that they had such strong opinions about whether they liked it or not – it showed that they took it a bit seriously as a film, rather than just treating it like a student project and therefore not much was to be expected of it.
Sophia and I had a discussion after the feedback session to talk about where we thought we went wrong. She had thought that she didn’t have enough input, whereas I had felt that she didn’t offer enough or take enough initiative. I think the problem was that our personalities were incompatible. I am very much set to rapid fire when I work, so even though I make it clear that shot lists etc are flexible, perhaps in Sophia’s mind they weren’t, because I didn’t really wait for her input. I just charge ahead and expect her to interrupt me or disagree or speak up when she has an idea. On the other hand I think she expects me to stop and wait for her to have an idea. Anyway, we will know these things about each other when or if we work together in the future.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Monday, November 23, 2009
Theatre of the Oppressed by Augusto Boal
I have just finished writing a research essay for Pedro on Augusto Boal, focusing on his book 'Theatre of the Oppressed'. I feel like I have been drowning in Boal! Nevertheless, I'm sure when I recover from the pain of assignment-writing his theories will remain as appealing to me as they always have been.
Boal's work shows me that artistic fulfillment and helping others can be the same thing - his theatre is aimed at empowering people through theatre action - the spectators are also the actors and therefore participate in a "rehearsal for revolution". Obviously I have explained it all in horribly thorough detail in my actual essay. The reason I'm writing this is because there are some things that can't be put into essays, but which I still want to say.
As much as I loved reading about Boal's work and ideas, his writing was incredibly annoying! His main arguments were so strong and yet they felt weakened by the way he investigated them in such enormous and unnecessary detail. It was obvious that he was finding a route to justify his thoughts, rather than developing his thinking through the investigations he was writing about. As a result, there were a lot of logical fallacies in the writing, and a lot of jumping to not-so-conclusive conclusions. The sad thing is that I think the things he was trying to justify were true anyway, and he only undermined himself in his quest for academic integrity :-(
Boal's work shows me that artistic fulfillment and helping others can be the same thing - his theatre is aimed at empowering people through theatre action - the spectators are also the actors and therefore participate in a "rehearsal for revolution". Obviously I have explained it all in horribly thorough detail in my actual essay. The reason I'm writing this is because there are some things that can't be put into essays, but which I still want to say.
As much as I loved reading about Boal's work and ideas, his writing was incredibly annoying! His main arguments were so strong and yet they felt weakened by the way he investigated them in such enormous and unnecessary detail. It was obvious that he was finding a route to justify his thoughts, rather than developing his thinking through the investigations he was writing about. As a result, there were a lot of logical fallacies in the writing, and a lot of jumping to not-so-conclusive conclusions. The sad thing is that I think the things he was trying to justify were true anyway, and he only undermined himself in his quest for academic integrity :-(
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Cinematography by Peter Ettedgui
This was the book I was reading at the same time as the other, to complement its practicality.
This book consists of a series of edited and structured interviews with 18 great cinematographers from various different countries, from the black and white days until (almost) the present. Each of them discuss their beginnings as a cinematographer, stories from their working life, their individual approach to lighting a scene or choosing a script or collaborating with a director, their individual influences, their philosophy on the role of cinematography and film, and their best advice for new cinematographers. Each chapter is accompanied by photographs from the shooting of their films, storyboards and diagrams, images that have influenced them, and screen shots from their work.
What a fantastic book! I read one chapter per day. All of the cinematographers had fascinating stories to tell, and it was great to see the many different approaches they had to their art. Reading this also finally made me understand why many people mourn the fact that film is being replaced by digital - the descriptions of the particular care taken in developing each film and the different processes they used to control the colours etc gave me a window of insight into the value of film that I've never had before. Best of all though was being able to read about the cinematographers choices for each film and then compare them directly with the photographs to see the actual result of the techniques and ideas they spoke about; after all, the point of reading the book was to develop my visual my eye for these things. As someone who doesn't have a natural instinct for it, it was invaluable to have the theory spelt out for me with such great concrete examples.
This book consists of a series of edited and structured interviews with 18 great cinematographers from various different countries, from the black and white days until (almost) the present. Each of them discuss their beginnings as a cinematographer, stories from their working life, their individual approach to lighting a scene or choosing a script or collaborating with a director, their individual influences, their philosophy on the role of cinematography and film, and their best advice for new cinematographers. Each chapter is accompanied by photographs from the shooting of their films, storyboards and diagrams, images that have influenced them, and screen shots from their work.
What a fantastic book! I read one chapter per day. All of the cinematographers had fascinating stories to tell, and it was great to see the many different approaches they had to their art. Reading this also finally made me understand why many people mourn the fact that film is being replaced by digital - the descriptions of the particular care taken in developing each film and the different processes they used to control the colours etc gave me a window of insight into the value of film that I've never had before. Best of all though was being able to read about the cinematographers choices for each film and then compare them directly with the photographs to see the actual result of the techniques and ideas they spoke about; after all, the point of reading the book was to develop my visual my eye for these things. As someone who doesn't have a natural instinct for it, it was invaluable to have the theory spelt out for me with such great concrete examples.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Digital Video Production Cookbook by Chris Kenworthy
"100 professional techniques for independent & amateur filmmakers"
I rather enjoyed this book, I must say, although I read it at the wrong time.
I have been spending a lot of time at my boyfriend's house in the evenings lately, and because it is his house and not mine I sometimes find myself waiting for him as he puts on the washing etc. I loathe incidentally watching TV just because I have nothing better to do - sitting down to watch a show I like is one thing; sitting in front of any old crap is another - so I decided that I would fill the gap with reading, which has been on my "I should do more..." list (next to exercise) for ages.
I have been concerned that I need to develop my "visual eye" for film more, and so I chose two books; the one I am writing about now, and another that I will write about once I read the last chapter. I decided that if I read a practically focused book and a theoretically/aesthetically focused book at the same time then they would enhance each other - the aesthetic would give me greater curiousity for the practical and vice versa. And the technique has been a success! So I shall continue this method through the summer.
I rather enjoyed this book, I must say, although I read it at the wrong time.
I have been spending a lot of time at my boyfriend's house in the evenings lately, and because it is his house and not mine I sometimes find myself waiting for him as he puts on the washing etc. I loathe incidentally watching TV just because I have nothing better to do - sitting down to watch a show I like is one thing; sitting in front of any old crap is another - so I decided that I would fill the gap with reading, which has been on my "I should do more..." list (next to exercise) for ages.
I have been concerned that I need to develop my "visual eye" for film more, and so I chose two books; the one I am writing about now, and another that I will write about once I read the last chapter. I decided that if I read a practically focused book and a theoretically/aesthetically focused book at the same time then they would enhance each other - the aesthetic would give me greater curiousity for the practical and vice versa. And the technique has been a success! So I shall continue this method through the summer.
Anyway, 'Digital Video Production Cookbook' is essentially a collection of cheap and easy tips and tricks for film-makers, divided up into chapters devoted to various areas of film-making – lighting techniques, editing tricks, special effects make-up etc. And I thoroughly enjoyed the book and all of the ideas it gave me – I just wish I had read it before making my last short film! It’s not necessarily that I would have used many (or any?) of the techniques suggested, it’s just that reading this sort of thing gives you an outside-the-square way of thinking that might have been really helpful in finding some short cuts during the filming process. But never mind; I’ve read it now, and at least now I know where to look as a reference when I do need these tricks!
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Editing
I have just finished my third day of scheduled editing with Jonas; we have one more scheduled, and then it will be up to us to try to squeeze in at odd opportunities to do any more tweaks after that.
I thoroughly enjoy editing with Jonas. I find that we are frequently on the same page and recognize the same cut points, and when something is right we can both feel it. And where we have differences of opinion he is always happy to try both ways, and we can discuss and argue over the point without having to be careful of each others' egoes - we both just want what's best for the film.
The only problem with Jonas is that it's hard to leave him alone. If I need to go and do something else, I can come back a few hours later and I always find that almost nothing has changed. The problem is, he likes editing the montages too much. I understand that; editing a montage has an element of instant gratification to it, whereas editing drama dialogue scenes is where the sweat is. So Jonas always seems to remember one thing he wanted to tweak in the montage... and three hours later he's only changed a cut or two! Not to say that he's lazy - not at all - he just loses sight of the big picture sometimes!
Anyway, the cut is going well and we have had fantastic feedback so far. The only real problem we have is with sound. Our recordist was as lazy as possible and radio mic'd everything, and as a result everything is full of clothing rustle! One major scene has no sound at all because he didn't even radio mic it! It may not have dialogue, but it should have had laughter, heavy breathing and footsteps, and it's his job to know that. It makes me so angry to think about. Even worse, he doesn't reply to me, so I can't get a hold of him to record any sounds in the post sound suite. Grrrr!!!! Looks like it's going to cost me a box of beer and a lot of begging to get another student to help me. It shouldn't have to be like that though; this is a team project and he has let us down.
I thoroughly enjoy editing with Jonas. I find that we are frequently on the same page and recognize the same cut points, and when something is right we can both feel it. And where we have differences of opinion he is always happy to try both ways, and we can discuss and argue over the point without having to be careful of each others' egoes - we both just want what's best for the film.
The only problem with Jonas is that it's hard to leave him alone. If I need to go and do something else, I can come back a few hours later and I always find that almost nothing has changed. The problem is, he likes editing the montages too much. I understand that; editing a montage has an element of instant gratification to it, whereas editing drama dialogue scenes is where the sweat is. So Jonas always seems to remember one thing he wanted to tweak in the montage... and three hours later he's only changed a cut or two! Not to say that he's lazy - not at all - he just loses sight of the big picture sometimes!
Anyway, the cut is going well and we have had fantastic feedback so far. The only real problem we have is with sound. Our recordist was as lazy as possible and radio mic'd everything, and as a result everything is full of clothing rustle! One major scene has no sound at all because he didn't even radio mic it! It may not have dialogue, but it should have had laughter, heavy breathing and footsteps, and it's his job to know that. It makes me so angry to think about. Even worse, he doesn't reply to me, so I can't get a hold of him to record any sounds in the post sound suite. Grrrr!!!! Looks like it's going to cost me a box of beer and a lot of begging to get another student to help me. It shouldn't have to be like that though; this is a team project and he has let us down.
The Idea of America
You wouldn't know this play was written by a student; in my opinion it could compete with many respected contemporary playwrights. I think Sam Shore did an excellent job, in both the writing and direction of this play.
The writing was very funny yet profoundly tragic, and the way the characters and plot unfolded gradually throughout the play, without ever once feeling like exposition, was utterly engaging. Plus Sam had the advantage of having cast the play superbly, and the actors gave very powerful performances. The only sort-of exception to this, in my opinion, was the actress playing Maureen. Her characterization was generally very strong, but I felt that the actress had the tendency to play many of the moments with a kind of happy immunity that didn't necessarily belong to the character, or to the play. The only other flaw I could identify in the production was possibly the staging - the lower, front level was used a lot, but unfortunately it was a bit shallow which restricted the staging a bit and sometimes made it very difficult for the audience to see all of the action. I think if the play were to be staged again it would benefit from having a shallower upper level and more depth in the lower. It was still a really wonderful play though!
The writing was very funny yet profoundly tragic, and the way the characters and plot unfolded gradually throughout the play, without ever once feeling like exposition, was utterly engaging. Plus Sam had the advantage of having cast the play superbly, and the actors gave very powerful performances. The only sort-of exception to this, in my opinion, was the actress playing Maureen. Her characterization was generally very strong, but I felt that the actress had the tendency to play many of the moments with a kind of happy immunity that didn't necessarily belong to the character, or to the play. The only other flaw I could identify in the production was possibly the staging - the lower, front level was used a lot, but unfortunately it was a bit shallow which restricted the staging a bit and sometimes made it very difficult for the audience to see all of the action. I think if the play were to be staged again it would benefit from having a shallower upper level and more depth in the lower. It was still a really wonderful play though!
Ioane and Alofa
A couple of weeks ago I went to see a third year play; Ioane and Alofa. I had been a part of a reading during the workshop stage and really enoyed the script, so I was curious to see how the production would turn out.
All in all I think it was a very enjoyable play, although it seemed to be missing a magic ingredient. One of the problems that I saw in the script early on was still there in the final production; one of the characters is an alcoholic party girl, but the stereotype was so blatant that it lost all meaning in my opinion. The performances were okay, but they had a little bit of an amateur feel - no one was properly convincing. The influence of TV on the writer was also really evident in the way the story was structured, and I don't think this episodicness helped the rhythm of the story. Probably the biggest flaw though was that the two central characters, Ioane and Alofa, were not really the protagonists. They did not have clear personalities and everything seemed to happen around them and to them; they did not seem to drive the plot themselves, and the story lacked a strong spine.
Nevertheless it was very enjoyable to watch and painted an amusing picture of the trials and tribulations of being a Samoan in New Zealand.
All in all I think it was a very enjoyable play, although it seemed to be missing a magic ingredient. One of the problems that I saw in the script early on was still there in the final production; one of the characters is an alcoholic party girl, but the stereotype was so blatant that it lost all meaning in my opinion. The performances were okay, but they had a little bit of an amateur feel - no one was properly convincing. The influence of TV on the writer was also really evident in the way the story was structured, and I don't think this episodicness helped the rhythm of the story. Probably the biggest flaw though was that the two central characters, Ioane and Alofa, were not really the protagonists. They did not have clear personalities and everything seemed to happen around them and to them; they did not seem to drive the plot themselves, and the story lacked a strong spine.
Nevertheless it was very enjoyable to watch and painted an amusing picture of the trials and tribulations of being a Samoan in New Zealand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)