Pratical Screencraft 2: Summary and Evaluation

I used “Night of the Hunter” as the basis of exploration of my specialist subject, and also to explore the idea of the modern day thriller and remakes.

So going into this project, “Night of the Hunter” stuck with me. I remember all the subtle lighting techniques and how every shot felt like it could be framed and hung on a wall. I loved it, so when we had to select a scene for this module I knew exactly which one I was basing my work off of.

So I started by exploring the idea of “Night of the Hunter” being set in modern day (Film and Madness, Remaking Night of the Hunter.) I asked myself. “How would this film be done today? What would a director want to do differently?” While this was relevant to give me an idea, I had to look at the film from the perspective of a specialist subject. So I chose Editing. (Film and Madness, Why would an editorcare about Lighting and Composition?)

I examined the factors we had covered in class like composition and perspective (Film and Madness, UnderstandingPerspective and Composition Through The Shining), lighting (Film and Madness, theImportance of Lighting and Shading).  I also made notes of choreography (Film and Madness, Basic Choreography), and some notes on After effects (Film and Madness, After Effects.) After all of that research, I felt comfortable enough talking about the clip, but I now had to knuckle down and actually film something. I put together a storyboard (Film and Madness, Storyboard), which gave way to the groundwork for the film. It also acted as a great reference sheet later on. I also went on location ahead and took some practice stills (Film and Madness,Test Stills), of the area to see if I could recreate the images in my head. It was a great success as I was able to rework anything I wasn’t happy with on the day.

As for filming, that went very well. The actors were on time and the whole thing was shot in two hours with only two reshoots the next evening. There were a few issues however; one was some of the shots needed a bit more lighting to them and going back, I would have gotten out another LED light. Another issue with the film is one particular shot that is far too shaky. I had to take the camera off the tripod as I was fussy with the type of shot I wanted to achieve, but there was too much shake because of wind. Sadly, warp stabilizer was unable to fix this during the edit and I had to use the shot. Next time, I’d probably try to keep the camera on something stable.

Overall however, I’m quite happy with how the project turned out. I kept myself to certain deadlines and I was able to finish my work a whole week early.

Words: 488

Sources:
- A Slow Journey Into Madness. (2015) Remaking "Night of the Hunter." [Online] Available from: http://aslowjourneyintomadness.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/practical-screencraft-2-remaking-night.html [Accessed: 9th December 2015].
- A Slow Journey Into Madness. (2015) Why would an editor care about lighting and composition? [Online] Available from: http://aslowjourneyintomadness.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/practical-screencraft-2-why-would.html [Accessed: 9th December 2015].
- A Slow Journey Into Madness. (2015) Understanding Perspective and Composition through the Shining [Online] Available from: http://aslowjourneyintomadness.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/pratical-screensraft-2-understanding.html [Accessed: 9th December 2015].
- A Slow Journey Into Madness. (2015) The Importance of Lighting and Shading [Online] Available from: http://aslowjourneyintomadness.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/practical-screencraft-2-importance-of.html [Accessed: 9th December 2015].
- A Slow Journey Into Madness. (2015) Basic Choreography [Online] Available from: http://aslowjourneyintomadness.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/practical-screencraft-2-basic.html [Accessed: 9th December 2015].
- A Slow Journey Into Madness. (2015) After Effects [Online] Available from: http://aslowjourneyintomadness.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/practical-screencraft-2-after-effects.html [Accessed: 9th December 2015].
- A Slow Journey Into Madness. (2015) Storyboard [Online] Available from: http://aslowjourneyintomadness.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/pratical-screencraft-2-storyboard.html [Accessed: 9th December 2015].
- A Slow Journey Into Madness. (2015) Test Stills [Online] Available from: http://aslowjourneyintomadness.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/pratical-screencraft-2-test-stills.html [Accessed: 9th December 2015].

Pratical Screenscraft 2: Final Film (1 & 2)

Night of the Hunter - Reimagining (Part 1 & 2) from Martin Steell on Vimeo.

Pratical Screencraft 2: Test Stills

So before filming my film, I took some practice images to get an idea of what I wanted to create. This was to be used as a reference guide that is more specific than my storyboard, but it was also so I could practice with the lighting as I was concerned how it would turn out.

 This was the earliest test on the silhouette image for the film. I hadn't introduced the actor yet as I was simply testing if the light was able to bleed through the curtain effectively enough.

 These were some practice shots to measure the distance needed to get the side shot of the silhouette. I ended up get much closer on the day and completely cutting out the table.

 Outside shots I was practicing as well, while none were exact and they were shot during the day, they're pretty close to what was used in the film.

A shot I did on the fly as I remembered I needed to ass to find a sink for a cut away. This was used for the final film.

 Practice silhouette shot. The room was still too bright but at least the outside light was spot on.

 Trying to incorporate the cut away screen shot and the silhouette shot. Looking back, this might have worked if I brought the screen up more and had it take more of the image, but I decided to cut it out entirely. I don't regret this choice as it distracts.

Finally, more practice images. I decided the actual camera angle wasn't right so I changed it on the day of the shoot.

Pratical Screencraft 2: Storyboard

 [The Shot Opens with the tap dripping.]

 [Cut to a TV screen or a mac screen that has an image of a vulture and a rabbit.]

 [A man is sitting in a chair. The lighting brings him out as a silhouette.] 

 [A man walks under a streetlight and becomes visible.]

 [Phone on the mans lap vibrates and he answers. We hear the caller start singing a song.]

 [A behind shot of the man singing. We can here him clearer now.]

 [A close-up shot of the man singing.]

 [A second close-up of the man inside.]

As you may notice in the film I ended up changing a few things around on the day of the shoot. Most notably shot 4 ends up being the opening shot in the film. However, this proved to be amazingly helpful on filming day as an easy reference guy as I can easily get mixed up on what we were doing next.

Practical Screencraft 2: Why would an editor care about Lighting and Composition?

So as I'm going to be examining the scene from "Night of the Hunter" for my film one, my tutor has insisted that I also examine this scene from a specialist subject matter. So I have chosen to look at this clip from the perspective of an editor, but this opens up a new question; as an editor, why would I need to know about Lighting and composition?

If I had chosen another clip I could talk about After Effects as well, considering that my specialism is editing this would have fit quite nicely as a lot of editors today are expected to have at least some knowledge of after effects. However, the Night of the Hunter was filmed in 1955so is the only post work would have been done on the film itself, if any was done at all. So there isn't really any room to talk about that subject matter.

There is a little room to talk about the choreography, but the issue is with that is most of the characters are very still during the scene. There is not a lot of movement from the actors because their meant to be still in order to build a sense of tension, and while I can bring this up, there isn't much else to talk about.

There is plenty to talk about lighting and composition though, so the key here is to bring up relevant examples. I have chosen three specific shots to make my points. The image of the killer waiting outside the house, the side shot of the old woman waiting by the window and another shot of her by front facing. The reason for this selection is they are all excellent examples of what I need to talk about.

They are all great examples of shading and lighting and composition because how they all add to the scene. The lighting tells a story of an evil killer and stalwart protector facing off on this farm, and the composition helps to create an atmosphere that the audience cant tear its eyes from with its use of camera angles and how it incorporates the third dimension.

Now as an editor, the relevancy to these practices are quite high, and this is ignoring the obvious fact that I wouldn't have any footage to work with if this stuff hadn't been filmed by the rest of the team. When it comes to lighting for example, the better I understand how it creates an illusion of a place being set at night or how it can define a character without them speaking a single line of dialogue, the better I can spot inaccuracies or faults during the edit. Say an image was overexposed, and the image was far too bright for where the place was set, I can identify this in the edit and lower the brightness of the image, or I can confirm with the director wether the shot is lit as intended.

For composition, the perfect starting point is the positioning of the shot, but if the director is working with the edit with me and they decided he wants the image to be brought in closer. The more I know about composing a shot, the easier it will be for me to identify with exactly with what they want. It creates a more efficient process of editing as well, and the director can entrust with simple note of changes if he had something else to do.

These are just some examples I can use in my film one. Essentially though, the editor is the one who puts the puzzle together, but the director, producer, cinematographer, lighter, sound operator and everyone else are the ones who provide the pieces.

Practical Screencraft 2: Remaking "The Night of the Hunter"

So for this module I have chosen to base my film off the Night of the Hunter. There wasn't much reason for me choosing the clip outside of the fact that I liked it, but I guess I also have a desire to play with lighting more and this gives me a good enough reason as any.

The scene in question was shot at night in a farmhouse. I couldn't find anything on whether the house was a set or filmed on location, but either way lighting is crucial to the scene while also maintaining the illusion that it is night. So looking at this scene, how would it be shot today?

Well I don't see it being a farmhouse in my opinion as it's too open. A lot of horror films play off the idea of home being a safe place, and then warping that expectation by having someone attacked or murdered there. It's playing off an old fear of being harmed where you're meant to be safe. A film that does this brilliantly is "Panic Room" and this leads me to my next point. A mother and a daughter are trapped in their own house, in a neighbourhood where none of your neighbours know about the danger. There should be people who can help, who can call the police or maybe intervene, but nobody does as their asleep, or maybe they just don't care enough.
To me there is something so scary about that. This feeling of being stalked with no hope of outside help and being forced to fend for yourself that this film does so well. I would try to recreate that feeling in this film. All that is between the killer and the victim is a front door. So I will film in a street and a house connected to other houses.

Now another thing I want to reinterpret is the song. The song itself is fine and strangely haunting despite it being a very positive tune about being beside God and Jesus. I think it's the fact that there are little to no other sounds, it forces you to focus on that tune as darkness is prevalent in the scene. So that in itself is fine, but if your in a house and the person is outside, it is very likely the sound would be muffled and barely legible even if everyone else is silent. So how can you make it clear but also show that the victim can hear the attacker clearly from the other side of a wall? A phone call.

There is a sense of anticipation with a phone call. In reality it could be anyone, and they could be anywhere close to you. More importantly though, you get a static-like effect from a phone call which creates a fantastic effect. It's striking, but also haunting put in the right setting, a setting just like "Night of the Hunter" perhaps? So I want to have the killer contact the victim through a phone call and the victim listens as the killers sings them the song.

Bibliography:
- Night of the Hunter. (1955) Film. Directed by Charles Laughton. [DVD] UK: MGM Home Entertainment
- Panic Room. (2002) Film. Directed by David Fincher. [DVD] UK: Columbia TriStar Films

Practical Screencraft 2: After Effects

Ah, the joy of after effects. The little things that go into making something from scratch always really impressed me. This post will mostly be just notes and references for the future as it is harder for me to talk about details. I'm more of a kinetic user who learns from muscle memory and repetition.

- Premier can be easily incorporated
- Edit individual clips, not the whole thing.
- After effects can easily take up RAM so make sure to not have anything on that you don't need on.
- There are different image files to incorporate and you can use video
- Colour correction is simple (look up tutorial)
- Excellent for creating backdrops for green screen.
- Effects that are from a distance (e.g. Explosions) look better than closer up.

Video Examples:

Cool Guys Dont Look at Explosions from Martin Steell on Vimeo.

Practical Screencraft 2: Basic Choreography

When you hear choreography, you then to think of dance sequences and grand productions, but it is important to remember the relationship between the camera and the actors. They need to work together in order to create the best visual, and more specifically it requires the coordination of the cast, the director, the boom mic operator, the cinematographer etc. Pretty much everyone on the set.


Musicals are a great example of this as they often have large dance numbers that are filled with a large number of actors. In this scene from "The Muppets" you have a moment at 2:03 that has at least over ten people in the shot and the camera panning diagonally. For this to work, the camera has to move but the actors have to move with the shot so they stay in the centre. This requires timing on the part of everyone involved. Usually this where the director steps in to help organise what everyone should be doing in the shot. This may also be the responsibility of the choreographer who is mostly responsible for dance sequences in cinema or theatre.

Now we had the chance to test this out for ourselves in an exercise during class. We were taken up to the green screen room where we were given space to improvise a scene and then decide the positioning of the cameras. While I was acting and didn't get to use the cameras, it was a very interesting exercise as you had to rely on space and repetition. When we got our pattern down, the cameramen repositioned the camera to get the best image. I guess that is what I took away from this when it came with working with people: healthy communication with the whole crew leads to a well made film.

Biblography:
- The Muppets. (2011). Film. Directed by James Bobin. [DVD] UK: Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment

Moving Narrative 2: Do the Right Thing

I don't feel like anyone was in the right in this film. No one truly had the moral high ground, everyone had some basic issue that turned them into wild animals at the end. The set up is great; the background is one of hottest days of the year, and the film reminds you of this constantly as we reach the climax. People become more and more aggressive as the film continues and we see some peoples true colours emerge.

One of the main two characters is the patriarch of the small pizzeria at the edge of a black neighbourhood who has no issue with his clients. He takes pride in his customers loyalty, but he is dealing with his angry and racist eldest son and and his lazy and irresponsible delivery boy. Speaking of, the delivery boy is our other main character who is trying to mend his relationship with his Girlfriend and be a part of his sons life, but he needs money to provide for them and himself. The two seem polar opposites in their ethics and responsibilities, but for the most part share a good relationship that deteriates as the film progresses.

An interesting point is that a lot of the film feels like it was shot as an 80's music video as it has a lot of tilted angles and off the wall editing during faster scenes. I believe this is a stylistic choice meant to fit the black neighbourhood the film is set in. This gives the film a unique perspective though, as it's very hard not to get drawn into the setting the film creates.

One big point I want to make is the message of the film. Caitlin and Tom were both unsure what the film was trying to say, but I remain convince it is a message against rash action and anger. None of the destruction at the end of the film should have happened, but because of a lack of understanding and high tempers, damaged was caused that cant be taken back. Sure it seems like only the Italian family is affected, but the whole neighbourhood have lost a piece of their community now that has been with them for years. Children who have become adults have lost the pizzeria they used to eat at, losing a piece of themselves as well. People will move on, but they will always remember the damage that can be caused when instinct and rage is left unchecked.

Practical Screencraft 2: The Importance of Lighting & Shading

Lighting in film has always been my nemesis. It's an incredibly important aspect in not just cinema, but also photography as it helps set the tone and can even go as far as develop and establish characters. At the end of the day though, it's key for just being able to see (or not see) what is going on. One overestimation of how well a room is lit, and you'll have a very miserable day of shooting ahead of you. When I was experimenting with camera shots using figures, I made this mistake and in certain shots they are barely visible.

I've always had trouble with this for two reasons. The first is that I've always struggled to recreate the ideas in my head and put them onto film. I can see the end goal, but I don't always know how to get there. I easily forget some of the more technical aspects of composition and lighting, so they sometimes become a factor a little too late. As you can see above, I thought the dark velvet or the chair would show them surrounded by darkness, but I now realise I needed a source of light pointed at the models to make sure they're not swallowed by said darkness. They would have popped out much better then.

The other issue is just my lack of understanding on the matter. My brain feels like it's getting squeezed tight when I try to process how to even set up good lighting. I'm generally competent at setting up an area so it's well lit, but I become lost when I want to do very specific things with shadows and light, and how to make a dark room visible, but also still make it look dark. It's these little things that are so important that I just cant seem to achieve.

However, there is another aspect of lighting that is very important that I hadn't clocked onto until very recently; the art of shading. The image above comes from the film The Big Combo. Let's break down the image. Darkness is prominent in the image, and surrounds the characters. Most of his face is covered in it, but we can still make him out, and this is where shading come in. Look closely and while again, his head is covered in shadow, it's lighter at the front of his face so we can make out his features.

Now obviously, the shadow and the dark imagery is to give the sense that this man is a mysterious individual. Does he have a dark past? What is he here for? Is he dangerous? These are all question this frame can emote. However, why has the tone of black lessened at the front of his to the point it is grey? It's so we can still see him. He isn't just a blob in our sight, he is still a person. We can make him out and while we still have questions about his identity, it gives the audience the bridging point to recognise him in the film.

Shading is incredibly important especially in the black and white era of film. It gives away really tiny details away to the watcher, but during this era it was essential to help identify characters and tones of clothing as we couldn't see the colour. Even today though it's incredibly important and it easy to say why. I can use these techniques to show a dark room, but say if it was shot in black and white the characters identifying features were more grey, then the audience can still make them out, but sustains the illusion that the characters are in a dark room.

Now onto the technical side, where are the placements of lights and what are there intensity (ignoring the possibility of a director using natural light for their film.) well of course that depends mostly on the scene and what you are trying to get across, so lets use an example of a moment from Close Encounters of the Third Kind. First off, why is the lighting like this? So we can see the aliens, but we cant make out any distinguishing features. We see them, but we do not, as the shading has blackened them out. We our kept in mystery as much as we given answers.

Now where is the lighting? Definitely behind the aliens as we can make out their outlines, the camera can only make out a wall of white behind them because it is so bright. There may also be another softer light off to the left side of the shot so we can make out a bit of two people at the right edge of the screen. Why is it so bright? As I said above, so we can make out the aliens, but also only their outlines. It's also noteworthy that it gives the affect that the man being carried away is entering a new world beyond are one since we cannot see the ships interior. This effect is great and something that I can easily use for my own work as it's sort of a case of saturating the image just enough to make someone or something out, but also blur out the details so it's keep the person/thing in mystery.

Now looking at the Godfather, there are some annotations of the lighting set-up which I will break down. The key light is the main source of light on the subject. It is the primary one in the shot. You have the fill light that works on keeping just enough shadow on the subject. This obviously differs depending on the aesthetic you wish to create, of may just remove it entirely. Here the subject of the image has given a purposely dark side to himself, perhaps a reference to his dark nature or two-faced mannerisms. The back light (which is being created by the lamp) is creating a pop out effect for the character. It's defining him on the screen even further, by highlighting his head and body.

This is a simple, but effective lighting set-up that I want to use in my own work. It seems so simple but going through these examples have helps me to understand exactly what I have been missing from my own work. Just simple light set-ups can help define the characters in my films more, and reflect their inner personal thoughts.

Biblography:
- The Big Combo. (1955) Film. Directed by Joseph H. Lewis. [DVD] UK: Reel Media International.
- Close Encounters of the Third Kind. (1978) Film. Directed by Steven Spielberg. [DVD] UK: Columbia TriStar Home Entertainment
- The Godfather. (1972) Film. Directed by Francis Ford Coppola. [DVD] UK: Paramount Home Entertainment
- FILM SCHOOL ONLINE! (Unknown) Attributes of the Visual Image [Online] Available from: http://filmschoolonline.com/sample_lessons/sample_lesson_cinematography.htm [Accessed: 22nd November 2015]
- FILM110. (2009) Lighting [Online] Available from: http://film110.pbworks.com/w/page/12610256/Lighting [Accessed: 22nd November 2015]

Pratical Screensraft 2: Understanding Perspective and Composition Through The Shining

The composition of a scene can change exactly how we view it. It can create a mood and an atmosphere, it can even represent what a character is feeling. This is sort of the most basic summation of why composition is important, it completely effects are perception of an image, but in practice it is not nearly so simple.

In class, we were given an image to analyse. When we had a good look at it, we were told to now refocus the shot. We could look far into the background, turn the image over or do whatever we liked, but by changing our perspective of the picture, we were simultaneously changing the composition. If the image is focused on a shot of a boy jumping over a puddle, it could be a representation of childhood innocence, or the journey to adulthood, or simply a boy jumping over  puddle. Then you notice a man standing far in the background. You now taken the image but the shot closer to the man, to the point where the puddle is mostly cut out and your main focus is the boy and the man. What does the image say now? Is the man looking on at the boy? Reminiscing about his own past? Or, is he watching over the boy as a parent or a guardian?

"Everywhere we go, we're confronted by pictures. We look at still pictures in books, magazines and museums. We watch moving pictures at the movies, on television, at concerts, and in theatres; we play video games and surf the internet. We look at a lot of pictures-big, little, moving, still, colour, black and white-but they are all pictures."
-  The Visual Story: Creating the Visual Structure of Film, TV and Digital Media (Block, 2007)
That little change completely rewrites the image, and since composition is such a visual phenomenon, of course it is can be applied to film. This gave me a new way of looking at things. Looking back, I can use this as a new way to view through a camera and adjust the what I'm focusing on in the image. perhaps by doing that, I can rewrite the whole scene.

Of course there are many elements to composition, not just camera positioning. The lighting of an image can help focus on specific people or objects, or imply certain characteristics of an individual by hiding them in shadow and overexposing them. Speaking of focus, leaving parts of an image in and out of focus can force the audience to pick out whatever is left visible. Art direction as well, but I'll explain all of this by using an example: The Shining, directed by Stanley Kubrick.

What can be taken from this image. Let's break it down: We are looking at two girls from a distance, the colour scheme demands that you look at them despite the fact that the rest of the room engulfs the image. This is because the bright blue pops out compared to the duller colours of the room. The fact that the girls are looking at the camera makes the audience feel they are being looked at, and usually the distance between the twins and the camera would ease any tension or misgivings, but I believe the lens has ever so slightly warped the room. Something just doesn't seem right and this only creates more unease.

The framing of this shot has helped to create an uneasy atmosphere in this scene. I personally think this is fantastic. A lot of Kubrick's can be broken down into still images and nearly all of those images are worthy of being hung in a gallery because they create such imagery in a single shot. This is what this scene does so well. I could obviously use this slightly warped and distant shot in a corridor to create unease, but I could use the angle possibly in a forest path to get the same effect. What completes this is the art direction (the dull colours and the bright blue) and the narrow corridor as it force you to look ahead.

Now lets look at the scene from a different perspective. The distance is now even further, but since the camera has moved backwards we can see there is now another person in the shot. Now, the girls are looking at the little boy on the bike, and the boy is staring at them. For the most part what we get from the shot hasn't changed much. There is still a sense of unease, but it is more for concern for the boy rather then yourself since he is their focus, and of course a good horror film will always make you scared even when you are not the focus. The distance almost plays more into the sense of dread as it is harder to make out the girls from the distance.

The reason this is relevant is how a simple change can turn a scene on its head. We are not the focus, the boy is, and with this creates a new sense of danger and dread. The increased distance adds more dimension to the shot, and notably the bright blue is even more relevant now because if they wore a a duller colour you could be forgiven for possibly not noticing them at first. That could actually be effective if a character was supposed to blend in and not be seen, but in this scene we are meant to immediately react as the camera follows the boy and stops sharply as the girls come into frame, probably giving the audience a jump.



Composition is a funny thing. It can so easily be forgotten as you take in the whole scene, but it's always there and remains an integral part of cinema. Quickly, lets take a look at another scene that is broken down with a helpful diagram.

The main character is looking down at a model of a real maze that he will meet his fate in later on in the film. He seems so much more above the the structure, as if it is no threat to him, making the irony of his demise much more apparent. This of course wouldn't be obvious at first when you watch the film, but looking back or later viewings make the connection that much more apparent.

Back to the full perspective though, you'll notice that the maze covers a huge portion of the bottom of the frame and like the corridor scene, it stretches outwards. Another thing you'll notice is the choice of jumper the main character is wearing though, you'll notice it is a darker colour than the scenery around, which still helps him pop out just by reversing the tones. He is also centre frame and not too far away from the camera. He seems slightly ominous but not over threatening. Kubrick is already planting the seeds for his inevitable change later on in the movie.

Biblography:
- BLOCK, B. (ed.) (2007) The Visual Story: Creating the Visual Structure of Film, TV and Digital Media. Unknown: Focal Press; 2 edition
- The Shining. (1980) Film. Directed by Stanley Kubrick. [DVD] UK: Warner Home Video

Moving Narrative 2: Rust and Bone

So at its core, I feel that this film is about loss. There are many times in are lives when we will lose something. It can be something small like a toy of some change, or it can affect us so badly it will stay with us for the rest of out lives.

Both of the main characters in the film start off by losing something. The father and his son lose their homes and have lost the relationship they once had. They spend the rest of the movie trying to reclaim both those things and hold on to it. The woman loses her legs and her future. Her whole way in life is dramatically changed, and she has to learn to do basic things that most people take for granted. That is the key factor to me though, you don't know what you have until you've lost it. The father and the son have a strained relationship throughout the film, but when the child nearly dies, it acts as a wake up call to the father who has not appreciated the people in his life.

Pacing wise the film is a bit weird, but it works. It switches between stories without a moments notice, but all the narratives move along at the same time and become so closely connected that you didn't feel that confused, or that I missed anything important. It also didn't feel like a two hour movie either as it felt shorter, which is always a good sign in my books.

The cinematography is very well done. It isn't obnoxious or pretentious, and gives the film a balanced and calming tone even in more desperate and hectic scenes. I believe this might have something to do with the metaphor of calm but brutal effects of the sea, which is presented multiple times in the film, but it also makes the more shocking moments that much more shocking.

Moving Narrative 2: Wrong

Wrong does a lot right. For the little sense the film makes, it does create an excellent atmosphere and spot on comedic timing, but when you start to look past that, the film is as shallow as a kiddy pool.

The first thing I have had to come to accept about this film is it makes absolutely no sense. There is no logic to be found anywhere in the film. We follow a man who has recently lost his dog and how over several days he tries and fails to find him. The relationship he has with his pet is also romantic in how he yearns for his return, a joke played up to some good laughs. Makes sense? Well it gets shit-tonne weirder as we go through.

An agency that kidnaps pets, an insane woman who thinks her boyfriend can change his face at will, a gardener who dies but is inexplicably alive again without anyone bringing it up, a neighbour who has cant stop driving into remote areas without any explanation; all of this just feels wrong. it feels like the film is punishing anyone that is trying to make any logical connection between everything that is happening.

So I have had to come to accept that the film wrong is the movie equivalent of "I am the Walrus." Remember that Beatles song? The band was famously annoyed that people kept overanalysing their lyrics so made a song that was absolute nonsense. People of course tried to understand the meaning of the song despite it being utter bollocks. That's kinds what I feel the inspiration of this film is.

From a technical standpoint, lighting was warm and fit the twisted yet lighthearted tone the film had, cinematography made scenes feel weird of normal when appropriate and the sound design and editing were fine. Not much else to say but "Wrong" was not entirely wrong.

Comparative Film Practices: This Place

This Place from Martin Steell on Vimeo.

Comparative Film Practices: Experimentation with Film

Flash and Lights from Martin Steell on Vimeo.

Moving Narrative 2: Ida

I think at the end of the day, I would say Ida is a good film. It's not a great film, and it's certainly not a bad movie, but I would say for what its worth, I enjoyed watching it.

The film in question has been presented in a 4:3 ratio that gives the film a very old feel; helped by the fact the film is set in Poland 1962. everything feels dirty, forgotten miserable. The black and white gives off a very depressing mood, and general story doesn't help much either. I'm starting to see an unfortunate trend in indy films that they feel its more "realistic" for characters to emote as little as possible and be strangely calm about nearly everything. That's why Wanda was extremely refreshing. She laughed, she got angry, she nearly cried, she felt like an actual person. Too her credit, Ida is believable too and her personal struggle was actually pretty engaging.

The lighting and framing was fantastic. They took full advantage of the lack of colour to highlight different areas of the film in different shades to create a "noir-esque style." The framing is also very precise and the shots are long enough for you to soak in what is happening. The issue with the film is, despite it being very short, its felt much longer. The film can become very dull (4 out of the six people n my row fell asleep at one point) and I feel this could have been prevented with either cutting the film as soon as returns to the church, or creating more interactions and a separate narrative between Wanda and Ida who I thought had great chemistry.

I don't really have much else to say about this one, but for what it's worth, it's a good film bogged down by little things that stop it from being great. I would also like to know why so many indy films have something against soundtracks in their movies. I imagine it can be expensive, but a little music wouldn't kill you. Ida's little moments where they had music playing were great and really fit the tone of the film. there should have been much more.

Contexts of Practice 2: Censorship

The act of censorship is a moral issue that still affects are society today. Very rarely is there a simple "right and wrong" answer to such things. There's the obvious political censorship which is typically an abuse of power and authority, but what about censorship in the media? What is okay, and not okay to show to children?

When I was younger, I vividly remember an example of this surrounding the rapper Eminem. My father used to leave to leave music video channels on, back when we still had sky in our house. It always featured different themes in which different songs would be highlighted, and at one point theres was a whole lot of Eminem on the channel.

Depending on the time of the day, I would hear two different versions of the song. If for whatever reason, the song was played in the morning or during the day, I would hear a censored version in which Eminem's voice would "mysteriously" vanish when ever he was about to say a "offensive" word. Generally these were curse words, even damn was censored at times. I always recall other singers get censored whenever they made mention of anything gay, but I cannot find any source. If you listened to the song in the evening, then everything would as it was intended as it was past TV's watershed time.

Eminem isn't the only singer to be effected by this. Usually songs with high levels of cussing tend not to make into the mainstream, but there are always exceptions. Rise Against the Machine's Killing in the Name must have been a nightmare for radio stations when it got the Christmas number one spot. The question is though, is it right to censor this kind of material? Even if it's only for certain parts of the day.

There is a certain of artistic integrity that goes into this kind of thing. Context is important really. Was Eminem in support of this? Was he only interested in the money? But I personally have real issue in this context. However you feel about bad language, I think most would agree it shouldn't just be thrown in kids faces like its nothing. Some of these words carry a lot meaning and history, and youth aren't always aware of what they are saying. Also, considering the fact that the song was never completely edited down, and most of imagery in these music videos were left intact (which could range from sexual to violent) I can agree with the sentiment that perhaps this shouldn't be aired at this time of day. Then again, why was the song played at these times at all, and not just in the evening when it would have been acceptable for the censors? I think our old friend Mr. Greed probably had something to do with it.

Moving Narrative 2: Metro Manila

Metro Manila had three key things that made it work: The characters, the well-built tension, and the cinematography. This was definitely the most straight forward film we've seen so far, and I must confess it was very refreshing, but that certainly didn't take anything away from the movie. It shows you don't have to be overcomplicated or disjointed to put out an intelligent film.

The characters are immediately sympathetic. Their in a shitty situation and are forced to leave their home and try and start a new life in a strange city. It's a classic and very real story of poverty. There are films that can sometimes over play this card. When that happens its creates a gap between the audience and viewer. Here though, the film is smart enough to give the viewer occasional moments of relief and hope; this creates a stronger connection to characters as not only are we not constantly anxious as to what is happening, but most people can relate to hardship and moments of joy. The slow burn to the family - and most importantly - the fathers final actions are totally believable as we have seen everything the world has thrown at him, to the point where I found myself bur-grudgingly agreeing that the father had no choice but to do what he did.

Going back to the tension in the film, it constantly feels ever present. From the very start when we meet these characters and they travel to the city, there is this immediate feeling of dread. What is going to go wrong? This lends itself to the shots, as we first see the father and mother giving each other reassuring smiles, the camera purposely picks out shots of advertisements, people rushing past one another, large and imposing buildings, it gives a sense of alienation in a place they don't understand and likely don't belong. Many of the shots feel up close and personal with the characters. The camera is not afraid to get right up the characters faces, showing their emotional range. It feels claustrophobic at times and forces you to engage with what is in front of you. At other times, we get some range and gorgeous establishing shots that really set the tone for the scene. The cinematography and the tension (and occasional relief) go hand in hand through out the film.

Metro Manila does most everything right. Despite the poverty storyline being one that has been done a thousand times in cinema, the director has shown that with the right cast, cinematographer and direction, any story can feel as fresh as the first time you've seen it. It isn't about the story itself, it's about how you tell it.

Practical Screencraft 2: Field of View Experiment

This posts covers my attempts with playing around with field of view. I tried to practice and find the differences I could  make by keeping two figures in the same position, but changing the lens and Zoom. The following are the results.

Lenses Used: Standard 24-50mm and 24-70mm

The first shot is the default lens. The camera is at the end of the table. The figures are about 2 inches away from each other, but the distance looks great thanks to the angle of the shot.

This is the Other lens and I have zoomed in as much as possible. There is still a distance between them, but it seems slightly closer, yet more distant. I attribute this too the slight change of angle (the other lens was much larger and it moved the camera.)  I also believe the focus played a part in the difference between the images, as I show below.

The actually seem slightly closer now with the focus of the shot being altered. The shot above says to me the figure in the front is walking away, while this one shows the figure from behind is approaching.

 This is the shot zoomed in as much as possible, using the original lens instead.

There isn't a significant difference between the two. The rest are size shots and messing with the perspective. the lighting is poor so apologies ahead.

Contexts of Practice 2: Canadian Cinema

Canada, oh Canada. Our great and native land. Not for film apparently. One of the first things I discovered when researching this little topic is that it is extremely difficult for a Canadian film to receive distribution due to the fact Hollywood already owns a monopoly over the country.

"Canadian cinema has existed within an environment where access to capital for production, to the marketplace for distribution and to theatres for exhibition has been extremely difficult. It has experienced a concurrent history of struggle against an entertainment monopoly (Hollywood) and a search for an audience that remains largely unaware of a domestic industry."

They've been kind of screwed out the door, but like the saying goes "life finds a way." The same can be said for Canada's film industry. However, I am getting ahead of myself. Let's start from a little background on the country itself.

A Brief History:
The natives of the land were Inuits who travelled to the land from Asia; but as usual, Europeans soon came over and f***** all of that up. From the Vikings to the English to the French, they all attempted to claim the land at some point. The British and French had their war (nothing ever changes) and eventually the British took Canada when the war ended. However, France were permitted two islands in the Canadian border as they had already settled there. Over time these restriction lessened, leading to French culture becoming far more prominent in the country.

Despite France joining the Americans in the war for independence, Canada stayed loyal to Britain, refusing to join the 13 states that would one day be part of the USA. A new border was created between the two nations, and at the same time the population in Canada exploded in size. Over the years with discovery of gold and cheaper land in upper Canada, waves of immigrants made their way over to the country hoping to find their fortune. This is something that still happens today, as Canada has an extremely high immigration rate.

Early Days:
One of the first films produced in Canada was entitled "Living Canada." It was a series of 35 scenes that were created to encourage the British to emigrate to the country. This was the primary films produced in the country and it lasted up until the 1930's. While private film companies in Canada started to sprout up, at the same time, America moved in to use the country as a backdrop for their productions.

Between 1917-1923, there was a rise in Canadian nationalism due to the first world war. The country (similar to England, Germany and America) started to widely release newsreels about current events. This caused a mini boom in film production, spearheaded by Adanac Films who produced three feature films; one of which was the anti-Communist picture "The Great Shadow." Ernest Shipman, who had already seen great success in the US before returning to his native land, produced a film called "Back to God's Country" that took earnings of over 300% of what it took to make the film, marking it one of the first huge financial success' in Canadian film scene.

There is a sense of something blooming in the country. While Canadian cinema did not differ massively to the US in terms of style, this was paying off for the better at this time. However, this early success was not to last as all of Shipman's films did not make nearly the money the first did, and his final feature actually made a loss. This marked the end of big productions for some time.

"Through the rest of the 1920s, production in Canada was mainly restricted to inserts for American newsreels, sponsored short films, and documentaries produced by the government motion picture bureaus and a handful of private companies. There was one brief resurgence in 1927 when private investors contributed $500,000 to produce Carry on Sergeant!, a silent drama about Canadians in the First World War, written and directed by British author and cartoonist Bruce Bairnsfather. Though well received by critics, it came at the dawn of the sound era and died within weeks of its release."

After this, there was strange period of nearly total inaction when it came to Canada's film scene. The commercial industry had died, along with several distributors being shut down, the governments own motion picture bureau had fallen into disuse, and eventually closed down for a period of time. Of course there were still artists and filmmakers who attempted to keep the art form alive in the country, but noting seemed to get the movement going again.

The only notable use of film in this era cropped up in 1939 at the start of the Second World War. Newsreels were in high demand to cover the events of the conflict, and the National Film Board of Canada was created for just that reason.

"In 1938, the federal government commissioned Scottish filmmaker John Grierson — who had coined the term “documentary,” and had been head of the Empire Marketing Board and the General Post Office in Britain — to study the state of film production in Canada. He wrote a report that year that led to the creation of the NFB in May 1939, and was named the Board’s first film commissioner in October 1939."

It's original purpose was merely to help the distribution of war time films, but 1941 transitioned into the role of production. The National Film Board of Canada still exists today, and primarily produces documentaries, animations and occasional short films. It's a staple in the country that has survived even through films darkest eras, having won over 5000 international awards, including a dozen Academy Awards. Despite all of it's success though, the company has not become or helped others become the main distributor of films in Canada, as foreign films still control the market.

A small note; in 1928 Odeon cinemas was founded in the country, but was later sold to an organisation in England, further helping to freeze the film market in Canada.

Rising Again:
In 1947, discussion began wether America could start using Canada as a backdrop for film production again. Thanks to this and an economic boom for Canada following the war, there was a renewed interest in the art form. After several years of a resurgence of filmmaking, the government implemented a 50% capital cost allowance in order to encourage private film companies to be formed.

Many english speaking directors migrated from Canada for work. Sir Tyrone Guthrie and Sidney Furie who both directed numerous low budget films in the country began their carers in the country. However, the want for a revival in Canadian cinema simply wasn't strong enough and Sidney migrated to England in 1960, saying: "I wanted to start a Canadian Film Industry but nobody cared." A sad sentiment that would continue to live on. Canada continued to lose Canadian grown talent to England and Hollywood, due to a lack of funding and interest that kept on fluctuating. The national film board was starting to win awards for their work, but this was not nearly enough to reel in a wide audience.

However, things were about to change again. The early 1960's saw the first Canadian film to be picked up for US distribution: "The Mask." The National Film Board was still primarily focused on documentary filmmaking, were starting to really explore short film projects and animations. A number of these film focused on post-war Canada, such "Nobody Waved-Goodbye." A film about a teenager and his girlfriend who are unhappy in suburbia and try to make it out on their own. Film was used as it has nearly always been used. To represent the fears, the culture and people of the time.

"Production throughout Canada also began to flourish in other ways. The aesthetic advances made by the French “New Wave” led to a more “personalist” cinema, and the development of cheap, mobile 16mm cameras allowed more access to a medium that had hitherto been the preserve of a few. A number of low-budget features were produced across the country, mainly on university campuses. The Bitter Ash (1963), the first film made by Larry Kent while he was studying theatre at the University of British Columbia, created the most controversy. The sex scenes in the film turned it into an overnight sensation. Kent went on to direct two more features on the West Coast before moving to Montréal."

The government continued to show support for a film industry in Canada, and by 1974 they raised the capital cost allowance for film work from 60% to 100%. Investment in Canadian production increased dramatically, as even at a loss there could potentially be profit to be made. This led to same specific rules though.

"For a film to qualify as Canadian, it had to be at least 75 minutes long, have at least one producer and two-thirds of the “above the line” creative team who were Canadian, and perform at least 75 per cent of the production and post-production services in Canada."

With a risk of potential losses, it was understandable why there were so many specifics to qualify the films a "Canadian." It didn't help matters that so many of the films produced by the Canadian National Film Board were commercial failures. However, because the Americans had such a stranglehold on the theatrical marketplace in Canada, it was near impossible for a Canadian production to make a profit. Instead of discouraging this time, this gave those inside the industry "us or them" mentality and turned artistic projects to more commercial work instead.

There was an abandonment of low-budget films and budgets for films in Canada inflated. This back fired, as these films were reviewed poorly, starting a debate on whether Canada should have a film industry in the first place. Despite this, the start of this new era saw two commercial hits and academy award nominations. Another issue brought up was a lot of the films of this era suffered from an identity crisis. Inherently, many critics felt that the industry was moving away from what made these films Canadian over what made them go main-stream. This grew worse and worse, and with continued poor reviews for films created in this era, the box office suffered as well. By 1982, the tax shelter was reduced to 50%, marking the end of another era.

Today?:
Canada today has a string indy film scene. A great advantage the country still has access to professional crews, state-of-the-art studio space and infrastructure, tax breaks and generally lower dollar — has become a multi-billion-dollar business built over 50 years. There is still a great difficulty for these film to hit mainstream, but there is feeling that filmmakers in the country have moved past that desire.

"In the 1960s, no more than two or three Canadian films a year received proper distribution in the Toronto market. In 2011, more than 50 Canadian movies played the Greater Toronto Area, the largest market in the world for English-Canadian films."

Notable directors:
- James cameron
- Earnest Shipman
- David Cronenberg
- Atom Egoyan
- Mack Sennet

Notable Films:
- The Great Shadow (1920)
- Nobody Waved Goodbye (1964)
- Jesus of Montreal (1989)
- Dead Ringers (1988)
- Scott Pilgrim Vs the World (2010)
- Porky's (1982)

Sources:
HISTORICA CANADA. (2013) The History of the Canadian Film Industry. [Online] Available from: http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/the-history-of-film-in-canada/ [Accessed 10th October.]

JUST LANDED. (2015) A Summary of Canadian History. [Online] Available from: https://www.justlanded.com/english/Canada/Canada-Guide/Culture/The-history-of-Canada [Accessed 10th October.]

Nobody Waved Goodbye. (1964) Film. Directed by Don Owen. [DVD] Canada: Columbia Pictures.

Shultz, D. (2006) Filmography of World History. Westport USA: ABC-CLIO