Group Work so Far...

My final group for the opening sequence is Me, Hannah Dukes and Danni Andrean. Since allocation we have had a few group meetings out of class time, and had our first test shoot.
Original Meetings
- Come up with initial Ideas
- Finalise Ideas
-Work out timetables for shooting
- Think about Actors
- Think about Location

More in Depth
When our Ideas where cut down to one final one, we had to start storyboarding and scripting, both which would be initially drafted, rewritten or redrawn again for improvements. Both were done alongside inspiration and research, in an attempt to see what works and what is realistic (a difficult balance).

Test Shoot
During the test shoot we accomplished
- Shooting the rough storyboarded sequence
- Experimenting with the creation of blood
- Experimenting with the set, lighting, camera postioning, continuity (DONT MOVE ANYTHING ON THE TABLE)
- Makeup practise (went v well)
- Encountering issues we have now resolved or are in the process of resolving
- Kind of actor briefing or taster (they now what we are doing now and so do we)

So for the Week
- Refinement and tweaks - Storyboard, Script
- Revamping some areas - living room opening
- Editing Draft - This will be our real decider for what needs doing.

BLK feedback

No evidence of Stage 1 postings Tom - you need to show how the project is developing from your own perspective.

Try to avoid long gaps between posts.

Please see the main blog posts for advice on how to proceed with your individual blog if you're not sure what you should be doing.

Your evaluation and continuity sequence link? What's going on?

Detectives Detectives Detectives...

Here I collected some images of detectives which are iconic, and have helped create the trench coated stereotype of a detective that exists now. But I wonder whether this style is worn out, does it need a contemporary renewal from this look? Does it have the same impact as maybe a decade or less ago? In what direction could the style of clothes go in? Then again maybe its just the villains and themes which need renewal, rather than the detectives themselves. Shows like CSI and Dexter have moved well away from this stereotypical feel, and it is very refreshing and works well. It also shows a contrast of how the solo detective characters we have come to know, are being replaced with a more team style squad and feel. You can look at any of the countless CSI's to see this.

In this post I am not aiming to come up with a final answer or decision, but I just wanted to start thinking about in what direction the detective genre can move.

Self Assessment

1. Who did you work with and how did you manage the task between you?
My group was made up of me, Matt Gabzdyl, Danni Andrean and Alice King. We all participated in group meetings for the planning stages, so for example I drew the storyboard but it was very much a group effort to come up with the shots, and we discussed and decided every aspect as I drew. The same would go for brainstorming or any other thought processes, someone would act as a scribe as we all discussed together. When on the shoot, Danni and Alice were acting the conversation out, Matt was cameraman, and I was the sound technician. When not in the shot Alice would become directing assistant.

2. How did you plan your sequence? What processes did you use?
We used a storyboard for the final shoot which we planned and scrutinised beforehand. We held brainstorm sessions and spent time writing the conversation out. We used references of continuity in other films to plan out how we would make our sequence work for the audience. We each had individual ideas which we compared and combined to come up with a final storyboard. What a lot of it boiled down to was us all sharing thoughts to build up to a final vision which we all believed in.

3. What technology did you use to complete the task, and how did you use it?
For our film we used a Sony HDD camcorder, a tripod, a directional microphone and headphones for monitoring sound. We were able to film smooth shots, like pans, by using the tripod and the directional microphone gave us clear sound for the conversation shots. We used headphones so that the sound technician (me) could hear only what the camera was picking up, this allowed for me to make judgements on how shots came through to the camera. The aim was very standard camerawork, and the tripod allowed for smooth shots. This allowed us to concentrate on continuity.

4. What factors did you have to take into account when planning, shooting and editing?
Time was the main factor throughout the task, as there was a set maximum of one hour for planning, then another for shooting. We also had to take into consideration acting ability, equipment limitations and overall how ambitious we planned to make our scenes. We wanted to keep emotion within the conversation to a minimum so that acting skills were not tested too much, this is because group members had to be actors. Equipment limitations were not too sever or limiting, generally we were happily euqipped. The issue arises when shooting a conversation from multiple angles because it means all takes have to be identicle for editing together, and this is difficult when you only have one camera. However I think we did get through this in the end.

5. How successful was your sequence? Please identify what worked well, and with hindsight, what would you improve/do differently?

I think that for the most part our sequence is seamless and subtly continuous, which was the aim of the prelim Task, so in this case it was mainly a successful sequence. So for example the whole beginning sequence of Danni walking into the room is very well captured and edited, its seamless, the match on action is perfectly cut and the shots are coherent for the viewer. Likewise Danni walking to her seat is fine. The conversation is then where there are some issues. Generally the conversation flows and its all cut nicely, however some parts are cut unnaturally and seem jumpy. This is due to our shoot, and due to the use of a single camera. We did not scrutinise the script use and motions, which led to differences between takes which made editing different. Slight changes in lines or positioning could throw off the viewer so our takes got very limited and we used shots I would have wanted to shoot again given more time. In one case we thought we had the shot, until we got to the edit suite where we found the sound was off, but we only had one take. This particular mistake meant we had to cut the shot reverse shot from our sequence. I understand now why films have continuity specialists on set to photograph and layout sets. I felt the weakest partof the sequence is the beginning of the conversation which lingers in one shot for too long, and I thonk gets boring. Shooting this again I would shoot more takes and add a couple more shots to the conversation, because I have learnt that in the edit suite it is very important to have lots of options and filming to work with. I would also change the script a bit, to add more length to the sequence, or make the conversation more interesting. However they are purely extras I would want given more time.

6. What have you learnt from completing this task? Looking ahead, how will this learning be significant when completing the rest of your foundation coursework, do you think?

Take more takes is one thing I have learnt. We had difficulty editing together everything due to some bad shotswhich got through without another take. This meant shots had to be cut and some areas are clearly patchy due to lack of leighway. So I think that what I have learnt is that its always best to plan ahead for problems on shoots in particular. I think that I also want to make the best I can of the test shoot, because this is when I can flag up any issues.

Iconography

(Starting from top) Pulp Fiction (1994, Quentin Tarantino), Resevior Dogs (1992, Quentin Tarantino) and Infernal Affairs (2002, Wai-Keung Lau & Siu Fai Mak).

These are a collection of film stills which are among my favourite, and also, perhaps more importantly, are very iconic within the film industry. Why? I think gun standoffs always produce powerful imagery when pulled offf well. For example the Resevior Dogs still in particular is a very iconic image which evenbefore I had seen the fulm was an image I particularly liked. The whole look that comes with these stills is often part of the package like the black suit worn by gangsters or themes like betrayal, revenge or even work (It's just business, nothing personal?). The pointed guns power comes, I think, from the the idea of life and death, and the power of the gun toting character. Also I think an important factor of what turns a normal gun standoff still into an iconic one is the compistion, I think that an important aspect of the compostion is the rule of thirds. For example in the Pulp Fiction still the aiming arms are lined across the top third of the shot, in the Resevior Dogs shot the man standing lines the left third while the downed man is along the bottom third (however I do not think this is the most important aspect o this shot, instead the guns diagonally facing is more striking) and lastly the Infernal Affairs still, uses the rule of thirds for the two characters,the horizon, which also lines up the gun and heads. I think all of this plays a big part in why these shots work well and stand out.