Breathing Room/Broken Bubbles shoots

The shooting of Breathing Room was, for myself, a far more relaxed and enjoyable experience than the time I had on Sole Mates. A part from the obvious fact that the RED did not break I think staying the night at the location helped lessen stress levels. Thankfully cabin fever did not set in at any point.
I also enjoyed the role of camera operator, by far the most noteworthy position I held in all three films. I would not dare to presume that I am at all accomplished at operating, but I certainly enjoyed operating more than camera assist or focus pulling.
All in all, Breathing Room went rather smoothly in my opinion. At one point we had drifted off schedule to about three hours behind. However, astonishingly (and a mystery to me) we managed to catch up before the end of the day.
I felt that John, as focus puller, and myself managed to work rather consistently and productively as a camera team. Lauren also did very well on all three shoots in her capacity as camera assistant. I feel I should note that Lauren picked up her role’s responsibilities and duties very quickly and was reliable and on the ball throughout all shoots.
I felt that Paul’s Directing of the film’s Photography was simplistic and effective. The approach he took in lighting the film lent itself to improvisation and easy alterations that smoothed out the shooting process and helped to speed things along. In short, the frames looked very good through my monitor, thanks to Paul’s efforts.

I must admit I was surprised at how Graeme dealt with his directing. This is not to say that I thought he would be bad, not at all. Rather, I was surprised to see how much focus he put on the performance to how much faith he put in Paul and the camera department. I find that I am very particular about the camera and frame of my films and can often wind up not giving the performance proper attention, so it was refreshing to see Graeme really throwing his all into getting the right performance. Bravo Mr Deacon.

Broke Bubbles was a truly surprising experience I must admit and I completely and totally praise the dedication and effort of Murdo, Phil and John. I had read Murdo’s script and really liked it. Out of all three of our chosen films Murdo’s was the one I found most enjoyable, in my own personal opinion. However, I also believed it to be the most impractical and most likely to fail in the production of it. This is not to say I though it completely unachievable. The major reason I liked Broken Bubbles is simply one word…the ‘reach’ of the script. It wasn’t a small and typical student short film, limited to the confines of reality. It was ambitious and had a strong ‘why not?’ mentality, whether intended or not. These are the short films I like, the ones that break the template and mindset of short films, the ones that have reach. Having said this, the story is also very intimate and personal, a personal story set against a fantastical world.
When I first saw the set in the props store I was very, very impressed with the level of artistic detail and design.
The highlight for me was seeing the quality and beauty of the outdoor footage, particularly that of the sunset footage, it really looked fantastic. Performances were also outstanding on this film. When shooting the handheld emotional climax of the film I think it is safe to say that Luke and myself were completely taken aback by the intensity of Rhys’ performance.

I would say that at this point, the only thing that may still trip Broken Bubbles up is the Green Screen composites of the fairy. I have faith that Gavin will do his best to make it work.
I only hope that none of the shots are spoilt because of any mistake I may have made with focus.

Over the past three shoots I have become aware of a failing of mine. I was second camera assist, camera operator and focus puller and I can say that I only enjoyed operating. I do not have much taste for the purely technical aspects on set filmmaking. I have always, since I was young wanted to be involved in the creative side of filmmaking, particularly directing. Therefore, for me to be in a purely uncreative role, unable to provide my input into the creativeness of the process distracts me with frustration to no end.
Of course I am willing to do my role to help our class realise our scripts, whosesoever the scripts may belong to, even if it means a purely technical role for myself. But I cannot shake the frustration I feel simply being (for lack of a better word) a ‘Techie’. I’m not saying these roles are unnecessary or not worthy of recognition, I simply mean that they are not for me.
It was this frustration that perhaps let my discontent show through at points on Sole Mates, and I would like to apologise for my slightly miserable mood on the late night shoot for Sole Mates.

To finish off, I hope that all our films turn out well in the edit and a well done to all.

EIFF Trip

It was a shame that our visit to the Edinburgh International Film festival was a day shorter this time around but it proved to be just as fruitful as last year.
I won't give a review run-down of every film which I viewed, as I feel it rather unnecessary. Instead I shall just comment on the experience of the festival as a whole. One thing that I love about attending the EIFF is that it tends to put a lot of things into perspective for me. I spend the entire year driving to learn and perfect the skills needed to create/identify and understand a well structured good film. Although I enjoy this, I can at times feel worn down by all the specifics and intricacies, tricks and rules, do's and dont's of putting a film together. One could view this as the magic and charm escaping from my perception of cinema, although I don't believe this to be the case. It comes then, as no unwelcome experience, when we are sent to the festival to watch as many films as we can. Not only does the festival open my eyes to many a film that I would not have otherwise even heard about, but it reminds me why I (on a rare occasion) work myself to distraction trying to improve my understanding of film. It is good to just sit down and take in a film especially when it is as funny and entertaining as 'Jackboots in Whitehall' or 'Evil in the time of heroes'. Even when I come out of a screening feeling angry at the film (as I felt with Cherry Tree Lane) it forces me to think on and reflect as to the reason I did or didn't like a particular film.
As I hinted at earlier, the two most entertaining films I saw in the festival were 'Jackboots in Whitehall' and 'Evil in the time of Heroes'. We went to see 'Jackboots' first and I have to say that I had never laughed so hard in a cinema until that time -that was until I went to see 'Evil...Heroes' but that's for later on. 'Jackboots' was a world war II film with two very major alterations, the Nazis had invaded Britain and the film was shot with Action-man style models. I felt, perhaps, that our DFTV2 row voiced our enjoyment of the jokes more than most in the screening but I thought it to be more than deserving of my laughter. Not a perfect comedy by any means, as it was probably 20 minutes too long and lulled a bit in the middle. However, it definitely got my approval.
My initial reaction on coming out of 'Cherry Tree lane' was possibly too harsh, I'll admit. I immediately disregarded the film as it left me angry and annoyed. On further reflection, I will give it credit for achieving what it seemed to be striving for. When there was tension I felt tense, when there was injustice I felt frustrated, when there was 'justice' I felt (somewhat) satisfied. But most importantly, I did care about what happened to the characters. My one major and unwavering reason as to why I left feeling angry was that there was a rape in the film. Although they did not show the audience the actual act on screen it was insinuated and revealed through other methods. I cannot stand watching a film in which a woman in raped. It leaves me feeling disgusted, unsettled and quite frankly upset. This is my personal feelings of course. I know rape is a reality in this world and in my mind it is the worst thing any human can do (along side murder) but I do not wish to be show it in a film.
We also went to catch some short film screenings (including the one Paul had worked on) but I was left unimpressed by all save for maybe one. Short films are always too alike -as if directed by the same person, who apparently detests both dialogue and music. But seeing their faults makes me aware of my own and can only strengthen my resolve to improve my own practice.
'Vacation' was a film that I liked and dislike all in one. It had some good point and had some bad points but ultimately I feel the director was probably given too much freedom -resulting in unnecessary long sequences and a sense that the film wasn't sure what it was trying to be.
Now we come to my personal highlight of the festival...'Evil in the time of Heroes'. A Greek zombie film that is split between classical Athens and Modern day Athens. Not a big Zombie fan myself but the Greek and ancient Greek aspect was more than enough to sell it for me. However, the real treat was still to come. I had thought, going into it, that it was a 'serious' zombie film. Well within the first five minutes I was pleasantly corrected with the most superbly simple gag ever. This film's mix of comedy and ridiculous action pieces, gore and action made it the funniest and most enjoyable films I've seen, but I think we were sitting a bit too close for reading the subtitles.
Afterwards the Q and A with the director was quite insightful as to why the film had the tone it did.
The Edinburgh Film Festival was a completely enjoyable, informative and worthwhile experience. It reminded me what films could be, should be and sometimes should not be. However, this is only my own thoughts on my own personal experience of the event.

'The RED experience'

The shooting of our first end of year film ,Sole Mates, is all done and squared away. This shoot has left me with an interesting experience of on set practices and a (somewhat brief) insight in shooting on RED.

The shoot began rather well in the small village of Eaglsham. For myself, I got the impression of a very relaxed and confident shoot ahead. The camera department, of which I was a member, were coping well with the new camera equipment and it simply seemed a case of just plodding on with the shoot. That was until, however, we moved location to Dennistoun. With the exception of our Producer's car running out of Petrol on the road back to Glasgow, all was going as intended. Inside the small shop lights were going up and myself and Luke were steadily reassembling the Red camera in the small kit room we had. With the camera almost ready I proceeded to insert the next card number, this act proving to be an ill fated or lucky incident depending on how you look at it.

I would at this point like to put forward a defence, in the case that anybody has doubts about our handling of the new kit. Having not inserted a card into the red before, I checked with Luke the correct way to put it in, and so I did. It did not, however, feel secure or at all right. With the camera fired up we attempted to go ahead and format the card... and the rest, as they say, is history. The pins were bent and the new camera out of commission.

Luckily Galina and myself had with us our Cannon 550D DSLRs which had been used for a shot earlier in Eaglesham. It was decided by Gavin, Charlotte and Andrew that we could continue the shoot using these cameras, while we waited to hear back from Ray.

No I mentioned earlier that the downing of the Red camera could be perceived as a fortunate incident, and I justify it with the following fact. The Red going down was a complete bummer, and as it was myself who had inserted the fatal card, I felt somewhat guilty and responsible for the whole thing. And Yet, if the Red had not broken, and we continue shooting as we did the first morning, Sole Mates would not have been completed at all, and I believe that to be a fact. The speed at which we were getting slates in the can, was unbelievably faster than when we used the red. However, even with this significantly increased shooting rate, we did struggle to get the shot list done, so much so that pickups were needed on the Friday. I honestly, believe that if we had continued on the Red the shots would simply not have been completed, and the final film would be severely compromised, if not uneditable. So my main and only criticism of the Sole Mates shoot would, I suppose, be the shot list or handling there of.

On another note, I feel I must to praise Gavin as the Director for his unwavering Good mood and humour throughout the shoot. Even when the Red was down and the shoot was behind, he kept an optimistic and jolly frame of mind as he battled on to get what he needed. I think set a good example to the entire cast and crew.

Oliver Stone

After meeting (Doctor) Oliver Stone last Wednesday, I think I'll take up Andy's prediction that it might warrant a resurrection of my blog -which has admittedly fallen by the wayside since the end of our classes with Andy.

As this is a blog for the Academy course I shall respect it and not tell a lie and be completely honest. It was totally awesome to meet Oliver Stone -the man made my favourite film..Awesome!!!...

...Now that that is out of my system I'll continue on a more restrained note.

I had seen interviews of Oliver Stone before, on DVDs and internet etc. and he always struck me as a very intelligent and opinionated person, with very open and firm principles. It was this aspect of the man that really impressed and held my attention throughout his conversation with Andy. I found it exceptionally interesting and refreshing to see just how reflective and (for lack of a better word) Philosophical Dr Stone was in discussion of his life and past works.

I was of course quietly ecstatic that Alexander Revisited was mentioned as much as it was and that it's poor critical reception was explored rather than uncomfortably skipped over -so thank you Andy for that.

However, there was one thing in particular that Oliver Stone touched on that got me thinking more than anything else. The idea that films these days are increasingly lacking in a note-worthy message. You can see what he means if you compare the underlying messages and themes of say 'Platoon' and 'Wall street' with that of 'Transformers' and (as Stone put it) "Clash of my balls" -i.e 'Clash of the Titans'. It does indeed appear as if modern directors value style and technique over story, themes, character and message. Now, I do not like every one of Oliver Stone's pictures but I respect the fact that he always has something to say about the subject he is handling. I for one will endeavour to strive for a more meaningful message in my future projects -without losing the entertainment factor of course.

I'm not usually one to get star struck and I'm certainly not the type of person to go up to a celebrity and ask for a photo or autograph -I think you should just leave them be. However, even I have to admit that having Oliver Stone thank me for liking his film was a pretty major high point of my year.

Essay post -Deconstructing 'Alexander' scene, concerning cinematography.

I feel that it is safe to say that the film ‘Alexander Revisited’ does not fall short of unique cinematography. One such scene in particular warrants perhaps a closer inspection than the others. In a film shot, primarily in conventional format, why does its style change so drastically for only one scene of the story? Why did Oliver Stone and cinematographer Rodrigo Prieto Decided to shoot a complex battle scene in such a unique way and what (if anything) is added to the story by this?

It is worth noting that up until this point in the film the cinematography has been fairly traditional and conventional. When this scene begins it has its unique look

but still looks very traditional.

The beginning of the sequence is set amidst a barbaric battle. The look appears far more grainy and with greater contrast than the rest of the film. Cinematographer Rodrigo Prieto states that to create this look he chose a more grainy film stock to which he later subjected the negative to a bleach bypass process. This process enhances contrast and grain so that shadow detail is lost.

The graininess and dynamic range of contrast works extremely well in the forest setting. Shafts of sunlight appear blown out and over exposed leaving the action in the shade at the correct F-stop. With the characters frantically rushing around in this environment it heightens the sense of chaos. Should someone on a horse ride under a shaft of sunlight they momentarily become far too overexposed and then return to the correct exposure in and instance. This is repeated constantly in the background action, as well as to the principle cast. The resulting effect is one of a very unstable and unpredictable commotion.

With regards to the overall story, this artistic and technical decision taken by Oliver Stone and Prieto seems to fit the general idea of the narrative. At this point in the story Alexander and his army have been at war for many years and the romance of it all is far behind them. The wounds and weariness of constant campaign are wearing down Alexander’s forces. The harshness of the contrasting, grainy image effectively mirrors the mindset and atmosphere of the scene in question –a vast contrast to the clean beginning to the film.

However, as the scene progresses the complexity of the cinematography unfolds even further. Alexander is extremely frustrated and upset by this and urges his own horse Bucephalus to continue. He leans over and gives words of encouragement to his charger. At this point there appears a series of quick staccato-like flashback shots to Alexander’s childhood. These relate to what Alexander is saying to the horse. He tells Bucephalus not to be afraid, this being a throwback to earlier in the story. Some of the flashback shots match the composition of the present action exactly adding even more of a comparison to the scenes.

These quick flashbacks appear far more pleasant and clean than that of the battle. It could be assumed that the filmmakers wished to compare the stark differences between these two moments in the story. Whilst they resemble each other in action and dialogue and composition, the past appears a far more pleasant and ‘innocent’ time in Alexander’s life.

Moving on from this moment Alexander mounts a viscous charge all by himself. There follows a single shot in which we see Alexander galloping towards us, sword drawn and a wild, blood crazed look in his eye. This shot is shown in a faster frame rate than usual, that gives the effect of the action in very slow motion. The shot is also noticeably and quite deliberately out of focus. Oliver Stone makes mention of this fact in the DVD commentary, he states that “Here we just wanted to go out of focus. It just felt like he (Alexander) was out of his mind and it shouldn’t be in focus.”

I believe this is very fair justification for deliberately making use of what is essentially an imperfection or mistake as it suits the character’s frame of mind well.
The slow motion is in fact the precursor to an even more complicated sequence. Alexander is galloping to attack a giant war elephant. The initial slow motion creates the effect of slowed reality one may experience before a traumatic experience –like that of a car crash. The sequence then opens up into a very artfully and carefully composed wide shot, featuring the elephant on onside and Alexander on the other.

It can be argued that it is in this moment that the cinematography differs in style from that of everything before it. In this sequence both the elephant and Bucephalus rear up onto their hind legs in a simultaneous stand off. This sequence is shown primarily in the wide shot and super slow motion

.

This unusual use of such a fast frame rate to produce slow moving action on screen is an odd departure from the rest of the film, so much so that one might be taken out of the experience. On the other hand, it could equally be argued that its presence in the scene adds a refreshing moment of suspense and relative ‘slickness’ to the film.

Regardless of this slow-mo effects impact on the scene, the visual choice that follows is far more intriguing. Alexander is struck by an arrow and falls off his horse to the ground. This being the first time Alexander has received a life-threatening wound in the story, Prieto and Stone decided to make use of a seldom used technique in cinematography. A visual effects house (Moving Picture company) describes the sequence thusly; “To illustrate how this great warrior’s world and outlook changes Oliver Stone decided to shoot particular scenes of the battle using infra-red technology.”

This process completely compromises the colour palette of the film and makes the image appear awash with reds and deep blacks, showing infrared wavelengths unseen by the naked eye. The resulting appearance gives the impression of blood and death. This drastic stylistic shift begins with a Point Of View shot of Alexander as he hits the forest floor, this being appropriate, as he has just been wounded. The audience must view remainder of the scene unfold through a bloody gauze of red. Prieto justifies his this decision because the story although set in the real world, has a strong link to the gods. Prieto states that; “The film captures that, as if they can see something authorial…something that no one else can see –except in a spiritual moment.”

After this point the scene begins to wrap itself up in a visual style that both portrays the horrors and tragedies of the battle as well as the possible death of a ‘mythic’ hero. Following the hypnotic slow-motion images of the elephant stand-off the pace quickens to a far more chaotic style of cinematography. Cutting from shallow focus handheld shots to wide angled lenses, slow motion to real time, Prieto does not let us get too comfortable with any specific style of cinematography. This scene turns out to arguably be the most extreme level of complex cinematography that Prieto and Stone accomplish throughout the entire film.

INVICTUS

Clint Eastwood, in my opinion, has shown that he is a better director than an actor and I'm pleased that after seeing Eastwood's new film 'Invictus' I'm still of that opinion.

Invictus follows the story of Nelson Mandela and the struggle of the South African rugby team to get to twin the world cup. The film, as a whole, has the unmistakable patterns of a 'feel good' film -somewhat similar to 'Remember the Titans'.

The film follows the idea that President Mandela, using the nation's failing rugby team, helped to repair relations between Black and White South Africans. Although, it comes across as a nice thought that something so trivial can inspire such a significant result. However, I can't help but believe that Eastwood has somewhat enhanced or exaggerated certain aspects of history to suit the inspiring feel good film. Nevertheless I'm sure that the filmmakers' have done their homework well and that the majority of the story is based on true enough events that warrant the film's inspirational feel.

I personally found the film a refreshing followup to the brilliant (but exceedingly depressing) Changeling. As I mentioned, the film possesses the 'feel good' factor but the way in which it is handled side-steps the cringe-worthy, 'cheese' aspect it could just as easily have fallen into. There are moments of tasteful humour that lighten the story along with dealing with serious issues (such as apartheid) -without diving to deep into seriousness.

Morgan Freeman's performance as the South African president is not only (predictably) good but strangely accurate and believable in his speech patterns and body language. His performance as Nelson Mandela is really quite fantastic. Similarly, Matt Damon holds up his usual high standard of performance.

Bit behind the times -Peter Pan 2003 Version.

So I watched a film from all the way back in 2003 -Peter Pan, the latest one.

I have to say, I realize I’m not exactly the film’s target audience but I was bored and had to watch something.
The story as a whole seems to be fairly faithful -as much as you’d expect it to be –to the actual story. It, at times, holds visual similarities to the Disney cartoon version –replicating certain shots in a few places. I refer to the scene in which Pan imitates Hook’s own voice.
The film, however, is full of rather noticeable and distracting faults –at least to an adult viewer. The first thing that comes to mind is the strange cartoon-like appearance of the exterior scenes, In Victorian city and Never Never Land. This has obviously been a conscious decision by the film makers to give the film its own style. Yet, I can’t help but feeling it just looks rather tacky.
On the subject of style , I was most disappointed when Pan takes the children into a ridiculously over-cartooned/graphic space to get to the second star to the right. Now we all know that stars are out in space, but when we think of “the second star to the right and straight on till morning” I don’t believe many of us picture Peter Pan, Wendy and the Boys actually flying in outer space to get there. Yet, that’s what they do in this film –and a very warped and strange version of space they travel in too. This I was not a fan of, simpler is better in my opinion.
The character of Peter Pan also happens to be the only one with an American accent in the entire film, despite claiming to have been originally from Victorian England in the film. Got to make Pan American no matter what I guess.
Having said this, I’m not against an American Peter Pan, after all, He was American in ‘Hook’ and I consider that film to be top quality entertainment -for children and Adults. In the case of ‘Hook’, however, the filmmakers have managed to explain his accent in a completely reasonable explanation. In this new version of Peter Pan….He is just American and that’s that -Unexplained.
Dialogue as a whole is also rather poor, vague and just not very good. It seems to try too hard to sound poetic and lyrical and so sometimes winds up leaving a rather vague and uncertain expression of what the character are actually wanting, asking etc. Just keep it simple stupid! A perfect example of this is when Wendy questions Peter about how he feels about love. Pan ultimately falls out with Wendy and flies off in a mood with her. But the dialogue in the scene is so disjointed, strange and ‘lyrical’ that I found myself sitting unsure as to why exactly Pan had strangely and suddenly flown away, angry at Wendy. I think they should have revaluated how they wrote their dialogue.
The film opens and gets into it pretty quickly. There is not much setting up of Pan’s character or Wendy’s, very little on her brothers but quite a bit on their father and the Dog ‘Nanny’. Perhaps they assumed that everyone is already familiar with the character of Peter Pan, but they should still set him up/introduce him in a fitting way. All the characters in the film, I found extremely hard to get involved with. I just didn’t seem to care what happened to them in the story –which is a shame, considering the quality and reputation of the original story.

Yet another thing I took issue with in this version of Peter Pan was the believability of it. It may seem like a strange thing to be concerned about in a children’s’ film but it all add to the quality of the picture. For instance, there occurs the moment when Wendy meets Peter for the first time in her room. She appears to think nothing of a flying stranger in her bedroom, and simply accepts it after a few seconds. Then there’s the scene in which Hook is ‘eaten’ by the giant crock,…..and appears well and healthy a few scenes later. A completely baffling and unexplained moment is one in which every single person in the film begins to proclaim that they “ do believe in fairies!” , presumably to save Tinkerbell. But why the characters back in the Victorian world begin to chant and proclaim this unexplained statement is a complete mystery to me. Perhaps it was intended to be a motivational moment.

The only good points I found in the film were at best minimal and trivial in the grand scheme of the movie. The image of the Pirate ship stuck in an Ice sheet was an extremely fascinating visual –although, one that does not survive very long. The performances of Jason Isaacs as Hook and Richard Briers as Smee are the most entertaining aspect of the entire feature. Yet, even this is in reality just good actors doing what they can with a bad script.

If I look at the film as a whole, I do not believe that this film flows well at all. You don’t get a good sense of much narrative clarity at all.
Just a children’s film maybe –but it was all I had in the house to watch and it should’ve delivered at least an average level of quality entertainment. Perhaps just watching Pirates and lost boys prancing about for a few hours is enough to keep the children target audience entertained –but surely not their parents. And in my opinion there are far better children’s’ films that are enjoyable for adults also……For example Steven Spielberg’s ‘Hook’.

P.S. Don’t make Captain James Hook fly!!