Factual Film Making

Taking into consideration that we now have a module on Factual Film Making, I thought I should devote at least one blog to the subject. So far in our classes we have covered such aspects as interviewing techniques and the ethics of film making -and these classes have been fairly interesting and informative on the subject. However, a thought has occurred to me that concerns certain things we have been taught.

Although Andy and Adam have (on occasion) joked that we all admitted to watching documentaries regularly at our interviews and that we probably do not -for myself, I do.

It would not be an exaggeration to say that the only channels I watch on Television are those of a factual nature. On turning on my television (which admittedly is not too often) I go straight for the factual section of channels, simply bypassing the other channels. If there isn't a good documentary on then there isn't anything on.

Yet, as most who know me will be able to guess, the documentaries that I watch are not of the 'Panorama' or 'undercover Reporter' variety but rather the that of the Historical content. Pretty much anything presented by Bettany Hughes is bound to excite me really -and not simply because she is attractive.

I love documentaries such as "In the footsteps of Alexander the Great' (with Michael Wood) or 'Helen of Troy' and 'Athens-the Truth about Democracy' (With Bettany Hughes). Documentaries like this are what really inform the viewer and do so in (what I find as) a very entertaining way.

If I bring the subject back round to our classes with Andy, I have some points that I am unclear of. I have found some difficulty applying some of the things we have been taught to this kind of documentary. For instance, we were taught that the interviewer should effectively know the answer (or have a vague idea) to the question he is asking the interviewee. Otherwise the interviewee may loose respect for the interviewer. But does this apply when interviewing professors and lecturers on Classical studies (or any subject for that matter). Surely we can't expect the person conducting the interview to know the answers to his/her list of questions -that would require him/her to be an authority on the subject him their own right.

So my question if effectively this; when conducting an interview such as this, how do you maintain the control and respect of the interviewee when they will quite probably know more than yourself on the matter?

I would ideally like to hear more in class on such aspects as Historical Factual Film making -even if just touched on.

Editing -Avid

So we had a full day of editing with Gavin on Thursday and we were introduced to new editing software. Our class was centred around the operation of the editing software 'Avid'.

I had heard, previously, that Avid was the superior software in the film industry -used for more high budget productions. That was the rumour anyway. And yet, I found the operation of Avid rather constricting (so far) compared with Final Cut.

Although we have only had one lesson on Avid (and I'm sure it will become more clear as the course rolls on) I still prefer Final Cut. This is mainly because it seems easier to 'tweek' the edit than it is in Avid.

Technical preferences aside, our first editing class went very well -and without too much confusion. I was previously on the fence as to what I should take as a specialism, the choices being between camera and editing. Although I enjoy camera more than editing, I really want to direct and so was considering the editing option instead -because editing concerns more story elements. However, I am now fairly certain that I would in fact make a terrible editor and wouldn't enjoy it much either. Therefor I think I'll be opting for Camera.

Over the summer I watched a large number of DVDs that I had vowed to blog about once the term started again. One of these was 'The Mission'.

I've recently become aware that the times in which I best enjoy watching films is not necessarily at the cinema with new releases. My real excitement and enjoyment comes from discovering (or rediscovering) films that I have either already seen in the past or old films that I never knew existed.

Certainly, 'The Mission' ranks as one of the high points in my library of rediscovery. Directed by Roland Joffe it stars Robert De Niro, Jeremy Irons and Liam Neeson in a tale of redemption.

It is set in 18th century South America and follows the story of De Niro's character Rodrigo Mendoza as he tries to repent for committing a terrible crime. Mendoza is taken to a Jesuit mission by Father Gabriel (Irons). As well as having a powerful emotional and personal story at it's heart the film's characters are also drawn into circumstances of a much more epic and grand nature -the survival of the Jesuit order in the Spanish territory of South America.

The first time I ever saw the Mission was when my parents strongly recommended that I watch it if I was serious about studying film. Reluctantly I did so, and I wasn't too impressed at the time -this was perhaps three years ago. I couldn't see its merit at all as I was in a very narrow minded stage at that time -if there wasn't a good battle or 'Michael Bay style' fight I usually wasn't interested (Very Immature I know).

So after condemning the film to the forgettable section of my memory I never watched it again. That is, until, last summer. I came across the old, dusty and neglected DVD and thought to myself "It's been a while, I'm pretty bored, I can give it another chance"

And that was that, I was quite simply blown away by the film. I had the complete polar opposite reaction to that my first viewing. I was amazed at how brilliant and touching the story was. The score fitted each scene's emotion perfectly -which just raised the effect of the excellent performances of De Niro and Irons. I 'm aware that it is widely believed by many that The Godfather part II is One of De Niro's best performances -along with Taxi Driver. However, I would put it to you that The Mission ranks as high as any other of De Niro's films for performance. One scene that really made me tear up is when De Niro's character finally reaches the Mission after a very brutal hike. I won't go in to detail but the performances and scene in general really is something special.

The cinematographers amongst us would surely appreciate the beauty and composition of the shots and camera movements. I Generally believe that Ridley Scott is the best at painting a beautiful frame and The Mission is definitely up on a Ridley standard for me.

But as Andy and Adam are always pointing out, a pretty film doesn't equal a good film. It is the emotional impact of the story that really struck me speechless when the credits rolled up before me. The story, the performance, the direction, the cinematography, the Score all made The Mission a very emotional and rewarding film experience for me -all be it the second time round.

The conversation

What can I say about 'the conversation? The sound design was I admit worth a mention and I'm sure it would have been something really special when first released. Yet, when I have grown up in an age where sound design is used to great effect in pretty much all films it did not make the film any more bearable.

I found the entire film depressingly slow and quite frankly never-ending. The story was interesting but unfortunately not interesting enough to warrant the actual run time of the film. I cannot stress enough how slow and sluggish the film was. Scenes and shot that just seemed to go on without much interesting happening. It just made me lose interest in the story completely. And when the twist was finally revealed at the end I didn't care for it much.

Perhaps I'm just too much of an 'MTV generation' kind of guy to appreciate it's pace -but I couldn't wait for it to end.

The sound design was really good. However, I just didn't care for it that much. Yes, I'm sure it was fantastic for it's time. But just as good CG doesn't make a good film today -good sound design doesn't make a good film for back then.

All in all, not my cup of tea.

SOUND

Well, it was our first full day of sound today and I'm not afraid to say that I was not looking forward to it at all. I'm not particularly fond of sound (as a technical responsibility) and I generally shudder at the thought of an entire day of sound. I also had the problem that I had never fully grasped how to correctly operate the sound equipment -and what I did know I had largely forgotten over the summer.

With this in mind I wasn't looking forward to it. However, I was happy to find that our new visiting Sound lecturer was to take us back to the very basic principles of Sound. After the first two and a half hours of the lecture I was surprised to find that I was not only reminded of that information that I had forgotten but had learnt some new aspects. Certain things that I was unsure of last year were now a lot clearer -such as the connections and settings of the mixer.

I of course don't wish to suggest that Simon's teaching methods were substandard to Cammy's but I did seem to learn more today than most of the classes last year.

JOHN ADAMS

At the start of the summer holidays I was flicking through Virgin 'T.V on demand' wondering if I would ever come across anything worthwhile watching. Eventually I stumbled across the HBO series 'John Adams'. At first glance I didn't think much of it (it did sound rather dull). Until, that is, I remembered seeing an advert for it on Television a while back. I recalled thinking "that looks damn good! I must watch that!" -which of course I never did. So there was my chance.

For those of you who aren't familiar with the show, it follows the life of U.S founding father John Adams throughout the American war of Independence and beyond. It was a HBO/Playtone production so Naturally I expected pretty good quality television.

As a history fanatic there are several periods I am particularly interested in, Ancient Greece, The 2nd crusade and the golden ages of His Majesty's British Empire. The latter centred specifically around the 1770s -when America was but a British colony (Ah the good old days.). As this programme was obviously set in this time period I automatically had to watch it.

However, although I expected a high level of drama and production value from HBO, it was after all an American tale, told by americans. And so I expected it to be extremely 'gun-ho' 'god bless america!' sort of vibe -along the same lines as 'The Patriot'.

Yet, to my surprise, the first episode made absolutely clear that this treated the subject matter in a totally different way than the Patriot. The first thing that struck me as pretty brave on the part of the show makers was the fact that no one (not one character) in the entire show had any hint of a modern American accent. This I thought was rather unusual, seeing as the patriot took the view that Americans always had their accent and we had ours. Instead, what I found was that the Colonial accent was a rather strange variant of the English accent -the English too being rather unusual. It seemed they had gone out of their way to get as realistic a fell as they could get to history.

Apart from being a refreshing surprise, the accent similarities helped set up the world of the show. For example, many of the very early 'Revolutionaries' did not want independence at all, the in fact wished to be taxed fairly and have their rights as "natural born Englishmen" restored. This would have been a bit harder to sell if they were demanding these things in a broad american accent. I don't know, maybe it's just me, but these small additions just help me believe the world more -unlike The Patriot (Which I do still like).

Anyway, off the historical babbling and back to the show. The show's principle character (John Adams) is played to perfection by Paul Giamatti and features many a big name in the cast, including Tom Hollander and Tom Wilkinson. The show ropes you into the world with a fantastically effective but simple title sequence. If you don't watch the show I highly recommend that you watch the title sequence on youtube. It is fantastically simple, being just a sequence of shots of flags flying, and yet, with the brilliantly placed music it sets you up for the fell and tone of not only the show but the time in which it s set. All that with some flags and a bit of music -impressive.

Paul Giamatti is absolutely perfect for the role of John Adams and after a while even begins to look like him. The show is centred around his experience in the war and his life after. Because John Adams was lawyer turned congressman there are naturally not any sweeping battle scenes. Instead you're drawn into the political, human and personal side of the war and Adams' struggle for independence. Although there is no epic battle scene they certainly do not shy away from showing wide establishing CGI shots when necessary.

There is a huge amount of passion and drive that comes out of Giamatti's performance -especially when giving speeches (Which there are quite a few of).

I also like how the show is all about the somewhat 'forgotten' founding father of America. A point which the show repeatedly weaves throughout the series.

But another very important point the show conveys is that the American revolution was not the fairy tale legend that it seems to have become. It shows that it wasn't just an oppressed people rising up and defeating an evil empire. It shows that it was a harsh, ugly and brutal affair -with extremists on both sides.

The series as a whole gives the audience a really intriguing, dramatic and entertaining panorama of the life of John Adams. The show is by far the best piece of television I have seen. Now, I just need to wait for the dvd price to come down.

METROPOLIS

Metropolis. I was really quite excited when Andy surprised us with 'Metropolis' being our film screening on Friday -not that I don't get excited about Russian cinema. I had heard so much about this film being a 'must-see' classic silent film. In most film-making books I have read there is usually always a mention to 'Metropolis', yet, I never got around to watching it. Needless to say I had high expectations of this highly pumped up German film.

I suspected that it may not be as good as I thought it would be when Andy made a subtle excuse for the acting standard before hand. Instead Andy noted the film's brilliant use of production design. I have to say I was well and truly impressed with the size and scale the film managed to achieve with it's fairly 'primitive' special effects arsenal. The set design and special effect were fantastic for the time it was made (and still very much worth it's praise even today). All in all the design and feel of the film was brilliant.

But as always there is always a 'However'. Production design, sets and cityscapes aside, I felt Metropolis was a bit of a disappointment. I recognise that the missing reels and scenes must take away from the story's rhythm, pace and quality but I couldn't find much enjoyment in the overall story itself. It had its moments I'll admit, the rescuing of the workers children from the flood was particularly thrilling for me, but I found myself hovering above the boredom line for quite a large part of the film. Who knows, perhaps the missing scenes, when inserted, will improve it for me.

The acting standard left much to be desired also. The actor who played the character of Joh Fredersen was (In my opinion) the best actor in the production. His (often subtle) display of emotions such as concern for his son and fear of the workers was a great relief from the extravagant and exaggerated ejaculations of the actor who played his son in the title role. Perhaps I'm being too hard on them though.

The music I thought was very powerful in conveying the emotions, pace and drama of the scenes. I also thought it had a rather modern feel to it. I was not, however, so keen on the slightly awkward take on the French national anthem that appeared towards the end of the picture.

All in all, I believe Metropolis to be a perfectly adequate film (for the sort of film it is) in much the same context as STAR WARS is today. Not exactly a Citizen Kane but an entertaining film none the less.

For myself, however, for all the glitz and glam of Metropolis' sets and design, I would much rather sit down and watch a film like 'Sunrise'.