Commentary on Friday Night's Screening

It's excruciatingly painful to have to go through 12 weeks of pre-production work, filming, and editing only to come out the other end to have everyone say something along the lines of "what a shame about..." Unfortunately for our group, this  was the exact case for our film Under Control. We knew sound was going to be an issue from all the things that had gone wrong last week during post-production but to be honest, I wasn't expecting it to be as bad as it was. From that obvious popping during the MP3 clips, to the out-of-sync dialogue, to the sound at the end just being way too loud, it really was a shame that our entire project had been completely screwed up by one tiny decision. I am seriously considering a short course in music production for film now as a result so that I don't make the same mistake again next time.

Anyway, other than that, the rest of the night was relatively pleasant. I had to admit by the third sneaker spastic, I was nearly ready to throw something at the screen but that had nothing to do with the films - I was slightly hungover and had only had 2 hours sleep and in general, hate watching the same narrative more than once in a year. It's why I don't watch the same film twice if I can avoid it. I think the entire semester would have been more interesting if a rule had been put in place to limit the number of a times a film could be made. Yes, I will concede that some scripts that were better than others but that did not dictate who made which films. In  fact, only 5 out of the 10 of the scripts on Christine's Top 10 List were made with 9 of the 20 films being made from those 5 scripts. Personally, I wondered what these production groups could have done had they been forced to make another script rather than a variation of one already being made.

Regardless, I did come out of theatre with some favourites. They included Neurotic Meets Normality, The Last Shift, and Lucky Game.

Whilst I am still a little confused over the motivation for the ending of Neurotic Meets Normality, I was absolutely blown away by its cinematography. The supremely executed extreme close-ups, wonderful use of colour and and all round good eye for detail meant the film just looked brilliant. I also loved the sequence with the voiceover counting the number of steps the man takes to work, simulating his thoughts. The timing was perfect and it was really such a powerful scene and to be able to literally get inside the head of that type of character, set up the scene in the elevator really well.

The Last Shift was another one of my favourites for cinematographic reasons but also because it had me on the edge of my seat the whole way throughout. I knew the script from reading it 12 weeks ago and did think it was a good idea at the time but a little clichéd at the same time. This groups version of it however, made me completely forget about the fact that it was a overdone story. Timing and editing were definitely contributing factors towards this and coupled with an excellent use of lighting, made the whole film really scary. I loved the last shot which although heavily overused in horror films, still got me.

Finally, my favourite film of the night: Lucky Game. At the beginning of this film, I had to admit I was really pre-occupied with the internal conversation going on in my brain over whether I had seen one of the little boys in a short film from SKFF but eventually, I gave up and got into the story. It's lucky I did because this little film was a beauty. I loved the concept of two siblings being in a power struggle with the underdog coming out on top, the reminiscent feeling you get of dealing with your brother or sister knowing we have all been in a similar situation before, and finally, the classic black comedy twist at the end. I think the film would have been heavily aided by some more color correction but the camera work and editing made up for this. All in all, this was my favourite film of the night and one that had me chuckling for a while afterwards.

In a final reflection, if I was to do this semester again, there would have been a number of things I would have done differently. Firstly, I would not have been afraid of change: I realise now its vital one can recognise when they are in need of some serious help and ego can not get in the way of this occurring. I am extremely grateful that Arthur offered to assist us with the camerawork because at the end of the day, I think that's what saved our film. Secondly, I would have been way more concerned with sound. It is the other half to any film and if you are not concentrating on both it and the image, then you are only doing half the work. Finally, I would have appreciated more time. This would have been available to us this semester had we not had all the issues with scripts changes last-minute and generally not getting off our ass quick enough to get into motion but I think in the time frame we had, things worked out OK.

This entire semester has been a complete rollercoaster ride for me from losing my laptop, iPod and wallet, to going through some ridiculously heavy personal issues, whilst attempting to maintain my work quality for all my other subjects, I think I only just survived. Having said that, I would do it all again. I've learnt many things this semester that I will be able to apply to my future career and my stint at the University of Florida next semester, something that has been getting me through the last painful 4 weeks. I'm looking forward to coming home next year full of new experiences, raring and ready to go for our final year. Until then, farewell my fellow filmbuffs.

Animal Kingdom

A couple of weeks ago I was fortunate enough to receive wind of a brand new Aussie film coming out that to be honest, I hadn't hear much about but was being shown at Cinema Nova as part of a Q&A session. Every fortnight or so, Nova hosts an evening where the directors, writers and some of the cast of a recently released film come along to watch the film with the audience and then hang around after to answer questions in a formal environment. I've been to heaps of them now ranging from Dean O'Flaherty's Beautiful to Adam Elliot's premiere of Mary and Max. Each one has been an absolute pleasure to experience and the sessions afterwards are without a doubt the best way to gain valuable insight into the Australian film industry. This session featured the now very popular feature by David Michod, Animal Kingdom. An Underbelly on-screen as some have named it, Animal Kingdom is nothing like its televisual cousin. The action is more unjust, more real; the characters are a lot scarier and you can not ignore the beautiful timing created by a combination of cinematographic moments and faultless editing.

Looking back on the Q&A session, I remember Michod detailing the excrutiating time he endured between gaining the idea for the film and it's actual release this year. It all began 12 years ago when Michod uncovered the tale of the Pettingil gang who reigned over Melbourne's underground crime ring throughout hte 80s. The characters are loosely based on the heirarchy of the gang and are emulated through Janine "Smurf" Cody (Jacki Weaver), Pope (Ben Mendelsohn), Craig (Sullivan Stapleton), Darren (Luke Ford) and their friend Barry Brown (Joel Edgerton). The film follows the entrance of Joshua "J" Cody into this family's crazy life when his mother, sister of Pope, Craig and Darren, finally O.D's. From there, it divulges into the family's sordid armed robbery crime history but as it is the turn of the century now bank holdups and petty cash thefts are a thing of the past and Brown attempts to convince Pope of this fact to no avail. What happens next is a rollercoaster ride through the ups and downs of being wanted criminals with an all too just finale.

I have to admit, Ben Mendelsohn is one scary motherf***er. His character, Pope, resembles that of a ticking time bomb that has you constantly on the edge of your seat and wondering when he will go off. But that is the beauty of Pope's character and Michod's writing in that this rarely happens. Instead, Pope is juxtaposed by Craig's character, a constant smackhead who's paranoia sees him acting completely irrational and violent at many times throughout the film. Of the times when Pope does decide to move, you know it's going to be bad.

I sincerely recommend the film to anyone who has their doubts about the direction of Australian cinema. Animal Kingdom is a perfect example of how we are a cut above the rest and we are getting better at what we do. The fact the film won the Grand Jury Prize at this year's Sundance Film Festival is testimony that alone.

True Blood

Recently, my roommate and I have been sucked in (pardon the pun) by the latest vampire TV hit True Blood. I once tried watching this show a couple of years ago when it first came out but the image of the decomposing fox in a time-lapse style seriously deterred me from watching anything other than the pilot. I have to admit, I regret not being more open to the idea of the show before. Having now watched Episode 4, I can tell the series really does have a number of good qualities about it. To give you a better insight into what I’m rambling on about, here’s a little run down:

Sooky Stackhouse is a paranormally affected young waitress who works at the Stackhouse Diner in Georgia. On a shift one night, she encounters Bill, a wandering vampire who happens to have acquired himself the unofficial land rights to his ancient ancestors. The small-minded folk in Forks aren’t happy with his presence and those close to Sooky don’t enjoy the attention he gives her. Her best friend, May, a sassy, slightly stereotypical, black girl, only has her best intentions at heart and doesn’t ever want to see Sooky hurt, a possibility that is always more likely when a vampire’s in town. Sooky’s boss, Bob, who’s had a secret crush on her for as long as can be remembered, is obviously jealous of the fawning Bill receives from Sooky who is utterly mesmerized by the fact that Bill’s a vampire. Finally, there’s Sooky’s brother, Luke, who hates vampires and anything to do with them and strictly forbids Sooky from attempting to reconnect with Bill after a violent night after work. Interwoven into this delicious mix-pot is the complicating mystery of a series of “vampire like” attacks on young women in the area. Vampires already have a bad rep in the area and these attacks only make things worse for Bill and his place in the town. What makes the film even more interesting is Sooky’s ability to read people’s minds, a gift she’s had since she was born. Living in a small town however riddled with secrets (it’s always the small ones that do), Sooky has to train her mind to shut off the thoughts from the people around her otherwise, things can get very messy if she hears too much. With Bill however, it’s a different story. In a reverse role situation from Twilight (In which Edward can normally read minds but can’t read Bella’s), Sooky is free to be herself around Bill because she is not worrying about whether or not she can read his mind.

The show has won heaps of accolades and praise from TV critics and theorists alike due to its ingenious storylines to its well-designed characters. I have to admit, having given it another go, I can see what everyone was rambling about now. In most series where there are a number of characters who receive a fair share of the screen-time, confusion over character motivations and actions can occur due to the lack of attention to smaller characters that are integral to the subplots but not the main narrative.

I’ve been thinking about this approach in relation to other TV series and how it is exactly that they manage to coordinate the development of multiple characters who could be taken out of the show at any time. Recently in Grey’s Anatomy, about 3 actors were killed on screen (meaning that their contracts had expired off-screen) who weren’t necessarily required for the main narrative but I was shocked at myself for caring about their imminent absence from the series future. I had no time for these characters previously and didn’t really like them if I was to be dead honest but now that they were gone, I realized just how important they were in my narrative of the show. Somewhere in my mind whilst watching the series, I had placed every character I came across into different pigeonholes ranging from “Important” to “Not Important”. Those who were important were the ones who’s story I was interested in the most, mainly the original characters of Bailey, Christina, Meredith and Derek. The “Not Important” characters were a majority of the hospital crew who had invaded Seattle Grace Hospital during the merger. It was these “Not Important” characters who were killed in last night’s season finale and I wonder how it is that the writer’s so cleverly managed to make these characters an important part of my story of Grey’s even though I didn’t like them.

All in all, I think this is the difference between good TV shows and bad ones. The ones that are able to make you care about every single character, even the ones you truly despise, are great because they are able to convince you subconsciously that you need these characters in Your telling of the story. Bad TV Shows however take characters in and out faster than Big Whoppers at Hungry Jacks to the extent where you don’t even notice they’re missing. I refer explicitly to Neighbors and Home and Away at this point. Ultimately, I hope one day I will be able to produce high quality television or film like Grey’s Anatomy and True Blood but until then, I’m content to sit back and give the ravely reviewed another chance.

The End...

Well, I never thought I’d say this but it finally looks like we’re finished! Fin! Fini! Forever! Well, until next semester at least anyway.

Our end product I have to admit wasn’t exactly what I was imagining at the beginning of the pre-production phase. After having created extensive storyboards, shot lists and script suggestions for the film, I had a pretty good idea about how I wanted the film to play out during the post production phase but as always, there were a few set-backs that stopped that from happening.

The first was time. Our entire film (now The Director’s Cut) lasted 8 minutes and 43 seconds. Way over the 5 minute allowance. But the problem was the only way the film could be shortened was if we went through all the dialogue sequences and sliced out individual words - the scenes were just too important to take out individually. But then we thought about the opening sequence and looked at it realistically. All it did was establish setting and reveal some aspects of Grant’s character but ultimately, we realized that’s all it did. We then decided that we could take out the entire scene (which frustratingly was the best sounding, best looking scene) without affecting the rest of the narrative. So now instead, when viewing the film, it opens onto a black screen with music from the movie playing on the TV with the titles and then fades into Grant asleep on the couch. In a weird way, I kinda like this version a little better than the original. It confuses the audience a little over just who this character is and the importance of the TV is established with it being the first sound we hear. The link the audience makes between the sound of the movie and the opening image of Grant sets up the idea that inevitably, the two will interact, which is reestablished in the second shot when we pull focus to the TV behind Grant as he’s asleep on the couch.

The second setback we encountered was the bad recording of sound for one of our clips which had to be used for a good quarter of the film. The reason why the recording was bad was completely my fault. When I exported the movie that was to be played through the DVD player, I made two versions: one with sound, one without. The reason for this was because I was thinking at the time Luke probably won’t want to hear me saying his lines but I also exported the one with sound because I thought maybe he might read the timing off me and alter his performance accordingly. Unfortunately, due to a whole load of technical issues, we only had time to put one on DVD and for some reason I put the one without sound onto it. As a result, throughout the entire clip we have of Luke interacting with Lara on-screen, you can hear me nattering away in the background. And of course being the crappy A.D I was, I totally forgot to make sure Louise had recorded wild lines with Luke. As a result of all this, we had to get Luke to come in to re-record the entire scene. The obvious problem that arrises from this of course is firstly, the recording is not made in the same ambiance as it was originally and the other thing we didn’t think about was recording from a distance to simulate the distance between Luke and the camera on the orignal shoot. Because of this, the recordings all sounded like they had been recorded in a completely different location to the film, which they had but if you’re a good filmmaker, you try to avoid your audience noticing stuff like that. Unfortunately, the only thing we could do to fix the situation was employ Arthur’s brilliant skills again to assist us in editing the sound so that it had reverberation and depth added to it to simulate the sound we had recorded in the house. It’s still obvious but as many people have said, you get over the initial shock once the scene with the re-recorded material has been playing for a while.

Whilst there may have been many things that didn’t go right in the end for the film, I still think I’m pretty happy with the end result. The colors look great, Lara and Luke are brilliant with each other and film’s conclusion has gotten everyone who’s seen it so far. I just wish that those little things mentioned above didn’t exist but hey, this is uni and it is a learning experience so I hope that next time I just remember not to make the same mistake again.

Final Cut

Everything is on the line today. I mean that literally with every clip being on the FCP timeline and figuratively as today is our final submission date for the film. I spent 6 hours adding the finishing touches to the clips last night and attempting to fix that bloody sound problem but at 2am, I decided enough was enough and I’d just have to see whether everyone else could come up with some ideas.

Unfortunately, it appears that out of the 4 of us, I was the one with the most experience in Final Cut Pro so if there was anybody who would know how to fix the sound, it would be me. The others were helpful however in pointing out little parts that as a person who has been staring at a screen for hours on end watching the same clip over and over again would not have noticed. These included some of the timing on the synced audio from THAT scene between Luke and Lara, the start times for the music during the film, as well as choosing the last song to be played during the credits.

We decided earlier that it would be best to remove the opening scene in order to shorten the whole film a little more in line with the 5 minute limit and the rest of the film really does have a nice flow to it. We have still maintained the slow progression at the beginning of the film with the opening shots of Luke on the couch which develop nicely into the frantic final seconds when time is running out for Stacey to be released. The ending too works really well with it circling back to that slow, lazy pace that was featured at the beginning of the film, retreating the fact that whilst we don’t know what has happened or will happen to Stacey, Grant will go right back into his old life only slightly affected by his actions, not really knowing whether or not they actually happened.

I want to discuss now the film’s final shot. In pre-production, we decided that the end shot of the film should be of Luke raising the remote to the camera and pressing the off button. The idea for this was that in post, we would add the “TV Turn Off” effect over the top so that it looked like Grant was switching off a TV, our TV to be exact. The “TV Turn Off” effect is what you get with old CRT TV’s when the off button is pressed and the light from the bulb behind the screen goes out. As a result, the image compresses in on itself to the center with the black screen replacing the light. This effect is really hard to describe verbally as I discovered but watch the end of the film to get an idea of what I’m talking about. The reason we chose this ending was for two reasons: firstly, we thought it added a nice reflexive touch to the film with this being the only time Grant acknowledges the audience’s presence. Secondly, it almost reiterates the recurring theme of a screen within a screen which begins with Stacey on the TV. By Grant turning our screens off, the assumption is made on our part that he too is on a screen and yet he has the power to control his screen where Stacey didn’t.

These are all highly embedded meanings that many people will not gather from this final shot but when thinking about why the film should end this way, at least I have a reason to give people.

All in all, I wouldn’t say I’m completely pleased with the film but I am proud that we survived it. After changes in scripts, broken knees, stolen laptops, decisions about crew members and bad sound, I think at the end of the day, we came out on top for this film and I will stand up and say I’m proud to call this my film. I just hope to hell that it won’t be completely shot down at Friday’s screening.

Wild Lines

What is it about that bloody Murphy guy? I mean, who does he think he is creating some law that says anything that can go wrong will go wrong. I’m a member of a democracy! Don’t I have some say in whether this law should be a part of my life? I have some local council representative in Parliament to drive it out don’t I? Apparently not.

Yes, it would seem just when you think you’ve fixed a problem, another one rears its ugly head. I’m referring specifically to the recent development during our last editing session regarding the poor sound quality of one of our clips. In a nutshell, we recorded Luke delivering his lines with me talking away in the background from the DVD of Lara’s performance. Bad! Bad! Bad!

To fix this, we decided to get Luke to come into RMIT to re-record all his lines. This would have been fine except for the fact that obviously, the RMIT editing suites and my house have two completely different sound environments! It’s really obvious that the recording we did of Luke at RMIT is much closer to the camera and in a much more controlled, enclosed environment then the original recording done at my house.

We tried everything to make them sound the same. Reverberation, echo, adjusting the pitch/tempo/bass, adding effects and finally employing Arthur and his whiz-bang Adobe skills but alas, nothing could be done to save the innocent scene. The problem was two things: firstly, we should have re-recorded Luke in a room that was a similar size and depth to the room at my house. Secondly, we should have recorded from the same distance away that the camera was to Luke in the clip itself. Obviously, it’s going to sound weird in a clip when the actor is standing 6 feet away from the camera when he sounds like he’s right next to the boom.

Unfortunately, it looks like there’s really nothing more we can do about it. If we had thousands of dollars to spare and time that had no continuum, obviously we would either have re-recorded the whole scene at my house or found an amazing piece of software which would have replicated the sound from my house. Either way, what’s done is done and we will just have to see how the newly recorded sounds work with the rest of the film.

Editing Sesh # 2

Editing Session 2

Crap! Crap! Crap! Crap! Crap!!!

Phew! Ok, breathe!!!!


…. And now let go….


Ok, I think I’m alright now. Apologies for my outburst above but I am seriously pissed off right now. I’m not sure how and I’m not sure why but for some reason, looking through the second tape of our fiming on the weekend, I just discovered we only have 2 takes of the clip of Luke speaking almost half the scene…with me talking over him in the background on the DVD. I don’t know why but I honestly thought we had filmed another shot with him saying the exact same lines without me talking so that we could easily place them over the top in film. Nup! Apparently I forgot to add that into the shooting schedule and also totally forgot to film it on the night. So, result? We have this awesome, essential shot of Luke and Lara responding to eachother about why she is in the TV (the most crucial part of the film!!!) and you can hear me nattering away in the background. Let me explain a little.

When we filmed Lara’s performance, we shot it all in one take. This was because we were only filming her entire performance from one angle and felt it would be better for her to get “in the zone” rather than stopping her every two minutes to film a different section. Also, fitting with the narrative, Stacey doesn’t stop to take a breath and Lara’s performance was brilliant in replicting this because we didn’t let her stop. However, obviously we needed her to respond off Grant to get the right facial expressions and movement and to do this, we decided the best thing to do was have me replace Luke for the purpose of her shoot. This idea was fine and in fact worked brilliantly. For some reason though, it seems I lost my head on Friday morning when we were frantically trying to get just one DVD to play through my DVD player with her performance bruned on it and I don’t know why, but I decided to use the one we had with my voice still audible in the background.

This was a typical case of me not thinking far enough ahead in relation to the film because if I had, I would have remembered that at some point, Luke would need to have his lines recorded with this DVD playing in the background i.e with my voice heard as well.

Ugh! It’s just so frustrating! I tried everything I could to work out how to fix the problem – taking out the entire scene (would lose all plausibility for both Lara and Luke’s oerformances), replace the sound with snippets of audio from other clips (totally out of sync and could only replace half the dialogue) or get Luke to come in and re-record his lines, something we should have remembered to do on set. Oh well, I will get hold of Luke tonight and beg and plead with him to come in to RMIT so we can re-record.

Readerly Reading of Writerly Texts - try saying that 10 times in a row...

I came across <a href=“http://www.jstor.org/stable/20119619?seq=2”?>an interesting article</a> during my research of Roland Barthes theory of the readerly and writerly written by John S. Brushwood regarding the readerly reading of a writerly text. This was an idea I wanted to explore in opposition to Barthes belief that readerly texts are so fixed, so “characterized by the pitiless divorce which the literary institution maintains between the producer of the text and its user” that they are not worthy of reception in our modern world.

I do not believe this to be true. To suggest and enforce this idea suggests that most audiences of literature, art or media are incapable of producing separate meanings from eachother because the text itself is so fixed. I know for a fact though that if I read Twilight and discuss the character development of Bella in the opening chapter with my 16 year old sister, her and I will have two completely different interpretations of the text: we will both produce different meanings of the text based on our opinions, values and personal past.  On top of this, Barthes claims that the Readerly text is also incapable of allowing any participation within the text itself, rendering the reader a consumer of the text rather than a producer.

Brushwood argues, “A sensitive reader inevitably participates in the act of communication that occurs when one reads a novel, no matter how “traditional, how logically structured the narrative may be”. He goes on to say that obviously “radically fragmented texts demand a degree of participation, on the part of the readers, that places them in an authorial position where, even though they do not really stand in place of the author, they are at least by the author’s side. This phenomenon, in effect, denies the readers the position of addressee, and places them in the position of sender. Therefore, the communication may acquire a feeling of inauthenticity, the sense that no real communication is taking place, or that, at best, the sender is addressing the sender, not the addressee”.

That long spiel is all relevant to my thoughts and feelings towards Barthes readerly and writerly theory. You can not deny that an entire global audience is incapable of finding multiple meanings within a “traditional” text; yes, I will concede that multiple interpretations of the narrative may be limited but ultimately, I believe it is the connotations that Barthes talks about that is more important to be received from a text than whether or not it produces multiple narratives. We are all different. We all have different value systems and opinions and all of this shapes our understanding of a text and the meaning we receive. No two people will navigate their way through a K-Film in the same way and if they do, it will be probably be by chance. The reason for this is because the human brain strives to produce meaning in its own way and as we know, no one shares a brain with anyone else unless they are conjoined twins.

Music Is The Answer

I have played some form of musical instrument almost my entire life. Starting with piano at the age of 4, I progressed into violin at 7, the drum kit at 9, the snare drum in a Pipeband at 11 and dispensed throughout the most of this, dabblings in guitar and voice. I do therefore, like to believe that I have a good ear for music. I’ve realized recently however, that there are two different ears that one acquires for deciding what is good music and how to produce good music.

I’ll explain a little further. When I play an instrument, let’s say piano for example, I am able to listen to a song and then play it out on the piano. I can “play by ear” basically. I’ve come to think over the years that this means my brain is highly tuned to the musical elements and is able to pick out a good song from a bad song. When it comes to choosing songs for film however, this theory never quite goes to plan.

I refer specifically to another film I made over the summer holidays about a girl who happened to choose the wrong night to drive down one of the scariest roads in Perth. The hardest aspect of the entire production was trying to find music that reflected the tone and emotional impact I wanted to evoke from the audience. No matter how hard I tried, it ws almost impossible to replicate the type of music I wanted and then enter that information into a search engine for copyright free music. I tried everything: looking on YouTube for “scary songs”, looking up copyrightfreemusic.com for “creepy music”, even attempting to create something spooky in Garageband. Nothing sounded right. I realized then and there, after giving up and just going with some crap I found the night before my film’s screening, that it takes a certain amount of talent to be able to find a good song for a film.

Whilst Louise was in charge of sound and did produce a good song for the climax, it just didn’t seem to fit the mood. It’s hard to produce something like that when you are limited to a bunch of crappy sound bites from Garageband. In the end, we decided upon a piece which had a steady bass beat coupled with a punching drum kit. The aim was just to reflect the increased tempo of the scene through the sound as well as the vision and I think in the end, what we used does work for the scene.

The end credits song however, proved harder to decide than anticipated. I wanted something cheeky and spunky but not cheesy. Unfortunately when you type “cheeky” and “spunky” into a music search engine, cheesy is the first thing that comes up. After trawling through countless numbers of crappy songtunes and Latin folk songs, we finally decided upon techno style beat which sounded a little sterile, reiterating the technology theme of the film.

I’m really considering undertaking some form of music production for film short course over the holidays or possibly looking into doing it as an elective during my exchange to Florida as I’ve realized from this production, sound is JUST as crucial, if not even more so, than image and to be able to manipulate it is an obvious talent.

SKFF Session 4

The organisers of SKFF should be shot.

I have just watched over 70 of the 150 films that were shown this week and the last session was an absolute let-down! A film festival to me should be arranged in the same a film does. In a feature, the director holds back until the very last 30 minutes of the film where he or she has a very small amount of time to make their mark on you before you get up out of your chair. They want you to go around telling everyone about the fabulous experience you had watching that film and recommend it to all your friends. What you don't want or need is people leaving early or halfway through your film because they are bored/disgusted/incredulous/all of the above. The same goes for film festivals. That last session is a blueprint for next year's success for the festival and if you have an entire audience all agreeing that the final session wasn't worth the wait, well then SKFF have got a big problem on their hands for 2011.

I'll give them credit; they tried. But what I just couldn't understand was why out of all the films shown for the festival, including the 4 I've mentioned so far, would they put the worst ones on the end? Instead of discussing my favorite film of the night, I'm going to abuse the worst of the entire festival just because I feel like it. No Mr. Nice Guy over here.

One More Tonight is the story of Abdo, a Somalian refugee who makes his living driving cabs during Melbourne's harsh nights. Supporting his two sons and a wife, he must make the ultimate sacrifice in providing for the ones he loves by working or missing work to spend time with them. His annoyingly irate wife gets pissy if he's even an hour late from a 5am shift (why in the hell she would want to wait up till 4am when the kids have to be at school by 8am the next morning is beyond me in the first place) and locks him out of the house everytime he does it. Which for some bizarre reason is every night. As a result, he goes to crash on his brother's couch until the next day when he has to do it all again. The film doesn't really go anywhere from here other than to cycle through this repetitive sequence three times before the dull climax. As predicted, Abdo gets assaulted (an all too obvious comment on the recent spate of taxi driver assaults in the city lately) and dies right at the end of the scene with the film closing around shots of his devastated wife being told the news and the blonde bimbo from the command centre listening to Abdo's dying words in shock.

I'll admit, it's a sad story. But come on! How many times have we heard it for a start and secondly, if you're going to do it, at least try and do it well?! The acting was crap, totally superficial and almost Soapie; the camera work was boring and repepetive; the editing was utterly lazy with some shots obviously being held too long so that we see a smile creep through or a hand accidentally get in the way of the actor. All together, it was just...crap! I'm still absolutely dumbfounded as to how the damn thing got into the festival at all, let alone became the last film of the last session! Kimiko and I still have no idea why they put it in but I suppose they must have their reasons. To get my revenge, though, I did write "not worth rating" on my Inside Film awards slip so felt a little better about myself.

Other than that, I'm done at SKFF! Kimiko invited me to the closing awards for which she only had 2 tickets so I will write about that tomorrow.

SKFF Closing Night!

So after 25 hours of volunteering, 70 short films and a thousand flyers later, I've finally finished my stint at SKFF. I actually had the best time and it was such a nice break from the hectic running around for the film which was slowly taking over my life. I also realised this week how much I missed going to the cinema. For a brief period about 2 weeks ago, I was watching a film almost every second day and then obviously, it all just became way too hard with our own film. I know now it's important to keep up to date with what's happening in cinema and to make sure I get to see what others are doing in film. Call it research if you like. Either way, the Closing Ceremony for SKFF was a really nice way to cap off an awesome week. For a start, one of my favorite films won Best Animation, the Craft Award, and Best Achievement in Screenplay which has really inspired me to produce a film worthy of recognition. I hope our film has the same potential to be entered into a competition - I'm getting a bit sick and tired of stuff which has a little bit too much wrong with it to be worthy of a prize.

Anyway, the night was basically set up like a mini-Oscars. Each category was introduced along with the presenter who would be announcing the award (usually the sponsor of the prize) and then the films nominated had little snippets played before the award was announced. The whole night was an absolute blast, from having Kenny (Shane Jacobson) as host to the bizarre 80s comeback of the music played when winners walked up to the podium. All in all, a fantastic night and I am definitely going to be right and ready to work hard for our little film when editing starts this week.

SKFF Shift 3

Ok, I was definitely a little ambitious with my volunteering.

After getting home last night at 12am, I was buggered this morning when I woke up to start my True Lies essay and then had to rush off to another session at 1:30pm followed by another session at 5:45pm. Heavy. But definitely worth it. Again, it was more forms handouts, friendly chats with customers and Kimiko and watching wonderful Australian films.

I have two favorites from the Top 100 screenings today. One was for this afternoon’s session featuring Primo Bacio, a beautifully crafted film about the first kiss of the producer’s grandparents. As the couple, mainly spoken by Mama, discuss their first kiss and how that has progressed for them within their relationship during the 50 years of marriage, we see images of young couples embracing, frolicking, caressing and kissing one another in various stages of passion, age and events. The cinematography is beautiful. Filmed in slow motion, pastels and creams are the main color palette the DOP has obviously chosen to work with using natural light sources and sometimes black and white. The images have a soft quality about them but are not unfocused. Rather, they appear angelic, serene, adding to the description Mama gives us of the feelings she gets when kissing her husband. I thought it was a great example of a film that doesn’t necessarily need to go anywhere or develop as such. It’s a re-telling, an information session for the audience about what has happened but done so poetically different to any other boring documentary. Thinking about this in relation to our short film, it’s common among shorts to feature snippets of the present interspersed with long sequences of the past so that what has been becomes the main focus of the film until the very end. Primo Bacio is different. The past is celebrated and admired as the old couple look back upon their intimates times with one another and the film ends with a nice fuzzy feeling for the audience who know there is a happy ending for them both after the credits have rolled.

My second favorite film of the evening was Tomorrow (GPS), a short that was featured in the opening night sequence but didn’t quite measure up to Road To Tel Aviv. Tomorrow lasts for exactly 60 seconds and in a mad rush, we are introduced to a nameless, young, white-collar wannabe driving along a Sydney freeway. Along the way, his GPS begins to give him random directions that don’t appear to be taking him to where he wants to go. The driver is upset but complies with the robotic female voice who eventually starts to tell him to do other things such as call his mother, take the day off work tomorrow and walk down to the beach. The film’s climax ends with the man rushing to the ocean’s edge to discover a beautiful sunset, a spectacle he obviously hasn’t seen in a while. Turning away, he then notices a young girl, about the same age as him, also carrying her portable GPS system. With a quirky tinge, the film ends as the GPS lady says, “You have arrived at your destination.” I loved the film for its ability to say so much in such a short space of time. We can all relate to those days where we feel so obliged to do the things that need doing that we forget about things we want to be doing like falling love. Shot on what looks like a mobile phone, the film’s quality is it’s only set-back but at the same time, I can appreciate their reasons for going down that path. Exploring the GPS system and our reliance on fast technology that can provide for us the immediate benefits that we need, like the GPS, the mobile phone is also that instant and I would make an educated guess that by using this technology, the filmmakers make the further comment about our high paced, technical world.

But after watching way too many films today, I have to admit I need to go to sleep. Tomorrow is my last shift and I’m really hoping it’ll be a good one.

SKFF Shift 2

Ooh, nearly spelt a rude word just then! (think about the word shift a little more creatively and you'll see how)

So yet another fabulous night of Australian shorts, talking to film buffs and chatting with my boss Kimiko about working Inside Film. I have to admit the idea of working in film publications has never been an option I would normally have considerd for my career but according to Kimiko, neither was it for her. Her background resides in a strict radio/television production experience with 8 years under her belt at a local Sydney production house. She said she got into Inside Film only 6 weeks ago when she applied for the role of partnerships manager and was surprised they took her based on her experience. The role basically entails that she is in charge of any activities or events where Inside Film may be a sponsor on the night or do that as well as collect ratings for their awards in November, one of the most highly acclaimed Australian film awards category going around. Her job sounds cool but I don't think I could take sitting in an office for the majority of my job - i have to get out on set.

Tonight's favourite film was definitely View From The Outer, a brilliant little documentary about footy fanatics, and I mean, crazy, crazy fans who just love one thing and one thing only: their AFL team. The film features 4 fans: an elderly grandma who flies to Melbourne every Thursday from Hobart and then home again on Mondays just to watch the teams train and the games on Saturday and Sunday; a young Melbourne boy who looks like he would be more comfortable sitting in the dark immersed in his computer but who has a budding passion for the Eagles; a Magpies fan who literally eats, breathes and lives everything Collingwood; and finally, a hilarious Demons fan who is renowned for his long, dyed red and blue hair at all the Melbourne games. The characters are definitely the best part of this entire film just because they are so extreme, it's hard to think they are real. Which is exactly what I did until someone set me straight after I commented on how much of a crazy mockumentary it was only to be corrected by a kind stranger who said it was actually a documentary and the people in it were completely, 100% Australian made, real. I was gobsmacked! Seriously, these people were just nuts! Their entire lives revolved around a sport that for the life of me I have never been able to understand the attraction of and they actually exist! It was crazy but the film really was just an in-depth look into the culture of fanaticism being part of something greater than yourself, of being included and feeling like one of the team. It was a nice touch at the end when the filmmakers revealed what happened to the characters after the film had finished with the elderly lady still flying to her weekend games, the Melbourne fan buying out the entire company who supplied his hair dye, the young boy becoming closer to his father through their love of the game, and the Magpies fan still doing what he does best - living, breathing and being everything Collingwood.

I found the film extremely interesting in relation to Christine's comments earlier in the semester about making extreme characters for our films so that they would be interesting and the drama featured in the films would come more naturally. In this case however, I realised it is possible just to find these characters in real life and simply film their crazy antics and put it in a film. I'm now considering the possibility of documentary a little more thanks to this little gem.

SKFF Shift 1 - Spoiler Alert

Ooh, trying saying that 3 times in a row!

Well, after a shaky start (I thought for some reason the rest of the festival would be at The Palais but nooooo, it was at The George...great first impression there) I had an awesome first shift with my Inside Film Award volunteers. I didn't actually realise what I had signed up for until I met up with Kimiko, the lady from Inside Film, who told me that I wasn't actually working for SKFF but for Inside Film assisting them with handing out the fliers they had for audiences to judge the films they watch in each session (I told her I thought I was working for SKFF itself and had asked her why I had the wrong shirt - mine was red with a big IF logo on the front - another great impression on my part). It was heaps of fun and totally not work at all; more like chatting with like-minded people about our love of films discussing which were our favourites and which ones we hated (although you can't say that too loudly as many of the filmmakers come out to watch their films on the big screen). I actually managed to meet a really nice lady called Justine Wallace who's film Ink played this evening which ended up being my favourite film of the evening.

The story revolves around a young girl who informs us through voiceover that she is being sexually abused by her mother's partner which is the reason she attempts to run away all the time. To help her with the pain, she takes her favourite toy Octopus with her and clips it to her backpack. During one attempt, her mother's boyfriend manages to find her and tells her to get in the car, which is then T-boned by a semi-trailer whilst he is driving her home. The boyfriend dies and the girl convinced she will be blamed for his death, runs off for the streets, leaving behind her beloved travel companion. We are then informed at this point that the little girl's stepfather had a secret family with a 4 year old song who the police believe owns the octopus the little girl left in the car. Over the years, the troubled youngsters grow up with one question on eachothers mind: who is the real owner of the toy and where did it go? The film concludes with a touching moment when both the boy and the girl, now grown up, meet on a chance encounter where understanding is exchanged in silence. The most memorable thing about the film is the way it was made. It is an animation but Wallace has managed to superimpose this over real footage of Melbourne's streets and alleways as well as houses, rooms and cars. The blend in materials is mindblowing as you attempt to work out how she managed to achieve such an effect. According to her team, it was a lot of work, 18 months worth of drawing to be exact. Either way, the film was beautiful and I hope things go well for them in the awards section.

St Kilda Film Festival Opening Night - Warning: Spoilers!

OK, this is possibly going to be the biggest week of my life starting tonight. Not only do I have 3 2500 word essays to write, 2 films to edit and a blog to maintain but this week also happens to have the St Kilda Film Festival on at the same time and I thought it would be an awesome idea to volunteer for not 1, not 2 but 5 shifts for the week! I really didn't think that one through but hopefully it'll be ok.

To start though excitingly was tonight's opening at the beautiful Palais Theatre in St Kilda. The St Kilda Film Festival (or SKFF as I'll just call it from now on) has always been my most favorite festival for films. Compared to the Melbourne International Film Fest, Flickerfest, TropFest and Revelation, SKFF embodies a real community spirit about it featuring over 150 Australian produced films relating to real life social issues that our society face right now. From child abuse to racial prejudice to life journeys, the range in themes is always broad. I also love the fact that the organisers are so culturally minded as well. The festival features 6 categories under which the films are arranged. These include: Under The Radar and Armed and Dangerous (youth programs for under 21s; The Berlin Program (from the Berlin Film Festival); SoundKilda (a new category for music video producers); and the best category in my mind, the Top 100, featuring 100 of the best film shorts in Australia.

Last year's festival definitely inspired me to continue what I was doing for my career. After watching Blue Tongue Films' Miracle Fish, (a film I still can not get out of my head), I was completely blown away by the power of such a little film and whenever I feel depressed about anything that goes wrong at uni or with a film I'm working on, I just watch Miracle Fish again to remind me what it is that I am striving to achieve.

Tonight's opening however, was a bit of a let-down. All in all, 9 films were screened across all categories allowing the audience to get a sneak peek at the wonder they could experience if they decided to attend any of the other sessions. The best film out of all of them was definitely The Road To Tel Aviv an international film about a small group of Iraq people awaiting to board a bus when a young Arab woman appears and accused of concealing a bomb underneath her Burka. The way the film is told however was what was so shocking. It begins with a quaint scene of a local high school with kids playing, gossiping, and getting on the bus to go home. 2 minutes later, the bus explodes and the screen fades to black. We are then introduced to a young couple lazing about at the boyfriend's house. His girlfriend informs him she needs to catch the bus back to uni so he offers to drive her in. The bus is a local people mover which carries approximately 16 people at a time. Eventually, the seats fill with a range of strange characters from a slightly deaf, deranged old man and his carer, an Afghani family of 4 headed by an irate, arrogant mother, and some tourists. It is at this point that the Arabian woman boards the bus. The tension in the audience at this stage was almost tangible: everyone was on their seat as the editing, sound and body language of the boyfriend all suggested that the woman in the burka was dangerous and armed and could explode at any second, disrupting the piece instantly in the same way the bus in the first scene had. The boyfriend then attempts to get his girl off the bus which alarms the other passengers and sends them scrambling out of the bus in an intense moment where you are sure the bomb is going to explode at any minute. After 3 minutes of yelling, swearing and threats (mainly from the pompous Afghani mother), the bus driver finally silences the lot of them by claiming that he too is Arab and that he too is just as scared of being blown up but will not allow an innocent woman to be insulted in such a way because of the events happening around them. The mother concedes and the bus driver tells them all they can either get on the bus or take the one down the road. Everyone but the young couple return to their seats and the bus drives off, with the audience still petrified that it will blow up at any second. The young couple then walk down the street to the other bus, round a corner and walk towards the high school featured in the first scene in a shot identical to the one we saw of the bus just before it blew apart.

The film was mesmerising but dissapointingly, the organisers obviously did not feel it was necessary for the audience to gain a little time to process just what had happened which was a shame because it did take a while for everyone to work out that the film had finished full circle to the original scene. Either way, it was definitely the highlight of the night.

No celebrities this time, not that I'm fussed, but still an enjoyable evening. I can't wait till my first shift on Wednesday!

Edit Sesh # 1

After a well deserved break, today was the first chance all of us had to review the footage from the weekend’s filming. Just like we had planned, it was really easy to upload the footage onto the computer and log each clip as we went along. All in all (and this was something we didn’t realize we had done until now), we had about 96 shots. 96! We had only predicted we would have about 50 to work with but obviously with the number of retakes and extra shots we recorded, we had a lot more footage to work with. I was extremely pleased with this outcome as I was definitely worried about not having enough footage to work with as some other groups have experienced. I definitely know there is nothing worse than starting to edit only to get halfway through and go “oh, I just wish we had a little closeup of his hand when he waves goodbye” only to not have that shot. Having more forage than you need may seem wasteful when it comes to tapes and film but it definitely helps in the long run when you start editing and have more to work with.

We only managed to get through the first tape of the day but all in all, I’m really happy with what we’ve got. Most of the shots are perfectly framed, lit and executed by both Arthur and Luke and almost identically reflect the photos I took for the storyboard. I know I sound like the cat that got the cream but there is just nothing happier for a director than knowing what you set out to film at the beginning of your shoot is exactly what you got in post. From here, it’s just so much easier to work with your material with your vision still intact rather than having to work out new ways to fix any footage that doesn’t fit in the film anymore. I can’t wait to see tomorrow’s tape.

What's wrong with this picture?

For the past 2 weeks, Adrian has been discussing with us the differences between Industrial and Post-Industrial media production. In the lectures, you can't help but get a definite attitude from him that he views the Industrial modes of practice as being outdated and useless in the current media world. But my question is, what is wrong with the Industrial or rather, what is wrong with this picture?

Industrial Production

In the lectures, Adrian has described Industrial methods of media production as having the following components:

1. Consisting of parts which create a whole


2. standardized


3. regimented


4. fixed forms


5. scarcity of scale


6. scarcity of distribution


7. scarcity of resources

As a result, Adrian makes the claim that this process is expensive both in terms of time and funds. An example of this which he uses frequently, is the process of making a Hollywood film or producing content for a TV network. With the network, you have licenses, production companies, broadcasters, audiences and content creators to arrange and organise to fit within a time schedule.

Shoot # 2

After last night’s triumphant filming, everyone began today in really good spirits. We were all definitely bolstered by how successful we were yesterday which showed in how efficient everyone was moving tonight. Louise, Megan and Arthur were all a little late from Arthur’s shoot but that didn’t affect the rest of the night as Patricia, Luke, Roland, Deanna and I were all ready and raring to go by the time they got there. For the rest of the night, everything pretty much ran like clockwork. Tonight’s scenes were definitely more about Luke’s performance than getting the shots we needed so it was really important that I was switched on and responding to Luke’s performance to give him direction. It was extremely hard because many times I wanted to show him exactly how I wanted the scene to play out but when I did this a few times, I noticed he was slowly losing interest so to bring him back, I asked him to give me his own variations of the various scenes we were filming. The results were better than what I had expected, which is what Dr. Carlin told us would happen, as Luke was able to interpret the scene with a fresh mind and gave us all something we hadn’t planned. One example of this was for the film’s end shot in which he raises the remote to the camera to “switch us off.” Luke suggested a cheeky smile and I wasn’t convinced but thinking about it now, it gives a whole new dimension to the film, almost implying that Luke deliberately had something to do with Lara’s demise.

The rest of the filming went just as smoothly as the night before and after we had finished (again, an hour earlier than scheduled), we all helped pack up, say goodbye to Luke, and drive the equipment back to Arthur’s house to be taken to school on Monday. When Jess and I got home, we watched a well deserved hour of True Blood (our new obsession) and I have to say now, I will definitely be sleeping like a baby all day tomorrow.

Shoot # 1

WOW! I had absolutely no idea my crew and I had it in use to accomplish as much as we did tonight! Before I get too carried away though, I’ll fill you in a little on what has happened in the last 24 hours of my life.

Starting with an 8am rise to clean the entire house, I then went on to ensure every prop and object featured in the film was where it was supposed to be. The equipment was already neatly arranged so that all that had to happen was once everyone had arrived, it just needed setting up. That happened around 1pm when Louise arrived with her sister Patricia. We setup the lights, made sure none would blow the fuses, and also set up for our first shot. Arthur was due to arrive later on at about the same time as Luke because he had a tute until 3pm so we wanted to make sure we were completely on top of everything by the time he arrived.

At 3:15, Luke arrived a little earlier than I would have liked but we worked around that with Patricia getting straight into his make up(it seems actors always panic about not being on set early so they make an even bigger exception to get there super early even though the AD has normally arranged the shooting schedule so that they are there when we need them.) From there, it was just a little wait until Arthur arrived and from then on, it was full steam ahead. We managed to get the entire first scene setup and shot in under an hour and a half – that’s over 10 of the shots featured in the film and 6 setups! From there we had an amazing feast of pizza, Subway sandwiches, fruit and nuts and a good break before we tackled the remaining 22 shot setups.

Surprisingly, we had nothing to worry about. As predicted, most of the shots that were close-ups only took 2 minutes each to film which meant we got through the 22 setups really quickly. This was definitely due to Arthur’s efficient shooting style which mostly consisted of him lugging the huge camera on his should whilst focusing in super-speed mode. After a while though, I could tell Luke was getting bored with playing Sit-There-And-Be-Silent so we got stuck into one of the longer running shots. It was great that he had a theatre background because like Lara, we required him to run through a number of his lines before cutting. I liked this approach to the filming a lot better because it was definitely obvious that at the beginning of many of our takes Luke was only just warming up to the scene. By running through the scene and filming from various start points, we managed to cover the entire film with Luke in full swing throughout all the shots.

All up, I was really, really happy with today. Both Paul and Robin said I should alter my shooting schedule to allow more time for the 29 setups that we did today but I definitely think I proved to them that we were more than capable of getting these shots done in the time frame we had (8 hours and 30 minutes.)

Hopefully tomorrow night will fare just as well.

Twas' the night before shooting...

Ok, I know. I've done that one before. But it's 11:30pm literally the night before our big shoot and yes, my brain has officially gone to sleep.
Nevertheless, I know I have neglected my blog lately and thought it was high time I write a little something about the progress of our production.

In a nutshell, this week has been absolutely hectic. Starting with Monday, after having endured yet another 20 hour set of pre-production planning over the weekend, I had to launch straight into arranging our camera rehearsal for that night as well as checking in on my actors to see that they were ok with the script, making sure equipment/crew/food were all organised for tomorrow's shoot, and trying to condense my ever-expanding shot list. To say the least, I was a little stressed. Not helped by the fact that my little sister arrived in town that day and I had absolutely no time to spend with her whatsoever. Luckily, the night ended well with our camera rehearsal (it was touch and go for a while as we attempted to battle peak hour Public Transport Riders but we made it) where us four plus Arthur got a good idea of where everything would fit over the two nights and how we could set up the camera for our shoot.

Tuesday consisted yet again, of me attempting to condense the shooting schedule. Whilst most director's go by scenes, I decided that an actual shot list would be more efficient for the shoot as we would know exactly what angle, frame and composition was needed at what time for the script. From talking to Robin and Paul, as well as other TV1 colleagues, I've learnt that apparently this much detail is not normally considered at this stage of production. I realised though, having heard a number of horror stories from other productions as well as having endured many horrible experiences myself where shoots have run completely over-time, that the best way to ensure that every shot I wanted from the storyboard was actually filmed in the short space of time we had, was to create a shooting schedule by shot, not scene. Robin and Paul both expressed reservations at my 40 shot shot list but I'm determined we can make it work. As it is, all it took was figuring out what shots could be filmed from the same position in the house and as Robin suggested, what shots could be taken out should we run out of time.

Come Wednesday, I was starting to unravel a little. I had been getting enough sleep but there were just so many things I knew I had to keep thinking about and I was really worried I wouldn't be able to focus on Lara at our shoot that night. As it was, I had to direct Louise and Deanna to go find a picture frame for Friday's shoot (which didn't get very far), print out all the paperwork needed for that night's shoot, make sure all the equipment was picked up so it could later be transported to the house that night, and ensure Lara knew where she was going. At the shoot, I was then in charge again of setting up the shoot and making sure Deanna had done white balance and exposure (which apparently only happened for the former part) whilst also setting up the lights and checking Lara was getting her makeup done. Finally, after all this running around, Lara and I managed to get a quick half hour rehearsal in before we started shooting. The shoot was great though which really made it worth the hassle. Lara was a true pro and together, we had a lot of fun. Not only that, but we finished early enough to pack everything away and get the equipment out on the street where my friends were waiting to pick it up whilst also looking at the rushes from that night.

Today was a different story. Having to not only juggle all the planning for the shoot, I also had to try and concentrate on True Lies, a course which normally blows my mind even on a good day. As a result, I definitely don't think I got as much accomplished as I had hoped: I sent the call sheet off, yes, but I totally forgot to pick up a high hat as well as Arthur's wooden board for the dolly so I'm really hoping Louise will be able to get both in the morning on her way over.

Apart from all that, I just going to try and enjoy tomorrow night I think. I know it's going to be stressful and I totally appreciate I have been ambitious in my planning but I'm confident in Luke and my crew that we'll get it all done. Until then, you may not hear much more from me so I'll let you know how everything goes in a few days time.

Storyboard

Just in case my laptop disappears again, I thought I would upload the storyboard for Under Control.

Lighting

Ok, so I have a weakness. Yes, shocked you are I'm sure. But nonetheless, I felt it necessary to discuss with you the skills involved with light direction which I do not possess, the topic of this week's readings.

When I noticed lighting was going to be the main topic for this week, I attempted to stay alert. I have worked on film sets before but have never really had the opportunity to speak with the lighting technicians about how they actually create a particular effect or why they decided to use that light in that position instead of doing it the other way around (Yes, I realise there are a number of occasions where I have admitted by inability to use these situations to my advantage, don't remind me). So, I definitely found Malkiewicz's Film Lighting: Talks with Hollywood Cinematographers and Gaffers really useful.

Firstly, it taught me that filming in a studio was the best method for filming if possible. In our case, it's not because we will be filming in a house in a small room at night but the next part of the reading was exceptionally helpful.

Titled Night Interior, this section dictates that the sets are lit separately from the action. This means that the illusion of night is created by the direction and distribution of light. Other notes state that the angle of the light tends to be more frontal whilst the percentage of the area lit is smaller. The general strategy undertaken is to underlight objects in relation to the set behind them, illuminating the foreground. If we think about this in relation to real life, I would say that this is the most natural replication of lighting at night. Just by sitting in my room at the moment, I can tell that object layered in front of others are covered in more light than those behind them. This is justified by the fact that during the day, there are so many light rays permeating a room that they bounce off other objects and illuminate the back of objects as well as the front. When you only have a small 45watt bulb lighting a room, it just doesn't have enough power to recreate the daylight you get in the middle of the day.

Richmond Aguilar comments on the difficulties of using multiple external-frame light sources which can cause problems with people walking around the frame. He states that the best way to achieve a successful night lightscape is to provide as many in-frame light sources as possible. This provides justification for lighting of the scene outside the frame and reduces the chance of shadows playing across your scene. He also suggests that when lighting faces, its better to use one light in a position which will be able to light as much of the scene as possible than a range of lights at different angles.

Luckily for us, our film is shot almost entirely along a single 180° line which means we could have a single light source on the other side of the line lighting our actor when we are filming him and then swapping that light to the other side of the room when we are filming in the opposite direction. I drew out a little diagram to illustrate what I'm rambling on about:

In this illustration, the lamp on top of the TV cabinet is the primary justification for having a Blondie or Kino in the corner. To get that tungsten effect, I would like to use a Blondie but it may be too big for the space so I think a Kino with a yellow gel on top of a diffuser to recreate that natural colour without that intensity.


In the second illustration, I'm hoping that when filming from the other side, we will simply be able to switch the external-frame light source to the other side aswell. Obviously, we would not use the same type of light as the set dictates a less saturated lightscape of the TV cabinet due to the fact that there is less of a light source, save for the light on top of the TV cabinet.


That light is actually starting to worry me. Generally, table lamps create a small pool of light and then have a degree of shadow which originates outside that pool. When Grant is fumbling with the set top box, the edge of the cabinet maybe outside the lamp's light pool, drowning it in shadows. There will also be the light source of the TV itself coming from underneath Grant. Basically, I have no idea how to answer any of these questions so I will have to remember to discuss this tricky situation with Deanna and Arthur at the camera rehearsal on Monday and then with Robin if I get the chance to see him before Friday's shoot.

GRANT

Grant's Costume
1 x Blue Jeans
1 x Punk rock t-shirt
1 x Casual jumper or Hoodie
1 x Pair of casual trainers
1 x backpack
1 x belt
1 x cap (optional)

GRANT Character Profile
Age: 22 year old student
Height: Tall (185cm – 195cm)
Weight: Built
Hair Colour: Blonde
Eye Colour: Blue
Dress sense: Casual, generally jeans and a t-shirt. Mostly unwashed.
Hair style: unkempt, shaggy. Effortless

History:
- Only child of Jack and Lillian. Lives at home still because he is too lazy to find his own place. And he gets free food.
- Bit of a sheep. Doesn’t really know what he wants to do with his life so just follows
everyone else instead.
- Doesn’t have a girlfriend due to his unattractive lifestyle
-Private school education. Bit of a boys boy.
-No idea what he wants to do after he graduates. Did commerce because he thought there’d be money in it.
-Too picky when it comes to women.
-Plays lacrosse on Saturday mornings. Training during the week.
-Doesn’t drive.
-Parents spoil him
-Favourite show is Family Guy.
-Favourite food is lasagna.

STACEY

STACEY - Costume

1 x Pair of white leggings
1 x tight white t-shirt or skivvy
1 x pair of white tight boots (preferably knee length)
1 x white chunky belt or tool belt
1 x pair of white-framed glasses (optional)

STACEY Character Profile
Age: 23 Years Old
Height: Small, feisty
Hair Colour: Brunette
Eye Colour: Blue
Skin Colour: Pale
Build: Slim, fit

-highly intelligent and resourceful
- lives in an apartment in the city by herself funded by her high paid telecommunicaions specialist career.
-Ended up stuck in the tv through an experiment in matter transmission gone wrong.
- Designer glasses, white pants/jumpsuit, white skivvy, looks smart and professional – a bit like Padma from Star Wars
-graduated high school at 16, graduated MIT at 22, moved back to Melbourne and now lives in the city by herself.
-frustrated by people who don’t understand how the technology she develops is used or to be used.
- estranged from her family
- doesn’t have time for incompetent people
- has a sister who is a mother of 2 children.
- both parents are deceased.

How to shoot...

The actors are chosen. Great. Now, we had to decide how we were going to film them. Not great. The reason for this is because we now had 3 ways in which to film:

1. We had both actors at both shoots: Wednesday is to be Stacey's shoot where we record her entire performance in front of the camera. We could have both her and Grant there to work lines off eachother and the same with Grant's shoot on Friday and Saturday night. The problem with this is we now have two inexperienced actors and putting them in the same room together could completely screw things up...
2. We have both actors work of screen recordings of eachother. Ultimately, both characters are reacting to eachother through screens: Stacey sees Grant through the Televisual window in his TV and Grant sees Stacey on his television set. I've heard of Skype rehearsals before where actors have run lines with eachother from opposite sides of the world but would this work for actors in the same city? We weren't too sure so we thought of one more option...
3. We film both actors separate from eachother with them working off me. I know this sounds odd but considering Option 1 and 2, we realised that the story dictates that neither the characters nor the actors actually work off real versions of themselves. Stacey only sees Grant on a screen and Grant only sees Stacey on his TV. So why should we film them any differently? The only issue by attempting Option 2 is that our actors aren't experienced enough to attempt this style of acting.

So what did we decide? We spoke to Robin who proclaimed, with a splatter of expletives, that we were making a film and that was just as important as producing a great performance. Therefore, there was no reason why I could not "act" with my actors to direct them to carry out what I need for the film. Having both of them in the same room would mean we would have a really hard time controlling their performances and having them work off screens was just too risky. Therefore, our shoot will be an experiment for all of us which also makes it really exciting.

Decisions, Decisions, Decisions

Ok, so I am going to split this into three blog posts because really, each decision is so mega it needs its own planet. To start with, we had our review of the audition footage. This was enormous as we auditioned 11 actors, 1 twice, and from there we then had to pick just 2. Excrutiatingly painful. But regardless, we had to find one by the end of the day due to our already behind schedule.

We managed to narrow it down to 4. Well, 4 to begin with. 2 girls and 2 guys. All 4 were good but none were exceptional for the following reasons: One girl looked the part but had an issue with performing the variations I asked of her; the other girl didn't look the part at all but she had the experience to perform the variations; one guy looked the part but was a total nutjob; and the final guy gave us a very safe performance but he looked a little too old. General feeling at this point in time? UGH!

So we brought the expert in. Robin sat down and looked at the girls and the boys and agreed with the observations we made above. Louise then reminded us of another actor we had looked at and had found interesting but his theatre background obviously affected his performance. We then had another look at him and agreed, his theatre background was obviously going to be a problem if we chose to go with him.

So now instead of fixing the original problem, we had just thrown another person into the pot and hence made our problem bigger. However, as time went on, we finally decided, with the help of Robin that the girl who looked the part was probably the best choice for us. Robin believed that the issue with her interpretation of the role was that she attacked Grant too early on. Stacey is an intelligent, highly controlling young woman so at the beginning of the film, she needs to be calm, cool and collected and then eventually dissolve into a state of despair when she realises just how incompetent Grant actually is. I expressed my concerns to Robin that I didn't think I would be able to carry out such a big directing task but he said all I can do is try and that is what school is for which is as wise an answer you can ever get I think.

So we have the girl. Now, we had to chose from the three boys: sullen, too-old-looking safe guy, over-the-top theatre guy, or crazy, bizarre looks-the-party guy. We went through the pros and cons over and over and over until we pretty much couldn't think of any more and Robin finally said that in the end, we would be taking a gamble with all of them no matter who we chose. He did however agree that the third guy would probably be too hard to mold so we removed him from the equation. That left us with two options: go safe with the first guy or take a gamble on theatre boy.

We decided that theatre boy was our best bet. The reason for this was because in order to make the film a comedy which we did, he would probably be the best person to exuberate that comic spirit. The other guy was just too....boring. Sorry mate.

So there you have it. Theatre Boy and Nervous Girl working together to produce what will hopefully be the best film in history. Now, our next decision....

Product Placement

After having had a quick conversation with Astyn, I seriously thought about all the possibilities that are now open to us by doing a tertiary level student film. Sponsorships, product placement and free stuff are all on the agenda now because we can officially put the RMIT stamp on our film which gives it a greater level of authenticity when approaching companies. These are a couple of things I thought it would be great to ask companies for:

- Food: Catering is one of the most expensive services needed to hire for a film set. The motto I work by is "Good Food=Hard Working Crew Members" so it is essential we have good food on set and lots of it. Luckily, I have my sister coming over from Perth in 2 weeks time so I will be able to put her in charge of that.
-Props/Costume - I still have yet to find companies who would be interested in providing costumes (we might have to pay for these) but I know from experience that many companies can be interested in getting their products featured in films which makes it a lot easier on our art department to find props. In particular, we need beer so are thinking of approaching Australian beer companies for a couple of cartons which we might be able to give to our actors as a thank you afterwards or possibly some money which can go towards the film set. Other props could include the backpack and Stacey's glasses. I was thinking about the TV and set-top box but I'm not sure how well that will go down. I will need to talk to Robin.

I'm not sure how all of this will turn out but based on Astyn's results (where she had over 6 companies agree to cater her set for free), I'm optimistic.

The basics of Narrative

Seth recently emailed me a very intriguing link to a a seminar held by SCAD featuring Cindy Chastain, a self-proclaimed "Experience Designer" who presented a talk on the fundamentals of narrative and how they can be applied to any design context to produce something "that engages the minds and emotions of users."

I found the talk very conceptual and highly informative. One of Chastain's claims is that there are a number of debates that exist about the value and place of storytelling in interactive design. She acknowledges that there are 3 ways in which storytelling is used to shape the product: the first is storytelling as a form of research; the second is storytelling as a means to describe how the product fits into the reader's lifestyle (this works more for advertising but still applies to other interactive products); and the third is the reader's story, a stream of cognitive thought which occurs as a user interacts with a product.

This third aspect of storytelling's place in interactive design is what Chastain belives is the most important and she makes a point of this by asking the question "How can we as designer's, provide cues that will deepen the narrative connection?" This point is the most relevant to our Major K-Film project at the moment as we are attempting to utilise the Korsakow software in a completely new way than how it has been used before by trying to entertain an audience in the same way a traditional film does.

To help build these cues, Chastain suggests that audiences do not strive for experience with interactive design; rather, they desire engagement, a collaboration of emotional and cognitive methods that occur when a reader views a storytelling product. Chastain believes that our response to a story is all about the stucture and how it has been built. By understanding the way a story is to be designed allows us to then control the emotional response that the reader will have on the other end.

Looking at this in relation to our K-Film projects, I can see how important this last part is. We are all new to the concept of Korsakow. The sky's the limit in terms of what can be achieved with this new software which means exploring how a narrative can be formed from using the software. In recent tutes, my K-Film group and I have been diligently examining every possible way in which meaning and engagement can be created from a K-Film and so far, we believe we have come up with a unique situation. What we want to try and achieve is to take a traditional narrative and translate it into a K-Film narrative, or non-linear if you want to get techincal.
We thought the best way to go about this was to take a simple 21st century love story which has the following main events: couple fall in love, get married, husband cheats, wife finds out at leaves him. These 4 scenes will eventually become our keywords in the K-film but that's stepping a little too far ahead. What we then thought is we can segment each 4 scenes into 15 mini-scenes if you like which will make up the 60 videos we need for the entire project. The aim of these videos is to make them ambiguous as possible so that the narrative pathway that occurs does not affect the meaning created from the original 60 clips.
There are a number of issues that can arise from doing this however, ones which I have already explored can be found in this week's post. Since then, we have recently had a class discussion about our group's aim for the project and the comment was made that it will be really difficult for us to ensure the clips do feature this ambiguity. I think to combat this successfully, we will need to be extremely aware of continuity, framing and composition as these elements will be the ones to affect the meaning of the narrative most. To do this, we are planning to run the shoot in the exact same way you would a normal film starting with 2 actors, making a list of shots and keeping to a shooting schedule and then keeping a continuity log as well. In doing all of this we hope to creat the 60 clips in a way that they can then be viewed in any sequence which will ultimately create millions of variations on the one story.

All in all, Cindy Chastain's seminar was a really great eye-opener about how narrative and storytelling can be integrated into your work and I sincerely suggest anyone who is interested in creating narrative with new media forms explores her work and the seminar.

Directing with David Carlin

For our Week 9 lecture, we were fortunate enough to have the head of Media come in and take our lecture for the day. Dr. Carlin is a renowned filmmaker and writer and therefore his attendance at our lecture was greatly appreciated.

The lecture was a basic set-up of the do's and don'ts of directing. Most of them I already knew but regardless, it was interesting to see the way Dr. Carlin orchestrated the scenes to show just what can go wrong if you direct badly.

Basically, as a director, you have to accept that their is an element of your actor's performance that is completely out of your control. This is the area of their body which only they have insight into - their brain. This we can not control because as much as we would like to think, we as directors, have to accept that our actors are not puppets or robots we can just pull strings for or switch on. They are moving, thinking, breathing human beings who require food, water, comfort and understanding in order to produce a good result.

So how do we encourage the best performance of our actors then? Dr. Carlin asked Gina to come up to the front and to merely sit in the chair in front of us with no obvious direction being given. Uncomfortably, Gina sat in silence for a minute before Dr. Carlin stepped in and whispered something in her ear which we as the audience were unable to hear. Gina's body language and actions changed immediately. She began to look up, her blinking slowed right down, and her mouth moved through a range of limited motions. I could tell right away that she had been asked to count but when her brow began to furrow slightly and her eyes began to crease, I also realised she was experiencing some concentration issues so I thought maybe Dr. Carlin had asked her to remember a specific number of times she had done something and she was attempting to count the ones she remembered.

As it was, all Dr. Carlin had asked Gina to do was to count upwards from 1 but Gina did admit she had found it difficult to concentrate on the numbers. He then whispered again into her ear and again her body language changed. She became very agitated, bouncing slightly in her chair and looking about fervently. At first, I thought she was desperate for the toilet but when I realised she wasn't going to get up from her chair that there must have been something else that was keeping her rooted to the chair. Obviously, if you need to go to the bathroom, you go or ask to be excused, neither of which Gina carried out. It turned out that she had been told to pretend that she had forgotten an assignment was due that morning and she had only just remembered as she was sitting in class. I know that exact feeling Gina was exhibiting and the minute Dr. Carlin explained to us the scene, I could see how the direction carried through her performance.

Dr. Carlin then explained that it is extremely important not to "tell" your actors how to act but instead to "direct" them on how to act. To give them clues and little hints as to the type of performance you want them to give you and to encourage them nonetheless even if they do not get it right first try.

Dr. Carlin then asked for two more volunteers and I stood up to take on the role of a woman in a small part of a script he had. At first, he asked us to merely read through the lines so that we could get a gist of the film and what happens. As I was reading the script, I was a little confused about the context of the events depicted and assumed the girl I was playing was angry at the man she encounters in the middle of nowhere and therefore, exhibited this in my performance. Dr. Carlin then developed our performances by asking us to try slight variations on the way we blocked out the scene until finally, we were told to remove the scripts and perform it by memory. That I have to admit was hard. I knew from my acting classes last year that the most important thing about acting is looking like you are "reacting" to what your other half in the scene is saying rather than just reciting your lines. I found though that trying to remember the lines as well as the blocking and look like I had heard all my partners lines for the first time was really difficult. Needless to say, the scene was no Oscar winning performance but it definitely allowed me to get a feel for how the actors will be feeling when I put them through the same paces.

So, the lecture in a nutshell:

1. Do not tell your actors what to do: Give them directions and see what they come up with instead. You may be surprised.
2. Treat your actors like real human beings because, well, that's what they are.
3. Understand the difficulties your actors are facing as well as your own.

and finally,

4. Have fun with it. After all, acting is a form of playing so play with the actors and keep it entertaining.

Giving birth to a child

No, I have not just endured 9 months of gestation to then experience what is apparently described as 10 hours of living hell to produce a wailing, slimy, offspring. My title for this post refers to something Adrian said in this week's lecture about how we should treat our K-Films like children. Something we produce but that ultimately, we can not have any control over how they grow-up and are shaped.

I found this an interesting concept to explore with the K-Films because when you think about it, they really are like children. They're annoying, needy, require constant attention to detail (you'd be considered a bad parent if you hadn't realized your child was walking around with its leg tied to a chair with the skipping rope it was just playing with), and in general, take up a lot of your time. Luckily, the feeding, nursing, maternal side of raising a child can be left in the capable hands of your laptop's CPU so you can take a break for a while if need be by just pressing command-Q.

However, it's when you return to the Korsakow software (your home if you like) and when the babysitters been relieved of her duties, that the tantrums start. Keywords are out of place. Videos you thought linked to other videos are now way off in another cloud. The dimensions of one of your videos is completely out. It seems you're only away for a couple of minutes before all chaos has evolved.

As you've probably noticed, my attitude towards children and raising one is highly biased. I personally can not see how anyone could receive any joy from spending hours upon hours looking after a troublesome, frustrating small person who will probably grow up to be a troublesome, frustrating grownup individual. I think I can honestly say I held the same attitude towards creating a K-Film. Why would somebody go to all the trouble of attempting to control the various creative aspects of a software which is only going to produce a work which you can not control once it has been released unto the wider world?

From talking to all my friends who do want kids eventually, I've realized their is some form of gratification you can receive having raised a child. One, you know that it will and forever be a replication of you and your partner, something you can leave behind in this world for the rest of the world to see. Secondly, it's a guarantee you'll be looked after when you're old and decrepit. Finally, all jail sentences as drug overdoses aside, it's something you can look at later on in life and say with pride "I am so glad I made you". I think all of these can be applied to our K-Films and yes, I do include the second point in this (imagine, if you become famous off of your K-Film, you'd be set for life with the income you receive). I believe by thinking of K-Films in this way, it's easier to let go of the ultimate controllessness you will receive when your film is eventually distributed to the World Wide Web. We can accept that before we hit Export we have done everything in our power to ensure our film will grow-up to be a strong, poignant individual who will received by the global community positively. And if it ends up getting us sued or murdered, well then I can say I told you so.

Punishment

Ok, so, even after having already completed an entire year's worth of education which included numerous teachings about copyright and how bloody important it was that you checked your sources, I totally forgot about all of this when making Quicken The Heart.

I think it was a combination of being totally disorganised and not really knowing what I wanted to do for the last video other than something poignant exciting for the last sketch film (I didn't know at this time that we would then be required to make 60 films for our next project). In the end, I came up with a silly little video set to the theme of Jaws about a woman's advances on an innocent biscuit. Again, I reiterate, I have no idea why alarm bells did not go off in my head at this point screaming "WARNING! WARNING! THIS IS COPYRIGHT!" but they didn't and it was only until we sat down for our interview with Seth (possibly the most embarassing time for this to come out) and he asked where the music was from. I brightly exclaimed it was the theme from Jaws and knew immediately from Seth's perplexed face that I was in the shit.

See, if Jaws had been made over 70 years ago, I would have been fine as copyright law (thanks to Walt Disney. Don't ask me how I remember that) states that any work that is 70 years or older is no longer covered by the protection of copyright law. Seth then told me I would have to go back to the original video, take out the offending piece, replace it with a royalty-free copy (correctly attributed of course), export the video again, and then update my blog post, Blip Dashboard, AND my K-Film. It also meant Astyn and Sarah would have to update their K-Films so as you can see, a lot of work for one little mistake which I shouldn't have made in the first place.

I've now decided that as punishment, I should research what could have happened to me and the university had MCA Inc decided to sue me for a copyright breach. According to the Australian Copyright Council, any piece of music is "automatically protected as soon as it is recorded in some way (for example, written down, recorded on audio-tape, or saved in a digital file)." The owner of the theme according to the AAC is "the composer, and the first owner of copyright in lyrics is the lyricist; however, there are some important exceptions." In terms of performance " the first owners of copyright in a sound recording of a live performance will be the performer and the person who owns the recording medium (such as the master tape)." In my case, I would have infringed upon the copyright agreement of John Williams, the songs composer.

Whilst I could not find a copy of the copyright agreement (pardon the pun), I did find this from the AAC: "Copyright is infringed when a person uses all, or a “substantial part”, of copyright material in one of the ways exclusively controlled by the copyright owner without the express or implied permission of the copyright owner... A “substantial part” is any important, distinctive or essential part of the original material, not necessarily a large part." Basically, the 30 seconds of theme I used was more than enough evidence to prove that I had infringed upon the rights of Williams in protecting his work.

Had Williams found out about my infringement upon his work, he would have had the following options to chose from in terms of how he would have liked the matter to be resolved. From the AAC again, he would have been entitled to demand and or all of the following:
• that the infringement stop (an “injunction”);
• that infringing copies of your material be delivered to you, or disposed of as you direct;
• that any master copies or plates used to make infringing copies be delivered to you, or disposed of as you
direct; and
• that either you be paid for the use of the work or you be given the profits the infringer has made from it.

Williams would then have asked a fee from me which he would have considered to have been an acceptable sum to cover the damages caused by my infrigement. On record, the largest fine ever handed out for a copyright infringement in the music industry was the Isley Brothers vs. Michael Bolton case in which "the infringement claim was based on musical and not verbal similarities between the two songs." as detailed by a notice from the UCLA and Columbia Law School. The brothers were awarded $5.4 million in damages from Bolton who still claims till this day that he had no idea the Brothers' song existed.

Apparently ignorance is no excuse and in my case as a film student, I don't think I would be able to claim this anyway. Had all of this happened, it would have been my responsibility to respond to Williams' claim of infringement which would definitely have involved a civil lawyer and possibly the judicial system had Williams decided take things further. In the grand scheme of things, I think having to change my original film and updating my blog and Korsakow project is a slap on the hand compared to what I could have had.