Exercise 2- Rough and Final Cut

Is the Camera really the most important part of making a film?

I know, it may seem like a dumb question, but it is one that I have been pondering nonetheless. Over the past month or so, I have been viewing these Festival films that have been sent in and one thought continues to pop into my head: “Ya know there isn’t anything really ‘wrong’ with this camerawork, I think the problem is with the lighting.” Now, my opinion isn’t worth much, but I am beginning to believe that good lighting is really the distinguishing factor between a professional looking film, and an amatuer looking  film. So the question is, how do you really create a convincing light setup? Well I am hardly the person qualified to answer that question  but I think I haver read enough about it to give a somewhat educated opinion. First, I think that ‘lighting’ a scene, is almost the wrong phrase, because that implies that you just turn on a light that will show people what you want to capture.  “lighting” a scene is just as much about light as it is about shadow and darkness. But, lighting is so much more than that. I think that lighting is about creating a landscape. Lighting a scene is a dynamic process. See, now anyone can turn on a camera and capture and image, but the lighting is really where “art” comes in. I think almost more than anything light sets the mood of a scene. If you see bright sunshine , chances are you will think happy. If you see a stark contrast between light and shadow/darkness, chances are you will feel more alert. Ok, so I  know all of this, now I just need to figure out how to create it. I guess I should get familiar with the lighting kits in the equipment room.

Which Came First: ‘the Director’ or ‘the Academic’?

This semester I am trying to learn about film- ya know, the academic side of film. Something that to a large extent I find kind of boring and I feel like it takes the fun out of watching films. The other day I was in my Intro to Film class and my professor was discussing Mise-en-scene. And I understand it, I think, but I found myself asking, “Does Spielberg think about Mise-en-scene? Did John Ford?” I wondered ” Mise-en-scene might be something that you can analyze and give all those academics something to talk about, but is it really so intentional?” I am perplexed by this. For instance, we saw Jurassic Park in class- a scene in which a T-rex enters from the right of the screen , to throw the viewer off, since audiences tend to expect motion from left to right, just like reading.” Now did  Spielberg say, I want the dinosaur to come in from the right so that we can throw off the audience, because they expect action from the left”? Or did he just do it. Did he just KNOW that it would be right? was he thinking “mise-en-scene”, or was he thinking ” damn, they won’t be expecting that. I don’t know why they won’t be expecting that, but I know it it’ll get’em” So what is it? Is mise-en-scene something that a director innately understands, or is it learned?  So does a director create something great because he knows it will be great and then the academic turns it into something formulaic or does the director learn the formula that is created by the academic?   I guess that’s kind of a ‘”Chicken or the egg” question. But I am curious.

Film No-wha?

Film Noir has long been something I have watched and been interested in. It turns out that the Film History Class I am taking this Spring has given me the opportunity to look into what makes film noir, film noir.  Over the past few months I have become increasingly interested in the use of shadow and light in order to frame a scene and entice the viewer.  Today in Film History, I was reintroduced to something I had seen in Negin’s Com 212 class a year ago- it’s called Visions of Light. Although I was interested in it when I first saw the film, my experience with a camera, however slight that might be, has given me a new appreciation for the skill required in creating these effects. I would love to experiment with that type of style. I know that Film Noir really doesn’t have much place in a Documentary class, but I did hear something in  Visions of Light that started the wheels turning in my head and that might be useful for anyone holding  a camera. One of the men being interviewed said that the directors of Film Noir  “were not afraid of the dark.”  -that darkness wasn’t necessarily ” negative space” but was in fact the most important parts of the image. I wonder if this can be brought into documentary filmmaking in some way.

Exercise 1

1) I have used Final Cut Pro since the beginning of the school year and since then have grown quite comfortable with it. Counting all the little projects, I think this is the 5th or 6th project I have finished.

2)This is the first time that I have edited a project where I didn’t use footage that I was in some way emotionally attached to. Actually, until this assignment, I didn’t realize how attached I was to the footage I was using during other projects, like last semester’s ENG and “The Studio” (Fall 2009 Studio Production Class). I really enjoyed not caring about the specific shot since I think it enabled me to take more creative risks, some of which, I’ll admit were not entirely successful.  This project allowed me to learn more about transitions, pacing, and the use of music, since all assignments before this included next to none of these.

3) i thought the project was successful in conveying a consistant thought. Having as many questions as we did to choose from held some challeneges because it was hard to piece together any kind of cohesive message.

4) I would like to have been a little more proficient in the improvement of audio. I would like to learn more about manipulating sound in post production.

5) I think that the interviews would have been vastly improved with some proper ligting, a quieter setting, where there wasn’t so much background noise, and correcting composition problems such as headroom and the rule of thirds. A tripod would have been nice too.