I wanted a group comprised of Henry, Andy and Adrian but it turned out that they were all directors/screenwriters so that was pretty much it. Teaming up with Julien, Hannah and Raphael again, we formed the "Film Reunion Production" group. To be frank, there wasn't a lot of enthusiasm or initiative taken by certain group members when making Plunge so I hope it would be otherwise in this last project.
Out of the three stages, pre-production is the most difficult one. There are just so many things to put together in such a short time. On Monday, we planned to ask for two adult actors to star in our film - Julien's mom and her actor friend. Julien's mom pretty much agreed to act, but her friend Terrence had to be contacted. But then it turned out that Julien's mom was leaving for Germany on Wednesday. Contacting Terrence was out of the equation since Julien's mom couldn't act for us, so we needed to find new actors. Hannah approached Charles and Julien approached Valerie and they agreed to star in our film - we were very lucky. I talked to Valerie and she said she was only free next week on Wednesday, Saturday and Sunday. As for Charles... I don't know Charles but right now I'm trying to get Hannah (who knows him) to ask him the times in which he's free to record voiceovers and act for us.
We have all the locations figured out. All except for the scenes set in the apartment and on the street. I wanted a street which looks stylish (i.e. neon lights) and well-lit but not crowded with people at the same time. Also, the street can't be too noisy or we'll have a hard time trying to record the dialogue. We could change the location, but what are the alternatives? All these limitations. Another location that couldn't be figured out: an apartment. Well, any can do. We just have to light it so that it looks good in a Wong Kar Wai way.
As of Saturday, I've opened a thread on Facebook to communicate with my team members. I've suggested a couple of songs for the montage (one of which is Save Me by Aimee Mann), but none of my group members seemed to like it. I suggested for alternatives, but I'm still waiting for reponses that focus more on the suggestions instead of the criticisms of the song. The slow response has been really bugging me, especially when Raphael is the sound editor and he's not replying to my thread, with only Julien and Hannah were replying to my suggestions. And they didn't really like it. Ugh.
We had the filming dates secured: next week's Wednesday, Saturday and Sunday. Unfortunately, Hannah has organized a junk trip for Sunday. I'm not attending the junk trip, just in case we have to film. So is two filming days sufficient? Probably not. But that's all the time we've got. Compared to all the other groups, ours is making the least progress.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Friday, May 15, 2009
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
5/6/09
Blanche Julien Briestroff, Medora Choi, Jing Ting Poon, Hannah Short
It was extremely boring writing 600-word film reviews on Monday. Hence the "thumbnail" review:
Direction:
- The beginning was very effective as it had a rich combination of tragic music, rhythmic editing and clean narration.
- The concept of a person chasing an ideal was intriguing, but then it could be further fleshed out ALTHOUGH it was still intriguing because it got me thinking after watching the film. Hence the near-lack of participation during the feedback session. I did comment on the music though.
- Nice portals (Although a lot of them weren't portals...but still. I liked the cut from the clipboard to the food tray.)
- Albeit an effective beginning, the bulk of the movie was hampered by a slow-paced chase which dragged.
Editing:
- Again, the beginning was edited nicely.
- Although shots were sped up, the pace was still quite slow. In my opinion, it would be quite difficult to change the pace of the film during post-production when the editor only has limited footage shot by the cinematographer to work with. "Limited" as in the every scene is shot with only one camera. If you think about films like the Bourne trilogy, the crew doesn't actually storyboard chase scenes (I think they only storyboard the important bits, such as a shot of a car crashing against another); they place a lot of cameras in different places so they can capture the whole chase scene from a lot of different angles: it would be easier for the editor to string the clips together this way because he/she would have a lot to work with to ensure a fast pace. So editing can improve the pacing of a film to a certain extent, but I think it's mainly about the way the film is shot by the cinematographer.
- Anyway, the editing was solid. I didn't like the last shot though (zooming into Julien's eye). Omitting it would make the ending better. But then again, it's really up to whether the editor and the rest of the group members liked it or not. Guess they liked it (except Julien, who, uh, was the director).
Cinematography:
- People may disagree with me, but I thought the cinematography was quite formulaic. I could see a pattern throughout the film: smooth, fluid shot CUT TO tracking shot and so on. It wasn't a big problem but I think it contributed (in a bad way) to the pacing of the film (made it slower).
- The experimentation with shots was there, but it wasn't bold enough. I saw dutch-angled tracking shots and manually focused shots (which didn't work out very well...in one shot, it could be seen that the camera focused on the dust on the lens! In another, the intention was to get Julien's hand in focus and the background unfocused, but unfortunately everything was out of focus!).
Sound:
- I liked the music a lot.
- Yes, a lot.
- The narration was clean. Appropriately clean, enough bass to make it sound narration-like, although I could hear the slightist hiss of white noise. But still, good job.
- The attempt to fill most of the film with music was noticed. There was one point during the film where the transition from the song to the loop taken from the song was noticeable. By noticeable I mean flawed and clumsy. I later on found out that an extra loop was accidentally added in that bit, so all is forgiven.
- The second transition from loop A to loop B was so smooth that it was unnoticeable. Good job guys - good use of cross fade.
Oops..I pretty much ended up writing another 600-word review. So much for writing "thumbnail" reviews...
It was extremely boring writing 600-word film reviews on Monday. Hence the "thumbnail" review:
Direction:
- The beginning was very effective as it had a rich combination of tragic music, rhythmic editing and clean narration.
- The concept of a person chasing an ideal was intriguing, but then it could be further fleshed out ALTHOUGH it was still intriguing because it got me thinking after watching the film. Hence the near-lack of participation during the feedback session. I did comment on the music though.
- Nice portals (Although a lot of them weren't portals...but still. I liked the cut from the clipboard to the food tray.)
- Albeit an effective beginning, the bulk of the movie was hampered by a slow-paced chase which dragged.
Editing:
- Again, the beginning was edited nicely.
- Although shots were sped up, the pace was still quite slow. In my opinion, it would be quite difficult to change the pace of the film during post-production when the editor only has limited footage shot by the cinematographer to work with. "Limited" as in the every scene is shot with only one camera. If you think about films like the Bourne trilogy, the crew doesn't actually storyboard chase scenes (I think they only storyboard the important bits, such as a shot of a car crashing against another); they place a lot of cameras in different places so they can capture the whole chase scene from a lot of different angles: it would be easier for the editor to string the clips together this way because he/she would have a lot to work with to ensure a fast pace. So editing can improve the pacing of a film to a certain extent, but I think it's mainly about the way the film is shot by the cinematographer.
- Anyway, the editing was solid. I didn't like the last shot though (zooming into Julien's eye). Omitting it would make the ending better. But then again, it's really up to whether the editor and the rest of the group members liked it or not. Guess they liked it (except Julien, who, uh, was the director).
Cinematography:
- People may disagree with me, but I thought the cinematography was quite formulaic. I could see a pattern throughout the film: smooth, fluid shot CUT TO tracking shot and so on. It wasn't a big problem but I think it contributed (in a bad way) to the pacing of the film (made it slower).
- The experimentation with shots was there, but it wasn't bold enough. I saw dutch-angled tracking shots and manually focused shots (which didn't work out very well...in one shot, it could be seen that the camera focused on the dust on the lens! In another, the intention was to get Julien's hand in focus and the background unfocused, but unfortunately everything was out of focus!).
Sound:
- I liked the music a lot.
- Yes, a lot.
- The narration was clean. Appropriately clean, enough bass to make it sound narration-like, although I could hear the slightist hiss of white noise. But still, good job.
- The attempt to fill most of the film with music was noticed. There was one point during the film where the transition from the song to the loop taken from the song was noticeable. By noticeable I mean flawed and clumsy. I later on found out that an extra loop was accidentally added in that bit, so all is forgiven.
- The second transition from loop A to loop B was so smooth that it was unnoticeable. Good job guys - good use of cross fade.
Oops..I pretty much ended up writing another 600-word review. So much for writing "thumbnail" reviews...
Monday, May 4, 2009
5/4/09
Screening. Below are the reviews of the films we watched. Instead of commenting only on the sound, I will also be commenting on other aspects of the films.
Say Cheese Raphael Brauner, Bernice Choi, Ashley Lee, and Adrian Wan
A film about a disabled stalker preying on females. His modus operandi is to take a picture of them before slaying them. I was not a big fan of the title, but it was fine, because I didn't judge the book by its cover.
I found the sound to be extremely clean, which was excellent because it is hard to make audio sound clean. It was still noticeable that it had been edited in Soundtrack Pro as the audio sounded watery, as if the audio were coming from Gollum's cave or something like that. But still, kudos to Adrian for cleaning up the sound to the point that the audio was devoid of white noise and such. In the film, the music started perhaps a bit too abruptly, when tension hadn't even been built yet. However, as the film progressed, the music did fit the context very well. Regardless of how well it fit the context, I disliked the music. The song was too symphonic to my liking. It also reminded me of MIDI (Musical Instrument Digital Interface) songs used in video arcades (searching up "arcade music" on YouTube, I found this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJp_yaMTPCg ). It did fit the context in terms of the pacing and how Bernice was running away from the stalker, but it was an inappropriate choice in my opinion. It was just a bad song.
The overall film was stellar. It managed to build up tension, albeit the use of several cliches, such as: the stalker, behind a door with a panel of fireproof glass, popping up to scare Bernice; the whole "say cheese" premise, although I liked that a lot; and the part where Bernice blinked and the stalker disappeared. Speaking of the blinking, which was a shot from Bernice's point of view, I would say that it stayed inconsistent with the previous point of view shot. There wasn't blinking in the first point of view and suddenly it was inserted for the second POV. It would be too anal to point out such small things so I am going to move on to other aspects of the film. But before I do so, I thought the shot where the stalker slowly edges towards the cornered Bernice at the end was very effective. Good job guys.
The editing was good. I did not notice any sort of continuity errors. The color was fine. I did not agree with Andy's comment that the color varied too much between locations. Color consistency isn't necessary for a chase scene involving portals. While the editing was decent, I felt the that the cinematography could have been much better. The shots lacked the kinetic energy prevalent in chase scenes, like the ones in the Bourne films. In my opinion, it is fine to let go of some of the composition guidelines because chase scenes are all about the rush and the improvisational feel. This aspect of the film could have been improved. Anyway, the tracking shot at the end was awesome.
Choice of portals could be better, but I was content with them.
Babooshka Christopher Checketts, Catherine Dennig, Xiang Yi, and Camille Yung
The story wasn't conveyed very well in the film. It depicted Xiang Yi in pursuit of Chris, who for no apparent reason was holding so dearly onto Xiang Yi's babooshka doll, which he found when it dropped from Xiang Yi's desk and portalled to where he was.
People found the music to be unreasonably angry. I found it okay. It fit Xiang Yi's mood when he saw that Chris was in possession of his doll (Couldn't he just ask Chris to return him the doll? This is not suspension of disbelief gone off rail, it's a hint that the whole idea of the film was poor conceived to begin with.) and it was nicely timed, as the music started right when Xiang Yi portalled into Chris' location.
I also enjoyed the cross-cutting done in the beginning of the film - the abrupt transitions between Xiang Yi's and Chris' locations were great. But it was flawed, because Xiang Yi kept appearing in different locations every time the film cross-cut from Chris to him. For one, how did he portal from the multimedia lab to a restaurant? I know one doesn't have to show everything in a film, but since this is a portal exercise, I am just pointing this out. Nevertheless, the beginning was great.
Put bluntly, the rest of the film was a mess - especially the screenwriting and the cinematography. Bear in mind that I am not hating on the editing because it really wasn't the editor's fault that the footage he had to work with were a mess, but then again, one of the editor's responsibilities is to ensure the shots planned by the cinematographer actually make sense when pieced together.
Oh my gosh, how I fought to maintain composure when viewing the film and not succumb to uncontrollable laughter, which was getting increasingly infectious as people around me laughed and laughed. I had no idea what was going on during parts of the chase, especially that part where Xiang Yi was running in Victoria Park. With the shots complemented by the sound of the cinematographer's flip-flops clacking as it repeatedly made contact with the ground, that scene was disgustingly disorienting.
Also, the portals could have been so much better, but it was unfortunate that they failed on so many levels. Come on guys, running into a wall? A lamp post? A person? Come on guys... If they were to do it again, how could they improve? One is limited only by one's imagination. That's all I have to say. Come on guys, try harder next time.
Wabbit Hunt Elliot Fung, Henry Hsiao, Joyce Leung, and Justin Tay
First off, I am no fan of comedy films, except for films as eccentric as Superbad. I don't usually laugh or smile when watching comedy films unless something incredibly witty and original is shown.
I didn't laugh when I watched Wabbit Hunt. That does not mean the film did not engage me. The film was a cleverly put together chase. It was powerful scene after powerful scene which led to a satisfying ending which tied all loose ends together - an effective, appropriate ending to a comedy film. The film firmly held my attention and I was glued to the screen from the beginning to the very end.
The good choice of actors was the driving factor which made the film great. They were well cast and fit perfectly into the shoes of the various characters in the film. I couldn't expect more from such an achievement. Daniel was the highlight in the film. I smiled at the fact that he was used sparingly in the film - it was the hook of the film that made the audience more interested in it, the hook that kept all of us glued to the screen to see what happened next after his scene. In fact, the film was comprised of layer upon layer of set-up, hook, and punchline - the formula for comedic films. The style of the film was also based on Charlie Chaplin's slew of silent films, which means that music played an important role in setting the mood for the film.
The music, reminiscent of Charlie Chaplin films, fit perfectly. The music crescendos at the most suitable moments and fades out into gaps of silence at appropriate moments. Well, not gaps of silence but ambience and sound effects. I found some of the sounds unnecessary and thought it would perhaps be better if the whole film were silent throughout. Actually, I first thought it would be completely silent, as there really were gaps of silence at the beginning of the film when music wasn't being played. However, as the film progressed, sounds were introduced - an audio inconsistency accompanied by several unnecessary sound effects, such as the sound of the toilet being flushed and the sound of Justin's stomach rumbling. Also, the audio spiked at times and the teacher had to lower the volume temporarily - this spiking could be easily eliminated with Final Cut Pro. The audio meter which shows the dB levels actually is part of the Final Cut Pro interface, so Henry could have easily referred to that and checked if any of the audio is spiking when watching the film. Despite the criticisms, I felt the sounds of the portal device were impressive and were necessary to the film.
The editing was good, but as said during class, the scene in the auditorium could be shortened. Overall, the footage looked normal. Nothing special with the colors or anything. Since colors were not really significant in this film, changing the film into black and white would do it no harm and would perhaps make it look better. It would even pay greater homage to Charlie Chaplin.
Cinematography was stellar. Nothing special and nothing atrocious.
The portals were only limited to doors, as the portal device only worked when one goes through a door. The variety of portals in this film was close to nil, but this is compensated by excellent narrative.
And High Octane was shown last. Up to that point of the lesson, I didn't really comment on other people's films for the fear that the words which come out of my mouth would be interpreted as insensitive, patronizing words of cruelness. This fear comes from the fact that people assume I am a pro (which I am not), and therefore think that my words carry more weight than theirs. This is what I have been assuming of other people and it may not be entirely true. But judging from past experiences, my own little assumption has been proven to be quite true. This is the appetizer. Now, the main course:
You are reputed to be a talented filmmaker. People around you tend to believe the hype that's been exponentially generating before actually watching it. They tend to harbor transcending expectations towards your film. "Whoa, your film is showing next! It's going to be awesome!" You think, "Please, please, please don't overrate it. You haven't even seen it yet!" while smiling humbly and saying in response that you're only satisfied with it, but not proud of it. Your film starts. People watch. You condition yourself to despise every aspect of the movie. Your film ends. Credits roll. Criticisms start rolling in. The conditioned you side with the critics, bashing your film - your own film - into pieces. While the conditioned you side with the critics, the real you says, "I'm just like every other student; I learn and make mistakes. It's okay. But what I cannot grasp is the fact that everyone is criticizing my film like my film's somehow in its own peerless league." You get upset, but you don't show it. You think about the criticisms, and even though there are not really a lot of criticisms, you feel as if the whole class is against you. The fact that you are amplifying the few criticisms into such a magnitude that made you upset gets you more upset. And the lesson ends and you go to the next class and sit in silence for forty five minutes and think, "I wish I were just an average student - not particularly good or bad at anything."
The music used in our film was not appropriate because the African drums (or whatever kind of drums they are) in the song did not add to the chase scene. It wasn't only the African drums. Actually, the whole song was inappropriate because it didn't give the feeling of a fast-paced chase for our film. My fault - I was the sound guy. The film also felt like a teenage music video. It was too stylish - too many freeze frames, too many jittery Cloverfield-style shots, and too many voiceovers which didn't make sense at all. There was no substance to it. Roger Ebert also seemed to dislike similar pop culture music video-style edits, as in his Chungking Express review, he stated that, "Wong is more of an art director, playing with the medium itself, taking fractured elements of criss-crossing stories and running them through the blender of pop culture...In any case, Tarantino may weep again when he sees [Chungking Express'] box-office figures." Apart from the Crank and Fight Club inspired style overkill, the locations also felt too similar. The audience were forced to watch similar urban run-down locations over and over for seven minutes. Also, the portals were not insane enough. This was a movie about a schizophrenic, and it just didn't manage to convey that very well because the portals were just cliched, ordinary, generic ones. So much for avoiding portal cliches; our film was awarded a medal by the folks at the portal cliche department. Oh, and I forgot to mention, the medal was gold. One of the portals was also noticeably awkward: the transition between the alleyway and the basketball court of the abandoned school. I cringed at the sight of that transition. It wasn't even a portal. Anyway, I should have spent more time travelling around Hong Kong, scouting for more locations which would enrich our film, diversifying its bland, dull nature - an endless seven minute cycle of rundown urban locations.
I'm just like every other student; I learn and make mistakes. It's okay.
Say Cheese Raphael Brauner, Bernice Choi, Ashley Lee, and Adrian Wan
A film about a disabled stalker preying on females. His modus operandi is to take a picture of them before slaying them. I was not a big fan of the title, but it was fine, because I didn't judge the book by its cover.
I found the sound to be extremely clean, which was excellent because it is hard to make audio sound clean. It was still noticeable that it had been edited in Soundtrack Pro as the audio sounded watery, as if the audio were coming from Gollum's cave or something like that. But still, kudos to Adrian for cleaning up the sound to the point that the audio was devoid of white noise and such. In the film, the music started perhaps a bit too abruptly, when tension hadn't even been built yet. However, as the film progressed, the music did fit the context very well. Regardless of how well it fit the context, I disliked the music. The song was too symphonic to my liking. It also reminded me of MIDI (Musical Instrument Digital Interface) songs used in video arcades (searching up "arcade music" on YouTube, I found this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJp_yaMTPCg ). It did fit the context in terms of the pacing and how Bernice was running away from the stalker, but it was an inappropriate choice in my opinion. It was just a bad song.
The overall film was stellar. It managed to build up tension, albeit the use of several cliches, such as: the stalker, behind a door with a panel of fireproof glass, popping up to scare Bernice; the whole "say cheese" premise, although I liked that a lot; and the part where Bernice blinked and the stalker disappeared. Speaking of the blinking, which was a shot from Bernice's point of view, I would say that it stayed inconsistent with the previous point of view shot. There wasn't blinking in the first point of view and suddenly it was inserted for the second POV. It would be too anal to point out such small things so I am going to move on to other aspects of the film. But before I do so, I thought the shot where the stalker slowly edges towards the cornered Bernice at the end was very effective. Good job guys.
The editing was good. I did not notice any sort of continuity errors. The color was fine. I did not agree with Andy's comment that the color varied too much between locations. Color consistency isn't necessary for a chase scene involving portals. While the editing was decent, I felt the that the cinematography could have been much better. The shots lacked the kinetic energy prevalent in chase scenes, like the ones in the Bourne films. In my opinion, it is fine to let go of some of the composition guidelines because chase scenes are all about the rush and the improvisational feel. This aspect of the film could have been improved. Anyway, the tracking shot at the end was awesome.
Choice of portals could be better, but I was content with them.
Babooshka Christopher Checketts, Catherine Dennig, Xiang Yi, and Camille Yung
The story wasn't conveyed very well in the film. It depicted Xiang Yi in pursuit of Chris, who for no apparent reason was holding so dearly onto Xiang Yi's babooshka doll, which he found when it dropped from Xiang Yi's desk and portalled to where he was.
People found the music to be unreasonably angry. I found it okay. It fit Xiang Yi's mood when he saw that Chris was in possession of his doll (Couldn't he just ask Chris to return him the doll? This is not suspension of disbelief gone off rail, it's a hint that the whole idea of the film was poor conceived to begin with.) and it was nicely timed, as the music started right when Xiang Yi portalled into Chris' location.
I also enjoyed the cross-cutting done in the beginning of the film - the abrupt transitions between Xiang Yi's and Chris' locations were great. But it was flawed, because Xiang Yi kept appearing in different locations every time the film cross-cut from Chris to him. For one, how did he portal from the multimedia lab to a restaurant? I know one doesn't have to show everything in a film, but since this is a portal exercise, I am just pointing this out. Nevertheless, the beginning was great.
Put bluntly, the rest of the film was a mess - especially the screenwriting and the cinematography. Bear in mind that I am not hating on the editing because it really wasn't the editor's fault that the footage he had to work with were a mess, but then again, one of the editor's responsibilities is to ensure the shots planned by the cinematographer actually make sense when pieced together.
Oh my gosh, how I fought to maintain composure when viewing the film and not succumb to uncontrollable laughter, which was getting increasingly infectious as people around me laughed and laughed. I had no idea what was going on during parts of the chase, especially that part where Xiang Yi was running in Victoria Park. With the shots complemented by the sound of the cinematographer's flip-flops clacking as it repeatedly made contact with the ground, that scene was disgustingly disorienting.
Also, the portals could have been so much better, but it was unfortunate that they failed on so many levels. Come on guys, running into a wall? A lamp post? A person? Come on guys... If they were to do it again, how could they improve? One is limited only by one's imagination. That's all I have to say. Come on guys, try harder next time.
Wabbit Hunt Elliot Fung, Henry Hsiao, Joyce Leung, and Justin Tay
First off, I am no fan of comedy films, except for films as eccentric as Superbad. I don't usually laugh or smile when watching comedy films unless something incredibly witty and original is shown.
I didn't laugh when I watched Wabbit Hunt. That does not mean the film did not engage me. The film was a cleverly put together chase. It was powerful scene after powerful scene which led to a satisfying ending which tied all loose ends together - an effective, appropriate ending to a comedy film. The film firmly held my attention and I was glued to the screen from the beginning to the very end.
The good choice of actors was the driving factor which made the film great. They were well cast and fit perfectly into the shoes of the various characters in the film. I couldn't expect more from such an achievement. Daniel was the highlight in the film. I smiled at the fact that he was used sparingly in the film - it was the hook of the film that made the audience more interested in it, the hook that kept all of us glued to the screen to see what happened next after his scene. In fact, the film was comprised of layer upon layer of set-up, hook, and punchline - the formula for comedic films. The style of the film was also based on Charlie Chaplin's slew of silent films, which means that music played an important role in setting the mood for the film.
The music, reminiscent of Charlie Chaplin films, fit perfectly. The music crescendos at the most suitable moments and fades out into gaps of silence at appropriate moments. Well, not gaps of silence but ambience and sound effects. I found some of the sounds unnecessary and thought it would perhaps be better if the whole film were silent throughout. Actually, I first thought it would be completely silent, as there really were gaps of silence at the beginning of the film when music wasn't being played. However, as the film progressed, sounds were introduced - an audio inconsistency accompanied by several unnecessary sound effects, such as the sound of the toilet being flushed and the sound of Justin's stomach rumbling. Also, the audio spiked at times and the teacher had to lower the volume temporarily - this spiking could be easily eliminated with Final Cut Pro. The audio meter which shows the dB levels actually is part of the Final Cut Pro interface, so Henry could have easily referred to that and checked if any of the audio is spiking when watching the film. Despite the criticisms, I felt the sounds of the portal device were impressive and were necessary to the film.
The editing was good, but as said during class, the scene in the auditorium could be shortened. Overall, the footage looked normal. Nothing special with the colors or anything. Since colors were not really significant in this film, changing the film into black and white would do it no harm and would perhaps make it look better. It would even pay greater homage to Charlie Chaplin.
Cinematography was stellar. Nothing special and nothing atrocious.
The portals were only limited to doors, as the portal device only worked when one goes through a door. The variety of portals in this film was close to nil, but this is compensated by excellent narrative.
And High Octane was shown last. Up to that point of the lesson, I didn't really comment on other people's films for the fear that the words which come out of my mouth would be interpreted as insensitive, patronizing words of cruelness. This fear comes from the fact that people assume I am a pro (which I am not), and therefore think that my words carry more weight than theirs. This is what I have been assuming of other people and it may not be entirely true. But judging from past experiences, my own little assumption has been proven to be quite true. This is the appetizer. Now, the main course:
You are reputed to be a talented filmmaker. People around you tend to believe the hype that's been exponentially generating before actually watching it. They tend to harbor transcending expectations towards your film. "Whoa, your film is showing next! It's going to be awesome!" You think, "Please, please, please don't overrate it. You haven't even seen it yet!" while smiling humbly and saying in response that you're only satisfied with it, but not proud of it. Your film starts. People watch. You condition yourself to despise every aspect of the movie. Your film ends. Credits roll. Criticisms start rolling in. The conditioned you side with the critics, bashing your film - your own film - into pieces. While the conditioned you side with the critics, the real you says, "I'm just like every other student; I learn and make mistakes. It's okay. But what I cannot grasp is the fact that everyone is criticizing my film like my film's somehow in its own peerless league." You get upset, but you don't show it. You think about the criticisms, and even though there are not really a lot of criticisms, you feel as if the whole class is against you. The fact that you are amplifying the few criticisms into such a magnitude that made you upset gets you more upset. And the lesson ends and you go to the next class and sit in silence for forty five minutes and think, "I wish I were just an average student - not particularly good or bad at anything."
The music used in our film was not appropriate because the African drums (or whatever kind of drums they are) in the song did not add to the chase scene. It wasn't only the African drums. Actually, the whole song was inappropriate because it didn't give the feeling of a fast-paced chase for our film. My fault - I was the sound guy. The film also felt like a teenage music video. It was too stylish - too many freeze frames, too many jittery Cloverfield-style shots, and too many voiceovers which didn't make sense at all. There was no substance to it. Roger Ebert also seemed to dislike similar pop culture music video-style edits, as in his Chungking Express review, he stated that, "Wong is more of an art director, playing with the medium itself, taking fractured elements of criss-crossing stories and running them through the blender of pop culture...In any case, Tarantino may weep again when he sees [Chungking Express'] box-office figures." Apart from the Crank and Fight Club inspired style overkill, the locations also felt too similar. The audience were forced to watch similar urban run-down locations over and over for seven minutes. Also, the portals were not insane enough. This was a movie about a schizophrenic, and it just didn't manage to convey that very well because the portals were just cliched, ordinary, generic ones. So much for avoiding portal cliches; our film was awarded a medal by the folks at the portal cliche department. Oh, and I forgot to mention, the medal was gold. One of the portals was also noticeably awkward: the transition between the alleyway and the basketball court of the abandoned school. I cringed at the sight of that transition. It wasn't even a portal. Anyway, I should have spent more time travelling around Hong Kong, scouting for more locations which would enrich our film, diversifying its bland, dull nature - an endless seven minute cycle of rundown urban locations.
I'm just like every other student; I learn and make mistakes. It's okay.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Poster
I'm not particularly good at making posters; but anyway, here's the poster that I made for our film:
Saturday, April 25, 2009
4/20/09 - 4/24/09
Monday: Editing resumed after the Easter holiday. I finally let the editor and director do whatever they want with the footage we had. I went on a different computer and reviewed the sounds that I had downloaded. Throughout the lesson, I literally did nothing. I went around looking at other groups' works in progress, I paced back and forth the lab, I fiddled with the sounds but actually didn't do anything with them, and I took a look at the director and editor to see if they were doing they're doing their jobs. Yes they were. Zero productivity was not something to be proud of, but at least I wasn't being a fuhrer; I was being a producer, which was what I was supposed to be. But to go to such extremes and do absolutely nothing during a lesson? I did my job as a producer, and as a sound editor, I was to record Alec's voiceovers today after school. So I had nothing to do during the lesson. I recorded the voiceovers after school with the Music Department's sound recorder that Mr. Chiang asked for (thanks!) and imported them into the computer. I also transferred them into my USB so I could do some editing at home with Audacity.
Tuesday: Compared to Audacity, Soundtrack Pro is over the moon. It is not a freeware like Audacity is and it is as professional as Final Cut Pro. Cleaning the white noise in Audacity at home proved to be difficult, so I decided to edit the voiceovers at school using Soundtrack Pro. I didn't know how to use Soundtrack Pro, so I watched a couple of tutorials on www.wonderhow.com in the morning. I was an inquirer. I gained knowledge from those tutorials and applied it during my first sound edit session at lunch. I did the same after school. Not a lot of progress was made since it was my first time using Soundtrack Pro.
Wednesday: I was able to use Soundtrack Pro smoothly as I had fiddled around with it the day
before and in the process had become knowledgeable enough. During the lesson, Louise briefly forgot about her director's role; she sat on another computer and was making a poster for our film. I took notice of that and told her to supervise Ella, the editor, and told Andy to work on the poster since he had nothing to do. I continued to edit the voiceovers and managed to finish. I started putting in the voiceovers after school and did some cutting to make the voiceovers in tandem with the footage. I will download extra sound effects tonight to ensure that every action in the film has a sound effect to it.
One thing I noticed when I opened Final Cut Pro was the color correction done to the footage. It was, well, to be frank, nothing special. Most of them looked normal, as in nothing had been done to the footage. I checked to see if effects were applied. Yes. But perhaps they were too subtle. However, I was impressed by the color correction done to the scene in the abandoned school hall and courtyard. But I still couldn't get over the fact that it was so normal. But this was the director's vision after all, so I let it go. I can always color correct the footage to my own liking after the screening.
Thursday: I went over the film today and saw a cut made to the film that was wrong. I remembered it was correct when I saw it cut originally, so I decided to ask the director if she made that cut or not. It was a yes. Here is description of the wrong cut: Andy is chasing Alec. Alec climbs over the railing into the foliage, while Andy has yet to climb over the railing. CUT TO. Andy is over the railing. He is standing on a tree. He continues to pursue Alec. Clearly this was a continuity error. I changed it back into a match on action cut as the changed version just looked unnatural and wrong. I didn't consult the director beforehand but I made the change anyway. I later told the her about it and she justified that cut by saying "you don't have to show everything in a film". I told her that you don't have to show everything only when the subject is performing the same action in different shots. But demolishing a match on action looks both unnatural and wrong. In a way, it was wrong to sabotage the "director's vision", but I was not going sit by and ignore such a mistake. I was principled and was a communicator by telling the director of the mistake that she made. And it was a good thing to make a mistake because we improve by learning from mistakes.
I added all the sound effects into the film. I made a few cuts and shortened some clips so that the sound effects fit. I was satisfied with the fast forward effect that the editor and director had added on the punching shot; I gladly added the punching sound effects. The result: a shot with a slightly twisted but comedic effect. It reminded Julien of Fight Club, a movie which I actually drew inspiration from at the start of pre-production. Happy with the sound, I left the multimedia lab. I'll be adjusting the audio levels to keep them consistent tomorrow. I will also have to shift the sound effects back to their original positions because I accidentally shifted some of them forward towards the end of the editing session.
Friday: The editor said she would be free Thursday after school to make the credits, but she never set foot into the lab. I was disappointed and quite angry. I ended up spending some time making and animating the credits. Yes, animating the credits. Our film ends abruptly, so it would be a shame if the credits were not as energetic as the film itself. Anyway, I "stole" the editor's job because she was being lazy (she wasn't being a communicator so group members like me would misinterpret her absence as laziness; she better come up with a good excuse on Monday). I already did all I could as a producer by making sure people do their jobs, but there was nothing I could do to rid them of their laziness. This paralled an experience I had previously. I was the director during the first project and I told the actors to memorize their lines. They never did. I couldn't do anything about it. I consulted Louise about whether I should make the credits or not and she let me do so. She also let me improve upon the color correction, which I didn't really get to in the end, because I had to adjust volume levels to make the audio consistent throughout the film. We also agreed to export the film on Friday. I was going to, but the technician didn't let me because it would be a waste of electricity to leave the computer running for over the weekend. I'm afraid to say that I agree with him, even though the screening is on Monday and we don't have an exported version of the film. Uh oh.
If I were to export it, then I hope the class looks forward to watching a fast-paced chase sequence which lags every two seconds, since the computer can't handle HDV footage very well....
UPDATE: Ella was actually not free for the whole week. Someone should have informed me about it... OR i should have asked her whether she was available or not. We're not very good communicators.
Tuesday: Compared to Audacity, Soundtrack Pro is over the moon. It is not a freeware like Audacity is and it is as professional as Final Cut Pro. Cleaning the white noise in Audacity at home proved to be difficult, so I decided to edit the voiceovers at school using Soundtrack Pro. I didn't know how to use Soundtrack Pro, so I watched a couple of tutorials on www.wonderhow.com in the morning. I was an inquirer. I gained knowledge from those tutorials and applied it during my first sound edit session at lunch. I did the same after school. Not a lot of progress was made since it was my first time using Soundtrack Pro.
Wednesday: I was able to use Soundtrack Pro smoothly as I had fiddled around with it the day
before and in the process had become knowledgeable enough. During the lesson, Louise briefly forgot about her director's role; she sat on another computer and was making a poster for our film. I took notice of that and told her to supervise Ella, the editor, and told Andy to work on the poster since he had nothing to do. I continued to edit the voiceovers and managed to finish. I started putting in the voiceovers after school and did some cutting to make the voiceovers in tandem with the footage. I will download extra sound effects tonight to ensure that every action in the film has a sound effect to it.
One thing I noticed when I opened Final Cut Pro was the color correction done to the footage. It was, well, to be frank, nothing special. Most of them looked normal, as in nothing had been done to the footage. I checked to see if effects were applied. Yes. But perhaps they were too subtle. However, I was impressed by the color correction done to the scene in the abandoned school hall and courtyard. But I still couldn't get over the fact that it was so normal. But this was the director's vision after all, so I let it go. I can always color correct the footage to my own liking after the screening.
Thursday: I went over the film today and saw a cut made to the film that was wrong. I remembered it was correct when I saw it cut originally, so I decided to ask the director if she made that cut or not. It was a yes. Here is description of the wrong cut: Andy is chasing Alec. Alec climbs over the railing into the foliage, while Andy has yet to climb over the railing. CUT TO. Andy is over the railing. He is standing on a tree. He continues to pursue Alec. Clearly this was a continuity error. I changed it back into a match on action cut as the changed version just looked unnatural and wrong. I didn't consult the director beforehand but I made the change anyway. I later told the her about it and she justified that cut by saying "you don't have to show everything in a film". I told her that you don't have to show everything only when the subject is performing the same action in different shots. But demolishing a match on action looks both unnatural and wrong. In a way, it was wrong to sabotage the "director's vision", but I was not going sit by and ignore such a mistake. I was principled and was a communicator by telling the director of the mistake that she made. And it was a good thing to make a mistake because we improve by learning from mistakes.
I added all the sound effects into the film. I made a few cuts and shortened some clips so that the sound effects fit. I was satisfied with the fast forward effect that the editor and director had added on the punching shot; I gladly added the punching sound effects. The result: a shot with a slightly twisted but comedic effect. It reminded Julien of Fight Club, a movie which I actually drew inspiration from at the start of pre-production. Happy with the sound, I left the multimedia lab. I'll be adjusting the audio levels to keep them consistent tomorrow. I will also have to shift the sound effects back to their original positions because I accidentally shifted some of them forward towards the end of the editing session.
Friday: The editor said she would be free Thursday after school to make the credits, but she never set foot into the lab. I was disappointed and quite angry. I ended up spending some time making and animating the credits. Yes, animating the credits. Our film ends abruptly, so it would be a shame if the credits were not as energetic as the film itself. Anyway, I "stole" the editor's job because she was being lazy (she wasn't being a communicator so group members like me would misinterpret her absence as laziness; she better come up with a good excuse on Monday). I already did all I could as a producer by making sure people do their jobs, but there was nothing I could do to rid them of their laziness. This paralled an experience I had previously. I was the director during the first project and I told the actors to memorize their lines. They never did. I couldn't do anything about it. I consulted Louise about whether I should make the credits or not and she let me do so. She also let me improve upon the color correction, which I didn't really get to in the end, because I had to adjust volume levels to make the audio consistent throughout the film. We also agreed to export the film on Friday. I was going to, but the technician didn't let me because it would be a waste of electricity to leave the computer running for over the weekend. I'm afraid to say that I agree with him, even though the screening is on Monday and we don't have an exported version of the film. Uh oh.
If I were to export it, then I hope the class looks forward to watching a fast-paced chase sequence which lags every two seconds, since the computer can't handle HDV footage very well....
UPDATE: Ella was actually not free for the whole week. Someone should have informed me about it... OR i should have asked her whether she was available or not. We're not very good communicators.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Wong Kar Wai and his films
One thing that struck me off guard was the negative feedback I've been hearing from people in the film class who had watched a Wong Kar Wai (WKW) film over the easter holiday. I wasn't really surprised shortly after, because I recalled how I felt after viewing a WKW film for the first time. It was Chungking Express. I said "what the hell" to myself as I watched Quentin Tarantino praise the film in Special Features. I felt he overrated it.
Okay. I have grabbed your attention by slamming his film, which a lot of people regarded as a classic and one of WKW's best.
Fast forward to April the twenty second, two thousand and nine. I have seen every WKW film but My Blueberry Nights. I like his style and vision. Quentin Tarantino did not overrate Chungking Express. I was just too "inside the box" when viewing it. Now what is "inside the box"? Inside the box, there is the conventional three-act story structure, the commercial value everyone expects from a film (how movies are tear jerkers/crowd pleasers - like Slumdog Millionaire), orthodox camerawork, editing, and so on. I was too inside the box; therefore, I did not like Chungking Express.
I watched (in chronological order): In the Mood for Love, Fallen Angels, Days of Being Wild, As Tears Go By, 2046, Ashes of Time, and Happy Together. I came to a conclusion. That to appreciate WKW's style, one has to at least watch three (or all. Yeah, all) of his films to understand his distinct style inside out.
Don't slam him just because his movies have such thin plots. Yes, they have thin plots, but before one watches a WKW film, one has to understand and appreciate that the substance isn't all piled on the plot, it is hidden and concealed beneath the characters. The characters are the film. Their actions and thoughts (delivered through voiceovers) convey the themes of the movie. In short, WKW's films do not focus on any sort of conventional three-act story structure. His films are more focused on the characters themselves, their conflicts, and their resolutions. His films are more focused on themes - relationships, love, memories, and the past. His films, to sum up (again), are thematically rich, and his characters bring his films to life. Also, on a side note, his characters are anything but heroes. In WKW's universe, everyone lives in a realistic world, everyone is the Everyday Man, the Layman. It is his portrayal of characters which makes the audience feel so much empathy (and very often sympathy) towards his characters. Or not.
Now, a lot of his films are not very accessible to the "mainstream audience" (As Tears Go By, his debut, is an exception). This is because his films are known to be subtle. This factor might make the audience feel no em/sympathy towards his characters because we are so accustomed to movies baby-feeding us with information about the people onscreen. When I was watching Chungking Express, I thought to myself, "what the hell is the Faye Wong character doing in Tony Leung's apartment? Uh, Wong Kar Wai, I think you are being too bombastic." You see, his films require the audience to think. And the more you think, the more substance you find in his characters. Not all of his films are subtle, as some definitely contain more exposition than emotion, i.e. the excessive use of narration. 2046, anyone? So the Faye Wong in Tony Leung's apartment scenes are not bombastic. But are there any bombastic moments in WKW's feature films? Yes, of course there are. In Ashes of Time, Carina Lau (screen time - close to zero) unreasonably strokes and cavorts her horse; later on, Brigette Lin is shown writhing against a tree. In my opinion, these scenes are bombastic. I couldn't detect emotion or subtlety in it. It seems as if WKW was trying to make his film ultra-arty. I hope those scenes mean something to him.
(To be continued..?)
Okay. I have grabbed your attention by slamming his film, which a lot of people regarded as a classic and one of WKW's best.
Fast forward to April the twenty second, two thousand and nine. I have seen every WKW film but My Blueberry Nights. I like his style and vision. Quentin Tarantino did not overrate Chungking Express. I was just too "inside the box" when viewing it. Now what is "inside the box"? Inside the box, there is the conventional three-act story structure, the commercial value everyone expects from a film (how movies are tear jerkers/crowd pleasers - like Slumdog Millionaire), orthodox camerawork, editing, and so on. I was too inside the box; therefore, I did not like Chungking Express.
I watched (in chronological order): In the Mood for Love, Fallen Angels, Days of Being Wild, As Tears Go By, 2046, Ashes of Time, and Happy Together. I came to a conclusion. That to appreciate WKW's style, one has to at least watch three (or all. Yeah, all) of his films to understand his distinct style inside out.
Don't slam him just because his movies have such thin plots. Yes, they have thin plots, but before one watches a WKW film, one has to understand and appreciate that the substance isn't all piled on the plot, it is hidden and concealed beneath the characters. The characters are the film. Their actions and thoughts (delivered through voiceovers) convey the themes of the movie. In short, WKW's films do not focus on any sort of conventional three-act story structure. His films are more focused on the characters themselves, their conflicts, and their resolutions. His films are more focused on themes - relationships, love, memories, and the past. His films, to sum up (again), are thematically rich, and his characters bring his films to life. Also, on a side note, his characters are anything but heroes. In WKW's universe, everyone lives in a realistic world, everyone is the Everyday Man, the Layman. It is his portrayal of characters which makes the audience feel so much empathy (and very often sympathy) towards his characters. Or not.
Now, a lot of his films are not very accessible to the "mainstream audience" (As Tears Go By, his debut, is an exception). This is because his films are known to be subtle. This factor might make the audience feel no em/sympathy towards his characters because we are so accustomed to movies baby-feeding us with information about the people onscreen. When I was watching Chungking Express, I thought to myself, "what the hell is the Faye Wong character doing in Tony Leung's apartment? Uh, Wong Kar Wai, I think you are being too bombastic." You see, his films require the audience to think. And the more you think, the more substance you find in his characters. Not all of his films are subtle, as some definitely contain more exposition than emotion, i.e. the excessive use of narration. 2046, anyone? So the Faye Wong in Tony Leung's apartment scenes are not bombastic. But are there any bombastic moments in WKW's feature films? Yes, of course there are. In Ashes of Time, Carina Lau (screen time - close to zero) unreasonably strokes and cavorts her horse; later on, Brigette Lin is shown writhing against a tree. In my opinion, these scenes are bombastic. I couldn't detect emotion or subtlety in it. It seems as if WKW was trying to make his film ultra-arty. I hope those scenes mean something to him.
(To be continued..?)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)