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..?)
Thursday, April 9, 2009
4/2/09 - 4/8/09
We filmed on the second of April in the auditorium's Grimm's Tales set when at the same time primary students assembled to watch a presentation. There was no way of contacting Paul because he wasn't at school, so the lighting could not be in anyway altered. Filming was quite difficult because the space was limited as the projector screen was down and also walking around the set was extremely noisy due to the creaking. A teacher complained but we got the three shots filmed in the end.
We followed the schedule on the fourth of April and filmed in Kowloon Tong, Kai Tak and Shau Kei Wan. The schedule that I made stated that filming would begin at 7.45, but I actually intended filming to begin at 8.00, for I expected my group members to be at least 10-15 minutes late. Other members arrived on time and I was five minutes late myself according to the schedule. Even worse, Alec - the actor - was half an hour late: he arrived at 8.15, very much to our disappointment. We managed to catch up with the schedule anyway... until we wasted nearly an hour trying to find the abandoned school in Shau Kei Wan because I wasn't sure of which way to go from the MTR station.
I was the cameraman during filming and I felt that I had assumed the role of the director, which I was not supposed to. Louise was the director and I was supposed to be receiving instructions and direction from her, but she was reduced from directing to writing down the timecodes of each shot (the shot log sheet was not even used in post-production, unfortunately). I knew of this problem halfway through filming and I told her about it. I told her about how I was stealing the job from her. I continued to direct even after telling her about this problem, but she still managed to give advice.
I ended up directing because I knew the screenplay well and I knew what was going on. If Louise were to direct then she must get to know the screenplay and storyboard better. But I don't think she had a chance to know them better so I unfortunately stole her role during production, despite knowing what the problem was during filming and actually telling her about it.
We were lucky to have everything filmed in a day. We had to overcome some obstacles during importing and there was time wasted, but still, we managed to start editing on Monday. By Tuesday after school, all the shots were cut and placed together. By Wednesday, special effects and color correction were added to the first half of the chase scene. I was there to help the editor out by looking at whether the cuts were smooth or not. Whenever necessary, I taught the editor about Final Cut Pro. I shouldn't have had to teach her about it because (not as a producer, but just as a film student generally) I could have easily given her a couple links to editing tutorials.
As a producer, I sometimes wondered why I was hanging around in the multimedia lab, as it was not my job but the director's to inject her vision into the chase scene by guiding the editor during the editing sessions. But as stated earlier, I had inadvertently assumed the role of the director, so it was logical for me to hang around in the lab. I shouldn't be doing this. Instead, I should give the director a chance to "redeem" her role by guiding the editor and the sound editor (that's me, by the way) throughout post-production. But it was hard to give her a chance, because Louise (director) and Ella (editor) were unavailable most of the time. Ultimately and inevitably, I pieced most of the footage together and edited them. Ella did come during the editing sessions, but usually towards the end of them. When she did, we went over what I did and she gave feedback and we worked together to improve on what I originally did to the footage.
Over the Easter holiday, I will be scrounging for free sound effects on the Internet, which really means that I will not be receiving any direction from the director. It's a shame really, because I always end up unwittingly "stealing" all the roles from my group members, and even when there is room for them to "redeem" themselves, I don't give them any. Perhaps I should be more passive. Perhaps I shouldn't even visit the editing room when the editor is unavailable so progress won't be made; because if it is, then I would be stealing roles from my peers. Wait, that didn't sound right.
I think the director shouldn't be too passive. But if she weren't, I am afraid that there would be a lot of disagreements between me and the director, as that was occasionally the case. During the one editing session in which the director, editor and producer were present (class time, of course), I would say something along the lines of "why didn't you say something earlier?", and the director would reply by saying something along the lines of "I didn't say it because my opinion is probably going to be rejected by you and your strong vision". This was problematic not in the sense that it was impeding our progress on the chase scene, but our progress on teamwork and communication. No one was "right" in this situation. I had cultivated a strong vision due to heavy involvement in the film and as a result, I came to be quite stubborn and unwilling to listen to people's opinions. On the other hand, the director processed things with a defeatist mindset, thus, the passive direction. Teamwork-wise, this was unhealthy. Our resulting chase scene may be testament to this observation, but in my opinion, we've been improving as a team. I was less stubborn during the last editing session before the holiday, which was a sign of change for good.
We followed the schedule on the fourth of April and filmed in Kowloon Tong, Kai Tak and Shau Kei Wan. The schedule that I made stated that filming would begin at 7.45, but I actually intended filming to begin at 8.00, for I expected my group members to be at least 10-15 minutes late. Other members arrived on time and I was five minutes late myself according to the schedule. Even worse, Alec - the actor - was half an hour late: he arrived at 8.15, very much to our disappointment. We managed to catch up with the schedule anyway... until we wasted nearly an hour trying to find the abandoned school in Shau Kei Wan because I wasn't sure of which way to go from the MTR station.
I was the cameraman during filming and I felt that I had assumed the role of the director, which I was not supposed to. Louise was the director and I was supposed to be receiving instructions and direction from her, but she was reduced from directing to writing down the timecodes of each shot (the shot log sheet was not even used in post-production, unfortunately). I knew of this problem halfway through filming and I told her about it. I told her about how I was stealing the job from her. I continued to direct even after telling her about this problem, but she still managed to give advice.
I ended up directing because I knew the screenplay well and I knew what was going on. If Louise were to direct then she must get to know the screenplay and storyboard better. But I don't think she had a chance to know them better so I unfortunately stole her role during production, despite knowing what the problem was during filming and actually telling her about it.
We were lucky to have everything filmed in a day. We had to overcome some obstacles during importing and there was time wasted, but still, we managed to start editing on Monday. By Tuesday after school, all the shots were cut and placed together. By Wednesday, special effects and color correction were added to the first half of the chase scene. I was there to help the editor out by looking at whether the cuts were smooth or not. Whenever necessary, I taught the editor about Final Cut Pro. I shouldn't have had to teach her about it because (not as a producer, but just as a film student generally) I could have easily given her a couple links to editing tutorials.
As a producer, I sometimes wondered why I was hanging around in the multimedia lab, as it was not my job but the director's to inject her vision into the chase scene by guiding the editor during the editing sessions. But as stated earlier, I had inadvertently assumed the role of the director, so it was logical for me to hang around in the lab. I shouldn't be doing this. Instead, I should give the director a chance to "redeem" her role by guiding the editor and the sound editor (that's me, by the way) throughout post-production. But it was hard to give her a chance, because Louise (director) and Ella (editor) were unavailable most of the time. Ultimately and inevitably, I pieced most of the footage together and edited them. Ella did come during the editing sessions, but usually towards the end of them. When she did, we went over what I did and she gave feedback and we worked together to improve on what I originally did to the footage.
Over the Easter holiday, I will be scrounging for free sound effects on the Internet, which really means that I will not be receiving any direction from the director. It's a shame really, because I always end up unwittingly "stealing" all the roles from my group members, and even when there is room for them to "redeem" themselves, I don't give them any. Perhaps I should be more passive. Perhaps I shouldn't even visit the editing room when the editor is unavailable so progress won't be made; because if it is, then I would be stealing roles from my peers. Wait, that didn't sound right.
I think the director shouldn't be too passive. But if she weren't, I am afraid that there would be a lot of disagreements between me and the director, as that was occasionally the case. During the one editing session in which the director, editor and producer were present (class time, of course), I would say something along the lines of "why didn't you say something earlier?", and the director would reply by saying something along the lines of "I didn't say it because my opinion is probably going to be rejected by you and your strong vision". This was problematic not in the sense that it was impeding our progress on the chase scene, but our progress on teamwork and communication. No one was "right" in this situation. I had cultivated a strong vision due to heavy involvement in the film and as a result, I came to be quite stubborn and unwilling to listen to people's opinions. On the other hand, the director processed things with a defeatist mindset, thus, the passive direction. Teamwork-wise, this was unhealthy. Our resulting chase scene may be testament to this observation, but in my opinion, we've been improving as a team. I was less stubborn during the last editing session before the holiday, which was a sign of change for good.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
4/1/09
After a hectic session of planning, we finally began to shoot today. I was happy (a debut incorporation of positive words in my blog posts!) that we were finally getting things done.
Before I get to positive things, there definitely were a couple of hiccups during pre-production. Planning was frustrating; quick changes to our ever-evolving plan were made. I couldn't find anyone to act as the masked figure in our film because I thought it would be easy to get a person to act in our film last minute. So Andy was cast to play as the masked figure. A safe choice as he is part of our group and would definitely be obliged to act in it. But it is not a good choice because Andy is the cinematographer and in small groups like this, cinematographers tend to assume the role of cameramen. So again, like in the previous project, I will be assuming the role of the cameraperson. But this time, Andy storyboarded ninety five percent of the film and I drew a neater version of it so I can follow his storyboard when I film. So in a way it's all good.
As a producer, I made a schedule and handed it to my group members (and Alec) this morning. We were to film today and on Saturday and Sunday. The schedule is bound to change because it has been extremely difficult to negotiate with Alec. His days are laden with activities like Big Band and tutor(s). Also, it is difficult to convince him to cancel tutor on Saturday because there is actually an upcoming math assessment next monday. Persuading him to revise for the math test by himself and pay attention during class instead of relying on a tutor did not work. Getting people who are not involved in film to act is not a good idea, because they won't be as committed. Besides, what kind of incentive will they have? Doing something for us but getting nothing in return? I guess altruism is hiding in a cave.
I dedicated two whole days on planning (that's five hours of sleep per day). I wanted things to be well planned so that filming will be quick. I wanted the storyboard to be comprehensible so I numbered the shots and did all sorts of things (like including a legend complete with color-codes). As a sound editor, I also thought of the incorporation of voiceovers (which I had written to complement the script) into certain shots. In those certain shots, I would either prolong or freeze the frames. As for looking for sound effects: I will do that once we're done with filming. Kudos to Andy anyway for storyboarding.
Making schedules and casting people like what producers should do? Check. Re-drawing the storyboard so I can easily follow it as a cameraperson? Check. My role as the sound editor? Check. Having all mentioned these, I'll move on to talk about the first day of shooting.
April fools' day. We originally planned to film in the Grimm's Tales set in the auditorium at lunch, as it was available at that time. But we were stuck in a two and a half hour performance of Hamlet. Lunchtime was over by the time we arrived school and we had to go straight to class. Quick change of plans: we'll be filming tomorrow at lunch. To keep things safer, I told Ella to ask Paul, the drama department technician, to give us permission to access the lighting room during filming in the auditorium. Hopefully, we'll be able to light up the set tomorrow so the shots will look nicer.
I was supposed to be the one asking Paul since I am the producer, but to him, I am an unfamiliar face. Ella is a familiar face to him so telling her to ask Paul for permission is the best option.
But it is a producer's responsibility to ask people for permission after all! It is his job to step into unfamiliar territory and put his persuasion skills into good use!
But getting Ella, who knows the technician, to ask for permission decreases the chances of declination. I wouldn't be a risk-taker and ask Paul myself and risk getting a "no" from him. After all, members of the faculty tend to have erratic mood swings!
But it is a producer's responsibility to ask people for permission after all! It is his job to step into unfamiliar territory and put his persuasion skills into good use!
And so it goes on...
Postponing filming in the auditorium until Thursday lunchtime, we filmed the scene in the art corridor and the scene in the long staircase near Pacific Palisades after school. With Alec promising me that he would be willing to sacrifice Big Band (a co-curricular activity) for helping our group out, the original plan was to film immediately after school. But when he went to the music room to tell Ms Neil about how he would be involved in a film project and would therefore skip a session of Big Band jamming, Ms Neil's response was "No, you're stuck in Big Band for another hour... then you can join your friends and work on your film project" (These aren't exact words but that's basically her message to Alec. And yes, I have taken the liberty to demonize teachers.). So I stayed at school for another hour doing homework. And then we filmed.
Filming took a lot longer than expected. We spent nearly fifteen minutes filming two shots in the art corridor. Two shots! This was mainly because Alec was not very well informed of what he should do in those shots. After filming and en route to Causeway Bay, I explained to him how actors should perform the same actions between different shots so that match on action cuts can be achieved in Final Cut Pro. After filming in the art corridor, we filmed in the staircase near Pacific Palisades. The location wasn't really a decent one because there weren't really any bushes for the actors to run into. But then we improvised and they went over a railing and ran down a slope with bushes. Albeit a little dangerous, we got that filmed.
More filming tomorrow.
Before I get to positive things, there definitely were a couple of hiccups during pre-production. Planning was frustrating; quick changes to our ever-evolving plan were made. I couldn't find anyone to act as the masked figure in our film because I thought it would be easy to get a person to act in our film last minute. So Andy was cast to play as the masked figure. A safe choice as he is part of our group and would definitely be obliged to act in it. But it is not a good choice because Andy is the cinematographer and in small groups like this, cinematographers tend to assume the role of cameramen. So again, like in the previous project, I will be assuming the role of the cameraperson. But this time, Andy storyboarded ninety five percent of the film and I drew a neater version of it so I can follow his storyboard when I film. So in a way it's all good.
As a producer, I made a schedule and handed it to my group members (and Alec) this morning. We were to film today and on Saturday and Sunday. The schedule is bound to change because it has been extremely difficult to negotiate with Alec. His days are laden with activities like Big Band and tutor(s). Also, it is difficult to convince him to cancel tutor on Saturday because there is actually an upcoming math assessment next monday. Persuading him to revise for the math test by himself and pay attention during class instead of relying on a tutor did not work. Getting people who are not involved in film to act is not a good idea, because they won't be as committed. Besides, what kind of incentive will they have? Doing something for us but getting nothing in return? I guess altruism is hiding in a cave.
I dedicated two whole days on planning (that's five hours of sleep per day). I wanted things to be well planned so that filming will be quick. I wanted the storyboard to be comprehensible so I numbered the shots and did all sorts of things (like including a legend complete with color-codes). As a sound editor, I also thought of the incorporation of voiceovers (which I had written to complement the script) into certain shots. In those certain shots, I would either prolong or freeze the frames. As for looking for sound effects: I will do that once we're done with filming. Kudos to Andy anyway for storyboarding.
Making schedules and casting people like what producers should do? Check. Re-drawing the storyboard so I can easily follow it as a cameraperson? Check. My role as the sound editor? Check. Having all mentioned these, I'll move on to talk about the first day of shooting.
April fools' day. We originally planned to film in the Grimm's Tales set in the auditorium at lunch, as it was available at that time. But we were stuck in a two and a half hour performance of Hamlet. Lunchtime was over by the time we arrived school and we had to go straight to class. Quick change of plans: we'll be filming tomorrow at lunch. To keep things safer, I told Ella to ask Paul, the drama department technician, to give us permission to access the lighting room during filming in the auditorium. Hopefully, we'll be able to light up the set tomorrow so the shots will look nicer.
I was supposed to be the one asking Paul since I am the producer, but to him, I am an unfamiliar face. Ella is a familiar face to him so telling her to ask Paul for permission is the best option.
But it is a producer's responsibility to ask people for permission after all! It is his job to step into unfamiliar territory and put his persuasion skills into good use!
But getting Ella, who knows the technician, to ask for permission decreases the chances of declination. I wouldn't be a risk-taker and ask Paul myself and risk getting a "no" from him. After all, members of the faculty tend to have erratic mood swings!
But it is a producer's responsibility to ask people for permission after all! It is his job to step into unfamiliar territory and put his persuasion skills into good use!
And so it goes on...
Postponing filming in the auditorium until Thursday lunchtime, we filmed the scene in the art corridor and the scene in the long staircase near Pacific Palisades after school. With Alec promising me that he would be willing to sacrifice Big Band (a co-curricular activity) for helping our group out, the original plan was to film immediately after school. But when he went to the music room to tell Ms Neil about how he would be involved in a film project and would therefore skip a session of Big Band jamming, Ms Neil's response was "No, you're stuck in Big Band for another hour... then you can join your friends and work on your film project" (These aren't exact words but that's basically her message to Alec. And yes, I have taken the liberty to demonize teachers.). So I stayed at school for another hour doing homework. And then we filmed.
Filming took a lot longer than expected. We spent nearly fifteen minutes filming two shots in the art corridor. Two shots! This was mainly because Alec was not very well informed of what he should do in those shots. After filming and en route to Causeway Bay, I explained to him how actors should perform the same actions between different shots so that match on action cuts can be achieved in Final Cut Pro. After filming in the art corridor, we filmed in the staircase near Pacific Palisades. The location wasn't really a decent one because there weren't really any bushes for the actors to run into. But then we improvised and they went over a railing and ran down a slope with bushes. Albeit a little dangerous, we got that filmed.
More filming tomorrow.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
3/26/09
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohesiveness - Group cohesiveness. This is what we as a group really need right now.
Going over the film-noirs on the twenty-fifth and noticing how well done The Broken Beautiful was, I learned that the crew who made the short film worked well together - everyone had a fair share of work and everyone did what they were directed to do.
Therefore, I jump to the conclusion that if group members were willing to learn (if they were inquirers - the first explicit IB Learner's Profile reference!), then they would not only gun down incompetence and laziness, they would also be eager to tap into their pool of freshly acquired knowledge to use it for the benefit of the film. Now imagine if everyone in the group were inquirers. The film would be greatly benefited because of each of the group member's effort. Having one guy who does everything in a project would simply not work because his imagination would be limited and the resulting film would be limited in variety and vision. Two(+) brains are better than one.
Going back to the first point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohesiveness - Group cohesiveness. This is what we as a group really need right now.
Group Cohesiveness: (also known as cohesion) is the force bringing group members closer together. Cohesiveness has two dimensions: emotional (or personal) and task-related. The emotional aspect of cohesiveness, which was studied more often, is derived from the connection that members feel to other group members and to their group as a whole. That is, how much do members like to spend time with other group members? Do they look forward to the next group meeting? Task-cohesiveness refers to the degree to which group members share group goals and work together to meet these goals. That is, is there a feeling that the group works smoothly as one unit or do different people pull in different directions?
Task-related group cohesiveness was clunky to start out with, as (mentioned in my previous post that was extremely rude) some group members failed to carry out group goals. But it is currently improving: we planned to visit the locations on the twenty-seventh so that the cinematographer can storyboard on location; and the script - a mash-up of Louise's, Andy's and my work - is nearly finalized (voice-overs are still needed and I'm currently working on it). It's not the best script, but we can work and build on it as we visit the locations.
There are things that are holding the task-related group cohesiveness back. Communication has increased between Louise, Andy and I and that is indeed a good thing; but because Ella never uses instant messaging, so it is difficult to communicate with her. Her role as an editor in a sense means that she will be mostly involved in the post-production and not the pre-production, but still, it would be better if a brain were added to the three brains. It would be better if she assisted the cinematographer (by thinking of portals and transitions and such) and did some Final Cut Pro research on her own so that I, as a producer and sound editor, won't have to assist her during post-production. Also, she is not available most of the time during both school hours and free time. So Louise, Andy and I will be scouting tomorrow and she won't be there. It is safe to say that, for now, she is contributing the least to the group.
I also need to stop hiding things away from the director. I have a vision of the chase scene and it is heavily influenced by Fight Club and The Machinist. I asked Alec to act in it because he is tall and lanky and fits the scruffy character type, just like Edward Nortan in Fight Club and Christian Bale in The Machinist (seriously, Google that and you'll see pictures of a malnourished, messed up Christian Bale). But I don't tell the director about these things because I automatically assume that she won't get what I mean because she hasn't seen those movies before. In fact, I keep things to myself because I assume that I am superior and nobody would get it and that is a very bad assumption to make because it hinders group cohesiveness. Okay, I'll say chances of the director having not seen those films are close to nil. But that doesn't mean that I keep things to myself and inrterrupt her during filming and say "this is what we should be doing because it is Fight Club influenced". I should explain to the director how the two flims are main influences and tell her to look them up on Youtube. Yeah, I think I will do that tomorrow.
End of post that was written after some serious introspection.
Going over the film-noirs on the twenty-fifth and noticing how well done The Broken Beautiful was, I learned that the crew who made the short film worked well together - everyone had a fair share of work and everyone did what they were directed to do.
Therefore, I jump to the conclusion that if group members were willing to learn (if they were inquirers - the first explicit IB Learner's Profile reference!), then they would not only gun down incompetence and laziness, they would also be eager to tap into their pool of freshly acquired knowledge to use it for the benefit of the film. Now imagine if everyone in the group were inquirers. The film would be greatly benefited because of each of the group member's effort. Having one guy who does everything in a project would simply not work because his imagination would be limited and the resulting film would be limited in variety and vision. Two(+) brains are better than one.
Going back to the first point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohesiveness - Group cohesiveness. This is what we as a group really need right now.
Group Cohesiveness: (also known as cohesion) is the force bringing group members closer together. Cohesiveness has two dimensions: emotional (or personal) and task-related. The emotional aspect of cohesiveness, which was studied more often, is derived from the connection that members feel to other group members and to their group as a whole. That is, how much do members like to spend time with other group members? Do they look forward to the next group meeting? Task-cohesiveness refers to the degree to which group members share group goals and work together to meet these goals. That is, is there a feeling that the group works smoothly as one unit or do different people pull in different directions?
Task-related group cohesiveness was clunky to start out with, as (mentioned in my previous post that was extremely rude) some group members failed to carry out group goals. But it is currently improving: we planned to visit the locations on the twenty-seventh so that the cinematographer can storyboard on location; and the script - a mash-up of Louise's, Andy's and my work - is nearly finalized (voice-overs are still needed and I'm currently working on it). It's not the best script, but we can work and build on it as we visit the locations.
There are things that are holding the task-related group cohesiveness back. Communication has increased between Louise, Andy and I and that is indeed a good thing; but because Ella never uses instant messaging, so it is difficult to communicate with her. Her role as an editor in a sense means that she will be mostly involved in the post-production and not the pre-production, but still, it would be better if a brain were added to the three brains. It would be better if she assisted the cinematographer (by thinking of portals and transitions and such) and did some Final Cut Pro research on her own so that I, as a producer and sound editor, won't have to assist her during post-production. Also, she is not available most of the time during both school hours and free time. So Louise, Andy and I will be scouting tomorrow and she won't be there. It is safe to say that, for now, she is contributing the least to the group.
I also need to stop hiding things away from the director. I have a vision of the chase scene and it is heavily influenced by Fight Club and The Machinist. I asked Alec to act in it because he is tall and lanky and fits the scruffy character type, just like Edward Nortan in Fight Club and Christian Bale in The Machinist (seriously, Google that and you'll see pictures of a malnourished, messed up Christian Bale). But I don't tell the director about these things because I automatically assume that she won't get what I mean because she hasn't seen those movies before. In fact, I keep things to myself because I assume that I am superior and nobody would get it and that is a very bad assumption to make because it hinders group cohesiveness. Okay, I'll say chances of the director having not seen those films are close to nil. But that doesn't mean that I keep things to myself and inrterrupt her during filming and say "this is what we should be doing because it is Fight Club influenced". I should explain to the director how the two flims are main influences and tell her to look them up on Youtube. Yeah, I think I will do that tomorrow.
End of post that was written after some serious introspection.
Monday, March 23, 2009
3/23/09
*Approximately four hours after posting this blog, I'm starting to regret the way I wrote about my group members. I was being insensitive and rude and I hope to eventually adopt a new, optimistic attitude. Yes, I was reading over the post and I thought, "Gee, I must be be really fed up four hours ago." Anyway, here is the fed up me writing about today's lesson:
For the Twilight Zone project, I am the sound editor and the producer. As a producer, I told other group members to scout for loccations over the "long weekend" (as we did not have school on friday). I scouted for locations with the cinematographer on the twentieth of March. I convinced Alec Laband to act in our film as the protagonist. I fulfilled my role as a producer. As for sound - I found a song under the Creative Commons license, which means that I can use it for our film. And it is not one of those freeplaymusic songs nor one of those mediocre Garageband loops. I can do more as a sound editor when I receive a proper screenplay from the director.
An excerpt from the 3/11/09 blog post:
How was I to know if one would really work hard if I were to allow one to do what he was supposed to do?
- If I did allow one to do what he was supposed to do and the person were lazy, then he would end up doing nothing and I would have to swoop down and do everything for the person last minute.
Unfortunately, what I stated on the eleventh is increasingly becoming the case for our current project. The director sent me a draft of the screenplay the day before class. I went through two pages of "Who am I? What am I doing here? Why am I being chased? What is happening?"; I shook my head upon completing the read. The head shaking did not cease: there were no references to the characters' actions and locations (or even at least a vague idea of the setting of the scene). Worried, I wrote and saved a document named "actionscript", listing an order of events that occur in the film in different scenes, ideas for portals, actions and locations to compensate for the lack of them in the screenplay. Locations for each scene were not confirmed, so I planned to bring my "actionscript" into class. This way, I could go to class, open the "actionscript" and fill in the blanks with locations which Andy and I had scouted and get the editor and director to fill in the rest of the blanks.
And get the editor and director to fill in the rest of the blanks with locations they that had scouted. Yeah.. well, they didn't scout for locations over the long weekend. The editor could be excused as she had to perform in the school production (but still). The director? Thanks for the screenplay.. but, er, maybe there's a little something missing in the screenplay? Maybe, maybe it's lacking in descriptions and locations? Maybe the dialogue is near-awful and should be refined and honed to the point that people don't actually laugh at it?
Due to the lack of faith I hold for the director, I will be completing the "actionscript" and think about voiceovers and such for the lesson on Wednesday. I'll probably pen the whole thing (isn't that what producers are supposed to do? According to Wikipedia, the principal writer is almost always credited as an executive producer rather than the more descriptive title of "head writer."). I better swoop down now before realizing it is too late to do so.
*I'm trying to be not as bitter/jaded as before, but I am utterly disappointed at the lack of effort (or is it incompetence?) that the director had put into writing her script. I also have a phlegm-infested sore throat, stuffy nose, and a mild fever, which results in a sour mood and the usual misanthropic attitude towards people. Had I stayed at home and rested to get better, the group would be sitting around in class without an "actionscript" to work on. Hopefully, this will be the last bitter/jaded blog post.
For the Twilight Zone project, I am the sound editor and the producer. As a producer, I told other group members to scout for loccations over the "long weekend" (as we did not have school on friday). I scouted for locations with the cinematographer on the twentieth of March. I convinced Alec Laband to act in our film as the protagonist. I fulfilled my role as a producer. As for sound - I found a song under the Creative Commons license, which means that I can use it for our film. And it is not one of those freeplaymusic songs nor one of those mediocre Garageband loops. I can do more as a sound editor when I receive a proper screenplay from the director.
An excerpt from the 3/11/09 blog post:
How was I to know if one would really work hard if I were to allow one to do what he was supposed to do?
- If I did allow one to do what he was supposed to do and the person were lazy, then he would end up doing nothing and I would have to swoop down and do everything for the person last minute.
Unfortunately, what I stated on the eleventh is increasingly becoming the case for our current project. The director sent me a draft of the screenplay the day before class. I went through two pages of "Who am I? What am I doing here? Why am I being chased? What is happening?"; I shook my head upon completing the read. The head shaking did not cease: there were no references to the characters' actions and locations (or even at least a vague idea of the setting of the scene). Worried, I wrote and saved a document named "actionscript", listing an order of events that occur in the film in different scenes, ideas for portals, actions and locations to compensate for the lack of them in the screenplay. Locations for each scene were not confirmed, so I planned to bring my "actionscript" into class. This way, I could go to class, open the "actionscript" and fill in the blanks with locations which Andy and I had scouted and get the editor and director to fill in the rest of the blanks.
And get the editor and director to fill in the rest of the blanks with locations they that had scouted. Yeah.. well, they didn't scout for locations over the long weekend. The editor could be excused as she had to perform in the school production (but still). The director? Thanks for the screenplay.. but, er, maybe there's a little something missing in the screenplay? Maybe, maybe it's lacking in descriptions and locations? Maybe the dialogue is near-awful and should be refined and honed to the point that people don't actually laugh at it?
Due to the lack of faith I hold for the director, I will be completing the "actionscript" and think about voiceovers and such for the lesson on Wednesday. I'll probably pen the whole thing (isn't that what producers are supposed to do? According to Wikipedia, the principal writer is almost always credited as an executive producer rather than the more descriptive title of "head writer."). I better swoop down now before realizing it is too late to do so.
*I'm trying to be not as bitter/jaded as before, but I am utterly disappointed at the lack of effort (or is it incompetence?) that the director had put into writing her script. I also have a phlegm-infested sore throat, stuffy nose, and a mild fever, which results in a sour mood and the usual misanthropic attitude towards people. Had I stayed at home and rested to get better, the group would be sitting around in class without an "actionscript" to work on. Hopefully, this will be the last bitter/jaded blog post.
Monday, March 16, 2009
3/16/09
Okay, so I got over the fact that we were put into groups pick-from-the-hat style. I am sure that I am able to work with my new team members, although we did experience a double period worth of awkwardness. Both Louise and Andy are in my science and PE class, and Andy is a friend of mine - not so bad after all. Ella, on the other hand, used to be my friend. I found it extremely awkward to be in the same group with her today. Worse thing's that I will have to be present for every editing session to educate her about Final Cut Pro in the almost immediate future. Three words: worst case scenario.
I wasn't too happy when I was assigned the role of sound editor (and producer). But to hell with that, I will contribute to the group in every way, despite starting off awkwardly and unproductively. I'm going to present a bunch of ideas on Wednesday for Louise - the screenwriter-director - and hopefully, elements of my screenplay will be incorporated into hers. I will also assume an "alpha position" if anyone were unable to carry out their jobs. Cynically speaking, this means that I will be stealing their roles. But I'll do what's necessary to keep everything in check.
Right now, ideas are forming: I have several ideas - dolly zooms, reverse shots, fast forwarded shots, freeze frames and "B-footage". As for editing, I'm trying to think of the weirdest ways to string the clips together (this "weird thing" also applies to the cinematography). As of now, this is a major inspiration (film's called Brick; I want to watch it):
Take a look at 0:35 to 0:40. The shot is innovative and the effect impressive. This is of course heightened by the editing: a cut from a long shot (involving a fast forwarded dolly zoom) to a medium shot.
Another one of the inspirations is the opening sequence of City of God. As shown from 4:08 to 4:15, the protagonist is smoothly and cleverly transited to the past:
And another one of the inspirations, which is the opening scene of Narc, depicting an intense foot chase:
Everything - the sound, the cinematography, the editing - makes the scene extraordinarily well done.
I showed these videos to my group for them to be inspired. A job as a producer is more important for the moment. Sound editing can wait.
I wasn't too happy when I was assigned the role of sound editor (and producer). But to hell with that, I will contribute to the group in every way, despite starting off awkwardly and unproductively. I'm going to present a bunch of ideas on Wednesday for Louise - the screenwriter-director - and hopefully, elements of my screenplay will be incorporated into hers. I will also assume an "alpha position" if anyone were unable to carry out their jobs. Cynically speaking, this means that I will be stealing their roles. But I'll do what's necessary to keep everything in check.
Right now, ideas are forming: I have several ideas - dolly zooms, reverse shots, fast forwarded shots, freeze frames and "B-footage". As for editing, I'm trying to think of the weirdest ways to string the clips together (this "weird thing" also applies to the cinematography). As of now, this is a major inspiration (film's called Brick; I want to watch it):
Take a look at 0:35 to 0:40. The shot is innovative and the effect impressive. This is of course heightened by the editing: a cut from a long shot (involving a fast forwarded dolly zoom) to a medium shot.
Another one of the inspirations is the opening sequence of City of God. As shown from 4:08 to 4:15, the protagonist is smoothly and cleverly transited to the past:
And another one of the inspirations, which is the opening scene of Narc, depicting an intense foot chase:
Everything - the sound, the cinematography, the editing - makes the scene extraordinarily well done.
I showed these videos to my group for them to be inspired. A job as a producer is more important for the moment. Sound editing can wait.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
3/11/09
I created the poster (pictured on the left) for the screening. Raphael was supposed to create one, but he didn't know how to use Photoshop. I don't know why we were asked to make one (it's probably for the film screening where everyone can watch the film class' films). Ours was not shown to the class during the screening (even if it were shown, as others were, the poster would be of no significance). But I created one anyway.The other groups' films were okay. I particularly liked the editing in Adrian Wan's' film and the classical noir style that Henry's Moulin Rogue-inspired film managed to evoke. But I was disappointed because there were shifts in background noise in between cuts for every one of the films. But sound effects were present in all of the films. This meant sound editors thought all they had to do was to search for sound effects and provide the editors with them. They possibly did not think of using Final Cut Pro to edit the dialogue. Because of this, editors would end up editing the audio of the dialogue, or just ignore the audio altogether and only work on the cutting. I think this problem should be addressed.
I wasn't fond or impressed by the film I directed. Sinclair, who played Cop 38, said the pace was too slow. I asked him whether he didn't like slow pacing in general or if the film was inappropriately slow. He replied the latter. Feedback on the 16th. I'll find out what's wrong with the film.
Throughout the process of filming and editing, I constantly wondered if I was doing a good job of directing. I planned a lot of things and I constantly reminded my group members to execute what they were supposed to do. But I was always the one working on every aspect of the film at the end. I was really disappointed; I didn't know if I was doing a bad job or not. It was either bad director or lazy people or a bit of both. If I fell under the bad director category, then really I don't know what I did wrong. Incompetence was also a factor. I wish I could teach everyone about sound, graphic, and visual editing. But I couldn't be everywhere at the same time. So I had to do what other people were supposed to do. Stating this leads to a question: How was I to know if one would really work hard if I were to allow one to do what he was supposed to do?
- If I did allow one to do what he was supposed to do and the person were lazy, then he would end up doing nothing and I would have to swoop down and do everything for the person last minute.
- If I did allow one to do what he was supposed to do and the person were incompetent, then I would teach him/her until he/she is competent enough. I would then help out at times. But I didn't end up teaching everyone everything.
While I taught Hannah about editing in Final Cut Pro, I wasn't able to teach Raphael about sound-editing. I knew that he was incompetent and lazy (being brutally frank does not make me feel good in anyway), so I started working on the sounds at the start of the production. And I got what I deserved: I got criticized because I stole his role. But if I don't...refer to my first bullet point. I could have given him a chance, but I was minimizing the risks of working last minute. I regret it, but it's for the greater good. Throughout this project, I found it hard to completely trust people, as most of them didn't carry out what I told them to do. (In an attempt to rationalize things,) This does not necessarily mean that I was a bad director. I planned things, I taught people, I told people to do what they were supposed to do. But it really depends on whether they listen and cooperate or not.
Until people finally agree to work hard, until people realize that effort and teamwork are the most important factors, I am not excited for the upcoming projects. I am left bitter and perhaps a little misanthropic. Uh-oh, a film-noir character is in the making.
Filming and editing: 2/23/09 - 3/10/09
On the 23rd of February, we completed the scene set in Julien's apartment. On the 24th, we tried filming the conversation between Sinclair and Julien on the rooftop, but it took too long so we went to Cyberport cul de sac to film the scene where Sinclair, playing as cop 38, is shot by the Button Man. On the 3rd of March, we completed the rooftop conversation between Sinclair and Julien, and then we re-filmed the tracking shot where Sinclair and Julien head towards the Button Man's whereabouts. On the 4th, we shot the last scene of the film, the scene in which Julien meets the Button Man (played by Chris). Between the 5th and 10th, the film was edited.
We filmed on weekdays. There wasn't an option to film on the weekends because Julien, the main character and cinematographer of the film, went to Japan from the 27th of February to the 2nd of March - shooting opportunities for Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday gone. It was irritating shooting on weekdays, as it took a long time and it usually ended at midnight. Going home took another hour. I didn't particularly enjoy my birthday on the twenty-fourth; I attended school and did homework in Julien's apartment and filmed for hours and got home and slept at half-past one. Shooting the film took a long time because everything wasn't particularly well planned.
Time wasn't wasted shooting the interior scene, the first scene set in Julien's apartment. There was just a couple of close-ups and dollying to be shot. It was almost dialogue-free. Time wasn't wasted when shooting the almost dialogue-free scene. Time was wasted in all of the subsequent dialogue-heavy scenes. No one memorized their lines and shots were not planned. I can't really blame the actors for this, as they are anything but full-time professional actors. They, like me, are students who agreed to star in a film. This I respect. They, like me, have lots of work. They probably don't have the time to look at the screenplay and memorize their lines. This I forgive.
But still, it greatly annoyed me. Imagine planning to film the whole rooftop scene on my birthday, but ending up with more than thirty takes of actors forgetting their lines on tape. And also in between the mess-ups were the trivial conversations and phone calls. I, as the cameraman, had to also think on the spot and improvise a little, as there was no storyboard to follow. All that thinking and improvisation were eventually shoved away - I didn't even have to film from different angles of the same scene because the thirty takes of mess-ups were spent on the establishing shot. Having wasted so much time on the rooftop, we planned to shoot that scene at another time. We went to the Cyberport cul de sac to shoot the third scene, as there were less lines for the actors to memorize. As it was getting late, I improvised shot the first-half of the third scene in a single tracking shot because I didn't want to spend too much time on it. The second-half of the scene didn't take a long time. I had planned shots in my mind, while Julien, the cinematographer, also gave me a couple of suggestions which I followed. I had to deal with the grumbling when gravy with red coloring was applied onto Sinclair's forehead. I was accused of not telling the actor about it, but I actually did. He just forgot about it. As a director, I accepted the flak that was directed solely at me. Anyway, good job Hannah for making the fake blood. (Filming was done. Exhausted, I went to the MTR station to get a ticket as I left my wallet and Octopus card at school. I bought the child ticket to Admiralty. Bad karma; I wasn't supposed to buy a child ticket - change fell from the ticket vendor onto the floor and disappeared. Wrong decision; I was supposed to head to Tsim Sha Tsui to be picked up by my parent, but I bought a ticket to Admiralty. I had to crawl through the ticket barrier at the Tsim Sha Tsui station. It was my birthday.)
When Julien got back from Japan, we re-shot the scene on the rooftop. They memorized their lines this time and I okayed Sinclair's suggestion improve upon the blocking, which he had planned in mind prior to filming. There was still no storyboard to follow, so I really had to improvise. With Chris and Raphael setting up the lighting the same way as last time's, the whole scene was shot from different angles. It turned out sophisticated blocking does not work well for films but only in plays, as we found out later on during editing. As a result, the cinematography of that scene isn't particularly strong when compared to the cinematography of the last scene, the confrontation between the Button Man (Chris) and Cop 22 (Julien). After filming the scene on the rooftop, we went down to the cul de sac to film the tracking shot again, because the shadows of the boom operator and the cameraman could be seen in the tracking shot that we first shot on the twenty-fourth. It was actually my decision to film it again because I am a harsh critic of inadvertent shadows. They ruin the professionalism of a film.
Fourth of March. There was still no storyboard to follow, as the cinematographer, back from Japan, was busy catching up with homework. Taking note of the rooftop scene's mediocre cinematography due to a lack of planning and complicated blocking, I storyboarded the last scene. I wanted it to be interesting, so I included shots which broke the fourth wall. Also, I included shots in which the camera panned back and forth between the two actors, which would heighten the tension of the scene. Filming was smooth compared to previous shooting days given that the blocking was less complicated, but was again hindered by actors who did not have their lines memorized...ended up sleeping at one again.
I supervised the editor, Hannah, when editing the film. I taught her about editing during this process and did some editing myself. I knew I was not supposed to edit and was supposed to only supervise and teach the editor; but the deadline was near and precious time could be wasted on teaching an incompetent editor, so I had to take up the role of the editor at times to complete the film in time for the screening. (This also means that I'll have to supervise and educate editors in future projects, even though I won't be a director anymore, as we switch roles. Something that I'm obliged to do, but am not particularly looking forward to.) Cutting the clips did not take a long time; we would find a point to cut (usually a match on action), select the next shot and mark the in and out points so that two shots go smoothly back to back. When inserted, we would adjust it so that the continuity was smooth. After cutting, I created the closing credits and also the color correcting and contrast increasing. I felt extremely narcissistic when creating the closing credits, as my name was almost in every single slide. I shouldn't have done that. People would smile and shake their heads at it. Well, they did during the screening.
I brought in some sound effects which I found on websites that offer free sound clips. Raphael recorded Julien's opening narration and mobile phone sound effects. Tampering with the sound effects was not necessary, as they were already well done. But I had to create two ambient tracks - one for interior scenes and one for exterior scenes by tampering with various sounds and compiling them together in the free program Audacity. Going over the film in Final Cut Pro, I noticed the background noise in scenes with conversations was different between cuts. This was very distracting (and disorienting: when checking for continuity errors, we would mute the sound); it was also unsurprising to me because the shotgun mike would pick up background noise which would be different because noise varies in between shots as footage was shot at different times. For example, we may cut from a shot with airplane droning in the background to a shot with wind blowing in the background. Because of this, I exported the audio of the last scene and went home to edit the sound using Audacity. I made sure the dialogue audio levels stayed the same as the shotgun mike's distance from the actors varied in different shots. I minimized the background noises and added in an exterior ambient track to run in the background so that the overall audio would sound seamless in between cuts to different shots. This worked out well at the end.
We filmed on weekdays. There wasn't an option to film on the weekends because Julien, the main character and cinematographer of the film, went to Japan from the 27th of February to the 2nd of March - shooting opportunities for Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday gone. It was irritating shooting on weekdays, as it took a long time and it usually ended at midnight. Going home took another hour. I didn't particularly enjoy my birthday on the twenty-fourth; I attended school and did homework in Julien's apartment and filmed for hours and got home and slept at half-past one. Shooting the film took a long time because everything wasn't particularly well planned.
Time wasn't wasted shooting the interior scene, the first scene set in Julien's apartment. There was just a couple of close-ups and dollying to be shot. It was almost dialogue-free. Time wasn't wasted when shooting the almost dialogue-free scene. Time was wasted in all of the subsequent dialogue-heavy scenes. No one memorized their lines and shots were not planned. I can't really blame the actors for this, as they are anything but full-time professional actors. They, like me, are students who agreed to star in a film. This I respect. They, like me, have lots of work. They probably don't have the time to look at the screenplay and memorize their lines. This I forgive.
But still, it greatly annoyed me. Imagine planning to film the whole rooftop scene on my birthday, but ending up with more than thirty takes of actors forgetting their lines on tape. And also in between the mess-ups were the trivial conversations and phone calls. I, as the cameraman, had to also think on the spot and improvise a little, as there was no storyboard to follow. All that thinking and improvisation were eventually shoved away - I didn't even have to film from different angles of the same scene because the thirty takes of mess-ups were spent on the establishing shot. Having wasted so much time on the rooftop, we planned to shoot that scene at another time. We went to the Cyberport cul de sac to shoot the third scene, as there were less lines for the actors to memorize. As it was getting late, I improvised shot the first-half of the third scene in a single tracking shot because I didn't want to spend too much time on it. The second-half of the scene didn't take a long time. I had planned shots in my mind, while Julien, the cinematographer, also gave me a couple of suggestions which I followed. I had to deal with the grumbling when gravy with red coloring was applied onto Sinclair's forehead. I was accused of not telling the actor about it, but I actually did. He just forgot about it. As a director, I accepted the flak that was directed solely at me. Anyway, good job Hannah for making the fake blood. (Filming was done. Exhausted, I went to the MTR station to get a ticket as I left my wallet and Octopus card at school. I bought the child ticket to Admiralty. Bad karma; I wasn't supposed to buy a child ticket - change fell from the ticket vendor onto the floor and disappeared. Wrong decision; I was supposed to head to Tsim Sha Tsui to be picked up by my parent, but I bought a ticket to Admiralty. I had to crawl through the ticket barrier at the Tsim Sha Tsui station. It was my birthday.)
When Julien got back from Japan, we re-shot the scene on the rooftop. They memorized their lines this time and I okayed Sinclair's suggestion improve upon the blocking, which he had planned in mind prior to filming. There was still no storyboard to follow, so I really had to improvise. With Chris and Raphael setting up the lighting the same way as last time's, the whole scene was shot from different angles. It turned out sophisticated blocking does not work well for films but only in plays, as we found out later on during editing. As a result, the cinematography of that scene isn't particularly strong when compared to the cinematography of the last scene, the confrontation between the Button Man (Chris) and Cop 22 (Julien). After filming the scene on the rooftop, we went down to the cul de sac to film the tracking shot again, because the shadows of the boom operator and the cameraman could be seen in the tracking shot that we first shot on the twenty-fourth. It was actually my decision to film it again because I am a harsh critic of inadvertent shadows. They ruin the professionalism of a film.
Fourth of March. There was still no storyboard to follow, as the cinematographer, back from Japan, was busy catching up with homework. Taking note of the rooftop scene's mediocre cinematography due to a lack of planning and complicated blocking, I storyboarded the last scene. I wanted it to be interesting, so I included shots which broke the fourth wall. Also, I included shots in which the camera panned back and forth between the two actors, which would heighten the tension of the scene. Filming was smooth compared to previous shooting days given that the blocking was less complicated, but was again hindered by actors who did not have their lines memorized...ended up sleeping at one again.
I supervised the editor, Hannah, when editing the film. I taught her about editing during this process and did some editing myself. I knew I was not supposed to edit and was supposed to only supervise and teach the editor; but the deadline was near and precious time could be wasted on teaching an incompetent editor, so I had to take up the role of the editor at times to complete the film in time for the screening. (This also means that I'll have to supervise and educate editors in future projects, even though I won't be a director anymore, as we switch roles. Something that I'm obliged to do, but am not particularly looking forward to.) Cutting the clips did not take a long time; we would find a point to cut (usually a match on action), select the next shot and mark the in and out points so that two shots go smoothly back to back. When inserted, we would adjust it so that the continuity was smooth. After cutting, I created the closing credits and also the color correcting and contrast increasing. I felt extremely narcissistic when creating the closing credits, as my name was almost in every single slide. I shouldn't have done that. People would smile and shake their heads at it. Well, they did during the screening.
I brought in some sound effects which I found on websites that offer free sound clips. Raphael recorded Julien's opening narration and mobile phone sound effects. Tampering with the sound effects was not necessary, as they were already well done. But I had to create two ambient tracks - one for interior scenes and one for exterior scenes by tampering with various sounds and compiling them together in the free program Audacity. Going over the film in Final Cut Pro, I noticed the background noise in scenes with conversations was different between cuts. This was very distracting (and disorienting: when checking for continuity errors, we would mute the sound); it was also unsurprising to me because the shotgun mike would pick up background noise which would be different because noise varies in between shots as footage was shot at different times. For example, we may cut from a shot with airplane droning in the background to a shot with wind blowing in the background. Because of this, I exported the audio of the last scene and went home to edit the sound using Audacity. I made sure the dialogue audio levels stayed the same as the shotgun mike's distance from the actors varied in different shots. I minimized the background noises and added in an exterior ambient track to run in the background so that the overall audio would sound seamless in between cuts to different shots. This worked out well at the end.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
2/18/09
We spent the bulk of the lesson strengthening the script. Julien did almost all of the dialogue editing, as he was the most proficient at English. I also felt the need to let someone edit my screenplay, because I loathe screenwriting (but I love to come up with plots) and am not really good at coming up with strong dialogue - I unhealthily enjoy making the dialogue repetitive, and this is, in a way, really patronizing to the audience. I also tend to make lines unnecessarily long in hopes of lengthening the script (it's a very, very bad habit).
In my previous post, I said "I also intend to have the group work together at all times, as opposed to individuals working at home without really communicating with other members." After this lesson, it's been proved that the statement is useless (I can't think of a euphemism for "useless"). We as a group should have finished reading the screenplay and then conduct research on different aspects - cinematography, lighting, sound, editing and so on. But the lesson had turned into a screenplay-editing session. I didn't really mind, because I was eager to realize my weak points in screenwriting by having someone else edit my script. Next time, I would assign Julien to edit and improve upon my screenplay for homework. He could conduct research on cinematography during the lesson, so I could supervise him and give him advice when it is time to draw a storyboard.
But at least we had the screenplay honed. Towards the end of the lesson, I assigned homework for each one of my team members. This did not mean that I would be sitting at home doing nothing. I would assist them in every way possible by providing them with links on, for example, sound editing, lighting, cinematography, and so on.
There also wouldn't be any casting problems - I've already casted Alec and Sinclair. I've told them to start memorizing their lines, as we will be filming as soon as possible. Julien would also be an actor, as there are three characters in our film (it doesn't mean that he has to be the camera person just because he is the cinematographer; i think that cinematographers automatically assume the role of the cameraman in school projects, because there are not a lot of people involved in the film. Therefore, I'm assuming that a lot of people misconceive the word "cinematographer" as being synonymous with "cameraman").
As for sound, I sent Raphael several Dystopian sound samples that I mixed using Audacity, a free software. I then emailed him the script and told him to make a list of sounds needed for our film. I also told him to investigate different types of mikes and how to minimize ambience pick-up.
For lighting, I gave Chris several links on low budget lighting. I also introduced him to "gobo"s - "a template or pattern cut into a circular plate used to create patterns of projected light." Thanks for the quote, Wikipedia. Gobos are used to texture the walls of an interior location, to make the environment look more interesting. I told him to conduct further research on lighting, especially the ways of lighting up exterior locations.
Julien wanted to further polish the script, so I sent him the screenplay. I also told him to storyboard the first scene for homework. He would show it to me on Thursday, so that I could have a look at it and make necessary adjustments. As he is a photographer, I didn't tell him to research cinematography. After all, photography and cinematography is very similar (not so similar, but similar enough).
As for Hannah the editor, I did not really know what she could do before production. I will, in the immediate future, tell her to look up editing techniques and Final Cut Pro tips. I will also tell her to think about the costumes that characters would wear in a Dystopian environment, and ask her read about fake blood-making.
We have planned to shoot the first scene of the script on Friday. The dialogue-less scene stars Julien and is set in his apartment. I have chosen that location because his apartment has a post-modern feel that satisfies the Dystopian look. We'll be filming subsequent scenes possibly during the weekend at the Cyberport waterfront, which is nearby.
In my previous post, I said "I also intend to have the group work together at all times, as opposed to individuals working at home without really communicating with other members." After this lesson, it's been proved that the statement is useless (I can't think of a euphemism for "useless"). We as a group should have finished reading the screenplay and then conduct research on different aspects - cinematography, lighting, sound, editing and so on. But the lesson had turned into a screenplay-editing session. I didn't really mind, because I was eager to realize my weak points in screenwriting by having someone else edit my script. Next time, I would assign Julien to edit and improve upon my screenplay for homework. He could conduct research on cinematography during the lesson, so I could supervise him and give him advice when it is time to draw a storyboard.
But at least we had the screenplay honed. Towards the end of the lesson, I assigned homework for each one of my team members. This did not mean that I would be sitting at home doing nothing. I would assist them in every way possible by providing them with links on, for example, sound editing, lighting, cinematography, and so on.
There also wouldn't be any casting problems - I've already casted Alec and Sinclair. I've told them to start memorizing their lines, as we will be filming as soon as possible. Julien would also be an actor, as there are three characters in our film (it doesn't mean that he has to be the camera person just because he is the cinematographer; i think that cinematographers automatically assume the role of the cameraman in school projects, because there are not a lot of people involved in the film. Therefore, I'm assuming that a lot of people misconceive the word "cinematographer" as being synonymous with "cameraman").
As for sound, I sent Raphael several Dystopian sound samples that I mixed using Audacity, a free software. I then emailed him the script and told him to make a list of sounds needed for our film. I also told him to investigate different types of mikes and how to minimize ambience pick-up.
For lighting, I gave Chris several links on low budget lighting. I also introduced him to "gobo"s - "a template or pattern cut into a circular plate used to create patterns of projected light." Thanks for the quote, Wikipedia. Gobos are used to texture the walls of an interior location, to make the environment look more interesting. I told him to conduct further research on lighting, especially the ways of lighting up exterior locations.
Julien wanted to further polish the script, so I sent him the screenplay. I also told him to storyboard the first scene for homework. He would show it to me on Thursday, so that I could have a look at it and make necessary adjustments. As he is a photographer, I didn't tell him to research cinematography. After all, photography and cinematography is very similar (not so similar, but similar enough).
As for Hannah the editor, I did not really know what she could do before production. I will, in the immediate future, tell her to look up editing techniques and Final Cut Pro tips. I will also tell her to think about the costumes that characters would wear in a Dystopian environment, and ask her read about fake blood-making.
We have planned to shoot the first scene of the script on Friday. The dialogue-less scene stars Julien and is set in his apartment. I have chosen that location because his apartment has a post-modern feel that satisfies the Dystopian look. We'll be filming subsequent scenes possibly during the weekend at the Cyberport waterfront, which is nearby.
Monday, February 16, 2009
2/16/09
I thought our homework on continuity editing would be shown one by one to the class, but it seemed that I was wrong. Instead, we were introduced to film-noir today following an activity which jogged our memory of various editing techniques. I was quite familiar with the characteristics of film-noir, but I haven't seen old film-noirs before, such as Double Indemnity. My favorite neo-noir at the moment is Roman Polanski's Chinatown, a film set in 1930's Los Angeles. Heat was also one of my favorite movies (as seen in my profile). As for Hong Kong movies, my favorite crime drama films are Johnnie To's Election and Triad Election (which is basically Election 2). I have yet watch Infernal Affairs for the second time; I don't really remember much about it apart from the plot.
As we were introduced to film-noir, we formed groups for the Critereon B assignment in which we have to create a film-noir film. I took up the role of director/screenwriter, Julien was in charge of cinematography, Chris lighting, Hannah editing, and Raphael sound.
As a director, I will have to supervise everyone in my group. This means teaching people what I know and directing them to conduct research in specific areas. Since I've never had any experience on lighting, I will conduct research on lighting first, and then give Chris (who's in charge of lighting) links which are useful for him in understanding lighting. Of course, Chris does not simply wait for me to give him links, I also told him to undergo research by himself to attain knowledge.
Communication is the most important element when it comes to working in a group. I intend to give everyone equal say in deciding things, and I also intend to have the group work together at all times, as opposed to individuals working at home without really communicating with other members. I have chosen to become a director because I know that I'm more experienced in film-making, so it is my job to supervise and educate people, while learning more about aspects that I'm not familiar with myself.
However, there is a fine line to walk on, and that line separates supervision and actually controlling every aspect of the film. I have made the mistake of controlling every aspect of film-making last year and I have to say that it was not a pleasant experience to boss people around. So this time, I will help people and at the same time and adjust what they have in mind if necessary for improvements.
As we were introduced to film-noir, we formed groups for the Critereon B assignment in which we have to create a film-noir film. I took up the role of director/screenwriter, Julien was in charge of cinematography, Chris lighting, Hannah editing, and Raphael sound.
As a director, I will have to supervise everyone in my group. This means teaching people what I know and directing them to conduct research in specific areas. Since I've never had any experience on lighting, I will conduct research on lighting first, and then give Chris (who's in charge of lighting) links which are useful for him in understanding lighting. Of course, Chris does not simply wait for me to give him links, I also told him to undergo research by himself to attain knowledge.
Communication is the most important element when it comes to working in a group. I intend to give everyone equal say in deciding things, and I also intend to have the group work together at all times, as opposed to individuals working at home without really communicating with other members. I have chosen to become a director because I know that I'm more experienced in film-making, so it is my job to supervise and educate people, while learning more about aspects that I'm not familiar with myself.
However, there is a fine line to walk on, and that line separates supervision and actually controlling every aspect of the film. I have made the mistake of controlling every aspect of film-making last year and I have to say that it was not a pleasant experience to boss people around. So this time, I will help people and at the same time and adjust what they have in mind if necessary for improvements.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
2/11/09
I learned a lot about editing today, especially the terminology that described various editing techniques, which I couldn't really describe using words in the past. It was more of an intuitive thing that I picked up over time, so during the lesson I had difficulty trying to explain the "action cut" when I tried to.
In the remaining forty-five minutes of the lesson, we had to engage in an editing exercise, but as there were no raw footage for us to edit, we had to film a scene ourselves. I was aware that a cinematographer has to follow shooting guidelines/rules carefully, or else the editor would have trouble making the footage flow seamlessly because he would have to go through lots of errors that the cinematographer had made. Solutions for this?
Here were some solutions that I thought of:
- the editor would have to keep in touch with the cinematographer and communicate frequently;
- the cinematographer has to know what he is doing, and must take into consideration that the editor's reputation would be tarnished if he makes too many mistakes that can't be erased during post-production;
- a person takes up the role of both the cinematographer and editor
Put short, an editor is almost entirely dependent on the footage that the cinematographer provides him.
Filming the scene and setting up the shots did not take long. The most important aspect of this exercise was the actors' actions and line delivery. As I had taken up the role of the cinematographer and the editor, I had to carefully instruct them to take up the same positions and deliver their lines in the same fashion between different shots from different angles (a director's responsibility?). This was to ensure that the scene would actually flow, even when I cut between shots.
After a couple of importing problems (I forgot about the correct FCP settings), we finally managed to assemble a rough cut after deciding where to make a cut with other team members (Julien and Camille) and fiddling around to get the best action cuts out of the shots we had. I was glad that there were no continuity errors by the end of the assembly, but I was worried about the audio that we would have to get right before the next lesson. The shotgun mike picked up a lot of ambient noises and the audio levels between different shots differed. I plan to take the audio from one shot and apply it to every shot in the cut; with some minor tweaking (by making the audio levels stay consistent) and audio smoothing (by applying cross-fade transitions between audio tracks), I will hopefully achieve decent, consistent audio throughout the scene.
The teacher gave us feedback and thought that we should attempt to place more cuts into the scene. But I felt that the number of different shots in the rough cut was enough - it was functional and effectively portrayed the mood of the scene. The emotions involved in the scene weren't particularly extreme or turbulent, so I felt that cutting down the number of cuts would keep the scene from getting too rhythmic. For lack of a better way to put it, I feel that getting too rhythmic would make one feel like they're watching a TV series complete with formulaic cuts. Of course, quick cuts could be utilized, but only when it parallels a character's state of mind, or in situations like chases.
In the remaining forty-five minutes of the lesson, we had to engage in an editing exercise, but as there were no raw footage for us to edit, we had to film a scene ourselves. I was aware that a cinematographer has to follow shooting guidelines/rules carefully, or else the editor would have trouble making the footage flow seamlessly because he would have to go through lots of errors that the cinematographer had made. Solutions for this?
Here were some solutions that I thought of:
- the editor would have to keep in touch with the cinematographer and communicate frequently;
- the cinematographer has to know what he is doing, and must take into consideration that the editor's reputation would be tarnished if he makes too many mistakes that can't be erased during post-production;
- a person takes up the role of both the cinematographer and editor
Put short, an editor is almost entirely dependent on the footage that the cinematographer provides him.
Filming the scene and setting up the shots did not take long. The most important aspect of this exercise was the actors' actions and line delivery. As I had taken up the role of the cinematographer and the editor, I had to carefully instruct them to take up the same positions and deliver their lines in the same fashion between different shots from different angles (a director's responsibility?). This was to ensure that the scene would actually flow, even when I cut between shots.
After a couple of importing problems (I forgot about the correct FCP settings), we finally managed to assemble a rough cut after deciding where to make a cut with other team members (Julien and Camille) and fiddling around to get the best action cuts out of the shots we had. I was glad that there were no continuity errors by the end of the assembly, but I was worried about the audio that we would have to get right before the next lesson. The shotgun mike picked up a lot of ambient noises and the audio levels between different shots differed. I plan to take the audio from one shot and apply it to every shot in the cut; with some minor tweaking (by making the audio levels stay consistent) and audio smoothing (by applying cross-fade transitions between audio tracks), I will hopefully achieve decent, consistent audio throughout the scene.
The teacher gave us feedback and thought that we should attempt to place more cuts into the scene. But I felt that the number of different shots in the rough cut was enough - it was functional and effectively portrayed the mood of the scene. The emotions involved in the scene weren't particularly extreme or turbulent, so I felt that cutting down the number of cuts would keep the scene from getting too rhythmic. For lack of a better way to put it, I feel that getting too rhythmic would make one feel like they're watching a TV series complete with formulaic cuts. Of course, quick cuts could be utilized, but only when it parallels a character's state of mind, or in situations like chases.
Monday, February 9, 2009
2/9/09
We looked at every single group's recap videos today. I appreciated the decent audio recordings in a lot of the videos. However, I felt that some groups overdid the color effect by adding too much color during post-production, which made it look unnatural and garish. Although I experimented with colors in FCP and managed to nail a natural color tint that sets the mood, the video showed to the class was actually the footage whose colors were manipulated only in-camera, but not in FCP.
I felt that we, as a group, could have done a lot better than the footage we had, especially for the "rule of thirds" one and, of course, the sound effects. A tracking shot for the "rule of thirds" exercise was not appropriate, but at that time, I was thinking, "most of the shots we filmed adhered to the rule of thirds, so let's just forget about it and film a tracking shot." I better follow the guidelines next time. The sounds, on the other hand, were satisfactory. I was intent on learning how to record audio instead of caring about the results, therefore I was content with the sounds that we had.
In my first post, I stated that this was a just-get-it-done-and-forget-about-it recap exercise. Well, I should get rid of that mentality and approach exercises in a more serious manner from now on.
After the viewing, there was one thing that I had to disagree with the teacher - on the sheet, it stated that students should strive to create a documentary-styled shot. Seeing the words "documentary" and "feel", I immediately thought of cinéma-vérité more on the Dogme 95 side, but not on the documentary side. When I filmed, I thought we were to film in Dogme 95-style, but I was wrong. I had cinéma vérité categorized into two styles: one which was the "documentary-documentary" feel, which the teacher asked us to shoot in the style of, and the "documentary-dogme 95" feel, which I felt was superior to the "documentary-documentary" feel (These are not official terms; I just made them up).
Here are two examples:
1. The "documentary-documentary" feel, as seen in Cloverfield:
2. The "documentary-dogme 95" feel, as seen in The Office:
I have to say that the "documentary-dogme 95" feel is more tasteful than the Cloverfield feel. In my opinion, the "superior" feel has more spirit.
*UPDATE (i forgot about the IB-learner qualities): Throughout the lesson I was knowledgeable, reflective, open-minded, principled, communicator... well, everything apart from caring or risk-taking, because we didn't have a chance to work in groups.
I felt that we, as a group, could have done a lot better than the footage we had, especially for the "rule of thirds" one and, of course, the sound effects. A tracking shot for the "rule of thirds" exercise was not appropriate, but at that time, I was thinking, "most of the shots we filmed adhered to the rule of thirds, so let's just forget about it and film a tracking shot." I better follow the guidelines next time. The sounds, on the other hand, were satisfactory. I was intent on learning how to record audio instead of caring about the results, therefore I was content with the sounds that we had.
In my first post, I stated that this was a just-get-it-done-and-forget-about-it recap exercise. Well, I should get rid of that mentality and approach exercises in a more serious manner from now on.
After the viewing, there was one thing that I had to disagree with the teacher - on the sheet, it stated that students should strive to create a documentary-styled shot. Seeing the words "documentary" and "feel", I immediately thought of cinéma-vérité more on the Dogme 95 side, but not on the documentary side. When I filmed, I thought we were to film in Dogme 95-style, but I was wrong. I had cinéma vérité categorized into two styles: one which was the "documentary-documentary" feel, which the teacher asked us to shoot in the style of, and the "documentary-dogme 95" feel, which I felt was superior to the "documentary-documentary" feel (These are not official terms; I just made them up).
Here are two examples:
1. The "documentary-documentary" feel, as seen in Cloverfield:
2. The "documentary-dogme 95" feel, as seen in The Office:
I have to say that the "documentary-dogme 95" feel is more tasteful than the Cloverfield feel. In my opinion, the "superior" feel has more spirit.
*UPDATE (i forgot about the IB-learner qualities): Throughout the lesson I was knowledgeable, reflective, open-minded, principled, communicator... well, everything apart from caring or risk-taking, because we didn't have a chance to work in groups.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
2/4/09
Julien and I recorded sound effects while Hannah and Camille imported what we shot on Monday. We have never had any experience on audio recording, so we set out to gain some experience by first grabbing the equipment for recording. We got a mike and a "sibilance eliminator"; setting up was straight-forward. We went to a room to record the sound effects by vocally producing them. The results were not of great importance, because the aim of the exercise was to get used to how and what to do in order to record audio.
We got back and joined with the rest of the group; Hannah was already in the process of cutting out the bad takes. As the aim of the exercise was to get everyone familiar with Final Cut Pro, I taught my group members how to add text over footage, move the text to a desired position in the frame, utilizing the "snap" feature for the timeline, isolating audio from clip (vice versa), the uses of "insert", "overwrite" and video/audio track management.
I tended to "hog" the computer when it came to editing, but I managed to let some of my teammates test out the things that I had taught them - at least for a while. Towards the end of the lesson, it boiled down to computer hogging again, as other members were conversing. I should have educated them and let them edit most of the footage.
At lunch, Julien and I went back to the multimedia lab to put the exported video into the dropbox. We then opened up FCP to attempt at color correction to make the footage look more professional. When we succeeded in doing so after a couple of minutes, a student asked me how to make the footage look professional. I was reluctant to tell him but showed him very briefly the steps to take to achieve the look. I was showing attitude; I later realized that I was unloading my passive anger on him, which was accumulated when I was "hogging" the computer. (I either hogged it and didn't give anyone the chance to edit, and as a result, other people started talking; or it was necessary for me to edit because other people were conversing. I still am not sure.) If I were not angry, I would still be reluctant to reveal the way to achieve the look. We had succeeded so quickly because I had spent a lot of time figuring things out in the past. Did the person really deserve to know the method without having to go through the steps which I've taken?
Anyway, for any student who is reading this blog (since it's public), here is the way to make your footage look more professional: Click on the "effects" tab and click on the "image control" and "color correction" folder. You'll see the Tint effect and the 3-Way Color Corrector. Apply them into the clip that you are editing, and click "Filters" then "Visual" under the 3-Way Color Corrector filter. You would want to slide the "Blacks" slide a little to the left to make the blacks, or any color that is close to black, darker. This increases the contrast of the shot without ruining the details of the "Mids" and "Whites". As for Tint, you can use it to create mood and atmosphere in a shot. Pick a color and play with the slider to adjust the amount of tint applied over the shot. If you have any problems, ask me.
We got back and joined with the rest of the group; Hannah was already in the process of cutting out the bad takes. As the aim of the exercise was to get everyone familiar with Final Cut Pro, I taught my group members how to add text over footage, move the text to a desired position in the frame, utilizing the "snap" feature for the timeline, isolating audio from clip (vice versa), the uses of "insert", "overwrite" and video/audio track management.
I tended to "hog" the computer when it came to editing, but I managed to let some of my teammates test out the things that I had taught them - at least for a while. Towards the end of the lesson, it boiled down to computer hogging again, as other members were conversing. I should have educated them and let them edit most of the footage.
At lunch, Julien and I went back to the multimedia lab to put the exported video into the dropbox. We then opened up FCP to attempt at color correction to make the footage look more professional. When we succeeded in doing so after a couple of minutes, a student asked me how to make the footage look professional. I was reluctant to tell him but showed him very briefly the steps to take to achieve the look. I was showing attitude; I later realized that I was unloading my passive anger on him, which was accumulated when I was "hogging" the computer. (I either hogged it and didn't give anyone the chance to edit, and as a result, other people started talking; or it was necessary for me to edit because other people were conversing. I still am not sure.) If I were not angry, I would still be reluctant to reveal the way to achieve the look. We had succeeded so quickly because I had spent a lot of time figuring things out in the past. Did the person really deserve to know the method without having to go through the steps which I've taken?
Anyway, for any student who is reading this blog (since it's public), here is the way to make your footage look more professional: Click on the "effects" tab and click on the "image control" and "color correction" folder. You'll see the Tint effect and the 3-Way Color Corrector. Apply them into the clip that you are editing, and click "Filters" then "Visual" under the 3-Way Color Corrector filter. You would want to slide the "Blacks" slide a little to the left to make the blacks, or any color that is close to black, darker. This increases the contrast of the shot without ruining the details of the "Mids" and "Whites". As for Tint, you can use it to create mood and atmosphere in a shot. Pick a color and play with the slider to adjust the amount of tint applied over the shot. If you have any problems, ask me.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
2/2/09
We were engaged in the "Scavenger Hunt" activity to recapitulate our cinematography skills in the first lesson of film. Teaming up with Julien, Hannah and Camille, we mostly filmed in the cafeteria and the seventh floor. I spent quite a lot of time to set up the shots but realized that I had to shake off my perfectionistic approach, so I either a) filmed it thinking this was just an exercise and nothing much or b) let someone else shoot (as we were working as a team, rotating roles as actors and cinematographers for each shot). When I was filming, I preferred to shoot in a more dynamic way, which meant that all of the footage that I shot were done without a tripod. So, I filmed a tracking shot (inspired by the steadicam shot in Magnolia; YouTube clip below), a contrazoom shot (not sure if it's the correct term), and the shot which showed a gritty, documentary feel (inspired by The Office and Battlestar Galactica).
If the DV camcorder were wide enough in terms of focal length, then I would be satisfied, but again, this was a just-get-it-done-and-forget-about-it recap exercise (not that it was an insignificant exercise), so I was satisfied with the footage that we've got.
We'll be recording the sound effects on wednesday and of course, import everything into Final Cut Pro.
If the DV camcorder were wide enough in terms of focal length, then I would be satisfied, but again, this was a just-get-it-done-and-forget-about-it recap exercise (not that it was an insignificant exercise), so I was satisfied with the footage that we've got.
We'll be recording the sound effects on wednesday and of course, import everything into Final Cut Pro.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)