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.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)