Hah! For once I arrive 30 minutes before the lecture starts, but STILL manages to come late! I sat outside waiting for Adrian to enter, blissfully ignoring the possibility that he was already in there.. Oh well.
When we came in he was reading from an article, which built up under the theory of that the education system havent changed in 400 years. A philosophy teacher from 1650 could walk into the lecture today and still know what to do. Nothing has changed in 400 years, in terms of the delivery of knowledge.
Filmmakers say: if things were more accessible, imagine how many good movies I could make!
Bullshit, sucker. If you want to blame the equipment you should try another field of study, get a job, earn money, and THEN buy the equipment you think is absolutely necessary to make a decent film. What’s important to realise (for me as well; I feel like I need all this equipment in order to make good work) is that you can make great films with what you have access to. MAKE DO!
But hooow, I say, nervously biting my nails.
Adrian didn’t actually give me an answer to this, but I’m just gonna assume that you’ll make good films by trying and failing, experimenting, and failing and failing until you get it. This makes perfect sense, and motivates me even more to go through with my plans of moving to a cave in Scotland.
WHAT IS THE POINT?!
So for some reason Adrian has suddenly become self conscious of Integrated Media, but he indicates that this happens every year, so I think he will be fine and there will be minimal drama.
He is worried that Integrated Media has become a rabbit hole of his own making, a vanity subject.
Is it no longer really integrated media, but just “lets make some poetic multilinear small works?”
Hah. I’m probably going to fail this course if Adrian reads this, but I’m super tired and am actually enjoying this relaxed and slightly sarcastic tone that urged it way out of my fingertips today.
I had, and have no real comprehension of what Integrated Media is about. I do, however, find it very interesting, and it has opened my eyes for alternative ways to write, film, and yeah that is pretty much the two things I can apply it to.
But back to the lecture. This course has a very open model.
- Project planning
Both of these are obvious. When you know what you like doing, you’ll be doing that onyour project and it will be great.
I like watching movies and eating chocolate, but I can’t really see that getting me anywhere. I’ll be a fatty with quite expanded knowledge on films.. Nah I’m just being a douche. Did I mention that I’m really tired? I have to get my sarcasm out here on the blog, or I’ll be in danger of loosing all my friends because of my shitty comments.
This is what I look like when I yawn. And no, it is not because I’m bored with the content, I have been giving sleep the finger lately and am now facing the consequences.
Most interesting part: post it notes. Great, thats the part I missed..
Brainstorm first. Structure emerges from the process. If there was a structure there then how could it be there when none was used to produce the content. Structure is either naturally present or not.
What does Adrian mean by structure?
Patters, ordering, rhythm, repetition, framework, support, shape, form, connected, understandable. And some more keywords, but these are the most important ones.
And now, to something I actually DO understand! REPETITION!
A work becomes distinguished as unique or at least coherent if there is a pattern going through that makes sense of all the bits.
How does it (I can’t remember what it was) arise without a pre given structure?
It emerges of the repetition of a simple rule, a procedure.
One may be very arbitrary and more or less about structure and rules itself, the other may rely on what we already bring and rely on that structure. (Most things do a combination of both).
Repetition of a simple rule creates a structure. Humans are pattern makers. Think about this when we make videos, and when we link them! If there is one ongoing thing in each video, the viewer will be able to make the connection/pattern, and can then enjoy the project instead of trying to figure out what it is about.
If we don’t find a pattern we think of it as disorganised (negative terms).
Art can be seen as a form of pattern making for its own sake.
Privilege the order. Simple procedure, patterns
Post it notes (screw the post it notes, I have no input on this). This works as a proposition, a forward looking statement.
There are to reasons why his paintings are famous.
1. What does it mean for paint to be physical?
2. Theres a romantic notion to how he suffered in life.
He is a great painter because his paintings make important propositions about what paiting is. The same goes for “Blue Poles”. It isn’t because it is so complex and difficult to make, but because it challenges the normal notions of what a painting should be.
(Study of colours, complimentary colours. Blue shadow. Complimentary contrast. Formal essays in the chemistry of colour.)
Can I get depth in a colour? That is the proposition.
Hero can’t move: proposition.
Proposition: how do I make a film with no edits?
How do I make a thriller when we know from the start who did the murder and who was murdered?
The Searches, 1956
Opens with door, closes with door
Taxi Driver, 1976
Urban Wilderness. Taxi driver is a remake of Searches.
Changed the Locks, 2005
Same idea, different approaches. Simple proposition: going to change things to keep person away; what other things can I change? REPETITION. Make it literal. Notion of proposition: don’t treat it as something vague, make it concrete and treat it literally.
Make the idea and concept concrete. We start with a proposition.
Post it notes is a response from and to this proposition.
Structure emerges out of this process.
Whatever you want to make can be seen as responses to a proposition.
We think we’re making a movie about something, but we need a proposition. Think about what you make reflects around that. You have a reason for why this should happen next, etc.
Just minutes before (about 30 of them) I’ll try to sum up last weeks lecture (which I didn’t attend), and I’ll do this by STEALING notes from Zoe. Try to stop me, I dare yah! No really, I’ll pay you back with grapes and wine lovely lady. xx
ALRIGHT. This is literally the notes she wrote down, so I’ll just copy paste and perhaaaps add some things to elaborate. From what I can make out, it is a breakdown defining what the different qualities of work and text is.
- Meta/Method – EG) Essay ‘Rules’ which produce works, TV production. You can only ever respond to the things you have already mapped.
- Co-creation, exploration, initiation, always a plurality of meanings. There is no magic bullet answer or embedded answer.
- Bush wild
- Playful – happens in the space between self and other and you begin to play with the clarity of the distinction. Art can happen in this space. Play with the notion of identity where the bountry between myself and world becomes problematic, you no longer consume it, it does something to you.
- Mobile, multiple, poetic, disruptive – fluid, unfixed.
- Knowing, eventfulness of knowing
- Open – deliberately opens itself out and continues generating new questions
- Maternal – material nature on the sign, the physicality of our signs matters, reason rules the roost. This is so easy to disrupt via our making.
- Method as ‘given or fixed’
- Interpretation (a true, hidden, real meaning)
- Parks as structured and deliberately framed from notions of the sublime, its utterly an essay.
- Serious, authoritative (trusts, relies on, wants, believes in its authority)
- Fixed, ordered, logical, rational
- About what is known (‘reportage’) – it always reports on what you know.
- Closed and closure – knowing what it means by tying off the ends.
WAIT A MINUTE. I thought the Work was the fixed, ordered, logical and rational one! What have I missed? Damn. I’ll leave this on ,my blog so I can come back and check after I’ve seen the lecture online. Super confused now!!
Today I went to the new StrEat coffe shop to do some filming with third year media student Caitlin Royce and Charles (didn’t catch his last name), and I realised that we need reflectors for our shoot next Saturday. I’m amazed of how much it can improve the lighting, and it gives a much better result than what simply bouncing the light off the white walls did.
Bet you didn’t think we’d be this effective, huh?! Or wait.. I didn’t think we’d be this effective. I guess we proved me wrong.
Oh my god, that sentence makes my head hurt. Actually, there is a slight possibility that the headache is caused by a lack of sleep: I’ve had 12 hours sleep since I got up Friday morning.. But not in vain! We managed to get a lot of work done, and I feel quite prepared for the shoot next Saturday (stay away Murphy, or I’ll kick you in the trachea, sucker).
We went through all the shots and did the lighting set up for almost all of them, and so far it seems to work out nicely. We are hoping to get the KINO light as well (we only had three redheads), so we can avoid some of the hard lights from the redheads. However, I’m pretty damn pleased by deciding to bounce the light of the white walls in Rebeccas apartment in order to create a softer light (yes yes, I know this isn’t a groundbreaking discovery that has never been used before, but as this is my first time using studio light, I’m pretty ecstatic and proud).
It is a quite daunting task, to make sure the lighting is good in every shot. Another thing to think about is continuity. We will have a fairly good idea keeping the same light just by looking, but we have decided to have a continuity photographer making sure the light matches the previous shots. The story tome of our film is perhaps an hour, but it will take us much longer to get all the shots done, therefore keeping the light natural and logical is going to be a challenge.
Lyall, who plays “the Mark” came in at 2pm and rehearsed a couple of shots with us. He’s a cool cat, just the type of actor we need! First of all, he was wearing this t-shirt:
Luckily, he doesn’t only have a good sense of fashion (I’m actually serious guys, t-shirts with comic references really tickles my fancy), he works really well with the crew and is a good actor. He brought some really good ideas up during the rehearsal, some which we have included into the script.
We also did a bit more planning in terms of production design; we refurnished the lounge room and added paintings and some small tables. On Thursday we’re buying a pot plant and a bouquet of roses, and we’re also bringing all the male shirts we have at home (to fill up the closet).
I really love to see how this group works, we are starting to get settled in our roles, and already during the rehearsal we naturally did tasks that were suited for our roles; Rebecca and Amirah went and bought shirts for the actors while Ian and I continued working on the different shots. Ed helped me out with the lighting and added important details to the storyboard as we looked at the shots.
All in all, it was a good day! Next Friday we’re having a sleepover at Rebeccas house, and getting up at 6am to prepare for the shoot. It will be glorious.
Had yet another stressful day today, and barely made it to the Korsakow feedback meeting. My apologies, my life is just horribly unorganised at the moment!
I found the meeting really interesting, and regret not bringing my mac, or pen and paper; a lot of the things we have been going through in class can be applied to how we build up our korsakow film. One of the things that stood out the most for me was what Adrian said about patterns. We are natural pattern makers. This was brought up in the lecture in week 6, and explained how we identify patterns to make order. In many way this can be compared to Kuleshov and Eisenstein, who applied montage to films; the audience will try to find the pattern, even if there isn’t any logical connection between two shots.
“Semiotics teaches/show us that meaning is not in things (not in the words) but is in the relations between them.”
Adrian encourages us to apply this to our final film, as the viewer will be able to make sense of it all and enjoy it, rather than being confused about what the project is about. Why are certain videos linked to others? Something to think about when we’re making the final project is oppositions. The world is a mess, and if there was no structure originally, we imposed it by creating oppositions. Good/Bad, Old/New, etc, and this has to be thought of when we make (but also when we link) our videos. If two clips oppose each other, and we intentionally put it together that way, what does it say about the project?
Some things to think about in relation to patterns are speed, shape, colour, interior/exterior.
All in all I think I got good feedback on my project. However, one of the things I need to improve is how I use the grid. Adrian emphasized the importance of how you use the space, and wanted us to think outside out “books should have text filling the whole page” minds, and make a film where we build it up for web.
If the text/caption is too far away from the video, it drags the attention away from the video. Is it too small we barely notice it, and it becomes unnecessary. The composition of the video looks off if the thumbnails are in different proportions than the video.
This is just some of the things to be aware of. There are endless opportunities, we just have to work out what is going to work the best for our project.
Oh, and apparently my Korsakow film is very Scandinavian! I don’t understand what that means, but I guess it somehow proves that it really became an autobiography in the end, where others can get an idea of how you think and who you are.
I’ll spare the internet for my complaints, but long story short, I’ve had a really shit time the last month. The last two week has been particularly bad, and as a result my blog has deteriorated. I’m going to try really hard to get back on track now, and hopefully my blog will be up and running with interesting information very soon.
Sorry sorry sorry, I’ll be back!
The Lenny I imagined out from the script:The Lenny we got:
I wouldn’t mind giving a short film about Lenny a shot after today’s practice session, it all turned out really well. Ian had briefly mapped out the script, and everything fell nicely into place by itself. This is not something we can expect to happen on the day of the shoot; everything has to be planned so nothing can go wrong (this is where Murphy is going to come and hang out).
Anyways. Back to Lenny, and what we’ve learned so far.
Like I mentioned earlier, Ian had already made a plan in his head about how it was going to look. He had mapped out the script, but we didn’t have a shot list, shot schedule or storyboard, so we improvised on certain things. Since we didn’t have Rebecca with us today we had to multitask.
Ian were director and boom operator, Amirah were the sound operator (and slate on occasions), and I were the camera operator and 1AD (and slate on occasions.)
We did the shot reverse shot in a staircase, so we went a bit crazy and removed the camera from the tripod in order to get an over the shoulder shot of Ed, erhm Lenny I mean. It was interesting to improvise with the camera; we did an extreme low angle shot for the last shot in the sequence, that tilts down as we watch Lenny struggle to get his shoes on so he can pursue Shannon.
I liked experimenting with different angles and camera movements, it can come in handy when Ian and I finish the storyboard tomorrow.
Okay, I need to have a showdown with this weeks reading, A Journey Into Light. If it was intentional or not I’m not sure about, bit this reading tells me more than anything so far this semester that I should just quit Uni and start experimenting with photography and lighting. Preferably I’d like to move into a cave of some sort, either here in Australia or in Scotland perhaps. Probably Scotland. To many things that wants to kill you in Australia.
My point is that Vittorio Storaro, although he went to filmschool, built up his expertise with the camera by experimenting, trying and failing until he found the result he wanted. How can I do the same in a subject that teaches everyone one direction? Imagine this. I’ll take a year of school, go back to Norway and work part time at the local television station. I will dedicate the year to teach myself to master lighting, to figure out how I can use light to create the feelings and meaning that I want to do.
This sounds manageable. In a year I could get through several books, see several movies, and film and photograph something every day.
The only thing stopping me is dedication and motivation.
I want to do this. I want to be able to teach myself, to structure my life and fully dedicate it to become as good as possible within cinematography.
Unfortunately I’m not known to be very good at this. After all, there is nothing stopping me from doing more work with photography and lighting right now. Yeah, I do have to work to get food on the table, and I have to attend Uni in order to pass my classes, but if I were fully dedicated to learn I could fill the hours spent doing nothing on experimenting with lighting and photography.
It sounds pretty cool, doesn’t it? A whole year where my only focus is film? I’m sure it would be, and I’m sure I would learn a lot, but at the end of the year I don’t have any confirmation on what I’m qualified to do (at Uni I get a degree, grades on my subjects etc) apart from the things I have made. This might be enough, and it might not. It’s a massive risk to take, and it can turn out in so many different ways.
All in all, this isn’t really something I’m planning to do, I’m just opening up for an alternative way of reaching my goals. I will try to use the rest of this year to work with these goals, and maybe it will work just as well as if I lived in a cave in Scotland.