A movie I watched recently was "Drinking Buddies" on Netflix. It wasn't my favorite film, but I thought certain things about it was really interesting. I noticed it was mostly hand held, so once the movie was over I started googling things about the film. Firstly, Swansberg directed it. I read that it was unscripted and that instead of writing a screenplay, Swansberg discussed the characters and story with his cast and filled in the blanks during post. (editing process) I thought it was interesting that there wasn't any script. Thinking back to it now, some points were a little awkward and I can't tell if that's what he wanted or it's just how the actors were. I found an article where it says, "With Joe, there is no script," Richardson explains. "In our first conversations, we talked about how we enjoyed filmmaking as 'creation in the moment,' as much as about planning and preparation. For Drinking Buddies, we just had a two-page outline describing where the characters needed to go. It was very loose." Another thing I found interesting, was the camera, as I mentioned. I found another article where it states,
"Richardson says he used minimal equipment when it came to lighting, but that doesn't mean he wasn't fussy about illuminating his shots. "I'm very particular about the way I cut light," he says. "I'll spend as much time as tweaking and refining the lights as placing them. [In cinematography] you're always trying to bring a three-dimensional feel to a two-dimensional image." I thought this was interesting because how aren't you fussy when it comes to putting together a film?? Looking back at the film, it does look fine to me, but that just be my opinion. You guys should check it out and let me know your thoughts. I also found an article where someone says, "The freedom accorded the actors in performance sometimes argued for a handheld camera. In many situations, Richardson would light a set for 360 degrees to facilitate this approach." I thought that was really interesting and definitely was smart. Since it was unscripted, you never know what the actor is going to do or how they're going to portray something that the director wanted. So for handheld and set for lights 360 degrees, was a smart thing to do. Overall, the film was really interesting. I thought the ending was going to be different to be honest. I would spoil anything for you guys, so go check it out when you have time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-QmjKrnryQ&sns=fb
Still have to fix the voiceover and also the text titles. Let me know any other thoughts/comments!
Thanks.
I made several changes to it since the rough cut. For color correction I changed the lighting during the texting scene in the beginning. The original cut had a almost orange yellowish color and it made her fingers look dark. I used the three way color corrector to try to match to the other clips as much as possible. So for that scene I lightened the color a bit. Another thing I changed is some of the sounds used. For example I added a knocking sound from freesound.org for the scene where Ryan is knocking on the door. I also lowered the balance of audio and played around with the levels in the scene where she is crying on her bed to take away a bit of the echo noise in the background and to lower her crying down a bit. I also changed the color in the scene where she is eating popcorn and crying watching television. I dimmed the lighting and highered the saturation to make it seem as if it was in a dark room and she was really indeed watching a film.
This is my project 1 final submission. It was a bit hard to re shoot with a tight schedule and the equipment not being available right away but overall I am happy with the finished product. This is a scene from the movie "Two Hands" starring Heath Ledger.
The second rough cut of Project 2, shortened by 2 minutes. Some of the text has been edited as well.
Presented by Ryan O'Donnell, Jason Stecher, Laura Boctor, and Kristina Amerkanian. Special Thanks to Jason Timberger for his participation and support, and The Alexis Diner for their generosity.
All sounds are a product of iMovie, Freesound.org, and Incompetech.com. No copyrights have been infringed.
I have to add more clips throughout it and at the end but this is what i've put together so far. I also plan on color correcting the scenes of the guy writing the letter to Katie and fixing the audio
My completed short film with sound track. It is a love story about two guys fighting over one girl, only it is told through a game of chess. Hang on to your seats because it has a surprise ending. I hope you guys enjoy!
Presented by Ryan O'Donnell, Jason Stecher, Laura Boctor, and Kristina Amerkanian. Special Thanks to Jason Timberger for his participation and support, and The Alexis Diner for their generosity.
All sounds are a product of iMovie, Freesound.org, and Incompetech.com. No copyrights have been infringed.
Recently i got into this British Television show called Bedlam. It premiered on ITV on October 1, 2011. I only watched the first season starring Theo James, Charlotte Salt, Hugo Speer, Will Young, and Ashley Madekwe. This drama is based off supernatural chills centered around a haunted insane asylum turned apartment building. What i found interesting for this TV series compared to American TV series we are accustomed to is this season only have 6 episodes. Usually TV series have about 22 to 24 episodes per season.
In one clip i found starting from 43 seconds to 1:02, (http://youtu.be/uMNWWl0S7AQ?t=43s) interesting. This is from the first episode when Kate played by Charlotte Salt, was in the bathtub and we knew she was in danger. The soundtrack helped give us the idea of she was in trouble. The camera did a zoom in of the ring she was wearing. The ring was connected with a dark spirit that was drowned to death in the asylum. We see the special effects of the black goo oozing from the walls. It gave the scene more dramatic effect. It let the audience know that something big was happening. When Kate was taken under the water, the spirit took over and tried to drown her. We see a bird eyes view shot of the spirits hands, covering her mouth trying to stop her from breathing. Then we see Kate put her hand on the tub trying to get out but the camera zoomed in on the spirits hand preventing her. Jed (played by Theo James) comes to the rescue but the camera angle is different. I am thinking the camera was under the water trying to get the shot of Jed saving her. It was a good aspect because i thought it was an interesting shot.
For this scene there wasn't too much lighting going on. I didn't think there needed to be since it was a dramatic scene that could lead to Kate's death. The only light i see was the light from the lamp and the light from the outside window. But if it had too much light, i don't think the scary effect could have captured the audience.
The title says it all. Recently I watched a movie on Netflix called "Paintball". Almost the whole film was shot in what felt like found footage but was more of a "we don't own a tripod" shaky cam. Although this was an issue the fact stands that the audio for this film was so low that at normal viewing volume it could not be heard and when we cranked up the volume it was still extremely hard to hear. The film was low budget and really crappy but over all plot was sound and the footage (although shaky at times) was good. I can even say the lighting was fair. The sound issue was what killed this movie for me. It told the story very well visual, I can only imagine how it would have been if both were pair perfectly.
The importance of sound quality is bigger then just being able to hear the film. Sound creates a completely different world. I have no problem listening to a T.V. show but if there is a lack of sound I must fix the issue or I will just not watch it. Sound also helps with moving a scene along. I could go on but it just seems like I would start restating myself. The point stands, low sound is better then no sound, bad sound is better then low sound, and good sound is better then bad sound.
When you think of children's movies, what comes to mind?
- Bright Colors?
- Fun Songs?
- Playful Characters?
- Important Life Lessons?
Well, if you thought of any of these, you'd obviously be right...
HOWEVER, there is one thing you probably didn't think about: Smart Writing. And not smart writing in terms of intelligence; but smart writing in terms of movie studio goals.
Last week Mary and I went to go see Rio 2 with her family and while watching it I couldn't help but be pulled into the classic storyline about fish out of water (or, more appropriately, birds out of...water). This made me think, "How can movie writers hold the attention of both small children and the adults that take them to see these movies?" The answer, like I've said, is smart writing. I was pleasantly surprised with some of the more "adult jokes" that were carefully designed to fly over children's heads but land successfully with the older crowd.
You see, the goals of writing children's movies are to entertain kids and pull them into the world of the film without the parents/guardians of these kids wanting to shoot themselves out of boredom. Movie studios need to convince parents that taking their little ones to the movies will be beneficial for both parties. If they don't do enough to please the adults, they'll be less willing to take their kids to the movies at all which will hurt profits as a result.
Again, this is just something interesting I thought of after watching Rio 2 (it's a great film, by the way). I mean, it might be easier nowadays for movie studios to fill seats because younger parents feel like it's hip to act young (man-children, for instance). But regardless, it's still something to think about and appreciate, especially if you have kids or younger siblings...
The Truman show is a movie that follows the real life a man from pre-birth. He lives in a fictional town made by the head producer/director. Every person in the town is a payed actor and have some form of day to day activities that repeat themselves over and over throughout the day.
The Idea of a full television show with the star having no clue is interesting. there are multiple things to be concerned about. The star is unpredictable, the actors could go rogue, there could be malfunctions with equipment, the list goes on. The way they go about producing the show seems very real. in the production booth. They live cut to different angles based on which angle is more appealing to the audience. they also have access to older footage and during moments they feel it necessary they can do live flash backs. With all of this they have to have lots and lots of cameras 5,000 according to the movie. That many cameras brings a lot of different and interesting camera angles. for example in his car there isn't just one camera behind the radio but also cameras behind the air blowers and in his dash board. The thought that went into this movie is great. over all the movie gives and interesting look at how a live shot looks and feels.
I recently went to see the new Captain America movie and noticed something immediately. There are always obnoxiously fast cuts during fight scenes. I realize the purpose of this is to mask punches not actually being landed and kicks missing their mark but it made me as an audience member extremely annoyed. We barely got to see anything the two characters were doing because the flashes of action lasted less than a second so really we were only able to get a general sense of what was going on when I would have appreciated seeing more.
The second thing I noticed is the newfound popularity of the Blair Witch Project-esque camera techniques. A two shot in a tense, anxiety riddled scene would be hand held and shaky, with the close ups being done in-take and bouncing from one face to another. I'm usually not a fan of this since it tends to make me ill but their choice of doing this only when the mood allowed for it was actually fairly genius.
- Peter Watkins' 1971 mock-doc Punishment Park is the origin of FF
- The Blair Witch Project is the main legacy -> (Cost 35k, made 250 Million)
((Chronicle is in a smiliar situation))
- Found Footage is extremely versatile
- It's easy to film because of the fact that everything happens "live"
- It CAN be done wrong
My thoughts: I quite like the found footage genre. It's produced fun movies like Chronicle and Cloverfield and quite frankly when it works, it works. However, there is something that needs to be pointed out. The idea of found footage, in the movie itself, needs to make sense. A movie shouldn't use this style of filming just because it wants a lowered budget and a way to mask crappy special effects or camera tricks. It also shouldn't be SO "found footagey" (admittedly, like some parts of Cloverfield) that you cannot focus on anything that's happening. Instead, it should be plausible that for whatever reason, a character in the movie would have the means, purpose, and camera type, to be recording at all. Those are just my thoughts: What do you guys think?
This scene above in particular was my absolute favorite
scene of the entire film. It was cut in a way that was easy to understand for those
who read the book prior and for those who did not. In this scene the main character Charlie, has
a mental breakdown where it is revealed he was molested by his Aunt Helen. The
scene starts out with Charlie saying goodbye to his friend Sam who was leaving
for college. Then it cuts to the previous night where Sam and Charlie were
kissing and Charlie had this pained expression on his face. Then the film cuts
back to Charlie standing in the road watching Sam and his other good friend
Patrick drive away. He begins to walk home and then right away there is an
image to Sam touching Charlie’s thigh and then a tighter cut that was
comparison to someone else touching him and that was his aunt. As Charlie walks home there are shots of him
thinking about his childhood with his aunt and specific things she said to him.
He was her favorite and she spoiled him because of what she was doing to him.
He was very young at the time and didn’t have any idea what was going on but
she always talked about secrets and begged him not to wake his sister. When he
enters his home there are quick cuts to different pictures on the walls of him
and his siblings when they were younger. Then there are images of the past
year; the abuse he witnessed happen to his sister, the physical fight he got
into, the parties he went to, and the strange looks given by everyone in his
life. At about 1:53 the cuts stop being so fast paced as Charlie calls his
sister who calls the police to make sure Charlie was okay. On the phone with
her he says, “What if I wanted her to die, Candace?” The audience then knew
that Charlie remembered what he had been blocking out fully this entire time. Overall
the breakdown scene was cut and edited together really well. The instrumental
piece playing in the background which, was composed by Michael Brook, added
power to the impacting scene.
“But
in the end, they fought not for their country or their flag - they fought for
each other.” We Were Soldiers - Blog #4
(For
the items I refer to in this entry, start at 0:41)
Genre:
Action/Drama/History
Directed
By: Randall Wallace
Written
By: Harold G. Moore (book) Joseph L. Galloway (book) & Randall Wallace
(screenplay)
Starring:
Mel
Gibson as Lt. Col. Hal Moore
Madeleine
Stowe as Julie Moore
Greg
Kinnear as Maj. Bruce 'Snake' Crandall
Sam
Elliott as Sgt. Maj. Basil Plumley
Chris
Klein as 2nd Lt. Jack Geoghegan
Keri
Russell as Barbara Geoghegan
Barry
Pepper as Joe Galloway
Duong
Don as Lt. Col. Nguyen Huu An
Faith - is something we all innately
possess. Whether we choose to hold belief in a higher power, the universe, or
even just ourselves, faith is one of many guides and influences upon the junctures
of our lives. Upon viewing Randall Wallace’s We Were Soldiers after quite some time, it easily re-solidified its
stance as a personal favorite among the war film genre. By appealing to the
humanity within us all, and showing the viewers that those who wear a uniform
are much more than simply that - rather than just merely perpetuating and
recreating the violence of the battles of old, it serves as a fantastic display
of what kind of gripping storytelling can be achieved.
The film tells of Lieutenant Colonel
Hal Moore, along with the men of 1st Battalion, 7th
Cavalry, and their endeavors spent overseas on the soil of Vietnam -
specifically, in the Ia Drang Valley, which came to be known as “The Valley of
Death”, and as the first major battle of the Vietnamese War. The action is
gruesome, but the true-to-life horror is matched by the heroism and morality of
the men in combat. But, what makes this notion so intriguing in how most war
films are blatantly in favor of the Americans, and hoist them onto the pedestal
as heroes either right from the get go and hold us high, or inevitably place us
upon that grand position in the end. Wallace decided to do things a little
differently, and appeal to both sides of this conflict - and the barefaced fact
that they are also men of faith.
Many scenes within this work I found
truly memorable- and the approach by which it was done was a carefully
orchestrated symphony in itself. The film takes almost 45 minutes to establish
the foundation - that these soldiers are family men, with wives and children.
One of the best scenes to clarify this to the viewer is the party held prior to
their departure, where an establishing shot from far away makes it seem like
any other. But, as the camera comes closer, and we see the emotion on the faces
of the soldiers and their wives, we see the dread, the fear, and the sorrow.
The very simple fact that yes - the possibility exists that they may not come
back from the job they’re obligated to undertake. Arguably the most compelling
non-combat scene is where Gibson, as Lt. Col. Moore, is sitting on the bed
beside his wife the very night they’re to leave in full gear. The lighting
helps to establish the looming trepidation, and the tension is there. Then, in
a resolute act, he steps out of his home into the night, dons the kevlar helmet,
and marches alone to meet the rest of his men under the glow of the light in
the dark. His men show up, and they stand unwavering in the night, beacons of
the light - heroes. The symbolism here, paired with the aesthetics and musical
score are incredibly powerful.
Additionally, the use of juxtaposition
was masterful towards the end of the film in one instance in particular. Hal
and his men are victorious in driving back the Vietnamese with a surprise
attack before their own at dawn. Major “SnakeShit” Crandall flies in right before
Vietnamese soldiers are able to regain their composure and use heavy weaponry
to shift the tide of the American assault - and he lays waste to handful upon
handful of enemy combatants. Upon the completion of this assault, Lt. Col. Nguyen
surrenders and orders his men to withdraw. Afterwards, a battle-worn Joseph
Galloway, who was crazy enough to place himself in the middle of the conflict
as a non-combatant journalist (though the son of a family of soldiers) is seen
next to the innocent gaggle of journalists flown in by helicopter who
immediately bombard him, and Lt. Col. Moore with questions. After both of them
dismiss the journalists, we see how this incident, in Moore’s eyes, solidifies
Galloway as the man to tell the story to the world - because he earned his
right to be there. To fight, and perhaps to die, beside him and the men of the
7th Cavalry.
In summary, the mechanics, paired
with the profound symbolism within We Were Soldiers help to provide a
storytelling experience beyond the norm. As time passes, these principles we
learn and practice are becoming more and more evident to us in the movies we
watch and re-watch, and on our own projects. These techniques go hand in hand
with the product we produce, and every day I’m reminded of the fact that there
is a direct correlation between the effort - and the results achieved. A great
work doesn’t just “look good” - it also stirs the heart.
When I began editing fades seemed like a lovely transition
for one place to another.However, more
than one individual I have worked with has expressed distaste for fades.
After reading “In the Blink of an Eye” last year, I really
pay attention to what makes our eyes feel the need to blink, and hopefully some
of the consequences of that.If you can
think of a time when you blinked repeatedly (allergies, cold wind, confusion,
trying to keep up with fast movement), you might associate it with a slight
increase in emotion or adrenalin.
In editing, several cuts (or specific cuts) can influence
blinks, mainly by increasing them.Faster cuts, faster blinks, increase in heart rate, it can help produce fear, but what if that is
not the desired effect.After paying
close attention to effects of cuts and blinking I am now wondering what is the
opposition, what, as an editor, can I do to produce calmness, or comfort?
As observed in psychology, having adrenalin running high at
a continual pace leads to anxiety, which is not a healthy or a happy
feeling.Anxiety is not the desired
effect for even a horror movie; an adrenal rush is desired affect.In order
to provide an audience with adrenalin rushes they must first be emotionally
connected with the characters or situations, then secondly must feel
scared.In order for this to happen the
audience must go through an emotional roller coaster; it must include peaks and
valleys.Without calm moments, the tension will become
flat; the intensity must rise and fall.
Movies must increase then hold back, then increase in
intensity again to truly involve an audience; this is why entering scenes and
resolving conflict works well with fade sequences.
I feel like there are several points in a movie when an
editor would want the audience to feel calm: at some point in the introduction,
after the climax, and when resolving the film.When beginning to build up to something scary, the audience must return
to homeostasis then start to feel tension again.
Along with transitions into scenes I feel like
these are the areas of films that cuts may become undesirable. Increasing blinking associated with cuts may
have an adverse effect in certain situations. ~Jackie
Project 2 had me really stressed out! Once I finally had an idea I had to pick a location and get all of my story boards, lighting diagrams and shot list in order. When that was finally done we met for the shooting day schedule, so then I just had to wait. The week before my shoot, I got really stressed out that shooting would take all day or that something would not look right or something would go wrong. So, to relax a little I went into OCD mode and got all of my stuff together and organized it all. I am so glad I got organized because it really helped my shoot go really well. Both shoot days were quick and easy and every shot came out great! Being organized and knowing which scenes were being shot on which day was a big help. Any shoots in my future I will definitely be as organized as possible to make shooting go quick and painless!
I have been a fan of this movie since it was released, however, now as a production student I tend to look at certain scenes differently and the type of equipment used on certain films. I know that this movie is one of the most popular movies today and I was curious to see the way they filmed and the equipment used. For the first video, I was extremely surprised to see that most of it was shot handheld. The producers of the film held the cameras most of the time instead of rolling it or putting it on a stand. The type of camera is obviously highly priced but it looked like the producers shook often while filming and it is clear that a lot of after editing was done to stabilize the scenes. I also thought the after effects used in this film were interesting but always wondered how they were exactly done. For example in the film, Catching Fire, the scene where they are fighting the monkeys. In the second video, around 1:25, the actors are in a lake shooting at imaginary monkeys. I obviously knew these monkeys were not real, however, I imagined them at least pretending to shoot at a producer wearing a suit or a toy monkey but the after effects really make huge difference in that particular scene which I thought was really cool. Another scene I noticed was the scene where the game host is speaking to the "audience" or, after watching the B-roll clip, no one. In the movie, the host is talking to a large audience but after watching the first clip, it appears he isnt speaking to anyone. This blew me away because I really did believe there was people there. It still amazes me how many things you can add or change after a scene has been made. Given this is a huge film, I figured they would inquire some of these activities but not as much as they really have. Watching these clips really opened my eyes to how much more I have to learn ith post production and after production.
An extremely early cut of what to expect for the project.
Presented
by Ryan O'Donnell, Jason Stecher, Laura Boctor, and Kristina
Amerkanian. Special Thanks to Jason Timberger for his participation and
support. Filmed locally at the Alexis Diner.
It is hard to ignore a television series who's man character is a good looking, introverted genius with a troubled past. I am talking about Donald Draper from the series Mad Men. Arguably the most complex character on television he is played by the talented Jon Hamm.
In the early seasons Draper is portrayed as this womanizing playboy, who can create advertising genius out of thin air. Both of his bosses are astounded by his work, giving him bonuses to assure that he stays with their company.
However, like all main characters, Draper is flawed. To start with he is married with two beautiful children. His wife feels useless half the time as she stays at home with the kids while her husband goes off doing whatever he pleases. This is a constant theme in the show. Almost every main character on the show is married and almost all of them cheat. The show depicts what life is like in the 1960s. In a world dominated by money, sex and rock and roll, the men will do anything to sign a client.
It is rare when you find a television series that can appeal to two types of generations. An adult audience feels nostalgic as they show depicts real life events such as the assignations of president Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King. While a younger audience is fascinated with Draper, despite all his flaws. Despite everything he does, I always have the weird sensation that I want to live my life the way he does.
For the exception of the talented actors and actresses on this show, the design crew and film writers deserve a lot of the credit. The show takes place in the 1960s at a madison avenue advertising agency. All the men are wearing tailed suits with gelled comb overs while the women are sun dresses, smoking cigarettes and have those big lens glasses. In early episodes the characters use the tone at the time uses phrases like "she my best gal" or "gee honey thats swell." The crew does an exceptional job of going back 50 years in the past.
Each season we see a different side of the infamous Donald Draper. In the shows final and upcoming season it appears that his talents and personal life are crumbling around him. But the audience will just have to wait and see.
Lynch’s intentionally illogic cuts and transitions
contribute to the dreamscape of “Mulholland Drive.” Take, for example, the
sequence around the 1:55:00 mark of the film; while staring out of the window,
Diane [Naomi Watts] presumably feels the presence of, and turns to see, Camilla
standing beside her. The eye trace is logical—the next cut shows Camilla
looking back at Diane; we cut back to Diane, whose mood clearly shifts (which,
in turn, changes the mood of the scene as a whole), and the subsequent cut
shows Diane (on the left side of the screen, previously occupied by Camilla)
looking [screen right] back at herself. The shot continues, as Diane begins to
make coffee, before cutting to a wide shot—where, of course, there is only one
Diane. Next, we’re given a close-up of the coffee; Diane pours a cup. The next
shot follows Diane as she walks over to the couch, mug in hand; the camera is
focused in on the texture of her bathrobe. Continuing in the same shot, the
camera leaves Diane and tracks aerially over the couch to reveal a naked
Camilla (though, we’ve previously been led to read her presence as
hallucinatory). In the next cut, Diane climbs over the couch, in jean shorts
and topless herself. As her hand comes into view, she carries a glass of liquor,
and the camera zooms in as she places it on the table. The close-ups of these
objects can be read as accents, as highlights of difference to disorient the
audience. The close-up of the coffee foreshadows and contrasts against the liquor;
and the same goes for the texture of the robe—against, probably, the texture of
bare skin. At any rate, the illogical sequence results in what appears to be an
indecipherable reality.
