In the blurb on the digital dossier disc, it explains how this documentary series shows an excellent example of what Paul Kriwaczek describes as the only documentary worth making: the conflict between intention and obstruction. From what I saw from the snippet in the digital dossier is that it is epitomic of this idea, you can already see this lining up. Through the voice over this is achieved, we meet two different homeless men and the voice over gives a brief outline of their issues. For example, the first man selling the BIG ISSUE is described as being addicted to drugs and alcohol and served time for manslaughter, whilst the second man’s predicament is that he relies on the support of the state and has for all his adult life. It is obvious that these two men struggle, and with struggle comes this sense of intention for a better life, yet riddled with the constant drawbacks of their own addictions and problems, which resulted from their homelessness that forms into this sense obstruction. Therefore, what I would say is that there is two levels of intention/obstruction in this film one that forms around the participants and the choir and the intention of forming a choir with the homeless and the inevitable obstruction that comes from certain facets of being homeless and having to commit to something. On a second level is the personal intentions and obstuctions of the homeless men and women themselves. This multi-layered format ensures depth within the documentary and forces it to be the epitome of Paul Kriwaczek’s documentary.
In the blurb prior to the film on the digi doss was to think about the voice over and asks two questions: Is it necessary? In your view does it add or subtract from the emotional power of the work? In my opinion I think that the voice over is mis-used and wrong within the documentary. I feel like it puts this rather strange hierarchy of power within the work that is unfitting to the content of the documentary. The voice is extremely formal and feels to me rather pretentious, which is completely bizaar, it talks about the different issues of the men and women with no emotion, which I feel draws away from the human side of the documentary. I also thought that what the voice over said didn’t really need to be said, or could be said differently. For instance, I don’t think it is necessary for the voice over to say this man suffers from alcoholism and drug addiction. For me this is unnecessary and again puts the voice over above the people in the hierarchy of knowledge. Also I want to feel this information not as a fact, but as representative of this person’s predicament. The issue is not that this person is an alcoholic and addicted to drugs but how we got here in the first place, why has this person turned to these measures, that’s the issue. For me the snippet that I saw was too factual and I felt it was completely detached from the homeless people, maybe this is what it was going for, but I didn’t feel close enough to feel sympathy or to feel what these people are going through and I think this was largely due to the voice over.
In terms of our documentary I think it will be completely unnecessary to have a voice over, because I feel nothing is fact and nothing should be told as a fact by us whoreally are no ‘experts’ on the issue. These women will know a hell of a lot more about being homeless than we ever will. We want to leave the story with them and do our best to compliment their story with images that correlate imaginatively to create a dynamically beautiful, humanistic, political story about this hidden aspect of homeless women. However, in terms of what Paul Kriwaczek claims as this conflict between intention and obstruction is inevitable, I think we will get this without even looking for it because over the few weeks that I’ve been there you see how these women rise and fall on a daily basis, so I’m sure their lives will be filled with more dramatic moments of these.
References:
Paul Kriwaczek, Documentary for the Small Screen, Oxford: Focus Press, 2007.
Jason Stephens, Fremantle Media Australia, Choir of Hard Knocks, Made for RMIT University.
Yeah so I couldn’t really think of an imaginative name. There were two things we did in today’s tute/lab/whatever that I think are worth mentioning. 1. We watched a shot doco from the digital dossier called ‘Now’ (Santiago Alvarez 1966) 2. we did the interview exercise.
Firstly, I was really captivated by the documentary ‘Now’ especially in terms of aesthetics. I thought that even though it was using still photographic images it was filmed in a way that was filled with movement. The camera dance along the different photographs, from pans to zoom outs to zoom ins to a montage-like effect. It felt like the documentary really worked on putting movement into these photos. This was emphasised even more strongly with the musical score, which added sound and in a sense dialogue to the photos giving the photos more weight in terms of content. In a sense it was a music video clip formed around the photographs. What I learnt from this is how easy, well not really how easy, but how you can make a documentary without the use of any form of video recording, without interview, without footage. How you can use something simple like photos and music and create a dynamically interesting documentary. It is one that is rythmically dynamic and shows how you can make your documentary rythmically interesting through the use of music.
In the interview exercise the first thing that happened was we came across the same issue that we had last tute, that I outlined here. We discovered the actual problem today, which we are blaming entirely on Paul, we realised that the problem was that we had set the sound output into the microphones to the RIGHT rather than RETURN. We blame Paul because he told us to put it on ‘R.’ Anywho we realise now the exact settings we need to get good sound. Or really to get sound. After this technical mishap we got started on interviewing Gina. The first thing I realised was that it’s a lot harder to start with an opening question than I expected. However, once you’ve asked the first question you can really get on a role. You really have to listen. Yet, you never interupt, and therefore you have to keep track of different things that they say and pick out things that will stem into the next question. This was an effective interviewing technique because it meant that Gina was not disorientated by the question and was able to easily answer the question because she skimmed across it in the previous question.
We tried different positions for Gina to sit in relating to her story, making her uncomfortable when she felt uncomfortable in her story. We were lucky with Gina because she was an interesting interviewee using hand gestures to convey her point. Therefore it was visually interesting. After we finished the interview we filmed a semi-reinactment by putting the camera on a wheely chair and pointing it up at the lights to mimic Gina’s hospital bed moving through the hospital.
I thought that it was about time I went back to the digital dossier and looked to see if there were any examples on editing and luckily I found one. I have been struggling in editing to cut in ways that don’t simply represent continuity. I want to look for other ways to progress our film towards its climax and end. I came across Muriel (Resnais 1964) in the digital dossier, with the little subheading saying DIRECTION/ EDITING so I thought why not lets check it out.
In watching the clip I aim to ask myself these questions which accompany the sequence in the digital dossier: why were these choices made? What is the effect? Notice the staccato edit rhythm. Whose point of view is foregrounded? What does the soundtrack add?
I want to think of this clip in a truly editing sense in order to think of different ways to edit our short film.
In terms of why these choices were made I think that the staccato like rhythm sets the setting of the antique shop by showing numerous bits of furniture. As the dialogue continues over this montage of household and antique items you get a feel for what type of furniture the woman is looking for. You also get a sense of uneasiness like she does not really want to see these items, or maybe a tension between the characters, where the buyer is quite forward “I’m relying on you.” It seems very tense and artificial, which is usually the case when you buy something the artificial niceties of costumer to shop clerk business. This is highlighted more when the customer leaves and the editing resumes to a normal if not lengthened slower pace, where it is not the editing that is creating pace and unease but the movements of the woman herself, which the camera tediously follows without cutting. This long take creates a completely different mood to the highly quick cuts in the montage of the furniture. Therefore it highlights that this lengthened pace and conversation holds more significance to this woman than selling antiques, as the whole antique process seems like a blur that she forgets about as soon as it’s over and returns to the regularities of her life. The editing represents the fleeting easiness of selling antiques as opposed to the uneasiness of what is alluded to as “he could be your father.” This is obviously a moment of perhaps dread as the camera lingers without cutting for an extended period of time.
In terms of the soundtrack it is quite disorientating in that it is exterior noises of what appears to be a rattling train or tram, and therefore contrasts strongly to the interior shots. It creates this sense of movement that everything must be rushed a moving forward at all times, which increases the uneasiness and speed of the montage sequence, yet still lingers in the slower sequence, which still increases the uneasiness. I feel as though it is foregrounding something to happen in the next scenes, such as someone arriving on a train or someone leaving on a train or some form of public transport. Therefore it creates this expectance of what I would assume is the arrival of the supposed father.
In terms of learning from this and applying it to our own film I find that it can work to slow down and quicken up the pace of your editing. I always think that things have to be consistent. However, really it doesn’t as quickening up and slowing down can really change the mood of a scene from the speed of everyday business to the uneasiness of lengthened important subjects. In applying it to Doughnut I think that Bernard goes through different moods in his workplace from the boredom of everyday office work, to the excitement of getting his Doughnut, to the realisation and bullying of Jonathan eating his Doughnut to revenge. These are four different mood changes within the film and I think that we could really highlight each mood change through the pacing of editing. Boredom and waiting is always ridiculously slow, where time appears to go slower therefore the editing should be lengthened and almost verging on boring for the audience. In the expectation of Bernard eating his doughnut the editing should lift and be more fast paced so the audience can feel the expectation. Then it should slow down when he discovers that Jonathan has eaten his doughnut and linger on Bernard as he comes to this horrible realisation. In the revenge sequence things should happen quite quickly and show how the whole mood of the office has changed through editing. The shots of the colleagues should linger, especially on Andrew who has lost his best friend and mentor, however remain quick on Bernard who is completely satisfied especially when eating that “jam” doughnut.
Again I return to the digital dossier for some analysis in conjunction with this week’s theme of shot construction. To backtrack slightly into the lecture, Paul drew up a list of things that should be covered when considering shot construction, which consisted on:
- colour
- frame
- angle
- viewpoint objective, subjective, POV
- ‘area of shot’= shot size (wide, CU, etc.)
- movement
- focal length
- depth of field
These were the things that he said you should deconstruct your script looking for. I’m going to go backwards and deconstruct the visuals in some part of Ice Storm to find the meaning behind the technical decisions of shot construction. The scene that I am predominantly going to analyse is the party scene. I found this scene the most interesting in terms of the way the characters have been characterised through shot construction.
Overall the colour in the scene is warm, where the majority of the scene is filled with colours of brown, beige and cream. These colours are established through costume and set design creating a warm and welcoming environment a civil, respected party environment. I feel this because there is nothing outrageous if the scene was filled with bright purples, oranges, greens, etc. I would assume it was some form of drug induced wild party. However, from the muted brown colours it creates a respectful atmosphere.
The frame for the majority of this scene is busy, filled with characters mingling with one another, where the busy nature of the scene captures the contrast in character expressions to certain actions. For example, the shot that follows Sigourney Weaver’s character picking up the keys seductively shows the reaction of the three men that are crammed into the frame next to each other. The shot perfectly captures this contrast in feelings through action rather than words as the man in the brown jacket closes his eyes, obviously disappointed in conjunction with the man in the shirt who has a look of seductive happiness on his face expressed through a smirking smile. Therefore by placing these two characters next to each other in the frame it establishes an integral point that both these men want this woman. If they were not placed directly next to each other in the frame these emotions would not be conveyed quite as effectively.
There are numerous angle changes especially concerning the man in the brown jacket’s trip in which the camera works to convey a certain message about this character through camera angle. When the character trips onto the ground the camera looks down upon the character from above, which suggests disapproval of this character through the camera angle. This is emphasised further by the close-ups of the characters around him, especially from whom I think is his wife. The shot that comes into mind is when she flicks her eyes up and down, in not necessarily disappointment but an attempt to avoid acknowledging him. The emotion on her face is conveyed through the use of close-up and a shallow depth of field, which diminishes the background environment, pulling audience attention onto her emotion, which makes it a highly subjective moment, where the audience should feel her disappointment within this moment.
In terms of movement there is a lot of contrast between lots of movement and static. The blonde haired woman who I mentioned above is static throughout the scene, which is emphasised through a wide shot in which Weaver’s character is exiting the scene with the shirted man. The deep focal length and wide depth of field allows the audience to see her static in the background, while the numerous character in front of the frame are moving in order to help the man who tripped. This static-ness of her character suggests her alienation from the game and the childish behaviour of those around her. The tripping of the brown jacketed man suggests drunkenness, which is further emphasised by a lovely shot that happens previously when Weaver’s character picks the keys from the bowl, in which there is low angled close-up of the various items on the table including four half-finished glasses of wine and champagne, as well as two bottles of what appears to be some form of spirit. This close up contextualises the scene, obviously there has been a lot of alcohol drunk which explains the somewhat strange behavious of the characters.
Overall, it is amazing how much can be said through shot construction about character behaviour and the contrast in how characters react and behave. However, like the close-up of the alcohol and the colours of the scene it helps contextualise the setting. It makes me realise that there is so much to consider when deconstructing our script, and I feel like I will constantly be asking myself things like what does that shot say? How would that shot be different if we used a close up? Would that convey more meaning? What colour scheme would convey the most amount of meaning? There is so much to consider. So much.
I flicked through the digital dossier in search of something I could examine in terms of cinematography and the readings I discussed in the previous post. I found great cinematography present in the surreal sequences in 9 Souls (Toshiaka Toyoda, 1993). The first sequence creates surreal cinematography through the contrast between the objects placed within the frame. This contrast is between the darkened mountainous landscape and the bright reddened lights that gleam from the ‘Lucky Hole’ night club (which is what I assume it is). It is obvious that the director wanted to make the appearance of this night club surreal and odd in terms of the location of where these men are fighting. Therefore in order to emphasise the contrast there needed to be something that would stand out in comparison to everything else, which is achieved strongly through the lighting constrast and also the technicality of the place. The landscape is primitive and scarce, where this night club has electric run lights that glow off the building. It stands as a beacon in this landscape. This is shown most explicitly in the wide shot of a long road in the centre of the frame leading back to the red lights gleaming off the night club in the distant centre of the frame. The group of men in white robes are in the distance as well, walking towards the lights. The rest of the frame is clad with a mountainous backdrop in the furthest horizon of the frame and grass surrounding the road. The sky is foggy and the frame, apart from the gleaming lights is cast in a gloomy darkened mist. All these elements of frame construction work to highlight the surreal quality of the club, as it is completely out of context. This wide shot is highlighting this all through the use of cinematic qualities, constructing this club as an important aspect of the story as it is prominant within the frame. As Dusan Muskavejev discusses in this week’s reading in film what is in the frame is all that exists when watching a film and what you chose to emphasise within that frame is highly important. The construction of this shot highlights all these points as by using the wide shot to capture the setting Toyoda is eluding to a larger landscape, where you assume if the frame was larger that the scarce mountainous landscape would spand for miles, and by using this sparce landscape it emphasises the absurdity of a brightly lit night club being present, therefore drawing audience attention to the surreal qualities of this club being there.
The next sequence continues on with surreal cinematography concurrent with the previous sequence I just examined. The surreal qualities are most prominant when the camera pans out and the woman and man kissing on the bench enter a dream-like sequence that strongly contrasts with the previous rather normal setting of a park bench. The shot comprises of a single car in the middle of the frame and not much else, however as the camera pans out again it shows a picturesque industrial harbour, with light blue water. However, more than the settings themself in creating a sense of the surreal is the panning out of the camera, which eludes to this world being out of this world. As the camera smoothly follows the car off screen and then seamlessly pans out to the junkyard harbour setting, complimented by the slow chimey, pianony music there is a sense that the character has left the world, even before the cut to the dead body covered in blood on the park bench. It is a lovely long-shot encapsulates beautifully the passing of the character through the central emphasis of the moving car leaving the screen and the panning back to the wideshot of the harbour. Scorsese in this week’s reading stated that he moulds his cinematography around capturing the best emotional intensity. This scene through the moving of the car out of the frame captures ever so subtely the bitter sweet sadness of this character dying.
In terms of our own productions (even though I am not cinematographer) it is apparent to think about what will capture the most emotional intensity, will it be the wide shot? close-up? What is the shot trying to say and how are we going to achieve that to the best of our abilities? Obviously we don’t have the cabilities to do a pan back into a crane shot, because we do not have access to a crane, so therefore there are limitations to the cinematography and more the types of camera movements we can achieve. However, I think it will be really important in terms of creating a certain setting the lighting that will be used, whether we want a darkened mysterious setting, or a bright setting, which is easily achievable.
This week is all about sound, so this blog post is going to be all about sound. Hopefully, it will tie together what I have learnt in the readings with practice, which is in the form of Spongebob and Chopper. Therefore this post will be an analysis of sound in Spongebob and Chopper from the digital dossier, in relationship to the following readings:
Creating the sound design. In Alten, S. Audio in media, (p.266-286). Belmont: Wadsworth, 1994.
Sound recording. In Ayers, Rowan …et al. Guide to video production, (p. 85-91). 2nd ed. Sydney : Allen & Unwin, 1992.
This snippet of Spongebob is a perfect example of sound counterpointing picture. This is shown through the cardboard box, where the sound is rich with elaborate soundscapes, such as a pirate fight, rocket launching, traffic jam, etc. However, there is no visual indication of these happenings just an empty box (well apart from Spongebob and Patrick in a cardboard box, and it is this that drives Squidward insane. This sequence shows the power of sound and the expectations we hold when we hear certain sounds, which can directly match images, however there are none. What I mean by this is that this sequence presents a series of soundscapes, which are made up of the layering of sound effects, that when we hear them together they present a certain expectation of what we expect to see, however in this case we don’t. Therefore the sound is counterpointing the image to create a humourous joke that drives Squidward crazy. There is more to this sequence than the sound effects of the particular soundscapes, there is a sound that is associated with and we expect to hear whenever Spongebob says “Imagination.” Everytime this happens there is a short, upbeat, soft melodic song, which is used to stress the importance and also innocence of “Imagination.” It is important because this is the key to this scene it is Spongebob, Squidward and Patrick’s imagination, which are creating these elaborate visual soundscapes.
What is most significant about the Chooper sequence is the music when Chopper is walking down the street, which uses both high and low pitch at both extremes. There is a short low pitched drumming sound which rythmically combines with a sustained high pitched loud screechy sound. The combination of these sounds in the musical number, emphasises to me the mysterious nature of Chopper himself, where the drumming indicates something sinister, whereas the sustained screech alludes to something peaceful almost. The music works to define Chopper and combined with the image of Chopper walking down a street amongst undefinable crowds depicts Chopper as a menacing, stand out character, someone not be messed with. The next sound element which is significant is also about sound depicting and defining identity, however this time through the tonal qualities of dialogue, which seperate Chopper from his father. The raspy, coloquial, crude nature of Chopper’s father suggests someone who is unworldly and rough. In contrast Chopper’s voice has a softer quality, and is less coloquial, however is somewhat deep, which highlights a menacing quality.
In both these sequences sound is used in different ways. However, it is inevitable that it has a strong effect in conveying meaning. In Spongebob sound is used ironically to contradict image, whereas in Chopper the combination of dialogue and music works to define character.
