Self Evaluation

The point of view element in our film used a variety of different shot styles and techniques. We used a range of 1^st person, 3^rd person restricted, modified subjective and over the shoulder shots within sequences, after establishing eye line with the non-active participant, which in our film was the thief character. We also used a mixture of static tripod, hand held and shoulder rig shot styles to make the film have more variation and be more visually varied as it possibly could. However, even when trying to apply this, we realised that certain shot techniques didn’t work in certain places within the final film, so we didn’t use 1^st person point of view of the thief very much even though we filmed and planned for it. This is because partly due to the experience with the equipment we had, as the shoulder rig shots we filmed were very shaky, and although this adds to the realism of the film, it wasn’t what we wanted and the quality wasn’t very use-able.

When planning and filming the sequence shots, we were all very mindful to not just film a sequence shot just to get it done, but to actually carefully consider the implications and audience affect it would have. This meant us all doing a lot of research into films that contained sequence shots and in the end we agreed to do a static take. This was because we wanted the effect of our shot to allow the audience to look around the frame and see for themselves what was happing within it, and use the camera as a surveillance tool, rather than being intrusive like a mobile sequence shot. Even with our planning however, I believe that the interior sequence shot we filmed didn’t need to be cut into two as it was strong enough on its own, and our exterior time lapse could have been shorter and also have better framing.

The lighting changes, both interior and exterior, in our film were used to give a symbolic representation of a camera bag, to the non-active participant. We did this to show an internal emotion appear externally as a narrative device that we wanted to explain the thief’s motives to the audience and ultimately drive the narrative, which I believe was very obvious and successful in the final film.

Interior lighting change

Both examples of the lighting change work together as it implies the same emotion of wonder and excitement for the thief and they are used in similar situations to one another. However, I believe the exterior lighting change could have been made clearer with more context, and it does slightly over expose the thief’s face when used. The interior lighting change could also have been made clearer, potentially by showing the audience the object before the lighting change occurs. However I am still personally happy with it as it leaves some enigma around the object which keeps the audience guessing for a while before it is revealed.

Finally the colour element we used for the film was very strong and obvious to the audience as it is prominent throughout and subconsciously easy to understand the connotations it gives off.
 

Red hoodie used a colour element

The hoodie the thief wears is quite a bright red, which in the first part of the film connotes him being dangerous which links into his criminal activities nicely. However in the second part of the film, we intentionally and subtly change the meaning of the red from the thief being the danger, to him becoming in danger of being caught and found out by the stalker. This use of colour therefore is not only symbolic, but also affects the narrative and is driven by the narrative through the connotations of it changing. This being said however, the colour element is effectively very simple and not particularly provocative as it is very obvious, so we could have added more elements to it to make it more profound and interesting as in the end it does feel like a bit of a cop-out and unoriginal.

Overall the film addressed the entire list of elements required to be incorporated within it in a fairly successful and original manner. Some of the strengths of the film are that the two sequences from Grindleford and at the house work very well together, despite being filmed at different times, and provide a simple yet entertaining narrative for the audience to follow, especially as it is a silent film. We recorded the footage at the house at night time originally due to the actor’s availability, but due to some alternate planning and discussion, we managed to alter the narrative and shot list to become an ambitious sequence that actually works very effectively with the theme of criminal activity and thievery. The framing and shot sequences were also very strong as they worked very well together and flowed very smoothly. This is especially true to the POV sequences, which can be notoriously hard to follow if executed incorrectly, which in the edit, managed to join together really nicely to create an interesting and enjoyable sequence to watch.

However, the film was not without its weaknesses, the main ones being surround the technical quality of some shots. The most obvious here were in the night time sequence outside the house where the shots are particularly visually noisy.

Obvious visual noise in shots.

 This is due to the practical lighting provided by street lamps, shops and cars passing, and as it was raining, it meant we couldn’t bring any of our own lights out on the exterior shots so we had to work with what we had. This meant increasing the gain on the camera itself to +6 or +12 which, as you can see, caused a visible drop in the quality of a few particular shots where we needed certain things to be visible, for example the close up of the door needed to show that the door was open, which was almost impossible to tell without using the gain. Another technical issue we had was the whole Grindleford sequence was unfortunately shot on the wrong setting on the camera (we believe was either the fps recorded or the bit rate) which caused a visual difference in quality and colour of the sequence. This was all because of our inexperience with the camera and lack of care or practice when setting it up. Finally, we had an issue regarding the ending of our film as in the final piece it is very lackluster and seems to end abruptly. This was due to the time we had with our group that day and that we didn’t manage our time as efficiently as we possibly could have done when filming the previous shots, so we had to cut the filming short and quickly improvise an ending, instead of following the shots that Mike had planned out.

As we all needed to plan and film our own shots, it was hard to define any specific roles within the group, but after a few meetings, I took on the directing role for the film with my narrative being the one the group wanted to work with. This meant me writing up a small explanation of the narrative for the rest of the group to work and plan their shots from, whilst also organising who would do which sequence of shots. I drew up my own shot list of how I personally visualised the film to be which the others then analysed and added their own shots to.

First draft of narrative idea

The shots I planned started with the opening sequence outside the house, when the thief character is first seen. For this sequence I wanted to introduce not only the character, but also who the audience would identify with straight from the off, with a small POV sequence. “… the most powerful cuing device is the sight line of an actor in CU.” (Katz. S, 1991, Film Directing: Shot by Shot: Visualizing from concept to screen, Focal Press) To address this, I used a mid-shot of the character, showing his eye line, followed by two modified subjective shots of the door. This not only allows the audience to identify with the character, but also highlights the symbolism of the door within the narrative and encourages them to carry one watching.

I also planned the time lapse outside the house, which was an example of a sequence shot, and an exterior lighting change. The reasoning behind this shot is that we wanted something to transport and explain to the audience the change of location and time. This was the only plausible way to do that within the time limits we had for the final screening and in the end the group decided it did both of these things effectively and that we would keep it in.

I also planned the beginning few shots in Grindleford, from the first shot to the over the shoulder shot, along with a few other sections of the sequence in that location. I mainly used Film Directing: Shot by Shot by Steven Katz for this to allow me to create obvious identification with the non-active participant by using the levels of identification I previously mentioned, close-ups of eye line, modified or third person subjective then back to a close up. Another notable shot I did here was the planning for a hand held shot that represents the first person point of view of the thief looking around a tree, which altered from the normal style I used.

Finally, I also took on the role of editing all the footage together which wasn’t a particularly demanding job due to the solid planning we had all done for all our shots and the communication throughout, so I managed to complete the edit with no real major issues in only a small amount of time.

As a group we worked very well with one another, we all got along and met weekly to update one another on individual and group progress. We were all competent for the most part with the equipment and cinematography techniques we needed to carry out, due to a decent level of attendance and engagement with the module. However, there were a few small issues that did arise in the end, the main one being the availability of both the group and the actor we used, alongside a slow reaction to the brief which caused planning at the start to be uneventful. There were also one or two shots that were not very strong, which none of the group, including myself, decided to take it upon themselves to call out the mistake and ask for it to be reshot.

Overall in this module I have learnt a great deal about the technical side of filming and being a cinematographer. The main thing being that when shooting, you must always be keeping note of all the technical details of the camera, such as focal length, aperture, camera position and framing as well as time recorded and take number. These are all necessary to making the filming process as organised and professional as possible, as well as making it easy for the editor and post production team to carry out their jobs. I have also learnt that there are a huge amount of elements that cinematographers have to consider when filming such as lighting positioning including practical lights, geographical locations and where you can set up the camera e.c.t. Ultimately, these issues are solved by preliminary planning, including location scouting, floor plans and collecting the right amount of equipment for shoots. Storyboarding is also a very useful way of showing your ideas and your vision of what to film and how to film it especially when communicating with a group.

In the end, the film stuck pretty solidly to how we planned it to go, with only a few changes, the biggest being a geographical change of location to shoot the first part of the film in. We originally wanted to film in the studio to make the lighting change more controlled, but then due to availability we had to change it last minute. The whole group responded well to this though however, and with only a days’ notice, we all managed to reorganise our shots and carry them out with only one or two issues. We also altered a few shots that differed from the storyboard in the Grindleford sequence, due to the way they looked in the edit (being too jarring and quick cut) so we either cut some shots out and just continued with others, or adapted on set and recorded different ones from different angles.