Theories – Unit 11

The Auteur Theory:

 

The auteur theory, french translated for author,  is when the director is the main force behind the production of their films, it was first theorised in france during the 1940’s during the french new wave by André Bazin and Alexandre Astruc, it was then later backed by an american critic named Andrew Sarris, the directors that were first thought of as the first of the auteur kind were, François Truffaut known then for ‘The 400 Blows’ and ‘Shoot the Pianist’ and Jean-Luc Godard who was also known for ‘Breathless’ and ‘Vivre Sa Vie’. Some flaws with this theory would have to be that there is no way to say that one person is capable of being the lone creator of a film and therefore there is controversy whether this theory is practical. A study in germany found that script writers were the main moving force behind any film, this is due to the director having to work to a script to be able to direct anyone at all, there is also the argument that if there was no director then the film wouldn’t exist, afterall the director has all control of the final output. So there is a lot of controversy behind who has the most control when it comes to filmmaking. I, myself do believe that if the director is talented, i’d dub them as an auteur, though a problem with doing so is that i have now set them more creatively adept than ordinary directors, and i would more than likely choose them over anyone else. One thing that i do like about auteurs are that they’re easier to recognise than regular directors due to noticeable techniques between each of their movies. An example of an auteur that i enjoy would have to be Stanley Kubrick, some examples of his techniques or ‘Quirks’ would have to be the use of theatrical violence, what i mean is when you would have such a violent scene backed with an innocent song, due to the content of the scene it therefore twisted the song, and from then onwards, once you hear said song, you would instantly be reminded of Kubrick’s work. I wrote a short document about Stanley Kubrick Here.

The Genre Theory:

The word genre originates from the french word for ‘Kind’ or ‘Class’, the term mainly used in media theory to describe a movie as a type of general category, such as a comedy, action or romance, these can be shown through the use of many things within a film, some being as obvious as someone outright saying that they’re funny when it comes to comedy, of something as subtle as a close up, shot reverse shot of two people looking at one another to define their love for one another, there are some genres that just wouldn’t exist without the help of past historic events, an example would be the very obvious that if there was no such thing as wars, then there would be no such movies as ‘Saving Private Ryan’ or ‘Apocalypse Now’, to elaborate more, the parts of these movies that make them fall into the genre of war, it isn’t to do with their stories or acting, it’s to do with guns, violence and the gritty truth of what happens during a war. Another example of a genre would be of a comedy film, to define such movies would be challenging as it depends on the audiences humor, but they all have the same theme of aiming to make an audience laugh, whether that be through slapstick humor of ‘Laurel and Hardy’ or of the adult references and actions that goes on in a ‘Monty Python’ film,  genre is defined by its structural or thematic criteria, the parts of the film that make the film what it is.

 

The Reception Theory:

The reception Theory is all to do with the audience’s response or interpretation of a film, it is when producers or directors encode a hidden meaning within their film and want the audience to pick up on the subtleties within their films. A man named Stuart Hall conducted research into this and found there there were three different types of audience views on films, these three being Dominant, Negotiated and Oppositional. Dominant meaning the audience agrees with the views within the film but they don’t fully understand everything about the subject. A Negotiated view would be that the audience agrees, disagrees or questions the views within the Film, and an Oppositional view would be when the audience recognises the views constructed within the film but don’t agree with them due to cultural opinions, while the audience is in this mindset, it is impossible to change their views as they have already made up their mind on a certain view.

Narrative:

 

Realism;

Realism within film is there to allow the audience to connect with the worlds the director is attempting to display, this would have to be an accurate depiction of contemporary life that the views would somehow be able to sympathise with, this would include the appearance, problems and ethics of any person, whether they be from low class, mid or upper. The main points around realism in film would have to be able to convince the audience that these scenarios actually exist, ones such as giant robots landing on earth isn’t realism, an example of realism would be Bicycle thieves, where the start of the film shows how a man has gotten a new job, though he needs a bike for the job, he sells practically anything he owns to buy a bike, only to start the his new job and have his bike instantly stolen, these kinds of scenarios are what make the films seem real and relatable, you now sympathise with this man for you have seen what he went through to get his bike, just to have it stolen from him. Another thing about Bicycle Thieves that i love would have to be that it is one of the first, if not first movie to not be placed within a set, it was filmed out in the streets, with real working people going about their lives in the background.

 

Unit 11 Task 3

Research:

For my research i stuck mostly to browsing the internet, i found multiple different sites where i found helpfully information to help me understand what i needed to know. I also found a video on which helped me understand more about the auteur theory.

 

Video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWzPIuXUwpI

Frame By Frame: Auteur Theory. University of Nebraska–Lincoln: Wheeler Winston Dixon, 2012. video.

 

Website

http://www.britannica.com/art/auteur-theory

“Auteur Theory | Filmmaking”. Encyclopedia Britannica. N.p., 2016. Web. 28 Apr. 2016.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auteur_theory

“Auteur Theory”. Wikipedia. N.p., 2016. Web. 28 Apr. 2016.

 

http://visual-memory.co.uk/daniel/Documents/intgenre/chandler_genre_theory.pdf

Chandler, Daniel. “An Introduction To Genre Theory”. Visual Memory. N.p., 1997. Web. 28 Apr. 2016.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genre_studies

“Genre Studies”. Wikipedia. N.p., 2016. Web. 28 Apr. 2016.

 

Book

http://alexwinter.com/media/pdfs/andrew_sarris_notes_on_the-auteur_theory_in_1962.pdf

Sarris, Andrew. The Film Artist. 1962. Print.

Analysis

 

From the research that i found, the main one that helped out most of all would have to be the writings of Daniel Chandler, from what i read here is where the term Genre was originated, it also helped me understand that due to this being a theory and not fact, that there are parts of this idea which contradicts itself, such as when talking about a director having full creative control, yes this may be a nice idea, but that doesn’t mean it always works, as an example, george lucas, he made the original star wars movies with help from a team, but when it came to creating the prequels he took full creative control on them by himself, now those three movies are shunned due to them being awful,  even though they were directed, each by the same man, the fact of working with your crew rather than boss them around works alot better.  I would like to believe that this idea works, only problem is that the downsides outweigh the good, another problem as an example is that if someone says that they have created a movie in its entirety, this could motivate people in believing that if directors don’t do this, then they’re bad at being a filmmaker.

When it comes to the idea of defining a movie into a categorized based system, i’d like to think it as helpful, i don’t see any downsides towards this, just as long as the film isn’t categorized into the wrong genre, i’ve seen it happen before, although, this could just be from my point of view, rather than the director’s initial thoughts on where the movie should go.

From the two theories that i researched, i couldn’t find any ideas behind why they would conflict with one another, one of them is to do with the creation of the film while the other is to do with where the film should be categorized.

Task 4 – Doc – Unit 31

Finished Product (4.1)

For the finished product i thought that it wasn’t to the standard i could have made it, due to the technicalities from the shoot such as having accidentally shot in 4:3 and also having the deterioration of the resolution in the footage, it could have been a lot better than what it is. Thought, to look on the brightside, i’d have to say i created a good edit with what i had at my disposal. One main thing that i realized from this unit is that if we’re to work as an efficient team, we will have to coordinate better, i felt a lack of communication with the director, and so i couldn’t get his vision of what he’d of wanted, another thing that i noticed is that when it came to comparing each other’s versions using the same footage i noticed that they had some shots that i did not have, i thought of ways that i could have improved my own, one shot that annoyed was the opening of Joe introducing the video, my audio had be damaged due to the strong winds, whereas the footage that others had used, they had working audio for their take.. The quality of the edit is as i believe to of had a fairly sufficient understanding of what a documentary is. There are some bits within the final edit that i am unhappy with, an example would have to be again the destruction of the audio due to the wind, the feedback i got was mainly talking about this issue also. A part that i enjoyed editing was the ending, the part where i had crosscut two similar sets of footage, the landing, I got this idea from when i was trying to find a suitable shot of the microlight landing, i noticed that they almost lined up perfectly with one another in the frame, i also thought that if i were to do this, it would differentiate my final edit to those who used the same footage. A recommendation to myself for future use would have to be, check the footage on site, take my laptop with me and check that the footage is of good quality and if not, reshoot, this is due to the fact i got fairly frustrated that the footage didn’t turn out well, the context was nice and the shoot was a fairly enjoyable experience, what a way to ruin the fun.

 

Production Skills (4.2)

The work process for this unit was fairly straightforward, though i do believe i could of handled it with a bit more care, and not just leave things till the last minute, i also believe that if i were to have taken a little more time on the edit, such as asking for the different footage my peers had, i could of improved on the downsides to my video and corrected any problems such as audio issues. When it came to working as a team, i thought that while during the shoot was ok and that the director was fine with his crew adding extra ideas to his own, once it came to the editing stage, it seemed as though nothing was his problem and if you were to challenge them, they would be in defence and possibly storm out of the room, that never helped, although, when it came to them viewing and giving their feedback, they seemed rather complient and helpful.

Task 3 – Documentary Project – Unit 31 Editing

Documentary Project – Unit 31 Editing

 

Role of the editor (3.1)

I want to have the finished edit reflect on the feelings of the pilot and hopefully allow the audience to understand what the feelings and sensations you get from flying. The way i’m intending on doing so is to start off slow, that means i’m going to have the introduction between the pilot and the interviewer, then as the interview is taking place, cross cut shots that relate to the content of the interview, then after the interview, show a takeoff and landing or a simple fly around to show the audience what it’s like to be up so high. I’m also going to include some music throughout the entire video to keep the audience entertained, this would have to be two different songs as the length of the video would be too long for just one song. The relation between the crew helped greatly during the shoot, the pilot was very helpful with letting us take up his time and allow us to get aerial shots from aboard his microlight, he also told us a lot of information about the hobby and this also helped as we got more than enough footage to create a final product.

 

Technical decisions (3.1, 3.2)

When it came to the technical decisions for this project, i had a lot of up and downs, such an up would be that the content and the audio for the interview was exactly what was needed, but a down being that the footage we took seemed to slowly degrade, i never figured this out, it seemed that during the shoot the resolution of the footage somewhat deteriorated, this could of happened due to the writing speed of the sd card wasn’t high enough, or that we simply on accident lowered the settings unintentionally. The resolutions we had were ranging from 4k HD, all the way down to 480p, during the editing of this i had set the sequence settings at 720p, the reason for this was that i could use most of my footage and still have a higher resolution, but in turn, sacrifice some other lower quality footage.

 

Styles and techniques (3.1, 3.2)

So styles that i took on board from other documentaries that i’ve seen is the use of cutting from the interviewee to view some incontext shots, such as if the pilot says ‘the wing of the microlight’ then i would cut to the wing.

 

Sound (3.2)

The sound throughout some of my clips were utterly ruined by wind muffling thought the microphone, this is a shame as during the beginning there was the opening shot of Joe explaining what the video is about/for. On the contrary, the audio of the interview was very nice, the audio between the in camera mic and H4N were both high quality and barely distinguishable between the two, this helped me find the right part in the waveform very easily when i was syncing dialogue.

Unit 31 Editing – Task two

These screenshots are to evidence my work process, i first started off by arranging the footage i had gathered into their corresponding bins, this being between footage that i planned on using, footage i wouldn’t intend to use, i also included a separate bin for sound and also i made a bin for clips that i have edited separately and wanted to save for later use. Below i have some images of each separate bins.

 

I also created a short storyboard to show to my peers what i planned on creating.

I also have an edl

Google Drive -EDL

 

Unit 31 Editing – Task one

Technology

Editing has been around since the camera has been around, it may have been very basic, and nobody experimented with it too much, but it was still there. When we were shooting with film, the technique of Cutting copy was used, this is the term used for when you would physically cut and paste the frames/scene where you

would need them to be, this was very expensive if you made a mistake. Then there were the ‘Talkies’, or synchronised sound to image, these kinds of films were created in the 1920’s with the release of ‘The Jazz Singer’, this was the first movie to have synchronized audio to video, the audio was recorded on a victaphone which was a analog sound on disc, widely commercialised and successful for its time.

In-Camera editing, this is the process of shooting your sequence/feature in order, this then means that you don’t need to edit out of the camera as you have done it already, you would need to be very precise with this technique, as one small mistake in your planning could mean a chunk of your movie may never be made, one notable film which used this technique was Jean-Luc Goddard’s Breathless (1960), it was very popular, with attracting over two million viewers in france alone.

 

In Practice

Putting these different uses of technology into a film were and some still are a common use within film today, mainly the use of In-camera editing, some younger students use in-camera edits as they are not skilled enough in editing. A popular choice for putting this into practice would have to be Jean-Luc Goddard, where he used in-camera editing throughout the production of Breathless, another director of note would be Alfred Hitchcock, a movie of note would have to be Rope (1948), this looks like it had been shot with in-camera editing in mind, there are ten scenes within the movie, each a maximum of ten minutes each, this was due to a film reel only being able to record at a maximum of ten minutes at a time. I also read that John Ford also took part in, In-camera editing techniques, but i have no proof of where in his movies he does this.

 

Genre Conventions

Horror:
Editing within the horror genre is often set in a slow pace, only up until the real drama begins, this often leads to the sense of of suspense or tension within a scene

Comedy

If you want to edit a comedy correctly, you have to keep it intresting, people don’t want to see the normal shot reverse shot and some dialogue, some ways that i’ve seen comedy’s done are superb, one example that pops to mind the scene from Monty Python’s The holy Grail, where Sir Lancelot storms a castle, the continuous running and running, tagged along with the drum roll and then the quick action is funny, plus the fact he runs about stabbing anything (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJoM7V54T-c)

I found a good video detailing the use of different techniques within Edgar Wright’s movies. (https://vimeo.com/96558506)

Sci-Fi

Sci-fi movies tend to follow a path similar to that of a horror movie, what i mean is that they share the use of initially having the first act be at a slow pace and maybe include this in act two, and then there’s a quick jump to having the hero or main character face off against the main antagonist of the movie.

 

“In Camera Editing Article – A Cinematic Perspective”. The Shoot Out 24 Hour Filmmaking Festival. N.p., 2016. Web. 11 Mar. 2016.

 

“Make ‘Em Laugh: Comedy Editing Techniques | Art Of The Guillotine”. The Art of the Guillotine. N.p., 2016. Web. 11 Mar. 2016.

 

“What Jean-Luc Godard’s ‘Breathless’ Can Teach You About Jump Cuts & Editing”. No Film School. N.p., 2014. Web. 11 Mar. 2016.

Script writing (3.1/3.2)

Script writing 101:

When writing a script there are a few things that you will need to know;

Fade In: When you start your script you will want this at the top to describe the start of the scene

Scene Heading: Every time you write a script it will always have scene headings, this is a one line of text which describes your location and time of day in the scene.

Action: This is a narrative description of what will happen within the scene.

Transitions: You will have to also include any transitions that you intend to use.

Characters: When you first introduce your character within an action, it will have to be capitalised, otherwise a character’s name will always come above the their dialogue.

Dialogue: Lines of speech which is place below the character’s name.

Parentihial: This depicts an emotion, attitude or action from a character.

Page number: It may seem very basic, but a page number is highly required to keep track where you are.

 

Research:

RainDance – I have followed what is said on this page to write up my script idea, I noticed that it said to not over do it when writing a script, so i planed on keeping my script below 3 pages as i didn’t need a lot of dialogue for my script.

The Setup – I used this page as influence for having my set up, i followed their steps which helped me create my script.

Writing my script – I used this page to learn how to set up my script and how it should be properly laid out, as seen above.

DepicT – I had a look at their webpage and watched a couple of shorts to get an idea of their length and the content of what was expected.

Three Act Structure – I made sure to follow the three act structure while writing my idea, it starts with the characters talking to one another, the say each others names so the audience can get to know them a bit better, then in act two, i made sure that the audience follows Lydia around and to be able to see the Stranger behind her following them, makes the audience feel what it’s like to be followed by someone. Then in act three, when they’re in the alley way, i will use a shot reverse shot to gain tension and then the surprise that the stalker is harmless adds relief to the audience.

Celtx – I used Celtx to write up my script, i have used it before, not to long ago, so i’m fairly familiar with the structure of its website and how to use it correctly.

 

Misconception Script (3.3)

Script Writing – Misconception (1)

My Ideas (2.1)

The ideas i have when creating a script would be as follows. For the first idea i have come up with having a stalker following a lone victim, they would first start off at a coffee shop and travel through the streets the victim in front with the stalker far behind following her, the stalker will become known to her later on and nearing the end they will dart into an alleyway/dead end where the stalker will meet her, add a couple of close ups for suspense, then the stalker will remove his headphones and say politely that she had forgotten her purse or phone back at the cafe.

My second idea would be a take on the same idea of a stalker only with more of a comedic twist at the end, where just as the stalker would be handing over the woman’s belongings, the woman’s boyfriend would come up behind him and hit the stalker over his head and killing him, the women would then go on to complain and get all worried that he just killed a harmless person, and so they attempt to hide him out of the street and into a bin or something.

I will be working off the first idea mainly but i may or may not add the twist at the end of just him getting knocked out and her complaining about it.

Syd Field: The Three Act Structure (2.1)

 

Introduction

Syd Field, born december, 1935. Syd Field most notable model of work was his creation of the three act structure. The three act structure is an ideal in the world of media where it proves that there is a template to every movie ever, it divides a story into three different acts, act one, two and three, act one is where you would start off by introducing the world that the audience would be viewing, this can be done in loads of ways, the next part in act one is to introduce the main character or protagonist, depends how you’d like to say it. Then after the audience is introduced and all caught up with the going ons in the main character’s life then you would throw a problem at the main character, this will then lean them on their little journey or adventure. Act two, this would like to be your longest portion of your movie, i’d say around half of your movie should be dedicated to this second act in your story, this is where your character be presented with obstacles in their way, they will have to rise to the challenge to overcome their fears and challenges ahead, you can also introduce a subplot and/or plot twists which will almost derail your protagonist from their main goal in the movie, this might be something like a death in their family due to this cause they’re fighting against, this will then break them and make them lose hope of success. From this you would then have to show your protagonist rising to the challenge once again to defeat the main antagonist, this will then lead you to set up you climax, which leads to, Act 3. Act three is where you would tie up your subplots and lead the fight against the antagonist and finish with your climax, then after all is finished and your antagonist is out of the picture, you can round it all off and end your movie.

I always find it amazing how everything there is that is within the three act structure can fit into full scale hugh movies such as the marvel movies huge universe, but it can also fit into the smallest online shorts.

 

Online Short #1

The Missing Scarf

https://vimeo.com/107395294

I found an online short which i found rather interesting, and maybe so much a challenge to explain. In Act one of The Missing Scarf, we are shown a glimpse into the life of Albert the squirrel, i small woodland creature with a philosophical mindset, we also have been told that Albert has lost his scarf, so this is the incentive for Albert to go on a journey of finding his scarf. Act two, some obstacles that Albert comes across while on his journey are interesting to say the least, he first comes across Cecil the Owl, he has a fear of the dark and so wants help from Albert, so as now we know our obstacle we have to find a way past it, so though talking with Cecil, albert has given him the confidence to no long be afraid of the dark, and now we know the Albert is smart. He comes across two other animals with regular problems with their confidence, Albert reassures both of them and fixes the problem and move on. He then comes across a bear by the name of Frederic, he had a fear of nothing, the fear of no existence, this is where i believe act two ends. Act three, Frederic the bear goes on to talk about his fear in lengthy detail, it rather elaborate, then after he finishes speaking there is a small pause and Albert begins to explain his argument against Frederics beliefs. After this all happens, Albert comes to the realisation that he no longer needs his scarf due to the change of season, and thus that is our climax, the realization and so, from there, the ending has begun, the literal ending infact, where a meteor crashes and kills all the woodland creatures.

 

Online Short #2

But i’d really have to kill you.

https://vimeo.com/129230068

Another online short that i discovered is one by the name of ‘But i’d really have to kill you’. In Act one, it starts off with the understanding that you are in an office, with a bunch of normal office workers, the first man, Chip, finishes for the day, stands up and finds that Jeff is stood absurdly close to his own face, this is showing us the two characters we have in the short, Chip and Jeff. For the end of act one, a simple question is asked ‘What are you up to this weekend?’, this would be where act one would end. Act two, it starts with a long stare from Jeff to Chip and Jeff goes on to state that if he were to tell him, then he’d have to kill him. Chip laughs it off and the monologue starts which guides us through Act two, in which Jeff explains his line of work in the roll of a killer named Dr. Noise the assassin, he then shows off his example of how he is a killer and then he goes onto monologue his threat to Chip, though he may not be able to hear Jeff, Chip is still being stared at by Jeff. This is where the plot twists and Chip is shown to be on his guard from here on out, although the audience may not know it at the time, these scenes aren’t reality, they’re just Jeff’s visions of what Chips life would be like if he were to ask about Jeff’s weekend. Throughout these scenes it shows Chips discomfort in reality, Jeff asks Chip, ‘Do you really want to know?’, end of act two. Act three begins with Chip starting awkwardly in Jeff’s eyes in discomfort, then says ‘Definitely not!’ and Chip looks around to see people looking weird and states that everybody thinks he’s a freak, this is the resolution of Chip telling Jeff not to act so freaky and weird at work. Chip then walks away and that’s the ending until Jeff throws a sharp look towards Chip.