The following week, we deconstructed the opening sequence of David Lynch's Blue Velvet, Lynch's return to small, personal films after the bloated disaster (in critical and commercial terms at least, I still like the film to the point that it's my favourite Lynch film) of Dune. Although I was aware previously that you can establish setting, character, almost anything you want with the appropriate imagery, it truly drove home just how much information a film feeds you subconsciously with everything from camera angle to sound. It's comparable to the opening shot of Star Wars, which is a great shot to deconstruct. Without saying a single word (the text crawl having given you the little bit of backstory you need), it establishes who is who and how they interact just in the design of each ship, the way the rebel ship takes up a small segment of the screen while the Imperial ship completely fills it for a good length of time, and how the sound of the rebel ship's engines are drowned out by the laser fire sounds while the rumbling roar of the Imperial ship's engines drown out everything else.
The Blue Velvet deconstruction, to get back on topic, did get into the realms of heady symbolism at points, such as the image of a rose in front of a white picket fence with a blue sky in the background being interpreted as symbolic of the American flag (red, white and blue), which no-one, apart from those actively attempting to read things into it, would spot it while watching casually. However, there was still some interesting analysis of the information being fed to the audience, how the shots, angles and subjects of each shot create a picturesque image of the idealised Middle American town, and then skewers that mood with a character's heart attack being played for dark comedy.
After that, it becomes a little unclear which lecture was given in which week. In hindsight, I wish I had put dates on all my lecture notes instead of just on one or two. Therefore, we will go in no particular order other than a vague flow from lectures based in ideas and theory to those based in technicalities of production.
Over the course of several sessions, we discussed theory and influences. We went through the basics of film noir, talking about the stark black and white lighting style inspired by the experimental lighting that was a key part of German Expressionist films such as The Cabinet of Doctor Caligari and Nosferatu, since many Hollywood filmmakers at the time were European veterans of Expressionism who were coaxed overseas (such as Fritz Lang, starting with Fury). Film noir is not so much a genre, which you would be forgiven for thinking since film noir is usually associated with tropes such as the down-and-out cop, gritty American underworlds, brooding voiceover and breathy femme fetales, but a style.
Another point of discussion was the concept of 'time image' and 'movement image'. It is a concept almost entirely applied to film alone, since it is pretty much the only medium that allows time to be manipulated. A photograph or written prose can imply or suggest time or movement, but film can actually show it. Techniques such as slow motion/fast motion/altered shutter speed, fade ins and outs/crossfades to show passage of time, and the simple fact that these are moving pictures, able to capture movement are all almost entirely applicable to film only, although video games are increasingly telling stories with techniques, the way in which they are used usually apes that of the way they are applied in film.
That covers the theoretical sessions. After that, the sessions focused more on the actual production process. This took place in three parts: using the camera, using lighting, and using filters.
The camera operating session was about what you'd expect, a person stood at the front explaining how to use the camera. However, I'm not that kind of learner, I've taken several of those 'how do you learn' tests in the past and it has always come back as 'leaning towards kinetic learning'. In plain terms, it means that although I can learn by having someone talking to me, I learn better by doing. This proved to be true in this case. Although I got the gist by having it explained, I only truly learned how to use the camera by using it. Once I started shooting, I knew vaguely how to do what I wanted, and by the end I was confident in using a DSLR.
The lighting session was more hands-on. We were given cameras and lighting equipment, and experimented with lighting setups. An example of the tests we made is below.
The final two technical sessions dealt with lenses and filters, and we were given a Z1 and told to experiment with different filters first. This was a nightmare, since the Z1 we had had a problem with the rack you install filters and lenses onto, and thus it was a massive chore to change arrangements between each test. Despite the fact that we were only filming in the classroom, and didn't move outside, after we were done it felt (to me at least) as if I'd just climbed a mountain. All of that effort was fo naught, as it turned out, as it was discovered when we attempted to play back the results and found the tape had corrupted. I was too exhausted to care.
And that covers the major taught sessions. There were additional, minor sessions, such as tutorials on how to export video files from Final Cut, mastering for DVD, getting the files off the camera and so on, but it didn't really apply to me since I worked with Premiere Pro CS5.5. More on that later.
No comments:
Post a Comment