The brief was to film a short film showing a character enter a room, cross the room and sit down, before exchanging a couple of lines of dialogue with another character. The film should include example(s) of match-on-action, shot/reverse shot and the 180 degree rule. Our film met all required criteria.
We planned effectively, spending a lesson and a half, as well as some time individually at home, working on the storyboard, script, music choices, as well as deciding our roles in the filming. Unfortunately we misplaced the script, although it was brief and all lines are said in the video so it isn't required. Below are images of our storyboard, which we used both during filming and editing, but didn't stick 100% to, exploring different possibilities, camera angles or transitions we found worked better when we had actually filmed them rather than we planned before.
This section shows the start of our film, which begins with the protagonist running around two or three sections of the school, before cutting to a shot of the antagonist. The antagonist is introduced with a medium, high angled shot, designed to make the character look weak, before cutting to a close up of his face, showing him laughing menacingly. This familiarises the viewer with the antagonist early, and makes us realise who the protagonist is running from, and we know who he is when we meet him. The storyboard depicts more shots of the antagonist before the characters meet, something we didn't include in our final edit. We felt that the same/similar shots could get boring, and weren't sure where they would fit in. Perhaps with screams in the background, followed by shots of the antagonist smiling and looking, to all intents and purposes, rather creepy, the film could have been improved.
This image shows the protagonist running around schools, and checking a door. This is to show the viewers he is searching for someone/something- not running away from something. This is important as we know the antagonist is stationary, and isn't moving anywhere, so if the viewers thought he was running from someone, it could get confusing. The character is shown running down stairs. This is simply to give a different setting, so it isn't all running in a straight line. It also gives more of a sense of realism I think. The final edit followed him round the corner of the stairs, contrary to the storyboard. This, I must say, was an input of my own. I, as cameraman, felt there were too many stationary camera shots, and the camera moving could create a more frantic atmosphere, which I think it did.
There were more running scenes, but we didn't storyboard them, as we didn't realise, without actually filming, that the running scenes came and went so fast, so we needed to add more in to fill time, but also to add a greater sense of realism. He wouldn't find someone after running in 2 or 3 corridors and checking one door. This storyboard shows the protagonist enter a room, demonstrating match on action by opening the door. Another example of match on action in our film is running around a corner. This was a late decision, as we felt the shot running around the corner went on too long, and it needed a new camera shot to keep the frantic feeling. The shot is a somewhat point of view shot, making us feel with, and side with, the protagonist. The antagonist is sat down, so that the protagonist seems bigger than him, fitting the metaphor if "the bigger person", also shown by the fact he takes up most of the screen- despite us only seeing his shoulder and the side of his head, while being able to see the whole of the antagonist without taking up as much screen.
This scene demonstrates both shot-reverse shot and the 180 degree rule. The protagonist thinks he has found a fellow survivor, and without getting a reply to his question, picks up a chair and sits opposite him. This is where the 180 degree rule comes in. This part is the only major failure of our film. The protagonist picks up the chair, and due to mixed ideas of how it is portrayed, the camera shot doesn't work. Also the sound is not correct. He says his line and the sound of the chair means we cannot hear it, and it is important. As a result we had to pinch a section of sound from another clip, and place it over the other video. We had to actually use two separate sound clips, so the sound doesn't fit at all, and realism is lost as we don' hear the chair touch the floor. We should have filmed the scene again but didn't have time.
The end of our film was designed to be dramatic and scary, which it definitely achieved. The music stopped at the pinnacle of its build up when the dialogue began, and again, my job (not that I'm boasting or anything) but it was just perfectly edited. As the scene ends, and we see the antagonist lunge to attack the protagonist, the screen goes black and the music kicks in loud and fast, creating sense of panic and fear. This works to perfection and is a great ending to the film. The ending is our best section in my opinion.
Overall, I think the film was a success. To say we had never used editing software or filming equipment before, to learn it all and produce a 1 minute 30 film in less than a week is a great achievement, and to the level I think we achieved is something. I thought our film was to a very high standard.
In terms of me individually, I felt I did a good job. In some ways, I slacked off my first job- to write the script. I sat down to write it but didn't know quite what to put and gave up quite quickly, without putting much thought and effort in to it. In many ways, however, I think this was a good thing. It made me realise that I didn't want to be that person, the person who the group carries and gets away with doing no work. I knew that I could offer something to the group, so when deciding roles, I immediately put myself forward for both cameraman and editing. The role of cameraman was shared, but I like to think I did a better job, selecting different angles and not being afraid of moving the camera or going off the storyboard a bit-which worked well, giving us good options and choices in the editing.
I think the editing was something we did fantastically as a team. Not afraid to criticise each others' decisions or choices, and all getting involved with our own ideas. As a result I feel the majority of the editing was done to a very high standard. I think the team dynamic worked well. We got the work done, but also had a laugh at the same time, enjoying it very much. It felt good to have freedom to do things without supervision, whilst we also knew we didn't want to be split up for the next task, so we did the work properly, to a very high standard, and did things numerous times to make sure it was perfect. I think it was the perfect work environment.
No comments:
Post a Comment