zackg623-blog - Tumblr blog

zackg623-blog · 6 years

Text

Homework 3

Zachary Goldman

“Where do you put the camera?”

When filming a scene, what is the best way to do it? Obviously it is subjective as o what the “best way to do it” is, but the goal is to find an engaging angle, that helps you follow the action.

The camera should not try to go around “establishing” characters. It should instead show a situation of one person trying to get something without flat-out saying “this is the guy you have to focus on.” As long as someone is trying to get something, the audience will be interested.

You should only keep in the essential pieces of the story. See if the story works without it, and if it does, throw it away. This way you keep the story as interesting as possible, which I suppose is the ideal.

“You can’t rely on acting to tell the story”. That’s a very interesting line right there. While true the story must be the primary component in telling a story however, I do think that often you do need acting to tell a story. I think that you should explain your intentions to the audience, but at the same time, sometimes you should leave inferences such as facial expression to fill in the gaps. I’m also aware that I am overanalyzing this line but it just struck me as in interesting thing to say.

He says to “always do things in the least interesting way”, because the audience is smart and doesn’t need you to waste time getting to the point that they’ve been to for five minutes. At the same time, do not give too much information, so that the assumedly smart audience doesn’t know what is coming next. The “K.I.S.S” rule – keep it simple, stupid. Basically, chose the path of least resistance.

Don’t let the movie be just people talking to other people. Tell the story yourself, as if it were a visual essay. He also wants the story to be told in cuts. “Juxtaposing images”. And don’t waste time getting into the meat of the film. Just start telling the story you want to tell.

He then talks about the ide of showing”homage” (however he more uses the word to mean respect in their example of the teacher/student relationship). Again, he is very into showing with juxtaposing shots, so we see the teacher entering the room, then a cut of the student standing up, which shows that the student respects whoever came in the room. This I think is more of just showing how to tell stories visually rather than verbally. Say someone gets shot, then we see someone on the floor, we assume they were shot.

The objective or the “MacGuffin” (a term of Hitchcock’s meaning the thing the hero is after) is what the character is trying to accomplish and isn’t something that we necessarily need to know (or be explicitly told). We don’t care why the hero needs it per se, but we know he needs it. Also it apparently makes a hero more relatable if we know less about him. This way we can apply our own attributes to the hero, and feel more attached to him.

The character shouldn’t waste time saying nonsense, if he is saying something it should be in relation to achieving his goal.

Once you have an idea of what you want your characters to be doing/achieving, you have to think in more detail. What does someone who wants something wear in order to help them achieve their goal? Their nicest suit, sweats, maybe nothing? All these things must be taken into account to really sell your scenes.

Kats

Open and closed framing

An open framing is one that might be used more often in a documentary, where there are aspects of the shot beyond the director’s control. A closed framing is one more like in a movie studio where you have control of the scenery and set.

“Aesthetic Distance is a phrase used to describe the degree to which a work of art manipulates the viewer.” pretty much how the viewer is being tricked into believing what they are seeing (or rather they are willing to let themselves be deceived).

(In the example with the man and woman in bed) The open frame seems to be more intimate, and more experimental using depth of field to be symbolic of what is going on in the scene. The closed frame makes a less personal shot, the pictures look more like a mattress commercial than anything else (obviously it is a still out of context but I am just saying that is what it looks like). I prefer the open shots in this example.

Points of view

First person point of view- seeing through the eyes of a character, what they see, you see.

Third person- A typical scene, seeing the action from outside of a characters eyes.

Omniscient- the viewer has knowledge available to him/her that the characters would have no way of knowing.

There aren’t any real set rules for point of view. Most film will exclusively use a third person view. I find a well placed first person view makes for a unique experience. There have even been a handful of movies made entirely in first person, but I find these to be novelties. They are pretty much done to be done usually. I think a full first person view works better in a story or book, but like camera shots, a point of view is up to the director to figure out what works best for the scene according to them. It is really a matter of personal taste, like most things.

Composing shots: spatial connections

Shots at different distances help orient us spatially. They can give us a scale of how large or small something is. However, back in the early days of Hollywood we believed audiences would not accept too radical a jump in the distance of a shot. Going from a long shot to a close-up was not allowed without a transitional medium shot in between.

Storyboards are used as a (rough) guideline of how you want to film your shots. The idea is to draw out the shot, and how you want it filmed. What type of shot it is, where the characters are, what direction they are moving, etc. I personally am not a fan of them because I feel like once you make one there is a sort of pressure to stick to it no matter what, and sometimes a deviation is good. I do however see the merit in them, in that they help a director get organized.

The close-up is an important shot. It’s something that the theater often wishes they could use. A close-up brings the audience closer into the action. It makes for a more intimate scene, and allows an actor to act using facial expression, or show that they might be nervous if you can see the sweat on their head. It really pulls the audience into the scene when used properly. There is also a lot of room for experimentation with even greater “extreme close-ups”. Kats gives an example of showing a woman walking down a dark street when suddenly there is an Extreme Close Up of her ear, and you can hear footsteps behind her. This scene would play out very differently if it were all done in medium or long shots.

The medium shot is the safest bet for if you aren’t sure what to do. It’s o’ reliable for many people. Neutral in distance, and showing all of the action in a scene, it is probably overused but is a safe bet for a scene as it will show pretty much all aspects of what is going on.

A full shot is kind of an awkward in-between of a medium shot and a long shot. It will show the whole set, but may create too much distance, but like anything it has its place and can be used to make for a good shot.

The line of action is that there are about 180 degrees of space to work with, and all the cameras are positioned to view different angles of that space. This helps orient a scene, and gives a good view of the different angles of what is going on. It works well with the triangle system which is when all the cameras are showing different parts of the same scene. There is an illustration of two people sitting at a table, one camera on each person, and the one in the middle showing them both in the scene.

Other shots include the over the shoulder shot, a POV close-up which since the two people are so close the POV doubles as the close up, profile shots, and so on. These are good angles and shots to use with the established 180 degree line of action.

A new line of action can be made if say another person comes up to one of the aforementioned people sitting at the table and starts talking to them, they then have their own perpendicular line of action to the other one. Or if one of the seated people gets up, crosses his own line of action, and walks up to the other seated person, which again creates a new line of action. The camera can also create a new line of action if it were to move around the table to the other side. As long as the movement is fluid and uninterrupted it is ok.

Human behaviors

1. My brother in law puts his hand on his forehead whenever he eats too much and exclaims “I need a nap”

2. In one of my classes a guy was full on talking to himself. Not a little mumbling, but a full on conversation with himself in public…

3. This guy wouldn’t stop playing with his beard, or head hair for that matter. Just kept on playing with it for a straight hour.

4. A person parked their car, and left their door totally open when they left it.

5. My uncle will constantly do what we call “drek mixing” meaning that he will constantly say something controversial just to start a fight between people. Often people do this once in a while without realizing but he goes out of his way to do this.

�>L��

0 notes

zackg623-blog · 6 years

Text

Homework 2

Weston 1

Actors want to give a good, and memorable performance. However, in wanting to do so, they may scare themselves into holding back and becoming self-conscious. When they are self-conscious they are wasting energy that could be used on playing the role better, and making their performance worse than it could be. An actor must learn how to get their nerves and fears under control so it doesn’t negatively affect their performance. An actor needs to be willing to take a risk. We take risks every day in the real world, and act incautiously, so we should to take risks to try to elevate a performance. However, the risk can either lead to a great, and elevated performance, or you can end up “overacting”, which is often far worse than acting cautiously. And sometimes an actor becomes too obsessed with keeping his image, and after a successful risk starts to be cautious again. Don’t “sentimentalize” a character.

Many directors tend to be impressed by an actor with a deep “bag of tricks”, meaning those who can cry on demand, or go into a flying rage quickly. Weston encourages directors to look further than that and try to find someone with more feeling that just a few party tricks. It is important for the actors and director to have a good relationship as well. It should be almost like a parent child relationship. The actors sometimes will need reassurance, or constructive criticism, and the director can’t be afraid to give it. In a similar vein, a director needs to accommodate an actor, and their little eccentricities (to an extent) and help them be more comfortable with the role. Acting needs to be a real, and honest thing. You need to devote yourself and practically become the character. Feel as the character would, see as the character would, be the character, give yourself to the character, that’s when a great performance is made.

Weston 2

Weston believes there are five acts that are useful for giving direction to an actor and to shape performances- Verbs, facts, images, events, and physical tasks. Also that it is better to suggest to an actor how something might be done, rather than flat out tell them, as this leaves room for some interpretation on the actors side.

Action verbs are a useful tool. They differ from regular verbs in that they are involving someone as in “to accuse”, but it is more of an emotional action with someone else. He says “to strike” would not count if it were physically, but if it were with subtext then it would as an action verb. Actions verbs also work well because an audience can’t necessarily feel what an actor is feeling, but they can feel what they are doing. It doesn’t matter how the actor feels about how they are doing something, it matters how the audience perceives it. It can also be useful to suggest to the actor in the form of a verb how the scene may play out, rather than an adjective. “Flirt with it (roll)”, rather than “play it sexy”. The verbs also are often more descriptive directions, instead of the vague “be mean”, you could say “punish him” which shows how mean to be. Don’t waste time wondering if a character might do something. People are complex and contradictory, so one might do something that doesn’t seem like the type of thing they would normally do. However, if you can get the point of what needs to be done across to the actors, then you needn’t only use verbs. They are just a more helpful way of doing it.

Facts are one of the best ways to make a point. Instead of using your own conjecture, simply answer the question with a fact. Why would the character do this? Because that’s the kind of person they are. Not the best example but the point is, use what is stated as canon for the best descriptions. And don’t embellish unless necessary. Use facts to describe a character. Rather than saying someone is likeable, say why they are (Tom helps old ladies cross the street, and donates to charity).

Images are very useful for getting your point across. You have to make the audience feel, or make a linkage to something with the scene to really get an impactful image going. When one needs to display something, rather than spending time explaining the situation, an image may suffice. One that is significant to the characters, and that the audience can understand or relate to.

If you need an actor to play the roll in a certain way, you might suggest an “adjustment” to them. Tell them to act as if “everyone has bad breath” for the rest of the scene. And when it comes to the “event” of the movie, the director must be an expert on the script. This way when they need to tell actors how to approach the scene they can better direct them, and their advice can be in relation to the story. If an actor is struggling with delivering a line or scene a certain way, giving a physical task may be helpful to get them in the right frame of mind. Let’s say you need someone to be angry, you could have them punch a hole in the wall (a breakaway wall ill assume), or struggle to open a jar of pickles. Just something to help them distract from the words of the script to aid stiffness in the performance, if necessary of course.

Sometimes, when an actor is looking for how to play a character, it is better not to give them an answer, but to give them a question that might lead to the actor discovering the character themselves. I feel that this is a more subjective thing because often a director will know exactly how they want the character to be played, but it’s an interesting concept. But Weston seems to think it’s better to let the actor have their version of the character (surly to an extent) rather than coming in dictating every little detail. And obviously you should be able to answer questions if need be, and not answer every question with a question.

A character typically needs an objective in a scene, something to accomplish for the scene to continue, and whatever that is or whatever is in the way, they must fulfill their objective (then the article shuffled around a bit to the middle of some other thought)

It is good to give an actor an obstacle that they can relate with their characters. Put yourself in the characters shoes so you may better understand where they are at emotionally, or just creating a deeper subtext of an obstacle for the character gives a new light for a scene. However, he feels that the obstacle should come from the scene, meaning that the actors shouldn’t “bargain” with each other. “If you’re mean to me, I can cry”. He feels this drains the scene of emotional impact. I would think that a sort of healthy competition between actors can be a good thing, but at the same time, this would probably only benefit more experienced actors. Sometimes an actor will try to bargain with a director to change a prop, or a line. These bargains are really going to depend on the individuals involved, but sometimes leaving a hard line may force the actor to go beyond and better their skill so it may be worth it to leave. Sometimes these conflicts lead to a more memorable scene, like when Brando pushes the gun away in on the water front. Talking these issues out may lead to a great scene, but I imagine it’s not a very comfortable thing to discuss with your director.

“Adjustments can be a way of adding imaginative backstory to the facts of the script.” An adjustment is an “as if”, play the scene as if the other character has a gun, it is like a secret fact, an internal alter to the script. Another example, let’s say the character is supposed to be in pain, so he says to himself to act as if he just stubbed his toe really hard, or as if you’ve been pinched, varying on the severity of pain.

Subtext is very important. It is what someone says, but not necessarily what they mean. Like saying “I’m sorry” and meaning “I still think it’s your fault”. This is something we do in real life all the time so it would make sense for a character to as well. Like if someone asks if you are ok when you clearly aren’t, and you say “ya aim fine.”

In most cases I agree with Weston, the points are fair and logical I find myself having slightly different ideological views in certain areas, but what she says makes sense, and is a helpful way of viewing the director /actor dynamic.

Human behaviors-

1. While playing a board game one of the players kissed the dice before each roll

2. When eating with my family, I noticed my cousin absolutely refuses to eat any food unless he has some of everything on his plate (he’s married, not a child)

3. Every few minutes a guy habitually would check a mirror and give himself a full checkup (teeth, hair, nose, everything)

4. A guy in class kept on flapping his pen on his finger.

5. A guy next to me was mercilessly chewing on his pen. Not a little here and there, but practically eating the thing like gum.

0 notes

zackg623-blog · 6 years

Text

Homework 1

Zadie Smith

Zadie begins by talking about how the word ”creativity” has lost its meaning in the modern world to the point where anyone, and anything can claim to be creative. She feels that the word has basically been bastardized and overused as many other words have. People go around spewing that they are creative, and this is creative, and that is creative all the time. She feels that something that is truly creative does not “satisfy a pre-existing demand but instead transform our notion of what we want”. I completely agree with this line of thinking. There are so many run-of-the-mill TV shows, and movies, and books I am sure, that just seem to exist for the sake of existing. It is only now and then that we get something truly original, for every fresh and exciting piece of work, there are probably 10,000 banal, cookie cutter ones. Even if what you are doing makes people uncomfortable, at least it is different. However, different obviously does not always mean good, writing something just for the sake of making it strange in no way makes it good, there are other factors to take into account. There is also the issue of “selling out” and what that means for the creative process. Is it really selling out to want to make money at your job? And who is to say where original ideas end and selling out begins? This term I find is often used at people in the music industry more than anywhere else, and even if the quality of someone’s material begins to “decline” or be more “mainstream”, there is a point where you have to understand these are people just trying to get by. However when people who have money, on money, on money, and they start to be more mainstream, then it is disappointing to see greed has gotten them. I guess there’s a time and a place for everything. Another point of creativity and its blurred line would be something like the IPhone. Yes it is an ingenious piece of technology but (almost) everyone both has and uses them the same way, so how can something be creative and original if it is in the mainstream? But all this talk of what makes something or someone “creative” brings out the cynic in me who asks “what if to me being creative is following the norm?” if someone genuinely feels that making pop songs for the sake of selling records is the epitome of creativity, who is to tell them they are wrong? There are many grey areas in something as delicate as trying to be original, and being original can mean something entirely different to each person. I would say just do what makes you happy.

David Mamet

Mamet suggests that films should not be told necessarily through dialogue, but rather with “uninflected” shots that “juxtapose” one another. He feels that this is the flaw with American filmmaking, that we use things like the steadicam and narration. And what I believe he was trying to get at with that is perhaps we have too many tools at our disposal and that can make people rely on equipment and its uses, rather than being creative on your own. Kind of like the logic that if classic musicians or bands had todays technology they wouldn’t be any good because they wouldn’t have to play to their strengths. They would have too many tools limiting their creative process. However I disagree with part of what he is saying. I have always been a fan of narration, and I think that done well it can vastly enhance a story. One shouldn’t assume their audience is stupid and therefore does not need to be told what’s happening, but like anything if done right it can be very helpful. Sometimes you need to tell someone something in order for them to understand what will follow. Background information is often needed. He also believes that the entire film should be laid out on paper and followed to the tee in the studio. I agree that things like a shot list help you film but if you micromanage everything exactly how you imagine it, and leave no room for spontaneity, you can lose out on some potentially great moments (there are many “iconic” scenes in films that were improvised). I also don’t think a film that is holding out on dialogue will be inherently more interesting. This is my personal feelings about that but I prefer movies with words rather than silent ones. If the technology had been there, I’m quite sure silent films would not have been a thing. Everyone has a different style, but I think to mock something like the use of Steadicam, or even dialogue itself is a bit ridiculous especially because at this point these are things used in almost every film. And I certainly don’t think that easily being able to follow a shot is a problem.

Human behaviors

1. A man was reading a book on a bench, and licked his fingers each time before flipping the page.

2. At a red light I saw a man pick his nose and act like she was scratching it when I noticed.

3. At a restaurant a woman licker her lips after every spoonful of her soup.

4. Saw a guy walking, and with each step his left foot went inwards, where most people’s go out.

5. I was sitting next to a man who cracked his knuckles every couple of minutes.

0 notes