Evaluation
Due to the
four ‘must have’ elements of the brief, the narrative was formed in such a way
that allowed us to contain them. The use of POV inspired us to centre the film on
the idea of stalking and voyeurism as it was decided from the start that it was
through this we were able to incorporate them without having to emulate the
idea that the camera is used to represent a person’s existence. It’s this use
of the POV that Hitchcock despised; He
(Hitchcock) was very critical of point of view shots that called attention to
themselves, for instance, in the kind of experimental film that substitutes a
camera entirely for someone's view and consciousness, replete with their arms
waving into the corner of the screen and that sort of
thing." (Fawell, 2004) We too wanted to avoid these cliché shots and
so relied a lot more on false POV, as Hitchcock did, to create tension and keep
the audience guessing as to who or what the camera was representing. The use of
tracking shots were doubled up as POV, set at eye level and often moving slowly
toward an unsuspecting character, only to be revealed moments later as a false
POV. The fact that the film contains both real and false variations of this
shot was intentional, giving each one of the shots more depth due to the fact
the audience wouldn’t ever be sure of exactly what they’re watching.
The watching of the Coen brother’s No County For Old Men during one of the sessions was of great help
in understanding the power that lighting can have on the mood of a scene and
how more importantly for us, how it can reveal a lot about a character with
very little dialogue. The particular scene of which I’m referring employs a
simple lighting set up to both reveal and hides elements of the shot. We
imitated this idea while also incorporating a lighting change, as the light is
brought up, importance is brought to the murder weapon. As I've previously
stated, we choose to be surreal in the use of the four stated elements and as result we felt it was justifiable to use red gels in conjunction
with Dedo's to extenuate the mood of the scene. While this sudden red
glow would look out of place in a conventional film, mainly for breaking the suspension
of disbelief, in this exercise it fits the brief and adds to the scene. Without
dialogue, it has the secondary effect of helping tell the story, not only in
regards to the emotions felt, but explaining the narrative. The glow of red
being the growing anger of the killer who, because of this, is understood to be
aware of the intruder.  |
| Lighting change; Dedo w/ blue gel + Kino |
The third element constraint was that of colour and its use
in driving the narrative. I've mentioned the use of red gels; however, the use
of the colour red is quite prevalent in the shots filmed in Grindleford too.
Again, this was intended to better explain the theme’s of the film, by using
cutaways containing red intermixed with the violent shots of our character
disposing of a body, we set the audience up as to what to expect from the rest
of the film. We also made the connection of the colour with the character
himself, a point we come back too in his home when he is seen bathed in red
light. Being that the film contains no dialogue, we felt it important that
emotional ties such as pain, passion and anger were established and then
associated with the murderer. Essentially, using colour alongside action to
better explain his character. An interview in Masters of Light: Conversations with Contemporary Cinematographers was
inspirational for the use of colour representing certain psychological
conditions. Vittorio Storaro talks of the “symbol of light” and how “"In
psychoanalysis, every colour represents something specific in an emotional
sense." (Schaefer 1984: P225) This,
along with researching Night Shyamalan's films gave me
a good indication of the validity of how the use of red can be significant in
creating mood and increasing depth through mise-en-scene.
The use of a long take was also compulsory; it was this
element that I was most ambitious with. The idea of combining this with a POV
seemed like an obvious option given the narrative of the film. While we were
without the use of a steadicam, Kubrick’s The
Shining was of great inspiration when it came to a tracking POV. Rather
than sourcing a steadicam or equivalent, we were forced to use the best part of
three track and dolly kits in order to travel the desired distance. As a result
some compromises had to be made, chiefly the fact that once a track gets so
long it’s impossible to shoot forward while hiding the end of it from coming
into shot. We got around this through the use of a pan to introduce the first
character, and then made sure the second character blocked the sight of the
track. Inevitably, this then throw up yet more issues we had to overcome,
pulling focus with a DSLR while tracking down a hill became a skill I had to
learn very quickly. Despite all the trouble, I’m very pleased with what we
managed to achieve. Come the end we’d managed to incorporate a false POV, a
real POV, a pan, a track and a focus pull all in one take. I’m also pleased
that it’s done in such a way that adds to the narrative, rather than it seeming
like it was done for the sake of including all the above camera techniques. The
way in which the killer looms into frame and the calm, steady pace of the track
while he goes about his ‘work’ is creepier than I had imagined.
The second ‘long take’ is the handheld section where the audience
follows the killer around his house as he hunts down an intruder. I’m pleased
with how this sequence came out, despite it being shot hand-held, the shakiness
doesn’t distract as it often can when using a dslr. I feel the fact it’s a slow
sequence (to aid the camera operator) crates more tension than originally hoped
for, the duration of the shot forces the audience to expect a cut, when this
doesn’t happen the tension is raised, they expect a ‘jump’. The way in which
the frame is often obscured by the actor and switching focus between the face
and the knife further adds to this tension, not being able to see what the
killer can see is disconcerting, it’s also a good chance for the audience to
read the emotion of the character, if the acting is good this too will add to
the tension.
In all, with regard to following the brief, I think we did
well to incorporate and make good use of the four outlined elements. This being
said however there are a few flaws that I’d like to bring to light. Firstly,
there are a few issues with over exposure, the scenes in Grindleford for example
where the sun was very bright over head, we should have compensated and
expected the problems. Another reason for the over exposure, this time
when filming in the house, was due to the annoying mistake of not setting the white
balance. When we came to review the footage it was obvious that we’d have to
grade it in post, unfortunately the solution of raising the whites simultaneously
washed out areas of the frame which contained non-shielded bulbs.
 |
| Over exposed |
The second technical error we encountered was a result of our
choice to shoot the kitchen scenes in near darkness. There’s a big continuity error
in the way that the lighting in the room leading off the kitchen keeps jumping
around in brightness. We would have liked to colour correct those said areas of
the frame however time became a restraint and we were forced to accept it. Costume is something that I would pay more attention too also, we made an attempt, for example dressing the killer in dark clothing. The stalker was briefly thought of too, wearing a blue shirt to match the blue lighting sequences in the house, our aim was to suggest an element of sorrow and loneliness, hence the stalking. I woulds have liked to dress the second victim in red had we thought of it at the time. As a result of making this film I feel far more aware of how touches of colour can make a big difference.
In terms of evaluating my group I would say we worked exceptionally
well together. From the begging we all met up on a number of occasions to
discus narrative suggestions and agree on what are influences would be. During
the actual production we had no problems either, the roles were shared all
round, despite both Ben and James acting in the film, we would all discus the
cinematography as a group before shooting some of the more complex shots.
If I were to se-sit this module and have the chance to make
the film again the aspect the only things I’d change would be technical
aspects. Lighting for example, I’d pay more attention to the set up in the
house. I’m happy with the effect we achieved however I feel the importance of
lighting continuity was over looked.
Bibliography
Fawell, J. (2004). Hitchcock's rear window: The well
made film. (2nd ed., p. 41). Illinois: SIU
Press.
Press.
Schaefer, D. (1984). Masters
of light: Conversations with contemporary cinematographers . (reprint
ed., p. 225). USA: University of California Press
