Preliminary Exercise Evaluation

One
 

My group consisted of myself, India, Sheera and Tom P. Throughout the task, I feel as though we distributed the work evenly between ourselves. During the planning stage, the whole group came up with a general idea; I and Tom worked on the script; India and Sheera worked on the storyboard; and the whole group worked out the schedule together.

When we were shooting, Tom and I acted whilst Sheera and India took the roles of director / camera operator and sound operator / production assistant alternatively but we all got to direct and film at least one shot during the shoot. Whilst we were editing the sequence, we made sure that the workload was divided up equally apart from the titles, where India made them because she had not got a chance to do so before.
  

Two

To plan the sequence, we initially had 2 group meetings; in a lesson and at lunchtime. There we came up with the main idea, scripted it, had us walk through it or act it out to see if it would work, storyboarded it onto paper and made shot list / shooting schedule from that. Whilst scripting, we briefly thought about narrative theory to ensure that our sequence had a beginning, a middle, and an end (Tom enters, conversation, Tom gets upset - "Darn!"). 
  

Storyboard, script and shooting schedule are below:

Whilst storyboarding, we considered a lot of theory based on the rules of continuity. As outlined in the task, we made sure our sequence demonstrated match - on action (passing the book, opening the door), contained a shot / reverse shot (the conversation from 0:13 to 0:15) and followed the 180° rule throughout. As well as these, we also included:

• Just cut transitions during the sequence to construct a sense of flow.
• The 30° rule so that the sequence didn't have any 'jumps' in it.
• Use of shot order was used at the beginning, from the establishing mid - shot to the hand's close up to create a sense of steady pace.

Three
  

Our group used 2 types of technology; hardware and software. During the shoot, we used lots of hardware; Canon Mini DV camcorder, a tripod, a shotgun microphone, headphones and a clapperboard. The director / camera operator would film the entire sequence with camera mounted on the tripod. The production assistant / sound operator would hold up the clapperboard so that finding shots would be easier in editing before listening to the sound being picked up by the shotgun microphone to hear if the dialogue was loud enough / if there was any background noise.
  

In post - production we used a PC and speakers to edit our clip as well as the non - linear, timeline based editing software Adobe Premiere Pro CS3. This software has a range of tools which we used to edit our recorded clips into a sequence, these are the 5 most important tools:

1. The Razor tool to cut clips into separate ones.
2. The Slider tool to choose the length of clips.
3. The Audio / Video Linking tool to delete audio in places where it wasn't needed and to ensure we didn’t un – sync anything during editing.
4. The Default Title Maker to create the opening title.
5. Effect Presets to create the fade in and out in the finished sequence.

Four
  

Throughout the project we had to consider a lot of things, most of which became factors for us during the planning. Time was a factor because we only had 1 hour to plan, 1 hour to shoot and 1 hour to edit we decided that our sequence had to be short and simple so that we could film it and edit it with time to spare. Location was also taken into account a lot as we had to shoot somewhere without too much background noise; somewhere with reasonable lighting as we didn't have enough people to include somebody to light up a dark room; and somewhere with the props of door, table and chairs which we needed to include in our sequence. 
  

During planning we decided that setting roles based on ability would save time and produce a better quality result, for example me and Tom were worse at drawing a storyboard and so wrote the script instead. As we wanted to learn some techniques that we didn't know how to do or to revise those which we were worse at, we shot with experience as a factor by giving roles to people who hadn't done them as much before (as I mentioned about India working on the titles in One).
  

Another factor for us, although it was mostly due to common sense was the practicality of what we were going to shoot and what we wanted our final sequence to look like. This is because we were going to be limited by our other factors, for example our final sequence couldn't be longer than an hour because we only had 1 hour to shoot it in. The editing software limitations were also a small factor as we couldn't add complicated effects, e.g. CGI, although we wouldn't have wanted to do that anyway.
 

Five
  

Relating to the original brief, I think our sequence was quite successful:

• We made a sequence with all of the actions mentioned; character opening a door, crossing a room, sitting in a chair opposite another character, exchanging lines of dialogue.
• Our sequence demonstrated use of the shot / reverse shot technique during the conversation to show the characters' expressions whilst talking.
• We stuck to the 180° rule throughout the sequence to ensure it looked 'right' and that the characters didn't appear to swap places.
• The beginning of our sequence demonstrated match - on action, especially when Tom opened the door and entered where the cuts seems very seamless.

Our sequence was slightly successful in a few other areas; the location and Tom's character are well - established with the shot of him walking down the corridor and into the room, the 2 pans looked mostly smooth and not too 'jerky', the master shot shows the room and where the characters are within the room effectively, the master shot at the end also adds something to remind the audience of the location and to add a sense of consistency, most of the cuts seem very natural and are easy to miss especially the cutaway to the door handle at the start of the sequence, we did not break the 30° rule by using a variety of shot types, high angle MS, two - shots, etc.

After watching my sequence, I can clearly that it is not perfect and that it has several areas for improvement. With hindsight, these are the 3 things I would most like to do differently:

1. Film the sequence in exactly the same way from each different camera set - up to eliminate continuity errors (such as the cut from 0:20 to 0:21 when the way my character holds the books changes).
2. Film the entire sequence even if we think we won't use it in the final edited sequence, if we had done this we would have had more options during editing about which angles we wanted to use in our sequence and could have chosen more cutting points between shots.
3. Add an introduction to my character; whilst Tom's character is introduced fairly well, the audience does not get an opportunity to understand my character or his motivation.

Six

By completing this task, I feel as though I have learnt a lot. Most of this new knowledge can be applied to the rest of my coursework.

Before completing this project I learnt some useful techniques, theory and terminology. The theory of continuity was important because some rules of it were mentioned in the brief but also because we had to use other aspects of it in our project, such as the 30° rule which I did not know about previously. I was not fully aware of camera setups and the 'dialogue' used by the director, camera operator, etc. 

I have learnt that the planning stage of a project is incredibly important, especially walking through the sequence and storyboarding it. Walking through will immediately indicate any problems with unnatural dialogue or movement that doesn't work in the sequence whilst storyboarding visually displays what the final sequence is meant to look like and make any problems with it become clear to see and change.

Whilst we were shooting, I learnt that it's essential to film the entire sequence from start to finish at each setup to give more freedom in editing at a later stage. I also learnt that you should always shoot by the location of the camera setups as opposed to chronologically in the storyboard. This didn't really apply to our group but when different setups are in very different and distant locations, it is both easier to do it this way and would be cheaper on an actual media production.

During the editing session, I revised a lot of techniques we learnt a year ago and only really learnt about continuity editing. I learnt a lot about how precise editing has to be to make a sequence look continuous, so precisely that we often had to edit within a couple of frames. After we had finished editing our shots together, we learnt how to export the sequence into a single video file in Adobe Premiere Pro CS3 and upload it to Blogger.

In summary, I really enjoyed this preliminary exercise and I personally feel as though it has taught me a significant amount of information that will be crucial in producing the final sequence and completing my coursework.

Propp's Theory on Narrative Structure (Mean Girls)

In this film, we can apply most of Propp's Character Types to this film:
1. The ‘Villain’ is Regina (leader of the Plastics).
2. The ‘Donors’ are Janis and Damien (social outcasts who teach Cady about the school’s system).
3. The ‘Helpers’ again are Janis and Damien (who help the hero develop a plan against the Plastics).
4. The closest person to a ‘Princess’ is Aaron (Regina’s ex – boyfriend and Cady’s crush).
5. The ‘Princess’ Father’ doesn’t apply to this narrative.
6. The ‘Dispatcher’ would probably be Janis (who wants Cady in the Plastics for what Regina did).
7. The ‘Hero’ is Cady in this film.
8. The ‘Usurper’ does not apply here as far as I am aware.

Some of Propp's 31 Functions also apply to Mean Girls although it is not is a very good theory (as I will go on to talk about later):

• Villain tries to meet hero; Regina and the Plastics ask Cady to have lunch with them.
• Member of hero's family desires "the lack"; Janis desires to have to "Burn Book" to get revenge on Regina.
• Hero discovers the lack; Cady finds out about the "Burn Book".
• Hero leaves home; Cady leaves her friends to infiltraete the Plastics.
• Location shifts to the place where the lack is to be found; Cady joins the Plastics.
• Hero and villain in direct combat; Cady attempts to bring down the Plastics throughout the film.
• Villain defeated; Cady gets revenge on Regina by making her eat high - calorie bars to gain weight.
• Initial lack liquidated; Cady gets to the "Burn Book" and writes a rumour in it.
• Unrecognised, the hero arrives home; Cady returns to Janis and Damien, still as a Plastic.
• Difficult task is set; Cady has to join her friends again.
• Task resolved by the hero; Cady gives her friends the Prom Queen crown.
• True hero recognised; Janis and Damien like Cady again.
• Villain is punished; Plastics disperse apart.

Clearly, Propp's theory is flawed in several ways.

• In my opinion, it is too vague; his theory says that there are several things that can happen in films, this can be very vague, e.g. the "hero" is just the main character of the film in this theory and every film will have some form of problem.
• Propp's theory does not consider the ways in which characters can change their story with dialogue, etc.
• This theory is also outdated I think; this was based on old Russian folk stories, since then films have changed for several reasons and can have very different narratives.
• His theory is very gender bias; the hero is a man looking to find a princess in his theory. Today, many protagonists are female in films such as this one.

(Please note, I have not seen 'Mean Girls' and have written this theory application based on various plot summaries on the internet which may not be reliable)

Todorov's Theory on Narrative Structure (The Blues Brothers)

In this sequence, we meet our 2 protagonists, Jake and Elwood Blues. Both are performers who sing and dance throughout the musical film (as Saturday Night Live fans will know). We know that Jake is a criminal being let out of prison on parole. We don’t as much about Elwood apart from his relation to Jake.

From this opening sequence, we can work out that the equilibrium is that Jake is trying not to break the law anymore (“…good behaviour” at 3:47) in the state of Illinois (Sign at 1:34) with the help of his brother Elwood. The audience becomes aware of how closely there are related as brothers in 2 main ways; their appearance is very similar (the suits, the hats, the sunglasses and the CUs of names on their fingers at 4:06 and 4:49), at the end of the sequence they also hug each other to anchor the fact that these 2 are going to be together for the rest of the film.

The sequence does not hint at what the disequilibrium will be or what the hero’s journey will be apart from the fact that it will probably involve them running from the law.

From my knowledge of the film, I do know what happens outside of this sequence and how it can be applied to Todorov’s theory:

• The original disequilibrium is that both protagonists are out of prison, not breaking any laws (yet) by themselves. The Blues Brothers Band has split up since Jake was in prison.
• The disequilibrium arises about 5 minutes later into the film when they discover that their old orphanage is going to be closed unless it pays $5000 to the Cook County's in 11 days. However, as the orphanage is run by a nun, they are forbidden to collect the money illegally.
• Both brothers go on a journey to reunite the band together so that they can perform a revue to raise the money. During this, they manage to make several enemies; Illinois Nazis, a country Western band and every police force / SWAT team / military group / Illinois Guardsmen who come after them in the finale.
• At the end, the Blues Brothers and their band are thrown into Joliet Correctional Centre with the orphanage still open and running.

Continuity Film Sequence Analysis (American Psycho)

This sequence starts with a slow panning medium – long shot which establishes that the scene is inside Bateman’s (played by Bale) office during the day as he is listening to his music privately. Next we are introduced to a woman (Bateman’s secretary, Jean) who walks into his office and begins a conversation with him. This is a very short conversation with just three shot types; the master two – shot of both characters and two mid – close – up shots of Bateman and Jean each. The cut from MCU of Jean to the MCU of Bateman appears very seamless as it follows the 180 Degree rule, definitely doesn’t break the 30 Degree rule as these shots are very different and is a single reverse – shot to show the character’s expressions signifying the relevance of their dialogue.

After Jean goes to get Detective Kimball (Dafoe) and leaves, Bateman has a fake conversation on the phone. During this, the camera cuts between MCUs from Bateman to Kimball and back to Bateman. Although there is no dialogue, this shot – reverse – shot is used to show the impression that each character gets of each other. After Bateman hangs up, the camera zooms out to a mid – shot so that this conversation is no longer “anything important”. Suddenly this cuts to close – up shot – reverse – shots for shock value and to put the audience directly in the action (and to represent Bateman’s state of mind, but this isn’t important in this analysis of continuity).

When Detective Kimball starts to discuss Paul Allen’s disappearance, Bateman starts to change the subject (because Bateman killed him) by calling Jean to bring Kimball a glass of water. When Jean does come in, Bateman grabs a coaster in a long shot and places underneath the glass before she puts it down in a CU. This match on action appears very smooth as the first shot ends where the second shot begins. The reason this shot was done however was to bring the audience’s attention to coaster (because we learn that Bateman is very cautious towards his belongings, in this case, the desk’s surface).

The conversation resumes again when Jean leaves and there are several POV and Over – The – Shoulder, MS, Shot – Reverse – Shots of the opposite person as they discuss Bateman’s details. When Bateman is complimented by Kimball; “Nice, very nice.” it cuts to a CU of Bateman’s reaction to break up the continuity a bit on purpose. Conversation resumes in mid – shots before cutting from MS to MCU to CU gradually. This shot order keeps the continuous appearance for the line “Do you feel like that?” suggesting it’s importance. This technique is done again with other important quotes later on in the sequence; the most important being: “It’s just strange. One day, someone’s walking around, going to work, alive and…” At the end Bateman and Kimball get up, Kimball leaves and Bateman shuts the door, resting on it in just 2 shots to slow down the pace rapidly giving the audience (and Bateman) a chance to ponder the conversation.

(Please note, this analysis only applies to only the first 5 minutes, 32 seconds of the sequence)