Thoughts on “Sans Soleil”

Sans Soleil was certainly an interesting and impressively ambitious film. Over the course of its run time I had listened to Chris Marker meditate on the human condition, human nature, memory, history, the Kino eye, culture, images and filmmaking, all through the guise of a travelling camera man known as Sandor Krasna who’s sending letters back to the female narrator in France.

From the get-go, the form of the film was fascinating to me. When we think of documentaries we often think of a specific event or topic being covered throughout the film. We expect interviews, maybe some reconstructions and some archive footage to go along with it. Sans Soleil offers a fascinating alternative, a film that runs like a stream of consciousness, told through the eyes of two fictional characters, yet using footage of real events, and covering history and culture in an informative way. Because of its original form, Sans Soleil has been referred to as a travelogue and an essay film in addition to a documentary. I have seen this marriage of fiction and documentary once before in a far more recent film called Not Reconciled (Jill Daniels, 2009), in this short film we cover the events of the Spanish Civil War told through the eyes of two fictional characters killed during the events and talking as ghosts. This experimental style of documentary really interests me, as it allows us to take large political events and make them into something personal, by allowing us to see them through the eyes of a character with emotions and opinions. No longer are we hearing about an event through dates and statistics, we are seeing the way it would have directly impacted the life of a human being.

But how did I actually feel about the film beyond being interested by its form? How did it make me feel? Did I enjoy it? In truth, after watching it I was a bit unsure on a number of these things, perhaps because the film wasn’t trying to tell me how to feel, which is commendable, it seemed to me more of a place for Marker to try and make sense of his own thoughts, not much caring whether or not anyone wanted to hear what he had to say. Marker confirms as much in a revealing letter to one Theresa, wherein he states “On a more matter-of-fact level, I could tell you that the film intended to be, and is nothing more than a home movie.” (Chris Marker, Unknown) As such, I found my interest fluctuating throughout. When Marker was discussing a society’s culture and history, it was revealing and fascinating, he represented it through the lives of ordinary working-class people rather than through famous names and politicians, which I thought was brilliant, and the footage he chose to use was intimate and powerful. Yet, when he began to meditate on the nature of memory, time and space, at times my concentration would drift. As fascinating and unique as Marker’s world view was, it’s a view that’s completely his own, meaning there were times where I couldn’t relate to or even completely understand what he was saying. Of course, as previously mentioned, Marker was in no way trying to appease his audience, so this was by design and no fault of the film. On top of that, the stream of consciousness structure meant the film meandered from one topic to the next in a seemingly random order, which for me, would occasionally negatively affect the pacing of the film, and contribute to my fluctuating interest. For instance, during the sequence in the second half of the film where Marker’s fictional camera-man is discussing his ideas for a film he’d like to make but probably won’t, by the time he mentions he’d call the film “Sunless”, it felt to me like a summation of everything the film had been about up to that point, and as such I was expecting that to be the finale. I was surprised to find when the film carried on after that point that there was still half an hour to go.

In conclusion then, I was impressed by Sans Soleil, and it was quite clear to me why the film is held in such high regard by so many. Its form was truly original, and I found some of the topics Marker covered and the way he did so to be truly fascinating. However, as much as it was a film I’d encourage others to experience, due to its meandering pace and sometimes deeply personal subject matter, I can’t say I enjoyed all of it, and though I’m glad I watched it, I can’t really see myself returning to it anytime soon.

 

References

Chris Marker. (2018). Letter to Theresa by Chris Marker – Behind the Veils of Sans Soleil ~ Chris Marker. [online] Available at: https://chrismarker.org/chris-marker/notes-to-theresa-on-sans-soleil-by-chris-marker/ [Accessed 9 Jan. 2018].

Not Reconciled. (2009). [film] Directed by J. Daniels. London.

Sans Soleil. (1983). [film] Directed by C. Marker. France: Argos Films.

 

 

“Jump”- Production Folder

List of Original Script Changes Sent to Dominic Carver by Me

* Time of day- is no longer specific to night, ideally evening or late afternoon. Not only were we worried about the logistics of shooting in the dark, but we didn’t feel like it was necessary beyond it being after the working day, which evening would also work for.

* The Rolex and the Merc- we decided Stanton’s car and watch didn’t have to be brand specific, because of the obvious difficulties with acquiring the items

* Stanton saying “Bye!” to his wife- we didn’t feel like this added anything to the scene or was particularly funny, it also felt a bit weird. We felt that if the audience simply sees that his wife is calling him, and he then throws the phone, that will also get the message across.

* Stanton writing “DEAR WORLD, FUCK OFF!!!! LOVE STANTON.” On the door- we felt that this was also unnecessary as seeing Stanton walk briskly and with purpose towards the edge of a high building would convey his intentions well enough, and stopping to write on the door may kill the momentum we are planning on building up during this opening sequence. Though admittedly there is some humour to it, we felt it wasn’t enough to warrant keeping it in.

* The sections on pages 7 and 8 where Jean mentions she was there first and thus she should get to jump- we found these sections to be slightly tiresome and irritating, which we understand is the point as that’s how Stanton is feeling, but we didn’t think they’d serve the film in any way as they aren’t particularly funny. We’ve left the one in the first time she mentions it so the point isn’t completely removed. We also noticed that by removing them the following lines are both Jean completely disregarding Stanton’s question, which we felt would be equally as fitting to her character and as irritating to Stanton, while also taking up less time and being less irritating for the audience.

* Besides that there are a few small details that may have to be changed in regards to the layout of the roof of the building and the way the dialogue accommodates this. But that’s literally just down to whatever building we can get, not a creative or stylistic choice.

 

Director’s Bio Written by Me for the Website

Flynn is the director on the project, which of course means it was primarily his creative vision behind the film, and he worked to keep the film tonally and stylistically in line with this. During pre-production he worked closely with the writer of Jump, Dominic Carver, to make the screenplay his and the crew’s own, and to account for changes in location and character details. During production he had to work closely with all on set. Flynn’s background is in directing, as he started putting together amateur films with friends when he was only eleven years old, and has remained passionate about it ever since. In the last few years through college and university he has had the opportunity to helm larger and more demanding projects.

 

 

Director’s Statement Written by me for the Website

What first drew me to directing Dominic Carver’s excellent screenplay Jump was the darkness of its comedy. I love pieces of art, whatever they may be, that are unafraid to tackle difficult topics in a way that could be deemed unconventional or even offensive to some. The whole scenario of two very different people arguing over who should get to kill themselves is one that’s so bizarre and original that even without all the little gags and jokes dotted throughout the script, it’s instantly amusing. Beyond the concept itself, Carver’s dialogue is continuously sharp, it jumps off the page in a way that allowed me to visualize the entire film long before we’d even got around to casting, and the conversation between our two leads moves naturally from incessant bickering to genuine conversation, allowing them to grow as characters as the screenplay continues and develop a strange sort of mutual respect, which serves as a satisfying end to the story. In terms of inspiration, I’d say I looked mainly at the works of directors such as Quentin Tarantino, Guy Ritchie and Shane Black. Though Jump is certainly a comedy, there is an element of realism to it, it’s not as straight up as say something by Edgar Wright or Jim Abrahams, and as such I felt the styles of the aforementioned directors would be a better fit. Though there is still room in their films for creative visuals, the focus tends to be on extended scenes of dialogue, and its delivery by their consistently excellent cast. Of course, it’s one thing to have a creative vision, and another thing entirely to bring it to fruition. Fortunately, I was lucky enough to find myself a part of an extremely talented and hardworking crew, and a cast that bought Carver’s dialogue to life in an extraordinary way.

 

Shot List Written by Me

Shot List

Outside Car Park

• Establishing shot of skyline
• Mid looking through windscreen at Stanton in his car
• POV from inside car looking out at the barrier
• Close-ups on Stanton as his face twitches and he grips the steering wheel
• A montage of shots as Stanton exits his car: beginning with a slow zooming in shot of him adjusting the rear view mirror to show his eyes, following with a close up of his shoes as he steps out of the car, a close up of him shutting the car door with a faint reflection of himself in the window, close up as he adjusts his cuff links and tie, wide shot of him walking towards the building, shot from the back of Stanton – half of him in frame as he throws the car keys to the side, slightly shaky handheld shot following Stanton to the lift.

 

Stairwell and Elevator

• Super low angle from the elevator looking up at Stanton as he mashes on the button and goes inside
• Simple front on mid of Stanton as he stands in the elevator
• A close up of his phone as he gets it out his pocket
• A low angle reaction shot as he looks at his phone
• A wide side-on shot of the elevator doors opening and a phone flying out from inside
• Maybe a shallow depth of field close-up of the phone on the floor dying, in the background we see the elevator doors closing again

 

The Roof

• A similar tracking shot to before of Stanton exiting onto the roof and marching over to the ledge, Jean comes into the frame in this shot, some distance away from Stanton, it takes him a few moments to notice her
• From “What the hell are you doing?” to “Apology accepted”- a SRS with a close up on Stanton and a POV shot of Jean from Stanton’s perspective, so she is quite far away from the camera still
• On “Too many young people your age…” to “when I’m ready to jump”- another SRS from similar angles, except this time we are much closer to Jean, a mid.
• On “You can’t jump from here…” to “Your father-in-law owns a car park?”- A shot side-on of Jean in the foreground (close-up) and Stanton in the background, during this section Stanton will begin walking over to Jean, and towards the camera.
• By “Well no, I mean he owns that building over there…” Stanton has reached Jean and we get a front-on mid of the two together in frame, which lasts until “Oh dear, such language.”
• On “Right, try and understand this.” To “I’m going to stop talking to you…”- a close-up SRS
• On “So why do you want to jump?” to “Oh dear, you have been a naughty boy…”- back to the same mid from just
• From “Well?” to “Oh that’s private”- close-up SRS again
• When Stanton goes to jump up next to Jean we get a wider shot from behind the pair so we can see them sitting next to one another and some skyline too, this continues until Jean offers him a Sandwich
• On the Sandwich a mid from in front of the pair, though a bit closer now that they’re both sitting
• When Stanton hand her the watch, a close-up of the action
• A close up for when they shake hands
• From “Pretty little thing” to “I’ll take heads”- another SRS, this time though it is quite close to the pair, and both of them will be in each shot
• A close-up of the tea being put down
• A front-on mid of them both standing
• A shot of the coin flying over the edge
• A low-angle shot of them both looking down
• A high-angle shot of the passer-by walking by the building
• Continue the low angle shot until they sit back down
• When they sit down till “unfortunately I do”- the same SRS from just
• Another mid shot from in front of both of them sat down contemplating, we see the punk appear in the background, out of focus, and walk towards the camera, in between the two, he gets right to them and hops over the fence, jumping towards the camera, he vanishes off screen, Stanton and Jean, startled, look down after him.
• When Jean collects her stuff a montage of close-ups of her putting her things away
• The final shot is a wide of both of them walking away from the camera talking, the camera slowly tilts up towards the sky while we continue to hear them as they exit the roof, the credits could roll hear while the camera is still pointing at the sky, giving them enough time to get down to the exit, as the credits finish we hear the final line, at which point it cuts to black.

 

Photo of a Page from the Script With my Early Annotations on it

 

 

Photo of Some Last Minute Shots I Wrote Down

 

“Jump”- Critical Reflection

When I became director for the project Jump one of the first things I did was begin thinking about what my stylistic approach to the film would be, an approach that would inherently be made up of the various styles of all my favorite directors and their films. As Jump can be classed as a comedy, my first thought was to look at some of my favorite comedies, the Cornetto Trilogy directed by Edgar Wright. I’m a huge fan of the quirkiness and energy Wright injects into his films, and his ability to get some sort of gag into virtually every frame.

However, the more I read Jump and thought about the approach I wanted to take with it, the more I began to realize that maybe Wright’s style wasn’t going to be as compatible as I’d first thought, and I should look elsewhere for inspiration. You see, where Wright’s films are incredibly fast-paced and almost goofball in their comedy, Jump felt more grounded, and played out far slower, the whole script essentially being a conversation. It was then that I started to look at the works of directors such as Quentin Tarantino, Guy Ritchie, Shane Black and Martin Scorsese, directors who’ve all worked on their fair share of pitch-black comedies. I looked at the way they’d handle their chosen situations and topics, and found many similarities between their films and Jump. In terms of style, they all tended towards more dialogue-led scenes, particularly Tarantino, with the writing and performances being the main focus.

In terms of my creative process throughout production, one of my first jobs was re-crafting the script into something I, and the rest of the crew, were happy with. There were a few throwaway lines and jokes that didn’t quite land, so I edited the script to account for these changes, all while keeping up a constant dialogue with Dominic Carver, the writer. When we changed our location from a rooftop to a car park, I managed to work in one or two more jokes of my own that were afforded to me by the new location. Using the knowledge afforded to me by several trips to the car park, I compiled a shot list in tune with my vision for the film that would make the most effective use of the space.

On the day I had to work in conjunction with everyone on set, and work particularly closely with the actors. I wanted to ensure that we all stuck to a singular vision as to what the film should be. For this I had to be confident and communicate effectively with everyone on-set, asking for reshoots and offering constructive feedback where it was necessary to get each shot exactly as I wanted it. Of course, the problem with this necessity was that I didn’t want to feel like I was giving orders to my friends or to the actors, or endlessly critiquing their work, so I had to find a way of striking a balance between staying true to my vision of the film, and creating an open and relaxed environment, making it an enjoyable experience for all involved, as this is where creativity thrives. I soon learned that the best way to do this was to just become friendly with everyone on set, as this encouraged more openness with one-another. During post I offered continuous support and feedback to our editor.

I found the role of director to be one that was enjoyable and fulfilling, yet also challenging. During production time management was our biggest opponent, on both of our shooting days we were severely behind schedule, which meant that the last hour or so of both devolved into a panicked rush to get things finished. It was a challenge for me to not only keep everything on track, but also not to get frustrated and take it out on the crew. While it was occasionally possible to attribute the wasted time to certain people, it was imperative that I remembered that if they’d made a mistake, it was one any of us could have made, we all had to stay patient and considerate of one another. For me, the thing I found most fulfilling about directing was seeing the film come together before my eyes through the performances and the beautiful shots we were using to capture them. Not only was my own vision being bought to life, but the actors continually surprised me with interpretations of the script far different to my own, which was equally if not more exciting to see.

As with almost all creative projects, I cannot say that I’m entirely pleased with the final product, but I know that we’ve all put 100% into it, and there’s still quite a bit that I do like. Primarily I am a huge fan of the way the film looks. A collaborative process between myself, the director of photography and the camera operator, I truly believe we managed to craft some beautiful and inventive shots that were thematically tied to what it was they were capturing. I think we effectively utilized the space provided to us to turn what is really just a simple conversation between two people into something stylish and visually arresting, which I was very proud of. For me my main flaws with the film are due to the aforementioned lack of time. As I watch it back it is clear to see the moments where we were trying to get through the shots as quickly as possible, as many of them would have benefited from the actors having several goes at the line in different ways and with more direction from myself. The final edit also contains a few awkward cuts that could have been fixed with more cut-away footage, had we had the time to capture it. I also feel the closing moments could have strongly benefited from some music, something which I should have started thinking about in advance and made the arrangements to have some songs written, as none of the songs I was able to find on royalty-free websites particularly fitted.

My final takeaway from the project is that being a successful director is all about having the ability to communicate your vision effectively to your cast and crew at all times, and be confident in the decisions you make. I’ve also learned the importance of extensive planning, and giving oneself lots and lots of production time so it runs in a manner that’s smooth and relaxed, and provides ample time for any re-shoots that may be necessary.

References

Hot Fuzz. (2007). [film] Directed by E. Wright. Somerset, England: Universal Pictures.

Paul, J. (2015). What It Takes to Be a Great Director. [online] The Beat: A Blog by PremiumBeat. Available at: https://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/what-it-takes-to-be-a-great-director/ [Accessed 15 Dec. 2017].

Pulp Fiction. (1994). [film] Directed by Q. Tarantino. Hollywood: Miramax.

Snatch. (2000). [film] Directed by G. Ritchie. London: Columbia Pictures Corporation.

The Nice Guys. (2016). [film] Directed by S. Black. Hollywood: Misty Mountains.

The Wolf of Wall Street. (2013). [film] Directed by M. Scorsese. Hollywood: Red Granite Pictures.

“Jump”- Pre-Production Problems

With the script altered, thus began the pre-production process. Location hunting and casting were the main two jobs, which were largely left up to our excellent producer, Leeza. I was in charge of putting the shot list together and establishing the creative vision that we would all be working towards.

We’d been warned before we started that finding a building that would let us shoot on their roof was not going to be easy due to obvious health and safety concerns, however as we had a good team and had started preparation nice and early we were fairly sure we’d be ok. As it turns out however, we were wrong, gaining permission to film on someone’s roof is incredibly difficult when you don’t have the name recognition or the money of an established filmmaker, and as of yet we still haven’t really found a location. We spent many an afternoon walking around town asking business owners about the possibility of using their roof for a short film, and just as much time was spent online, looking for suitable buildings in the local area, then getting in contact with the necessary people.

As for the second big job, the actors, we put out the word as soon as possible on various websites and social media platforms for both Stanton and Jean. As it happened, Stanton proved to be the easier of the two to find, applications for the role started to come in within days of the listing going up, and at a high volume too. However, our original choice for Stanton came not from any of the online locations, but from good old fashioned talking face-to-face. A few members of our crew were working at a film festival in Birmingham where they got to watch some of the films being shown. One of the films featured an actor by the name of James Edge, who our crew immediately thought would be perfect for the role. Taking the initiative, they located him at the festival afterwards and spoke to him about the potential of him playing Stanton. Thankfully he said he was looking for more exposure in film, and would be more than happy to work in a student-led project without being paid. We sent him the script, which he loved, so within almost no time at all we had cast one half of our film. Now the search was on for our Jean, and for our location.

Cabinet of Curiosities: Reflection

The Cabinet of Curiosities project began with nothing more than a bunch of random objects scattered on a classroom floor, and ended with the disappearance of a young man named Christian Knight, a man with aspirations, history, a personality, likes, dislikes and everything else associated with a real human being. This, of course, was the whole point of the project, to test our ability to create characters and give them a personality of their own, then follow on from this by telling a story through him that can engage an audience.

 

The character of Christian was an interesting one, as the nature of his lifestyle allowed us to really delve into the more mysterious side of his personality, which in the end became a key part not just of what defined his character but of the presentation as a whole. In character as the filmmakers, we were able to twist reality and turn him into something of an urban myth, someone that shows up every now and then and the only trace he leaves is the stories told about him by those who knew him, similar to the characters presented in documentaries like Searching for Sugar Man (Bendjelloul, 2012) or this year’s smaller scale BBC documentary, The Man Who Squeezes Muscles: Searching for Purple Aki (Mattingly, 2016). I felt production on this project went far more smoothly than on the previous one, mainly due to the simplicity of the footage we needed, which gave us more time to focus on constructing a well-framed, well-lit shot, and the use of proper sound recording equipment allowed us to capture the lines of our actors much better than on the previous project, which was full of echo. We also remembered to use clap syncs when filming, which was an absolute god-send as it meant we weren’t fiddling around for ages trying to match the video to the audio.

 

The choice to turn our presentation into a sort of play, made by one of the members of the group, was a great one in my opinion, as it allowed us to have more control over what questions would be thrown at the presenters, leading to tighter scripting. I had a big hand in the writing of the script for the presentation, something which I relished, as I’ve always felt more confident behind the camera, so the opportunity to gain some practice in this field was much appreciated.

 

Overall I was very pleased with the way we carried out this project. We worked at a good pace with proper planning and scheduling, even managing to work around other projects and essays that were due in at the same time. We all worked well as a team, both supporting one another’s ideas and offering constructive criticism and advice where necessary. The presentation was well-rehearsed and I felt we incorporated our media very well into the script, allowing for what should have been a smooth and professional assessment. For the most part this was true, although we did encounter some minor problems with lines and technicalities on the day, leading to one or two awkward silences. Despite this though I’m confident the final product was received well, and I was certainly very proud of it, knowing how hard we had worked to create it.

Cabinet of Curiosities: Production Log Four

With all the footage we needed recorded, we met up as a group as soon as we could to plan how we were going to put it all together and turn it into a presentation that would be engaging for an audience whilst also meeting the required criteria outlined in the assessment brief.

We realised pretty early on that if we were going to pursue the ideas we had about unreliable narration and ethics in journalism and work these into our presentation, we would need to be asked very specific questions, which would be difficult if presenting to the tutors. There was also the problem that, with all of us playing filmmakers, it would be difficult for each of us to have a distinct role and character, therefore giving us less to say. The decision was therefore made by a member of the group to turn the presentation into more of a play we would act out in front of the tutors, who would then have the oppurtunity to ask us questions afterwards. After receiving confirmation from the tutors that this would be acceptable as an assessed piece, we went to work planning and scripting.

We split the group in two, half of us playing the documentary filmmakers and the other half playing the panel of producers that they were pitching to. This set up gave us greater control over our presentation and the things we could tackle within it, and also allowed us to script it more tightly for what would hopefully be a much smoother presentation. Scripting took us a solid day, and was a combined effort from all of the group. In this time we also recorded audio necessary for the presentation, as this was one of the things we were asked to have, and created a twitter account which also became part of it. We decided that the most quick and convenient way to jump between our various media sources would be to compile them all into one presentation, to save us having to fumble about opening up different windows and media players.

Over the next couple of days we rehearsed our script until we were able to confidently go through the whole thing without having to look at our lines, which surprisingly didn’t take as long as expected. We also had to ensure we stuck within the time limit and allowed room for questions at the end, which we did by timing the whole thing, including time taken to watch the video footage and play the audio. Overall, the presentation was taking around six minutes thirty seconds, which we decided would be perfect. It’s safe to say that when we left to go home the night before the assessment I was feeling pretty confident about the whole thing. I felt we had started with a really strong idea, and managed our time effectively enough that the idea had become a reality. We had met all the criteria with our range of media artefacts and were confident in our lines. Most importantly we had created a well-developed character and an engaging, multi-faceted story that I thought would really grab the attention of the tutors come the next day.

Cabinet of Curiosities: Production Log Three

Before we began filming for the project we needed to ensure that Christian’s character arc was properly represented in the interviews, which meant detailed scripting needed to be done beforehand. I wrote half of the scripts for the interviews, including the script for the first one. I made an effort to make them sound as naturalistic as possible, and reflect the way people actually talk about each other in the real world, which I did by mixing in the information we needed for Christian’s storyline with small talk and writing in an almost stream of consciousness manner. I also included potential questions that the interviewer would ask to ensure it didn’t just turn into rambling, and each piece of dialogue was working towards a particular point necessary for what we needed.

With the scripts written we commenced production. We wanted to add as much variety to the different interviews as possible while maintaining the illusion that they were filmed in different countries around the world. To achieve this we went location scouting around the city, and found some areas that we thought would be suitable, without being too difficult to record sound in or infringing on those around us. For the first interview we ended up filming in a European style cafe which served the purpose of being France, which it did well. It did, however, mean that we would need to ask permission to film there, which we did, not wanting to repeat the mistakes of the previous assignment. The actual shooting went very well, as we’d had more practice since last time, meaning we could frame the shots far more nicely with better lighting, and also capture better sound through the use of proper recording equipment and boom mics. We also remembered to clap-sync this time, which proved to be a lifesaver in editing. The acting also went far more smoothly than last time, as shooting dialogue in the actresses’ native languages allowed them to relax and speak with more confidence, incorporating body language and facial expressions into their performances to make it more believable.

With shooting wrapped up we had a little over a week left to prepare our presentation, and rehearse it so we were confident on the day of the assessment.

 

Cabinet of Curiosities: Production Log Two

The second week of our project was spent fleshing out Christian further by giving him an online personality, and attempting to share it round the rest of the students on our course. Based on his personality, we decided an Instagram account would make the most sense, as we wanted to keep his character as much of a mystery as possible, and it would fit in more with the whole idea of him being passionate about photography and seeing places. The pictures used on the account were a mixture of pictures members of the group had taken previously, and pictures we took that day. We went out into the city and found various places we thought Christian would be likely to visit, taking photos at each one.

During class on Thursday we had the chance to pitch our rough idea for the first time and receive feedback from tutors and the rest of the group. Though we were worried at first that some of the other ideas were somewhat similar to our own, the idea that Christian is never seen or heard seemed to be a big factor that made ours unique, and I’m pleased to say it went down very well with the tutors. The suggestion was made that we could use Christian’s anonymity as a key part in our presentation, maybe as documentary filmmakers we could twist reality somewhat and turn Christian into the character we want in our documentary, not the person he actually is. This was a very interesting suggestion, as it would allow us to tackle themes of unreliable narration and ethics in journalism as part of our presentation.

With the approval of the tutors, we decided to go ahead with our idea, and commence script-writing and production as soon as possible.

Cabinet of Curiosities: Production Log One

Our second project at Coventry University is a very different beast to the first. Not only is it the first to properly count towards whether or not we pass the module, it’s also the first to begin expanding our idea of what the media is and how we present it. All great pieces of film and TV need a great story, and great stories don’t happen without great characters. The “Cabinet of Curiosities” project is designed to see how well we can create a convincing character from nothing, make them believable as being an actual person, then put them in a scenario where we can make the audience care for their welfare. However, this character won’t be presented through the traditional medium of film, instead we have been tasked with using a range of different forms or media (film, sound, websites, photos, etc) and even physical artefacts in a presentation about our character. The twist here is that they have gone missing, and it is up to us to create a story around this disappearance, and present it as we choose.

 

Creating Christian Knight

“Cabinet of Curiosities” was a term first used in the sixteenth century to describe a large room made up of a collection of different objects viewed as being of importance or interest to the owner. These objects were often related to geology or natural history, and could also be works of art, antiques, etc. Often the collection was a form of social statement, as the larger the collection, the more well-traveled, educated and rich the owner often was. Over the centuries, however, the importance of such collections has diminished, until today they are often simple drawers of odd bits and bobs that have some sort of personal meaning to whoever collected them. The idea for the project was that you can tell a lot about a person by looking at the sort of things they like to collect, so we were tasked with creating a small, joint cabinet of curiosities in our new groups. We would each bring in an item or two, and when put together with the rest of the group’s we would be able to create a character out of the objects before us. This was ours:

Our objects, mine are the headphones and the Chiquito’s voucher

A general theme that seemed to be running through the objects was travel, we had a passport, foreign money, headphones for listening to music while travelling, a diary to record experiences in, etc. Because of this we decided to base our character around a love of travelling, something which would eventually go on to become the main focus of our entire presentation and the story of his disappearance.

With this basis we came up with the character of Christian Knight, a man in his early 20s who has recently graduated from Uni and is originally from Birmingham. Christian has quite an unhappy relationship with his mother, and doesn’t know his father, so chooses to spend most of his life out on the road, travelling and experiencing all walks of life. He moves from country to country every few months, working and integrating with those around him for a while before moving on, often without leaving a trace. He is something of a womaniser, being popular with the ladies, but he has issues with commitment, making him wary of any long-term relationships. He is very cultured, and at each place he goes to he enjoys experiencing the local music, cuisine and architecture whilst also being an avid fan of literature. He is a photographer and uses social media platforms such as Instagram to broadcast some of his travels, though he never posts any pictures of himself or uses the platforms for much else.

With the character sorted we began to think about how we would present him and his story. Our idea was that because he is a wanderer, this could directly play in to the circumstances surrounding his disappearance, rather than having him vanish from a particular place at a particular time, it will have been a few weeks or even months before people have caught on to what has happened. As he is constantly on the move, the people he meets will have a very limited understanding of who he really is, and will have only a vague idea of where he is heading to next. We would present this as documentary filmmakers, looking for funding for a project where we uncover the truth of where he his now. One of the members of the group would have some sort of personal connection to him, which would form the motivation for them wanting to uncover his whereabouts. As the filmmakers we would go round interviewing people from all the different places he has stayed, trying to pick up his trail and figure out where he was headed next, and present these during the pitch. We would actually use other students for these roles, but use students form lots of different backgrounds, and ask them to speak in their native language, which would then be subtitled, adding to the believability. Alongside this footage we will also talk through his social media presence, which I have linked at the bottom of this post, and maybe bring in some physical possessions of his which could be passed round. A key part of our idea is to have him be a very mysterious character. We will have no pictures of his face, and the nature of his lifestyle will mean that very few people truly know who he is.

With the concept sorted, we are now ready to move on to bringing our character to life through his social media presence, and will start producing some of the documentary footage.

Christian’s Instagram account

“Untitled Project”- Reflection

The project entitled “Untitled Project” was my first during the Media Production course at Coventry University. As we were all new to university, everyone in the group was looking to make friends and get to know one another, so people were loathe to assign roles for the film out of a fear it would turn into some people ordering others about. Because of this we went for a more collaborative effort, with all of us pitching ideas, acting and shooting, with editing and sound design being the only things really allocated to individuals, for the simple reason that said individuals were more familiar with the software than the rest of us. For this project this sufficed, as the film we were making was essentially a reflection of what we ourselves were doing in real life, and as such we worked together very well. For future projects though, I understand now why assigning roles is necessary, as often in cases like ours so many ideas are thrown around that it can be hard to stick to a consistent vision, and occasionally if members in a  group do have creative differences, it can be useful to have one person who has the final say.

The idea that we settled on worked particularly well, I believe, because it was a topic that all members of the group understood inside and out, as we all had something to draw from when telling it. Not only did the narrative work as a reflection of the realities of both our group and all the others in our shoes, but it also gave us the opportunity to really demonstrate our understanding of genre in cinema, and how features such as mine-en-scene, cinematography, lighting, sound and editing all contribute to defining a particular genre. For example, we all understood that the horror sequence would require a dimly lit location, long takes that made effective use of space, a build up of tension through editing, and an unsettling soundscape. Of course the only way we understand genre is through the films we have seen. For me I’d say my main influences for the horror sequence were Nosferatu (1922), for it’s use of shadow combined with movement to build tension, and Psycho (1960), for reasons that are hopefully obvious to the viewer. For action particular inspiration was taken from Paul Greengrass’  Jason Bourne franchise, for it’s now revolutionary use of handheld camera and quick-cut style editing in its action sequences.

Visually I am also very proud of how the film came out, we definitely made use of the spaces available to us to utmost effect to match the tone we were going for. An idea I came up with which I think works quite well was to have a shot at the start of the film of the table of students which slowly moves away from them, and a shot at the end which mirrors this. Not only did the use of a slider for this shot look particularly smooth, thematically the idea was that, as the character who ultimately ends up proposing the final idea at the end of the film, it would give the film quite a nice visual ark, and represent that he is the central force in the story. Also, though I wasn’t there during its shoot, the romance scene is probably my favourite scene in the film for visuals. The group got extremely lucky with the weather that day, and the choice to film the whole thing slightly over-exposed was a really nice one as it gives the sequence a really dreamy quality. Location-wise it was also perfect, as the slow motion shots of the water cascading down beneath the two lovers is such an overtly romantic image that it almost becomes parody, which was, of course, the whole point.

I also think our editor did a superb job, as did the sound designer. As I have previously mentioned in my blog, the transitions between the different scenes are helmed wonderfully, particularly the first one, and the score matches what we were going for with each sequence so well it’s almost uncanny. During feedback it was pointed out, however, that those transitions got less imaginative as the film went on, which I agree with, as those sort of things are a two-stage process, as during production, efforts need to be made to prepare a place for the cut, something which, in all honesty, we sometimes forgot about.

As for what I’ll take away from the film in terms of improvements, there are definitely a few things. For one, I’d like to get more involved with the directing side of things for future projects, as even though I contributed a lot to the narrative structure and layout of some of the scenes, as I was acting in two sequences, the helming of the shots was left to others. There was also the fact that the camera belonged to a member of our group, so understandably he’d want to have some control over what we were shooting. On the subject of acting, this was probably my main problem with the film. Though it is true that people often tend to be more critical of something they’ve had a hand in making, none of us were actors, and in my opinion a lot of spark from the script was lost on the screen due to flat line delivery and lack of understanding of the material, both on my part and other members of our group. Though the choice to not hire actors was probably the right one due to the amount of setbacks we encountered, and the initial disorganisation within our group, in future we all agreed to properly plan in advance so we can hire people who know what they’re doing in front of the camera, we were just lucky that for this film we weren’t trying to tell a story that was serious in any way, otherwise it probably would have fallen through completely.

Location shooting is definitely something we will need to put more planning into next time, as on a bigger shoot we really can’t afford to be being kicked out of public places due to lack of permission to be there. Besides that the only other problem I really had with the film was a storytelling one, as even though the ending sounded good on paper, when watched back after the fact I do think we could have executed it a little better, as I wasn’t too sure if we made it clear enough to those who weren’t familiar with the film what exactly was happening at the end. During feedback, someone made the comment that perhaps we should have ended with the line that started the film, “Guys! We have three days to finish this film!”, which would definitely have been the thing that was needed to properly make it clear what was happening.

Overall though, I’m very pleased with the outcome of the project, not only was it well received but I’m genuinely amazed it came out as well as it did considering the setbacks we suffered, and most importantly, I’d say we all had fun making it.