cinematography - not just limited to 'drama'

As the title suggests, this is an aspect to documentary that requires virtually just as much planning across the genres. Today's was quite an informative lecture, and I really liked the fact that David and Paul has Christine sitting down as the subject, offering different suggestions about conducting our interviews. These suggestions ranged from the lighting, to mise en scene (eg- the rule of thirds), to depth of field and focal length - the kind of nitty-gritty that can dramatically affect the end product, and is pertinent to the day of shooting so needs to be well thought-out.

One thing I'll need to clarify with the boys is the way we intend to use lighting.. I think we can really do better than one redhead (currently what we've opted to hire) and think imaginatively about how lighting can compliment the transition our subject undergoes. It is something worth thinking about at least and definitely worth finalising in the next couple of days.

I found the reading about Kirsten Johnston quite inspiring this week. Particularly given that she has worked on a lot of autobiographical documentaries, a lot of what she had to say is both relevant and useful. Nicely tied in with the ethical boundaries we discussed last week, she commented on the notion of politically questioning documentaries, and the need to take risks with people who (she) believes have a vision about a particular subject matter. This really reflects the direction in which we wish to steer Amazon - ours (and his) dream is for the eventual cohesion within the gay community and worldwide understanding/acceptance of all character types, whether it be drag queens or another minority group.

The ways we then use the production elements can then act as a salient reinforcements of this positive vision, but only if they are executed in a subtle and engaging manner. The way the shots are framed, for example, needs to be quite specific depending on the content we are discussing. The start and the end of the film are going to be quite different in emotional tone, and thus the other elements such as lighting and compositon need to be able to complement this shift.

nature of the beast: learning the ropes in cinematography

Today's hour of power was spent brushing up on what, by now, ought to be a given/second nature for many of us, but it certainly can't hurt to reiterate the basics at this point in time.

The nature of the camera has a large impact on the way films are shot, as it has a direct correlation to the nature of the frame. These composition choices need to be clearly thought out from the very beginning, so that mise en scene can be taken care of accordingly.

We are lucky in that the cameras we are using have viewfinders. Apparently a feature was shot on someone's mobile phone last year - I can only imagine how much of a headache it's going to be to edit something of that quality, but hey, it's a world-first and the technology makes it possible in this day and age.

The aspect ratio of a frame should always be used to its full potential. We can opt to shoot in 16x9 as opposed to the native 4x3, if stylistically this will add specific meaning to the narrative. The key to always ask oneself is how much are your shots going to reveal? How flat do you want the frames to be? Remember, the frame is NOT reality, i.e. cheating is permissible.

Godard commented on the nature of watching (audiences), whilst watching a film. The idea is to make viewers forget that they are, in fact, being engaged - that is, to sublimate their senses without becoming overbearing. The sky may be the limit with character, but from a technical perspective, everything must serve a purpose. Once people remember that they are watching a film, it loses any lasting impact it could have had on them, making it moot.

There's one hell of a fine line between theory and practice - will any of dare to cross it this semester?