I feel that I have learnt a great deal from the making of the preliminary task to the making of our full, two minute film opening.
Firstly, I feel that I have learnt how to handle myself with regards to the "scope," of projects. What I mean by "scope," is how large, or small, certain projects are. For example, with regards to the preliminary task, it was a very short and simple affair, which was complete reshot AND completed in just under two hours, as opposed to the finished film, which was very long and strenuous, and was shot in two and a half weeks. The difference in scope between the two projects, I feel, has proved to be an invaluable learning experience, as it has offered me an insight in to the sorts of things that may go on in the professional production world and how, in a business like the film business, you never know how long each project is going to take to complete.
Secondly, and this is sort of a complament to the first point, is that, as the film was larger in scope, there was much more of everything. There was much more preparation, there were many more actors and crew (not least Darine's father!). There were many more locations (three for the film (the ally, the Dark Room, and the cafe), as opposed to only one for the preliminary task (the interior of our school)). There were much more shots (which required longer set ups, which in turn consumed a lot of valuable time, time that, in certain cases throughout the shoot, we simply could not afford to waste. In terms of the types of shots that I learnt to perform in between the two projects, what strikes me as being similar between the two projects is that there is a lot of handheld shots, shots which are very similar in style, but not in context, to each other. I feel that this has more to do with my tastes, preferances and sensibilities as a "film-maker" than anything else). There was also a lot more stress, effort and responsibility in making the film as there was to making the preliminary task. The film, as previously mentioned, was a lot larger in scope than the preliminary task, and so it was up to all of us to make the best film we could under the circumstances, and there were times where all three of us felt extremely under pressure, but I feel that, if the stress and pressure wasn't part of the overall experience of making the film, than it wouldn't have been as enriching and as enlightning as it turned out to be.
Thirdly, the making of this film has given me a much needed insight in to character development. From the film's very inception, there was almost continuous analysis of the characters, not least Izabella; who they were, where they were from, what their motivations were, who we, as film-makers, wanted the audiance to relate to/champion, and who, as a counterpoint to this, who we wanted the audiance to despise and hate. With all of the characters in the film, but mostly Izabella, we spent a lot of our time watching and researching previous crime thrillers (such as GoodFellas, Pulp Fiction, etc), analyzing them, and culling different aspects from different characters and situations from a range of different crime thrillers, in order to weave our tapestry. This is in contrast to the preliminary task, where the characters and the situations they were in were almost secondary, or non-existent, to the overall point of exactly why the preliminary task was being made.
Fourthly, I learnt a LOT in terms of what goes on during the post production of a film. For example, the post production process on our film was much, MUCH longer then the post production process of the preliminary task. Where as many of the shots executed in the preliminary task were usually completed successfully between one or two takes, during the making of our film, we did multiple takes of each of the shots, if only for us to have a wide range of shots to chose from, shots which boasted different pronunciations and accentuations of lines. While this was an extremely beneficial part of the film making process, it did take time for the film to be uploaded on to the Macs, but this was a very small price to pay. Also, the editing of the footage itself had to be much more precise and concentrated than the editing of the footage the preliminary task. As aforesaid, there were a whole range of shots for us to chose from, and so we had to be sure to pick the right shots so that, when we edited them together, they would create a flow that would satisfy both the audiance and us, the makers of this film.
Finally, I learnt a lot in terms of the overall look and feel, the outcome of the film. There were aspects of the film that went wrong, aspects which were out of our control, but aspects that we felt we should have done more about anyway. The most obvious example of this is the sound, which did not meet our expectations at all, and is a part of the film that we have found to be a very bitter pill to swallow. However, we have decided to use this downside to the film to our advantage. We say this because, in the future, we can refer back to the sound in the film as an example of what NOT to do when it comes to making a film. We can combat this problem next time, by making sure that the problem is not repeated, and also to make sure that every "kink" is ironed out, in order to make the best film possible under the circumstances.
Ultimately, both the making of the preliminary task, and the making of our film, has proved to be an extemely rewarding experience, an experience which I have learnt a great deal from, and an experience which I would not think twice about doing again.
Firstly, I feel that I have learnt how to handle myself with regards to the "scope," of projects. What I mean by "scope," is how large, or small, certain projects are. For example, with regards to the preliminary task, it was a very short and simple affair, which was complete reshot AND completed in just under two hours, as opposed to the finished film, which was very long and strenuous, and was shot in two and a half weeks. The difference in scope between the two projects, I feel, has proved to be an invaluable learning experience, as it has offered me an insight in to the sorts of things that may go on in the professional production world and how, in a business like the film business, you never know how long each project is going to take to complete.
Secondly, and this is sort of a complament to the first point, is that, as the film was larger in scope, there was much more of everything. There was much more preparation, there were many more actors and crew (not least Darine's father!). There were many more locations (three for the film (the ally, the Dark Room, and the cafe), as opposed to only one for the preliminary task (the interior of our school)). There were much more shots (which required longer set ups, which in turn consumed a lot of valuable time, time that, in certain cases throughout the shoot, we simply could not afford to waste. In terms of the types of shots that I learnt to perform in between the two projects, what strikes me as being similar between the two projects is that there is a lot of handheld shots, shots which are very similar in style, but not in context, to each other. I feel that this has more to do with my tastes, preferances and sensibilities as a "film-maker" than anything else). There was also a lot more stress, effort and responsibility in making the film as there was to making the preliminary task. The film, as previously mentioned, was a lot larger in scope than the preliminary task, and so it was up to all of us to make the best film we could under the circumstances, and there were times where all three of us felt extremely under pressure, but I feel that, if the stress and pressure wasn't part of the overall experience of making the film, than it wouldn't have been as enriching and as enlightning as it turned out to be.
Thirdly, the making of this film has given me a much needed insight in to character development. From the film's very inception, there was almost continuous analysis of the characters, not least Izabella; who they were, where they were from, what their motivations were, who we, as film-makers, wanted the audiance to relate to/champion, and who, as a counterpoint to this, who we wanted the audiance to despise and hate. With all of the characters in the film, but mostly Izabella, we spent a lot of our time watching and researching previous crime thrillers (such as GoodFellas, Pulp Fiction, etc), analyzing them, and culling different aspects from different characters and situations from a range of different crime thrillers, in order to weave our tapestry. This is in contrast to the preliminary task, where the characters and the situations they were in were almost secondary, or non-existent, to the overall point of exactly why the preliminary task was being made.
Fourthly, I learnt a LOT in terms of what goes on during the post production of a film. For example, the post production process on our film was much, MUCH longer then the post production process of the preliminary task. Where as many of the shots executed in the preliminary task were usually completed successfully between one or two takes, during the making of our film, we did multiple takes of each of the shots, if only for us to have a wide range of shots to chose from, shots which boasted different pronunciations and accentuations of lines. While this was an extremely beneficial part of the film making process, it did take time for the film to be uploaded on to the Macs, but this was a very small price to pay. Also, the editing of the footage itself had to be much more precise and concentrated than the editing of the footage the preliminary task. As aforesaid, there were a whole range of shots for us to chose from, and so we had to be sure to pick the right shots so that, when we edited them together, they would create a flow that would satisfy both the audiance and us, the makers of this film.
Finally, I learnt a lot in terms of the overall look and feel, the outcome of the film. There were aspects of the film that went wrong, aspects which were out of our control, but aspects that we felt we should have done more about anyway. The most obvious example of this is the sound, which did not meet our expectations at all, and is a part of the film that we have found to be a very bitter pill to swallow. However, we have decided to use this downside to the film to our advantage. We say this because, in the future, we can refer back to the sound in the film as an example of what NOT to do when it comes to making a film. We can combat this problem next time, by making sure that the problem is not repeated, and also to make sure that every "kink" is ironed out, in order to make the best film possible under the circumstances.
Ultimately, both the making of the preliminary task, and the making of our film, has proved to be an extemely rewarding experience, an experience which I have learnt a great deal from, and an experience which I would not think twice about doing again.
No comments:
Post a Comment