Week two - Mise-en-scene

The focus of this week was on mise-en-scene. We therefore paid particular attention to props, lighting and set design within the time given to us. Our clearly defined roles (as listed below) enabled us to work efficiently on-set, meaning that, even though we all made creative decisions, there was a clear sense of focus having one person with the power to give a final verdict.

Director - Dan Griffiths

Writer/actor - Tom Howitt

Editor/actor - Ben Grantham

Cinematographer/assistant editor - Chloe Hudson

Synopsis

The concept of the film revolved around a key theme of regret. A man sits down with an old friend who asks about his career and personal life since they last saw each other. Upon hearing that his friend has lost his job and long-term girlfriend, the old friend becomes gradually more and more angry. It is then made apparent that this old friend never existed, and he is actually shouting at himself for ruining his life. The script can be found here.


Initial Problems Encountered

Due to a series of miscommunications, our group arrived to Monday's shoot without a health and safety form filled in; the obvious consequence being that we would have no university kit, and therefore not be able to shoot the film as we planned. Instead of just sitting there completely dumbstruck, we decided to take some initiative and use equipment which we owned ourselves. Luckily, Ben had previously invested in a decent camera and microphone, so we could capitalise on him living only a few minutes away from our shooting location (the art's centre).

The equipment as follows was responsible for engineering our product through this week's task: (Canon T2i 550D) and microphone (Sontronics STC-20). The Camera picked up video and (low-quality) audio whereas the Sontronics microphone was responsible for picking up the audio on-par with the ribbon mics that are usually paired with the Panasonic HMC-41. First it had to be plugged into an interface (mine being the Tascam iXZ). This higher quality audio would then be synced up with the footage, replacing the camera mic audio.

While this was sometimes an inconvenient arrangement, it perhaps plays testament to our lack of organisation during this week.


Filming:

We chose to film with a Canon EF f/1.8 50mm rather than a conventional zoom. The plot of the short revolves around human interactions, so this choice of camera seemed appropriate (with 50mm being characteristic of a human's own peripheral vision). The lens also has good manual focus control which is good for racking photos during conversation or other such on-screen events where the 'thing of interest' shifts.

Once set up, the actual filming became quite an efficient process. The director and cinematographer collaborated to find the most effective shots via camera positioning and frame composition.


Editing:

Utilising our own resources in all areas of production, we agreed to work on software and computer's which we actually owned. We thought this may be a good experience, and one which offered less time constraints.

Coincidently, we decided to edit in the same place where the film was made: the café in the Art's Centre. In a way this was good because we were constantly reminded of the geography of the environment (which we could compare our footage to). We edited the footage on Ben's laptop using Sony Vegas Pro 10. During filming we were positioned next to a large window, meaning we had to work with natural light. Unfortunately it wasn't always consistent so some shots were more shadowy than others. This was something we eventually sorted out in the editing stage where every clip had to be slightly modified in saturation and vibrance (more specifically altered 'colour curves') so that they would match up better. For those who aren't in the know, the Colour Curves function to colour correction is what Compression is to audio, basically making brighter colours darker and darker colours brighter, which is surprisingly useful.

It's important to always edit using headphones, as this is the only way to gain a true understanding of what the microphone actually captured at the time and what the film really sounds like. Using distant speakers makes it more difficult to find and remove mistakes that will become much more noticeable during the peer-review stage when the film is on the 'big screen' and the sound is amplified. One pair of earphones were circulated around all who edited, which meant we each were able to listen to the audio on our own and form our own opinion of its treatment.


Reflections on Week Two

This week really emphasised the importance of how vital communication can be within a real working environment, and how essential it is as part of the filmmaking process. We are however glad that we managed to still offer a final product, and not just throw in the towel at the first sign of bad news. It was at this point that our weakness actually became our strength and we were able to deliver something worthwhile - to the point where criticism of our film was limited to camera placement and quality of acting, without our resources becoming our handicap by any means.