Insta-what?

In this week's tutorial, our assignment was to go out and take photos using an iPhone or iPod Touch and then upload them using an App called Instagram. Each photo had to contain a specific item from the list, and had to demonstrate a method of framing. For our basic story idea, we decided to go with a melancholy, though semi-comedic look at the life of a super-stressed uni student. Julian Lamprecht was our actor. This is what my group came up with:

This one was for the list item "people" and is shot as an extreme close up (ECU). This framing method captures the emotion or sadness or defeat, which is what we were going for. It's very intimate and personal.

The subject of this photo was the mobile phone. It's a close up (CU) because we wanted the phone to be the main focus, but still include a clear view of Julian's face. It's a little bit too centred though. Given another chance, I would probably frame it so that he's a little more to the left in the shot.

One of our items was a computer. We did this one as a big close up (BCU) so that we're looking at the screen from behind Julian's head. It turned out a bit darker than we would've liked, but the placement of the elements, I think, looks good.

It's hard to tell in this photo, but the item is actually headphones (they're wrapped around his neck in a mock hanging). Personally, I think we were a bit off with the framing on this one. He should've been a little more to the left again. I would say it's borderline CU or medium close up (MCU).

Coffee cups. I actually really like this photo. I like the plethora of cups already in the bin... it gives us an almost humorous impression of how much coffee students drink, even though the tone of the photo is darker and more serious. Again, I'd say either a CU or MCU.

For this photo, the subject was the door. It's a mid shot (MS) showing how trapped Julian feels in his university life. I like the way we framed this one because it shows both him through the door and the video surveillance sign.

This one's a medium long shot (MLS) showing a bin. The framing of this one could've been better balanced (again, with the subjects slightly shifted to the left), but I think the angle is good.

Sadly, the only animals we could find were insects, and the iPhone didn't seem to want to focus on them, so we had to make due with what we could find. It's another MS, and the blue and white thing is supposed to represent a bird. I'm not quite happy with the angle on this one, to be honest. I wish we (with the camera) would've taken a step or two to the left before taking it. I feel like it's too straight-on.

The subject was textbooks, and, being in a library chalk-full of books, we went a little crazy with it. I like this one though. It's as if the books are out to get him. We did it as a long shot (LS) to capture Julian's body language and also have a clear view of, not only the attacking books, but the vast shelves of books overwhelming him as well.

Our final photo was actually supposed to be of a skateboard, but we couldn't find anyone who had one since it was so rainy. We had to opt for bikes instead. I love this picture. The angle is great. The framing is great. Love it. It's a very long shot (VLS), also known as a wide shot (WS). It shows Julian from a distance, setting the tone for his feelings of isolation and sadness. You can also see what a depressing rainy day it is too because of how open the frame is.

That was in class. After class, our "how to" group got together to hash out what ideas we'd come up with and what we want to set as our topic for our video. We managed to get our idea picked and our goals for next week set within about 10 or 15 minutes. So far, we're all working really well together and are collaborating on ideas in a really constructive way.

BMW and some Puffy Mountain Sheep

In last week's class, we watched a series of BMW short films, all starring Clive Owen, and all written and directed by different people. As varied as they were, however, they all followed the same three act structure, with a clear set up, second act, and resolution. It was interesting to see how each director used the subject matter (being new model BMWs) in such different ways. Some were humorous, while others were serious, and they all used different camera angles and shooting techniques. Definitely a good way to study the short film.

It was also a week for finding and organizing our groups for our own short film project. Mine is a group of six, including myself, Zehn Laliwala, Gemma Franklin, Melanie Cartledge, Julian Lamprecht, and Bec Cornell. After an amusing stint of looking up names on a name generator, we landed on the group title "Puffy Mountain Sheep of the Lost Temple." A little wordy, you might say, but we were all in agreement, so it kind of stuck. We've taken the week to each come up with a few ideas for the subject of our "how to" video (which we decided should be a comedy), and we plan on regrouping tomorrow to narrow down the choices and hopefully land on a winning topic. Since we've all got a one hour break between the tutorial and lecture, that will be our weekly meeting time, at least to start. Once we get more into things, we'll decide on supplementary times as well. So far, I'm feeling good about the group. We've got a mix of guys and girls, and we've all got assorted interests, so we should be able to get some good ideas flowing.

Good as gold.

3 Kings. Written by John Ridley and David O. Russell, directed by David O. Russell, and starring George Clooney, Mark Wahlberg, and Ice Cube.

Now this one I liked. I found it believable (and rather eye-opening, at that), the characters were relatable, and the structure and story were easy to follow. As discussed in class, by 12 minutes in, we had learned who the characters were, where and when it was taking place, and what the story was going to be about. The first plot point then came when the woman, the mother, was shot in the head, changing the direction of the story.

Through the middle of the film, we see the characters face the obstacles of losing half the gold, being taken prisoner, and becoming responsible for a group of rebels/refugees. There's a lot of traveling, shooting, torturing, and so on, and then we reach the second plot point. Now, we didn't really discuss this one in class, so I'm just to explain the way I saw it. For me, it seemed that the second plot point (leading into Act 3 and the resolution of the film) was when Conrad, the dumb best friend soldier, was killed. At this point, they've got the gold, they've found their missing man (Wahlberg's character, Troy), and they know what they have to do with the rebels. From here, the rest of the movie is really just wrapping up what we already know is going to happen: the refugees make it across the border, the gold is returned, and the three remaining soldiers go on to live their lives outside the army. This truly was a Syd Field Triple Act film.

Russell, D. (Director). (1999). Three Kings [video]. Arizona, USA: Warner Bros. Pictures.

Brick by Brick

Brick. Written and directed by Rian Johnson, and starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt.

I can't say that I enjoyed the movie at all. In all honesty, I didn't even finish watching it. I had trouble understanding what was going on, and I just didn't feel engaged in the story or connected to the characters. I actually didn't the like characters at all. And I didn't find them believable. Maybe if they hadn't been high school kids then I would've been able to get more into it. I also didn't understand why there were no cops whatsoever, even after Emily turned up dead (maybe that was explained in the end that I didn't watch).

As far the the theme of "Protection" goes, I could see how Brendan's character felt the need to protect Emily. He loved her and, even though they had broken up, he wanted to save her from this dangerous situation. I'm not sure that Johnson really presented this theme in a new or unique way though. Guy loves girl; guy wants to save girl; girl dies; guy goes on quest for truth and revenge. Maybe I'm thinking too two-dimensionally, but there wasn't anything about this particular film that stood out to me.

Bergman, R., Mathis, M., & Dynner, S. (Producers), & Johnson, R. (Director). (2005). Brick [video]. California, USA: Universal Studios Home Entertainment.

Let's start with a character.

We'll call her Libby. She's Canadian, but a traveler. Make that recent traveler. She's moved to Australia for university, left her whole life behind, and started from scratch. She's made new friends, seen new places, and grown as a person. She's become more confident and independent. She's not completely sure what she wants to do with her life, but she's creative and determined to succeed with whatever she chooses to do. She's the protagonist of this particular movie. She's me.

It's easy to identify bits and pieces of yourself in the movies you watch. For example, when I, Libby the Canadian, moved to Australia, I left behind a guy I was crazy about. We'd only been dating for six weeks, and had never planned on letting it become anything serious. Of course, a few months later I watched the trailer for Going the Distance. I still feel like I should've received a cut of the profits from that one.

It doesn't have to be that blatant though. Sometimes it's a simple and subtle as watching a character's mannerisms and recognizing yourself or a loved one in them. It might be the setting... being able to say, "Hey! I've been there!"  These little things are what I love about movies. I love them because they make every movie different for every person who watches them. They're the minor details that people only notice when it touches them on a personal level. I want to be able to do that for someone.