Film
(art and technique on this page), ...
See also: -[^^Film DIRECTORY]- (film and film-making)
-[SF Films]- (in Literature/sf/ )
[post post-modernism]
[post post-modernist terms] (the usual suspects)
[Art Films]
[(art) Concepts]
[Alienation]
[Distancing]
[]
[]
[]
[]
On this page:
{<><>}
{Film History}
{}
{}
{Film vs TV}
{}
{Elements}
{}
{Blue Screen}
{Costume}
{Lighting}
{Scene}
{Set Design}
{Sound}
{Transitions}
{The Usual Suspects}
{Film Terms}
Film
Film History
See also: { Film vs TV} (below)
Film as a sort of art object has been there from
the very beginning - it had its birth with the
-["camera obscura"]- by which scenes from
the outside could be projected into a darkened room
via a pin-hole "lens" and mirrors, as well as with
photography itself.
And of course, the first films were in many cases
artistic experiments by artists, scientists, etc.
Part of the evolution that we take as read (but
wish to explore in some detail) is of course the
idea of ADAPTING other art forms such as theatre,
danse, and of course life itself to the film form.
One of my favorite examples of this is a so-called
double portrait of Toulouse Lautrec where he is
seated posing for an artist. And the artist is
of course him, painting a picture of the seated
version of himself. A very early (clever and oft
to be duplicated technique) using a black back
ground between the two pictures to "merge" them
-- probably with a bit of "shadow dodging" in
the dark room. And we take as read, that in
the digital era, such "tricks" are even more
easily accomplished. I once performed "Father
Brown" as a stand-up work (after being inspired
by the great Clown "Lorenzo" (Gerald Wheeler)
who played both parts using the split-screen
technique). Of course, i would shift from side
to side - standing hunched over with an old
voice as "Father Brown" and then to the other
side of the podium, straight-backed and a
quick-spoken, smart-alecical voice for his
son.
Thus, we can see how the characters can be portrayed
and thus transormed via technology to film (or its
evil twin, TV).
Of course, plot, character, setting, and such can
all be extended enormously with the various cameras
and lenses available today. A brief outline of
film historical moments is given below. Please
feel free to "ahem" me. Frank via fleeding AT hotmail DOT com
Shadow Shows
Slide Shows
The Zoetrope
Muybridge's Experiment
The Lumier Bros.
The Russian Constructivists
Enter Edison
D.W. Griffith
The Delegations from France, England, ....
Fritz Lang
Film Noir
Colour
3d
WIDE and TALL screens
Omni-theatres (from surround sound, to surround view)
VR
Projection work (as art object; eg: -[Performance art - filmed]-
(well that's so much as i can get now. tire, latrer)
-frhl
Film vs TV
What happened ??dates?? when TV began to offer
more content other than just game shows and
televising plays and play-like stories, was
that it began to encroach on film.
This of course was already common in film, if
a "kind" of film was popular and successful,
then other studios would mimic the story. One
of the best-known examples, is that of
-[Casablanca]- (imdb entry)
when Warner Bros's needed to hire Ingrid Bergman
(temporarily) from another studio, they sent over
the script and someone there said, "Oh, they're
just doing a spin-off of 'Algers' - which was
a so-so film" and approved it.
Another example, is the film "Mr. Roberts" (1955)
which was a hugh success and this re-surfaced
as a TV series, when the new series "McHale's Navy" -[tv.com]- entry
(1962-1966) came on, and thus was born the
moderately cleverl TV series "Mister Roberts" (1965-66).-[tv.com]- entry
In this case, the McHale's navy series offered
an all-star cast (mainly Ernest Borgnine and
Joe Flynn - both well known from films) as well
as long-standing comics Time Conway and
Carl Ballantine. The plots were imaginative
and bordered often on theatre of the absurd.
While the re-hash of Mister Roberts had to
do with the original characters who were well
known to the public from the film and to a
lesser extent the stage play. Thus, the plots
came quickly hackney'd and lame. McHale's
Navy went on to produce several feature-lenght
films. But, as is often the case when one show
(for what-ever reason) begins to falter in
THE RATINGS, it drags down the similar shows.
Another example of this last effect is of
course the "Addams Family" and "Musters"
-- which were independently produced and
each having their own distinctive charm
and NOT being copies of each other.
TV's general triteness has in recent years been
tempered by a more sophisticated viewing audience,
willing to go for several years to see how "story
arc's" evolve. In some cases (eg, "Seinfeld") there
isn't a real story arc, but just the quality of
writing and of course the characters and story
line as base against which to write provide its
longevity and continued freshness.
It's interesting to note that many British TV
series plan the demise of their series long
before its natural end. Here, i'm thinking of
"To the Mannor Born" and "The Good Life". As
with all things - it's better to bow out gracefully
and always leave them wanting more rather to
drag the cast and crew through what surely
must be the painful search to beat a dead
horse back into life and freshness. A prime
example of this was the series "My Favorite
Martian" which in a last ditch effort rather
than return Martin to Mars, introduces his
cute little nephew as an attempt to re-animate
an already exhaused plot line. C'est la le film.
(er, ahm, tv of course ;)
The Usual Suspects
Siegfried Kracauer ()
Lois Weber
Film Elements
In this section:
{Story}
{Blue Screen}
{Costume}
{Evolution}
{Lighting}
{News Casts}
{Persistence of the Medium}
{Scene}
{Set Design}
{Sound}
{Transitions}
Story
See also: -[Story Lab (in Literature)]-
We shouldn't belabour the points about story (which
are more adequately and extensively dealt with in
"story" under literature; see above link.
But, we shoul realise that given even the must mundane
object, a person can make an entire story out of it.
Well, if all of the creativity in them hasn't been
entirely squeeze out of them by the process of the
"traditional" education. We need only recall the
relative definitions of narration/story ??src??
The narrative is: The Queen died,
and then the King died.
The story is: The Queen died,
and then the king died of a broken heart.
Film is key in many kinds of story telling, in that
by key lighting/sound/music/etc we can switch from
one scene or story line easily without losing the
viewer. One of the earliest classics is Arthur
Haley's ??sp?? "Airport". And of course, the story
lines ALL converge for the one explosive culmination
of the air flight itself.
It might be said that as writing became more complex
if film hadn't been invented then it would have sprung
into existence by SOME means. Even in the most imaginative
forms of stage work, one can't approach the concept of
such abrupt and total CUT's from one scene to another.
And in reality, this IS the reality that we live in
-- via the news. See {NewsCasts}
It is the way that we are almost programmed to "see" the
world around us.
Alienation / Isolation
{
Persistence of the Medium
See also: -[Persistence (in film - performance)]-
I use the term "persistence" here in several ways,
one of which is its pervasiveness. We tend to see
a series of shots AS a film. This is especially
true of the mini-film: The Comercial.
This goes back to the discovery early on in the
history of film in the Russian school of the concept
of montage as continuity. So impressed in our ways
of seeing the world (perhaps it's an evolutionary
survival factor - part of our general patter
making/matching skills) that pictures (cut out)
laid side by side tend to automatically form a story.
Evolution
As we know once a "genre" has reached "maturity" (that
is has become almost formulaic - both in the production
and viewing), then the "spoof" of that genre can be made.
Classic examples include:
"High Noon" "The Magnificent Seven" "Blazing Saddles"
"2001" "Star Wars" "Hardware Wars"
"Ice Station Zerbra" "Das Boot" "Up Periscope"
"Psycho" "Wait Until Dark" "Scary Movie II"
"Secret Agent" "James Bond" "In Like Flint"
after this, the genre almost
inevitably becomes "family fare"
and reaches the level of "pubescent fantasy" - sad to say.
This is NOT to say that someone (in good faith) takes to
make a film in to make a film in one of these "so-called"
mature genres that can't do so.
By "so-called" here, i of course mean several things:
1. That all (or most) of the elements of
the genre are well-established; eg,
Film Noir: The "bad" woman, the anti-hero,
odd film angles, use of shadow, etc.
2. That for each new generation comes a new
learning curve - and thus finding their
way thru the body of the literature.
This leads to odd things like, "Oh,
you mean 'The Purple Martin' is like
'Indiana Jones?'" - of course, the
simplicity of older films tends to show
through unless one is aware of the
evolutionary process and can learn to
appreciate earlier phylogenic forms.
3. As with the hierglphic reminder:
There is no art that can not be mastered,
But, there is no one who is treuly the
master of ANY art.
That is to say: New ideas, bring new ways
- even to "mature" genres.
Thus, for each film listed above (i did my best,
do i get an A?), there are new works that reach
up to that elusive goal of mastery. But, i think
that we must develop a more varied and subtle
feel for film. And part of this goes to (i think)
to study it - to enjoy in all of its forms.
And then (for those that seek to master direction
- or any other "art" in film making) there are
always possibilities....
Very few films "leave it up in the air".
Even fewer can go up to the "happy ending",
and let it just hang there.
It seems that only in tv series can the
characters "just let it go" - no need for
closure, no need for REVENGE, etc. Of
course, there are the exceptions.
At the end of Star Trek IV - The Voyage Home,
we get a kind of "closure" when Mr. Spock
(Leonard Nimoy) tells his father Sarek
(??actor??) "Tell my Mother that I feel fine."
thus letting us know that "everything is fine".
Or at the end of "Magnifcent Seven" - THE TWO
are the only ones that came into this are the
only ones to come out intact - and where are
they bound? For glory? For...? no - just "out there".
More and more, the films that take these sorts of
chances are then ones which *now* endure - because,
as someone in a film once said,
"Everybody got pain."
But.
Everyone hopes for joy.
Every..... ???
only searching will take us there - the next stage...
Only the search is.
(well, that and evolution)
Well, that's about it for now,
frank
--42--
Lighting
The short answer is yes. S/W packages like "After Effects"
and other specialised graphics program will allow you to
import an image and then process it like you're talking about.
But, because these effects are "soooo cool", the mfg'r
usually charges a lot for it. You can exeriment for
much less using the Doom-3 game engine.
-[d3]- (my intro notes here on
my pizoig gaming pages)
Doom3 is made by id s/w and costs about $20. Once you
bring up the game, instead of actually PLAYING the
game, you hit:
CTRL ALT ~ (that's the "tilda" squigly line)
And then enter the command: EDITOR.
Of course, this means doing a LOT of work to import
your image, and create a LIGHT-PROOF box (a room in
which all of your "assets" - characters, trees, sounds
and etc -- will reside. It's about 3 weeks even w/a
teacher and the good folks on the d3 forums on line,
etc.
========
The long answer is - yes; but, i don't know how to do it.
What is happening is that the image is lit (just like
an actor on a stage) with several different lights;
actually, i should write an article on this (ie, free use, etc).
You'll find this discussion in almost any book on
lighting in stage work; eg, thatre.
In TV and Theatre work each person has a key light
and it's usually coming in from the actor's LEFT OR
RIGHT side (at about 45 degrees from the center line
of the stage at the back of the theatre to the back
of the stage)
and ELEVATED about 45-degrees from the stage. Thus,
light reflecting off of them shines onto the floor
or over the far corner of the stage. This is why
they don't look to "glarey".
Next you add a footlight that is usually mounted
to either side of the stage (again at 45 degrees
from the centre of the stage, so that light won't
glare into the viewers's eyes.
Next is a back-light that lights the stage from the
back so that there aren't any major shadows from
set props, etc.
Finally, there is usually a FLOOD (or fill light)
that illuminates the entire stage.
Got it?
And now that "glossy look". What they are doing is
fiddling with the TEXTURE of the object's surface.
If a person's eyes are supposed to be sparkly, we
set their texture up to be essentially mirrors.
In fact in many effects (eg, a vampire movie) we
can create a light behind their eyes shining out.
In film and theatre (without computers), we simply
shine a light directly into their eyes perfectly
-- hard to do in live theatre work.
If something is supposed to look glossy, then we
make reflective, but usually just a tad less than
100% (100% would be a mirror), say 70% or so - you
have to fiddle with it.
If something is supposed to look rough and textured;
like a rusted pot or an old oak bench, then we turn
up the SCATTERING of the light. Which in the real
world is caused because the surface IS rough and
pitted and thus, scatters light in random directions.
The classic here is when you vacuum a rug, and you
go against the "grain" of the rug (the direction
in which it was sewn in the machine) you get those
ghostly looking stripes the width of the vacuum
cleaner - the fibres in the carpet are poining
all the same way, except for that stripe that's
pointing the other way.
So, "that's all there is to it".
Or as the artist and great teacher (her books are
called "Drawing on the Artist Within",
"Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain", sez:
Everything is easy;
after the first 5_000 mistakes.
What you can try playing with is some sort of filter
that PhotoShop probably has (like i sed, i'm no
expert by any means). Also, there's a "mixing factor"
called the GAMMA ADJUSTMENT (or something named like
that) and it can be usefull.
There's a lot of stuff that's really pretty easy to
due in the real world by just putting flood lights,
coloured spot lights (eg, to light up the vampire's face
and hide the fact that we're shining a red light
directly into her/his/neth's eyes), and so forth.
Cool, huh?
- frank. rsvp if you have more questions that
i can only vaguely address ;)
Of course in cartoon work, we show that somehting
is gloss by using a tic-tac-toe sign on the surface.
It occurred to me after i'd posted it, that one thing you
might try is to create a more realistic (or cartoony if
you prefer) "space" into which the object is placed.
The great break thru was by the Impressionists and
post-impressionists when they saw the first Japanese
prints which featured not only a foreground (f/g) and
back-ground (b/g), but a MID GROUND as well.
See the enclosed, image. This might be an easier and
artier (artsieier??) way to spruce up your tree; get
it "spruce" it's a kind of tree ;) i can hear the
groaning from here.
take care and good luck,
franklin ace - decimal point wood carver.
(Dr. Frank Forester, DVM
Owl Specialist)
For me, (as an artist) what saves this,
IS the text. Of course, any *real*
graphic artist would just find this
as funny as "---SCENE MISSING---" after
a certain "Grand Inquistor" called
certain people "half-breed humans"
in the Absurdist style.
News Casts
There are entire courses in newscasting (under
journalism, natch). Regardless, a few points
are made here so that the genre may be used
in film work.
References are made to the following films:
"The Paper" by Ron Howard & co. Probably one of the best
how-a-paper-really-works films (it's the one shown at
the end of year bash in the NewsRook where i worked)
We should extract from it the "dramatic" film elements
and focus on the personae portrayed and how dedicated
they are to their work.
"Capricorn One" - a period piece about paranoia in the
world. The part of Eliot Gould is nicely done, they
could have played up Karen Black's part more. But, all
together a very nice work indeed.
"True Crime" by Clint Eastwood & co. Again, very carefully
done and spot on in terms of working room view of the
news office. It is "slightly based on" a real story, well
rendered from the novel by ??author??.
??title?? - unfortunately, the under-current of "the
greatest story of the century" over-shadows news work and
such.
BroadCast News, etc. - all are good studies; even, "Front Page".
Kentucky Fried Movie - now that's REAL SPOOF. Film at eleven.
BroadCast elements.
(written during one of the national conventions)
Sports and such is almost alwyas over the top. In one case
the news anchor came on telling us "I know as little about
it as you, we now go to our office in ?city?" - me thinking
WORLD WAR III? no: The football team had missed out on a
first choice draft pick. Whew, and i thought we'd all be
absorbed by the Martian's mind rays!
Weather - a feel good item that can in a lot of cases be
stretched out to fill an entire hour - or more when there
isn't really any NEWS.
Lead story - if nothing has really happened, liable to be
about the large number of two-headed calves born laterly;
refer to "Solar Lottery" by Philip K. Dick.
Fair and balanced. This is probably the swiftest trick/scam
every dreamed up. Take a protest against the war, 200_000
people show up. A tight shot fills only 80% of the screen
the fair-and-balanced shows a room with 23 people in it
in favor of the war, it fills 100% of the screen. Our eyes
to the "integrative" arithmetic: Wow! The country is equally
divided over the war!!!
Fair and balanced - take 2: Two people are set at each other
cutting back and forth quickly doesn't really give either
of them a chanse their case. Whoever gets out their 2-second
sound bit that "sticks" - WINS. Hot media at their worst?
Or is this what Murdock (Fox News) and Eisner (ABC/Disney)
want? Then of course, it's the best of all worlds!
Fair and blanced - take 3: Leslie Stahl reporting some really
news about the Reagan Administration - thinks maybe she
was too blunt. Later someone tells her: NO way - that back
ground of the White House lit up and the Cherry Blossum Trees
in full blume! It was perfect. Oh, did you actually say anything
at all? Again: In the land of the blind, the person with the
best hearing will be King. So, that would be Albert Schweitzer?
Fluff Stories - Man dies, dog barks, woman complains about her
husband and HIS dog. Film at Eleven.
Fair and balanced - The Final Revenge. Something important
happens. Say a policeman is shot while trying to catch a
child kidnapper. The kidnapper is finally caught. This
leads to two "balancing" stories: One about the Policeman's
wife (if he's been killed), or a very concerned report in
front of the hospital where he is recovering - the more
serious his condition the more news that can be generated.
The worst thing that could happen is if he dies - no more
news. Now nothing is said about the Police Cheif's call
two weeks before for more patrol cars, better lighting
in that district, etc. No: The "balancing" element can't
be too provocative (let's not worry about the policeman
who gave his life doing his under-paid job), it's going
to be something about the place where the kidnapping
occured. So, if it's in front of the Piggly Wiggly Store,
then a FILE STORY of how several other kidnappings were
done over the last million years in front of similar
stores. Thus, we get a "sort of closure" - we're looking
out for you and we've our finger on the pulse of the city.
Ok, so. It turns out that the policeman DOES die, then
the news can turn on the Police Chief and what he plans
to do about it. Say (we assume a "HE" here, natch) he
tries to bring up what he said three weeks before (ancient
history) about that neighborhood, etc. Chanses are that
his speech will be chopped up, and a reporter will calmly
report something like: "The Chief did mention that the
problem of lighing still needs to be addressed." Hence,
cause and effect are made into a nice tart pie and served
in small crumbs. Hence, reality is altered. Back to you Sarah.
The balancing here isn't anything like "fair and balanced"
it's sort of an affectation that has grown out of so much
"fair and balanced" thinking:
Re-cap - just in case you were voimiting from the explicit
photos of the train derailment (etc) and missed it, here,
we'll run it again. And to re-iterate a duck attacked the
president today and was immediately shot. It seemed to be
quacking non-sense (unless you hear on Mike #3, "Down with
imperalist pigs!" - which was later lost in editing).
News - supposed to be new. Mostly re-re-re-re-hashes of stuff
everyone already knows. I mean, i can't believe Paris Hilton
was wearing THOSE shoes!!! (Actually, i really enjoyed her
counter-spoof response to the McClain ads about her - shades
of "Legally Blonde" ;)
Something like: "The Surburbans" - film w/Jerry Mulligan music...
And remember we're watching out for YOUR world.
...(dramatic music)...
...(staff mimes taking to each other and laughing together)...
...(role titles over quickly)...
...(cut to AN XYZ NEWS PRODUCION (c) etc)...
--30--
Alienation / Isolation
See also: -[Alienation]- (A/H term)
The primary use of film to create isolation is to
film the person against more and more separated
elements in the film. That is, more and more they
are seen against such things as unknown or mysterious
buildings. This is best exmplified in the Film Noir
genre by night shots with long shadows on barely
lit, deserted streets. This physical form of
isolation of the characer(s) or even a set create
the idea of distancing (see {DISTANCING}) between
the character(s) and their environment. As such,
the viewer may not know if the character is becoming
more alien, or the surroundings.
Notice that a constant character (eg, the galant knight,
or Hansel and Grettle) set in a forest which becomes
darker and more "jittery" allows us to "measure" the
character(s) against this B/G - especially, having seen
them previously more "neutral" setttings.
If the character(s) is to be isolated and hence alientated
then the B/G should remain constant. Thus, we are able
to see/judge that the character is now being taken out
of the normal "walks of life".
Note too that "alienation" (as opposed to distancing) is
a process that *should* include a sense of loss, angst,
tragedy, or other negative emotions.
Blue Screen
(also known as: GreenScreen)
Blue screen has become popular with the growing
use of animation combined with live action. The
idea is simple: That things are placed in front
of the constant-colour screen can easily be
"clipped out" and thus treated like any other
kind of clip art. This is escpecially important
because of the complexity of all of the elements
that must be assembled - often moving objects
(people, cars, etc).
Also, the large scale works that would traditionally
include many extras or a large set can now be done
*much* more economically using computer graphics.
I want to look at two particular characters in recent
SciFi movies: "Jar Jar Binks" in "Star Wars" and
the "Vogons" in "The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy".
JarJar's portrayal IS cartoony and thus even more
irritating than the usual "bumbling fool/comic relief"
character. On the other hand, because the Vogons are
real people in a real space, the inter-actions between
them is more realistic.
Unfortunately, this idea has't quite sunk in. It would
be better (for example) if the original person who was
to play "Jaba the Hutt" - a rather rotund, but tall
character something like "Falstaff" in Shakespears's
plays - had played the character that would have been
later animated. Acutally, i rather liked the original
actor much more than "the giant worm". For me, giant
sentient "worms" are more along the line of dragons;
eg, "Smaug" in J.R.R. Tolkein's "The Hobbit".
But, as with all characters if a "person" (whom we
never see) in a play isn't real to the actors in
the play - then the audience won't buy it as well.
For example, it is the young boy's entrance at
the end of the play to tell "Didi" and "Gogo"
that "Mr. Godot" can not come tonight, but will
surely come to them on the 'morrow that gives
this character it REALITY. Thus, an actor who
would portray the character (and possibly even
do the voice for them) creates a reality that is
more genuine for the actors to interact with.
This, also the case (eg) in "HitchHiker's Guide"
in the case of Marvin where the actor in the
suit uses his body language and such to match
the supplied voice. This again is similar to
the interaction between "Silent Bob" and "Jay".
Costume and Make-up
Ostensibly these are the clothes (or lack there-of) the
actors wear. Note the imaginative use of costume in
"Enemy of the State" when the dog (Porchie") is
spray painted.
If "clothes make the man", then costume makes the part.
As Andreas Katsulas (who played the lizard-man, "G'kar"
in Babylon Five) put it, "I didn't really feel like an
alien until i put on all of that heavy leather and
- even the makeup didn't do it, but that outfit
MADE me into G'kar." -- not an exact quote.
Note the diliberate mis-use of costume in Agatha
Christie's "Mouse Trap" where "Vatrusian" ??name??
is clearly overly made up with makeup as part of
the myster of that character - prompting one person
to say, "and did you notice how much makeup he has
on, and the way he moves. I don't think he's not
as old as he pretends to be" -- not an exact quote.
Thus costume (as with any other element) can be used
for "mis-direction" as well as its usual way of
"building the character up".
An interesting note occurs from the film "Pleasantville"
(shot almost entirely in B&W (Black and White). In order
to cover up colour, a neutral-green make up is applied
and since it is designed to work with the GreenScreen
B/G technique - it comes off as a "B&W fleshtone" that
is consistent with the rest of the people in the film.
In the same way, creating the colour palet of the set,
costumes and make up should all work to put forth the
ideas inherent in the work. If we're supposed to buy
that Jack Lemmon and Tony Kirtis in "Some Like it Hot",
are disguised as women, we do so. Later with the advent
of "the need" for heightened senses of REALITY (what
ever *that* is), films like "Tootsie" (with Dustin
Hofman) and "Mrs. Doubtfire" (with Robin Williams)
require more and more reality use of makeup to the
extent that the actor literally disappears under
the makeup. It is then up them to push their character
out thru all of this makeup - similar to Kostlinatiz'
finding of his character "G'kar" somewhere in the
costume that he wears. A "judge" is just a person
wearing a judical robe, but the character of the
judge is all in the actor - and of course in the
way that the other actors relate to them.
http://www.heniford.net/4321/index.php?n=Citations-M.MouseTrap-The-1m2f?setview=big&setfontsize=110
Cut
To change from one view of something to another or
to change from one scene to another.
These are also refered to as "fades" (slow cuts/disolves).
As the early film pioneers found, we can create the
illusion of slow and fast time, depending on how
quickly we cut in and out of a scene.
An important thing to remember is that if we create
a lasting impression of a particular set; eg, "Agent
Hart's" *kitchen* in "Miss Congeniaity I & II". Then,
we can just use parts of that scene to convey
information that is more enticing. Here i'm thinking
of her (played by Sandra Bullock) on-going battle
with the finicky microwave oven door. Because, we've
already had a wide shot of the room, the director
can use a "distancing" element of the camera showing
an (ostensibly) empty room - the sink. And all we
hear is her banging the microwave oven closed, it's
opening and she again and again bangs it closed. This
- especially in the rapdity - conveys superbly to us
her frustration.
Thus, cutting into or away from a "set" can be done,
as long as the place has been established. This
was used again and again the the TV series "Seinfeld".
And as with all TV work, the budget simply won't
allow for extensive establishing shots and such.
First off in a city, you have to control the traffic,
people, and weather. Then getting everything into
place makes it even more difficult. It's odd that
by using closed sets (such at the character's rooms
in their apartments, office sets, and isolated
shots that could be anywhere) - it is the strength
of the illusion of "in camera" and "ex in camera"
that allows us to build a broader picture without
actually painting the entire canvas.
This is used again and again. For example, we see
a person saying to their compadres (eg, in an office),
"Well, you got me. I'm going home." - say it's a
mystery or detective film or... - and the next
thing we see that person (possibly with a bag of
groceries) coming into a room. We automatically
assume that this autonomous and anonymous set
IS their home. And then, of course the way that
they treat objects in the room/set enforces this
"assumption". I'm thinking particularly of
"In the line of fire" here.
Similarly, if the character says, "I'll check it
out" - refering to a complaint/report and we see
the same person coming into the room. We are
clued in by the I/A (Inter/Action) with the room
as to their mental state (ansy - the killer might
be here, etc) and other plot elements.
Again, cutting into and out of that place and if
it has been established in our minds what it is
and what it represents - then with a small amount
of FILM (screen) time, we can tell major parts of
the story. And of course that time can be put to
good use later; eg, chase scenes, long introspective
"thinking" scenes, etc.
Distancing
The idea of distancing is that the character (or a
set element, etc) is being physically taken away
from its environment. The clearest example is in
a rocket ship, where the space explorers are leaving
one planet of place for another.
Emotionally, distancing also occurse in social
situations as well - when a person feels no longer
a part of the crown. This culminates when they
are distanced to the point where they feel
alienated. (See: {ALIENATION}).
Also, distaancing can be used to show the conscious
decision of a character to leave one world, culture,
or "truth" to begin a journey towards a new one.
In many dramas, if there is some evil to be done,
and one of the antagonists says, "I'm sorry, i
just can't go along with this." then they clearly
(to us and to other character(s)) are distancing
themselves. The signals which we are meant to
pick up in this case are clear and demonstrative.
They can of course, be more subtle through a
series of revealing incidents that build toward
the distancing.
Tension of course is built up either by us or
other characters "piecing together" the starting
of this distancing change in the person's outlook.
The tension is maximised by either us or other
people being aware or un-aware in DIFFERING
degrees of these shifs in POV of the various
persons, etc.
Dressing The Set
This consists of the set elements, such as the
scene itself (see {SCENE}) as well as the
actors (see {COSTUME}), ligthing (see {LIGHTING}), sound
(see {SOUND}) -- all of this is the "set design"
(see {SET DESIGN} - in elements)
Formally, "dressing the set" refers to how the set
will look before each act/scene. If at the end of
a scene a fight broke out and there were a lot
of things thrown around, and the next scene shows
one year later - then obviously all the things
that were thrown 5 minutes earlier (in "real time")
can't still be on the floor.
Stage hands go in and remove the debris, straigthen
chairs, rugs, etc - ie: Dress the set. Larger set
changes - that is a different set, usually require
either LIGHT - cuts from one set on the stage to
another or a change of the set. In film, these are
simply different sets and are shot separately.
Scene
See also: {BLUESCREEN}.
Set
See also: {Scene}
Traditionally, each location in a film was a separate
set. For example in a western one set would be the
main street with shops on either side of the street,
and separate set would be the inside of the jail, the
inside of the saloon, the inside of the brothel, the
inside of the doctor's office, a stretch of trail
in the desert.
Thus, each set "sets" the stage (mindset, ENV, plot-element)
for the story elements to be played out there.
In many cases a set may only be used to link to major sets
together. THis is the case of entry halls, where an actor
answers the door the guests enter and then CUT to an
actual set of the living room, etc. Thus these "bridging sets"
are usually minimal. As regards plot elements, an excellent
example is the REVEAL in "National Treasure" showing how
the document is taken down below ground for storage. The
set/scene is mainly for plot exposition and ONLY exists
as a computer FX - but is key to the action. Details; details.
As in theatre, the set is DRESSED by the art director and
staff. A room with a fireplace having "deer and tiger heads"
mounted on it becomes a room in "the explorer's club", but
the same room with wall paper becomes a drawing room. Even
if the rest of the furniture might be the same.
Again: Look and feel create the reality; action can't take
place in a vacuum (unless it's an SF film ;)
Further a key element of a set are its manipulables; ie,
props that the characters can pick up or operate. Most
common are things on a table, or switches on a console.
Each prop has with it a certain weight and presence in
the set (or scene) and of course the more obvious its
presence (either visually/audibly or by a character
drawing specific attention to it) - then if is changes
that change caries a greater weight. One of the most
obvious is something like a front door, and that later
there is a black wreathe on it - indicating a death
in the household. Similarly, damaged aspects of the
set bring with them the passage of time. And of course
if the set is literally being "built up" as the film
progresses, we can judge that as the passage of time;
eg, building/remodeling a room, adding new areas to
a space station, etc.
Shot
The view/way what is on the screen is displayed.
Note: A "scene" is to be thought of like a stage set
for a single act/scene in a play. In film,
usually each "scene" corresponds to a "set" to be
built. For example, in "Little Miss SunShine" the
"scenes" include the sets of the family's home,
the motel rooms (two sets/scenes), and the van.
Note that the van in fact (one scene - a logical
concept here) consists of several actual vans that
comprise several "sets" - one van has the front
removed for head-shots of the driver and his wife,
another van as the passenger side removed so that
the back seats can be viweed. Note that in this
case mise-en scene is NOT used very much).
Note too that often a miniature or computer mock-up
of a set will be created; viz, most action adventure
movies where in LONG SHOTS, the miniature or FX double
is used.
An object may be in a CLOSE UP, a LONG SHOT (at a distance)
or PANNING (rotating the camera from side to side)
Close-up - a shot where almost every detail of the object/scene
can be studied in detail. Most common use of the
close-up with a person's face is to allow the actor to "show
emotion" or "show what they are thinking" or "emphasize dialog".
Extreme Close-Up - a much closer than "comfortable/normal"
view of the object/scene.
Medium SHot - Sufficent to show more than one object, but
usually not enough to give a global view
of the entire object/scene. Thus, it reveals much but
almost always leaves something hidden.
Long Shot - (aka "Establishing Shot") sufficient to show
the over-all layout of almost every thing in
a particular object/scene.
Sound
>
