Shot/Reverse Shot

Shot/reverse shot is a film – making technique that is commonly used to show a linear narrative.

The basic principle is such that the camera will focus on two people having an interaction. One shot will be of a character talking and then the camera will cut to the other character’s reaction.

This is effective in ensuring that the narrative seems chronological and pertinent. This heightens the sense of realism as both of the characters will seem to be interacting with one another and engaging in a conversation.

Match On Action

Match on action is a continuity editing technique, whereby specific shots negate the jarring effect of a cut.

For example, if the camera was shooting a character raising his arms, there could be one shot that shows their arms being raised; however, there would be another shot of their arms being held in the air.

This is effective in making the sequence seem more aesthetically pleasing. The cut now takes place in an instance where the action seems continuous. This ensures that the audience do not become disoriented.

It is also effective in maintaining a sense of continuous action. Match on action is often used simultaneously with the 180 – degree rule in order to further enhance the sense of immersion and realism.

The 180 – Degree Rule

The 180 – degree rule is the theory that a straight line is placed down the middle of the shot and that the camera should not cross it.

This is done in order to prevent confusion and disorientation. It is effective in that it maintains the illusion that the action occurring is not scripted.

In essence, the characters in a scene maintain the same left – right relationship throughout the shot.

180-degree-rule-700 — ‘The 180 – degree rule.’

A Brief History Of Film

A force to be reckoned with.

Film has emerged as the foremost medium of mass communication and entertainment but how did this happen and where did it all begin?

Initial ideas.

In the early 1890s, the machinery needed to be able to view moving pictures was invented. Specifically, in 1831 the first prototype for what would become known as the Kinetoscope was invented. An American company by the name of the Edison Company was behind this momentous breakthrough.

However, the first screening of moving pictures, in what we now know as a cinema, took place in December 1895. In this instance, the Lumiere brothers were responsible for this landmark occasion in Paris.

Although the very first films were often short, contrary to belief, they did have sound. It is the fact that dialogue was not synchronised that made these early films so different to todays.

Equally, these earlier films were generally characterised by motifs ranging from: comedic satire to news and newsworthy events. These were often accompanied with music and audience participation was encouraged.

Positive progression.

It’s important to realise that the film industry was not even a thing when the Lumiere brothers were in their prime. In fact, it took years of growth and expansion in order for film to progress beyond its initial embryonic stages.

It’s fair to say that as the audience for films went up, the revenue increased and this facilitated further expansion. By 1914, there were several large – scale and national film industries that oversaw this nascent form of media. By all accounts, Europe, Russia and Scandinavia had as much of a stronghold over the film industry as America did. This is a testament to the widespread progression of film. It can therefore be argued that it was not just one individual person whom catalysed change, instead, it was a collection of companies working together to achieve a common goal.

However, the income generated from the film industry didn’t matter when WW1 started. This all but halted the film industries in Europe and allowed American industries to take big strides forwards.

The first 30 or so years of film was interesting to say the least. Monumental advancements were made, for example, the idea of narratives was starting to become common place. With that said, progress was very much halted because of WW1 and there were still improvements that needed to be made.

Requires improvement.

For all of the advancements made in narrative, there were still two major drawbacks that prevented film from becoming ‘mainstream’. Namely: the lack of colour and the lack of sound (in the form of cohesive dialogue and synchronised audio).

In term of colour, some earlier films could have colour. This was achieved via. a process of stencilling or tinting. This was painstaking and was clearly not the way forwards.

Coloured films were not a mainstay until after 1932. This is because it took a long time in order to fine – tune the three – colour – process of adding colour to film.

In the context of sound, this was by far more difficult to perfect. It seemed unfathomable to be able to add sound to a reel of film.

Nevertheless, sound was an aspect of film that was closely looked into. Early efforts saw phonographic cylinders or disks be utilised in order to have synchronised sound.

The film to set a precedent in terms of being the first narrative to have synchronised dialogue would be: The Jazz Singer (USA, 1927). This was a big step forward for film and paved the way for the films that we know today. The effect was achieved by virtue of the use of the Warner Brothers’ Vitaphone system. This used a separate record disk with each film reel for the sound.

Although this was revolutionary at the time, it was clear that the system was unreliable. As such, it was shortly replaced by an optical, variable density soundtrack. This was recorded photographically along the edge of the film.

Striking gold.

Thanks to the aforementioned improvements in film, they gave rise to a new term – ‘The Golden Age of Cinema’.

That is to say that by the end of the 1930s, most films were shot in full colour and had sound.

The most rapid change was taking place in America. Whereby, the use of sound was so often used, a new term was coined – ‘The Golden Age of Hollywood’.

These new film – making techniques were critical in ensuring the long – term success of the film industry. By the 1940s, film was the most popular form of entertainment. Britain saw the most success, with citizens often reporting that they would visit the cinema at least twice a week. In 1946, there were 31 million visits to the cinema in Britain each week.

The importance of Maths in film.

Aspect ratios are important in film. They give the shots a standardised look and feel, this is important in creating uniformity within the film industry.

The initial aspect ratio that was used was 1:1.33 (height to width ratio). After the introduction of optical sound, the aspect ratio was altered to 1.37:1.

The end of the 1950s also saw another change to aspect ratios. The standardised ratios now changed to either: 1:2.35 or 1:1.66.

A worthy competitor.

Although film was still extremely popular, after the 1950s a new form of media was at the heels of film – television.

Television offered one thing that film lacked – ease of access. This put film on the back foot. Televisions could be installed in your house and you could access media from the comfort of your own room. Cinemas, on the other hand, would be busy and often loud, showing films to a large number of audience members.

Consequently, the film industry had to do something drastic in order to remain atop the tree. We saw a shift towards widescreen films. Films would now be made into big spectacles and must – see events. With the shift to widescreen films, stereo sound became a mainstay.

The future of film.

Whilst the advent of widescreen certainly helped to preserve the legacy of cinemas, the number of cinema – goers has dropped massively. Equally, the number of people who watch television has also depleted as of late.

With the invention of the internet, the 21st Century has most certainly seen the biggest change in media consumption since the first Lumiere brothers’ film all of those years ago in December 1895.

It seems like nowadays, streaming services such as: Netflix and Amazon Prime are the main means of accessing films. Whilst it is fair to say that film will always exist in one form or another, cinemas might not.

As for the future of film, who knows? I am sure that the Lumiere brothers did not envisage home – streaming, so the next stage in film will be, most certainly, unprecedented and impactful.

Knock – Knock

In class this week, we received our first task – to create a film. Actually, the task was to: plan, film, edit and upload a sequence showing two characters coming together, telling a knock – knock joke and departing.

Simply put, it would be a short film (20 – 30 seconds long) to allow us to experiment and use the film – making equipment for the first time.

The idea for our film was that we develop somewhat of a ‘creepy’ aesthetic and then juxtapose this with a light-hearted joke. The juxtaposition was supposed to create the impression of irony and give our short film some implicit humour.

The knock – knock joke was as follows: “Knock – Knock”, “Who’s there?” “Ice – cream” “Ice – cream who?” “Ice – cream’s nice on a hot day.”

Naturally, creating an aesthetic that elicits horror is difficult when telling a joke. Nevertheless, we instructed the actors to behave in particular ways. For example, Ryan was to whisper and pull Leah’s hair back thusly, akin to a pseudo – serial – killer. Leah, on the other hand, was to cower and close her eyes slightly. This would connote innocence and vulnerability.

On a whole, the film – making process was definitely a learning curve. The recording went to plan but the editing was by far more difficult. Cutting the scenes proved hard because there was little leeway at the start and end of the takes. Additionally, the audio was difficult to sync with the video.

Nevertheless, here is our film:

‘Knock – Knock.’

On reflection, the idea of a CCTV camera being at eye – level is perhaps a little bit unrealistic. The stylised screen was something that I think worked well; however, it should have maybe been something more film – noir inspired.

Equally, the camera was a bit shaky on one of the close – ups. This retracted from the quality of the film. In the future, we would keep the camera on the tri – pod in order to keep the shots stable and steady.

One final improvement would be the choice of location. The fact that we shot the scene on a field meant that we had limited control over the mise – en – scene. In order to have better control over the film – making process, we should have shot the scene in the drama studio and have dimmed the lights in order to have achieved a similarly ‘creepy’ aesthetic.

A Gathering Storm

Content, content and even more content.

I think that the aspect that I like the most about the Film Studies A-Level course is the scope that the qualification offers for further study and education. We have to study 11 films in total but there are about 50 total films to pick from. This is great because it shows how much the course has to offer.

In terms of content, the course is split into two similar components. Component one comprises of:

Two Hollywood films (1930-1990) for comparison
Two American films (since 2005)
Two British films (since 1995)

Component two comprises of:

Two Global films
One Documentary film
One Silent film
One Experimental film

There is also a third component, intuitively titled component three. This is the coursework aspect of the Film Studies A-Level. Whilst the previous two components will each be assessed in two, two and a half hour exams and making up 35 percent of the course each, totalling to 70 percent, component three makes up 30 percent of the course and is not a written exam. Instead, component three is a piece of short film between four and five minutes long and a 1600-1800 word evaluative analysis. All of these three components together make up the full 100 percent of our final Film Studies A-Level grade.

The nature of the course is brilliant considering that there are an eclectic mix of films available for studying. This will allow for a greater view of how film has changed from the early days of silent cinema in the 1920s through to the Classical Hollywood, New Hollywood and modern day American and British films. Component two is perhaps more unusual in that we will be studying films that broke down boundaries, shocked audiences or even paved the way for a new genre or type of film.

This is going to be an exciting ride, so buckle up.

Reel Life

Early days.

It is difficult to remember the very first film that I saw in the cinema. Instead, I will talk about one of the first (I think).

Fantastic Mr. Fox (Wes Anderson, 2009) was definitely a critical element in my emerging love of films. Anderson’s stunning visuals and use of cinematography initially caught my eye. His quirky use of a mauve colour palette was nothing like the television programmes that I had grown accustomed to. This immediately established the cinema as somewhat unique and intriguing. The plot as a whole tells the age-old story of good vs. bad in its broadest terms but the peculiar nature of a fox as the protagonist allows for something more subtle, yet often outspoken, to be explored. Desire.

Clearly the idea of a fox being able to talk and communicate is ludicrous; however, the idea that a fox can have feelings and experience an emotion as thought-provoking as repression is much more grounded in reality. This is an interesting idea to explore. Not least because the titular Mr. Fox (voiced by the ubiquitous George Clooney) is caught up in a struggle between appeasing his wife by no longer being a thief and his inherent desire to be steal. This internal conflict can also be attributed to that of a young child, grappling with the morality of doing something that they really want to do (for example, eating a lot of sweets) but instead doing the right thing (in this case, not eating the aforementioned sweets). As a result of this, I would therefore argue that this movie offers young and impressionable children a glimpse into what happens when you don’t do the right thing. Since, after all, Mr. Fox does get his due comeuppance in the form of his home being flooded. This is, surely, a good message and example to be sending to children.

*‘This scene perfectly captures Anderson’s iconic auteur style. The positioning of the characters and objects in a highly pleasing and symmetrical fashion makes the film easy to watch.’*

Regardless of the strong message surrounding the morality of actions, Anderson’s film is yet another example of how the use of stop-motion animation in films will continue to captivate audiences both young and old. The stunning scenes and relatively upbeat soundtrack captured my parents’ interests when we went to see the film. The eccentric characters and strong voiceovers hooked me form the start. However, it was Anderson’s questioning of morality that left the biggest imprint on myself and my parents alike.

Profound Emotions.

It is certainly an ice-breaker when you mention the argument of Marvel vs. DC. Both cinematic universes are rich in history and form the backbones of the 20th and 21st century cultural zeitgeist. However, it cannot be argued that there have been both flops and successes in both cases over these past two decades. So when thinking about the film that has had the most profound emotional impact on me, I look no further than the formidable Dark Knight trilogy. Namely, The Dark Knight (Christopher Nolan, 2008).

In terms of superhero movies, I always tend to gravitate towards those that seem much more ‘real’. That is to say, that my enjoyment comes from the perception that the events in the movies could actually take place. Obviously in every superhero movie, you are bound to have to suspend your disbelief for certain scenes. However, the gritty and realistic scenes that make up the majority of The Dark Knight make those moments where you do have to suspend your disbelief much more shocking and profound.

‘The contrast between the realistic bank robbery scene (above) makes the outlandish stadium destruction scene (below) much more impactful and shocking.’

Above all, it was Heath Ledger’s performance as The Joker that elicited the strongest emotional response in me when I watched this movie. Long gone are the days in which a superhero villain is presented as secondary to the hero, in fact, Ledger’s character defined this trilogy. Although the earlier Batman movies portrayed antagonists as ‘goofy’ and spineless, Ledger pulls you in with his shocking portrayal of the maniacal Joker. He is calculated. Self-assured. Arrogant, even. He can outsmart Batman. He will outsmart Batman. Ledger had a certain level of intelligence and eloquence whenever he spoke in character, this only heightened my levels of spiralling fear. It was the thought that he was always one step ahead of Batman that left me paralysed with fear.

Ledger truly embraced his role as The Joker. Reportedly locking himself away for days, weeks even, fully embracing his role and becoming The Joker. It showed. Ledger set the standard for antagonists to come, his performance defines our generation of superhero villains. Ledger was, truly, petrifying.

Not only did the film elicit fear within me but also: happiness, excitement and, at times, personal involvement. It was this eclectic mix of emotions that explains my love of The Dark Knight. It was really, truly, a rollercoaster of emotions. I cannot recommend it enough.

The most melancholic realisation is that Ledger never truly experienced his fans adoration; since he tragically died before the film was released. It makes you wonder how far Ledger could have gone. The 28 year old had a long career ahead of him; his performance in The Dark Knight drew incredibly widespread critical acclaim. It is this abrupt end to The Joker that is so disappointing in its ending. The posthumous Oscar for the best supporting actor doesn’t seem an accolade that is worthy enough for Ledger’s performance and subsequent legacy. This is why The Dark Knight has had the most profound emotional impact on me.

Wonderfully Weird.

When I saw the trailer for The Package (John Szymanski, 2018), I was shocked and slightly intrigued. This was one of my first discoveries of the black comedy genre. Typically containing movies that are dark or grotesque in nature. Nevertheless, I have never been one to say no to a good High School film that explores growing up, similar to a bildungsroman.

I went into this movie with relatively low hopes. After all, how long could a joke about a penis being sliced off hold up for. The answer? 94 minutes.

The film is much more than just a camping-trip gone wrong, oh so very wrong. Instead, the subtext focuses on masculinity and the effect of machoism on teenagers. The emancipation of teenagers is a theme that is seldom explored, so I found the decision to address it in such a blunt way refreshing. It was the opposite to the tongue-in-cheek dramatised comedy that I had had in mind. I think that this shows how powerful expectations are, since subverting an audience’s expectations proved effective for me in this case.

The narrative focuses on a group of five individuals on a camping trip in America. Pretty innocent, right? Wrong. The metallic, flesh-slicing diegetic sound that the pocketknife makes when chopping Jeremy’s (Eduardo Franco) penis off is so cringe-inducing that your jaw won’t not drop and stay dropped in disbelief. It was so, so much more gruesome than I had imagined. Not seeing the actual slice made the event even more horrible, your mind was left to imagine the horrors of what just happened.

‘You can only imagine how gruesome this scene really was.’

After the penis becomes lost, the story becomes pretty predictable. The remaining four friends have to overcome obstacles as they try to reunite Jeremy with, well, you know. Although the idea that this could ever happen seems preposterous, this only adds to the comedic effect of the story arc. The final few scenes in the hospital are especially memorable in terms of both their: ludicrous nature and hilarity.

Don’t go into this film expecting a cinematic showcase of the best cinematography, you’ll be disappointed. Instead, enjoy the unique story and excellent script. The humour was genuinely funny, even if, at times, cheesy and reliant on good acting. I found Luke Spencer Roberts’ performance as Donnie especially good and surprisingly believable in a film that was so outlandish.

Hello World!

Cliche, perhaps. ‘Hello World’ does; however, feel quite apt for the first post on my blog. This blog will be a canvas, enabling me to paint a picture comprising of every thought and opinion that I have regarding films and cinema-related information.

Anyways, I suppose that I should introduce myself… my name is Olly Staniland and I’m studying for a film studies A-Level at a small, rural school in Lincolnshire. I have a passion for films and media in general. I took this A-Level in order to try and facilitate a further career in the media. Most importantly, though I have a pure love of films and cinematography (as well as an absent lack of appreciation for free-time considering all of the hours that I will have to put in to this blog).