We have focused for prolonged periods of time on the film
exclusively, as its own separate entity, as opposed to an element
practice-based research. That is the truth. And before that, we focused
exclusively on the research end of the project for even longer periods, without
any idea what were doing for a film. There has been a long-standing theme in
our project feedback that the two seem like separate entities, that there is
not enough of a link between them. This is our fault, as we did not dedicate time
to communicate the truth instead of further promoting this miscommunication.
The truth is that both are intricately related. I will attempt to describe this
relationship and correct this issue here…
The film is built upon the
research topic. This has been the case since the very beginning, even when
Jamie was drafting narrative ideas never mind scripts. This is how the
structure of the narrative was designed around the three central action scene types;
chase, hand-to-hand combat and firefight (although what we got shot in the end
did not encompass all these strictly speaking, that was always the goal). While
we chose these types of action sequences based on conventions within the action
genre and our own personal interests, crucially how we chose the style of each
was from the results of our questionnaire. Visual style is a key element of
action, moreso than most other film genres, so this influence on the film was
significant.
This was the only real tie
between the research and the film that was communicated in our demo
presentations, and therefore the dismay of the lecturers who did not see any
more connection is understandable and in hindsight, unsurprising. The ties
go much deeper. Throughout the months leading up to production, all members of
the deep were conducting in-depth textual analysis, which fed back into valid research and our inspirations for the film. We looked at a very extensive
array of films of a range of genres, although of course action was the most prevalent.
As with any genre as wide ranging as ‘action’, there are several sub-genres
within it, and most action films could be catagorised under something else
(e.g. The Matrix could be labeled as
sci-fi, Full Metal Jacket as
war/drama etc.). All these films fed back into both our research and the film,
as we attempted to take what we saw as the best techniques used and emulate
them within our own film.
Only after deconstructing
successful action sequences in detail could we accurately analyse what made
them successful. In many cases, such as our oft-mentioned Bourne fight scene,
the edit is clearly the key element. In most however, there is an intricately
balanced combination of filmmaking tools at play between sound design, score,
stunts and performance, visual effects and of course camera movement and
composition. We know, and have always acknowledged (even if we have not
communicated this acknowledgement as well as we should have), that camera
movement is only one part of what makes an action sequence engaging to an
audience. We simply choose to focus on this element and analyse what different
techniques can produce and contribute to scenes overall. And this brings us
back to our film.
Having done all this textual
analysis (and its worth mentioning in case this post is being read out of
context of the rest of our research that our textual analysis goes way beyond
films; books, games, articles etc.) we began testing our own camera movement
techniques. We conducted several test shoots, attempting in practice
established camera movements designed to work either in conjunction with stunts
or to create the illusion of impacts by hiding the absence of impacts. Such
techniques include the ‘Long-lens stunt’, the ‘Matching motion’ technique, and
the ‘Wall drop’. Some of these we ended up incorporating into our own action
sequences, some we were glad to test and discard. Having used the initial research
to feed into the test shoots and practiced some of the techniques
ourselves, we also discussed some of the technical aspects with renowned DP PJ
Dillon, who advised us of many of the pros and cons of DSLR. The issue of
shooting with DSLR was something I myself researched extensively, as it is well
documented that it is not ideal in many ways for shooting action.
As cinematographer a key part of
the shoot was prepping equipment and test shooting with our light setups. As
part of all this I did my own Steadicam training for a few days, and this in
itself all feeds back into the research data needed for the final dissertation.
My experience in practice both during this stage and of course during
production is a key part of the research that will feed back into the final
product. This is the whole point of ‘practice-based research’, and so you can
see how the film and research are related.
No comments:
Post a Comment