The Kuleshov Effect...

The Kuleshov effect is an editing technique first introduced by Russian film maker Lev Kuleshov in the early 20th Century. It describes how simple editing of sequences in a clip can have an overwhelming effect on the characters and/or storyline. The way it works is simple, and a characters personality can be easily manipulated depending on the sequence. For example, if a young girl is shown looking at something, then a clip of a puppy chasing its tale is inserted, followed by a reaction shot of the girl smiling and laughing, the audience can infer that the young girl is an innocent animal lover. However, replace the clip of the puppy chasing its tale with a man getting seriously wounded but keep the reaction shot of the girl exactly how it was before, the young girl is suddenly percieved as heartless and evil.

Hitchcock was a huge fan of the Kuleshov effect and demonstrated it often in his work. Here is Hitchcock explaining it in simple terms:

-KW

'The Black Hole' by Phil and Olly...

Along with 'Virus', another short film we watched in class was 'The Black Hole', written and directed by Phil and Olly (surnames not given in credits). This short sees a man in an office discover that a black cricle on a sheet of paper acts as a black hold and allows him to pass through it into objects such as a copier, a wall and a vending machine. He then uses it to access the safe but ends up getting stuck inside.

Here is 'The Black Hole':

I really like the way this is done also, and I would like to use this as inspiration for my own short film. Similarly to 'Virus', this short uses connotations of a thriller genre such as the lighting, sound and overall tone of the piece to suggest that it is a film of the same sort, however it cleverly uses this to turn it into a comedy. A film such as this could be hard to pastige due to the special effects of the black hole, but I really like the overall idea of mixing genres, and using pure film to tell a story instead of dialogue.


-KW

'Virus' by Simon Hynd...

Recently in class, we were shown a short film called 'Virus' by Simon Hynd, which really struck me in the way that it was written and shot, and found it incredible how the short film built up so much suspense while using no dialogue and no non diagetic sound. The suspense was created using the sounds of everyday objects such as the vibration and ringing of the phone, the grainy sound of the security camera and the colour correction to make the film genre appear as a thriller.

 Here is the film:

I think this short also works well on film as opposed to being a short story. It is common for a lot of short films to be derived or taken from short stories, however this particular example would struggle to be as effective on paper because the film itself is very video-orientated. The man is watching his computer, the security guard is watching the security camera (well he's meant to) and the man is watching a clip of his girlfriend watching the same thing happen to someone else. It is also effective as we are watching this all unfold, so it could appear that we are watching under the same circumstances as he is, being filmed for someone then to watch. This is why I think the film is so clever, and I really like the idea of producing my own short film in a similar style, but it would have to be done carefully and properly for it to work.

We also watched an A Level student film which was inspired by 'Virus', which he called 'Networked', and it achieved an A grade. It was good but it didnt achieve the same effect as 'Virus' did in terms of creating the thriller genre, however, it did bring the film up-to-date by using facebook instead of email on an old computer.

-KW

Short Film Idea 1...

After working in the style of comedy genre documentaries, I have decided that I would like to re-visit working in that style because the last time I did, I really enjoyed it and the end product turned out well. So I thought about attempting another, although a slightly better one. Here's what I came up with...

I had an idea of doing a mockumentary style film of a teenage boy who has a serious phobia of the colour red. The documentary would follow his daily life and document his struggle of having an irrational fear of a common colour. Some scenes I thought of would be him sitting on a chair talking about his phobia to the camera, then a crew member turns up in a red shirt and the boy faints. Another scene I had in mind would be him seeing his girlfriend on the other side of the room and saying "Ooh, I want you to meet my girlfriend!" He then walks up to her, taps her on the shoulder and gets ready to kiss her, but she turns around wearing bright red lipstick and he subsequently screams and frantically runs away. I feel like this could have quite a comedic affect if it were to be done properly.


-KW

Textual Analysis...'Schwarzfarer' and 'Get Off My Land'

Mise-en-scene:

In the first establishing shot we are given an introduction to an urban, working city life. We are then situated with medium and long shots of the general public during what looks to be rush hour (works traffic) at the train station. We are shown a collection of shots where there are adults in smart clothing - presumably for work-, reading newspapers and then are given the polar opposite of adolescents in casual clothing, listening to music and conversing with friends, as well as flirting between a group of teenagers. Once on the tram, we are introduced to an elderly woman dressed yet again in a formal suit. The placement of the black youth next to this white, elderly woman is to show the audience the full comparison of two different worlds - old and young. The elderly woman's discrimination towards the youth is not age related, but a racial attack. The clothing differences highlights the difference in opinions that the separate generations have. The elderly woman also has a problem with two Arabian boys situated on the train (earlier flirted with two German girls). The fact that the majority younger than the ranting woman are in casual, except for the working, is the demonstration that they have accepting these immigrants into their culture and in fact are incorporating some of their norms into theirs. The smart, formalness of this elderly woman and another elderly man who is shown to agree with the wicked rant demonstrates how in their ways they are, and refuse to take on societal changes because it goes against their norms, values and beliefs.

Sound:

Non-Diegetic:

The saxophone and drums during the establishing shot and introductory scenes are used to emphasis the busy work atmosphere. There is a deliberate use of non-diegetics because they give the film a documentary feel (even though it is not one) which alerts people to 'realness' of the situation

Diegetic:

The elderly woman's dialogue is almost like a narrative, however she is still in shot. This yet again emphasises on the documentary feel to make people aware of seriousness and extent of racist behaviour and how it can be anyone.

Camera Angles:

The establishing shot is a crane shot which introduces the audience to the environment of the characters, which helps with the fill in of their schemas with stereotypes we associate with areas of the same class. Low angles are often used to get view of the black youths POV when he is being discriminated. Long shots are used to get reactions from people on the tram. Extreme close up s are used to show the tension building and to put emphasis on little actions e.g a smirk.

Get Off My Land (click on title)

 

Mise-en-scene with camera angles:

The first introductory establishing shot we see is of a male and a females shoes. The female is wearing walking shoes and the male is wearing some fashionable trainers. From here we see a collection of two shots, which demonstrate that this is a couple, however not so much happy. The woman is seen storming ahead whilst the man is constantly complaining, either in his dialogue or with body language such as the brushing off of mud on his jeans with a deep sigh of annoyance. His 'difficulty' to climb a wooden fence is really his reluctance to carry on with the muddy autumnal walk. The girl friend storming off suggests that the boyfriend have done something wrong previously. We are then introduced to a farmer, however we only know he is a farmer because of how he is stereotypically dressed and material items- tweed hat, Land Rover, green outdoor clothing and a later shotgun. The built up aggression that the boyfriend has is then shown in a medium two shot when he demands to fight for the piece of land that they believe to of trespassed on. The aggressiveness that he shows when unzipping his jacket also stands for his ego to show his patriarchal dominance. An over-the-shoulder shot of the boyfriend then putting his jacket back on after the 'farmer' walks away gives the audience a fake sense that the battle is over, however, the farmer then returns and shoots the boyfriend, leaving the girlfriend shaking in fear and grief. We can see in a close up that blood has splattered onto her face leaving her with more fear. The farmer then saunters off only to swivel round and aim the gun at the woman. We are then situated with a shot of the forest and a gun shot resulting in birds flying out of the trees. A medium shot then shows the farmer continuing ith his previous journey and the two bodies of the couple.

Sound:

The sound is all diegetic. There is no music and sounds such as the wind and motor way noise are natural and kept in the film to give situation context. Of course in reality the gun shot noise is not real because it is acting so that is edited in, however, the gun shot is a realistic one in the context, especially when the gun is not in shot and the birds caw and fly away.

 

 

-HM

Telling a Story in a Few Minutes...Pros, Cons and How it Works

Short Films simply aim to entertain whilst effectively telling a story within just a few minutes. This has both benefits and difficulties, and filmmakers can find it hard to "make it work". This could be down to most of us being so used to watching feature-length films and their typical structure, so people can become unaware of short films and their structure. Anyone, whether they are a film fanatic or not, can tell you that there is a difference between short and feature-length films. The first thing they would probably say if you were to ask them, is the length. Short films are classed as being between 3-40 minutes, and each one varies. There are a number of benefits and drawbacks that film makers receive from creating short films as opposed to a feature-length production.

One of the most obvious benefits to a film maker wanting to produce a short film is the significant difference in time it takes to shoot and edit the product. For short films, the planning might take a while to perfect, even if the length is only a few minutes- it could take up to a month or so to get everything in place. Shooting wouldn't take very long, in fact it could be completed in a matter of days if all goes to plan and everything is done efficiently. However, feature length films can take months to shoot and edit, let alone planning! Comedy films that only really involve actors and dialogue, such as comedies like 'Scary Movie' or 'Mean Girls' would take less time that something animated like 'Avatar', which was said to have taken several years to complete due to the complicated story line and complex CGI. Animation giant 'Pixar' has said that their films take anywhere from 4 to 7 years to finish one of their films due to the complicated computer animation.

Less funding is also required for short films. This is due to a number of factors, such as the fact that is takes less time to shoot, meaning the equipment rental is far less than what it would be for feature-length films. This is also due to the fact that the actors and crew are paid significantly less than those who work of full length productions. For example, top Hollywood actors would be casted in feature length films because they help promote and market the film. It was reported that Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio were both paid over $2,000,000 to star in 'Titanic', and the film itself cost around $200,000,000 to fund the entire project, the most expensive film to be made in the 20th Century (luckily for James Cameron, the films worldwide gross was $1,843,201,268, so it was probably worth it). This massively differs from the salary of short film actors, who are usually, if the film is from quite an established company, paid a smallish sum of at most a couple hundred pounds. Even less if the short film is experimental, perhaps a student in university. In this case, they may only be paid a few pounds to cover travel and something to eat. However, it is a good way for aspiring actors to gain some experience and build up their portfolio, so they probably don't mind as much.

Short films are more likely to be consumed by film buff's and aficionados, as opposed to the more mainstream audiences, which means they can be appreciated differently and can give the director/creator more credibility. This also gives them more opportunities to be creative and communicate a message because mainstrem audiences would be looking for the typical Hollywood blockbuster. However these audiences can come in handy- if the short film is previewed before a feature film, as is done before Disney Pixar films, it can create a huge buzz about the short film and generate quite a bit of profit due to the vast audiences that will view it.

Film makers also face drawbacks when creating short films. These are usually found in the financial side. For example, it can be hard to short film makers to generate funding to create their film because investors are less likely to donate their money because they don't think it will be beneficial, whereas people invest millions into the big blockbusters. The fudning is usually done by using the creators own resources and taking out loans. The other financial drawback is that little, if any, profits are achieved. However most people experimenting with short films don't have the main goal of achieving profit but simply practice and gaining experience and followers. It could also be hard to get crew/actors to take part in the process because of the small pay they would recieve, but again, its usually done for the experience.

Short films are also not seen by many people, which can be a strong negative if the director is looking to break into the movie business. This is because short films only really appeal to particular audiences, as mentioned before these are usually film buffs and aficionados, which cover a rather small percentage of the movie-goer population. Some mainstream audiences may have never actually seen a short fiom (or realised it). It is also hard for short films to gain recognition from film festivals due to the immense competition from other film makers desperate to get their work shown.


-KW