4 Hour Film Challenge
A short Noir experimental film depicting a investigator discovering the crime scene in which a woman discovered something unknown, our film shows uses of multiple pull focuses to confuse and disorientate, paired with quick violent jump cuts, rising non diegetic sound and low key lighting to create a narrative with depth, intrigue and a sinister atmosphere. a combination of static and moving camera angles such as a point of view shots and static wide mid shots creates a sense that the protagonist is both watching and being watched. the product of these techniques creates a viewing experience that fully absorbs the viewer.
self-review
upon re watching my 4 hour film challenge i have become aware of several errors and flaws that i could re shoot in order for my film to reach a higher quality of production. one of the most glaring problems within my film is the fact that a large section of the film is slightly out of focus, this was due to myself trying to overcompensate for the dark setting by raising the aperture of the camera, in turn this raised the brightness of the image at the expense of rendering the footage unfocused, to remedy this i would have to go back and re-shoot the footage with the aperture in a more suitable setting so that the footage remains high quality, i would then have to raise the overall brightness of the footage in post production.
another problem that was raised in the group evaluation of the films was that there didn't necessarily seem to be any narrative to my film, and if there was narrative then it was hard to uncover. whilst i can see that this would be considered a fairly huge problem for a film that relied heavily on its narrative, i wouldn't necessarily call this a fault within my film, my film was intended to be experimental, its purpose was to confuse and disorientate the viewer, and only upon multiple viewings can any narrative be discovered. another issue that was raised in the group evaluation was that the ending seemed some what blunt, that there was no narrative climax to the film, again this was intentional, during our pre production we realised that our film had slowly began to conform to genre cliche's, extreme close ups and tracking shots gave our film the impression of a generic horror film, it was our belief that with a un-climatic ending we would subvert these expectations. however i can see how the film had very little narrative climax to it, if we were to re-shoot these films i would certainly go back and potentially plan an ending that had more weight to it.
personally i fount that the time scale i had to work with in order to create this film was extremely short, time quickly caught up with us, meaning that we had to cut parts of the filming, the planning and the editing in order to make sure we had enough time to get the basic footage and editing complete. theres very little i could have done to change this as the 4 hour time limit was out of my control, however, next time we are presented a 4 hour challenge, i can plan ahead, focussing on quality of shots and editing over quantity of footage, this would therefore create an admittedly shorter film, but one that consists of slick visuals and aesthetics.
self-review
upon re watching my 4 hour film challenge i have become aware of several errors and flaws that i could re shoot in order for my film to reach a higher quality of production. one of the most glaring problems within my film is the fact that a large section of the film is slightly out of focus, this was due to myself trying to overcompensate for the dark setting by raising the aperture of the camera, in turn this raised the brightness of the image at the expense of rendering the footage unfocused, to remedy this i would have to go back and re-shoot the footage with the aperture in a more suitable setting so that the footage remains high quality, i would then have to raise the overall brightness of the footage in post production.
another problem that was raised in the group evaluation of the films was that there didn't necessarily seem to be any narrative to my film, and if there was narrative then it was hard to uncover. whilst i can see that this would be considered a fairly huge problem for a film that relied heavily on its narrative, i wouldn't necessarily call this a fault within my film, my film was intended to be experimental, its purpose was to confuse and disorientate the viewer, and only upon multiple viewings can any narrative be discovered. another issue that was raised in the group evaluation was that the ending seemed some what blunt, that there was no narrative climax to the film, again this was intentional, during our pre production we realised that our film had slowly began to conform to genre cliche's, extreme close ups and tracking shots gave our film the impression of a generic horror film, it was our belief that with a un-climatic ending we would subvert these expectations. however i can see how the film had very little narrative climax to it, if we were to re-shoot these films i would certainly go back and potentially plan an ending that had more weight to it.
personally i fount that the time scale i had to work with in order to create this film was extremely short, time quickly caught up with us, meaning that we had to cut parts of the filming, the planning and the editing in order to make sure we had enough time to get the basic footage and editing complete. theres very little i could have done to change this as the 4 hour time limit was out of my control, however, next time we are presented a 4 hour challenge, i can plan ahead, focussing on quality of shots and editing over quantity of footage, this would therefore create an admittedly shorter film, but one that consists of slick visuals and aesthetics.
No comments:
Post a Comment