Two short films were created:
Conventions:
- Camera
- Close-ups during fight scenes
- Handheld during fight scenes
- High angle to undermine
- Low angle to be powerful
- Wide shots for build up
- Slow panning/tracking for build up
- Hero has the most screen time
- Sound
- Amplified punches
- Non-diegetic music (slow paced to build up tension)
- Mise-en-Scѐne
- Sartorial codes (hair, clothing) representative of the character
- Setting usually establishes a tone and what type of scene
- Lighting (high key, low key)
- Editing
- Slow paced (fewer cuts) for build up
- Fast paced (more cuts) for fights
- Cross-cutting
- Representation
- Men = dominant
- Women = not so much
- Foreign = enemy
Final short films:
Good: What went well in this short was the good build up to the fight and the ability to get in interesting shots in the very small space used. Used more of the conventions such as P.O.V shot and handheld. The setting of a bathroom was used well and impressively. In terms of music, there was very good use of the James Bond theme, the elevator music and The Lonely Shepard, however, The Prodigy song didn't really match the feel or pace of the scenes it was over, and if anything made the fighting seem slower paced than it actually was due to how fast paced it was. However, despite these problems it still did a very good job at balancing humour with action and using the conventions we discussed making it a very entertaining short. The fighting is poor in some scenes, but they're done well in the space given and through the use of close-ups.
Bad: Basic continuity issues such as Ruairi and James fighting and then cutting to a P.O.V shot of someone peeing. This turns out to be Alex Scott, but he was never established to be in the toilet prior to this shot, so I assumed it was either Ruairi or James who stopped to pee. The overall pace was slightly slow, editing should've been tighter like in the other one and although I liked the idea of them fighting while someone was just trying to pee, the comedic timing of Alex's role could be better. The film was in black and white, which I assume was just an artistic choice, which is overall not a big deal, however there was a black rim of shadow around the outside of the frame the whole time, which to me seemed tacky and unnecessary and also not fitting in with any action film convention. A minor criticism, is that this group clearly doesn't understand the jobs of the production team based on those credits.
Good: What went well in this short, is one of the main thing lacking in the first one, the continuity and pacing is practically impeccable. This can be attributed to extremely good editing (well done Sam), both the action and the humour was perfectly timed as well as being well balanced. Like the first one, it has been adventurous with the camera shots and angles and has made good use of close-ups and amplified punches. To avoid the first film's problems of fake-looking fighting, a chase scene is a very good and clever alternative. There are nice details, such as Matthew looking scruffy vs the neat Harrison, excellent use of sartorial codes. And finally, excellent use of music that fits in well with the action.
Bad: There are some criminal cases of breaking the 180 degree rule in this, namely in the knocking over of the bin, but it doesn't take much away from the overall feel of the scene. The plot was a lot less developed than in Fruitless and it's a lot shorter meaning there is overall less variety than in the first one. However, for what it is (a chase scene), the length and plot did not really affect it, after all, it's just a generic action scene, the plot isn't imperative. On the other hand, the plot still has to be believable and the idea doesn't come across very strongly that Harrison would have outrun Matthew enough to loose him, there needs to be an obvious obstacle that would stop him.
OVERALL
Both films are extremely high quality and both groups have clearly understood the task given and used the conventions well. Both films complete each other in strengths, where Fruitless is strong in camera and plot and weak in pacing and music, Incriminating Evidence is strong in pacing and music and weaker in the other. This makes the two together everything you could ever want in an action scene. But there must be a winner... and I feel that in terms of creating an action scene, Incriminating Evidence wins due to the fact that it does every department well in terms of camera, sound, mise-en-scѐne and editing, even though it does slightly worse in some of them compared to fruitless, it still does each one to a high quality, whereas Fruitless does not do well in every category.
CONGRATULATIONS TO SAM DIAMOND, EDDIE TAMALE, HARRISON COLE, MATTHEW TULLY AND KIRAN BHARADIA!
No comments:
Post a Comment