A little something...

Here is a poem I wrote for creative writing and the photo (not my own) that accompanies it:


Bubbles

Why do bubbles pop?

Because
we're not supposed to see them.

Bubbles are evidence
Of order and boundaries
Of science
Of truth
Little, round, near-perfect
(And sometimes actually
perfect) Spheres

They prove surface tension, friction
Gravity
Air is matter
And that beauty doesn't have to be divine
Rarely we get to see
Something like a bubble

Bubbles are planets

When's the last time you popped a planet?

My reel!

Here is my very first DP Reel. It comprises shots from videography class and shots from before learning how to use a camera well that I still like:

Adam Nunley DP Reel from UA, Telecommunication and Film on Vimeo.

All the things I've learned

Well, I don't know where to start. It has been an info-packed semester for me. I think that over the course of the semester I didn't realize exactly how much I was learning in videography. Looking back now, I would not want to be the less knowledgeable Adam Nunley that started the class.

I remember near the beginning of the semester when we watched the opening of The Professional. That example served to point out that every single visual element of a professional (coincidence . . . I think not) video composition is designed and well thought out. This idea and its many implications are the crux of what I learned this semester. People in general do not realize the tremendous amount of work that goes into making a movie. They assume that the relatively brief nature of movie scene implies a brief amount of time spent composing. This is, of course, absurd.

The truth is that the cinematographer is a vital and horribly underappreciated crew member. At the very least the class has taught me to pay more attention to the DP credit.

I've learned more, though. Our forays into lighting were a lot of fun and have made me much more comfortable with lighting equipment. There is still a lot to learn, of course, but I think now I can handle simple light setups. I can at least know when it does and does not look right.

An Awesome DP

I absolutely loved Edward Lachman's work on I'm Not There, the movie with six different actors playing Bob Dylan.

The cinematography matched the eclectic nature of the story. He used different kinds of film throughout. There are many color motifs. Some shots are black and white. In everything there is variation. This is an extremely visually compelling movie.

Some of the trailers do a pretty good job of showcasing Lachman's work...

I'm Not There - Theatrical Trailer 2 | Movies & TV | SPIKE.com

Lachman has been around the block and has been nominated for and won many awards for cinematography. Some of his other recent works are Far From Heaven, A Prairie Home Companion, Erin Brockovich, and The Virgin Suicides. He's been DPing since the 70's though, and I think his experience adds tremendous depth of imagery to I'm Not There. I have a hard time imagining someone young, like myself, who has been introduced to filmmaking starting with digital video, being able to create a work with such variation. I'm Not There does not have a "feel"; it has six, maybe more, "feels," and they are all excellent.

In an interview regarding Far From Heaven, Lachman said, "I wasn't locked into a signature. I could change radically, I was open to exploring visual grammar." Although he meant this to express why he was a good choice for that film, it absolutely applies to I'm Not There as well.

My Artist Statement

Here is my artist statement or statement of purpose...
Here's what I wanna do with my life:


In my life as a filmmaker, I hope, through education and explanation, to assist in uniting humanity so that we may form a common front against the phenomena that threaten all of us with suffering and pain. I envision a future world, one that I intend to help create, without the chains of corruption, bigotry, religion, and, consequently, war. My hope that such a future is possible stems from my earnest belief that the most beneficial course of action for every individual, including those who currently are more wealthy than the rest, is to unite in support of science and sympathy. However, our current global society is continuously plagued by racism, sexism, ethnocentricism, and classism, of which the direct effect is an unnecessary hindrance of scientific and philsophical progress. In this age of advanced technology that has the potential to feed, clothe, and educate every single human being, inequality and indifference exist solely because of ignorance, not necessity. It is his or her misconceptions that allow an individual to be comfortable with a life of superficial self-satisfaction and to believe that he or she cannot contribute to positive changes on a global scale. The truth is that humanity has a limitless potential for accomplishment, but only through unity. Achieving this is only possible with education, and for this reason it is education that I intend to further and promote in all projects, whether they be documentary or narrative.
Education is obviously best achieved through presentation of the truth instead of forced absorption of another's ideas. This is why, as an artist, I strive to allow those who experience my art to come to their own conclusions about how to apply, in their own live, the information contained. I realize that any form of expression is inherently biased, however, I whole-heartedly believe that this bias can be taken advantage of in order to promote shedding of bias, therefore lessening or removing altogether its effects and allowing the viewer to analyze the work of art on the same level, or, ideally, beyond the level, of the artist. This self-aware, self-referencing tone, that I find to be essential of anything that respects the viewer and necessitates his or her intellectual involvement, requires careful thought regarding the use of illusion, a fundamental trait of artistic work. In this spirit, that of Orson Welles (F for Fake) and Errol Morris (The Thin Blue Line), I hope to, as much as possible, include my audience as a character in my films, thereby forcing them to interact with the subject matter and encouraging sympathy for or understanding of ideas they may otherwise never consider.

A short film I (don't) like

I decided to look through shorts that played at Sidewalkfest in order to find something to write my short-film-related blog post about. Even though we are supposed to write about a film we enjoyed, I just watched one that incensed me to the point of wanting to complain about it to the world. The short is titled "Old Bryce." The subject matter piqued my curiousity because of my involvement with it in my own life. I have visited this old, abandoned mental institution (and been run off by the cops) near the Tuscaloosa airport and have many friends who've done the same. While I was growing up, Old Bryce's proximity to the locations of my everyday life and its legendary status perpetuated by older students turned it into a metaphor for the spirits lurking just outside my perceptions.

This video, however, is self-important, terribly shot garbage. A local band, the Dexateens, who proudly proclaim the video as "The Dexateens present 'Old Bryce'," shamelessly inject themselves into the story of Old Bryce and wind up creating a film that is a childish showcase of their own "coolness" instead of a compelling story of old Bryce. Spoken by the lead singer of the band in a voice that overemphasizes his Southern accent (made obvious by dialogue in other parts of the video), the narration is by far the most interesting part of the video. It is decently written and educational. However, the tidbits expressed in the narration are just about the only things worth watching this video for. The cinematography is absolute crap. The cameraguy constantly uses high gain (which alone would be forgivable due to the late night break by the band that the film revolves around) and shakes the camera erratically. He also doesn't seem to give a damn about framing. There are probably two decent shots in the entire video. The shoddy camerawork does add a mischevious or desperate feeling, but there is no payoff. The band sets up some equipment in the dilapidated, graffiti-covered building and plays some folk songs. After an extended period of a medium shot of the lead singer performing, the cops show up, an event made much less interesting by the nonchalant attitude of the bandmembers, who clearly are expecting the intrusion. After asking for a confrontation with the police, we viewers (barely, because of almost no attention paid to the camera's position) get to see the bandmembers smoke cigarettes and act like tough little punks while they sing to the police officer, who is amused by their behavior. All of this takes place under the guise of a spirit-finding expedition. Their theory is that playing old spirituals will reawaken the spirits of the patients of Old Bryce, who were predominantly African-American. What open-minded young white kids the Dexateens are. Whoop-tee-doo.

After this encounter, a couple of them return to explore the spirits more. We get to watch more not-so-impromptu musical performances, and then the video mimics a ghost hunting TV show by having the narrator explain strange voices and then playing the video they occur in repeatedly. All these voices could easily be someone off camera (or even on camera, because you can see almost nothing). Another strange occurrence is a whistle, which could be from anywhere outside as far as we viewers know (and the Dexateens have in no way established credibility that allows us to believe their claim). In the end, this video serves as a self-designed display of the Dexateens badass opinion of themselves disguised by a false expression of intellectual curiousity and awkward sympathy for Bryce's patients.

If high school had made this video, it would be much more impressive.

I apologize for sounding like such a pretentious jerk. I admit that if I were to attempt a similar video it would not be much better (except for the cinematography, which could use a lot of help). However, this video deserves harsh criticism, because it played at Sidewalkfest. I have no idea how that is possible. There were so many excellent short films at Sidewalkfest; there must have been many more that got turned down. I do not think that "The Dexateens present 'Old Bryce'" deserves to be in a film festival of Sidewalkfest's status. Dexateens, you got lucky (or personally know a Sidewalkfest screener).

The end of the blurb for this video on youtube says, "Things did not go according to plan."
What a crock of shit.

For everyone's pleasure:

DP Reels

Well, I've been looking through some DP reels. I find it very unfortunate that most of the aspects of a good DP reel relate to editing instead of cinematography. The best DP reels I've seen do not necessarily have the best shots. I wish this were not the case; I would like the format to be more streamlined so that a DP's shots are themselves what is being showcased. I would like to see a short title card or something similar before each shot that explains some technical details (camera used, filters, recording medium, lighting setup, and, especially, the intended effect), followed by a complete take or at least enough of it to get the gist. Instead, DP reels are all about scoring, pacing, and visual continuity from shot to shot. These are not traits of a DP that get him/her hired. In fact, I can't imagine that most DPs do their own DP reels, at least not alone. Why would you when you could hire an editor?

I don't want to sound pessimistic or like a jerk, but I really think that the DP reel, at least in the state in which I have been experiencing it, is a weak aspect of filmmaking. Making my own reel has been mostly a lesson in editing. The only cinematographic education involved has been selecting "good shots."

That being said, here are some reels I like:


DP Reel Dan Hertzog - For more of the funniest videos, click here

A moooooving shot

Here is a breakdown of a moving camera shot in Watchmen. It is certainly not the most innovative or intricate shot in the movie, but it's cool nonetheless.

The scene begins with an approach by the bad guy, the short dude named Big Figure, and his cronies. The camera moves backward as they walk forward, all the while conversing with Rorschach, whose dialogue all takes place off camera.



The bad guys then stop to converse with Rorschach from a distance, and the camera stops as well, lingering on a medium shot of Big Figure.



The camera then moves slowly backward as the bad guys walk closer to Rorschach.



Finally, the bad guys stop as they reach the bars of Rorschach's cell.



The camera, however, continues to move backward, eventually revealing Rorschach in his cell.



The camera emphasizes Rorschach's unshakable fearlessness by forcing the viewer to be much more focused on the approaching bad guys than he, not even making eye contact, turns out to be.

Meany Greeny

Green screen! What a canvas.

A successful chroma key shot is all about lighting. It is so very difficult to get a cloth evenly lit, but not doing so will result in artifacts and unevenly faded images later in the post production process. This dude explains it all:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6brdwY-dvU

Maybe he is a little dorky and not the best editor, but it's a good tutorial.

To be honest, I am not a huge fan of green screen. Using it really well (a la Star Wars) requires tremendously expensive equipment and an enormous number of man hours. I prefer the look of old movies that have false backgrounds, actually. You know? The films where they record the characters in front of another projected image. It is cheesy, but when is green screen not?

What most green screen movies suffer from is a difference in the lighting of the subject and the lighting of the shot used to replace the green screen. I hate the look of that.

Working with a DP

Well, it is a little late to be writing about what it was like having a DP for Portrait of a Place, but, in the spirit of making up blog posts, I must!

Working with Mclean was a pleasant experience, I'd say. Having a DP made it easier to focus on what to get shots of instead of worrying about how to use the camera. Still, I wound up using the camera myself a good bit, especially when there was something I wanted a shot of that I was worried would not be available for long. An example is the owl we saw and got a zoom reveal of. I am guessing that that happens with many director/DP teams. Even when he wasn't using the camera, Mclean was a valuable source. For example, with the shot I just mentioned, it was Mclean that suggested I do the slow zoom that turned out to be the money shot, until I bumped into the camera of course.

Having a DP is cool. It lets a director be more imaginative. At the very least, it creates a resource for advice and ideas. Two heads are better than one.

Single Cam all the way!

Before being able to write this post, I had to do a little research to find out exactly what is a single camera setup vs. a multi-camera one. I discovered that it is a difference in production that we are all already very acquainted with as television viewers. The stereotypical sitcom or talk show is a multi-camera setup; dramas and newer sitcoms are typically single-camera.

Single-camera is in every way a superior method of production. It is quite a bit more expensive than multi-camera (ironically) for a good reason. Single-camera shooting requires much more thought and artful intent on the part of the filmmakers. Imagine you are watching Everybody Loves Raymond. The production team writes the show, hires the actors, makes a set, gets some cameras and cameraguys together, and then BAM! the show starts and the job of the cameraguys is to keep up with actors. Just keep up with actors. Frame the actor well. Don't lose the actor...blah

And that's what we see. We see the camera following the actors. That is almost always the total amount of thought put into the shot. The actors are always what is in focus. Little thought is put into the background. All shots are still shots. "Good shots" (that is, with more artistic depth than a well-framed human) are thrown in only occasionally and usually feel jarring because of the abundance of "lazy" (it's not the cameraguys that are lazy) shooting.

Single-camera, on the other hand, is real film! Every shot is designed. Potentially everything can have significance. The actors are required to work with the camera to create well-composed, dynamic shots. Set design and prop placement can be heavily-laden with symbolism. Just think about The Sopranos. Everything you see matters. Could you possibly imagine The Sopranos being shot in a multi-camera format? Such a bastardization would in no way mimic the mastery of the real show.

Single-Camera. All the way.

Multi-camera is for narratives that don't deserve serious attention.


Edit: Live television gets an artistic pass for using multi-cam because the format necessitates it. Also, the one exception (that proves the rule) to the multi-camera sucks argument is The Daily Show.

Pre-Production

Well, what do I know about pre-visualization and planning? Well, first off you need to come up with a concept to work with. I have no idea if there is any worthwhile way of explaining how to come up with a story or significant thought. That is part of the magic of creativity. Anyway, come up with your concept. Ask lots and lots of questions about every aspect of every scene you are imagining. What is trying to be conveyed? What is going on? What do the characters think and feel? What is the subtext? Use the answers to these questions to help come up with the storyboard and shot list. Ideally, every visual component of the composition will be thought out. Shoot outside if it provides the right setting and light. Go for inside if you want something less comfortable or more institutional. Use a studio if it is essential to control every subtle change in lighting. There is no one easy way to answer the question, "How do you know what to shoot, where to shoot, and how to light?" What I can say for sure is that whatever you do plan on, it needs to be meaningful and relevant to the work being expressed.

Let There Be Light!

Well, for a topic on light I think it appropriate to display some work by one of the most famous photographers, Ansel Adams. His black and white nature and landscape photos take full advantage of the possibilities of light.


An interesting desert tree. The shadows from the rocks balance well the shadows amidst the tree branches. The background geography is well lit and accentuates the form of the tree.




Very very cool use of sunlight. The mountains in the background look absolutely amazing because of the sunlight beating down on the clouds. It makes them look alive.




This is my favorite of the three images. The Snake River is in the foreground with the Tetons in the background. The use of reflection off the water makes the landscape dull in comparison to the river, which looks on fire. The mountains as well look amazing due to the backlight of the sun. To me they almost look as if they are currently bursting through the ground and being created right at the moment. The light gives them such energy.

Loathing!

We are in for a treat today: an analysis of the elevator scene in Terry Gilliam's Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (DP: Nicola Pecorini).

Two hallucinating gentlemen walk into an elevator and meet a reporter and her crew.
Our first shot:
First off, almost all the shots in the scene are Dutch angles like this one. This is because the main characters (played by Benicio del Toro and Johnny Depp) are currently tripping (I believe on acid.) The tilted angle of the shots helps emphasize their sense of confusion and altered perceptions. The lighting of the scene really emphasizes Cameron Diaz, who is near the center of the shot as well. Just as she is the viewer's main focus in this shot she quickly becomes the main characters' main focus as well.

This is the close-up of del Toro used throughout the scene. It is from well below eye-angle. I think this accomplishes a few things. First off, it forces the viewer to see him from an angle that could not possibly be from another character's point of view. This along with the Dutch angle enforces del Toro's unnatural state of mind and the awkward, cramped atmosphere of the scene. Secondly, this angle really emphasizes his cigarette and eyes, making him seem more shifty. Lastly, I think that this bottom-up angle used traditionally to portray characters of authority emphasizes the absurdity of the film's story. The slightly out-of-focus (surely because he is not very important) guy in the background looks pretty fun and his fear reminds you again of the proximity and awkwardness of the scene.


Here is Cameron Diaz's close-up. It is not a Dutch angle. This is not only because she is sober; it also gives the shot a more in-your-face feeling and actually looks like it would be del Toro's point of view. The guy in the background is dimly-lit and dirty, making him almost blend in with the wall and forcing the viewer's eyes to Cameron Diaz's face.


Johnny Depp's close-up. The same results as del Toro's close-up are achieved. The only difference is that there is nobody else in the shot with him. This is because in the scene he is separate from the action; everything revolves around del Toro and the other characters.

These next stills show a shot that follows del Toro as he moves from one corner of the elevator to the next



The single, long, and slow action shot that follows del Toro emphasizes the tension of the reporter and her crew as they become not only uncomfortable but actually afraid. Dutch angle the entire time.


The tension is lifted for a moment when the elevator stops on a floor to reveal these two people. This shot, the only other not a Dutch angle, is from above eye-level. This and the fact that it is a full shot keeps an impersonal tone that allows for laughs and emphasizes that these people have no idea what they are getting into.


This shot shows us the suprising scene from their point of view and the over-the-shoulder nature of the shot forces us to realize it.


The getaway, Depp and del Toro running down the hall after disembarking the elevator. The film cuts straight to this with no shot of them exiting the elevator, I believe to highlight how frantic they are. Dutch angle again.

For this week's entry I thought I'd talk about the opening sequence of a movie I enjoy: Martin Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ, based on Nikos Kazantzakis's novel of the same name. The director of photography was Michael Ballhaus.

I find this movie so interesting because the imagery of Christian mythology is very well-known to us in this country, and that fact is skillfully taken advantage of by Kazantzakis and then Scorsese to form themes and ideas that are not present in the mythology itself. The power of such poetic tools is evidenced by the extreme amount of criticism and anger this novel and the subsequent film produced.


This is the first shot of our protagonist, Jesus, played by Willem Dafoe. The color scheme of this shot is indicative of the entire movie: lots of browns and tans. I like the "earthy" (I know, obvious adjective to use) feeling generated by this color scheme because it reflects the realism of the Jesus depicted in the story. This story's Jesus is not so unlike the dirt and dried shrubs his clothing and skin match. This story's Jesus struggles with powerlessness; he is not a creator or giver but rather a struggler, barely able to stay alive under the weight of grand expectations. In fact, during this very brief opening scene and the next, Dafoe's voice-over narration tells of Jesus's desperate attempts to ignore any truth to their being a divine plan for his life and explains the intense moments of painful self-realization that sporadically torment his attempt at a self-important (and in the film's context, much healthier) existence. Not the Jesus from Sunday School...



Here in the very next scene is a startling visual depiction of one of the story's more genius elements. In The Last Temptation, Jesus is the only carpenter that is willing to build crosses for the Romans so that they may crucify Jews. This is him measuring the length of the cross intended for a heretic with the span of his own arms. Here Scorsese is toying with familiar religious imagery and foreshadowing the ending.

A couple seconds later into the scene, Judas, played by Harvey Keitel, comes in to accost Jesus for his willingness to build crosses for the Romans. The short argument between the two involves a dialogue with these two shots:



The shot that frames Judas emphasizes his character's role in the story. The camera's angle from the ground looking up at Judas's face gives him a commanding disposition both Jesus and we the viewers must respect. In The Last Temptation, Judas, noble and fearless in his physical combat against the Romans, is very much like a typical masculine hero. This comes in stark contrast with Jesus, who is sullen, desperate and more to be pitied than revered. This is emphasized with the top-down angle of the shot that frames him. Further, Jesus and Judas's relationship, in which Jesus tends to view Judas as the morally superior, is displayed boldly with Judas clearly looking down on Jesus. Sacrilegious stuff.

First Post!

It's me, Adam. Good pseudonym, huh?

Well, here is my blog for Dr. Rachel's Advanced Videography. Welcome.

For our first assignment...what is my visual style? I have to admit it is a difficult question for me to answer, because I've never before thought about my own personal visual style. The first thing that comes to mind is color. I like it when complicated color patterns (to me that means about 4 to 6 prominent colors, more and it gets messy-looking) are used effectively to highlight significant components of a scene. One of the first movies that comes to mind is The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou. In fact, Wes Anderson movies generally are a visual delight for me.


Looking at this movie poster reminded me of another poster I really like (I have it in my living room as a matter of fact)



I also really like big shots, that is to say shots that are grand in scope...shots that are epic. Landscapes, immense buildings, armies, big whales even...anything that dwarfs human beings and can then be used to depict human emotion on a grander scale. To me, using a huge master shot that reflects an internal feeling are much more beautiful than extreme close-ups that force you to analyze someone's emotional state from their expression. I absolutely love it when landscape shots are used to reflect the emotions and state of mind of a character. Similarly, I enjoy stories in which the characters are strongly tied to their surroundings in some way.

from Hero




The movies I enjoy most, visually, are ones that combine both of these elements: grand scale and liberal color use. Hero and Lost in Translation are two examples that come to mind.



from Hero again...not many different colors, but plenty of color nonetheless