After filming the movie, I picked out the final clips that I thought were best to use, since we had to re-shoot many shots to experiment with better angles, lines, and to avoid including bloopers. I then inserted them all into LumaFusion. Here, I put them all together in a project and made sure to cut out all the times I could be heard saying “cut”, and also to make sure that all the shots matched up seamlessly, and then spent some time making sure that the audio was decent. This took longer than expected, since I had to edit each individual clip to reduce the sound of each clip, making the overall film quieter but also making sure there were no surprisingly or unnecessarily loud clips left in the final film.
I think that some shots in the film sync up very well, the audio is of a good quality, and I experimented with some interesting shots. The actors did very well, and there were no un-foreseen problems whilst filming. I worked around the small space we had and developed a finished final product.
We did encounter a few issues. At one point an actor looks at the camera, one person’s phone begins ringing the second they enter shot, and the ending may feel slightly drawn-out for too long, and I got some of the clips mixed up due to when I mixed up the order of them on set since I didn’t read the screenplay more closely then. But I am ultimately happy with my finished kitchen sink drink production/project.
What do I need to remember next time? Use the manual focus feature in FilmMcPro to use the focus to make the film look how I want. There should usually be a reason for a camera movement, e.g to reveal something. The camera should be at eye-level. Be playful with the shots and movements. Various techniques show effort and ability as a film-maker in your coursework.
I have finally reached the stage where I can film and edit my kitchen sink drink project. We began by setting up the props in the room, then began to prepare the different shots that the film would start with. I recorded the actors who stuck to the script that I gave them, and sometimes I would add input to make small changes. I considered how easy it would be to edit these clips later on during the filming process, so I made sure to keep the cinematography simple and have some clear way of linking the shots together. A few times we had to re-do certain takes, but the inly real issue arose when i accidentally forgot to film a certain scene, and had to do it after I was supposed to, so the clips were only slightly out of order, which caused a little bit of confusion when I edited the clips together. When editing, I did not add any special effects or audio, and the only problem I seemed to have has was that the audio pitch altered between clips, so I had to manually edit them to fit more cleanly together. Altogether tough, I think that the finished product is quite good.
For this task we had to create a floor plan for out kitchen, though i did one for my living room as well since around half of my film will take place in there, and take pictures of our kitchen in preparation for the filming of our kitchen sink drink project.
The title of the film is ‘split second”. The film begins when a person peeks into a kitchen and asks the person stood at the sink for a coke. The character at the sink looks up and agrees to, to which the other character leaves after saying “thanks”. The person at the sink then walks over to the fridge and pulls out a can of coke, then back to the sink where they pour it into a glass. They then visibly consider their next move, before opening a can of Pepsi and pouring it into the glass also.
They then bring it to the other character, who is sat in the living room on their phone. They take the glass and sip it, but makes no complaint. The person who made and spiked the drink asks if it tastes alright, to which the person drinking it said “yep, its fine”. The person who made the drink then sighs in apparent disappointment and looks out the window. The camera rests on a shot of the front garden from the window in the living room for a few moments, letting the silence and calm there settle in. Then the camera cuts back to a close-up on the drink-spiders eyes, showing that they are in deep thought. The film then ends.
We, for our next task, need to plan and prepare to create a short film in which someone’s drink is spiked , taking place in a kitchen sink, of course.
The treatment of a film is a rough outline of the plot, characters and course of a film, made before actual the script. It is told sort of like a narrative and highlights the most important information about the film, such as the title.
A re-occurring presence in the film is the fascist military, which we understand are called the ZZ. These people are brought into the film only ever to pose a problem or great to the protagonists.
An example of this is when M. Gustav (Ralph Fiennes) is arrested by Henckel’s (Edward Norton) and his men. This paints the military as a negative, oppressive force. Even though we, the audience, do not know who they work for or why they do what they do, we understand that they are antagonists from the actions they take, their evident racism towards Zero ( Tony Revolori) and their oppressive methods.
Edward Norton as Henckel’s. Notice the uniform and formation of men behind him.
Their grey and straight uniforms are also very dull and grim, almost similar to that of a Nazi uniform. The audience knows what a Nazi uniform looks like, so the obvious resemblance through the badges, coats and hats leads us to associate them with Nazi’s.
The way that Henkels men go about their orders immediately also shows how strict and authoritarian they are. It also establishes Henckel’s position as a high ranking officer. As I mentioned earlier, the badges subtly reference those worn by Nazi officers to display rank. the way that those in the film are star-shaped and arranged symmetrically in the uniform stop them from being direct Nazi uniforms, but subtly bring the image to a viewers mind.
Ed Nortons performance also paints the image of an evil man. He is stern and I’m-polite, and even when he apologises in the first scene he’s in, he seems to have no emotion or care on his face.
Another notable point is the way that the soldiers are tightly arranged in formations in all scenes shows how strict and tight they are. The banners shown in the hotel lobby after it has been taken over by the military also strongly hints back to Nazi propaganda.
The wold emblem shown later on in the film also brings the image of Nazi uniformity into the viewers head, instantly establishing the character as evil, before they even do anything. The way that they take over the hotel later on and completely re-decorate it also shows how evil the military is, and once again subtly references Nazi takeovers of places in WW2.
Wes Andersons style of directing is easily recognisable for its distinct and unique frame symmetry, aspect ratios, and perfectly arranged scenery.
A very noticeable thing about The Grand Budapest Hotel is the colour ratio. The colours are very bright and distinct, creating the feeling of a rich and bright environment. This makes certain scenes more memorable because of their stunning and gorgeous visuals. It is also used in one scene to convey to the audience that the scene is a grim and bleak time in Zero’s (Tony Revolori) life. This is done by making the scene completely black and white.
Another thing that the film is known for is the way that Anderson switches aspect ratios between the four different time periods. The ratio shrinks as the film goes back in time, starting at 16:9 in the opening scene, set in modern day, and transitioning to 4:3 in the 1930’s. This gives each scene its own distinct feel and aesthetic, and also brings the audience into the feeling of films made around that time period.
The film also uses zeitgeist to create the feeling of Eastern-European culture in the 1930’s through the clothes that people wear, the furniture and architecture, and and even the re-occurring trend of moustaches.
Almost every shot is also perfectly framed/centred. This involves placing characters and buildings and items centre frame. It also leads to shots being more symmetrical, which an equal amount of characters on each side of the frame, and buildings being perfectly balanced and symmetrical too. This creates the feeling of the time period the film is set in in a particular scene, and it also makes the colour scheme more balanced and aesthetically pleasing, like the rest of the film.
The editing is slow and avoids shots as much as possible, the mise-en-scene is arranged perfectly to create the feel of the place and time-period, the cinematography is done to place things perfectly centre-frame to show the importance of certain things and to make the shots more pleasing and symmetrical for the audience to look at.
Ralph Fiennes plays the hotel’s concierge, M. Gustav. The character of Gustav is very strict and competent, and is a figure of authority and self-control.
The pace and tone of Fiennes’ dialogue is very quick and calm. He gives out constant orders with a strict and confident tone, which signals to the audience his position above the other hotel staff. He also speaks very quickly and does not stumble on his words, which shows that he is a competent and capable manager.
His voice is quiet and calm, but also has a tone of authority and power. He also never said please, to show that he is an effective manger who does not waste his words.
Madame .D played by Hilda Swindon. M. Gustave’s nervous guest.
Gustave’s mannerisms are also very precise and confident. He moves around the room very quickly and calmly, with the non-verbal expression of someone who know what they are doing and knows that they will have their orders seen to. He moves his arms to give instructions very fluidly, almost like a bale dancer. This and the way that he moves so confidently show that he has planned and precisely timed movements to match that of the camera.
The blocking is also done to keep Gustav precisely centre-frame constantly throughout the one-take, which shows the audience that he is the centre of authority, and an important character. When we first see him, he seems to be reflecting as he looks from his balcony. This paints him as a reflective and wise person.
Ralph Fiennes’s (Right) movement and tone reflex tone the image of a confident and assured person.
His posture is poised and upright, to show that he is strict and keeps himself in order. His movements are purposeful, since he knows what his job is. It shows that he is experienced and has probably done this same thing before.
He leans into the conversation to show feigned interest, and when the conversation doesn’t go his way he show his frustration, before regaining control and continuing his calm demeanour and confident tone. But this breaks when he sees the varnish he doesn’t like, and then the prediction of his movements and confident tone stop briefly. he also interrupts his guest to make sure that she is calm and does not protest to leaving.
The staff of the hotel have noticeably tidy uniforms. M. Gustav in particular has a very slick sand clean look to him, with his neat hair, straight uniform and confident air about him. The colour of his outfit is purple, along with the rest of the staff, which is a rich and deep colour, associated with the wealth and royalty of the hotels guests. The colour of the carpet is also a very deep and rich red, possibly there to contribute to the atmosphere of wealth, tidiness, and nobility.
The tidiness of the staffs uniforms is contrasted by the crippled shoe shiner outside the hotel, who looks dirty and un-organised. The man who’s shoes he is cleaning is also very well dressed, and not even looking at the boy. This subtly shows how highly regarded and treated the hotels guests are, and the respect with which the staff treat them.
The hotels golden and perfectly arranged front entrance, with staff ready to greet guests.
The guests are also established as extremely wealthy customers. the men are in clean and even perfect suits, the women are in fur coats and hats, showing that they have money and also creating an atmosphere similar to that of the time period and place that the film is set in.
The way that M. Gustav speaks to the guests also shows how highly they are treated, especially in contrast to how he quickly and sternly gives orders to the staff. he even talks to the chef like he would a dog, or misbehaving child, just after carefully and respectfully conversing with a guest who is leaving. The amount of guests and luggage outside also quietly signals to the audience how popular and successful the hotel is.
The Grand Budapests lobby, the carpet a deep red, walls golden marble, staff uniform tidy and purple, and expensive furniture perfectly arranged.
The way that the staff, such and Zero, instantly do as Gustav has ordered shows how loyal they are. It also shows the authority and status of Gustav, how strict, tight and efficient the hotels standards are too, creating the sense of a truly fine and quality establishment.
The actual contents and structure of the hotel is also a big factor of the scenes mise-en-scene. The lobby is grand and beautiful. the walls are marble and shiny, lightbulbs arranged in splendid patterns. There are exotic plants, clearly imported, and large flower bouquets to symbolise how expensive this environment is to build and to stay in. The carpet is almost like that of something royalty or celebrity’s would walk on, and even the front doors sign is golden, showing wealth from the first steps up to the lobby door.
Chapters 28 to 29 in the film show Dmitri (Adrian Brody) chasing Agatha (Saoirse Ronan) since she has the painting Boy With Apple.
The sequence begins with an establishing shot, which establishes the location and time of the coming scene by showing an extreme wide-shot of the Grand Budapest hotel at night. This shot then cuts to multiple fast-paced and snappy shots of things like keys and shakers with the fascist army’s symbol on, showing to the audience that they are now in control of the hotel.
These shots occur in sequence, making it continuity editing. Here it shows Agatha walking up to a desk and handing over a cake. We, the audience, know from editing in other films, that when the camera cuts to the hotels new concierge, that this takes place at the same time of Agatha approaching the front desk. This is parallel editing, when two sequences that are continually edited are played next to each other, and take place in the film at the same time.
A good example of a Wes Anderson symmetrical wide-shot. This one is done to show what has changed in the hotel since we, the audience, last saw it.
There is then an example of glance-object editing when Agatha looks at something, and then we see a close-up of that thing she was looking at. There is also another instance where parallel editing is used when we see M. Gustav (Ralph Fiennes) and Zero (Tony Revolori) outside in a delivery van. We know that this takes place at the same time as Agatha receiving the painting from the vault.
The sequence then enters back into straight continuity editing when Agatha is noticed by Dmitri, who begins o chase her. When he sees here, however, a quick mugshot is inserted for the audience to understand how Dmitri recognises her. the ensuing chase scene is quite an unconventional one, since there are very few cuts, leading to long takes, as is the style of Wes Andersons directing.
Zero (left) and Agatha (right) after falling into the delivery van together.this is after the parallel editing of their individual paths cross, making it become continuity editing.
The parallel editing ends when Agatha and Dmitri enter the same elevator, so the previous shots of them separately have joined together. In this elevator we see Agatha is visibly afraid, and then the camera cuts to Dmitri to show the audience what she is afraid of.
There is then a classic shot-reverse-shot to show that Dmitri and Gustav are making direct eye contact as they shout across the room at each other. just before the gunfight begins, we see multiple soldiers poking their heads out of their individual rooms. The way that it goes from one man to another on the opposite side of the room creates a satisfying rhythm to the moment. When Zero looks off the balcony, a shot-reverse-shot is done to show that he is looking down at her. There is then an instance of cross-cutting when the scene cuts from Zero to Agatha, and then the scene enters continuity editing when he joins her on the balcony. The scene ends with a birds-eye shot of Zero and Agatha looking up at the camera, and then a close-up of the second copy of the second will to show what it is that they were looking at.
The sound mix in the chapters 25 to 26 is carefully made to build tension towards the reveal and chase scene at the end of the sequence. The snow is diegetic sound, probably added into post-filming, since the remote foothills are clearly on a green screen. This creates an atmosphere in the scene, making it feel more realistic. The sound of the cable cars swinging on their cables is also diegetic, and clearly made to sync up with the music score, probably done to build the impact and suspense made by the music.
Speaking of the sound mix, the music has a similarity to that of the place and time period of Eastern Europe in the twentieth century, including multiple string instruments, which are also effective of building tension and creating a feeling of impending doom.
A wide shot of the observatory on the mountain top.
The sound mix is also filled with sharp and jarring sounds, such as a motorbike starting, or a whistle being blown. These are quite surprising and shocking, putting the audience on edge. They also contribute to the building of intensity.
I also noticed that the music abruptly cuts off when characters speak. Then it begins again as soon as the characters finish interactions. The score also rises in tempo and pace the closer Zero and Gustav get to the church. Once again the dialogue between two characters is made clear when Gustav is instructed where to go after sitting down in the church, and the singing from the priests stops at this precise moment.
The audience is shown that a body has been dropped despite the scene being completely black, by the diegetic sound of a slumping noise. Of course, when the scene is lit again, we see that someone has been made red.
The sequence in which M. Gustave and his fellow inmates escape from checkpoint-19 (chapter 21) is made so that the information that needs to be shown to the audience is shown to them, and then the direct/immediate consequences of said thing are shown. This is apparent when the camera pans from the site of a lone van, silently implying to the audience that it is there to be used as an escape vehicle, a shot of Zero clocking into a manhole, showing that the escape is already underway.
One recognisable feature of Wes Andersons direction in his films is perfectly symmetrical shots. These break the rule-of-thirds, and make the image perfect and almost like a painting. It is done in this sequence to bring the a button perfectly into centre frame, where the audiences attention will be undivided and only on it.
M. Gustave (Ralph Fiennes) apologising to Zero (Tony Revolori) just after escaping checkpoint-19 with his help.
Another classic and commonly used method of cinematography by Wes Anderson is crab shots, frequently used in the Grand Budapest Hotel to follow characters, even when they are not in-shot, and are behind a wall or something. This is most likely done to keep the viewers attention constantly on the important vents happening, and reminding us that the characters are still the predominant focus of this scene. It also avoids cutting, as seen when the camera crabs right to reveal a dumbwaiter, and then left just afterwards to show a door, and then the same after that to show a group of men running.
Once again our attention is brought to a ladder by it being placed directly centre-frame. Theres also an example of Andersons stylistic unconventional directing when he breaks the 180 degree rule. But then a shot-reverse-shot is done to establish that one of the escaping prisoners is making eye-contact with a prisoner in his cell.
The escapees looking through a vent door, into the unexpected guard room.
A wide-shot is shown after this, into which the characters enter frame. However, the whole sequence contains less wide and extreme long-shots than the rest of the film, probably done to create the feeling of claustrophobia in the prison. After a 90 degree pan and a dolly, a wide-shot is used to show the size of the prison wall compared to the escapees.
A rare birds-eye-view shot then occurs not emphasise the size of the checkpoint, and then one of the only extreme wide-shots is done to create a change in atmosphere, since we are now outside, and to show how small the escaping prisoners are in comparison to the massive prison.
The prisoners shielding away at some prison bars, once again perfectly/symmetrically framed.
Lighting is also used particularly in this sequence, usually to bring the viewers eye towards a particular area, such as a path, button and vent. The prisoners are then shown looking down from this vent into the guards’ quarters, in a worms-eye-view. During the ensuing violence the camera is kept on this same shot to record the reactions of the onlooking escapees, and then the aftermath of the fight is shown in a birds eye view, framed symmetrically, as per usual with Wes Anderson, through the trapdoor.
The sequence expertly combines lighting, crab shots and panning to avoid cutting, symmetrical shots and wide and long-shots to portray a carefully planned escape sequence.
Cultural/social: The film evokes the feeling of wealth and nobility. This is apparent in the luxurious state of the hotel in its prime, strict rules and standards for the staff, fashion, expensive architecture and good service provided to the customers. It is clear that the people staying there have lots of money, and their clothing even feels very similar to nobility fashion of the time period and region of Eastern Europe in the twentieth century.
Historical/political: The film is not actually based on a real book or event. None of the historical events are real either, though the fascist soldiers in the film, such as Edward Norton’s character, are definitely intended to represent a mixture of various dictatorships that arose in Eastern Europe in the twentieth century. the war that occurs later on in the film is also possibly in reference to events like the Yugoslavian dissolution, or other violent historical periods. That period in history is probably what inspired the filmmakers to create this specific environment and time period for the movie.
Institutional: The Grand Budapest Hotel obviously has many similarities to some of Wes Andersons other films, such as the Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009). This evident style of editing, pacing, and cinematography of his, involving Long and wide shots and periods of silence, probably influenced the location and set of the film, and even uniforms, and the actual architecture of the hotel, which was possibly made to help match the extreme wide-shots familiar to Andersons style.
Technical: Wes Anderson employs wide shots and crab shots regularly to stay focused on particular characters in frame. This is done to avoid cutting in the movie, so long-shots are common. Another interesting detail is how the actual hotel is not real, and the interior lobby was just set up inside a vacant department store in Germany.
The Grand Budapest Hotel was released in 2014 and is directed by Wes Anderson. The film chronicles the history of how the famous and extravagant Budapest Hotel came to be the quiet and forgotten establishment that it is in modern day. the majority of the film follows the hotels monsieur, M.Gustave (Ralph Fiennes) and the new lobby boy, Zero (Tony Revolori), and the various events that occur after the death of one of the hotels most wealthy clients, Madame D. (Gilda Swindon).
The story is told to us, the audience, by the author of the book(played at this point by Tom Wilkinson), The Grand Budapest Hotel, who recounts when he was younger (and played by Jude law) and visited the hotel only to meet its owner, Zero (F. Murray Abraham) who tells him the history of the hotel, and how he came to own it. Even after these mixed perspectives, the whole film seems to be from the view of a woman in modern day, who is simply reading the book that holds the story of the hotels rich history, which we see in the film.
the author of the Grand Budapest Hotel (Jude Law-on the right) converging with M. Jean (Jason Schwartzman- on the right) on the matter of a new guest at the hotel.
Wes Anderson is known as a very stylistic director, which is completely apparent in the Gand Budapest Hotel. He seems to refrain from cutting as much as possible, which leads to most of the shots in the film being quite long and drawn out, often long-shots moving to keep up with the characters, or wide-shots done to encompass as much of a set, such as the hotel lobby, or characters, such as the scene in the red elevator, as possible.
The movie is also split into parts, such as part 5 “the second copy of the second will”. These occasional breaks in the story give the audience a split second to recollect. The reveal shot of what the new part is called also creates the sense of a grand play, which could of been what Wes Anderson was trying to replicate, or, and most likely, a book, since that is what we see at the beginning, that the story is a book in modern day.
M. Gustave (Ralph Fiennes) entertaining some of the hotels guests.
I believe that The Grand Budapest Hotel holds an important place in film history. It is instantly recognisable, and goes to show that in-conventional means of direction, narrative and sequencing in a film can add style and charm to it, setting it apart from other movies. The film is only 7 years old, but is still regarded as a cult classic for its witty and funny dialogue, lovable characters, and compelling story.
I personally loved this movie to bits! I thought that it was hilarious, and excellent from a subjective filmmaking perspective, despite its initially odd and even comical style. The shots are immersive and beautiful, the cinematography and editing is masterful, the performances are all outstanding and even the mise-en-scen is detailed and adds to the distinct atmosphere of the movie. I believe that perhaps Wes Anderson was trying to convey a message about how ethnic minorities were treated in early 20th century Eastern Europe, and how fascist governments effected the ordinary people there, as seen in the prison sequence and tragic ending to the story.
Zero (Tony Revolori) getting used to his new job as lobby boy, being supervised by M. Gustav (Ralph Fiennes) at the desk behind. A good example of a wide, encompassing shot in the film.
For this part of the course the members of my group filmed and then produced/edited their own recreation of the opening credits scene from Reservoir Dogs(Quentin Tarantino,1992) in which all of the main cast walk towards the camera to the song Little Green Bag by the George Baker Selection band. To edit this sequence, the recreated clips and original audio from the film were inserted into the editing software LumaFusion. I was not part of this process since I was off school at the time, so, like everyone in the group, I was messaged the clips and audio and then inserted them into LumaFusion. I then matched up the audio and visual clips so the shots were placed to properly replicate the way they were edited in the original films sequence.
The new and improved reservoir Dogs opening scene.
Here is the same mind map with the questions on the left answered. The questions were about representation in the film, The City Of God, and involved things like how the gangsters were portrayed, and who was not represented in the f ilm enough, and why.
This mind map shows the different aspects of representation in film. These involve how people or groups of people are portrayed in film, there is areas of representation, expressing representations, shortcuts to representation, and audience readings of representation.
This mind map was updated by me. Now all of the questions have been answered on the left hand side. It explains how aesthetics are used in The City Of God, and what effects they have on the audience and the overall film, particularly looking at those used in the opening chase sequence, such as over-exposure, handheld camera usage, and placing the camera low to the ground.
For this task we looked at the core study area of aesthetics in film. These are style and zeitgeist. The mind map also covers the meaning of aesthetic in film, and how it may impact the audience.
This mind map shows the various different contexts that a film can be made in. There is institution, political, historical, social, and cultural. The mind map also includes the questions that one would ask to gain a complete understanding of the film, The City Of God.
“Social Definition: How films can communicate truths about the society they portray and are influenced by the society in which they are produced. For example: Sorry We Missed You (Ken Loach, 2019) explores the contemporary problems of zero-hour contracts and poverty. For example: The Breakfast Club (John Hughes, 1985) contains casual racism and homophobia that was common in teen comedies of the 1980s.”
“Historical Definition: How films portray history and are representative of the period in which they are produced. For example: Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017) explores from a modern perspective the experiences of soldiers retreating from an approaching army in the Second World War.”
“Political Definition: How films portray and are influenced by the politics of the society in which they are produced. For example: The Hurt Locker (Katheryn Bigelow, 2009) questions the role of American soldiers in combat.”
“Technological Definition: How films are influenced and limited by the technology available at the time of their production. For example: the increasing use of CGI, 3G and IMAX in films at the beginning of the 21st Century.”
“Institutional Definition: How films are reflective of the industry in which they were produced. For example: the highly stylised 1960s Hammer Horrors and the superhero focus of Marvel studios.”
This mind map covers the key elements of the form of the film The City Of God. It shows different aspects of its editing, sound, cinematography, performances, and mise-en-scen.
We recently created a mind map in I-Thoughts of the key elements of film form. This involved 5 categories, cinematography, sound, editing, mise-en-scen and performance. In these separate categories we covered the more minute details, like different methods of editing, camera shots and movements, types of sound and performance methods, and even the things that miss-en-scen entailed. We covered every detail and put them into the correct sections on the mind map.
The City Of God was released in 2002 and directed by F. Mierelles and K. Lund. It tells the real story of young boy Rocket(Alexandra Rodriguez) who lives in Rio, known by everyone who lives there as the city of god. The course of the film shows how the various characters in the city operate in the city’s drug and weapon trading, gang violence, and other crimes that run the city.
The story is told through multiple flashbacks and foreshadowing to events that happen in the future. The film begins by showing part of the ending sequence, capturing the viewers attention immediately by showing,briefly, how the events climax at the end. This makes the audience want to know what events lead up to this, and who the characters are. Throughout the rest of the movie, usually when characters are fist introduced, the scene flashbacks to their backstory, introducing them and giving the viewer a general idea of what they are like.
The City Of God is a very atmospheric film. The set design is perfectly made to picture a poverty stricken, crime ridden environment. The buildings are cramped close together, everyone’s clothes are dirty, there is trash and stray animals everywhere, and by doing this you are constantly drawn into the film. You are made to feel a part of it, like you are there, and that is why the film can be so distressing at times.
The movie also has some great characters. Particulars like Knockout Ned(Seu Jorge) are introduced later in the movie, but still have fascinating arcs and can get the viewer to relate to them, sympathise with them, and keep invested in them and how they change throughout the film. Even the main villain, Lil Ze(Leandro Firmino), who is completely despicable and unforgivable because of his actions in the film, is interesting and enjoyable to watch. He also represents a lot of the themes in the film. How crime can corrupt young people, someone can become obsessed with something, and lose compassion for others.
Whilst on the subject of themes, it is worth explaining a few of the movies’. The city of God is a sad and ironic name for the one depicted in the film. The statue of Christ The Redeemer stands looking out upon the city of Rio, but all that we infer from the film is that, if anything, he is not there. Also, the film starts off showing all of the characters as children. As the movie progresses, we see them grow up into adults, but at the same time we see how they become more and more corrupt and lose their innocence. Characters like Lil Dice, who start off as a small kid with dreams of becoming the king of the city of God. Later on in the film, Lil Ze is an adult who has murdered and raped, sold weapons and cocaine to children. He is the perfect example of the effect gang mentality has on children, and his corruption and abuse of the children in the film is what makes his fate all the more fitting, symbolic, and satisfying. His corrupting of the kids in the city is what came back to bite him.
The City Of God perfectly summarises its main theme of the loss of innocence in the pursuit of revenge in Knockout Ned’s story. He starts off as an innocent man whose life is completely ruined by Lil Ze. In his pursuit for revenge, he begins to kill more and more innocent people, until he almost becomes a second Lil Ze. And when he comes the closest he ever did to getting revenge on him, Ned is killed by a young boy who’s own father he had previously killed in a bank heist. This and the ending of the film subtly emphasise how crime leads to death which leads to revenge, and then to crime, restarting the cycle.
The theme of death is also prevalent in the movie. There is a lot of death in the movie, usually depicted through extreme violence and brutality. It is also portrayed through the way that characters are killed off. The people in the film are introduced to us, the audience, and usually after we establish a connection with them, they are killed off, and in an extremely horrible or disrespectful way too. It goes to show that no matter how good of a person you are, you will end up in the dust with everyone else, killed by the hand of one psychopath, who was made by another, and another, and so forth. Most characters we see grow up, develop, grow, and then we see them shot and left to die in the streets, like an animal. It shows off the true brutality pop gang violence, and how there is no God in The City Of God.
The film is also extremely difficult to watch! There a few scenes involving child abuse and rape that are incredibly shocking and disturbing. They are made this way, I imagine, to imprint the sight of violence and cruelty on the viewer, making more of an impact on them and getting across the film’s message too. The message being to not seek revenge, and remain innocent, even when everyone around you, no matter how good of a person they are, eventually succumbs to evil. Whether they are killed by it, or become it themselves.
I personally loved watching The City Of God. Despite how tough some of the scenes were to watch, I still feel like I’ve learned an important lesson of how some people are forced to live. It was an uncomfortable story to witness, but one that I will never forget, for that reason. The film was also very enjoyable most of the time. The characters were interesting, the film was engrossing, and it was all weaved together seamlessly. I rate The City Of God ★★★★★!
For this task, we had to film our knock knock joke again. However, we had to improve on the mistakes that we made in the last one. For starters, we had to follow the 180 degree rule. We had to also include an example of match-on-action, and a shot, reverse shot.
We followed the 18 degree rule by staying on the right side of an imaginary 90 degree axis between the two conversing characters. We did match-on-action by having a character reach out for a door handle, and then in the next shot show them opening the door. And the shot, reverse shot was by showing one person talking in one shot, facing to the right, then the other person talking back to them, facing to the left. This shows that they are talking to one another and maintaining eye contact.
The 180 degree rule is a basic filmmaking technique used to show the audience where two characters are in a scene. This is done when two characters are facing each other in one shot, and the camera is placed to show they are looking at each other. So, when the camera is on character A, and then cuts to character B, character B will remain on frame right of character A. Basically, the camera always stays behind an imaginary axis between two characters, or a character and an object.
Matching on action, or cutting on action, is a filmmaking technique that shows one shot, then cuts to another that matches the first shots action. This is done to show the correlation between what a character is doing, and the immediate effect that their action has. A basic example is someone reaching out for a door in one shot, then their hand turning the door knob in the next shot.
Shot, reverse-shot is a technique in filmmaking that’s used to make it look as if two characters are looking at one another. It is done by showing one character looking at the one off-screen, and then a reverse shot of the other character, now on-screen, looking back at the first character shown, who is now off-screen.
What went Well: We did a few correct things in our movie. We used the face close-up correctly, and also delivered our lines properly. We also removed all shots where the broomstick was visible in frame.
What went wrong: We broke the 180 degree rule, so it looked as if the two characters in the film weren’t talking to each other, or even facing each other. I also left in a moment when an actor laughs in my editing, and the scene when the actor turns around at the end.
What we were told: Mr Randman said that we needed to adhere to the 180 degree rule in the future, and to refrain from editing our movies in iMovie with filters or slow-motion without being told to.
This is our groups finished production of a normal knock knock joke. After assigning roles and getting our equipment set up, we started filming or scene. It took a while to decide how we should go about filming this scene. At first it was going to be one continuous shot, then it would alternate between people and follow one character. We ended up deciding on just switching between different positions where the camera would be placed.
We also decided to have a close-up of my face, and for the other person in the film to run away and the camera follow them. A few shots we had to retake, due to the broomstick appearing in shot. After filming, the director sent all of the clips to everyone in the group. We then went off and separately edited their clips and placed them into correct order one iMovie. After that, I saved the video to my camera roll, uploaded it to YouTube, and then embedded it into this here blog post. This is my explanation of the filming process, production and editing, and final touch-ups. Done.
Up until 1892 film wasn’t really film. It was just a meagre sea-side attraction, something that rapidly played images to create the illusion of a moving photo. The first film was invented in 1892, when inventor and entrepreneur Thomas Edison created the kinetograph. This was the first ever motion picture camera that would play film tape. Film tape was equally important, invented by Louis Le Prince in the late 1880’s, it was a celluloid tape that, when exposed to light, would project an image. This was the first ingredient in film, the kinetograph was the plate it was served on.
Whilst innovative, the kinetograph could only be viewed by one person at a time, and through a small peephole at that. It was the Lumiere Brothers that invented the cinematographe. This was different from the kinetograph since it was also capable of projecting images! This changed everything,as it meant that movies could be viewed by more than on person at a time, cinemas could be opened up, new film making techniques could be invented. This new device could record, develop, and most importantly project film! Film-making now had the capability of becoming an industry, rather than a curious novelty.
On December 28, 1895, the Lumiere Brothers filmed a movie. It took place at the Grand Cafe in Paris, France. This was one of the biggest innovations of the decade, and opened up thousands of possibility’s for aspiring directors, starts, producers, etc.
George Melies also had a big impact on the creation of film. One day George was filming with his camera, when suddenly it turned off. He turned it back on again and proceeded filming, but after watching the tape that he’d produced he noticed when the camera turned off, everyone in frame tuned into something else! Men were replaced with women, a woman with a horse! Melies was the first person to realise that substitution splices could be used to make it look as if the camera was swapping places. Now, film didn’t have to be one large continuous shot, but could be recorded in multiple places, and swap whenever. This shocked audiences, as it was such a new innovation in the world of cinema.
A Trip To The Moon(George Melies, 1902). Georges most famous invention. The iconic image of the rocket hitting the moon is a famous example of his method of substitution splices.
George Melies is also said to have introduced double-exposure in film in 1898. This was another trick that George used to simulate illusions on the screen. This involved paying two tapes over one another, exposing both of them to light to create a moving image, but letting one stop at a point and the other continue. This creates the image of two separate rethinks happening at the same time. It was used to make it look as if a ghost was leaving someones body, or their spirit leaving their unconscious body, as seen in the 1924 comedy Sherlock Jr.(Buster Keaton, 1924).
Since film was becoming a massive industry by now, more people wanted to make money out of it. In December of 1895 the first cinema was established. This provided a means for filmmakers to show their works to bigger audiences, and make profit from the ticket sales. Most cinemas were actually just made from old theatres though, since they were the main from of entertainment up until now. This provided a means for movies to become an enormous industry, and with the creation of Hollywood it was now seen as a golden opportunity to invest in.
This is why in 1893 film studios were established by entrepreneurs. These companies started to set themselves up in Hollywood, and found new ways of making money. They would project movies on bigger screens, with bigger, more beautiful stars. Company’s like Warner Bros and Paramount competed for more sales. They bought actors from each other, battled over better directors, invested in larger screenings. They knew that they would make more if they made it an experience for the viewer. They bought the film makers, studios, equipment, and the cinemas in which they screened the films. They utilised this massive industry for a massive profit, and became extremely powerful from it.
Colour was first implemented into film in 1917, in the movie The Gulf Between(Wray Bartlett Physioc, 1917). It was accomplished by playing a film through two projectors, one with a red filter and one through a green one. This was revolutionary, and played a pivotal role in making films come to life! Up until this point synchronised sound was not an aspect of film, and the only audio in a movie was typically music added in for effect. There was no dialogue until 1927, when actor Al Jolson ad-lobbed a few words in the movie The Jazz Singer(Alan Crosland, 1927). This was massive, as now messages didn’t have to be conveyed to the audience through text on the screen or the way that the actors moved.
Hollywood in the 1940’s, at the height of its golden age.
ColdWar (Pawel Pawlikowski, 2018) is a Polish drama that follows two characters. Young woman Zula (Joanna Kulig) is an orphan seeking refuge after the events of World War 2. She finds shelter in a home ran by two music tutors, one being pianist Wiktor (Tomasz Kot) with whom they promptly fall in love together. Throughout the course of the movie these characters are pulled apart and then brought back together throughout the Cold War, and puts focus on the strains on their relationship, their emotions, and how they adapt to the new changes in their surroundings and culture of the times.
The story is told by following the characters individually for long periods of time, showing how they live alone and how they have changed since the start of the film. The director also brings the viewers attention towards the background a lot, by having the characters in frame usually far away from the camera or taking up a small space in frame. This shows how the culture of the times are changing, when you see fashion change, peoples behaviour, I.e kissing in public, and music change to match the time period. When the characters meet up, there is a lot more dialogue, and often they are placed closer to the camera, to display their emotions, and symbolise how close they are in that moment, physically and emotionally.
The narrative is structured in a way that shows how much time is passing and how the protagonists deal with the situation they are in. You see every seen or so, usually once the characters go their separate ways again, that another few years have passed. This conveys how much the people in love actually get to see each other, and how this effects them. Hence explaining why they act the way they do in certain scenes, and also how time has passed in between these scenes that we see. We see the characters by themselves, then together, then apart again after a few years.
I personally reacted to the film in a positive way. I appreciated the way that the director subtly incorporated hints as to how the characters are feeling and how the test of time has influenced them both. It is a compelling Ballard of how war and political conflict, borders and prejudice effect the ordinary people on the ground, and how love is changed by it. I think that the directors wanted to say how the delicious made by the people at the top effect those who have no say in them. And how love will persist over time, but the people are changed, for better or for worse, by the test of time.
We created this iMovie of we didn’t start the fire by splitting the verses between our five group members. Depending on the verse that you were assigned, you would collect the images in said verse and then place them into a Dropbox folder that we could all access. Then we would place, in order, all of the images into an iMovie file, and add the music to it, making sure that the images match up to the lyrics being said at that time. Then we uploaded the iMovie to WordPress, and here I’m writing my description of how we did this.
I understand that in component 1 we are looking at varieties of film and film making. Component 1a is Hollywood from 1930 to 1990. Here we will be analysing films like Casablanca and Bonnie & Clyde. In component 1b we are doing U.S film since 2005. Here we analyse 2 of 4 films, including no country for old men and la la land. In component 1c we cover British films since 2005,like trainspotting and this is England.
Component 2 is global filmmaking perspectives. 2a is global film, where we look at one film in Europe(pans labyrinth), and one of two from outside of Europe. 2b is documentary film, where we look at sisters in law. 2c is silent cinema, and here we can choose one of 4 movies to analyse for our answer. 2d is experimental film from 1960-2000.
Finally, in component 3, we write, produce, and direct our own short film.
Parasite(Bong Jon Ho, 2020) is a South Korean thriller/comedy that won the Oscar for best picture award in 2020. The film is about a vey poor family, the Kim family, that live in slums, who have to be crafty and smart to survive. This involves small work for little cash, using neighbours wi-if, and opening their windows for free irrigation. They live like this, until the son of the family, Ki Woo, manages to fake his credentials to get a job as a job as a Tudor for the extremely wealthy Da-Song family. The film follows the course of increasingly intense events that lead to one family leeching of another, and questions are brought up of who’s right, who’s wrong, and what’s in the basement?
The story is told through sequences some times. For example, there is a short yet extremely important sequence about halfway through the movie that quickly yet effectively shows how the Kim family cons and manipulates the Da-Songs, and it does this through a quick series of clips that convey how the plan was formulated, executed, and its consequences. The scene is genius, cutting expertly from how Ki-Woo invented the script for his father to use, to how they worked together to make the current housekeeper look like she has tuberculosis, and how they went on to replace her with their own mother. Aside from that, the movie starts, the events play out, and then it ends. It is completely linear, but the way the director, Bong Joon Ho, utilises every moment and scene and shot to show the viewer what the protagonists are thinking, and what they will do, is genius, as it does not patronise the audience with lots of exposition, and instead gives the content in an entertaining and clever format.
I loved the film! I thought that it was extremely clever how Bong used scenery, cinematography, and Mise-En-Scene to deliver the events of the story and the motivations and personality’s of the characters, who are all well written, played, and executed in the movie. I think the overall message of the film was that trying to lie and cheat you way to the things you want will only bring you pain, and you run the risk of losing the ones you love. The best way to achieve your goals is to do it honestly, so you can be happy in the end. Otherwise, you will make mistakes, and lose track of who you are, dragging those who matter to you doing with you, just like Ki-Woo.
The first film that I remember seeing in the cinema was Avengers assemble. I remember loving it so much that we went back to see it 3 times! Once with my dad, once with both my parents, and once with my friends. To this day it is still one of my favourite superhero movies, and I definitely loved every second of it!
There are two movies that had the most profound emotional impact on me. The first one I saw was the Nightingale(Jennifer Kent, 2018).This is an extremely gritty and violent period piece, about a woman who’s life is destroyed in one horrific scene by a group of corrupt British soldiers. This is easily the most distressing and difficult to watch movies I’ve ever seen. But the effect slavery had on the Australian aborigines, and the violence displayed in the movie, had a big impression on my viewing of the film, and hence why I will always remember it. 5 Stars.
The Nightingale(Jennifer Kent, 2018).
The second movie with the most profound emotional impact on me was Into The Wild (Sean Penn, 2007).This is a film that tells the true story of Christopher McCandless, a young man who abandoned his home and family to live a more simple and, what he expects to be, a more calm life in the Alaskan wilderness. When I first started the movie, I was expecting to laugh at the ridiculous ideas of the protagonist, since what he was doing seemed so wild, no pun intended, and insane. However, as the movie went on, you, the viewer, see more and more into the inner thoughts of Christopher, and you come to understand his reasons, and even find him somewhat relatable. This is what makes the brutal ending so much more impactful and hard-hitting. I learnt a lesson of looking after family, knowing your limits, and the value of life in this movie, and I wont forget it. 3 and a half stars.
Into The Wild(Sean Penn, 2007).
The most obscure yet wonderful film that I think everybody should check out is The Peanut Butter Falcon(Tyler Nilson, Michael Shwartz, 2019).This is a nice little film about a man with down-syndrome who manages to escape from the care home where he is being kept. After this he meets up with a guy who finds himself on the run from a whole lot of debt, so that agree to run together. This movie has heart, wit, laughs, and a nice, easy to get, yet important message that was displayed well throughout the film. I loved this movie, and I absolutely recommend it to anyone who likes feel-good movies, or any movies for that matter. 4 Stars.
The Peanut Butter Falcon (Tyler Nilson, Michael Schwartz, 2019).
Auteur means a director who influences their film so much that they qualify as its author.
The director that I have been assigned is Alfred Hitchcock. Born in August 1899, Sir Alfred Joseph Hitchcock grew up to be one of the most recognised, influential, and respected filmmakers of all time. He first entered the industry, however, as a title card designer in 1919. Before this he had trained as a technical clerk and copy writer for a telegraph company. In 1925, Alfred directed his first, debut film, The Pleasure Garden. His first major success came in 1927, in the form of The Lodger, A Tale Of The London Fog. This was soon considered a factor in shaping the thriller genre. Also, two of his 1930’s thrillers are considered some of the greatest British films of the twentieth century. Hitchcock moved to Hollywood by 1939, and by this point in his career he was of international importance and reputation.
Whilst in L.A, he produced an impressive amount of movies, starting at Rebeca in 1940, and a series of films throughout 1940 to 1945. These included Suspicion(1941), Shadow Of A Doubt(1943), and Spellbound(1945). What made Alfred so beloved was probably his signature “Hitchcockian” style of directing. This involved using the cameras movement to follow a characters view, which would immerse and involve the audience in the story. He also often carefully and expertly framed shots, which was used as a method of suspense building. Perhaps it is this iconic style of film making that earned him the nickname “the master of suspense”.
Hitchcock directed his most famous movie in 1960, this being the horror/thriller psycho, which is where the infamous shower scene originates from. Another remarkable achievement of his was displacing citizen Kane(Orson Wells, 1941), as The British Film Institutes choice for the greatest film ever made. Even now Citizen Kane is considered by many film critics as the best movie of all time, but no one can deny the genius and expertise of the master of suspense. Alfred Hitchcock passed away in April 1980, only four months after being knighted. He also won the AFL life achievement award in 1979, and BAFTA fellowship in 1971. He won 6 Oscar’s in his time, 5 of which being best picture awards.
Psycho(Alfred Hitchcock, 1960). The shower scene.
Was Hitchcock an auteur or not then? I think that it is clear from the massive impact that Alfred had on cinema as a whole, let alone his own productions, that he absolutely was an auteur. This as well as his genius and iconic style of filmmaking make it clear that Sir Alfred Joseph Hitchcock was so unique and clever and revered in his craft, that he absolutely became the author of his own movies.
My name is Finley Cairns. I have chosen film studies to make use of my natural love of film and all things cinema, from the production of film, inception of the ideas, and execution of the final product. Every time I’m watching a movie, I’m in between total enjoyment and fascination and studying the film, trying to pick apart its subtler meanings and/or messages, since there’s always more to every shot.
My blog exists to record and archive my learnings in the subject of A-level film studies, take notes, and express my feelings on particular films and projects we cover in the course.
BLADE RUNNER 2049, aka: the greatest sequel of all time!
Finley Cairns A-Level Film Studies Blog 
You must be logged in to post a comment.