Final Reflection

I think the most important thing I learned from 312 was that I need to be more prepared when shooting a film. On my scene assignment, I completed all the required pre-production materials, but it seems as if it wasn't enough. When we started shooting there were still things, like the color and placement of the lights, that me and my DP were having to figure out on the spot. This made my job extremely stressful, because I knew people were waiting on me, but there were problems that had to be solved. Having done the assignments in 312, I think I'll be more prepared in the future.

One thing I learned is the kind of look I want as a filmmaker. I've already beaten that horse to death in my other blog posts so I won't explain what that is - but basically I know what I want to do with film now, and I know how to achieve it.

I think I understand the basic concepts of filmmaking pretty well by now; what I'm still lacking is technical proficiency. What is kind of perplexing about that is the fact that a lot of what I'm lacking is knowledge about the technology of filmmaking. Obviously 312 taught us those skills, but I have a hard time wrapping my head around it sometimes.

This is perplexing because I am by no means tech-deprived; I build my own computers, I am obsessive about using the right cables and converters to get the best sound and video quality possible out of my devices… etc. For some reason I have a problem with film technology. I'm confident that this is something I will eventually overcome (and 312 has certainly helped), but it's probably going to take a while.

I think the best thing that 312 did for me was to give me experience. Although I know the projects we worked on in 312 were relatively simple in the bigger picture, compared to the projects I'd worked on in the past they were fairly complex. As I already mentioned, they taught me the importance of planning ahead. What I think is really important is that they gave me a feel for how things work. There's really know way to know what it's like to shoot a film like Alpha Contentment until you actually do it. I have an enormous amount left to learn, but genuinely feel that 312 has helped me advance towards what I ultimately want to do with film.

Artist Statement

My purpose in making film (or video) is to create something that is beautiful but somewhat problematic. What I mean by problematic is that I want my films to challenge people in some way. It doesn't necessarily have to be on a conscious level; sometimes it merely consists of having some visual element that is slightly different than what you would expect it to be. Sometimes it means presenting the viewer with a situation that is difficult to understand.

I think film, and art in general, should be like a maze; the viewer has to find his/her way through. But just like a maze, the walls don't have to be drab and empty. There has to be something beautiful for them to see along the way, and sometimes there needs to be something there to guide them.

One of the ways this has come to manifest itself is in the way I like to light things. I have discovered, in the past few months, that I like a very shadowy, very harsh sort of lighting in my films. I like for my subjects to have a very sculptural quality to them. I like this because of the duality it creates; on the one hand it makes the characters more real because you are more aware of the space they occupy, but on the other hand it sometimes turns them into abstract shapes. I like this because it is like a visual conundrum that the viewer has to work through while watching the film.

I get these ideas from many different places; from independent filmmakers like Jim Jarmusch and David Lynch to well-established Hollywood directors like Stephen Spielberg. The message I get from filmmakers like these is that a film image should be like sculpture. It should be something that the viewer wants to reach out and touch.

The effect that I want to achieve with all of this is to present the viewer with something stimulating; something that pleases, but also presents challenges. Above all, I want my films to present something new; put a new twist on something old, or allow the viewer to see something slightly out of the ordinary. When you do that, the viewer is pleased, but also has to create new mental frameworks to understand what's happening. I'm not very good at this yet, but I'm working on it.

Videography Reel 2010

Videography Reel 2010 from Levon Peirce on Vimeo.

This is a collection of videos that I have either directed or DP'd on. They were shot between 2007 and 2010 in Santa Fe, NM, Tuscaloosa, AL, and Decatur, AL. Some were shot in SD and some in HD.

DSLR Filmmaking

There are several benefits to shooting films with DSLR cameras. For one thing, they are relatively inexpensive compared to most professional video cameras. They have very large sensors - the Canon 5D Mark II has a 5K sensor. They are also generally good in low light. They are also relatively compact, which allows for more freedom for camera movement and placement. This is especially helpful in low budget and documentary films where big complicated rigs are out of the question.

There are some downsides to using DSLR's as well. In general, they're not optimized for video. They are not always ideal ergonomically. There are also issues caused by the method most DSLRs use to scale the image down from the sensor's native resolution to the recorded file. Essentially, they do not really scale the image or perform calculations based on the original image; instead, several lines of the image are dropped. This can cause the moire effect, where lines that are close together create interference patterns based on their intersections.

Another downside is that the codec most DSLRs use to record video - H.264 - is a very lossy format. It is a very highly compressed format, so some information is lost.

It all depends on how you use the camera, and what your ultimate expectations of the finished image are.

Reels

To me, what makes a good reel is basically the same as what makes a good movie, except that it must be much more condensed and the story is usually ignored. A good reel should be a collection of the most interesting, most beautiful work you've done. What determines that is the same as what determines a good shot normally; good lighting, good framing and composition, good use of color and shadow, etc. Shots in a reel usually need to be things that immediately pop out at you and get your attention. Editing is also important; you must take all these separate threads and connect them in a way that makes at least a modicum of sense. A reel is a lot like a resume; you are trying to show the best possible side of yourself, and your aim is to impress. You are trying to sell your work - sometimes literally, sometimes figuratively.

$ shots

A money shot, from the way I understand it, is typically a shot in a film that is either difficult and/or expensive to produce or something that the film's commercial success depends on. From the way Dr. R used it, I take it to mean any shot that is particularly striking or beautiful. I already shot mine, so it would be ridiculous to simply describe them (anyone reading this has probably already seen them). Instead, I'll describe my thought process in making them.

For the first shot (the ping pong table shot) I wanted to do something with a moving camera, because that's something I don't do very often. I got the idea that it would be cool to have a moving shot of the table with ping pong balls falling around it; I liked this idea because it incorporated multiple lines of motion. For the lighting, I basically wanted to achieve the kind of lighting I've described in all of my other blog posts, so I won't go into that too much.

For the second shot (the shadow shot) I wanted to play with shadows. My initial idea was to have a shadow appear on a wall, and then the camera would turn around and see the source of the light (my friend Alex) and he would be surrounded by a halo of light. Due to the fact that we didn't have a tripod that could turn that fast, it evolved into the shadow being on the floor and the light not being so much a halo as an outline (that was due to us not having a fog machine). Nonetheless, I think it worked.

Director/DP Relationship

The challenge of being a director trying to communicate you vision to a DP, for me, is in explaining not only the look you want but also why you want it. In my mind, the DP needs to know why you want things shot in a certain way because your reasons are linked to the result. In other words, if you explain only what but not why, the DP will get the general idea, but may miss some of the subtle nuances which are often very important.

Explaining your reasons for doing things can be difficult because a) sometimes your ideas are based more on feelings than completely formed thoughts and b) the DP does not always think in the same way that you do. What I think works is when the director and DP establish some sort of relationship that makes it so that they each have a good idea of what the other is thinking before they say it. I don't have this sort of relationship with another filmmaker, but many professional filmmakers have spoken of it.

The challenge of being a DP is exactly the opposite of being a director; it's trying to understand the unique perspective of the director. Not only that, the DP also has to do what he/she thinks is right, sometimes. It can be difficult to balance what you think is right and what the director is telling you. Again, it helps to be on the same wavelength as the director.

Camera Movement

I think my favorite example of camera movement is in the opening scene of Jurassic Park. There is a long, continuous shot in that scene of the velociraptor cage being lowered. The camera starts out looking at the trees, and then we see the cage come through the trees from beneath. The forklift drives past the camera and the camera follows it (it has to swivel up and then around almost 180 degrees). Finally the camera pulls up and back to a wide angle shot of the whole staging area. This was probably done with a crane.

What I think works about a really long, fluid camera movement like that is it allows the viewer to see everything almost instantly. Of course, it's moving in a way that a person wouldn't usually move in real life, but in a way this lends itself to a kind of almost hyper-realism. It gives the viewer the sense that they are being given an almost omniscient view of what is happening, which fits well with Jurassic Park because it's purpose (in my mind) is to show the viewer things that humans don't normally see. It also helps that the movement is very steady and fluid, and that the composition and framing are kept in good balance throughout.

Favorite DP: Robert Elswit

My favorite DP is Robert Elswit. He's DP'd films like Punch Drunk Love, There Will Be Blood, and Michael Clayton - all of which are some of my favorite movies, largely because of the way they look. What I like about him is that the images he creates are very complex; they often give off an air of stoicism, but at the same time there is a lot of emotion hidden underneath the surface.

The above image is from Punch Drunk Love. What I like about it is the way he creates smooth gradients out of everything. The whole frame is surrounded by a cloud of darkness. I think what you don't see in photograph is just as important as what you do see, and Elswit seems to be the master of hiding things.

This image is from Michael Clayton. As I alluded to earlier, Elswit's work often has a very subdued quality to it. Often, though not always, the colors in films he has DP'd are very drab and lifeless. There is a bit more color in this shot, but it still gives the viewer a very somber feeling. I think this is, again, due to the fact that parts of Clooney's clothes and face are obscured somewhat by shadows. The way he shoots objects and people leaves you wondering if they're really there.

Here's an interview of his that I found:

http://www.studiodaily.com/filmandvideo/projects/f/movies/5857.html

Here's a quote from that interview that I liked, talking about an out-of-focus shot in Good Night, and Good Luck: "We filmed it out and printed it and looked at it, and he went, 'Eh, that's fine.' He felt it helped the feeling of randomness, that the arbitrary framing and haphazard look would make it more authentic. So we're sitting there going 'Yes, but it's out of focus! Waaah!' But that whole style of shooting was trying to make it feel like we went in there and sort of captured the moments."

This quote, to me, shows how much thought Elswit puts into every shot. Not only that, but every shot has a purpose; it isn't merely there to look pretty or just chosen arbitrarily, but it has a meaning. It has something it's trying to convey. That's something I admire.