Monday 14 January 2013

Universal Studios


Universal
1. Who owns the studio?
Comcast/General Electric
2. Do they have an “art house” branch?
Yes – Focus Features
3. Have they absorbed any smaller film studios?
4. Which other companies are owned by the same conglomerate?
NBC
Working Title films
Bravo
A&E Television Networks
USA Network

Sunday 14 October 2012

Critical analysis of 'The Affair'

The production process of 'The Affair' went well and was much improved from our last sequence. There were two characters and one camera operator making it much easier to film the shots, especially ones in which both characters were on screen. We believe that the sequence was adequate, considering the limited time we had as we had to had to re-film due to faulty equipment used. We worked well together and all had allocated rolls making it easier to film the sequence quicker, as we had to film three different shots; a master shot, and two other takes of each character on their own. 

The quality of the film was disappointing, the sound quality was extremely quiet for reasons unknown and the some of the camera shots were slightly unstable when the camera needed to be moved as it was my first time filming, however this was easily cut out when editing. For still scenes we used the tripod to get the best quality shots. We alternated between the three different shots to improve it from being just one long shot all the way through. We decided on what shots to use on quality of the camera shot, acting and dramatic effect. For example, we focussed the shot on one character when he admits he's had an affair, on the other character for his reaction to this, and then end on the master shot so the audience is aware of both of the characters feelings at the end of the scene. Our only limited shot was the penultimate one in which one character slaps the other, as his head isn't visible in all of the shot, making it lack in quality as you are unable to see his facial expression.  

The quality of out editing was reasonably well as we managed to use the best shots and cut out any imperfections such as laughing, wrong lines or bad camera shots. We did need some help with editing as it is only our second time using the software, however we are becoming more familiar with it each time we film new footage, meaning we should know how to use it sufficiently enough in time for our coursework. We used the shots we needed to make the story dramatic and continuous and all took part in the editing process to ensure we all become familiar with the software. 

The main aim of this short film was to experiment with parallel and contrapuntal and diegetic and non-diegetic sound. The parallel, non-diegetic music was added at the end to add drama and sum up the scene as it fits with it and was added onto the sequence. The contrapuntal non-diegetic sound was added to contrast to the sequence and cause a sense of confusion, as, if there was a further scene, they would be unsure what was going to happen, making them eager to watch on. The diegetic sound was the conversation between the two characters, which wasn't as effective due to the lack of sound. 

I believe we improved from last time as we had more of an idea of how to use the equipment and another person in the group making the filming of the scene much quicker and easier. We also had a slightly better idea of how to use the editing software and took all three shots in one take. However, for next time, we could improve by checking our footage on the camera before beginning to edit as this footage's sound quality was very limited and made our sequence lack effect in quiet places.

The Affair (contrapuntal)


The Affair (parallel)


Sunday 30 September 2012

Critical analysis of edited sequence

The production process of our short film went reasonably well, when one person was acting, the other was filming and when both were in the shot, the tripod was used so filming was fairly easy. However there were some problems and bad points with this which were mainly down to the fact that there was only two people available during filming, meaning that they had to both act and film, or use the tripod, restricting the variety of shots we could use and the versatility of the footage. We also ran out of time on the first day of filming, meaning on the second day we had to re-film scenes we already had to correct imperfections. This meant we lost another whole day of filming, shooting the same shots that we already had to make sure they were exactly right. The majority of the other problems were also time related, we couldn't get a great angle with the camera on the tripod most of the time, so a lot of time was wasted trying to resolve that, and the characters starring in the film kept laughing and so many scenes had to be re-filmed. 

The variety of shots were restricted by the fact we only had one person filming or were using the  tripod, however we did use shots such as long shots, mid shots, high and low angle point of view (mid) shots and point of view shots. The long shot is useful as it shows the full body of the characters on scene while still including the background, helping the viewer to easily make out what is happening in the scene. We used this for the end shot so the viewer could get an idea as to how the short film ended. Mid shots give a good effect as it can vary, it is usually filmed from the waist up and is used when shooting dialogue or action scenes which was useful for the 'fighting' scenes and general kidnapping. The low shot creates height and tension, which was useful as the film was about a kidnapping. We used this in the running scene to create drama and to confuse the viewer as there is normally a lack scenery in the background and causes a sense of powerlessness and disorientation. The added height of the 'actors' may subconsciously cause fear in the viewer due to the dominating look of the character. The high shot makes the object/character you are filming seem insignificant. We used this with a point of view shot to make the characters view that is was, seem more powerful. This was useful for us and we used it near the end when we see one character taking steps and then kicking the other character in the face.

The quality of the shots were good, the camera was held and moved steadily so the shots came out well. The only bad quality shot is the running scene in which the camera man had to run and so the shot is not steady, and also the 'camera man' can be seen in the window reflection in the shot. As we had to re-film many scenes due to mistakes during filming or running out of time, we lacked variety of different shots to chose from and didn't have many scenes to make the film out of, however we had just enough to construct the sequence, and made sure it made sense on finish. Another bad point was the lack of sound and amount of background noise, such as wind in the background, making it difficult to hear the dialogue, especially when filming outside. 

If we were to film 'The Kidnapping' again, we would change a variety of things. We learnt that we should have a group of more that two so that we can have different people filming and acting at various times to gain a better variety of shots and so we won't have to continuously re-film scenes. Also with a larger group and other people helping out, there would be less time wasting. We also learnt that we should add sound for a good effect and to stop interference such as wind and background noise. Lastly we learnt to take the filming seriously and try to prevent laughter during filming as this results in more re-filming of scenes and more time wasting, restricting the amount of time we have to film other scenes, and thus effecting the whole sequence as some scenes would be rushed to be able to construct a whole short film.