Tuesday, 30 April 2013

Issues in documentary and film


  Issues in Documentary

Accuracy- Accuracy is the explanation of a subject in a precise manner.  Accuracy is extremely important within a documentary as it mustn’t give the audience false factual information. A documentary that gives good precise information in its facts is Fahrenheit 911 whereby it explains the events correctly that happened within George Bushes presidency. It also gives accurate statistics within the film to give the viewer an idea of how big or small something could be.  

Balance- Balance within a documentary is to show equal sides to a story and or argument. This helps the documentary seem bias (one sided) Balanced documentaries make the viewers look at both sides of a story and let them choose what to believe in or not. Fahrenheit 911 is also very well balanced for both sides of the Iraq war, who it affects and why.

Impartiality- Impartiality is the documentary is neither for or against whatever the subject may be (quite similar to balance) Showing equal amounts for both sides for or against. Michael Moore (Director of Fahrenheit 911) has his own opinion on George Bush who he doesn’t like. However he does not portray this within the film, it shows equal sides of good and bad within the documentary. 

Objectivity- This is when a documentary places facts and information to point the subject into one corner for the audience to believe (To persuade the audience to look to one side)

Subjectivity- This is when facts, information and opinions are presented in order to let the audience decide for their own opinion. An example of this being shown within Fahrenheit 911 is when the all the information is presented of the Bush family and the Bin Laden family relationship. The information is powerful but it doesn’t stay persistent on just attacking the bush family to force peoples opinions to a bad side.

Opinion- This is the thoughts of the audience who are viewing the documentary and their opinions on what they are being shown.

Bias- This is where a documentary can be one sided towards the subject, or argument. This could possibly be to make someone or something look bad and another thing look good in comparison.  



Issues in film
Film can also be evident to using biased opinions as well as documentaries. Often with many of the true story based films, there will be a small element of a two sided argument on the subject that is being filmed. However in most cases within a film, it shall only show one side of a story. The reasons for this could be things such as the side of the story not talked about could have been to hard to adapt to screenplay. This means that what happened at a certain event could have been too challenging to portray in the correct way within the film.

Or it can simply be the director or producers who only want to portray a story in one specific way. This is the much more negative side of being biased in film due to some what of ignorance of the people creating the film. A good example of a film being biased is the new Zero Dark Thirty, this film is about the build up and finish of killing Bin Laden. The main reasons for it being relatively biased is because it seems to ignore the hard work of the CIA, FBI, Homeland security of America, George W.Bush and Obama and place it all on just one female CIA agent who was the only reason why Bin Laden was killed. It even, to some extent seems to only touch on the Navy Seals who carried out the operation to kill Bin Laden. You could also link this film with the idea of Objectivity, whereby a director points the subject into one corner for the viewers to believe, it seems to keep the audience ignorant towards the deeper side of the subject being the hard work done by the CIA, FBI etc.

Another example within this film is where nearly every Muslim women in the Pakistan scenes are wearing some sort of head covering. Which causes controversy seeing as the only time women wear head coverings within Pakistan are within the tribal areas. This film seems to portray Muslim women wearing head coverings as terrorists. As you can imagine this has caused much controversy and stress to many people across the globe.

Thursday, 25 April 2013

Team meeting minutes


Group members: Oscar Artini & Robert Welland

Items discussed:

Meeting 1 Date:April 5th 2013

During our first team meeting we discussed our different opinions and feelings towards the storyboards that were generated for our animation, we decided that the first two generated were 'okay' in terms of their standards and how a good message could be developed from them, we then went onto discuss how technical it would be to generate them. Unfortunately for the first two storyboards that were developed we decided that it would be too time consuming and extremely hard to create.


The next section of the meeting we decided to discuss different soundtracks that could be placed into the project. We both agreed on using a track that emulates a sad style to it however, combining it with  a voice over at the end to give a brief description of what the charity (Crisis) do for the homeless 'by giving them a home etc'







Meeting 2 Date: April 20th 

This meeting was to assure our group that all was agreed on. This was because we had finished our drafting stage of generating ideas for the project, another reason for this meeting being held was because our group had decided that we were ready to film and needed to start as soon as possible.

This last meeting also made a slight two changes to the animation, this was in the part when the homeless person heard a voice from the sky saying to turn around and look at the wall. In the storyboard on the left you can see that there is now another lego character who shall put money into the homeless persons pot and asks him to turn around a look at the 'Crisis wall' This decision was made by both of the group members (Robert Welland and Oz Artini) We decided that the previous idea was too unrealistic and the new idea made the animation seem a lot more realistic and a situation that seemed like it would actually occur.

Production schedule animation

Production Schedule 

Film title: Crisis Animation
Client: Crisis
Producers: Oscar Artini and Robert Welland 
Date: 25th April 2013

Planning started: January 2nd 2013 Date completed: January 30th 2013

Proposal started: February 4th 2013 Date completed: February 18th 2013

Agreement from client: February 27th 2013 Date completed: March 1st 2013

Audience Research started: March 15th 2013 Date completed: March 18th 2013 

Audience research analyzed: March 20th 2013 Date completed: March 28th 2013

Drafting started: April 1st 2013 Date completed: 20th April 2013

Production started: 29th April 2013 Date completed: May 20th 2013

Rough cut supplied to client: May 29th 2013 Date completed: June 8th 2013

Final version to client: June 10th 2013 Date completed: June 25th 2013

Wednesday, 24 April 2013

final interview no.2

video

Production Log


Production Log 

Interview no.1

Week 1

This was the first session of filming our interview which seemed rather rushed as Tim had a music lesson to attend to with a student. So there wasn't much time for our group to set up a professional looking miss-en-scene however the interview was still conducted and continued on. For this we decided to only use 2 shots with no introduction shots taken. These shots were of Tim and one shot of the interviewers hands with the question paper (Rob) in this session our questions were asked and awnswerd and the interview filming was finished.

Week 2

At the start of week 2 we then began to upload the clips to the program final cut on one of the mac computer in the media department at school. Our group then began to place the clips into order and begin the editing process.

Week 3

At this point we unfortunantly ran into a very large problem regarding the mise-en-scene. We sat through our interview with our media teacher (Mr Southworth) who gave a small rapid review on the interview, immediately there was a large issue with the mise-en-scene which we agreed on. We claimed that our interview would have a professional sense of musical mise en scene within it however in this was not evident and a decision was made to continue editing the interview in the next week, and re-arrange another time to re-conduct the interview, this time in a much more professional way.

Week 4 

This was the last session of editing for the poor interview however we still finish it by placing it in order. We thought that by finishing it and placing it on our blogs we could compare the difference between the old and the new and how much better it would look visually. At this point we then began to contact our interviewee once again to remarriage a time to conduct the interview again from our faults.

Re-filmed interview

Week 1

Filming

When filming the interview we decided to use a number of different shots to generate a good story-like intro to our interview (our shot list shows an in detail description of each shot) We decided to use these different angles for the introduction as we thought it could make a good introduction to our subject. The filming was conducted in one of the rehearsal rooms in the Music section of the school again. However this time when filming, our group made sure that the mise-en-scene was of a much more professional standard due to the first time the interview conducted, the mise-en-scene was very poor. This area of RavensWood school suited the subject very well. As well as generating a good introduction when filming the interview in this session, we also shot one angle for the main body of the interview where the questions were asked towards Tim. 

Week 2

Editing 

This session is the first of the editing process, our group have imported the filmed clips from the camera onto one of the media departments Mac computers. We have uploaded the clips into Final Cut (editing program) we have now also started to splice the clips into order (starting with the introduction to the interview giving it a title and placing all of the intro shots together in a professional order.

Week 3

This week of editing we started to add different effects to the interview such as shortening some of the clips within the introduction to the interview. A good example of this being shown is when there is a shot of an amplifier for a few seconds then shoots straight to another guitar within the music room shoots quickly back to the amplifier. At this point of editing we also added the audio of the clips to suit each part of the introduction, we had to make sure the audio fitted when Tim's fingers were playing the strings of the bass guitar otherwise we would've faced another problem of a continuity error.

Week 4 

This was the last week of editing for the re-filmed interview and not much of a variety of editing occurred within this week. However this was the most important piece of editing that had to be conducted for the interview. At the end of each question our group decided to show a cut to transition from question to question to show that the subject had changed or moved onto another question being directed at Tim. We thought this would make the interview look much more professional and clear to follow. 






Tuesday, 23 April 2013

Shot list for interview

Shot list for interview 

The total number of shots within this interview came to 6. The first 5 number of shots were to create the introduction of the interview, showing different shots of Tim playing his bass guitar and showing different musical items around the room such as an amplifier. These shots were made in order to set the scene and build up for the actual interview

Shot no.1

This shot was on the subject Tim playing his bass guitar to show his skill and possibly revealing what the interview shall be about, this shot lasts for around 4-6 seconds. The camera then zooms into his hands playing the guitar. The following shots are also to generate the same feel of setting the scene, or letting the audience in on what the subject will be about.












Shot no.2

Shot number 2 links in with the intro section of the interview, as aforementioned the shot above this was Tim playing his guitar and our group decided to link in another musical object into this intro. The shot only lasts for around 2 seconds this was the shot of the amplifier. Whilst this shot is taking place the audio is still playing as it was in the previous shot, it is one continuous audio piece along with another 3 shots relating to the intro from this shot (Shot no.2)

















Shot no.3

Next, our group decided to place another shot of a musical item that was found within the room the interview was conducted. This was the shot of the electric guitar in the corner of the room, this shot also lasts for around the same time as the previous amplifier shot, these shots are very flash like in the way they are presented.















Shot no.4 

After number 3 it then goes back to the amplifier however this time the shot lasts for around 5 seconds, our group felt that we needed to show another shot of this piece of equipment as it is very important to many musicians in the current music scene like (Tim)















Shot no.5

This was our final intro shot to the interview, our group decided to showcase his own skill on the bass guitar to almost introduce himself to the audience by showing what his hobby or possibly what his life is based around. This shot lasts for around 8-10 seconds, we decided this was a sufficient amount of time as we wanted the audience to take in what they were being shown.















Shot no.6

Shot number 6 is where the main body of the interview starts to take place and also finishes. This is one angle throughout the entire shot. The image below shows its simplicity however it doesn't have much in the shot to distract the viewer from the subject matter (Tim) Our group decided to use this one angle throughout because of this reason and we feel it was what information Tim was giving us was the most important element of the interview.







Monday, 22 April 2013

Risk assessment for animation


Risk assessment for animation

There are many different risks that must be taken into consideration when filming our animation I shall clearly explain each ones risk factor and how it can be prevented. 

Camera breakage

This hazard is probably the most likely to happen regarding the equipment. The camera is a very delicate piece of equipment that must be looked after considerably well. Before using this camera we will need to put down a 20 pound deposit towards the camera in case of malfunction. The most likely problem we may encounter will be dropping the camera or not properly placing it into the tripod. To prevent this from happening we must take extra care when securing it within the tripod by double checking it. Also when the camera is being held, it must be held in the proper way (securely) in order to prevent any damage to it via dropping it. Before taking these precautions the risk was most probably about a 7/10. However from taking these precautions we have probably taken it down to approximately a 3/10.















Tripping over the tripod 

This relates to the camera breakage also, could cause us to fall over and break the camera, The best way to prevent this from occurring would be to make sure that the tripod is in clear sight and can be seen at all times when moving to and from the set of the animation . Once this has been done, we shall not have the problem of tripping over the tripod. Before these precautions are taken the risk is within the range of 8/10. However once these precautions have been taken it would make this risk about 2/10.





















Loss of Lego characters and props

This isn't much of a risk to our group however this would cause a risk to the animation not being able to be filmed properly, and would leave it looking very spacious and not much to look at and draw the viewers eye to. So, to prevent this from happening we are going to collect a plastic wallet to place all of the lego characters and props into each time a filming session is finished and place it somewhere safe. Before this precaution the risk most likely would have been around an 8/10 considering how small the pieces are for the project, however this precaution shall lower it to around 2/10








Crew Roles for Animation


Crew Roles for Animation piece 

Editor 

Robert Welland- The main editor for this piece who placed all photos taken by the SLR camera, also added music and voice over to the project.

Assistant Editor

Oscar Artini- Assistant editor who incorporated his own ideas into the piece, passing it through the main editor (Rob) to help him gain a good understanding of what ideas would work and which wouldn't. 

Storyboard designer 

Oscar Artini- The storyboard designer for this piece came up with the final idea for this animation, the storyboard designer made a clear guide for filming the animation and how it should be done properly. This was done by drawing each stage of the animation on paper to show a rough outline of the story which our group ay have later altered (which we did)  

The Animators 

Oscar Artini and Robert Welland- The animators for this piece were responsible for basically creating the general idea of motion, in this case we had to move our lego characters carefully by changing the movements of their legs to create the motion of the character walking. This also included taking photographs with the SLR camera which moves onto the next role.

Photographers

Oscar Artini and Robert Welland- This role links in well with the animators job, our group both had input to the animating section of the piece however one person also had to make sure they were documenting or photographing each movement the movements of each character.

Set Designer/Prop designer

Oscar Artini- This was very similar to the storyboard developing, this was all done at the same stage of generating ideas for the animation, set designing and prop designing was drawn on paper, and along with these pieces came a material list that gave a clear indication of what was needed for our props and sets. 




Thursday, 18 April 2013

Editorial decisions list

Editorial decision list 

When editing this interview with Tim Dullaway, our group thought that we may have had to cut out some answers or some questions that were said throughout the interview, however when watching the interview we then decided that actually every question and answer given was asked and received well. However we did spot a few very minor faults in the interview that had to be edited out and this was some of the hesitancies and the noise level of the laughter that our subject (Tim) made during the interview, these few screenshots below show some of the decisions that had to be made.

This first image shows the change that our group made with the audio in each clip. Some of the laughter had to be edited down in noise level in order to make the interview non- irritable to the viewers watching, so the laughter was made to sound much softer than piercing to the viewers ears. 



These two images show the editing decision that was made in order to split each question that was asked. The reason for this decision being made was because we wanted to generate a much smoother effect with the interview and it cut away much of the background noise such as laughter etc after each question. Whereas if we didn't make this decision it would have made the look much more informal and too casual. We wanted to make the interview seem as professional as we could. Our group feel that we have achieved this goal by making these decisions.