Looking back (from a very, very far distance, as would be preferable.) I’m tired. After meeting my first group for the 2 minute fiction video, a feeling of hopelessness and incompetence seemed to present itself, like a 6th member of the group. As with any team, we had our problems. In the beginning, a sense of awkwardness and unease emerged, a handful of conflicting ideas surfaced and none of us seemed to like the idea that 1/5th of our group members was an international German student (except herself,) and whose understanding in filmmaking, documentation, and humour differed greatly to our own – she became a source of much frustration.

Things bettered. After several concepts of my own – our design student put forth a brilliant idea. It was unique and courageous – it was about sheep. After another one of our meetings, following a discussion upon specific scenes and situations – I remember saying to a friend that this idea could either “succeed brilliantly, or fall horribly flat.” Nevertheless, we pushed on.

Key pre-production tasks like storyboarding, camera plan and the shot list were mine. But it was throughout production where I considered myself best. I felt influential, somewhat vital as a member of the team. It was personal clarification of my importance and standing, when I realised that fellow group member’s would genuinely turn to you, for your absolute opinion.

As with any production I initially felt a little uneasy (not with the concept), but with specific scenes. In all fairness, the general consensus was that, this is what the majority of us want to do, and so that’s what we did. Things like this happened unsystematically throughout – generally working, but if not, we moved onto the suggested alternative. One team member (previously mentioned), due to a somewhat lesser understanding in Australian slang, aphorisms and humour, she had to constantly question the common sense, rock-solid ideas and concepts that the rest of us had acquired and accepted throughout our Australian upbringing.

After it all – once we had finished the final shot, the 5 of us huddled round the camera’s 3cm LCD viewfinder and for the first time, watched our magnum opus. The sheep concept…paid off.

Just as we were on the brink of being fully exhausted, along comes the 2nd Assignment – this time a Documentary. Discussing the progress of our latest production with one of my previous group members, she revealed, “After putting in so much effort for the first assignment, I feel as though I’ve got nothing left for this new one.” I totally empathised with her.

Brainstorming, and creating several more-than-worthy ideas, I suggested the ‘myth’ of the ‘Volvo Driver.’ Everyone liked it. As a Volvo-man myself, the subject struck closer to home than to the others – I knew the general opinion, I’ve experienced what it’s like to drive a Volvo and I retain a basic understanding on the History of the manufacturer. What I forgot, and it was that principle element that I forgot…was that I was working with a group of people (predominantly female actors) who had their own uptake on presenting the “Volvo Driver” as a Doco, and I can assure you – it differed much, much differently to my own.

Comparing Assignment 2 with Assignment 1, in terms of workload – its eons ahead. I’ve prepared, researched and composed. Tinkered unwillingly with the documentation. Suggested concepts and opportunities. Created interview questions and stand-ups. I’ve [attempted to] organise group members. I’ve set the gear up, shot, and reluctantly approached [the unwilling] public.

This then, is an update on what we’ve got: Terrible, terrible shots, pointless errands, technical faults, dead-ends and clichés. It’s a group effort – I have to keep reminding myself about this, be diplomatic and let them go their way, for I would loathe a situation of Civil Doco War – 4 group members against poor, little me. This is going to be odd, but I remember a quote by Margaret Thatcher, and in actuality, it applies to my sick, self-absorbed attitude, she said “I can be extraordinarily patient, provided I get my own way in the end.” Its wrong – but I’ve made a fair few films in my time – and I can see some of the things that we’re doing is amateurish and redundant.
I’ve painted a dark picture for you, I’m sorry…its really not all that bad. We do have some great stuff, and I’ve made some terrible mistakes, technically and through suggestion. I just think that, now we’ve reached the editing stage, the majority of my group will take an amateurish approach to editing structure, there’ll be a power struggle and a conflict of creative direction until the very end. Again…I’m tired.  ¶ 11:41 AM 0 comments

  Three - Point Lighting Technique

Three-point lighting is the conventional way to light film, television and photography. Basic understanding can deduce that there is the use of three separate light sources, from three separate angles – the key light, the fill light and the backlight. In the early history of Hollywood films, three-point lighting was the traditional way of lighting – this is not to say that productions today wholly disregard the technique, simply the standard of lighting has advanced and built on the fundamentals laid down throughout the techniques general inception.

Each light plays a separate role. Firstly there is the Key light. The key light is usually placed 45 degrees above the subject at a slight angle, which affects the subject’s sharpness and focus. This is the primary light source – it’s strength, colour and angle, while determining the direction of shadows, underlines the general ‘feel’ and design. A softer light is more likely to hide a persons skin imperfections, although at expense of things like the atmosphere and mood. If outdoors, the Key light is most commonly (and simply) the sun.

The fill light supports the subject, at an angle that removes the harsh shadows the key light makes – by balancing the light; the fill ultimately eliminates areas of shadow. This makes the subject look natural – imperfections [upon the subject], and harsh angles maintained by the subjects facial features now look less obvious. In some cases, a reflector can play the role of a fill light by simply reflecting light from the key, the sun or from the fill light itself – although this depends upon the level, softness and angle one desires.

The Backlight typically shines on the back of the subject. It can be placed on an angle (depending on the desired ‘feel’ or situation) that places an edge around the subject, separating them from the background.

One can go so far as to add another lighting position. This is obviously called Four-point lighting. The addition of this fourth light is to highlight and draw attention to the background – either eliminating shadows that create distraction or unbalance, to add a sense of depth or three-dimensionality or to simply create more of an atmosphere.

These are the basic roles of each light across the three-point lighting technique. Yet, as anyone would say – such basic principles are in no way fixed. When it comes to lighting, the way in which you choose to do it is fine – ideally, there are hundreds of ways to light a hundred separate things, and each one may create a varied ‘feel’ or design that differs from the last.

Generally, we should place more importance on the three-point lighting technique as a rule or principle rather than a benchmark in proper lighting. When lighting a subject, such as a single person, three-point lighting is more than sufficient. But considering a film or television set – the level in lighting advances, it ascends a few more steps. If there are multiple subjects than there should be multiple Key lights, multiple fill lights and multiple backlights. And yet, larger sets, bigger budgets, different conditions does not denote additional light sources – the three-point lighting technique is likely to resurface as a fundamental guideline, the tendency is that in these situations, the lights start to become increasingly bigger.

  ¶ 9:22 PM 0 comments

  Channel Nine's Ratings Boost.

I’ve always held an awkward opinion on Channel Nine. As I kid, Channel Nine for me was considered to be the pinnacle of free to air Channels – the absolute epitome of good television, when really; it was in fact the flashy self-promotion and catchy theme songs that probably had me fooled. Throughout later years, my opinion on Nine lessened. Growing up, I familiarised Nine with the big events – the Olympics, the Cricket, the Footy (AFL of course) and most of the big blockbusters. It was only until I was much older that I began to question some of the Channels actions. They haven’t always played smart.

Inexorably, Nine is undergoing a ratings slump – the question is why? There are several reasons. For me, the first indication that Nine were losing their grip in the ratings game occurred to me when two of my family’s favourite Saturday night primetime programs were dropped: Smallville and The Gilmore Girls – almost at the same time. Then again, I had to comment on the bad marketing and terrible decision making taking place with the head honcho’s (particularly Kerry Packer) when marketing the first season of The OC on Nine. After promoting the show for over a fortnight the first three episodes were aired and then simply and unexpectedly dropped – I was perplexed. My view that Nine was the premier, best program toting, clever and untouchable Channel had now changed – and perhaps I wasn’t alone.

If I had to define the 3 flagship programs on Channel Nine, I would name The Today Show, A Current Affair and 60 Minutes. All news programs. The funny thing about each of these programs, the three programs that define Nine as a high rating, premier News Channel is that they are all rating lower.

Lets look at Nine. The Today Show, which was once the leading morning Breakfast Program has ultimately lost viewers to its Channel Seven competitor Sunrise – the Today Show now pales in comparison. What was once a fresh, lively and entertaining show has now become stale, irritating and corny. A Current Affair, which was always a nightly affair for my family, has ultimately lost our attention – and it seems we’re not alone. Back in the day when Ray Martin was hosting A Current Affair, the show seemed unstoppable, and it was only until Tracey Grimshaw (who I consider the downfall of The Today Show) took Ray’s (or more recently Mike Munro’s) seat, has the show started slipping. 60 Minutes, which for many years has grown comfortable holding the number 1 spot in its timeslot, has now been performing inconsistently – is it the next of Nines news programs to crash?.

If Channel Nine were to rectify their situation, and improve their ratings, there are always a number of possible (aggressive and conventional) solutions.

1. It’s integral to feature (especially exclusively) a big time sporting event such as The Olympics (the rights owned by Channel 7), the AFL (rights owned by Channel Ten), the NRL (rights owned by Channel Nine), the Tennis, the Golf (rights usually owned by Channel 9) and the Swimming and Athletics. Aim to become the Sporting Network – its worked for Channel 7.
2. Buy successful international shows. Eg. American Inventor to Australian Inventor.
3. Attempt to buy other Channels programs. Or bid on the next season of a popular program that features on a completely different network. (For example, purchase Season 3 of Lost and broadcast it on Nine.)
4. To provide a more viewer-friendly network, consider cutting back the amount of ads in order to boost ratings and open up a new timeslot.
5. Give shows a chance. How can a fan base establish itself around a show that only airs less then a handful of episodes?
6. Attempt to bring back or reinvent old shows. Eg. Hey Hey its Saturday or Young Talent Time. More live shows like Bert Newton and Graham Kennedy prime time programme.
7. Invent shows that predominantly target large age groups. (Eg. A new game show for seniors. Or a new early morning cartoon show for School Kids.)
8. Lower the amount of Crime/Drama or Medical/Doctor shows. Try some new genres (or other popular shows) in a primetime timeslots. As there are so many Crime, Medical, Lawyer related shows in similar timeslots, the distinctiveness of each show lessens and they all appear to become redundant. (Eg. CSI, CSI:Miama, CSI:NY, Law and Order, Law and Order: Criminal Intent, Law and Order: SVU, NCIS, Without a Trace, Cold Case etc.)
9. Try something revolutionary – advertise a poll that gives viewers the option of choosing a single program out of a selection of 8. Everyone votes by calling a free call number; the show that acquires the most votes is then played for a whole season on the Nine network. This creates large public interest – creating a feeling of involvement – sure to boost ratings.

Channel Nine is a network that has largely got by through sheer power rather than smart programming/ choices. As Nine is the most affluent of all Australian free to air Channels it has always had the advantage of being able to outbid other Channels and possessing strong, successful, long enduring programs that have eventually met their demise. This has left Channel Nine in a position where they are now lagging behind. This really is not a bad thing. Channel Nine will never die – losing ratings simply means it’s now sharing the market and not controlling it – which to me is an extremely good thing.  ¶ 12:39 PM 0 comments

  Comparative Study. House MD and The Glenmoore Job. Let me enlighten you with a comparative study of two different, atypical and revitalizing television productions. One is an American television show – presented episodically with an advancing storyline that adheres to a formula. The other is an intelligent Australian short film. Enter House MD, created by David Shore (Law and Order) and The Glenmoore Job, written and directed by Australian, Greg Williams.

Both productions are welcoming to the eye. The cinematography for each program is exemplary. House MD as a television program explores new ways of shooting that ultimately strays from conventional medical TV productions. Taking the concept of a physically flawed, socially inept good guy detective, searching for the evil antagonist – they change the context to Medical Practitioners, having the doctors play the role of a detective and the mysterious illness as the evil antagonist. The photography attempts to replicate this oddity. The techniques become reminiscent of a prime-time Murder Mystery or Crime-Drama. One notices peculiar low and high angles, vertical shots (looking straight down), speedy scene transitions, quick zooms and the oddly placed extreme close-up. The script works – It's mysterious, puzzling, addictive and downright entertaining. It sticks to a formula, varying slightly every Episode, keeping the action on screen and moving – it's not to formulaic that it becomes restricting (like CSI for example,) allowing relationships, characters and events to advance and grow.

Greg Williams' The Glenmoore Job, is again a wonderful Australian Short film production, that's script, acting, editing, pacing and photography were brought together under wonderful direction, into creating one of independent Australian cinema's most enjoyable productions that I have ever seen. The short film varied quite differently from America's atypical Medical show "House", as one was an episodic production that stuck to a loose formula, and where The Glenmoore Job moved with swift, unpredictable, enticing action, witty dialogue and intelligent set pieces. The film was shot predominantly on tripod – the frame remaining dead still for 90% of the film, until the tripod was discarded for a break and enter scene nearing the conclusion. Lighting was mostly artificial as the setting for the film was predominantly night time. The editing was long – quite unlike the kind used throughout House MD, where shots were short – the action being more intense. The acting was all great. Each character was 3-dimensional, revealing sides to their personalities that never once made you cry out "Stereotype".

Despite their differences, both shows encompass a similar element – the element of engaging viewing and audience appeal. Such a quality is absolutely integral to a programs existence and circulation. With both productions, each show maintains to keep the audience guessing. Is this person going to live or die? And what's going to happen next? These are the questions we keep asking ourselves – hoping mightily that by the end of the show/ short film we are rewarded with a reasonable feeling of content and justification. By the end of each production, the justification for giving the show your time should rightly feel worth it – and if only producers across the globe took a few notes from the elements incorporated into these two, widely separate productions, there would be a lot more people watching television right now.

  ¶ 11:44 PM 0 comments

  My Understanding of fellow group members course Disciplines and their understanding of my own. In my group there are 2 actors, one designer and one Television Production student. I’m doing the Double degree in Television Production and Multimedia. My name is Joel.

The two Actors are Holly and Annemarie. I’ve always associated actors to be confident, intelligent and interesting people. Their personalities are a reflection of their acting abilities. Generally I have found them emotionally open, opinionated and almost fearless.

After approaching both Holly and Annemarie, I learnt of the intensive physical and mental education they undergo – surpassing my initial idea of their courses structure. Initially, I imagined that acting would involve a lot of group work – enhancing team skills, acting situations and ultimately confidence. My prejudice of what Acting is like is predominately based on my experiences throughout Yr11 and Yr12 drama. Besides this, my idea of Acting included little else.

Naturally and unsurprisingly I was wrong. Although my idea was in the right direction – the extent of their [acting] degree goes way behind my initial understanding. A large extent of their course focuses on the voice. I learned that the voice is one of the most pivotal parts concerning acting –an element which I previously had no thought to consider. Each student undergoes a journey sharpening it – exercising rhythm and tone, aiming at establishing a natural voice. Another area is characterisation. They learn characterisation – placing it into practice and honing their understanding of its role in productions – employing it to enhance their acting. Another discipline of acting is how to lose conditioning, built up throughout typical life – and on the other end of the spectrum, using emotional recall to help their acting.

Nicola is our only designer. It is probably this way with most groups. With Design for TV and Theatre, I’ve always felt that I’ve had a better understanding with, than acting, for example. This I owe to my interest in what takes place behind the lens – generally what’s called Pre-production. The design for film is one of the most important parts of the process (along with acting). Design supports and ultimately enhances the entire project, along with the acting. Nicola’s course is always associated with the aesthetics of any project, in almost every way.

By simply working with Nicola through our group meetings and discussions, my understanding on the disciplines of design has expanded. The disciplines for design include set design, lighting, sound, props and general design management. Nicola’s course predominately focuses on screen and stage – where they learn about colour, balance and audiences perspective. The course involves a degree of design theory concentrating on symbology and Design elements to create harmony.

Andrew, like me, is undertaking the Television Production degree. Obviously his understanding of my degree correlates with my own. There is no need to highlight his perception on the disciplines of my course for they are largely the same – however; I am doing a double degree, which includes Multimedia, where there are differences.

After asking my group members what it is they thought my Course involved, I noticed that there was some serious lack of understanding. Although able to understand the Television Production side of my degree – defining Multimedia was slightly more difficult. Generally they all touched the surface – something to do with computers. Nicola and Holly, who were both bearing the same understanding, concluded that much of the disciplines of my course involved computers. Annemarie generalised and considered Multimedia was playing round with programs while Andrew, who turned out to be closest, submitted that it was internet related, that touched along with animation.  ¶ 5:25 PM 0 comments

  A first, test entry. (Welcoming you.) You are most welcome to browse my site. Although, banal and soulless, keep your attention fixed – and for those who do, they’ll discover a most appealing and unrivaled place of great writing, distinctive viewpoints and generally entertaining content.

Watch your posture!   ¶ 11:25 PM 0 comments