So, what� s the result of all this time and effort? The product encounters several problems but starts on quite a positive note. The opening sequence, I think, works really well. Several elements combine together to give it a tight, structured feel. This is partly because the images fit in well with the music and it�s cut on the beat. It isn�t exactly Easy rider but the series of static shots mixed with the consistency of being 20 feet away gives the audience a clear idea that this is an individual sequence, detached from the rest. It�s s also admirable that the credits fit so smugly in the corner, especially in the station scene. There is some evidence of graphic matching in the sequence as we cut from the begging to the station scene, the eye being focused on the same part of the screen. The line of the platform also matches with the path beside the bench. We also like the fact that Cals credit comes up when she�s walking past the tramp. The natural fade works really well at the end and the whole sequence is timed almost impeccably.
From there it starts to go downhill a bit. We had problems with the sound in the next scene, the doctor scene. We had to resort to dubbing over the voice for a second time, as the first edit had suffered in terms of audio. This is hardly noticeable. The main criticism of the scene from our passive observers who surrounded us while we copied the final piece was that the �doctor looks about twelve�. A passing comment but I can see where they were coming from. We were aware of the problems of casting a convincing doctor due to the lack of adequately looking contacts. We had to use who we could and we were delighted when he agreed to be a one line wonder. The other possible thing that places the genuinely of the scene into doubt is the lack of paraphernalia which was acquired, despite Cals persistent efforts. I also don�t suppose a white room is the most desirable location but we had to work with what we could get. The intention of the link to the next scene was to have a shot of Kevin. You automatically assume he�s in the doctors surgery, but then the camera moves and he�s magically you discover he�s in a totally different place. A good idea to link the two scenes together. This is partially successful in the final but there�s a slight glitch between this and the next shot for some reason. Paul says he had to compromise his original idea for the scene because my pans didn�t turn out as he envisaged. There�s more evidence of slightly dodgy camerawork through the scene, this isn�t exactly gonna help my marks....on second thought�s it�s brilliant! You�re never gonna believe another word I write after that.
The outside pan when the businessman walks out of his office is clearly below par. This was the only pan we had, even though we did it three times. The last two mysteriously weren�t on the tape, this could possibly be accounted for by the failing battery at this point in the proceedings as some the camera was cutting out around that point, so I don�t think it had enough power to record. The next shot (of Kevin walking to meet the tramp) is designed to come in when Kevin is obscured by a passing gentleman. This adds to the effectiveness of it as the character we�re following doesn�t suddenly appear in the middle of the screen, it adds a bit of fluency to it. Adding further to the flow of the piece is the consistent ambience that we recorded, it is overlaid over improving it slightly in comparison to previous versions.
Now to the bit I dread. In the first morning of shooting we viewed the material gathered before the afternoon shoot. This is where some of my glaring errors were identified . For some reason we noticed that the shot cut before the tramp got up. This is another mystery, perhaps it can be related to another lack of power on behalf of the battery. A re-shoot of the tramp getting up was required and the result�s a bit dodgy. This was such a crisis at the time due to the continuity of Paul�s beard being shaved off so we had to make the most of our inadequate footage. It hurts but Ryan says the shot looks pretty cool. But this is from the guy who�s film involves shooting someone in the head, detaching a part of the murder victim�s anatomy and placing it in an unusual place. Anyway I don�t think it was what Paul wanted so it�s pretty bad because it�s his film. But it seems to work OK.
Kevin�s line is interfered by background noise. It�s pretty much unavoidable as we can�t really escape this overpowering ambience in a public place. We don�t own the people and we can�t tell them what to do, to say and not to scream. This is a factor I think we will consider in the making of future productions. This and the issue of continuity means we�ll probably keep location shooting in public places to a minimum.
Now to the meeting scene. This was notoriously difficult to put together. We had many, many takes, each with different things wrong with them. The first few were unconvincingly acted, which is understandable as our actors were new to their roles and probably very nervous. Once things picked up on that front there were problems with lens flare and sound especially. The result was a dip in the overall piece. I don�t really like the way that Paul seems to be waiting around for someone to bump into him, although I suppose he is in a state of confusion as someone�s just given him a mysterious artefact. Perhaps it would have been more realistic to have Paul holding the artefact, looking down and wondering or something. It just seems mildly strange to me. I get the impression he�s waiting around waiting for someone to bump into him, which I suppose, he is.
The cafe scene seems to be the lowest point of the product and the time when it�s most likely the embarrassed crew will nip off to the refectory or just go and hide. It isn�t quite that bad but does seem a little tired and drawn out. We really suffered from a lack of cutaways in this situation and had to use the same image of Michelle several times. Perhaps there is too much dialogue or there just seems to be too much as we couldn�t mix it in with a variety of cutaways. We encounter a shift in white balance, which is my responsibility as I mustn�t have reset it after turning the camera off to preserve the battery. There are major problems with sound. This is mainly because the shots of Michelle were recorded a week later. Paul decided to reshoot her part of the dialogue due to an unhealthy dose of space at the top of the frame (again my responsibility). It so happens that there were more people in the cafe that week, hence louder ambience. This is a major problem that tugs down the quality of the production further. In the edit suite we find there isn�t much we can do about it. It makes me feel even more guilty because if I�d done it right to start with then we wouldn�t have any problem. Live and learn I suppose.
The indoor shots have a major problem, again with sound. A fierce buzzing zaps the reality and overcomes the viewer. It was actually a lot worse originally as Paul eliminated some of it with a buzz track. The resulting sound is still totally undesirable and ripping into our artistic hearts. The shot following Paul into the bathroom and then panning across the room with Michelle has some artistic merit and works OK apart from that the shot is positioned principally for Paul walking away so there�s too much space at the top of the frame for Michelle�s part. I also think we could do with cutting slightly more prematurely as Michelle just seems to stand around for a bit too long. Mind you she�s just put the kettle on so it isn�t that bad.
However - uh! yet another camera error - the shot of Paul�s incredibly cheesy line �Why are you being so nice to me?� is focused on the background rather than who�s actually speaking.
While Paul reads Michelle�s letter there are problems with the amount of light streaming through the window. The automatic apiture takes a moment or two to adjust and we see Pauls lips moving before he talks. That�s all that�s wrong with that one, a series of mistakes that are instantly noticeable and very regrettable although we didn�t know how to combat the lighting problem other than by turning off the sun.
The next cafe scene is reasonably better than we expected it to turn out and we�re pessimists. The first �Lucky charms� line goes down as the most cheesest in the history of production and is a hard line to say. It had to be to himself but loud enough for JD to hear him. The opening shot is OK, but there�s a slight gitter somewhere in the middle and the drawing hand at the end of it may not be as blatant as it should be. There�s a lot of other things in the frame with the job worthy design taking only a small portion at the bottom. The newspaper title at the start was meant to imply that it was a new day and communicate the year. However this isn�t really achieved as the shot doesn�t go on for long enough. The tilt/zoom out/ slight pan is reasonably successful and relatively smooth and stable by the standards of a monkey sitting on a washing machine or a calf on a pogostick.
The scene could have been a lot worse in terms of continuity. We selected a take when people in the background are starting to leave, even though it involves a big belly interfering with the outlook of the image it explains why in the next shot several people have left. Without it it might have been a mystery apart from the fact they�ve left. The waitress suddenly appears in the background then vanishes from behind Paul. It isn�t so bad because she could have just walked on and off shot while we are looking at JD. Perhaps we cut too quickly between the two sides of the conversation and it possibly seems a little unnatural.
The letter writing scene goes off without much being wrong with it. We thought while editing it there may be a slight continuity jump as the positions of Paul�s hands seem to change position very quickly. However I don�t think this is an overwhelming concern and is hardly noticeable. Someone said the looking down on the letter shot is a good shot and I was a good cameraman. I would have taken this as a complement if everyone else hadn�t started to laugh and feel sorry for me.
I like the futuristic scene, although I think it may be a little tricky for the audience to fully grasp it is in the future as originally intended. The future was meant to be originally communicated by a clearly displayed calendar on the desk. The replacement of the diary, I feel, isn�t quite blatant enough as we felt the need to point it out to the other groups who were watching our final piece in the edit suite. It�s important information but I think the �Pete�s now the biggest printing firm� headline and, of course, the wedding photo, implies the passage of time in the absence of convincing make up. I like the way the scene is shot in a different style and has a slightly different outlook from the rest of the production due to the totally different lighting conditions. Care was taken for Pete�s/Pauls face to be obscured through the scene as we knew we couldn�t make him look convincingly twenty years older.
There�s a nice jump in the product as Paul seems to get the box out of the cupboard. The next thing we see is him opening it on the desk. It makes perfect sense without seeing him walking around the table again. The shot of him leaving works because we give it enough time so he could have got to the door.
Perhaps trouble with the continuity when Paul gives the artefact over. This isn�t blatant or glaring but perhaps the prices in the frozen food store may have gone up in twenty years worth of inflation. You�d have to be a complete anorak to spot that one but we�ve seen it so many times in various stages of production we happened to notice it. There wasn�t a lot we could do about it and the fact that the artefact is passed on again in the same location adds to the ongoing cycle feel to the film.
The close up shot of Paul�s lips was mainly inspired by the lack of means of making him look twenty years older. It is about all we could do, we had to reshoot it due to the continuity of Pauls beard. I�m sure I�ve explained this before, but I quite like the shot. It�s dramatic, all attention is focused on the line and about our only option. I was slightly concerned about the sun lighting on the lips as we filmed it on a bright day. If I�d thought of this before we might have considered shooting it in the shadows to counter act this. However the end result isn�t such a big issue as there happens to be more sunshine in Ryan�s �look down the street in amazement� shot. Paul walks off into the distance and up fades the music. It�s better that it�s a different part of the song but it starts off with the familiar riff.
The product in terms of the original story has some credit. I like the themes that Paul�s developed and the way the story has a never ending cycle, linking back to the start. It has it�s problems and is too wordy and a bit cheesy in places but this is the result of the script being written in a very short space of time. I also like the tinge of mystery surrounding whether Paul is going to die soon, like the man w ho gave it him. If it was Hollywood this would be explained but this is Barnsley. I like the mystery as it might make the audience wonder for a moment about this. If it was explained I�d think the whole think was too clean and neat. I also like the fact that there is a hidden, sinister side to this wagon wheel else we would have felt like we�d been making a Disney movie.
Overall I think the product is a bit disappointing. It wavers up and down, I think we�re all pleased with the way the opening sequence turned out. Then there�s a sharp decline with some dodgy scenes, including a cafe scene that seems to go on for forty years, then we start to pick up again towards the end with a differently lit scene. The whole creature is riddled with the difficulty of sound and experiences minute lapses in continuity. It does fit in with the brief in many ways. Of course it is an adaptation of a song or written text but it overruns considerably over the allocated time period. This will become more and more of an issue the higher we rise up the media ladder and we know that very soon we will have to get everything spot on. To achieve the desired time frame we would have to sacrifice several pans of Kevin walking around and the first cafe scene would have to be drastically pruned. We could have also just cut out the scene where Paul walks to the cafe by himself as it�s non essential to the central story and would have worked like him getting the box out of the cupboard. I�m sure if the viewers see him in the cafe they will realise where he is. Perhaps a dissolve between the two scenes would have helped in this case or some other kind of editing that implies passage of time, as in one we can actually do.
I�m really paranoid about my camerawork now and I�m determined to prove myself some time in the future. The future is time waiting to happen. Perhaps waiting for me is the moment I�ll accomplish my skills more in this area through the previous moments of practice and hard work. I was hampered by my lack of technical knowledge in several areas and as the pool of knowledge grows, hopefully I can flood away any doubts and become successful. I�ve got to be positive - it�s all over now.