If you haven’t read Saqib’s post, you can do so by clicking the image below:

I believe a lot of the challenges that Saqib faced in production this video…

Click here to view the embedded video.

…came as a result of pursuing the “film look” which he believed lay in filming at 24 progressive frames per second.

When motion picture was invented in the early twentieth century, silent films were played at 16 frames per second. Later when sound was added, they had to speed up the film reel to play at 24 frames per second so that the audio would sound slow. This is why silent films seem like they’re moving really fast. They’ve sped up 16 fps films to 24 fps. The choice was to adapt to an technological advancement.

Today people equate the technical 24p with the “film look” or “cinematic look” which is an incorrect understanding. Proper film look consists of:

• set design/production value – does the place you’re filming look “expensive?”
• audio and sound score - the higher the fidelity and clarity of the audio, the better people tune in.
  
• composition – how the subject/talent is framed and colored on screen
• proper lighting setup - 3 point light setup with understanding light intensity
• camera movement – panning vs. craning vs. tracking vs. static
• lens choices - deciding between different depths of field, ie: blurry background vs non blurry backgrounds
• screen formatting - anamorphic vs. wide screen vs. full screen
• 24p - least important

24p is at the bottom of that list for a reason. It has the least impact emotionally on the audience.

If Saqib kept all filming at 30 fps, and focused on the top five items on the list, the result would be more impact. The following videos are examples of implementing the film look based on the points mentioned above. First is a shoe string budget example:

Click here to view the embedded video.

This is an example of the film look on a professional budget:

Click here to view the embedded video.

–

For those who are new to my work, just know I’m speaking from experience. My lecture video projects of the past have included:

• The Strangers
• The Opener Short Lecture Series
• AlMaghrib Teacher Training Seminar (16 hrs of lecture videos)
• Darkness2Light
• Desert Rose and the birth of IlmCast Videos and Syndication (lost count of number of videos I’ve put up)
• Divine Speech Prologue for Bayyinah – also search “divine speech prologue” on YouTube
• Time Traveler Seminar (16 hrs of lecture videos)
• DiscoverU speeches and DiscoverU Certification (60+ hrs of lecture videos)
• Ilm Summit 2009 wild cards

I’ve actually written out an entire process work flow outline for lecture content development from project development, to production, to post production, to online syndication. This will ultimately end up being a bonus module for all those who have purchased “Secrets of Video Production” over at MessageMastery.com

If you’re truly interested in production video content, either for regular blogging or for marketing an organization you work with – this course is for you.

Click here to view the embedded video.

As a marketer having the ability to tell stories effectively is very important. Understanding character, plot, setting and themes are only the foundation of the process. Stories are well sell ideas and they are what communicate messages effectively. For this reason I’m committing myself to reading 40 screenplays for the next 40 days.

Below are my reflections from having read my first script, Memento by Jonathan Nolan.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Here’s the tweet that introduced me to this challenge:

Charlie is trying to progress in the local mob, but is held back by his feelings toward his childish and destructive friend Johnny (Robert Den Niro), and his love for Teresa who has epilepsy. There is much internal conflict in Charlie about his Catholicism and his involvement in the mob.

Before I give my analysis, there are a few things to know about Martin Scorsese. He is what you call a “Modernist” Filmmaker. Part of the generation of New American Cinema. If you read back into my post on “New Hollywood” you will see that Mr. Scorsese:

• Went to film school (wanted to go to a seminary)
• Has knowledge of film history

You know that Mean Streets has a modernist sense because:

• You have a non-traditional hero. A person that can be like able, but at the same time has many flaws.
• Is sexually and violently explicit (Muslims, if you have to sit through this in class…please lower your gaze)
• Showed psychological complexity
• Social issues are addressed
• Gave a more complex view of the world. Charlie is the Main character. You see New York City from the subjective view of the character’s life. There is German expressionism in the sense that when the character gets drunk, the camera shows how the character sees things as a drunk.
• Says that heroic actions are difficult
• Relationships are not easy
• Institutions have failed the individual
• Life is complicated

The Player (1992) is a movie that tells the story of Griffin Mill (Tim Robbins), a Hollywood studio executive who believes he is being blackmailed by a screenwriter whose script he once rejected.

Robert Altman, a Hollywood filmmaker is someone who has a provocative and risky demeanor. He has had Hollywood successes and failures. Considered himself an artist, and thinking of himself as making art film for Americans with American themes.

The movies he makes are personal, innovative, and darkly comical about American culture. One thing to notice about his works is that he has a particular style:

• Many characters
• Overlapping sounds
• Intricate movement of camera

He is very much like Orson Wells in his works. His images are very complex in nature Exact opposite of Hitchcock who was simple in his imagery. Orson Wells was known to use a zoom lens as opposed to cutting to point out some details. Martin Scorsese and Fredrick Wiseman are known to follow this style. Not like Alfred Hitchcock who was very keen on editing. People who followed suit with Hitchcock were Leni Riefenstahl, Bruce Conner and Woody Allen.

The Player

You will notice as American cinema progress through time, sexual content and violence increases. This movie is a satire about the Hollywood movie industry. In the film the main character is asked why he doesn’t make movies that are realistic or have a certain moral standard. He replied back saying that it doesn’t contain the elements to market the film successfully. The “elements” that he says need to be to make a successful film are:

• Sex
• Nudity
• Heart
• Violence
• Happy ending

This movie in itself contrasts with Italian Neorealism, in the fact that everything that movie had, The Player is opposite in nature.

Few things you will notice about this film is:

• In Hollywood the studio producers make movies. Its not about the writer or the directors. Its all about the producer.
• Your hero isn’t the conventional type. He has no real sense of morality. He is somone who commits murder, lies, and gets away with it.
• You spend time with the character, making you sort of identify wit him.

- — – — – — -

My Comments

Its amazing how certian elements of society and character that people normally see as repulsive, can be made to look as something attractive. Media, television, and cinema has done that in the past, and continues to do it today. They can take trash and make it look like treasure. The question that comes to my mind, “When will we rise up and take the treasure that we have and have it look better than the trash out there?“

• Francis Ford Copolla
• Steven Spielberg
• George Lucas
• Martin Scorsese

These unique thing about these new young directors was that they were not raised in the studio system. They learned film in school. They learned the mechanics, aesthetics, and history of films, giving them encyclopedic knowledge of cinema.

• These guys revered the classics.
• They made personal self conscience films.
• They had the genres, but with autobiographical and personal elements in it.
• They were reflective of their own view of the world.
• They see their work in relation to the history of cinema.

It is said that the films that came out in this time period were modernist reworkings of the classic genres. The message that new Hollywood cinema gave out to the people was different from what classic Hollywood cinema would give.

• Movies became more sexually and violently explicit.
• Showed psychological complexity
• Social issues were addressed
• Gave a more complex view of the world
• Heroic actions are difficult
• Relationships are not easy
• Institutions have failed the individual
• Life is complicated

These films have conventional narrative and American subculture. Financing methods also changed. Directors had more say in what was to happen. Instead of a certain studio providing the finances, it would be a wide array of sources.

Zelig (1983)

This film is a “mockumentary” by Woody Allen, that claims documentary status. The film itself touches upon the social issue of social conformity. If you watch this film without knowing anything about it, you will believe that it is a real documentary. It has the stereotypical documentary look and style. Has the predictable pattern, news reels, interviews, sounds, etc.

Film is a medium so powerful that you can make people believe something is real when it isn’t. Film itself can be a “chameleon” (watch the movie to understand this point).

What is a documentary film? Ross McElwee in his 1997 documentary “Six O’Clock News” states, “Documentaries, which are more or less films about reality, are actually not considered by most people to be real films, but Hollywood films, which usually have an extremely high fantasy quotient, are considered to be real.”

Documentaries (sometimes referred to as non-fiction films) and Narratives (fictional films) both use the same techniques. Its just that a documentary can be defined as a “creative interpretation of reality.” Documentaries are made for many reasons, but the four frequent ones are:

• to inform
• to entertain
• to criticize
• to celebrate

One thing to keep in mind is that documentaries are always meant to entertain. Filmmakers know that if they want to hold their viewer’s attention they will need to entertain.

Another question comes to mind. Are documentaries biased?

Olympia (1938)

A documentary film by Leni Riefenstahl about the 1936 Summer Olympics. Leni was commissioned by Adolf Hitler to document they Olympics so that they may promote Nazi philosophy. Only problem they had was that the all American Jesse Owens was beating them all.

This documentary was ground breaking in that is was able to capture footage, and movement of people like never before. Something that is evident throughout the film is the use of montage editing. The film was captured in such a way that the different contenders seemed almost superhuman.

High School (1968)

During this time period, technological improvements in film equipment helped push the industry further. Development of lightweight camera equipment allowed the filmmakers to throw themselves into an experience. Direct Cinema came about. There was no manipulation or structuring during filming like that of traditional documentaries.

Frederick Wiseman made a documentary about Northeast High School titled “High School”. In this film he used no narration or music like you would expect in a regular documentary.

After having seen this documentary immediately Iraq in Fragments by James Longly came to mind. It was done in the same style. Without specific narration or music, and was put together with what was caught on camera.

Are documentaries biased? Of course they are. They are reflecting the viewpoint of the filmmaker. Can they still inform, entertain, criticize, and/or celebrate something, someone, or an idea? For sure!

This is another name for experimental films. Film scholars say that studying experimental films deepens one’s understanding of the film medium. Although a wide array of films fall under this type of films, they have some things in common.

• They portray things differently from the way mainstream film did and still does in both technique and subject of film.
• Many times they are “personal projects” for its director(s). For example, it could be something that is just meaningful to their own selves.
• They are produced within a small budget.

• It is said to be “visual poetry”. It wasn’t made to convey a storyline or plot, rather its images just strewn together.
• If you ask, “What does this film mean?”…you probably wont be able to answer it.

Meshes in the Afternoon (1943)

This movies was done by a husband and wife team, Alexander Hamid and Maya Deren. Maya was a poet, teacher, dancer, and her films were to some extent, characterized by these.

Watch this film and you will notice that there are images used as symbols heavily. Symbolism that one explains in the film are interpretation of critics usually. Interpretations such as the flower representing a chance at life. Shrouded mirror representing death. Key representing opening one’s life. Phone off the hook representing a lack of communication. The list goes on.

Some themes that one can pick out are the feeling of being trapped, fear of the bedroom, marital/relationship issues. All this is done through the imagery.

A Movie (1958)

A Movie was a collage film produced by Bruce Conner consisting of footage from other films. The material was selected, and structured in a certain manner with added music. Some call this a documentary of sort.

This film is different in the fact that repeatedly you see the title and the producer of the film show on screen through out, as if Bruce Conner is saying, “hey look, I made the film”

Scorpio Rising (1963)

A experimental/avant garde documentary film by Kenneth Anger about a motorcycle gang of New York. You will notice that in this film, in place of dialogue and traditional background music, plays a series of popular 80′s songs to a “storyline.”

Something that the viewer may think about is, “What is the relationship between the soundtrack and the film’s images?” One thing to note is that, the images portray male sexuality on film. The way the camera movement characterizes that action itself. Films rarely portray the male figure in this way, but considering that the director behind the camera is gay, is understandable.

Some of the themes portrayed in the film are:

• Self-image
• Idolizing a figure
• Modeling behaovir, dress, character
• Following. Conformity in the name of “individuality”

Its interesting how the links imagery of Hitler, a gang-leader, and Jesus with disciples together to stress the themes they are pushing forward.

It’s interesting how the director is one of the founders of The Church of Satan, which is an organization for those who have a focus on materialism and individualism, and practice self-preservation as instrcuted in the The Satanic Bible written by Anton LaVey.

- — – — -

Personal Comments:

Although many of the well known experimental films are not up to the moral standards of Islam, they directors prove that imagry and symbolism are strong tools to use in the visual medium. Tools can be used for good or bad, how they are used depends on the weilder.

Hollywood had come to a point in time where different studios had monopolized on different types of films. A-movies, B-movies, cartoons, newsreel, etc. They made it such that others could not compete in the different types of movies. Each individual studio controlled a certain outlet. The different studios didn’t work in collaboration.

Due to the monopolization, the workers went on strike. That combined with post World War II atmosphere, death of FDR, and McCarthyism. Hollywood cinema lost its footing. The monopoly was broken up and this ended the Hollywood studio era. Studios like Warner Brothers were preparing to go into temporary shutdown.

While all this was happening in America, cinema was taking shape in Europe.

Italian Neorealism (Post World War II Italy)

This was a movement that started up in post war Italy. The nation was in rubbles was recovering. The studios they had had already been destroyed in the war. In order to move forward with their cinema they used what was available to them.

They began using poorer quality newsreel stock film. Shot without sets and on location. They had minimal or no artificial lighting. Mostly non-professional actors. As a result the films had a documentary look. It didn’t have the slick and highly polished look of Hollywood.

Later on their philosophy developed into this. They stood behind their view that this is how films need to be made. Be able to depict everyday people with everyday problems. Cesare Zavattini explained that they want to show things as they are and not what they seem. Depict the common man. Reveal everyday rather than the fictional. Show the real world as opposed to fantasy. Make the films look like reality.

One of Zavattini’s films titled “Bicycle Thief” demonstrated just that.

• The focus was on the working class
• Main character is the only known actor
• Most of the filming was done during daytime (due to lack of artificial lighting)
• No real sets. Everything is shot on location. The action isn’t really setup.
• Most of the film is done in long shot. This is to show the characters in the environment. Gives you the feel of being in the slice of life.
• You don’t feel like that the director is composing the shot. It’s opposite of Orson Wells.

This style of filmmaking was meant to be cost effective. After Italy had abandoned Neorealist filmmaking. Other nations had picked it up and had become quite popular. Nations like America, England, and India.

French New Wave (Late 1950s & 60s)

The French New Wave was started by film enthusiasts. These are people who were film student that became critics. They loved all types of film and came up with Auteur Theory. Starting off with documentaries, then moving on to short films, they soon started making full features.

Their attitude was that anything goes. Approaching film in a new sort of way. 1959 Started “Modernism”.

• Jean Luc Godard made Breathless
• Alain Resnais made Hiroshima Mon Amour
• Francois Truffaut made The 400 Blows

These guys truly loved American movies, but were ready to remake cinema.

One of the films that demonstrated the whole Modernism attitude was Vivre Sa Vie (My Life to Live) by Jean Luc Godard. When watching the film, you notice

• He mixes styles and techniques
• He broke away from conventional ways of filming. As the movie plays you are aware of the director’s process and know that it’s a movie.
• The technique is self conscience. Sometimes the technique itself is the subject as opposed to the character.

The film is nearly opposite that of Hitchcock’s “Rear Window” where Hitchcock made you feel that its real by immersing you into the story and characters. Here the director is making an anti-illusionary film. The directing reminds you that it’s not real.

• Hitchcock used a lot of shot/counter-shot and shot/reverse-shot editing when it came to character’s having conversation. The camera movement here instead was quite random. They used distancing devices. You don’t relate with the character like in “Rear Window” because of the lack of POV editing.
• The film itself is presented in “episodes”, giving the effect that life is experienced in pieces and not a whole.
• At one point in one of the “episodes” the camera leaves and starts looking into the street, leaving the character behind as if it just left her

What is a “modernist” film?

• The idea is for the technique to draw attention to itself.
• Reflexivity
• American influence
• There is not conventional morality/heros
• unconventional narrative structure
• Mixed genre
• Less pure entertainmen, and more about issues. Attention is given to psychology and society.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Citizen Kane was co-written, directed, and starred Orson Welles. Before entering the movie business, Welles had come from a radio and Broadway background. Got his initial fame from the radio spoof of “The War of the Worlds” based on H. G. Wells book.

Welles was 25 years old when he made Citizen Kane. When he came to Hollywood, he was already well known because of his radio career. He was given a choice of contracts and could make what ever movie he wanted to. He was known as playful spirit. He stated that Hollywood is the biggest toy train set ever.

You can just imagine him coming to the studios and thinking “How can I have fun with this?”

Citizen Kane is about the psychological life of an individual. The movie some say is was based on the life of William Randolf Hearst. Hearst certainly thought so and banned his newspaper conglomerate from writing any reviews or responses to it. Although Welles was known as one of the best directors of all time, and Citizen Kane was known as one of the best movies of all time, it was a box office failure. Perhaps this is due to Hearst’s response…perhaps not.

Welles turned classical filmmaking upside down with this film. Broke away from D. W. Griffith’s tradition of analytical editing. His film was nonlinear in terms of chronology, made up of flashbacks from many different points of view. He used a lot of expressionist devices, and itself was in a way a reflexive film.

If you learn about Orson Welles you will notice that the character Charles Foster Kane in a way mirrors his own life in a way. He probably saw himself in the character. Read about Welles and Citizen Kain in Wikipedia (links above) to see what I mean.

Gregg Toland worked with Welles as his cinematographer on this film. One thing that was different and innovative in a way was the depth of field style. The focus of the background, foreground, middle ground is the same. Welles (unlike Hitchcock) did not use editing as primary means of style. He puts most of his attention on the camera movement and placement. Take the opening sequence of Touch of Evil for example. With Welles the camera seems to have a mind of its own. It doesn’t necessarily follow the characters. People enter a room via a door. The camera enters the room via a window or skylight.

If you pay attention to the opening sequence of the movie you will notice a few things. One is that the people are all dark, making them appear shady and mysterious. They show a film reel about Kane and then say, “This tells us what he did, but not what we want to know. Who is Charles foster Kane?” What do they want to know? Then a discussion starts about Kane’s last words before death, and it appears as though they are looking for some sort of scandal. This makes you question the ethics of those people.

One final thing comes up for me is the whole argument in filming: editing vs. camera. Hitchcock was all about editing. Welles is all about camera. Which one to master? I guess it depends on what one is most comfortable with.

Click here to view the embedded video.

The Style of story telling was the most unique to what I have seen. It seemed like a real film as opposed to a documentary. They way the film footage cuts from one type of movement to another shot or object that is doing the same movement, keeping the flow of the film very smooth and poetic.