One Does Not Simply Record Nat Sound

Sound is important. Like really important. I think it is one of the most underrated fields in contemporary cinema, simply because if it is done well you shouldn't even notice it. That's sort of the point; no average viewer walks out of the theater complimenting the foley artist, they are the unsung heroes of a great film. If the sound design is believable and helps immerse the audience in the story world, then it has done its job. Sound design and foley has always really interested me, and after talking about it in class today it made me really excited to have some kick-ass sound in our horror short Dollhouse. But more on that later.

I wanted to focus more on some awesome sound design goodness. The Lord of the Rings trilogy has a really intense and creative sound design Led by David Farmer. The sound design has a lot of one-of-a-kind "original" sounds you would expect from a fantasy epic. Movies like LOTR pose a particular challenge because of the fantasy element in the story; it's hard to foley sounds for fictionalized,mythical creatures. It take a lot of creativity to be able to make these crazy, fantastical sounds from everyday objects and even human voices. Unfortunately, I was unable to find the video that I wanted to share that goes in depth about the sound design of LOTR (damn copyright laws), but here is the next best thing that still gives you an in depth look at the creativity behind the sound design. It also goes into a little bit about ADR and the challenges they faced with changing frame rates throughout the film, but that's all just bonus. It says that about 98% of LOTR Fellowship used ADR. Ouch. 

Here's the video:

 The creativity and skill that goes into the sound design of a film really blows my mind, especially on such an ambitious project like LOTR.  Not only are you responsible for every sound on screen (thats every footstep, every arrow shot, every armor clink), but to also be able to use everyday objects to produce fantasy sounds with limited digital manipulation is no easy task; it requires an in depth understand of the physics of sound as well as the overall "vision" of the sound in the film. For example, the voice for the tree character (specifically an "Ent"-thanks wikipedia) was created by building a resonant chamber with specifically calculated bends and turns to produce a very hollow, echoed sound when spoken into. With relatively little digital manipulation, the sound team was able to create a really cool, unique sound. 

As far as our sound design for Doll House, I see the potential for a lot of cool opportunities. I think when used effectively sound can be one of the scariest elements in a film because it forces the viewer to imagine what is/could be making that sound, resulting in a personalized mental image that hopefully scares the shit out of you. Unlike a visual image, it lets your sub-conscious make decisions, bringing out what each individual finds terrifying and bringing it to life. For most of our "spooky scenes" I think creaks and moans from the hardwood floor will really play well with our location, paired with an intense score to really bring out the tension and helplessness in the scene that will (hopefully) makes the audience squirm in their seats. That being said, I think silence also plays an important role in a horror film, helping to highlight the visual element and making your imagination run wild within the frame. I delicate balance is needed, and I am excited to help Sam with the sound design after we wrap production and my duties as AD are essentially over. 

Its going to be a challenge, but in the end I think sound design will really help set Doll House over the edge.

Lord of the Rings

So I've never seen a Lord of the Rings movie before. I don't know, I just never really had an interest in them. I've heard they were good movies, I just never really felt like sitting through 12 hours of movies that I didn't have much of an interest in. I was going to continue living like this, until one of my roommates forced to watch them, all of them, extended editions to boot. So I figured now's as good a time as any, so I decided to sit down with a few people to watch it for the first time.

For a movie that came out in 2001, I think the film held up really well. With a good cast, believable writing and solid special effect for the time, I was pretty impressed with the first movie, Fellowship of the Rings. At some points you could definitely tell from the special effects and cgi that this wasn't a movie released within the past 5 years, but with that being said, they still got the job done and didn't take me out of the experience, plus for the time they must have looked incredible.

In addition to that, at some points the cinematography was really well done. There were a lot of sweeping shots, over head shots, and scenes with a lot going on within them, and all of it was put together really well. There were even subtle touches like certain characters having a glow around them.

Going into this movie, I really didn't think I was going to enjoy it all that much. And to be honest, it isn't toping any best of lists for me. I know that last line is borderline blasphemous in the eyes of some, but with all that being said, it was still a real solid movie and I enjoyed my time watching it. I guess there was a reason that it was included on the American Film Institute's revised 100 Greatest Movies of All Time list as one of the few films from the 21st century.

One Group to Rule them All

I recently returned to the U.S. after studying abroad at the Ithaca College London Center last spring. It was an amazing experience, but I'm glad to be back in Ithaca for an entire year. I'm especially excited to be taking production classes again.

It really has been a while. Usually I try to balance my schedule with half of my classes in Park, and half out of Park. However, there are no production classes offered in London so I can't help but feel a little behind. This summer I interned for the Elvis Duran and the Morning Show and it was awesome, but I wasn't doing video production there either.

Woah. What a crazy flashback.

Arturo said we could choose our own groups or work in one huge group and I immediately had a flash back to when I took Fiction Field I last fall.

~It was a dark and stormy night~

Kidding. It was probably 2:00 in the afternoon and there were no windows in the classroom so I have no idea what the weather was like. Anyway, for our final project (we only did two projects total) we divided ourselves into three groups. At first, each group was super motivated. But then came The Dark Days.

#tbt to when we pulled our hair out. <3

Okay. I know that I'm being dramatic, but the fact of the matter is, even a short film (one that is ten minutes or less) requires a ton of hard work. When people started feeling the pressure and stress that comes along with a huge project, they would argue, freak out, and soon we were all on the verge of pulling out our own hair as well as every other group member's hair.

It was extremely difficult and when we eventually screened our projects in class, I didn't feel like it was my best work. I had this feeling of "well this is the best we could do given the circumstances." I don't want to have that feeling. That feeling is the worst feeling.

Arturo said we could work in one huge group. I don't know if it's this one experience or just a feeling in my gut, but something is telling me that one group might be the best option for all of us.

Yes, actually.

Pre-production, production, and post-production groups could work together and independently, potentially eliminating the need for all of us to meet at the same time. There would also be no need to run around Park, trying to fill crew positions if everyone has a specific job. For those of you in my class, please just consider it for a day. You know, let it marinate in your brain.

Obviously, this will take one great idea that everyone can get behind and coming up with said idea might be the hardest part of all. Yet I have confidence that if we combine our skills, we can make something truly spectacular.


Perhaps, as Arturo said, something that can be submitted to festivals.

Gone Girl, David Fincher, and How to Make a Decent Adaptation

Before I get into things in-depth, let's just clear the air here: Gone Girl is pretty fucked up. The book, the film, the whole damn premise of the story is some of the darkest, most messed up stuff I've ever heard. I'll do my best not to spoil anything for people who haven't seen/read it yet, but let's be honest, I probably will at some point. Just a heads up.

(Side note for anyone who has seen the film, I just saw that the movie was rated R for - among other things (cough cough Ben Affleck's penis) - a scene of bloody violence. A scene. Just one. I think we can all assume what it was.)

Touching less on the technical aspects of David Fincher  - Emily already beat me to that - I'd like to focus more on how he makes, as the Economist called it, a "perfect adaptation." Never one to shy away from adapting books, (3 of his last 4 feature films were based on short stories or novels; The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, and now Gone Girl) Fincher always seems to find a way to circumvent the pre-established audience and market for a certain book and create something that is uniquely his. The question I'm interested in answering is: how does a director give a film his/her own personal flourish while simultaneously staying true to the source material?

Fincher, probably talking about how creepy his films are.

There's been plenty of bad book adaptations. More bad than good, actually. The handful of really good ones - Lord of the Rings, Blade Runner, No Country for Old Men, to name a few - all have the same basic thing in common: they capture the essence of the source material, along with the plot. In one of the more informative articles I think I've ever found on the A.V. club, one of the contributing writers, Scott Tobias, brings up a really interesting point about adaptations. When talking about Gary Ross' film adaptation of the Hunger Games, he says that "Films content with merely illustrating books are more concerned with problem solving and translation than artistic expression." This is something I'd never considered before. A literal, direct-from-the-book adaptation is almost no fun at all: if you're going to just film everything right from the page, there's a sense of "well hey, what was the point?" If the audience already knows everything, it's basically just a rehashing of the book, just with less.

It's pretty safe to say that Fincher gets this. The very first thing he did right was to hire the author of Gone Girl, Gillian Flynn, to also pen the screenplay (her first). This assured not only that the story would be close to that of the novel - pleasing the already established fan base - but that the general tone (cold, dark) would be the same as well. Films are much less intimate than novels by nature. In many books - Gone Girl included - we can literally hear inside the characters heads. One of the many goals for adaptations is to find a believable substitute for these internal voices, and to show character's emotions and thoughts in a much more visual manner. Gone Girl succeeds at this on every level.

While it stuck surprisingly close to the book (Flynn only cut out a few minor, expendable characters and events to cut down on the already lengthy 2.5 hour runtime) I never found myself knowing what would happen next. Apart from the acting (a pretty great Ben Affleck and a really great Rosamund Pike) and the score (the always amazing dynamic duo of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross gave the film a super weird, super dark tone throughout) I thought the film did a particularly nice job of depicting the various news shows breaking the story about Amy going missing. The 24 hour news cycle was a big part of Flynn's book, but it was only elevated here; the whole thing worked better on a more visual level.

Apart from a few underdeveloped areas (Amy's "cool girl" monologue - one of the best parts of the book - was more or less glossed over) I thought Fincher did an amazing job of taking a very dark, very complex subject matter and turning it into something that was not only visually stimulating but also really fucking creepy. The atmosphere, tone, and message all matched that of the book, all while giving me a whole new perspective on the story as a whole.

Movies: to Score or not to Score?

The simple fact that films typically have a musical score always seems to slip right by me when I'm actually making any kind of short film or TV show myself. It's just not something that I would typically think about. Good audio? Sure. Sound effects? Yeah, why not. But never a score. This lead me to thinking, hey, who says that films need to have any kind of music or instrumentality at all? That, in turn, lead me to google, which lead me to some interesting websites, which lead me here, to this blog post.

As behind-the-scenes as they typically are, we all know the names of a few movie composers: Hans Zimmer (please click that link for your own sake), Danny Elfman, and of course, the legendary John Williams. Their scores don't just add noise to all of their respective films: they add feeling, and set a tone for any given scene or even the movie as a whole  If you need an example for a really amazing score that is spot on in terms of creating an entire atmosphere for a film, look no further Howard Shore and the Lord of the Rings trilogy. It doesn't just add tension or give scenes a certain flavor: it's music that like, I could actually see hobbits playing out on their front porches. Or whatever hobbit holes have instead of porches. Dirt clods? I don't know. 

 But what I'm curious about is if some films rely too heavily on composers and a musical score in order to fix what would otherwise be a weak script. Recently, there was a video going around the internet called "Star Wars without Williams." While it was meant to be funny, it also pointed out something pretty important: this throne room scene is super awkward without music. What was once a jovial and triumphant scene is now just echoey and weird. Don't get me wrong, I like Star Wars as much as the next guy or gal, but Audio (and script) - wise, Lucas kind of dropped the ball here. 

On the opposite side of things, however, is it possible to have a good film without any scoring at all? Sure. Just check out No Country for Old Men, The Birds, and 90% of Castaway. The key to scoring films, as I'm slowly but surely finding out, is to balance a good script with subtle yet powerful music. Emphasize certain emotions or themes that you want to have emphasized, while at the same time making sure that your film could still be successful without the music shoving those emotions down your throat. If you're looking for some more interesting info on how composers mess with our emotions, you check out a BBC article on that very topic right here.

Look at it from this Perspective

Although the phrase "forced perspective" sounds intimidating, chances are you've already utilized it in your photography. If not, you've definitely seen it used before.

These two pictures use forced perspective in it's most basic form. One subject stands very close to the camera, while the other rests much farther back. This creates the illusion that the subject in the foreground is much larger than the background subject. This exaggerated size is something we love to play with (especially around historic sites).

Some examples of forced perspective in photography:

Still, forced perspective is not confined to photography. I stumbled across this walk through while researching. A small, independent group of filmmakers wanted to create a scene that involved a man discovering a huge block of ice. Unfortunately, there was no room in the budget to create a 6' by 6' block of ice. Not only that, but the weight of said block would be completely impractical; especially since they wanted to load it into a truck. 

So what did they do? Just a little forced perspective magic. First, they got a block of ice. However, instead of the 6' by 6' dimensions they were originally pulling for, the filmmakers settled on a 7" by 7" ice cube. 

Here's the little guy in front of the green screen: 

 And here it is on set:

Then, using the minds of master illusionists, the filmmakers came up with a floor plan that would make the ice block look much larger than reality. Apparently, 216 feet was the magic number.

The floor plan:

Here's a still of the achieved look:

I'll embed the video here but I'm warning you now: it looks low budget. It's not actually very good. But, they did achieve the look they were going for through the use of forced perspective. 

Here it is:

Although primarily used in low budget movies where CGI and other special effects are unavailable, big blockbusters too have been known to incorporate the use of good "old-fashioned" forced perspective. I use the word "old fashioned" very loosely. Nowadays, although it's done physically, moving cameras have caused things to get a little more complicated. 

Take for instance this example from The Lord of the Rings:

So although the rigs are getting more and more complicated, this example proves that CGI doesn't have to be the answer. What I like about the moving rig method for moving camera shots is that although the machinery is semi-involved, the idea of forced perspective remains a simple constant.

Man at Arms

So recently I have stumbled upon yet another very interesting Youtube series. The series is Man at Arms. Man at Arms is a new web series which consist of mini documentary type episodes on the subject of blacksmithing. Each episode a different weapon is forged from scratch. All the weapons that are made are from either popular movies or video games. For example wolverine's claws from X-men were made, as well as weapons from Gamer of Thrones and Lord of the Rings. Now I know this sounds very nerdy, and it is, but I strongly encourage you to at least watch one of these videos for these two reasons. The first being that the art of blacksmithing is quite an amazing thing and watching the whole process happen in front of your eyes is pretty cool. The end product is a piece of art. Its hard to believe how far those ugly pieces of metal shown in the beginning of each episode the episode have a beautiful sheen to them at the end. The second reason is that the cinematography for this series is impeccable. Between the lighting and the amazing editing the videos are very aesthetically pleasing. I assume this is shot with a DSLR due to the fact that the quality is very high but filming in a small and crowded place like a workshop  would be difficult to do with anything other then a small versatile DSLR. I could be wrong about this. One really cool techniques used is attaching a camera to the end of each piece of metal being forge. At the end of each episode there is a time-lapse consisting of shots from a camera attached to the product and it gives a really cool perspective to look at the blacksmithing process from. 

 

The video I chose to share with you a weapon from the movie Kick Ass is made. Its really cool to see how much work is put into each weapon and thats just one aspect of making a movie. Tony Swatton is the blacksmith who makes the weapons in each video. He has been able to make a living off of his trade by make prop weapons and armor for over 200 feature films. To think about how many props a movie like Lord of the Rings needs is mind boggling, to think about making all of those props is crazy. This series really allows you to see a different side of the film industry. It is similar to the conversations we have been having in class about extras being in the right place at the right time, when all of the extras have weapons and armor things get a little more chaotic.

Please take a look at least one of these videos, I'm almost positive you will enjoy.  

The Hobbit in 3D

The Hobbit, produced by Peter Jackson, is a one of the most highly anticipated 3D films yet. Using a total of 48 RED cameras, mounted on special rigs, The Hobbit will be shot in 5k resolution (over 6 times 1080p) at 48 frames per second. This allows for an incredibly sharp image and a very wide depth in the scene. Since the lenses are so large on the RED cameras, they have to use mirrors and have one camera bounce off of it in order to shoot in 3D. The rigs allow the crew to add depth to all access of the movie, they shot in the same style as they would a 2D movie, with dollies and handheld, getting the perfect shot. They allow the audience to feel part of the scene by using a unique set.

The resolution changes the way they create the characters as well, since it is so sharp and intense, they have to recreate a natural skin color on top of the characters skin, adding tones of red. They have to be incredibly careful with the colors as well. This movie seems unique because the 3D planning was done all the way through. Even in pre-production stages, the concept art and designs were all done in 3D. Peter Jackson is a big fan of 3D, even keeping 3D pictures from all of the past Lord of the Rings movies, "the reality is, it's not that difficult to shoot in 3D. I love it when a film draws you in and you become part of the experience, and 3D helps immerse you in that film".

The Secrets of the Hobbit 3D

We all know the Lord of the Rings and the genius behind the movie empire, Peter Jackson. What we don't always know is the genius inside of Jackson and on the set. However, now we are able to take a sneak preview into this wonderful world of 3D that will be the Hobbit. This should be released sometime in December 2012

On the Hobbit Blog, Peter Jackson's latest post takes viewers on a tour of the set and of how they are shooting the newest edition of this trilogy. He takes us on specific tours of sets cameras, equipment, and many other things.

The first half consists of the obstacle they found shooting the intense action scenes and elaborate CGI scenes of this movie. He explains that the problem with shooting 3D is that you need two cameras. This is because in order achieve the 3D feel that audiences crave, you need to replicate the view of the human eyes and interocular distance between them. This allows for the feeling of being right in the movie. They explain how because of the large size of the lenses they use, it is difficult to get the two cameras to shoot close enough together where the images overlap. So to my surprise, they actually shot one camera straight on and the other camera from above and bounced it off a mirror so that the interocular distance was perfect and the 3D effect was perfect.

Another amazing aspect of this film is the top of the line equipment they are using. Before watching this video I hadn't heard of Red Cameras. I think this is because I have never seen one and they range in price from $10,000-$40,000 a piece. This movie has 48 of them in use everyday!!!!!!!!!! Just think if we had the budget they do and the equipment. I think I speak for everyone to say we would be in heaven. All that aside, whats also amazing is that the resolution that normal HD movies that aren't 3D, are shot in is usually 1080p. But since this is 3D they are shooting in 5k resoulution!!!!! Now thats just unheard of and I almost couldn't believe it. But remember they are using 2 top of line cameras for every shot. This footage is going to be insane to see. They are also shooting with 48 frames per second which is also going to add to the 3D world that this movie will create. The human eye sees in 60 frames per second, so the fact that this movie is so close, this will allow for the clearest, most amazing image on the screen.

Click Here to see video. Sorry couldn't find the embed version.

I cannot wait to see this movie, not because I am a fan of Lord of the Rings, but solely based on the fact that this is going to be one of the greatest 3D viewing experiences much like that of Avatar.

The Lord of the Rings Extended Version

Recently I have undertaken a huge project... to watch the extended version of the The Lord of the Rings Trilogy. Combined the three movies take 12 hours to watch. I have made it through the first two but have not gotten a chance to see the last one yet. So far the additions have been great. It is interesting to see what the final cuts were. Most of the additions in the first two movies have to do with Merry and Pippen, or are comical. The added parts add so much more to the movie and I thoroughly. There are many different clips from all the movies

The Fellowship of the Rings Extended Scenes Part 1

The Fellowship of the Rings Extended Scenes Part 2

The Two Towers Extended Scenes

These are just a few of the many scenes that were added to the extended edition.