Pre-Production:
Paperwork and Analysis – Discussion of 10 Films
The first part of the Unit dictated us to, based on our artistic disposition, select 10 films which we love and enjoy, thereafter detailing them in relation to their productive information and particular artistic and cinematic specifications, such as their release date, critical reception, genre, cast/crew as well as a number of other considerations. This part of the brief and unit was relatively simple as where the other pre-productive task of Mise-en-Scene analysis requires the assembly of artistic theory from a wide range of sources and thereafter the largely subjective application of such theory to a specific, cinematic example and thus an explanation of their specific correlation, in this task, there is an objectivity and factual rigidity to the simplistic information as laid out plainly throughout the linked source, with little explanation required in relation to essentially any of the covered productive details. This simplicity allowed the quick assembly of objective information from usually only one simple and reliable source, in this case, often IMBD, the largest online repository of cinematic information accessible. From the various pages and specific informational sections of the website in relation to my selected films, I was able to attain a broad and precise knowledge of everything detailed in the brief.
The only strain in this was the continual, unenjoyable laboriousness of formatting the information, with the continuous reference to and replication of the information from the aforementioned sources to my own document whilst still obeying referencing and sourcing guidelines often prompting a level of time-consumption that, for a task so simple, would ordinarily not be necessary. Nevertheless, this process was simple and replicable across all the films.
The only area wherein there may have been any descriptiveness and specificity in relation to this first task was in the discussion of the usually singularly-focused “Trivia” section of my document, wherein I briefly discussed general, interesting, productive and directorial information relating usually to one specific topic. In the trivial discussion of Apocalypse Now (1979) for example, I discussed the productive difficulties faced by Francis Ford Coppola and the overall production on set, a majorly famous topic of discussion regarding the beloved and iconic film. In this vein, I discussed subjects such as the prolific drug consumption of almost all of the cast and crew whilst filming in Southeast Asia, the lack of preparation by Marlon Brando in playing the main antagonist and also the various scheduling difficulties impelled by medical, geographical and various other considerations.
This paradigm was similarly applied with all of the covered films, with the trivia sections following consistent focuses and themes in relation to their specific productions, the Leon section for example focusing on the sexually controversial original script, the Se7en section on the other hand focusing on the darkness of the overall film and the associated productive difficulties and intricacies associated with this apparent darkness. One area where I could have improved is in the greater coverage of the critical reception of the 10 films listed, as though I do list and make commentary on the awards received by any of the various films, it may have been possible to provide the additional insight of contemporary and modern/reflective film reviews and also how it was received artistically as well as in the view of the more general public, rather than the “Hollywood” and artistic elite.
Paperwork and Analysis – 5 Mise-En-Scene Analyses
Secondly in the pre-productive processes was the analysis and commentary of 5, personally-selected film stills for their Mise-en-Scene from throughout cinematic history. The brief dictated that in our analysis, we were to use cinematographic, symbolic and semiotic language to infer from the selected still atmosphere, emotion, subtextual narratives as well as a number of other cinematic considerations. These visual languages as expressed in the commentary as shown in the analyses were governed by the five major Mise-en-Scene considerations:
- Location/Setting
- Props/Physical Properties of the Scene
- Action/Movement of Objects or People in Frame
- Costume
- Lighting
These individual factors can and have been, in many important films throughout cinematic history, major considerations in defining the emotion, thematic paradigm and overall atmosphere of many scenes and complete movies. In the first discussed still and film, The Godfather Part 2, a pivotal use of Mise-en-Scene can be found in the use of props, where infamous character Fredo Corleone, disappointing elder brother of Michael Corleone, tries but fails pitifully to sit up in a springed/reclining chair, a poignant personification of the relationship dynamic between the two men, with Fredo possessing both an apparent, physical incapacity to “stand up” to Michael and also an emotional inability to stand up to his more powerful, dominant, intelligent and impressive brother, who he feels and, in truth, is inferior to. This is but one example of how Mise-en-Scene is used to imply emotional and atmospheric dynamics and is, both in the same category, and in the other Mise-en-Scene considerations, expressed similarly throughout all the other films.
In completing this task, it was first important to find scenes which I thought intriguing and rich enough in their Mise-en-Scene to analyse. As I had re-watched it only a few days earlier, I decided upon analysing for my first still The Godfather Part 2, specifically the scene wherein Michael and Fredo discuss in their Lake Tahoe estate Fredo’s betrayal of Michael by giving information to his enemies. The first process necessary in the analysis of this scene was to understand the scene in a wider scope, which warranted the re-watching of the film. This allowed me to better interpret some of the artistic and creative decisions taken in relation to their specific narrative contexts. This was used throughout the analysis of all of the five films and was helpful in understanding the context of much of the creative and artistic decisions. For example, in the analysis of a film still taken from Bronson, it was necessary for me to correlate, for proof of a theory wherein I state that Bronson’s primary motivation is fame and notoriety, a quote from Bronson’s opening monologue in which he states “All my life I wanted to be famous.” Knowing the context of Bronson’s desire for fame as admitted within the first scene therein gives my theory surrounding the Mise-en-Scene in the chosen still greater legitimacy and proves an accuracy in my assertion of notoriety and fame as Bronson’s main motivation in life.
Next was the actual analytical processes with which I approached the various film stills. For most of the shots, this was a fairly simple process as the parameters, as dictated within the 5 main Mise-en-Scene considerations are quite narrow in their specific remits and therefore do not take too long to analyse. First, in relation to location, it was first important to note the specific details of the actual setting and any cultural or semiotic connotations which they hold. This was especially apparent in the Bronson film still, wherein he, hallucinating, imagines himself giving a sing and dance routine on a theatre stage to an adoring crowd. The use of a theatre within this scene is, as is stated by the director of the film, meant to express the titular characters performativity and want for adoration, the theatre stage being known symbolically and literally for its performative nature and usage as a tool to attain adoration and appreciation from a crowd. Furthermore, the cultural subtext of the Armitage Household and the overall setting as seen in the Get Out film still is similarly important symbolically in foreshadowing the main characters fatal and malicious intents and also in implying, in its plantation-like appearance, the contemporary and historical difficulties of American race relations, a prevalent theme throughout the film.
Next, in terms of prop usage, it was similarly important to note the specific socio-political, emotive and narrative implications of the various objects used throughout the various stills. This, unlike the previous consideration, was somewhat more difficult as though some of the prop usages throughout the films have distinctly political, cultural and social connotations, such as the use of the framed picture of Chris Washington in Get Out to reflect a slave auction, most of the props as shown throughout the analytical document are mostly reliant on inter-cinematic/narrative connections to give them meaning and emotive or atmospheric significance. This is difficult as where Get Out’s use of slave-like imagery is well-researched and can be exemplified through a wealth of usable sources, online or otherwise, there is ordinarily little reliable information on props which are explicitly related to specific, cinematic narratives. This was especially difficult in the analysis of Breaking Bad’s “Pink Teddy Bear”, as though there is the well-researched and asserted correlation of the prop as foreshadowing of a characters death seasons later, the implications of the bear as a reflection of the moral struggle and psychological dichotomy of Walter White are sparse and therefore took a long time to source, with eventual success. On the other hand, The Godfather Part 2’s usage of reclining chairs to imply emotive power-dynamics between Michael and Fredo, due to the films huge success, is somewhat easier as there is a wealth of critical interpretations of the film which reference the made point, as well as potential journalistic citations available for epistemological support.
Action or movement in frame was also somewhat difficult to discuss and make reference to as acting and specific movement can have a variety of largely ambiguous interpretations and, in the case of many of the less-well known of my selected films, there was again little material from which I could pull expertly-analysed and more objective, analytical material. In reference to action however, it wasn’t as difficult as the previous consideration as general cinematography, which comes under this under category is considerably easier to analyse and apply theory to examples. In the case of Get Out for example, I was able to correlate, with support from citations, the cinematographic intentionality of filming the character Dean Armitage in a low-angle, mid-shot, two major staples of the cinematographic ethos, which in this context are used to emphasise Armitage’s gesticulations as well as to make him appear larger and more powerful within the context of the scene, a paradigm similarly used in the American History X still in relation to Derek Vinyard. In relation to actual action and movement however, there were some examples which, due to a sufficiency of factually-supportive material as well as due to the theoretical accuracy and support of my various theories were somewhat easier to analyse and make commentary on. The action and movement of the Bronson still as shown in the document for example was, due to sourced/referenced support and individual analysis easily shown to be intentional in the representation of Bronson’s emotional and mental state, with his dancing and wild, erratic and exaggerated gesticulations being, in a similar sense to the previously discussed factor of the Bronson still’s setting, a reflection of his huge performativity, as well as his desire for fame, which is expressed through the lyrics to which he dances, the song being titled “When I’m A Rock and Roll Star.”
Costume, of all the considerations, was surprisingly easy to analyse, despite the ambiguity of some scenes in relation to this factor, specifically The Godfather Part 2, which is largely devoid of any meaning in association to its costume choices. Conversely however, the costumes of Get Out, Bronson and American History X are surprisingly rich in meaning and, in all mentioned examples, subtly express details about the specific atmosphere or subtextual ideals of the film. In the case of Bronson for example, the use of face paint is again used to express Bronson’s desire for fame as well as his disturbed mental state, with the specific marking of the symbol used on his face reflecting that of David Bowie’s famous character Aladdin Sane, a character who, like Bronson, famously desires fame and recognition, albeit to a different purpose. Furthermore, the use of Aladdin Sane’s make-up is a subtle hint as to Bronson’s mental instability, with Aladdin Sane’s name itself being an intentional pun, with the name sounding incredibly like “A Lad Insane”, a fitting descriptor to Bronson, who is in essence, a lad (man) who is insane. American History X also has well-sourced cinematic and emotional underpinnings which are expressed through clothing choices, specifically, as Edward Norton (Who plays the main character) describes his near-nakedness in the film, to show the audience Derek’s Vinyard anger and insecurity, with Vinyard’s chiselled and powerful figure, littered with Nazi tattoos and symbolism (expressing the focus and guise of his anger) showing his physical power and also his anger, misdirected at racial minorities and non-white people.
Lastly, in relation to lighting, this again was not a distinctly difficult, analytical process and, because of the comparative importance and cinematic prevalence of lighting in defining the mood of the scene relative to the other considerations, there was a greater wealth of information, online and otherwise, usable in defining and theorising many of the mentioned examples. For example, in the case of the Breaking Bad and American History X stills, I used cited multiple sources in defining the reasoning for monochrome/black and white lighting, with both examples using the effect to imply specific dynamics about the chronology of the film, with black and white typically being used in cinema to imply a scene takes place in the past or is historical in nature, a paradigm reflecting both of the mentioned stills, which are both technically flashbacks to the past. Similarly, I was able to again correlate an aspect of Mise-en-Scene in Bronson to the titular characters personal motivation, that being fame and attention. This is implied in the lighting by the fact that Bronson, throughout his theatre “Performance” occupies the stage spotlight, both implying his importance and individual performativity as well as implying, in the etymology of the term “Spotlight” that Bronson desires public attention and the literal and metaphorical spotlight of popular public attention. This was amongst the easiest of the Mise-en-Scene considerations to analyse due to its importance within the filmmaking ethos and took little time to describe all of the various stills as shown in the original document.
The last, most plentiful and difficult consideration of this process altogether was in describing the feasibility of replication for any of these various stills and prompted the further consideration of a number of distinct features which may affect the replicability of any of the various shots as shown in the document. Such considerable factors are the financial cost of replicating the Mise-en-Scene of any shot, the weather and lighting considerations of replicating primarily American-based productions in a wintery, English climate, the rareness and difficulty of purchase of a number of props and costumes shown and lastly, replicating the lighting and studio/setting layouts of usually high-budget, American film productions, amongst a number of other considerable quagmires and productive difficulties. These various considerations were considered throughout the document in relation to the stills and, where some of the Mise-en-Scene had an appropriate level of replicability, many of the films were inhibited by their incapacity to meet the needed or recommended level of replicability due to these considerations. In terms of finance and productive cost for example, it was noted in the consideration of the replication of The Godfather Part 2 still that the props, specifically plants, chairs and other allotted items were unfortunately purchasable only at an inordinate and strenuous level of finance expenditure, specifically £80 or above, an outlying sum comparative to most, typical college projects. In terms of replicating the weather and exterior settings of the shot, it was determined both in the case of The Godfather Part 2 and American History X that the available climate of Britain in November was unsuitable for both shots, as The Godfather 2’s foggy and snowy weather in not imitable in the contemporary weather conditions, which were too dark and calm; American History X on the other hand was on the surface replicable in terms of its dark and clear weather however it was assumed, due to the nakedness of the character in the shot that no actor would be willing or able to, for the necessarily, long production time, be able to handle the rigor of the extremely, cold weather which as noted in a weather report of the scheduled and available filming dates to be below 5 degrees Celsius at its warmest, dropping at certain times in the nights to sub-zero weather considerations.
Next, in terms of the procurement of suitable and visually-correspondent costumes, the complex clothing of Bronson, which utilises expensive formalwear and complex face-painting and make-up, was deemed to be too expensive and complex to faithfully replicate in my own imitations. Furthermore, the scarcity of clothing as seen in the American History X still was oppositely considered a problem as not only was this nakedness difficult due to the coldness that the selected actor would experience, but the Nazi symbolism of Derek Vinyard’s tattoos would likely inhibit the willingness of any actor to participate in the representation of such a hugely controversial character.
Lastly and most difficultly was the replication of high-budget and complex lighting and setting layouts, such as seen in American History X, which utilises high-power lighting from behind the camera to illuminate the shown character, a difficult feat to achieve in our production due to the incapacity to attain high-power lighting in the needed location. Similarly and as covered in the original document, the attainment of a location which could properly reflect the Lake Tahoe residence of the Corleone Family in The Godfather Part 2 was an extremely difficult aspect of the Mise-en-Scene to imitate as there are, within my immediate area, essentially no locations at which this setting, which shows a small room adjacent to a lakehouse, dock and large-sized body of water. Furthermore, there is again the quagmire of weather within the still that cannot without huge and difficult, productive and post-productive manipulation faithfully be imitated within our immediate area and within the allotted filming dates and overall schedule. The Bronson still too was considered difficult to imitate as though there were accessible locations at which the theatre setup and aesthetic could be reflected in our own production, the financial expenditure of such a set-up would again be problematic, with theatre spaces and scheduling likely being without the relatively small, productive budget available to me individually.
Idea Generation and Test Shoots
After the successful completion of the Mise-en-Scene analysis came idea generation and consideration of my own still. In considering my own still, I had to consider the richness of meaning and cinematic value apparent in the Mise-en-Scene of any given still as well as the general replicability of the shot I was to choose. To this end, I wanted to select a still which was simple and minimalistic in its Mise-en-Scene but also, in its minimal artistic and creative choices meaningful and rich in cinematographic and cinematic value. To this end, I decided initially to replicate an opening scene from the film American History X, which follows the story of former neo-Nazi Derek Vinyard in trying to dissuade his brother Danny from being lead down the same dark path as him.
The shot, which is a mid-angled, close-up of Danny (Edward Furlong) placing an American flag-adorned toothpick in his mouth, despite its minimal usage of complex Mise-en-Scene is quite insightful into how we as the audience are supposed to perceive Danny and also in Danny’s present motivations. The use of a mid-angle is, in cinematic terms, used to put us at eye-level and equal footing with Danny as a character and, by allowing us greater visual accessibility into his expression and eyes, allow us as an audience greater insight into his expression and thus his emotion at any given moment throughout the scene. This is supported by the filming of Danny’s face in a close-up, which cinematographically is significant of a directorial intent to show, beyond all other considerations, the emotion and feeling of a character in their expression, a logical decision given the emotionality of the dialogue, with Danny jadedly and insecurely discussing his unwillingness to write about his previously incarcerated brother, an emotionally significant and difficult part of the Vinyard family’s life. Furthermore, it is arguable that the use of the toothpick to clean Danny’s teeth, which is an ordinarily unclean and dirty process with a symbol of national and patriotic pride in the American flag reflects the ideological opposition of Danny and his Nazi ideology to the American government and people, which advocates, in its amended constitution, racial, cultural and ethnic egalitarianism, to which Danny in his white nationalism and supremacy is diametrically opposed. Further significant of this racist ideology is found in Danny’s make-up and hair, specifically his absence of it and the racist, white-power connotations associative to this costume decision.
I thought initially that this shot, due to the simple nature of its cinematography, location, lighting and props would be easily replicable, with the only strenuous feature being the replication of Danny’s skinhead for which I established the plan of the usage of a bald cap in imitating the absence of hair. To prove the replicability of the shot in terms of action and lighting, I tested for proof of concept the shot in my house, utilising natural lighting, reflective acting/movement and approptriate stand-ins for actual props scheduled for later acquisition, the results of which are shown in the best shot below:
Alongside this test shoot, I took pictures of the setup I was using to compare against the actual original piece, specifically the lighting source, which as in the original, is produced through a natural, exterior lighting source through blinds.
Alongside this, I also produced images showing the specific features of the overall setup and lighting, again in correlation to their practicality and reflectivness of the original production and still and its Mise-en-Scene.
Production and Shooting:
First Shoot and Problem-Solving
The first shoot seemed at first to be replicable and feasible within the allotted time-frame as schedule, however as I progressed throughout the course of the project, testing post-productive processes like colour-grading and lighting manipulation for their suitability, I learnt of the unfortunate unfeasibility and difficulty of my planned shot, not due to cinematographic or productive concerns, but due ultimately to the insufficiency of high-quality bald caps for delivery to me within the allotted time frame and quick enough for me to be able to properly apply and thereafter shoot my film still replication. I quickly established potential contingencies in the edification of this quagmire, such as tying my hair back sufficiently far and tight enough so as to reflect a low-cut fade or near-skinhead, although this was unsuccessful. I also tested wig caps and a number of other products but was nonetheless unsuccessful in my attempts. I considered briefly cutting my hair so as to reflect the character but was ultimately dissuaded from such action.
To problem solve and find a potential boon to this issue, I decided to consider alternative shots and film stills for replication, a process wherein, with my course tutors approval, I decided to select a still from Fight Club (1999), my friend Zoubair playing Edward Norton in the below still.
I decided upon this shot because of the reflectiveness of the office atmosphere as shown in this still to that of the college wherein I study, specifically in the fluorescent lighting setup of the ceiling lights and also in the general correspondence of the location in terms of ceiling pattern and aesthetic to my available location. Furthermore, I liked this shot for its cinematographic focus on Norton’s hand shaking, expressing the lack of control Nortons character, who has multiple personality disorder and who is insane feels against his psychopathic alter-ego Tyler Durden. This significance of Mise-en-Scene in foreshadowing the eventual reveal of the film and also in representing a major, hidden characteristic dynamic/dichotomy.
Establishing this as my plan, I then set about my second test shoot, showing the visual correspondence of the office space in its ceiling and lighting features to my college space.
Additionally, as shown in the original test shoot, I tested the replicability of action and movement of my shot by having my selected actor pose similarly, showing proof of concept and testing the general feasibility of the shot for eventual and complete replication.
Upon having done this, I then reviewed the test shoot and concluded that the shot, due to its greenish/bluish colour required colour-grading in post-production as well as the addition of a high-powered light to the left of my actor to better reflect the powerful fluorescence of the lighting on the left side of Norton’s face in the original shot, adjustments I later made, using photographic equipment borrowed from my college to better reflect this imagery and lighting specification. I also raised the camera position to better frame my actors head in closeness to the colleges ceiling light as in the original and also to better capture the surrounding setting.
Following these guidelines, I produced this, capturing my actors visage in alignment with the light, utilising the costume of duct-tape and a white shirt in the style of Norton’s characters formalwear.
I decided during the shoot to adjust the aperture and ISO so as to reflect the darkness and also the graininess of the original shot, simultaneously focusing the camera on my actor’s hand, reflecting the blurring of the actors face as in the original film still. This shot, in terms of framing I thought was largely correspondent of the original still, with the actors head aligning with the above lighting and the arm and physical movement reflecting that of the original actors. Furthermore, the repositioning in terms of height and location of the camera allowed for a greater reflectivity in my replicated shot in relation to the original still. Despite this, I do believe that there were areas wherein the Mise-en-Scene and other cinematic considerations could’ve been improved. In the lighting for example, though I did procure a high-power, fluorescently-toned light to shine upon the left side of my actors face, I was unfortunately unable to procure a sufficiently powerful light to appear on and reflect the small flecks of fluorescent light on my actors lower right side of his face as well as on his taped hand, although in the above shot I took, there is some small lighting effect on the taped hand which does reflect the original shot. Similarly, though I did focus the camera on my actors hand as it was in the film, I unfortunately did not create enough distance between my actors face and hand to allow for a sufficient amount of blurriness in my actors face, so were I do to this shot, it would’ve been pragmatic to further distance the actors hand from his face or alternatively, use a lens which better blurs the background. In the edification of this issue however, I planned, after asking my course tutor, to appropriately blur the image in post-production so as to better reflect the original aesthetic.
Lastly, it may also have been prudent to have stuck my actor’s hair up somewhat so as to better reflect the original actor’s visage, which though similar in general structure and hair in my actor, does have his forehead visible, unlike my chosen actor.
Post-Production:
Colour Adjustment
Having acquired an image that I believed reflective in its Mise-en-Scene, especially action, movement, positioning, costume and setting to that of the original, I then set about the editorial adjustment of the chosen image to a style and aesthetic correspondent of the original. To this end, it was necessary to manipulate the colour of the taken shot to reflect the bluish-greenish colour as seen in the original image, especially in the colour midtones, wherein I continually increased the light-bluishness and hard greens of the image whilst simultaneously adjusting the lighting settings as needed, so as to not let the added colours dilute or distort the perception of the original fluorescence, similarly turning down the opacity to allow the light to shine more powerfully through the colour adjustments.
It was also necessary to, where needed, adjust the shadow colouring, especially in influencing the green colouring of the image, which largely dominates the original still.
Nonetheless, despite the largely blue colouring of the image, I still believe the image too greatly favours a greenish colour where the original image appears to be somewhat of a duller, opaque blue. This could’ve been edified by the further adjustment of the midtones of the images colour to a bluer tone, or alternatively, the minute adjustment of the white balance in the productive process to a bluer tone, as I had previously done in Unit 1, a previous college project, where I adjusted the colour balance and aperture to heighten and make more intense the yellowish colouring of the rising, morning sun, as seen below.
Lighting Adjustment
The first part of lighting adjustment was the aforementioned and continual adjustment of the exposure and brightness alongside the colour modification, specifically to the maintenance of the fluorescent whiteness and intensity of the lighting in relation to colour, which when continually modified was resultant in an injurious effect to the fluorescence and power of the light. To this end, the original image, which in its ISO and aperture was already darkened to fit the intended aesthetic required, in the newly adjusted colour, artificial brightening beyond its original specifications to meet the required level of brightness and white-lit fluorescence as is seen in the original image.
The next part of lighting adjustment in the editorial stage was done so as to better reflect the visual style and specifications of the original image, specifically the unique adjustment of lighting in one area so as to mute the physical intricacies of the ceiling lighting feature, which in contrast to the original image, has a large, rectangular light emitter between the two edges of the actual feature itself, as seen below.
To edify and quell this distinction between the two, I applied the quick selection tool to this area of the lighting feature, singled the area out within the overall image and thereafter manually adjusted the lighting feature to a level of brightness that, both in fluorescence, exposure, contrast and appearance, reflected the original, with the squared interior of the lighting feature no longer being visible.
Due however to the relative inaccuracy and unreliability of the quick selection tool, I shortly after had to manually select some parts of the lighting feature with the polygonal lasso tool and colour them in (with the brush tool) with an opaque colour selected by the eyedropper on the rest of the lighting feature, thereby filling in and blending with the rest some of the spots wherein the squared interior of the middle feature of the ceiling light was still visible.
I similarly experimented with the quick selection, paint and lasso tool in trying to darken and mute the lighting on the left side of my actor’s shirt, which comparative to the original image, was considerably better illuminated. This was not doable however because the difference between the first and second layer in lighting specifications was resultant in a hard, noticeable border between the shirt and the rest of the differently-lit image, which was unfixable by specific colouring like in the light, mostly due to the variety of textures and colours we would have to sample with the eyedropper from. We eventually fixed this by lowering the overall lighting of the original and largest layer, thereby darkening the shirt.
Despite the significant adjustments we made, there are some places wherein we could have improved the modified lighting, such as adding an artificial light on the right side of the actor’s face, as is in the original.
Blurring, Cropping and General, Editorial Modification
To better match the original image wherein Edward Norton’s arm/forearm is less exposed and prominent in frame, we decided to very minutely adjust the bottom border of the image, so as to include somewhat less of my actors arm than was originally shown within the image. This process was simple comparative to the previous modifications and took only a few seconds to perform and of which there is very few ways whereby we could’ve bettered the quality of this specific edit.
In terms of blurring however, because, as is mentioned in production commentary, we did not increase the distance between the actors hand and face during shooting, we were unable to create a powerful enough blur effect on our actors face as in the original. This meant that we had to editorially adjust the image in Photoshop to match the original image in the blurring of the actors face. To do this, instead of singularly selecting his face with the quick selection tool or any other similar process, I, due to the fact that in the original image most of what’s in frame besides the hand is blurred, decided to apply a Gaussian Blur to the complete image, thereafter using the paint tool and layer mask to selectively un-blur the certain, small and specific parts of the image I did not want blurred like the rest.
As well as this, I, whilst using the brush tool, continually modified the hardness and sharpness of the brush as well as its general intensity to recreate the softer focus (comparative to the actor face) of the camera on the arm as in the original image, drawing a distinction between the level of blurring on the actors face and arm and thus creating greater correspondence between the two images.
In terms of blurring and general adjustment, one area wherein I could have improved was in masking the difference between the hard and soft focuses on the arm, as though to the naked eye it’s rather imperceptible because of the lighting and colour, there are small inconsistencies on the blurring of the arm. This could have been somewhat improved had I more consistently changed the sharpness and intensity of the un-blurring brush as I painted along the arm, creating a more realistic, unnoticeable and blended difference between the two blurs/visual choices. Furthermore, though again it’s rather unnoticeable, occasionally, around the actor’s hand, the lack of blur begins to seep over onto the wall that is in the background of the image, which should be blurred. A simple boon to this would’ve been un-blurring the image with a smaller-sized and more careful brush, zooming in on such areas so as not to allow the un-blurring tool to seep out to or go beyond its remit in un-blurring the hand.
Final and Completed Shot:
Upon the completion of the productive and post-productive stage wherein I changed from the original image as seen throughout this text the colour, lighting and a myriad of other technical and visual specifications, I submitted the below image and my finished piece for Unit 6:
Ben Ryan's Media Log 