Production

Production involves the actual shooting, which, on average, takes eight weeks. The director and actors rehearse on the set. The director chooses the camera angles to be used for each shot. The director of photography works with the “gaffer,” or chief lighting person, to select and position lighting instruments, which “grips” help to rig. The location sound mixer operates the audio recording machine and works with a boom operator. The boom operator positions the microphone close to the actors while being careful to keep the microphone out of the picture.

Usually, a shot is filmed more than once to improve on either a technical element or the performance. For each shot, the script supervisor notes the lens that is used, details of the camera and actor movement, time length of the take, and comments. He or she also indicates which takes will be printed at the film laboratory. Once an acceptable take is made, the crew sets up and rehearses the next shot. Even a simple scene might be covered in four different angles, allowing for creative choices in the editing process.

Green Screening

Independent Research 8

Ben Affleck's Argo and a roundup of the London Film Festival 2012, review - Telegraph

Think of the London Film Festival as a trampoline, strategically placed in the gap between Cannes, Venice and Toronto and the New Year’s award ceremony season. A prestigious slot at London has become a key stop on a film’s journey from the summer festivals to the Oscar and Bafta ballot papers, and The Artist, The King’s Speech and Slumdog Millionaire are just three recent winners to have benefitted from the Leicester Square Bounce.

The springiest of this year’s crop was surely Ben Affleck’s Argo (* * * *), a smart, sinewy thriller based on a stranger-than-fiction CIA hostage extraction during the 1979 diplomatic crisis in Iran.

Affleck’s last picture, a prime cut of Bostonian pulp called The Town, was a love letter to the broad-shouldered Hollywood thrillers of the 1970s, but Argo goes one better, channelling the hardboiled realism of Sidney Lumet and Martin Scorsese to mesmeric effect. It also boasts an irresistible comic twist: the hostages’ cover story, dreamed up by Affleck’s hirsute CIA agent, is that they are working on a non-existent science fiction film shooting in Tehran and the surrounding desert.

Back in Hollywood, an aging producer (Alan Arkin) and a monster make-up specialist (John Goodman) flesh out the cover story: “If I’m gonna make a fake movie, it’s gonna be a fake hit,” snorts Arkin, while flicking through potential scripts. Film festivals can be so focused on artistry that attendees often forget to have fun: Affleck’s meticulously paced, breath-catching thriller provides oodles of both.

Before the Oscars and Baftas there are the London Film Festival’s own awards to get through, including a prize for the best film screened in competition and the Grierson Award for best documentary.

The winners will be announced tomorrow, but my vote for the former would go to In the House (* * * *), François Ozon’s follow-up to his rib-nudging comedy Potiche. Fabrice Luchini’s high school teacher encourages a promising pupil to write about his friendship with a classmate’s family, and as his stories become increasingly juicy, they begin to alter the lives of all concerned. The result is something of a French Rear Window: it’s a fizzingly clever comic drama that turns us all into curtain twitchers.

In the documentary strand, the best I saw was the ferociously compelling West of Memphis (* * * *). This encyclopedic recap of the campaign to free three Arkansas men wrongly imprisoned for a gruesome triple murder crackles with righteous fury.

In the festival’s 56th year, aging and mortality emerged as the major theme, and received both tragic and comic treatments. Michael Haneke’s Amour and Paul Andrew Williams’s Song for Marion both dealt with elderly husbands caring for their wives, although the two films could hardly be more different. (Song for Marion screens tonight as one of the last evening galas.)

An early audience favourite was Quartet (* * *), a great big snuggly Labrador of a film set in a retirement home for classical musicians. Dustin Hoffman, making his directorial debut at 75, remains behind the camera, although with a grand old cast including Maggie Smith and Billy Connolly in front of it, there was little need for him to emerge.

But I was more amused and, yes, moved by Robot & Frank (* * * *), a deliciously inventive, surprisingly tender comedy about a retired cat burglar (Frank Langella) and his robotic home help. The best thing I saw was Abbas Kiarostami’s Like Someone in Love (* * * * *), a luxuriant, purring poem of intertwined lives with a mischievously curtailed third act. Kiarostami’s film bows out leaving us desperate for more. In its new streamlined, 12 day format, so did London.

Hotel Babylon clip

Race/Class

• Other races: audience empathises for the, as they are discriminated against
• White people are clearly the dominant race
• High angle: looks down upon immigrants shows authority/superior person
• Eye level: the audience sees eye to eye with the white people
• All of the immigrants are put into one very small room like they are insignificant

Sound

• Non-diegetic sound builds tension
• Music throughout the whole clio
• Diegetic: the shouting of the workers highlights their worry
• Knock on door then a long pause- creates tension for the audience
• Music is much slower at the end of the clip to portray emotion: sadness because a family member has been lost
• Music throughout reflects how you are supposed to be feeling

Mise-en-Scene

• Where the immigration workers lockers are situated looks very dirty/scruffy as if they arent looked after.
• Immigrants costumes contrast with those of a higher class
High class: suits, royal blues, very smart etc.
Immigrants: Ratty overalls
• Owner/manager of hotel is wearing a very smart/posh suit to emphasise her role
• Those working for the immigration patrol were wearing blazers to emphasise their higher role and higher class
• Police uniform: well known, authority, looked up too

Camera

• Panning shots
• Low angle when woman is on the floor for sympathy
• Pan up from hoover
• Tracking Shots
• Zoom into receptionist, we know the focus is on her

Editing

• Sharp, short cuts from each cut
•  Constant change of angle

Analysing Re-made clip

This is a video analysis of the re-made clip of waterloo road. I commented on the camera, editing, sound and mice en scene; it highlights some of the key factors of the clip and how it has enticed the audience to carry on watching.

Analysing Original Video

This is a video analysis of the original clip of waterloo road. I commented on the camera, editing, sound and mice en scene; it highlights some of the key factors of the clip and how it has enticed the audience to carry on watching.

Is the UK's Film Industry good or bad?

                     Is the UK's Film Industry good or bad?

Britain’s film industry has mixed opinions by certain people, some believe that Britain’s film industry is good at producing great movies and money; however some people believe it is not producing enough movies and the quality of the movies that are being produced are not to a high standard compared to the Hollywood movies for example.

                  Firstly, some people believe that Britain’s film industry is failing as there is strikingly low budgets, the production spend has gone down by 22% to £176m. In the film industry to produce great movies you have to spend a lot of money, compared to Hollywood movies that spent $258m on Spiderman 3. In the UK there were 46 films with budgets of more than £500,000 in production: 20 domestic features, nine inward investment films, and 17 co-productions – the lowest figure since the BFI began taking records in 2003. Another reason why people believe that the UK’s film industry is failing is simply on the amount of films that are being produced. The amount of films being produced in Britain has been the lowest since at least 2003; the number of films made was down from 87 in 2009 to 79 in 2010. Total films made in Britain, including Hollywood productions and co-productions, fell from 150 to 128 last year. The surprising thing about this is that the British watch more films across more platforms than ever before, with record receipts of £988m at the box office. So the fact that we are not making that many movies means that the supply for British movies is not meeting its demand.

                  On the other hand some people see the British film industry as a great boost to the economy and believe that when they want they can produce the best movies. The British film industry contributes £4billion to Britain’s GDP, which is a large sum of money. The British film industry not only helps the economy out with money, however supports over 35,000 jobs. Also in respond to the people who say Britain does not produce enough movies, last year independent British films took their largest market share in a decade, which illustrates that Britain does encourage people to produce/make movies. The box office it self also made over £1 billion for the first time, even though Britain doesn’t produce as many films as America, we still contribute to watching them and financially helping the market. Britain also has the highest amount of cinemas in comparison to Europe, this also proves that we have a lot of people in the country that enjoy and contribute to the film industry. The British film industry has also invested £160 million in movies and grossed £800 million, in other words every £1 we have invested we have got £5 in return. The films produced in Britain have won over 300 awards worldwide and have also won some of the most prestigious awards. This emphasises the fact that Britain have been clearly doing something correct if they have won all theses awards.

                  In conclusion I believe that the British film industry is at a better standard than the critics think. I believe it helps out the economy extremely, with the financial side and also the employment side. Overall I think that Britain’s film industry is good but far from perfect.