Reflection for "Out of Ammo" - Steven Villacis

Throughout any intensive review process, one is plagued with the idea of whether the final polished product will “be good enough.” This can take a typically enjoyable and fun experience, and mutilate it beyond recognition – transforming it into a nightmare. Although this wasn’t precisely the problem of my group, this fear loomed over our heads for the majority of the film making process. Fortunately, my group had enough cohesion to move the project along despite what seemed like an onslaught of setbacks.
Every person in the group made a concerted effort to add progress to our project. When we first began this endeavor, however, even our undying initiative couldn’t circumvent the problem that plagued us. Initially, we were fortunate enough to have a camcorder to film with; however, when it came the time to film and then capture the camera’s video onto a computer, we had met a dead end. We were stuck and had nowhere to run. This was a horrible omen that had come to us in the very beginnings of our creative process – consuming valuable time. Faced with a computer virus and a dysfunctional camcorder, our efforts became seriously dampened by a longing for food from the popular burger joint “Five Guys.” This may seem strange at the outset, but our film would later incorporate a scene in which the human resistance fighters would have their meeting – as lackluster as it may be – over a warm and greasy meal.
Our plot was strange, but reasonably abstract and unconventional. It would consist of a story that mixes humor and irony with a genre that is typically used to instill fear in all who set their eyes on it. This movie started off with a typical planning scene often incorporated into movies as the scene that takes place at HQ, but with zombies taking the place of the humans as the organized side in an ongoing war. The zombies would convene over a map of the area and make specific plans as to what should be attacked and when those attacks should take place. The cut scenes that we would include were laced with the zombie offensive plans that had previously been discussed; a vivid execution of what should be a human initiative. Our movie would progress through several human planning and training scenes soon after this opening act, filled with more than one’s daily dose of irony. These scenes would revolve around video games and pizza. In rapid succession, the zombie forces would come to dispatch numerous human guards and would infiltrate the defenses of the human resistance. Using a unique set of skills that include stealth and cunning, the zombies end the movie with a cliffhanger, targeting the gluttonous and self-indulgent demeanor of the humans as the weakest link.
As the group’s “stunt” coordinator for many of the zombie attack scenes, I would basically take the role of director for these particular scenes and organize the chaos of an attack scene as best I could. The camera angles used during these scenes were strong indicators of the feelings expected of the audience. During a zombie attack scene where the human guard was completely outnumbered, we used the high angle and medium shot to depict a situation that would hint towards the trapped individual being overtaken with minimal resistance. In the larger scale zombie attack scene, I had set up the actors (which included me) so that they would flow in from the sides of the frame as the scene progressed. The actor portraying the guard would again be easily overcome by the zombies’ joint operation, and the zombies’ strength in numbers would once again be deemed a source of triumph.
As one of the screenwriters in the film, I had allowed for a unique form of dialogue to take place. The zombies were given a sense of self-awareness, allowing them to accurately plan out their attacks on the human stronghold. The humans, on the other hand, were downgraded to a low level of preparation and even to a level of stupidity. The point of the film was to put a spin on the zombie apocalypse genre, switching the mentality of the zombie with that of the human.
We had allocated the front and back yard space surrounding the director’s as the settings for the zombie offensive movements. We took full advantage of the stability of the tripod in order to get the camera in proper position for a Dutch shot. It was essential for us to execute this shot properly because the very angle of the camera would impact the degree to which the shot was believable and effective in conveying the disastrous outcome of poor planning on the part of the human resistance. The film also included a series of close-up shots that were used during the planning scenes. Although the facial expression was not of the utmost priority, we decided to insert the close-up shots so that zombies could be seen as cold and calculating killers rather than the typical view of them as mindless and conspicuous. However, the zombies still retain their “strength in numbers” dogma, as we introduced scenes to the movie where they could act on that statement.
Our group was inspired by the horror movies that have recently emerged under the zombie apocalypse genre. We knew from the start that it would be a massive undertaking for us to make the film genuinely scary and frightening. Although we longed for a film that would blur the distinctions between a zombie apocalypse film and an action film, we were restricted by our resources and the amount of time that we could spend on this film. Ultimately, we couldn’t afford to spend all of our time on this movie – as much as we wished we could have done so. As a result of these limitations, we had decided to put more pressure on our script and plot, but our acting and the camcorder’s sound capture abilities made it difficult to have the effect we intended to have on our audience.
The film was significantly hindered and weakened by our acting experience, which for most of us was nonexistent. We did work at getting the lines in place and conveying the proper emotion, but this is where the cohesion of the group and between the group members met its match. We struggled to keep our state of mind in sync with each other, but we each spoke at different intonations which were rarely an accurate reflection of what the lines wished to convey on their own. Our film seemed great on paper, and our plot seemed well planned prior to filming, but it was nearly impossible to make sense of the movie with issues like background noise and music configuration. The actors of the film were very compliant with the screenplay’s content, but on the other hand, personal interpretations were necessary sacrifices that were made to maintain the group’s integrity. If the screenwriters and the director had decided to restrict behaviors of the actors, the group could have easily dismantled itself.
Fortunately, the strengths had masked the weaknesses to some extent. Our shots were very effective and they served as the soul of some of my favorite scenes. One of the scenes in the middle of the film included a match cut that would connect one of our actors with a video game character. The video game character was confronted by overwhelming odds, and after a valiant effort, would succumb to a heavy barrage of bullets. This character was completely outnumbered by a fleet of humanoid creatures, much like the situation in many of the zombie assault scenes that the group had filmed.
The scene that followed would be a display of carnage that was left behind by a single zombie, using the element of surprise to continue with the battering of human defenses. The actors are depicted lying lifeless in different positions, with one of the actors in a position that mimics the dead video game character. The sloppy cut that takes the audience from the TV screen to the death scene was intentional and was implemented beautifully. This transition, along with a sound that is difficult to describe, but easy to identify, created a scene that was likely the most believable of all of the scenes that came together to make the movie.
For my next film pursuit, I hope to spend more time on the execution of a screenplay rather than become bogged down during the planning stage. By doing so, I really hope to further the quality of the end product, and eliminate much of the disarray that consumed the group during the pre-production. The art of film was a major source of intrigue throughout the production phase. The group was constantly afflicted by the self-proposed challenge to make the film into a work of art that will evoke the proper and appropriate emotions from the audience. This particular process was difficult because we lacked the organization needed to leave enough time to screen the film to an audience of peers and work off of their reactions. I believe that such a procedure would be immensely beneficial to a film because although the population may not accurately represent the future audience as a whole, the feedback received is precisely in making a movie that can appeal to different people with different expectations.

reflection "in blind sight"

At first I was put to the test of being the main character as the blind kid, but sadly we found out I wasn’t the greatest actor and didn’t have the “skills” to pull it off. My group put me in as the doctor and when I wasn’t acting which was most of the time, I was the camera man getting those great angles and close-ups. We were assigned different roles in this project depending on who was best at whatever the part was. Gabe wrote a great screen play, Spencer played an excellent blind boy and was a co-editor, Daniel directed and played the priest, and I acted as the doctor and was the camera man. Its hard to say only because I feel Spencer did a great job acting, but Gabe was the main person behind this film writing the screen play and editing our great film, so I would have to give the MVP award to Gabe Stine.
We sure had an advantage being that we were all friends from the start. So we all felt comfortable acting around each other, I have a feeling that if it was anyone else like people I didn’t know I would have been pretty embarrassed doing what I did. We did goof off sometimes while filming and had fun but when it was time to get serious we got the job done, and worked great together without many arguments, we would find a way to work it out if there was ever a problem.
Me and Spencer wanted to make a funny video from the start but Gabe spoke us into doing a serious movie with some sort of message, we figured most people were going to be making funny silly movies and we definitely are not like most people so we did the opposite, and that’s really how it started then Gabe wrote his screen play. I am not really sure where he got the idea for it, but it was a well written screen play and it seemed like a good idea to do it. This film is about a boy Alex that was born blind and grew up with a messed up life style. His mother died when he was very young age and his dad is a drunk who doesn’t really care for him to much. Then a new surgery was made that would allow Alex to see as well as anyone with perfect vision. But Alex wont like what he sees when the real world is finally revealed to his new eyes.
I felt that this was a very successful film and I am not saying that just because I was in it. The editing, music, acting, and story line I felt was excellent. I would have liked it if it could have been a little longer, but due to our time limit we couldn’t make it longer. I don’t feel that there are many weaknesses at least none that I can see. I think we did a pretty good job in making this film being that we didn’t have money to work with and used all the resources we had just like everyone else. My favorite scene was when Alex was waking up from surgery and there is narration, music, and voices in the back round. Gabe did a great job putting that scene together it makes you feel like your really in the movie waking up.
Everything in my opinion turned out great but I feel like if we had a little more time we could have added some small talk in to it because I felt it was some what jumpy from scene to scene. But I really can’t complain about anything it came out just as I thought it would and hoped it would. Next time I make a film I will definitely make sure to give it more time because it was a lot of work and very time consuming more then I thought it would be. But when it comes to the group and effort put in, it was good and everyone did there job well making sure to get it done.
I learned many things from doing this project, for example, I learned how time consuming it really is to film, get the take you want, and edit the whole thing, and I learned that team work and getting along really takes you far in getting the job done as a group. Many of the views we used and lighting effects we learned from class like, we used canted angle for when Alex is running down the hall way in the hospital which makes it sort of questioning and different not like the normal shot where its just straight on. We used low angle for when he is sitting against the white wall at he end of the movie to make a bad energy effect because he says there is no point to going to church anymore. When Alex is talking to the priest we used a low key lighting shot to make the mood seem right, he is in a confessional booth having a very depressing talk so we felt we should make it dark. We used close up when Alex is looking at the park, to show how upsetting it is and how upset he really is to see it broken down and just an empty dirty lot. Lastly we used a far shot for when he is running to the park after his surgery to get the effect of the whole scenery and showing him really in a rush and running a good distance to get to this very important park.

A Reflection on "In Blind Sight"

Gabe Stine
ROTMI

A Reflection on “In Blind Sight”

“In Blind Sight” was a film I’ve wanted to put together for a long time, so when I heard that we were making our own movies, I was very excited. Naturally, my friends (Spencer, Steven, and Daniel), wanted to make a funny movie, well because, we’re teenagers and that’s what we do. Funny movies are always enjoyable to make, but I could have easily made one before taking ROTMI. I wanted to apply the skills I learned in class to this film, and I think “In Blind Sight” does a great job at demonstrating the skills that the four of us have learned.
Originally, I was just supposed to be the screenwriter of the film. The storyline was my idea so it only made sense. Writing the story, and the rest of pre-production went very smoothly. Everyone in the group liked my screenplay, and we were all excited to get filming. I did end up playing Alex’s (the main character) father in the film. I had never acted before so it was a new experience. Filming to my surprise went smoothly as well. We did have some schedule issues with some group members, but we got it done. Now the story starts to get interesting with post-production. At first everything was looking awesome, until Premiere Pro (the program Spencer was using to edit) had crashed with one scene left to edit. After plenty of hair being ripped out and a couple of head bashes to the wall, I decided to download Premiere Pro to my computer and start editing. The entire editing process had to be restarted, and basically finished within one night, but it eventually got done. I think it is fair to say that I was a vital contributor to this film, having major roles in all three production phases. However, I feel narcissistic calling myself an MVP.
“In Blind Sight” is a film about Alex, a blind highschool boy who finally gets to see for the first time after having surgery. Alex doesn’t necessarily like what he sees. The single most important thing to me while making this film is to incorporate a message, or at least something that is below the surface of the storyline. I refuse to share this message with anyone before they have seen the film, so ask me after class. Creating a serious and almost bitter film with a message, was extremely difficult to do, while keeping it five minutes in length. Many things setback my goal. Acting is such a crucial aspect of film, and without professional actors, I believe that some of the seriousness is lost. Also, since we were pretty much limited to having teenage actors, having characters that realistically look like one’s father or doctor was impractical. After all the setbacks though, I think the film’s message is still retained.
There is one scene in the movie that I am especially proud of. Alex’s first time seeing is when he wakes up from surgery. Seeing was something he wanted, but never expected to do his entire life, and I love the way the four of us captured this moment. The combination of acting, narration, lighting, and music make this scene in a way, beautiful. It had to be beautiful. This scene made Alex’s ultimate downfall that much worse, and I think the film would have definitely been negatively affected if this scene were to be shot in any other way.
Many cinematic aspects were used in our film. In the scene explained above (when Alex wakes up from surgery), the scene is shot in extremely soft focus when Alex opens his eyes. This had the effect of making everything blurry to the point where nothing other than shapes can be distinguished. The use of soft focus in this scene is purposely very ironic. The first time Alex gets to see the world clearly, the audience sees it as a blur. Irony was a way of foreshadowing in this scene.
Low key and high key lighting were used on the priest in a strategic manner as well. Alex is blind in the confessional scene and therefore cannot see his priest; well neither can the audience. The film purposely does not put religion in the greatest light (no pun intended), and low key lighting infers that something is being hidden. When Alex can see at the end, the priest is shown in high key lighting. Whatever was being hidden is now wide out in the open, and Alex rejects and ignores his priest in this scene.
The close-up was also used effectively in the film. The close-up shot allowed us to fully embrace Alex’s emotion when he looked at the destroyed and closed down park. A medium or long shot would not do this emotional moment justice.
My final cinematic aspect also has to do with foreshadowing. As Alex decides to run out of the hospital in the hope of finally seeing the park he loved as a little kid, a canted angle is used to film him running in the hallway towards the door. Naturally, the scene is uplifting but as Alex started heading for the real world, he is shown with a canted angle, which looks like anything but uplifting. The canted angle foreshadows what’s to come when Alex does finally see the real world for the first time.
Through all the bumps, setbacks, and missing hair, creating “In Blind Sight” was a great experience and has possibly opened my eyes to a career path I would have never thought of going into before this film and this class. I look forward to making more films and to continue applying what I had learned in ROTMI to every creative work I do.

True Life: Brian Bergman Reflection

Ever since I was a little boy the world of movies intrigued me so much that after I would see a movie I would beg my parents to take me to Toy”R”Us so I could buy all the merchandise from that movie so I could pretend I was a part of the adventure. My love for movies as grown at such a rapid pace that almost every week me and my best friend Derek go to the movie theater at least once a week and see a movie. The best part is that we see any kind of movie just so we can expand our knowledge of movies, and this year when Dr. Ganes told me about Mr. Daszenski’s Rhetoric of the Moving Image class I knew I had to sign up for it. The best part is that this class has actually helped guide me with my future and has helped me to figure out what type of career I might wish to pursue. So far the best part has been this project, besides the fact that I got to make a movie about myself, (what’s cooler than that????) I got to learn what it takes to make a film, which is something I had never tried before.

One of our first assignments to this project was creating a production company, after hours and hours of arguing Derek, Andrew and I finally came up with A Sour Diesel Film. We finally were able to agree upon this because we felt it was something that really represented us and one of the reasons why we are such good friends. In this group my role was to play the leading role in our film and to be the assistant editor in the post-production part of our project. These were to things that I knew were very new to me and were difficult tasks but I was up to the challenge. Andrew was our director of course, because I don’t know if you know Andrew but he is always the head honcho and he also can do anything else but boss people around. Derek was our head editor, we gave this position to Derek because of his extensive background in film editing and since he spent an entire summer working at a film editing company called Company 3. In our project there was no screen writer because our film was a documentary and in a documentary everything is real and unscripted. The only parts that were written down were the questions that were asked in the film. I’m sure that it is expected for me to nominate myself as the group’s MVP, but to be honest I can’t give myself that much credit, I really believe that as a whole we were all MVP’s because without each other our project would have never gotten anywhere.

I do not know how well our group worked together compared to other groups but I know we didn’t work as well as we had hoped. Most people would think that friends would work well together because you know what the people in your group are capable of and what they aren’t capable of, but the problem with our group is that we let personal issues interfere with our progress. In the pre-production we had some complications; our biggest problem was deciding what our film was going to be about. Even though we are similar people and we all have a very similar taste in movies deciding what we were going to film was almost impossible. The reason for this was because every time one of us made a suggestion about what our film should be about, one of us would immediately find reasons why we shouldn’t use that idea. Not until we had a “film-making conference” with Mr. Daszenski did we finally settle on our film. During the production stage of our film everything started out easy and of course everything went downhill from there. On January 13, 2010 our group was supposed to begin our filming process, but with our groups luck Andrew forgot to charge his camera, which ended up putting pressure on us to film everything we needed the next day. The reason we need to do all of this on the 14^th was because on Friday the 15^th I was going to be in school and without me (lead role) we couldn’t get footage. Finally everything came together with our post-production and we were able to work together as a group to make our film the right way.

The inspiration for our group’s film came from our teacher, Mr. Daszenski. During our “film-making conference” with him he gave us the idea to make a documentary about Brian Bergman. The reason he did this is unexplainable, but if I had to guess it’s probably because he finds me to be an interesting individual. A True Life: Brian Bergman is about a high school student named Brian Bergman, and what his fellow students and teachers think about him. To me I feel our film was very successful, yes it had some weaknesses such as the planning of our film and the constant fighting that took place during the production. Strengths of our film to me were finding out what people really thought of me, even though most of them were joking around and trying to be funny, I still as able to get a jist for what people thought about me. My favorite scene in our film is the opening question, in this question we ask people to describe me using one word. It was my favorite because we got to really play around with different transitions and we were able to make 12 seconds of our film hilarious. To be honest throughout the production I would have been able to come up with several reasons of things that didn’t come out the way I had hoped, but after we finished the film I was very happy with the way everything turned out. Next time I have the opportunity to make a film I will certainly not choose a group the consists of my closest friends, this way my group will focus on what’s important not who looks the most important in the group. In our film the 5 cinematic techniques we utilized were inter-titles, tracking shot; close up, medium shot and long shot. In order the portray the scene of “Brian being Brian” we had to use a low angle tracking shot to represent the emotion and significance of the scene.

Test on Friday, 1/22

The test will focus on Fred Zinnemann's High Noon, David O. Russel's Three Kings (Period 4 ONLY), Gus Van Sant's Good Will Hunting (Period 8 ONLY), Fritz Lang's M, and Giuseppe Tornatore's Cinema Paradiso. You should also know the terms from the second half of chapter 4 of our textbook, Understanding Movies. In addition, be familiar with all critical terms that we learned earlier in the course, from cinematic terms (such as "birds-eye shot") to other terms such as "metonymy."

Look over your notes, your homework assignments, and all Viewing Guides and handouts.

Be sure to focus on these areas in your review:

• High Noon: Establishing shot; motifs; Judge Mettrick's lesson in civics; Will Kane as "hero"; montage; the famous "boom shot"; subtext; HUAC; allegory; politics & film style. Be able to cite specific examples of these concepts from the film to prove your point.
• Three Kings OR Good Will Hunting: Story structure: exposition, setting, protagonist, conflict; inciting incident; rising action; crisis; climax; falling action/resolution; final thoughts about how the film does or does not fit the classical paradigm. Be able to cite specific examples of these concepts from the film to prove your point.
• M: Establishing sound; cross-cutting between cops & criminals; match cut; close-ups; Peter Lorre's performance; low-angle shot of Lohmann; off-screen space; final image; Weimar Republic; metonymy; German Expressionism; Megan's Law; non-classical structure; kangaroo court. Be able to cite specific examples of these concepts from the film to prove your point.
• Cinema Paradiso: Establishing shot; characterization of Toto; minor characters & how they develop (character arcs); Italian life post WWII; symbolic imagery; Magical Realism; Alfredo's 3 "magic tricks"; jump cut; final images (before & after the credits); the "Cinema of Life." Be able to cite specific examples of these concepts from the film to prove your point.
• Miscellaneous Key Terms: editing & storyboarding (see the second half of chapter 4 in our textbook)

This is only a general guide and not a complete list of everything we learned and everything you should study!

Extra help will be after school on Thursday, 1/21 in room 452. Good luck!

True Life: Brian Bergman

The Making of True Life: Brian Bergman

Over the span of the past 7 years I have been learning on a consistent basis more and more about filmmaking. My interest in cameras and film started in 6^th grade when I had the opportunity to join GNPS TV/75 in the middle school. I have worked with top of the line equipment as well as with top of the line student filmmakers. This final project was by far the most difficult, stressful and overall the worst production I have ever worked on.

My roles in this group were director, cameraman, and assistant editor. Granted, we only had a crew of 3 people, everyone had to pull their own weight and do things they did not want to do. Unfortunately (without naming names) not everyone was able to do that. It was as if our group was fighting fire with gasoline most of the time. If I had to choose an MVP for this project, I would choose Derek Barocas. His skills in both production and post production were utilized to the fullest and he was the only one able to maintain a clear head at all times. Unfortunately our group chemistry was sub-par. I guess personalities have a lot to do with how well a group can function together. You would expect that because all three of us are friends, we have similar work ethics. Much to my dismay this was not the case. During the pre-production process, it was hard to communicate with my other group members because they simply are procrastinators. There were no personal problems involved, simply the fact that they were lazy. I had a feeling from the start most of the work would be done by me, so I wasn’t surprised when that ended up being the case. As the due date got closer, the group effort improved a little bit and the production phase went relatively smoothly. As for post-production, this phase was by far our highlight. We came together and were able to incorporate all of our ideas into an excellent documentary.

The inspiration for our film came during a discussion between me and Mr. Daszenski. During the pre-production phases we were having trouble getting our project off the ground. I took it upon myself to meet with Mr. Daszenski and utilize his creative mind. Finally we came up with the idea of doing some type of documentary or story of Brian Bergman’s life. Brian’s life is full of stories both happy and sad. Although we didn’t have the materials necessary to make a Sundance Film Festival, I am happy with he way we conveyed Brian as a person and as a student. If I could, I would revisit this project and perfect it for the sole purpose of showing the world e exactly how Brian affects himself and the people he interacts with.

Overall the success of the film can only truly be measured by the audience reactions. Having a personal involvement with the film I would like to think of its success level as high but yet again I have a biased opinion. My favorite scene(s) in the film are the montage of different adjectives that Brian’s fellow peers use to describe him with. I think this aspect uses good cinematic and editing techniques. I think it adds to the comic relief of the film while at the same time portraying the true Brian.

Like I said earlier, the film is in no way perfect. I had high hopes for this film, on the other hand I’m a visionary not a realist. One thing I hoped for this film was that its quality would end up somewhat professional. Unfortunately, there were many factors that were out of my control. For example, because we shot in an environment that was not staged or full of extras, real people had no idea what we were doing. Therefore the continuity and flow of the documentary was interrupted with bystanders staring, laughing, or interrupting our production. Overcoming that challenge in addition to using low grade equipment and two days to film, led this film to a standard lower then what I had hoped for. I always like to think to myself “there will be a next time”. Being a senior in high school, there aren’t many occasions when you can say that. I am overjoyed to know that when it comes to making a film, there will always be a next time. When I engage in my next production there are a few things that I will for sure do differently. For starters, I will take a lot more time to plan the story and shot selection for the film. Planning is always the most important process yet most of time the one most overlooked.
In this film we were able to incorporate a wide variety of cinematic techniques. Five distinct techniques that I found most prevalent were the long shot, medium shot, close up shot, tracking shot and intertitles. The long shot was used to show isolation of Brian in a classroom full of student; him doing his own thing (texting). The medium shot was used during an interview of two of Brian’s peers, due to the fact that there were two people. The close up shot was used to show the true expression of a person being interviewed and how they reacted to the question(s) about Brian. The tracking shot was used for the purpose of audience enjoyment. An audience likes excitement and movement, if we kept the camera in a stationary position the entire time, we would lose the audience’s attention. Finally, we incorporated intertieles. We decided to use this technique because we saw it effectively used in Gus Van Zant’s Elephant. Being a documentarian myself, I like to use other director’s ideas especially when they are successful. I would like to say that although there were many low points during the making of this project, there were also many learning experiences. N a totally non0cheesy way, I like to think that everything u do teaches you something new, no matter how boring or how basic the task may be. This project may have ended up a total disaster, at least I learned for next time what not to do.

‘True Life: Brian Bergman’ Reflection

‘True Life: Brian Bergman’ Reflection

My group being Brian Andrew and myself first got the idea to do a mock-MTV style documentary after thinking about how funny Brian’s interactions with other people are. We knew from the start that the film was going to be about him, we just didn’t which style of film would best convey Brian’s quirkiness to the audience. After thinking long and hard, we deemed it best to shoot our film in a “mockumentary” style. I personally thought shooting it this way would make an already funny topic even funnier. As far as everybody’s experience within the group goes, Andrew is the one with all of the equipment so he took on the roll of cameraman. Brian was obviously the star. And for me, I was the editor of this glorious film. Creatively, everybody had their own input and we bounced ideas off each other. Honestly, there was not an MVP within my group. Everybody added to the group, as well as subtracting to the group.

Brian, Andrew and myself have been great friends for a while, so instinctively they were my partners of choice. While picking them as my partners there was no thought in my head of fighting within the group, but boy was I wrong. There was a lot of tension between Brian and Andrew. You obviously know Brian, always having an opinion and not really caring what other people have to think. And when it comes to Andrew, he thought that because we were using his equipment, he was higher than us, he thought that he was the sole director. Pre-production was the worst for us. From the start we knew that we didn’t want to procrastinate. So we would occasionally text each other saying “okay, lets meet up and just get this project over with” but of course that never happened. We just kept on putting it off and off, which happened to be our biggest problem! Once we finally established the direction in which we wanted our film to go, things went a bit smoother. Production wasn’t too bad, since we filmed in school it was convenient for everybody. Post-production was a disaster though. We waited till the last minute to edit our piece, neglecting the fact that post is a very slow and tedious process.

Our film is about Brian! Everything that Brian does is amusing. He just has a way with words that makes you laugh. So the premise of our film is what other people think of our beloved Brian. We have a segment on people describing him in one word. another of what teachers in our school think of him. And one of younger kids looking up to him as a role model. I happen to think that our film is successful. From the start, we all decided that we wanted it to be funny. And after seeing it multiple times, I still laugh. So as far as that goes, it is very successful. It is also successful in a sense that we set out to portray who Brian really is, and I think that we accomplished that as well. If there is one thing that I would do differently when making my next film it would be to leave more time for everything. Making a film is a very daunting task that requires much time and effort. By allowing more time, chances are, your film will be more thought out and effective.

My favorite scene is when Mr. Mooney is asked to describe Brian in one word. He looks right into the camera and say “does it need to be clean”, which alone could describe Brian. Later he goes on to call Brian “passionate.” Over the course of the film we used a bunch of cinematic techniques. The most common one being the medium shot. We used this shot because it doesn’t show too much detail, but at the same time it gives enough detail for the audience to take it. The next technique we used was a tracking shot. We used this type of shot when we followed Brian through the halls in between periods. This was effective in giving the audience a view of Brian day. Also we used inter-titles to convey a message to the audience of what is to come. Another technique we used is the close up. We did this to show a specific detail that another shot wouldn’t show. Lastly, we used the long shot. This technique was most effective in showing Brian through a large group of students in the main hall. All in all, through the knowledge I gained in RotMI, I feel that I now have a better understanding of film in general.