Where the Wild Things Are

So a drive down to the far far away Cineworld down in that unpleasant looking place of town to see 'Where the Wild Things Are' I've only seen the trailer a few times and have never read the book or knew there was a book until recently so I really didn't have any real perception of what the film was going to be like, apart from everything filmed through a orange tinted filter of course.

A film directer by Spike Jonze and starring Max Records as the little boy Max

The film kicked off and it was fairly certain that it wasn't going to be a children's film in the slightest. It definitely had dark undertones from the off-set. It never really did anything to relieve this in anyway, it kept spiralling down and down this dark path. This is where I would write what the film is about...but from walking away from the film just a short time ago, I'm still fairly unsure what it was about.
There's a boy who is obviously an outcast and feels alienated in his life, he see's his mother as his only friend and person he feels safe around and who will always be there for him, and when someone comes into her life he feels pushed out and lashes out and retreats into a 'magical' land made up of really big hairy ... urmm things. They are too unhappy in life and turn to this young boy to fix everything and make them happy once more.

This might sound like I've contradicted myself and have explained the film. But no, not really. This is a really small part of the film, its established and pushed out the way in a very small amount of time. Its too quickly pushed away, you don't really get a sense of who this kid is, what are his flaws and why he is the way he is.

We are then rushed into a land made up of these cute 'monsters' that are equally as fractured in their lives. From here on out we are presented with a metaphor rapped in another metaphor. This is where it all gets really confusing, I did feel like it was trying to say something about the boy and his life. It was definitely trying to say something about everything, but I was sat their just really confused on what flaws the film was pointing out in whom or what?

These ... okay I'm going to call them ... 'fluff balls' turn to this young boy to fix their way of life and make them all happy. Was this him working out what his flaws are, is this a metaphor for him playing out what makes him unhappy? and how he can fix things? I'm not too sure, we are bombarded with these metaphors one after another that all just becomes too much. The film soon becomes heavy and sluggish from there onwards.

The only way I can really describe it is, a ball of tweed. It never really establishes a clear moving straight line in which to follow. The film seems to stray around in circles for moments then to throw a metaphor at you then to try and provoke some kind of emotion from a character being unhappy/hurt.

Your sat their not really knowing what to think about what is going on, this is what I kind of took from it. The kid who is so far retreated into his own little word, who still thinks he can solve things the children's way. By having play fights and getting together to build a fort - the metaphor being they will all be happy if they work together to build a magical place where anything can happen. But the kid is soon presented with the harsh reality of life, that things can't be sorted out this way and you can't just build a magical place and everything will automatically be okay.



Yes...no? Still not sure, another thing to point out is just the relentless heavy emotional downturns the audience is presented with. Its just too much to watch sometimes, you are sat their eventually just waiting for things to go wrong...and they always do. For the plot to become this predictable combined with the sucker punches of heavy emotional downturns just becomes a little over powering.

I just felt the characters were lost on me, the film never delves to much into there characters and what makes them, them. So I never felt empathy or felt attached to anyone in the film at all. We as an audience are well, taken a little for gradated. We are left with to many blank spots to fill in for ourselves in the end, which really does ask far too much of the audience.

I feel its even confused on who its audience were, its definitely not a children's film, nor an adult film. Somewhere in-between? I'd still argue not really. Its more a film aimed at style, what style of film you are into really depends on wether you will like this film or not. If you were brought up reading fairy tales and lots of adventure stories then you will 'get' this film, for all the rest of us its just something we just won't understand. Almost like buying your granddad an i-Pod, ah see another metaphor.

But even saying this, I really liked the film 'The Fall' which is a sweeping epic set in a child's imaginations, and I totally bought into it because it didn't leave you behind at any point. It would give clear markers to where we were and what the metaphor was.

Over all, nice looking colourful film let down by a lack of a forward moving clear narrative which just confuses itself and the audience in the end. 'Sorry what?...can you speak a little louder I didn't quite catch what you are saying?' Simply the film needed to speak a little louder and clearer. I walked away from this film not really feeling any closure from anything it was trying to say or from the characters introduced. The film didn't resolve anything really in the end, which felt really disappointing as a member of the audience. In the end it almost is a children's film, in the sense it starts things but never really finishes them.

I think the fact I've edited this post about 10 times shows how unsure I still feel about this film

400 Blows

Having seen a lot of 'classical' films recently, I didn't really feel this would raise the bar all too much. All I can say is yes Andy it really is a masterpiece.

It first occurred to me almost half way through the movie how much I was enjoying it because it had taken me that long to come out of it. I was so submerged in the movie the genre and the style of it that it totally captivated me. Its that principle of you know you have a good movie when the audience aren't aware they are watching one.

I'll explain what took me out of the movie later on in the post. But for now I'll explain what I liked about this film.

From watching so many 'dull' and 'tedious' black & White and classical movies recently, I really did have something to compare this movie to. Yes it wouldn't stand up to modern standards as it does loose its drive somewhat during the movie but placing it in its time it really is an astounding piece of film.

What stood out was its cinematography, it never felt flat like a lot of other old movies we have watched recently. The hand held camera work really did help this movie set a new bench mark for movies. It all felt so smooth in the way it handled itself, shots felt fluid and all connected well with one another. I was never taken out the movie by cutting the extreme close ups like the Russian Revolution films seemed to all so adore.

Most importantly the main character was likeable for the most part, he really did feel like a real living person and delivered this through an amazing performance from start to finish. I did feel at points that the movie was stretching itself on how it could more develop and build on this character from showing us his day to day life. This is where I first sat back and realised I was watching a movie again. This is from having been brought up with modern film cuts, It wasn't a bad thing it was just a thought that occurred to me that took me out of the movie itself.

The character I feel can be compared to 'Into the Wild' in the sense that you do feel sympathy for the parents as they aren't really do all to much wrong to deserve what their child does in return. This is another fault I could pick at, but you know. I don't want to, its such a lovely charming movie that really does pull you into this young boys life that I can accept this small fact that occurred to me.

The film was essentially a snap shot of this boys life, its a strand that follows him during a short period of his life. It's not like most other films as it doesn't really to seem to have an active goal or an obvious inciting incident. It's more a story of this boys life, we are almost following him from day to day. This is were it does loose some drive as I think from a modern audience prospective we are constantly expecting something to happen, like one of his parents to get run over and for him to relise what he has. This never happens or something similar, so you can say it does loose drive from this.

If you look at the film for what it is at heart, you see that it would have lost its charm if something like this was to happen. Its about this boy and his life, his faults and his misgivings. This is all we are interested in.

I really did enjoy watching this movie and hope what we watch next can follow its standard, as it really did set the standards in the first place.

So what REALLY scares us?

This is a thought that I have been thinking a lot about recently when thinking of ideas and directions to take my script in. What really makes us sit on the edge of our seats? what makes us jump out of them? The more I thought about it the more it became apparent that its sound design. With out it, we would be looking blankly at the screen not really all to bothered as to who is being mutilated or who is being chased.

From looking at a number of scary films recently as research I found that the tension was always built by this ticking clock Zam referred too. It's that dripping of tap water in a darkened room combined with the unsettling score that makes us feel so uneasy. Its that moment during the night when you hear a door creak open that terrifies us, we suddenly start thinking what was that? What caused that? its the not knowing that really gets to us.

I looked back on a number of films on how they created tension, and I undoubtably looked at 'Saving Private Ryan' That stair well scene were the two soldiers are fighting it away up the stairs and we cut to the lone scared soldier which is his only salvation too scared to move. A lot of different things makes this scene unsettling to watch, but when I looked closer what made it unsettling when we cut to the stair well was again sound. It was hearing them scuffling about up the stairs, those raw human sounds of distress. Again it occurred to me, it's what we were hearing that was making us as an audience sit on the edge of our seats.

It has never until now that I have looked back on horror movies that it doesn't really matter if its a bunch of 'cute aliens' such as in 'Encounters from a Third Kind' You can make almost anything terrifying if you just get the eery sound design and not show the audience for aslong as possible what is lurking in the dark. Its this making the audience suffer for aslong as possible that really does make classic horror pieces.

To look at a more modern example, we must only look as far as the cinema. Paranormal Activity which is sitting at number one in the box office in America. Something that clearly scares the vast amount of people who go an watch it, I know this more than any as I see it from working in the cinema. It was really interesting to sit back and watch the audience and see what scared them. It was clear that it was the unbearable tension of waiting for something to happen, that making the audience suffer for aslong as possible then suddenly throw in that bang. This is what scared people, a slamming door isn't scary in the slightest. Yet because they were forced to wait for it, because they knew something was coming, because it made them wait for aslong as possible this is what scared them.

As essentially this film is just made up of sound design we never see the monster. Every director and screenwriter should take notes from this film, as soon as you show the audience what they are supposed to me afraid of you instantly loose the vast amount of tension you can build.

As until recently I have really shunned sound as a profession, I still don't want to do it...ever. But I have gained so much respect for sound design recently. By sitting back and really thinking why something scares me in a movie, 95% of the time it was that principle of waiting for something to happen combined with the sound design that did it at the end.

This is why I feel horror sequels just don't work, we have been shown what we are supposed to be afraid off, and as soon as we can sit back and say 'I know whats in the dark' it suddenly looses its edge. This is why Aliens and the like of 'The Decent part two' just don't work as horror pieces.

From all this I will really sit back and take heed of sound and tension whilst writing my script for Richard. It's not so much the dark that scares us, as I assume we all sleep in the dark. It's those little sounds during the blanket of night time that terrifies us in the end.

And again

So this week so far has flown past with amazing speed, only one left to go until father christmas makes his yearly trip!

Well Monday I was off so it consisted off me sleeping intill a ridiculous time in the afternoon, sleep always seems to win over anything else. That oh I'll just have another 10 minutes, that false belief soon turns in too an hour...two hours. Oh wells enough ramblings from me about my screwed up sleeping patterns.

Tuesday we came in to watch a screening of 'Not Yet Rated' and documentary by Kirby Dick. He sets out to expose the American Ratings Board. He sets out to try and see what this secretive board is made up off, and what its real goals and morals are that they are stamping these films with.

A large chunk of the film is following him with two lesbian detectives to try and track down these mythical board raters, with the goal of seeing who they really were. To see if they are these so called parents with children aged 5-17 like they so often boast about. I would like to say from the get-go during this investigation, I felt a little curious as to why he had chosen lesbian detectives. I felt like it was trying to push my view in a way that the MPAA were an anti-homosexual organisation. It does later confront this question by putting that very same question to some ex-board members. It is never really answered, but from what I gathered they turned up watched the movie had a discussion and left. How anyone could really get to know someone enough to make an informed judgement on wether someone is gay during that would be impossible.

I just felt like this was straying from the point Kirby was trying to make, It felt like a cheap swipe at the MPAA. I felt he could have addressed this question better by putting the question to the audience that the MPAA openly say they hire ordinary 'parents' to rate movies. This instantly to me says no homosexuals are chosen. That would be a question I would put to someone who worked their, or well to some sort of equality group to question the MPAA on.

We are also shown a number of interviews with his fellow directors who have been subject to the NC-17 stamp of the MPAA. All the films in question were given this stamp due to some sort of intimate sex scene. Here I felt like the MPAA were using their powers just a little too much, I did agree that some of the material may have been to much to not be given a NC-17. But a lot of the time it seemed like even holding the camera on their faces was unacceptable, this seemed like they were taking their jobs too seriously. They seem to have appointed themselves the moral guardians of the nation and in doing so are stopping a lot of provoking films getting through to the audiences.

Films that might change someones view on a certain subject matter, just because a group of parents don't feel and ease with is shouldn't be the only judge and jury on the matter. As soon as the MPAA started gloating that its parents judging these movies, this felt odd. Aren't parents the last people you should actively seek, yes they should have some sort of say on what their children see. But at the same time because they are parents they are going to be out of touch with what these films are saying about the culture they live in present day? It feels all a little demeaning for a group of parents to tell the nation as a whole what they can and cannot see. They are of course going to try and block their children seeing material 'they' wouldn't want their children to see. But to say no you can't have your film as an R because I wouldn't want my children seeing that, but your 'children should be young adults by that time and should be able to choose for themselves.

This is what the documentary is essentially made up from, interviews combined with the investigation to expose the raters. It did do a good job of keeping the documentary feeling like it was progressing and not becoming stale at any point. It definitely is a documentary you have to look at with your on head. It does become very one sided and times, with one point sticking out to me. When they espose the raters they made a point of showing what Political Party they belonged to. This brought back memories of Andy's class and the Nazi teacher with the sex offender husband. It really didn't need to show us that piece of information as it had nothing to do with the subject matter in hand.

Over all I think it was a good watch in the end. It did do what it set out to do and show that the MPAA is still really living in the past and is way overdue a shake up in the way it runs itself. It really does need to stop looking inwards and start looking out wards at the times they are living in. I feel its unfair to slap a NC-17 on someone and not explain why, not telling them what to cut or how to get around it. It just seems all so self defeating in the end. I do think it does loose track on keeping check of giving an evenly sided look at the MPAA. Although it would have been hard to do this as the MPAA would have no doubt turned down any interview.

So yes a good informative watch even if you do have to keep challenging for yourself what is being shown to you.


ZAM is Back!

So Zam is back in the ranks of RSAMD once again to pass on his knowledge of directing.

His first class consisted of looking at comedy as a genre. The question that was presented is what is funny? but more importantly how to make something funny. Zam showed us a number of clips from a broad range of comedy to look at and examine. He played the clip over and over again to show us what made up that clip and why is was funny. It all came down to timing in the end, that extra frame can mean the difference of something being funny and not.

The class were shown a broad range of different comedy genres, such as black comedy to dead-pan comedy, to look at what made each one uniquely funny. Zam did openly admit that comedy was an area that he was entirely comfortable with, and this did show as he didn't seem as excited about what he was talking about. This being said he did deliver the class in a very good manner and did get a lot of good pointers across such as timing. Something that wouldn't have instantly occurred to me if I was to think about comedy.

His next class was a class I don't think I have ever taken so many notes from. He again played clips from a number of movies covering mostly how to build tension, that ticking clock as he put it. The class showed us that in most scenes were tension is built it always almost has its ticking clock. From the Untouchables pram being pushed up the stairs combined with the clock to Aliens and the radar gun clicking away.

As the script I am writing fro Richard is a horror piece which I hope to build a lot of tension into, this was golden material for me. I found myself writing down ideas for my script as new ideas just kept rushing into my head. It has put the question to me, what is my ticking clock going to be? and also it showed me something I already knew a little about but didn't know why I knew it. If that makes any sense, and that is of course not showing for the longest time possible what is chasing them. Whats in someones head is always going to be more scarier to themselves and an individual. We all have our own fears and to give that canvas to the audience to project what they are scared of onto is something else I need to think about.

The class also showed me that its not the bang that is scary, its waiting for the bang that is scary. At some point during my script I am going to be presented with this, how long can I make the audience suffer for. How long can I feasibly hold onto that moment were something is going to happen and how long I can make them wait for it.

It was just an excellent class, one of the best this year for me personally I think.

Friday was time for the screening's, as me and Charlotte had spent so much time in the previous week editing away at it I was most anxious to see how it turned out. As we had spent so much time on so many little details I was afraid that we had become in some sort of way blinded by the littlest of details that we would have missed a bigger one. I was just scared that half way through we would hear 'And Cut!' or something similar.

This didn't happen so I could pull my t-shirt away from my face in anticipation of something going wrong.

From the screening it was clear to everyone I hope the level in which we have progressed from the first set of films to the film 'Little Clown' I think being sat down and watching them back to back was they only way of showing this too us. You can preach it all day long but to actually see it for ourselves in this medium was real shock to me. It was really night and day watching the difference between them.

It was also good to see the third year films as I have only seen them being cut. For all the films being really good in their own right, it did put that thought of 'We could do better' something which I have no doubt that the first years were thinking as well. This will all drive us to make better films in the future, a little competition is good. As with out it, we would get no where in life.

*rests fingers*

Star power

In the past number of weeks we have been talking alot about what is a movie star and what is an actor in Andy's classes. This on its own raw form, seems like a very easy question to be able to ask anyone and get a very simple answer to. But as soon as you begin to answer this seemingly simple question you can feel yourself tripping up in trying form one.

We live in an age were anyone can get famous by doing very little and with having very little or no visible talent, Jade Goody? This really does make you feel slightly wrong that we as a nation have become obsessed with these talentless people who can make millions of our obsession with them. It all seems rather ludicrous, I can think of half a dozen 'simple' minded blonds that have very little talent other than talking.

Why are we not more inclined to seek out actual real talent? We have shows such as X-Factor and Britain has talent, both shows that claim to do this. But I feel in the end what it really is in its rawest form is a glamourised circus being broadcasted to millions. As the only real reason we watch these shows are for the idiots of are so far in their own worlds they can't see or accept that they have no talent, no matter how bad they are.

You only have to look at the Jedward twins this year on X-Factor, the nation was keeping these vocally talentless 'things' in the show purely because they were funny to watch and annoyed Simon. As people I feel we are exposing ourselves to the kind of creatures we are. We are always looking to make ourselves feel better by watching at 'lesser' people than us. It gives us that feeling of its okay I'm not doing anything real with my life, at least I'm not like them.

This has gotten to the point that actors themselves have been able to get past year in year out with-out actually being in films. We have gotten to a stage that we are more interested in what actors do off screen that on screen, and I bet they make more money of this than actually working.

They mustn't believe their luck, its the dream for everyone. 'Your saying I can get paid with out working?' Point me in the direction of someone who would turn that down. This is all very sad to think about in the end, actors not having to put in good performances and talentless no bodies making millions of our obsession to want to know what people are up to. I suppose in a way it should really be forcing us to look at ourselves in the mirror, but I think in some strange way it does the opposite it gives us the opportunity not to look at ourselves as a whole.

Anyways to the point actors and stars! ... Well this is like a question, how big is the universe. You are going to get alot of different opinions and takes on what they are, with out ever reaching a clear cut answer. For me I think stars are a strange hybrid of once upon a time actors realising and being smart enough to see that they can make more money of selling their lives to the media that actually working, other than putting themselves on the fable career line that is acting. As one day you can be somebody and the other a nobody. I feel this is the fear that has struck a number of actors who know they aren't always going to be the new kid on the block and the actor every studio must have.

Its also been a huge safety net for actors who well ... can't act. They call themselves actors and we take them as actors when we read about them, but try to pin point a recent performance they have done is harder, and harder still a good performance they have done.

Stars are born out of our imaginations, they are the canvas we as a species can project our perfect ideal's on. We can pretend to be like them, buy the same clothes and cars and feel better for it. As its safer and easier than to actually be your own person and expose yourself to judgement.

I would love to say we will get sick of all this in the end, but I can't really say that whilst making eye contact. It would be nice to think that it will swing back around to demanding actual raw real talent. But this in its very nature is a rare commodity and it will always be easier to fish out the talentless than the talented, and in the end it brings just as much entertainment and comfort than real talent for most people.

Twitter-itter

I really need to watch a movie to blog about me thinks. Cinema this weekend definitely.

New Post Alert

The Island Tapes.

So I really didn't know what to aspect going into this, I really had only a very vague idea as to what it really was. So me and the rest of DFTV 2 ventured into the dark side, the music school. The first thing we did was all sit beside each other and not where the ticket had split us up to. Yeah take that establishment!

We waited around for a little bit then a small group of musicians walked in one after the other, took their seats and introduced themselves. The guy who organised it all gave a small introduction before punching a few buttons on his laptop and the show began.

I have to say after around five minutes into it I was well and truly captivated. We as a class have watched a number of black and white movies and I have always liked the music that goes with them, but to actually see the music playing live in front of you with the movie in the background just added an extra dimension to the show. It just seemed to go hand in hand with what was being shown in the background.

It made what we were watching feel all the more meaningful in the end. I did find myself watching the musicians more than the actual tape being shown in the background from time to time, but I think that was natural. I really liked the show and felt it offered a very powerful look into our past as a nation in a very engaging way.

I didn't know till afterwards that we had watched this show because in fact we are going to be filming something similar very soon. Now if you had explained to me before hand that we would be going out to film seemingly random pieces of footage as a kind of social time piece. I would have been a bit sceptical on its value and merit. But having watched this and seen how powerful it can be. For us to be able to look back at unedited pieces of footage that have captured a moment in time has really made me think that what we will be doing will have value and merit, and will hopefully offer our children's children a look into how we lived in as powerful way as we watched this.

Overall a very nicely put together show that offered a very rare insight into our past that I don't think could have been delivered as good in any other medium other than what it was.



Adams Tutorial


I always like Adams tutorials because he has a very good way of putting ideas on the table that will improve your idea and making it seem like your ideas. Well they are your ideas but just from a different angle, I always walk away with fresh interest in my idea and raring to develop it further.

I put three ideas on the table, the third being their for good measure, I knew the third was a terrible one and so did Adam. It was never really spoken of in the tutorial. The other two on the other hand Adam seemed to really like and wanted to know alot more about and asked questions about them that I would have never have thought to asked myself. I found myself coming up with new ideas for the show on the spot and thinking of new ways I could take them.

I felt Adam was really engaged with the two idea I had put on the table, and I walked away knowing alot more where to take these ideas and how to properly develop them further.

Richards Class


So in Richards class we talked about writing scenes, which in the run up to writing our scripts was a big help. He sat us down and showed us a large number of scenes on the TV. This was a really good sessions as I think it gave us all the point that even a small very well written scene that ramps up the tensions can make or break a film. Richard explained that every film should have one of these scenes, a scene were the stakes are constantly ramped up and giving him/her further to fall. A scene that ramps up the tension so far that the audience can't look away from the screen.

I think before even starting to write my script I am definitely going to sit down and plan out and construct such a scene and how it is going to run up to that. This is something I don't think I would have done before, yes I would have planned my script out but to sit and focus on one particular piece of it in such detail is another thing. I am still unsure what this scene will be in my script, but I think I am closing in on it as I develop my idea further and further. I feel its only a matter of time before I find it.

Overall a very good practical class in showing us that yes the smallest details do matter, those moments we love in films are the moments we walk away thinking waw, that was a really good movie. Just that small piece of film magic in a well timed and well written scene can make your movie and okay one to one to remember.

Richard also mentioned that not to over do this, as I think that if every scene in your movie was trying to push too much emotion and tension at one go it would get a little much for the audience to watch. But still EVERY scene should have its purpose in what its trying to do and to help push your film forward.

Scenes

We have been talking about filming these scenes for a long time now, and now that its over I'm a little sad. I had such a good fun time on set filming them. It was night and day from any location filming I have done in the past. It was all very relaxed and I felt I learned alot more from it than from any other filming I have done.

Me being the gaffer and Luke being the best boy, we were essentially Phillips handy men. We broke up all the lighting kit and dismantled them all through out the day. Me not being the most handy person with lighting kit before hand, I felt this was a very good learning exercise for me. As in class having a whole class jumping around the lighting kit when Ray took them out, I don't think I have had enough one on one practical time with them.

But as soon as the day started I could just feel that I was learning so much, I know the scenes was all about getting a performance, but the fact I have taken two things from the experience can't be a bad thing. I feel alot more confident with the lighting kit in general and just learned what the full capabilities of them are.

Performance wise I also feel like I have taken a lot away from the day with. From thinking back to all the films we have shot so far I can't remember anyone sitting the actors down and being like, your in this state of mind. This is why you are here and this is why you are doing this. Maybe not as blunt as that but thrashing it all in metaphors, such as Andy said in first year don't tell them to run, tell them to act like the other end of the room is on fire.

This I think squeezes alot more out of the actors in the end, they are not just pieces of kit you can switch on and off. You have to be able to put them in that place of mind in their heads. They have to believe what they are doing is true, they have to feel the emotions and tension of the scene as if it was their own.

Just watching all this through out the day was highly educational for all of us I think. Just watching how to deal with actors and how to get a performance out of them has given me fresh fire in my stomach to want to go out and film something.

I feel Andy's and Adams point has been made, we have been forced to look at the performance side of filming a movie. Just having a full day on this has really made me think alot more about actual performance other than just how it looks technically. Through-out the day I think we have all picked up alot of knowledge on how to properly deal with actors. Just little things like talking to them as actual human beings, not just do this do that. Its the small things like giving them a green room to put themselves in that place of mind they need to be in to give the best performance they can.

Even with time on location being really incredibly strict, I would like if I was ever given the opportunity to film a movie is to let the actors improvise. Let them bring something new to the table in how they interpret the scene. Letting them completely turn the scene on its head can just be what that scene needs, and to be able to capture such raw performance can let you capture that piece of magic the scene needs.

I could sit here all day and explain what I feel I have learned, but for now I just really want to put into practice what I have learned. It really has put fresh drive in me as a film student.

I felt like we all worked really well as a group as a whole, we all took on board each others advice and I think we couldn't have worked better as a team. When I heard Ray and Gavin were going to be on set, this worried me as I felt like I was going to be evaluated in some way in everything I done. But this wasn't the case, all that it really was, was Ray equationally saying it would be nice if you did that with the light I think. Just small little pieces of advice he felt would improve the lighting, this really did help me and Luke as it made us look at the frame and think how can this look better lighting wise. Phil of course was a very good DOP and was always ready to take on board suggestions and would frequently asked me what I thought of the lighting.


Overall I really really enjoyed the day, from thinking back to other shoots and the stress that goes with it, I have to say I was a little worried that the day was going to be like that. But I have walked away having really enjoyed myself and feeling like I have learned alot from it. Something that I don't think a hundred of Rays class could have tought us. In no way saying that Ray's classes aren't educational but just being in those smaller groups and getting hands on experience has been really valuable to all of us.