Unit 2.1 Advanced and Experimental 3D Computer Animation Techniques – Project 2, week 3.
This week, I plan to recreate experiments from my first weeks research, Kuleshov and Hitchcock’s experiments. To go further, I will be experimenting with recreating these experiments with audio. in addition to the various ways I can create an off-screen presence through interaction, as previously mentioned. These experiments will be done using a camera and real human subjects, as opposed to animated subjects. This way, I can experiment more freely and vastly before beginning animation tests.
What I want to achieve this week is to determine how my animation tests should look in terms of the design outcomes. And the structure of the narrative and the answers I wish to determine with my animations.
Questions/ Problems to Determine with the Premise Project
- How to achieve the Kuleshov Effect with audio?
- Should I use Kuleshov’s effect or Hitchcock’s rendition of the effect?
- Which of the above is more effective for my narrative?
- Which ways should I use types of interaction in order to build a presence?
- Can a presence be built without interaction with the off-screen presence?
- If the on-screen protagonist and the off-screen presence interact but then the presence is reveal to be non-existent, what does that say about the protagonist?
- Do I want the audience to think that the protagonist is mentally unstable- imagining things? (depends on the narrative chosen).
- How should I design the narrative so that the audience understand that the lack of presence is a metaphor for something related to the character? e.g. desires, needs, coping mechanisms.
- What purpose will my experiment have in my FMP animation/film project?
- Can I build a presence without visuals?
Script
This script helped me and my actor with filming, it does not correspond with the film content in terms of number labels.
Figure 1.>
Film Experiments
Note: During these film experiments the character on-screen will be known as ‘actor 1′, and the character off-screen will be ‘actor 2‘.
Content List of Figure 1 Film Experimentation:
Film 1
The first experiment contains a remake of the Kuleshov Effect with intercut shot and an actor that doesn’t react, visuals only. I varied the eyeline of the actor slightly, to see if this changed anything. This test was a success, since the actor’s expression seems to the emotional interpretation of the audience. It is not a completely exact remake of Kuleshov’s demonstration, considering how I changed the eyelines and camera. Nevertheless, just how Hitchcock made a rendition of Kuleshov’s experiment, this can be construed as my own. Through making these alterations, I produce further indicators of suggestive information that leads the audience to believe that there is a different reaction from one reaction shot to the next.
The intercut shot content varied from Kuleshov’s, which changes my experiment further. The content he provided the audience was clear-cut in terms of emotional reaction (hungry, sad and lustful). Where as my intercut content can have more of a subjective reaction. Therefore, the audience will have a subjective interpretation of the character’s thought process and reaction also. This result demonstrates how important character set-up. Myself as the films creator, needs to convey more information about the character in terms of visual symbolism (clothes and surrounding area), mannerisms (poses and gestures), and performance (ways of reacting), to manipulate the direction and interpretation of the scene, even for the subjective audience. In a sense, it is a conscious decision whether or not to relinquish control of the audiences perspective. Whether or not to allow them to make up their own minds about the scene and characters.
Film 2
The second film on the docket includes my version of Hitchcock’s rendition of the Kuleshov Effect. These experiments focus on the visual information. The actor made a single reaction for each intercut shot. Film 2a and 2b have the same intercut shot content, a chocolate bar, but with a different reaction from the actor. Then, film 2b and 2c have the same reaction but with different content. While this experiment was a success in terms of the interpretation between the connected shots, the experiment does not match with result that Hitchcock’s achieved. With his shot comparison film, he achieved giving the audience a specific interpretation that directed how they labelled the actor as through his reaction to the intercut shot. Where as my experiment has less focus on the labelling and more so on the reaction part.
Nevertheless, there is an essence of this effect, therefore, I still deem my experiment successful. Simply, the message is less direct and more ambiguous in terms of how the audience will see the character through their reaction. Rather than the audience coming to a collective understanding about the character. By using my film experiments, I will explain myself.
Film 2a has the character grinning when she sees chocolate, The audience can interpret her to be hungry, excited for chocolate, or perhaps she seems the healthy oats and lentils either side of the chocolate jar and finds that comparison funny. The last one is a stretch, yet a more observant viewer may see these details and interpret the film differently than those who only saw the face value.
Following that, film 2b sees the actor frowning at the chocolate instead. If the film content was without the smile shot, then the audience could interpret this as disgust, or disinterest. Nevertheless, since these film tests were compiled back to back, the audiences psychological instinct is to connect them. Consequently, an entirely new meaning to the scene can be created.
The next film, film 2c, has the actor frowning at nature, which would ordinarily be something calming and pleasant. In order for the character to have reacted that way, the audience is given the an understanding that she must have had a reason. While this reason is not provided, the audience can either wait for more information, or make their own conclusions. For example, they could conclude that the child is immature and intends to remain in the confines of their residential and digital world. That that is their norm rather than the outdoors, as shown in the intercut shot.
The previous analysis was mostly individual per version of the film. I can stipulate that a new comprehension is conveyed through the combination of all three shots (2a,b, and c). When the actor reactions are displayed as one, the interpretation could be that the character is a prepubescent teenager, who likes snacks, doesn’t like to show it, and likes to stay indoors. Trying to act cool? Their personality is not reserved, but expressive of their thoughts.
Film 3
This time my test centred around audio in place of the intercut shots. I am attempting to complete Hitchcock’s experiment, with a twist. This time with sound as the medium that the protagonist interacts with, and for the audience to use to interpret within the scene.
Since films 3a-c contains the same dialogue lines, but with different reactions/ or lack of reactions, the audience can interpret specific emotions on the protagonists face. While there is wiggle room, the audiences understanding of the scene is more directed and controlled. Each of the emotional responses in the film 3 experiments can create a different narrative scene and provide different information about the character and their mindset.
I filmed a variety of versions with different reactions and off-screen audio to experiment with various scenes I can create and character impressions/ interpretations for the audience. This will help me to understand how direct and controlled the scene can be, as opposed to open to interpretation with ambiguous meaning.
Films 3a and 3e are technically the Kuleshov Effect rather than Hitchcock’s rendition of the effect. However, in this instance, the lack of reaction is the intended reaction. For example, the audience can interpret film 3e as a lack of response (actor 1) to the off-screen voice that is asking for help (actor 2). Pity? Disregard? The conclusive perspective I have created by implementing the Kuleshov Effect/ Hitchcock’s rendition is that actor 1 is a horrible person that ignores someones cry for help. On the other hand, this conclusion is a subjective perspective reached through the gathering of information and forming an answer.
In Janina Wildfeuer’s book ‘Film Discourse Interpretation‘, it is stated that Abduction is “the process of forming an explanatory hypothesis… As a logical conclusion, abduction seeks possible cause of an assumption which still remains questionable.” This is a ” very weak conclusion, which…brings about new ideas and interpretations.”
Furthermore, considering the lack of off-screen information provided, other than the dialogue from actor 2, the audience is given a one-sided perspective of the scene. Made to understand the scene through that one-sided perspective due to intentionally withholding the scene information. Then the film creator could subvert the interpretation by showing actor 2. For instance, actor 1 could be standing beside actor 2 and intentionally disregarding actor 2. Actor 1 could be a passerby watching as another character is beside them, providing aid. Or perhaps, actor 2 is in shock and is calling out for help even though they are already being moved into an ambulance. Therefore, in some circumstances, actor 1 does not necessarily need to help actor 2 at all, the audience wouldn’t know this without further provided mise-en-scene.
Additionally, the lack of sound effects, disrupts the intentions to build the unseen -ff-screen scene. This lack of control enforces the the viewer to make their own conclusions rather than being fed controlled information bout the off-screen space.
To illustrate my point further, I will use the 1956 film by Robert Bresson, ‘A Man Escaped’. The scene depicts a criminal in a car looking for an escape, after long anticipation, the character quickly exits the car (see figure 4). However, the camera remains inside the car even after the focal character has left. Only sound effects are implemented to describe the narrative to the viewer through the interpretation using their sense of sound.
Additional Reference:
Figure 5. (Film & Media Studies with Jordan Schonig Film & Media Studies with Jordan Schonig, 2021).
Film 4
Within this experiment, I manipulated the scene’s narrative direction and mood, using different off-screen dialogue lines in two versions of the scene. The narrative direction of both films leads to actor 2 attempting to make actor 1 hurry in preparation to get ready to leave, and both times actor 1 acts with disregard for actor 2s attempt.
The first film (film 4a), the scene feels rushed and tense due to the nature of actor 2’s off-screen dialogue. Yet, actor 1 continues to prepare to leave slowly, despite the tone of actor 2, even showing a look of disregard or condescension to actor 2’s direction. The audience may interpret that the relationship between the two characters is not the best, since actor 1 showed a lack of consideration for actor 2, in spite of actor 2’s tone.
In comparison, the second version of film 4 (film 3b) shows an enthusiastic and competitive mood. Within this version, the interpretation construed as actor 2 acting patronisingly to actor 1, and actor 1 does not act favourably in response to this. Although, even though the film clips are the same, the response is does not seem as harsh or negative in film 4b as in film 4a.
Film 5
Film 5 contains a similar experiment to film 4, only with further development and expansion of the scene. This experiment further tests on and off-screen interaction using sound to build information and connection between the the two elements. The opening blinds shot and sound effect aided to provide suggestive information about actor 2’s unseen actions. I am able to controls the perspective of the audience by adding a change of tone and phrasing of actor 2’s dialogue. The first version of film 5 (film 5a) came across as a more heavy and negative interaction between characters. Actor 2 has an aggressive tone towards actor 1, and actor 1 seems disobedient. Each of these details create an impression for the audience, whether both characters are on screen or not. Since, a narrative is created with more than simply the visual information, but also off-screen sound design and performance, in this case.
Film 6
For the last experiment, I intended to take the ‘building an off-screen presence’ one step further. The contents of this film narrative include actor 1 speaking to someone. I intentionally hid the right hand from the view and used misdirection through the actors performance and eyeline to indicate that the actor was speaking to someone next to her. The actor looks at the seat beside her, then somewhere else. As though she is having a social conversation while reviewing the topic content together (e.g. tv show). After some suggestive performance she reveals a phone in her right hand by putting it in front of her face. At this point, the audience should understand that she was talking into her phone rather than to a person right reside her. Within the two film versions (film 6a and 6b), I have added a camera movement that reveals the empty seat beside actor 1. Part of my interested experimentation concerned the timing of the reveal. Film 6a reveals the empty seat before the actor reveals the phone. And film 6b reveals the empty seat at the end, after the phone. There are certain positive argument and negative arguments for using both of these narrative designs.
Firstly, film 6a is more conclusive and clear. The question that the audience will ask is posed early and answered afterwards. (empty seat, then the phone).
In comparison, film 6b leaves the audience asking questions at the end, which has both good and bad aspects. The punch line is more impactful. Considering the audience is given time to become immersed in the scene, and then when the misdirection and manipulated perspective was revealed, they are pulled away and made to ask questions. Distorts perspective. The impactful part is at the end, which may make the rest of the film boring until the punch line. Also, since the viewer must wait until the end for the conclusion of the narrative, they may feel the need to watch the film again. This is both good and bad since it will make the audience want to watch the film again, but that means that my film would be understandable without a second playthrough.
Analysis of my Primary Research Week
Visual information is the easiest for of information that the film producer can provide. However, with sufficient interaction design and timing, other forms f information can be convincing also.
It can be construed that by cutting to another shot, you are making a connection. While I can said this before, the reason I say it again is for another purpose. It can be said that by cutting to another shot you suggest that those two shots are in the same location/ sense of space. Therefore, the connection that is made is an alternative angle on the same piece geographical context. This is important since, the way that you stage the design can in itself be a form of interaction with on and off-screen elements. While there may be a farmer on-screen, there are also birds and fields around his which make up the mise-en-scene. This completes the inferred mental ‘image’ received by the audience. An indicative prelude/suggestion of more outside the screen is a form of interaction with off-screen elements.
Further data collection will be made through the thesis using these film experiments and the premise project in order to understand the perspective psychology of the subjective viewer, as opposed to only me.
Notes About Project Narrative Design
In terms of my narrative, I could have parts of the first half repeated with different tones of interaction. Then, the second half will contain the different types of interactions between on and offscreen to use as experiments.
Repeat of part 1 animation with a single dialogue each time, then the three that continues. Or, the part 1 repeated twice/ trice, with all of the dialogue but in different orders each time. Then the part 2 animation. This way, I can test how the difference reactions can be interpreted differently with different dialogue tones. Does it change anything to have this experiment in the film or does it mess up the narrative. How can I use this to enhance my animation?
FMP- two people conversing with different versions?/ a rewind then with different tones/ or the conversation differently? E.g. an argument the first time but amicable and funny nagging the second time. Then, later the reveal that the protagonists wife is revealed to be dead. Explain the step by step ideas of the FMP. Protagonist: Old man walking with dog, speaking to his wife. But then he arrives at her grave, that is the big reveal. Should the reveal be at the end or the middle?
References
A Man Escaped. 1956. [film] Directed by R. Bresson. France: Gaumont Film Company.
Film & Media Studies with Jordan Schonig Film & Media Studies with Jordan Schonig, 2021. What is Off-Screen Space?. Available at: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKQDLf-Nt6c> [Accessed 17 April 2022].
Wildfeuer, J., 2014. Film discourse interpretation. 1st ed. New York: Routledge, pp.14, 21.