Electronic Superhighway (Origins of Video Art)

        After doing the reading, I looked up Nam June Paik to see what some of his work looked like. I came across this untitled 1993 piece that is described as “elegiac” – the screens play footage from cameras inside the player piano, showing the workings of the instrument as it plays ragtime music. Two of the monitors apparently show images of the late John Cage, who, as the reading explained, was an influence for Paik. I think it’s interesting that the artwork combines both the technology of a player piano and also that of screens and cameras to make a piece that is just so actively self-exhibitionist; it isn’t just sitting there to be seen. 
        I also found a 1995 piece titled “Electronic Superhighway: Continental U.S.,Alaska, Hawaii”  that I thought did a really great job integrating video art, physical art, and television commentary all in one go. This piece is made up of different-colored neon lights that trace the shapes of the United States. Inside these shapes are 51 video screens playing loops of images that are, as the description says, “‘seen as though from a passing car’”. These clips were also accompanied by audio from classic American films. The piece is reminiscent of neon road signs that you see when driving down highways or quiet roads at night, giving off a very roadtrip-esque vibe. The different images on the screens and the different colors of neon indicate the individuality of states and regions in the country. And of course, the audio from the movies indicates how much of our perception of “America” is affected by film and television. 
        According to the Smithsonian’s description, Paik was the first person to ever use the phrase “electronic superhighway”. In a way, we don’t need to travel across the country to experience region-specific things anymore – we can just watch them on television or in movies. I don’t need to travel to Las Vegas to experience the business and the lights and the casinos, not when I can watch countless television shows and movies set in the city. Even this installation itself communicates a sense of wanderlust and nostalgia that is reminiscent of how I feel on long road trips – and that’s just from looking at a picture of the installation on a computer screen.

The Power of the Camera

    I love the technical aspect of filming with a camera. The ability to create a story simply by moving the point of view is unique, and entirely amazing. As the article says well, a movie would be completely boring if the camera stayed in the same place and used the same lens. You need a wider and a narrower field of vision, and sometimes distorted images are invaluable to a story.

A good example is the final scene of The Good, The Bad and the Ugly. The scene last for about five minutes, and if you think about it, its just three dudes standing around and looking at each other. And yet it is considered a great scene. The way which the camera increases the proximity of the shots while also increasing the speed with which the shot changes. The five minutes of three dudes standing around becomes a thrilling ride. Its like being excited about waiting in line for something. It doesn't really make sense, and yet that is the unique power of the camera; not only to bring fantasy into reality, but also to turn the completely boring into fun.

Another scene which masterfully uses the camera is the Breakfast Scene in Pulp Fiction. The scene employs more exciting dialogue then the prior one, but the camera does a lot of the heavy lifting. We are set to focus on one character, Jules, but are broken away from him in rather abrupt way several times i.e when he kills one of Brett's associates. These jaring intrusions from our central character provide a sort of edge to the scene. We are slightly uncomfortable, which only adds to the tension. The way the camera controls our view makes it so that while we expect something to happen, we are frightened of it because we know it will not coincide with our comfort. To be cliche, we expect the unexpected.

A good guidebook: Using the camera for interpretation

The article illustrated the very nature about the art of video---draw attention.

What all we need to do to draw the attention from our audience is what video is about. Not limited to colors, sound, story, resolution, but from the very basic points, framing, angle, focal length, and movement are all we should care about.

Apparently, different choice would lead to different effect, and human beings are creations with tons of curiosity.

However, these principles for videos just so basic and nature that many times, we will forget or neglect them, especially when we watching a video as an audience.

A very classical illustration about this phenomenon is the psycho (1960) from Alfred Hitchcock.

In this 3:43 video, we can find a mature application of montage by Alfred. For example, almost every item in the bathroom owns more than a unique angle. We have one horizontal CU and one high angle sight. The framing are guided by the action in the whole process. The last moving shot from Janet’s hand to toe and finally to the drain of bathtub gives a great metaphoric illustration of the elapse of life. However, before I read this article, I will hardly pay any notice on the change of angles and framings. (Of course, my attention was totally drawn by the tension of the story itself.)

Other two examples that I feel obliged to mention is one with more modern technology---the opening song of Game of Thrones; and another focus more on the very nature---earth with its lodgers.

OP of Game of Thrones

Although it’s mostly created by computer techniques instead of a camera, it used plenty of moving and high angles to amaze audiences of its huge story background.

Microcosmos: Le people de l’herbe

I admire cameraperson who endeavors to capture the beauty of our nature a lot. As you might see, the whole video of microcosmos is made with small focal length with high-speed cameras. It requires more than an excellent understanding of photo techniques but considerable patience and passion as well. However, all those are meaningless without possess a firm command of the basic techniques demonstrated in using the camera for interpretation.

Response to "Using Camera for Interpretation" by Agnes

This reading's focus is on the physical execution and implementation of different equipment as well as styles/techniques in creation of a film. The use of different types of framing and focus can create drastically different images for the viewer to see and change what they think about the whole story. It is purpose of the director and the filmmaker to decide what styles to use and what story they are trying to imagine.

There's a well known example of this that was seen on the internet during the Iraq/Afghanistan war. The original photo showed two American soldiers holding a prisoner-of-war. The POW had his hands died behind his back, and one soldier was holding his head back while another was pouring water into his mouth. The photo seen by most Americans, depending what news agencies you follow, was probably only one portion of this - but the real photo was never widely printed. You either saw the half that showed the soldier pulling the POW's head back, as if to be torturing him OR you saw the half with the soldier pouring water into his mouth. The whole photo seems to demonstrate that while the prisoner is incarcerated, the soldiers are still fulfilling his wish to quench his thirst.

However, by framing the photo differently and cropping it, it could show two drastically different stories.While this is one example, it does not necessarily reflect exactly on what this article is talking about. It's just an example of how framing a scene can tell two different images - but the original photographer who was responsible for the shot had already followed the concepts of this article in taking his shot - one that showed the negative but also humanitarian aspects of war. The critical role, then, still comes back to the photographer, the filmmaker, or the director...in utilizing an endless variety of tools and techniques to tell a compelling and complete story for their viewers.

Using the Camera for Interpretation

I loved how this article focused on the mechanical and technical aspects of creating a film. I personally live for analog photography, and most if not all of the rules for composing aesthetically pleasing video come from this art, cinema's predecessor. Without being able to include sound, dialogue, or actually capture motion in real time, photographs must succinctly tell a story with one singular, quiet image. Within the realm of film composition, focal length, and all the other variables for good photography are all still crucial in telling a story on screen, though I do believe this is a neglected mode of relating a narrative to the audience.

While overall I would argue a fair amount of directors don't put nearly as much emphasis of camera placement and shot composition, there are an elite core of directors that are so engrossed in, so controlling of, and so particular about their craft that they pay special attention to the story the camera itself is telling. Behold, the auteur! Yes, this exalted class of director has plagued many a film scholar, especially those who don't speak French. Merde, these nerds are held in high esteem, and for what? Artsy fartsy movies that focus on the most mundane actions or items in the hopes of being considered more poetic than their contemporaries. All jokes aside, the almost obsessive relationship these filmmakers have with their movies facilitates an acute focus to detail. When it comes to cinematography, this manifests in the attention given to each pan, zoom, and track. The beauty inherent in the majority of these films is how close to the action the audience finds themselves. Even with sparse dialogue, the grand scheme of emotions are portrayed. Likewise, character development can take place visually. What viewers know of the characters of a film could come from where their gaze is directed, or if they are looked at from a low angle or not. The importance placed of cinematography doesn't make or break a film, but when utilized, it can transform a regular story into an all-engrossing tale. I think Wes Anderson does this beautifully, just for example, and I enjoy how in the short Hotel Chevalier all these particulars are combined to set a mood as well as tell a story with few words. The space as well as the feelings of those who occupy it are captured masterfully with the camerawork. Most notably is the way in which Natalie Portman's character seems to be in the foreground when in comparison to Jason Schwartzman's as well as how in stature she towers over him, giving an early signifier to their relationship's power dynamic.

Angles and Characterization of Cinematography

The art of cinematography has always fascinated me, and I often look for the different ways scenes are shot in movies and TV shows. This article gave me a whole new vocabulary and outlook on the art and ideas of how I could use a camera to make a video with the storytelling in the shots and not just in the writing. I find the angles that the article talked about to be one of the most important parts of shooting a video. When I watch any type of video media, I notice that when two people are talking to each other, it is shot from the point of view of the person not talking, or an over-the-shoulder shot, and then when the other person starts talking, the camera switches. This is not always the case, but I see it more often than not, and it gives the viewer the prospective of the person listening, so we too feel like we are in the action and are a part of the story. The audience in a character’s prospective is not only done with over-the-shoulder shots when characters are talking, though. It is used in all sorts of different methods, for example flying through the streets and between buildings as we see through the prospective of Spiderman. Characters are meant to be relatable, and while the actual story can give characters traits that the audience can relate to, the cinematography is also needed to show us the point of view of these characters in order for us to really understand what they are going through and what their agenda is.

I also found the information about the high and low angle shots to be helpful for characterization as well. It is important to know not only how characters are meant to be perceived by the audience, which is vital in itself, but also how characters understand themselves to be in relation to other characters. If a character is shown looking up at another from a high angle shot, the character whose point of view we are seeing probably sees them as lesser than they are, and therefore the audience too will see them that way. This goes for characters given a low angle shot as well, giving the audience the notion that the POV character is probably seeing the other character in a “high and mighty” light and wants the audience to see them as grand also. The characterization that is done by the angle of the camera adds so much depth to the video and creates a whole new dimension to the story.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LORyEX_5czg

This scene from Mean Girls does a great job of switching between over-the-shoulder shots of both Cady and Regina, giving the points of view of both girls.

Response to Using the camera for interpretation by Harris

   I found this article really informative and easy to understand. Not only because it touches all the basic technique in the article, but it also how to direct the audiences’ attention in a scene. I enjoyed this article because I really love the editing and distortion part of filming. I agree with article that different composition brings different meanings to the scene. For example, in the article when describing the effect of using a low angle, the author used the Batman as an example to illustrate the victorious and strong feeling to the character by using that angle.

   Another thing that interested me is the concept of 4th wall of the movie. It is essential for characters to not recognize the presence of the camera, because once a character intentionally to looks into the camera, directly at the audiences, the reality that generated by the scene dissolved. However, there are some movies intentionally to use this technique to tell the story. One movie pop up in my mind is Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.

In this film, there are many instances the characters in the movie talking directly to the camera but the main character is simply a narrator, commentator. Like Jordan Belfort(Leonardo DiCaprio) in Wolf of Wall Street, he tell the audience about what happen in the scene and talking to audience about his life.

Personally, I really like this technique,as it break the boundaries between the audience and the story itself, It acknowledge the present of the audience and promote more interaction between audience and the film itself.

Using the Camera for Interpretation

Since I don't have any artistic experience with video and film, at first all of the different components needed to make one good shot seemed very overwhelming.  However, I appreciate how much work needs to go into making something look good and how much attention to detail is necessary.  Based on the pictures in the reading, a slight flaw can dramatically change how the entire shot is perceived.  The audience could try to make meaning out of something that wasn't actually intended if the frame is too big or a lens was used for a shot it shouldn't have been.  There really is so much power in the camera and these techniques are the basis for good filming and art.

Does this mean every shot always has to have this much thought and care put into it?  Moreover, does every shot have a deeper meaning as to why it was set that way?  Or can directors ever get away with technical flaws based on the content itself?  I don't want to undervalue the strength of the camera because obviously, its proper use is critical for a perfect shot.  But when there aren't always professional cameramen there to strengthen a piece, could it be just as good?

While doing this reading I thought of low-budget horror films.  These are often shot with cameras that resemble more of a "home-movie" style, and that's usually the desired effect and intention of the director.  Still, a lot of shots are probably not perfect but the meaning still gets across.  Some would consider them even more frightening because they are relatable to the viewer and seem more realistic, opposed to a horror movie shot with a professional studio.  Below is a video describing some of the making of the Blair Witch Project.

Movie magic

        I like that Douglass and Harden mention Hitchcock’s Rear Window near the beginning of the reading. Rear Window is about a news photographer confined to a wheelchair after an accident during one of his assignments. Much of the film is tightly framed, and all the events are seen from the point of view of the main character’s living room. Jeffries (and the audience) is curious about what goes on in the other apartments in his neighborhood but the camera never allows us to see the inside of anyone’s home. Also, interestingly, many of the zooming camerawork comes from the point of view of Jeffries’ telephoto lens, which directly places us in the same point of view as the main character. The camerawork has the effect of placing us in the emotional perspective of Jeffries, feeling the same confinement to the little living space as he does.

         I really enjoyed the last line of the reading – “Camera technique is the creation of an illusion of reality that exists on the screen, rendered and interpreted with all the photographic devices at our disposal.” It makes me think of Orson Welles’ Citizen Kane, which was also a film mentioned in the reading. The movie was filmed with fisheye lenses and made constant use of low angles. The set pieces were also deliberately disproportionate and spaced out. All of these aspects gave the film space its fascinatingly isolating and oppressive look and feel, communicating to the audience Kane’s isolation in a much more sophisticated way than outright in the script. One of my favorite scenes in Citizen Kane occurs when Kane has taken over a competing newspaper company and the camera zooms in on a photograph of the newspaper’s employees, now in the hands of Charlie Kane. There’s a very smooth transition between the photograph and a “real life” shot of the journalists posing for a new photo, and the first time I watched the film I didn’t even notice the transition and was mesmerized by the magical quality of the image coming to life. It was a cheeky play on camera equipment and technique and absolutely made me think about the wonder that accompanied the spectacle of moving film in its early days.

Dial M for Murder

In the introduction of "Using the Camera for Interpretation," Douglass and Harden mention Alfred Hitchcock's film Rear Window. I absolutely agree with their use of Rear Window as an example of when the camera does not visually reveal everything to the audience. But based on the content of the article, the Hitchcock film that immediately came to my mind in terms of camera movement was Dial M for Murder.

Dial M for Murder is truly an amazing example of innovative camera movement and the camera's ability to tell a story. In the film, Tony Wendice (Ray Milland) composes a plan to murder his wife (Grace Kelly); the premise is quite simple. The film even takes place in the parameters of a single apartment. But such a simple setting is what makes the film amazing. Majority of the screen time is spent in the main living area of the Wendice's apartment. The static setting then forces the camera movement to be extremely dynamic so the audience does not become bored with the small setting. Hitchcock brilliantly handles the camera with variations in framing, focal length, angles, POVs, etc. As a result, the audience still experiences Hitchcockian suspense despite the limited space and limited camera movements (e.g. crane shots, ELS). Thus, Dial M for Murder is a great example of how a director can manipulate the audience's emotions through his camerawork.

Film critic Leonard Maltin, in this clip, discusses how Hitchcock "opens up" the small space of the Wendice's apartment for the viewers. Despite the fact that the film was shot for 3D purposes but is shown mostly as a 2D picture, the ingenuity of the camera movement is still great.

I highly recommend watching Dial M for Murder if you have not seen it. It has an amazing cast and is a great example of Hitchcock's brilliance as a director. Here is the murder scene, which is a great example of Hitchcock's camerawork.

Using the Camera for Interpretation

As someone who has studied perception, I was pleased to see Douglass and Harden mention visual cues and their importance to composing and filming scenes (160).  Monocular cues are the most heavily relied on for optical illusions. Thus, if a director understands how to manipulate monocular cues like depth through techniques like angled shooting, it can save a great deal of trouble in having to add special effects. Moreover, it can mean the difference between a believable scene and one that is disorienting and confusing for a viewer.

  

I saw the Oscar Nominated Live Action Shorts* this weekend. They all have pristine cinematography, but the one that I found particularly resonant was “Avant que de tout perdre” (“Just Before Losing Everything”). The film does a beautiful job of showing almost all of the techniques described in Using the Camera for Interpretation. There is minimal dialogue in the film. Practically nothing is overtly stated; that which is said relays the theme subtly, indirectly (a fitting reflection of that theme). The true theme of the film is largely conveyed through its cinematography. The film uses framing and varying focal lengths to show to compose shots which maintain suspense, highlight an important detail, or reflect the mood and theme of the piece. There is plentiful use of close-up and, occasionally, extreme close-up. These shots say more to a viewer than any amount of spoken narrative could. There is quite a bit of camera movement throughout the half hour piece. The movement helps keep the viewer focused on the main characters at all times; there is no time for distraction. At points the camera movement seems rushed and shaky. However, it is appropriate given the subject matter and mood of the film.

The clip below is a short example of the array of cinematic techniques that are used throughout the film.

*I would highly recommend going to see them if you haven't! They are playing at The Little Theatre.