Sweded Project: Mean Girls - Poster and Links

Sweded Film Project

Here are the links to the marketing for our sweded film, Mean Girls

Twitter:
twitter.com/meangirlsweded


Facebook:
facebook.com/meangirlssweded

Instagram:
instagram.com/meangirlssweded

BLK HWK 3: Sweding - Research

Sweding

'Sweded' is a made up term to describe films that have been erased and then recreated. It originates from Michel Gondry's 2008 film, Be Kind Rewind, where Jerry McLean (Jack Black) and Mike Coolwell (Mos Def) remake films with themselves as the actors, using cheap special effects. Jerry accidentally erases the VHS tapes in Mike's store, and when a customer asks for Ghostbusters, having never seen the film before Mike proposes to remake it hoping to fool her. Soon after another asks for Rush Hour 2, word catches on of the hilarious films and demand increases, so when a new film has to be made for each customer they insist the films came from Sweden in order to allow long wait times and higher costs for the rental. In spirit of the film, director Michel Gondry sweded his own version of the film's trailer, starring himself, and the film's official website and YouTube channel both encouraged filmmakers to swede popular movies.

Since Be Kind Rewind, the term 'sweded' has been adopted as a slang term for a cheap spoof remake of any film or trailer, usually a very well known one, having only one take per scene. They are mostly between 2 to 6 minutes in duration, showing only the best known, iconic scenes. Film music is often parodied vocally for comedic effect, acting is overly dramatised and props are purposely made poorly. Another common feature is referencing other pop culture in films, which would usually be done within similar genres, for example the 'he who shall not be named' Harry Potter reference in this swede of The Lord of The Rings - The Fellowship of the Ring.
Even without being named 'sweded', YouTube and the whole of the internet host thousands of videos parodying famous films, not just since Be Kind Rewind, but in homage to the film many since 2008 are entitled 'swedes'. These can range from very short, single scene clips to over 10 minutes of footage, edited with proper continuity, and effort put into props and costume - but the acting being what makes them funny.

DYM HWK 3: Dexter Title Sequence Re-Edit - Evaluation

Dexter Title Sequence Re-Edit Evaluation

1) Summarise the conventions of title sequences that were most important to this task.

Titles in a sequence must contain the main people involved in making a programme/film and acting in it. It can often be a legal obligation due to contract terms with personnel in or behind the production to include them. The titles can either draw attention to something or a character, or blend into the background, but they usually convey or at least adhere to a certain theme, based on genre and/or narrative. In more modern sequences technology has allowed characters to actually interact with titles, or for them to cleverly blend into the environment - this was important and interesting to learn about but with the given time and our personal abilities it didn't really apply. The sequence itself should introduce the idea of what we may expect to see, or hint at it using enigma or visual metaphors (e.g. a violently made breakfast in Dexter). It should anchor the audience by giving them enough of a taste that they are gripped and wish to see more, not just be a filler to fulfill legal obligations. Any number of things can be presented to the audience, whether it be just the setting, main character/s, themes, or all of this.


 2. How did your group plan to edit the title sequence? (consider timings, industry requirements etc.)

As a group we did not have a designated planning time, as we completed the task in the same lesson that we were introduced to it, however once in our editing groups we consulted on how we would edit. A brief discussion decided that each group member would create one title in turns and rotate across the three of us continually, to ensure equal input. After agreeing on a font, theme and colour scheme we began the practical side of the task.


3. Explain the creative decisions made by your group. Similar to the official title/logo itself it was quickly decided to use a, bold, blood-red for our titles. Blood was a key theme in the sequence, simple but powerful and very telling, so we complied with this. We added a shadow to the titles for a mysterious, enigmatic connotation, and for the same reasons, a fade in as each is introduced. Apart from this fade the titles had no movement, in order to not draw too much attention to them, as the visuals that are already present are particularly effective and important to the opening. Upon entry most titles appeared in the corners of the screen where they would be the clearest and overlap the least with movement in these images. One would not really have been able to do this, so on the ECU looking vertically down into coffee in the blender we centralised a title. It could have been simpler to just use a title elsewhere on another shot but our group liked the fact that it was a visual idea that could be played with back and forth in the mind of an audience - "is this representing a character in danger? Perhaps one in distress or tormented internally?" The font we chose was quite sinister and broken, adding to the conventions of genre and running parallel with some of the evident themes. We decided not to try and be too ambitious or complex with the titles; acknowledging time limitations our approach was simple but effective.


4. How does your re-edit compare to the original?

In terms of looking professional I believe our group's edit is surprisingly successful for the amount of time it took. The original obviously had more titles; this being the major difference due to time constraints, but the titles themselves wouldn't seem particularly out of place in the real sequence. The original has slightly animated titles, that provide a jumpy, edgy, fearful feel, however personally I don't find them particularly effective. What they are trying to do is very evident, and some of the shots jump in the same way but controversially I feel it makes it seem unprofessional, as if someone had made an error while editing. Some of the titles are even hidden because of the colours which draws unnecessary attention to focus on and read them, something we were successful in avoiding. Compared to the original I also prefer how our edit's titles stick to one size, another thing making them clearer and easier to read. Despite these criticisms I do like the way the original titles appear at all different points on the screen, connoting spontaneity and unpredictability, something our attempt failed to do. Overall I think that with more time and effort, our sequence's titles could be as effective if completed. But the fact that the original titles try to serve more of a purpose, despite being ambitious (and not to the standard of the excellent shots they accompany), is a better stance to take.

Preliminary Exercise Evaluation

Prelim Evaluation

Video Brief: 'Continuity task involving filming and editing a character opening a door, crossing a room and sitting down in a chair opposite another character, with whom she/he then exchanges a couple lines of dialogue. This task should demonstrate match on action, shot/reverse shot and the 180-degree rule.

1) Who did you work with and how did you manage the task between you?

The group members were Ellie Brackpool, Georgie Thoupos, Aidan McGiff, and myself. Georgie and Aidan both acted in the scene, and Ellie managed the set, the sound and assisted with the camera, providing extremely valuable opinions on framing and composition. I took the role of director because previously in Media Studies and in the prelim work I acted quite a lot, so this time I felt it would be useful to get some experience with the camera under my belt. As Georgie is new to Media Studies, acting allowed her to ease into the process, Ellie chose her role with it being one she enjoys as she could contribute all-round, and Aidan acted to give others like myself time with the camera as he has had good experience directing already. However, we all took responsibilities with the camera, including the actors (in shots where they were not in frame), and contributed to the direction of the sequence. When we edited we split into two pairs rather than staying as a four in order to give us all as much editing experience as possible. Ellie and I edited together, and Aidan worked with Georgie, each pair taking the same narrative with a slightly different interpretation in terms of shot selection, length and order. I believe everyone had an equal contribution to the group; there was no natural leader but we all had enough confidence to put our ideas forward.


2) How did you plan your sequence? What processes did you use? What theories did you try to take into account?

Hesitant and possibly unconfident at first, to plan our sequence we sat together as a group and brainstormed ideas verbally and noted them down on paper until we came to a conclusion. Although our planning was mainly based on ideas and vision rather than a certain, set-in-stone order of exact shots, we wrote and drew up a series of some of our main shots on a storyboard. We also constructed a rough script to give the cast an idea of what to say. Also during pre-production, we planned how and where we would set up, which involved moving lots of chairs out (and finding a place to put them temporarily) and bringing a table on set to make it typical of an interrogation scene. Unfortunately we were unable to attain our first-choice set as it was unavailable, so we had the challenge of planning to film in a relatively small, limiting space. Later on in the process we decided which props and costumes would fit in with the idea, and found out who would be able to provide us with them. We made it a focus to include and adhere to all of the theories and conventions of continuity set by the brief, as well as other rules, and in addition, imply a clear sense of genre through our own knowledge. The little planning that we did benefited us greatly, but if it wasn't for our successful improvisation it would have become a time-consuming obstacle. 


3) What technology did you use to complete the task, and how did you use it?



We used the school's digital cameras (Canon HV30) with an attached shotgun microphone and a tripod, and Sennheiser headphones to shoot this task, filming in different positions with a variety of techniques and angles. Examples of these include fully extending the legs on the tripod to create establishing high-angle long shots and handheld closeups for a human, gritty feel. We shot the scene indoors where the light could easily be controlled, but we did not require this anyway; the natural light from outdoors was sufficient. We used Adobe Premiere Pro to edit our sequence on computers designed specifically for editing. Using this we could cut the starts of shots introducing each shot/take with a clapperboard, and endings we believed carried on for too long, piecing them together in the order/pace we believed fit our perception of the idea best. In the process, a fair few shots were scrapped, but we dragged the ones that we believed were the most successful onto the timeline. By using Premiere Pro's razor tool we could cross-cut separate narratives, and make a conversation look like a series of shots whereas in reality much of it was two shots cut between in a shot/reverse shot. Unlinking audio from video proved very useful, for example cutting away from the closing door but still being able to include the sound of it closing at the correct time in the next shot. Fortunately, with my previous use of this software in Media Studies I was quite familiar with the editing process and its challenges.


4) What factors did you have to take into account when planning, shooting, and editing?

As we shot this task within school, when shooting we had to plan to capture as much as we could on camera before and after the changes in period. This was because other pupils would walk past the set, inevitably talking and making disruptive noise, so although we had the hour and 20 minutes of a double lesson, realistically we knew we would have about an hour of shooting within that, which would also account for setting up. We were aware that we may have had to anticipate fire drills, consider natural and unnatural/controllable light and negotiate to confirm availability of our set. Other students were shooting their prelim tasks in the media rooms so we had to keep sound/noise within reason, arrange with them who would use which areas at what time in the lesson, check whether anybody planned to use the same props as us from the department, and ask whether we could be granted permission to do so in the first place. Quite a major cause for concern was shooting within a very small, limiting set, so we had to do a walkthrough to see which shots we could realistically take.

Along with this were the continuity theories and rules, and the way the audience would interpret what they would see (we may know what the scene is about as producers or directors but it has to make sense to others). During the editing process we had to put these theories into practice with some success, in order for our sequence to have a relatively seamless narrative flow and make clear enough sense. Also, when editing we took into account pace and shot length, as well as whether we would actually require each shot we planned and filmed. Another thing we had to adapt to was the fact that we were restricted from using any special effects or sound effects in our sequence; in the suite we decided to leave the 'down the barrel' shot until the end, where an audience could expect the gun to be fired without actually seeing or hearing it.

5) How successful was your sequence? Please identify what worked well, and with hindsight, what would you improve/do differently?

I believe our sequence was quite successful; the idea was very simple and complied with the demands of the brief; Aidan walks through a door, crosses a room and sits opposite Georgie with whom he exchanges some lines of dialogue. In particular the 180 degree rule with our shot/reverse shot in the conversation was executed really well, and there was no issue with jump shots and the 30 degree rule, in the sense that shots were individual, and appropriately changed distance, angle and framing, despite shooting on a tiny set! However, there were a few small errors with what I find most challenging in continuity - match on action. For many of our shots the action was matched well with no noticeable problem, which we must give ourselves credit for, but a minority of others blocked us from achieving a seamless, professional looking flow between them. Without a wealth of successful shots, matching the action from approaching and opening the door at different angles proved the most challenging to edit, although Aidan and Georgie's separate edit was surprisingly successful compared to what Ellie and I managed. The three consecutive shots right at the end were cut within only two seconds in quick succession, but in spending more time trying to perfect it, our partnership did a relatively decent job to create good continuity there. The continuity issues were minimal, but given more time (or if we gave ourselves more time by working more efficiently), they would have been simple enough to clear up quickly during shooting and editing. Apart from slight tendencies to smile uncontrollably at times, the acting from Aidan and Georgie was actually quite convincing, which would help one to suspend their disbelief while watching the scene. In hindsight, better planning of shots (e.g. a shot list), and a more concise, succint dialogue would have compacted the scene and taken less time to shoot and edit, allowing us to perfect the continuity further, especially matches on action. It would also put us under less pressure to film in a rush, allowing us to film more takes and thus eliminate errors such as the camera being jogged. I believe the group communication and dynamics worked excellently in this task, the division of roles worked well, everybody contributing equally and effectively and the whole process including editing was smooth, with no internal issues.


6) What have you learnt from completing this task? Looking ahead, how will this learning be significant when completing the rest of your foundation coursework, do you think?

From this task the rest of the group and I learned the importance of good planning and pre-production, especially under time constraints, debatably as a result of minimal, possibly insufficient planning. It teaches us to appreciate how much planning is needed in real-world media to create successful continuity. Our skills and knowledge were refreshed, especially in terms of speed and accuracy in editing, which I believe we did well. We also were reminded how behaviour on set impacts on the efficiency of the time we used to shoot, as the fact that many shots had us in hysterics meant we had to shoot more takes than would be ideal. This will be significant when completing the rest of the foundation coursework because it has significantly boosted my comfort and confidence in editing which previously was very little. Particularly in situations where I don't have a wealth of great shots to use, I now feel I can still create a successful sequence, whereas before the prospect would have panicked me. Getting used to working with a group to create a piece will be elemental experience for upcoming work, with emphasis on getting to know the skills and personalities of other members of the class, any of whom I could potentially be working with on coursework.

DYM HWK 2: Art of the Title Activity - Evaluation

Art of the Title Activity - Evaluation

 



1) Summarise your film idea. Provide a brief synopsis and outline what happens in your film opening.
The idea of the film is told quite simply with the title; 'Followed'. The genre we aimed for was horror/thriller. After texting her, a girl is about to make her to see her friend. It is late after school has ended, and unbeknownst to her a man is following her. She slowly, naively walks the halls of the school but the large figure moves closer, producing a gun from his back pocket. A close-up of the soon-to-be victim's face indicate she has realised something is not quite right, then the last shot before the cut to black with the title is a point of view over the shoulder of the victim as a hand grabs it.


2) What kind of information has been included in your film opening?
We are given a sense of narrative in terms of our victim; she is on her way somewhere from a school, which we can see through the CU text shot and the scenery in the background. There is also a clear sense that the second character is 'the bad guy' through the enigmatic way in which he is shot with little reveal, his imposing figure and dark hoodie.


3) How do the titles link to the main film idea?The title we used was 'Oh No' from the website dafont.com. The messy, hastily scribbled feel they visualise implies panic, worry and danger approaching, which nicely reflects the narrative of the film and its idea. The written feel comes from a victim's perspective, and the white colour represents innocence, which contrasts well with the black background that surrounds it in the final shot.


4) Summarise the expected audience reaction. What should the audience be thinking by the end of your opening? Is your opening clear or ambiguous?We aimed to produce a questioning, concerned audience response through our use of limited reveal - enigma. The ambiguous approach we used would ideally cause the audience to ask questions such as 'who is this man and what does he want?', 'will the victim be killed?', and 'what happens next?', etc.


5) Identify three things that you included in your grid that are important in the construction of an opening sequence and explain their role in understanding the film.i) We included a CU of our victim to display her emotion and hopefully develop a clear sense of her character in the minds of the audience. The fact that there is a lot of focus on her is evidence that she plays a significant part in the film

ii) Another important part of our AotT grid were the titles. The font alone expressed a lot about the genre of the film, which I believe is absolutely key in understanding the basic elements of it.  Through remembering conventions of the given genre and past experience of it, the audience are given the ability to form expectations and predictions which really involves and engages them.

iii) The use of a variety of shot angles and distances collectively creates a complete view of the setting. Without a clear idea of a film's setting it can be extremely confusing for an audience to work out where each subject of interest geographically is. The idea may be clear in the head of a director but for people who do not know the story or location it is essential to make parts of these obvious. It is also far less entertaining to watch the same shot types and distances for long periods of time so it is important to anchor your audience by moving around and avoid others disengaging or becoming disinterested.


6) How effective is your film project as an opening? Explain your answer.I think our project was fairly successful because I believe an audience would get a clear enough idea of narrative through the types of shots we used and the context in which we used them (e.g. the OTS hand on shoulder, CU displaying emotion). The genre is evident through titles and props such as the gun so our viewers can form some expectations and get involved in what is going on.

This success was hindered quite considerably by the limited control of lighting we had. As we shot during a lesson and within school hours it was difficult to make a convincing sequence with quite high key lighting all around in our setting.