PLEASE, I really need help writing this screen report!!

Screen Report Instructions:

Step 1: Read our lecture on Shot-to-Shot editing (I will post notes down below) and Watch OMG: Oh My God! (2012), Dir. Umesh Shukla ----> movie link: https://www.google.com/search?q=OMG%3A+Oh+My+God!+(2012)&rlz=1C5CHFA_enCA1124CA1126&oq=OMG%3A+Oh+My+God!+(2012)&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIGCAEQRRg60gEIMTEzN2owajeoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:e3140067,vid:MWxBbTtjmXg,st:0

Step 2: Imagine yourself in the role of the Director of this week's film. Your job is to create an experience for the audience through focusing on the relationship shots have with each other.

With this in mind, watch the film you chose as though this is what the director is seeking to do. Take care to see how he does this and how he uses editing. What shots and what juxtapositions are made to create certain emotions and to play off religious questions? It is expected that you can notice many aspects of how these shots are done, such as close ups, mis-en-scene, transitions, etc. How does the film create anxiety? Uneasiness? Humor? This film is a comedy and plays off irony and absurdity in order to make a larger point. How does editing bring this out?

In figuring out what to specifically write about, take a particularly noteworthy scene from the film that stuck with you. Maybe choose a fairly short and simple sequence to look at, such as five to ten shots in a sequence lasting 30 seconds or a minute. Choose an individual sequence or part of an individual sequence rather than the end of one sequence and the beginning of another. A sequence is simply a series of interrelated shots that form a coherent unit of dramatic action. Describe the content of each image thoroughly, but concentrate on the methods by which the director affects transitions from shot to shot. What type of matching does the director employ, if any? After you've divided each shot and described it thoroughly, what do you notice about the sequence? What is the expressive purpose behind what you are seeing? Is all you see done on purpose, or are there accidental themes, such as a cow running through the scene or a fly that lands on a persons drink? etc, etc.

Utilize this week's vocabulary and reference this week's readings.

Lecture Notes:

In this lecture, we're going to be talking about editing from shot to shot. Editing allows one scene to transition into another scene, in a way that feels fluid and natural. So good editing is editing You don't really notice, which makes it difficult for us to always see. But at the same time, if good editing is done, We will then feel a certain way about what we've just seen. Editing then is a very important component in the creation of meaning within film. [Montage] One place We can see this form of editing would be that a Montage. Montage is a French term that means "to assemble." And it has reference to bring in a bunch of different shots together to one large scene. An example would be Sergey Eisenstein's Odessa steps. It's a sequence from the film, the 1925 film, Battleship Potemkin. And this becomes an early pioneering approach where the directors were seeking to demonstrate this, the glories of the 1917 Soviet Revolution. It's a recreation of the 1905 uprising of the sailors against the Russian Czar. And here the people of Odessa are supporters of this new movement, and they gathered on these steps of Odessa. But notice how the editing creates this feeling of intense conflict, where we have contrast between lights and darks, baby and mother, and people and the government. Viewers then when they see this, this becomes a very famous than Montage, which becomes recreated and very influential in a bunch of different films. But the viewers then when you see this, you then become a participant of it, you become a revolutionary yourself. You become a new Patriot of the new Soviet Russia. [Continuity Editing] Here another form of editing would be continuity editing, or invisible editing, which creates a type of flow between shots. This continuity from one shot to another. And you see this being done by way of Transitions and angles and sounds, which helps to flow from one scene to another. It just feels natural, even though it's invisible. And this different flow can come out and matching things together in three different ways. The first one would be matching on action. Which should be what a physical act takes you from one scene to another. An example of this would be a door opening and then another cut to a different scene which see the door then shutting. But what it does is it takes you from one shot that of another, it can introduce a different character. The second one would be eyeline matching, where we see for example a ball hit from one side of the screen, and it would need to then fall into another shot in a different side of the screen. Otherwise, it wouldn't feel natural. Another example would be if a pitcher looks to the left of the first baseman, it would have to have the first baseman then look to the right to the picture. Otherwise, it doesn't look natural that they would actually be seeing each other. So in other words the eyes, where they're looking at, need to match up together. Because the audience is gonna recognize if something feels natural or somehow off. The third one would be graphic matching. This is where two objects from one scene to another flow into each other. such as seen in 2001 Space Odyssey where you see this bone thrown up in the air that's been whirling in the air, then turns into a transitions into a space station. And what you see then is one shot going into another, and it isn't just kind of looking nice but what's happening is we're actually taking this meaning is happening between the storyline of the bone and that of the space station. There's something about the human evolutionary scale that's being portrayed in this transition. So it's not just innocent transition to look nice or to be aesthetically pleasing, but actually move a story along in a very important way. So our big question then is, what is the meaning being created in all of these transitions? [Kuleshov Experiment] The Kuleshov experiment becomes something very important to recognize here with an editing, where the magic isn't so much coming from the actors, but the editor. Editing compounds information, creating evocative associations that form a Cornerstone of any films expressive meaning, and the Kuleshov experiment is another Soviet example of this being done in film. So by splicing together different Snippets of photograph reality, they were able to create something new. Something that didn't exist on a brute material plane, but that did exist in the minds of movie audiences. And that's kind of the important here is an editing is then manipulating what's going on in the viewer's minds, and it's able to do so by the juxtapositions it's able to play forth. Notice as you watch this Kuleshov experiment, Liv Kuleshov wasn't just a film director, he was also a theorist about what the audience was Then perceiving. And he filmed Ivan Mulshivan, a famous Soviet actor in a medium close-up with a sincere looking but neutral expression on his face. He then filmed a shot of a bowl of soup, that of a coffin, and a shot of a sexy woman. The audiences when they saw this were amazed at the breadth and the depth of lvan's acting abilities, where he's able to be so subtly expressive in all these different forms, but the magic was created by the editor, not the actor. The audience actually imposed all of these emotions on the actor because of how the film was edited. It was a type of filmic manipulation of the audience, and illusion and a magic trick. But it really demonstrated the power of editing on the audience minds. They were able to project onto the actor emotions of hunger, sorrow, desire, but they came from the exact same shot. So the actor was actually not portraying any of these subtle emotions. So as you watch this experiment, contemplate how films you watch are doing the same type of things by way of creating emotions by way of juxtaposition and editing. Now the Third Way is what one might call Pure cinematics, the Assembly of film. And how it can be changed to create a different idea. Now have a close-up. Let me show what he sees. Let's assume, he Saw a woman holding a baby in her arms. Now we cut back To his reaction to what he sees. And he smiles. Now what is he as a character? He's a kindly man. He's sympathetic. Now let's Take the middle piece of film away, the woman with the child, but leave his two pieces of film as they were. Now we'll put in a piece of film of a girl in a bikini. He looks, girl in a bikini. He smiles. What is he now? The dirty old man. He's no longer than benign gentlemen Who loves babies. That's the difference. That's what film can do for you