“Rashmi’s Cafe”_ Short Film 1080p

“Rashmi’s Cafe”_ Short Film 1080p


Oh… the last supper is here… Do you remember… the last
supper… Here… I told you… Let us not come to this restaurant… It is good know… A symbol of my
success… our success… we have spoken about it right? From tomorrow, no more this
restaurant… You will be a queen of my house from tomorrow… queen
and queen only… It is ok… being a queen is also
good… but… Painful is it?… Just think… What if we are not married… it would have been
thousand times more painful… true… What do you say…? I can’t explain everything again
Rashmi… We both discussed about it and together made the decsion right? Now what? Don’t be down in the mouth … Let us order your special dish to cheer you up I want to make you feel special, with your special By the way what is the name of that dish? Hey.. Why do you have to give that stare now? I have
remembered our anniversary and
taken you for your restaurant… Beyond that, you also expect me to rememeber the name of your special dish… Give us men some break… I love you dear… I cant go and speak with my dad again He will
call off everything. I dont understand. how can anyone
just throw away a King size life
offered on a platter… I dont understand. how can anyone ignore a life King size life offered
to them on a platter… I love you Prateek… I love you Rashmi… how is the food? Rashmi don’t go Hello Sir, How is the food?

CAREERS IN DIGITAL FILM MAKING – Certification course,Mass Media,Cinematographer,Remuneration

CAREERS IN DIGITAL FILM MAKING – Certification course,Mass Media,Cinematographer,Remuneration


Hi guys..This is Pooja from Freshersworld.com Welcome to our video channel on jobs and careers Today I will be talking about the career opportunities in Digital film making Films are one aspect of the human mankind
that does not fail to amuse many. They attract people from all age groups and allow the memory
of movies to sink deep within us. Film making is everything what you want to know about
movies and their making and costing and stuff. Digital film making, however, implies to being
used at a higher level and hence using and capturing of images that are static in motion,
instead of the ones that were previously used as film stock are generally categorized as
digital film making. Digital film making provides an insight to
not only just “films” or “movies” but also, learning to create programming for all various
types of media. It includes various TV shows and their scripting, documentaries, reality
buzzes, sitcoms, animation and video journalism come under the title of film making. The institutes that cater to film making are present in each and every nook and corner
of the city and hence online programs for film making have come into existence, recently.
The online film making courses have stepped into the market, very recently, thereby, providing
an insight to the deep roots of this course at a totally new level. On the other hand,
a certificate of merit or grades are been given to the potential candidates who clear
their paths through this course and pave their way in becoming great film makers of all times.
The production course tool work of this course majorly focuses on the following topic of
concern: • Financing
• Marketing • Scriptwriting
• History of cinema • Editing
• Movie genres and aesthetics The degree course invites attention of the
following mentioned subjects: • Storyboarding
• Computer graphics • Working with actors
• Lighting • High-definition video
• Digital asset management • Audio production
• Screenwriting Here is an overlook to the essential information
needed by the potential candidates to strive through film making in particular:
Career Titles Directors (Producers and Directors) Writers and Authors Cinematographers (Camera
Operators) Education Requirements A bachelor’s or master’s
degree in film, acting or cinema studies A bachelor’s degree in journalism, English or
communications A bachelor’s degree in film or broadcasting A list of colleges that excel in digital film
making across India: • Manav Rachna International University,
Delhi • Pearl Academy, Mumbai • Deviprasad Goenka Management College Of Media Studies, Mumbai • St. Paul’s Institute of Communication
Education (SPICE) Mumbai • Asian Academy of Film & Television
Noida Certificate course in Production Direction & TV Journalism, 3 – 6 Months Log on to www.freshersworld.com for more updates
regarding this course in general we will be back with such more videos so stay connected with us do not forget to hit the subscribe button below

How to Make GoPro Footage Look Cinematic

How to Make GoPro Footage Look Cinematic


(upbeat music) – Hey, guys, welcome to Travel Feels. Today we’re gonna look at
how to make Go Pro footage look cinematic. (upbeat music) We all have to deal with Go
Pro footage at some point, and maybe some of you
are even just shooting on Go Pros for your films, so I wanted to show you my workflow and my process and how I
work with Go Pro footage to get the best results and make the most cinematic image possible. Alright, so we have our project here with our Go Pro footage clips. And the way I like to start my sequence is to just drag and drop the clips on to this little button here. And that creates a sequence with the right settings from
the Go Pro footage. Then I’m gonna just delete the audio here so that you don’t have to hear
the annoying drone noises. And then we are gonna look for my favorite parts of these clips, so I remember there’s a good clip in here, so just gonna watch for a bit. Alright, so somewhere around here. Gonna start it, let it play for a bit. And that looks good. Oh, and by the way, this was filmed on the Phantom Two, using
the Go Pro Hero Four. Alright so now we have
our little sequence here with our clips, we have four clips. And so we could try to do
this all in Premier Pro, but I find it a bit lacking in plugins and tools that I can use
to manipulate the image. So what I like to do is bring this into After Effects and
manipulate it in After Effects. So what you do is you
select all the footage, you right click, and you Replace with After Effects Composition. And this will bring those
clips into After Effects and then you can start editing from there. Alright, so we have our
clips in After Effects now. You can see clip one, clip two, clip three, and the last one, four, here. After Effects can be a
little bit daunting at first, but it’s really similar to Premier and you don’t really need to know too much to start using it. So first off, what I like to do is to de-noise all the clips. This way you can get rid of any annoying noise or artifacts
that might be in the footage. And it’ll be a little bit
better to grade after that. So we go into the effects,
and I’m going to use Neat Video’s Reduce Noise. This is a plugin that you have to pay for, but it’s really useful. You can also use something
like Red Giant’s De-Noiser, but I think Neat Video’s Reduce Noise is a little bit better
than Red Giant’s De-Noiser. So we go to Options here, and they’re trying to find a uniform area to get rid of all the noise, so this is a pretty uniform area. I’ll select that. It said it’s not uniform, but it’s close. Click Auto Profile over here, and I’m gonna check how much
de-noiser it’s applying. I’m gonna go a little bit less, I don’t think this needs that much. Then we’re gonna apply. And then for the purpose of this tutorial, I’m just gonna copy and paste this, even though you probably should go through clip by clip and
select an area and de-noise. So I’m gonna copy, and I’m gonna select the last three clips, and paste. So that was step one, de-noising. After that, I would usually
stabilize the footage. And so I use Warp Stabilizer. You can find it in
Effects, Warp Stabilizer. This is the same stabilizer
they have in Premier Pro, works pretty much exactly the same. And I do a very small
amount of stabilizing, so I try to keep it
between like five and 10%, so let’s just go for 10% here. And then we gotta wait
for it to render here. Alright, so now it’s done and you can see how it zoomed in a little
bit on the footage. I don’t think that this
shot was very shaky, since it was filmed on
a drone and a Gimbal, and it’s really wide to begin with. So I would do that for each of the clips, stabilize them all. Alright, now we’re done with that. They are all stabilized. And the next thing is
probably the biggest process, and that’s fixing the
wide-angle look of the Go Pro. That’s probably the biggest give-away that it’s Go Pro footage, and
makes it really not cinematic. So the way I fix that is using the Optics Compensation plugin. And so we’re gonna go ahead and apply that on the first clip. And so what we’re doing here is we’re gonna click Reverse Lens Distortion. We’re gonna choose diagonal, and optimal pixels. And then we’re just gonna start adding. And usually, the amount is I think about, around 70 I think
is the right amount. If you go too far, it
starts warping it too much, and if you don’t do it enough then it still has a little
bit of that fish-eye look. So I go around 70. And now you can see that it causes these little black bubbles
on the top and bottom. And I’m actually not
too worried about this because almost always I’m making it into anamorphic crop, so it has the black bars on
top and bottom anyway, so that will cover up those. So you’re good. Then we’ll go to the next clip, we’ll add Optics Compensation, do the same thing. And then add it to where it looks, where the horizon usually
starts to look straight. It’s a little bit hard in these clips cause there is no horizon, so you can’t tell exactly. Again, it starts to
look right at around 70. So we’ll keep it there. Next one we’ll just copy
and paste that effect. And it looks pretty good. This one the horizon is off a little bit. It’s a little bit tilted. This happens a lot with Phantoms. It’s not leveled on the horizon. So what I would do is just change the rotation a little bit, and you can even bring out a ruler to get it nice and straight. And that looks about right, and we’re just gonna
scale up a little bit to cover where we, to cover the rotation. And that’s good. And so we’ll copy and
paste onto the last shot, and there we go, getting rid of that fish-eye, wide-angle look. And that’s the biggest step
in my Go Pro footage process is this Optics Compensation. And you can’t use that in Premier, which really sucks. I wish you could use it
right in Premier already. But I do a lot of my color
grading in After Effects anyway, so it doesn’t really affect me too much. So next we will start color grading this, so what I’m gonna do is I’m going to add a new adjustment layer. I’m gonna put it over the whole sequence. But I’m gonna add a LUT, so
I’m gonna use apply color LUT. And I’m actually gonna
use one of my new LUTs that’ll be coming out soon. We’ll use Ciniti Saturated. And so you can see that
that affected the footage. You could just stop here, but I would never do
that, I would actually correct all the footage afterwards, still. So what we’re gonna do is we’re gonna use Colorista to do all our color correction. And this is a plugin from
Red Giant, I really like it. It costs a little bit, but I think it’s definitely worth it. So here we have the shadow wheel, the mid-tone wheel, and
the highlight wheel. So we can adjust the exposure of the highlights, mid-tones,
and shadows separately, and also the color of each
of those sections separately. And so we’re gonna add
a little contrast here. And we’re gonna bring up
the mid-tones a little bit. I don’t like bringing the
highlights up too much. You see right away the Go Pro
footage starts to blow out. A lot of times I actually
bring down the highlights and then bring up the mid-tones and keep kind of going back and forth until it looks right. I think we can add a little
bit of saturation also to this. And it’s also looking a little bit blue, so I’m just gonna bring the highlights and warm this up a little bit. I know it’s a cloudy day, but I like it to be a little bit warmer. So that’s looking pretty good, we can see what that did there. Subtle changes, but I think
it’s looking pretty good. We’ll move to the next clip here, add Colorista, and
we’ll do the same thing, bring down the shadows,
bring up the mid-tones, bring down the highlights a little bit, keep playing around with
these until it looks good. And we’ll also add a
little bit of saturation, see how much we added on the last one, it was 21, so we’ll go
around the same amount so they look about the same. And again we’re gonna make
this a little bit warmer. And there you go, that’s
the before and after. And here’s the next shot. We’ll add Colorista. Do the same thing here. Try to protect the
highlights from clipping, get some contrast in there, and add some saturation. And again, we’ll try to make
this a little bit warmer. There you go. And then for this last one,
we’ll just copy and paste, just to show a different way of doing it. And let’s see what it’s
doing right off the bat. It’s looking pretty good. It’s a little dark,
though, so we’re gonna go up on the mid-tones and
bring down the highlights just a little bit. And I think it could use a
tiny bit more saturation, this one’s pretty saturated. And also a little bit more warmth to keep in line with the other clips. And there we go, that’s
how I would color grade and color correct the footage. Lastly, what I would do is
just add some sharpening to the footage, so I would use the Unsharp plugin, that’s built right in. We can put it on the first clip here. And you don’t want to go
crazy with sharpening ever. I go around maybe 70 or so. And it’s hard to see for you guys with YouTube compression, but I think that’s a good amount. And we’ll just copy and paste that to the rest of the clips. And so now we’re done in After Effects and we can either render
this out in Pro Res and bring it back into Premier, or we can just go
straight back into Premier and this will be in there already. And so you can see here
is our project file from After Effects, and it’s gonna be a little bit slow, but all the corrections are
added onto here already. And lastly, I’m just gonna fix
up these black bubbles here, which I’m just gonna basically cover up using a PNG of the anamorphic
crop lines, basically. So I’m gonna bring that in and put it on top, then scale it. And there you go, now it’s hidden. And then you’re good
to go, render this out, export it in H264, and you’re good to go. And so here’s the before and
after of the Go Pro footage. (upbeat music) So that’s it, pretty
simple, fairly easy to do. It’s a little bit complicated
with After Effects, but once you get used
to it, it’s pretty easy. I hope you enjoyed this, and if you want to see
more of these tutorials, make sure you subscribe. Have a good one, guys. (upbeat music)

Bohemian Rhapsody’s Terrible Editing – A Breakdown

Bohemian Rhapsody’s Terrible Editing – A Breakdown


‘Bohemian Rhapsody’ won the Oscar for Best Editing at the 2019 Academy Awards. This is interesting because the movie contains several scenes that are masterclasses in poor editing. “Right. Now that everybody’s got an acceptable name, let’s get to it.” “Look, we just really need something special…” “…more hits…” “…like Killer Queen.” Let’s examine one of the worst offenders in the film, and break down …why exactly the editing of the scene is so bad. The cuts in this scene are particularly jarring. They stand out to an attentive audience member for 3 reasons: First, many of the cuts are unmotivated. Second, many ignore spatial continuity. And third, the pace is simply too fast. Let’s deal with the easiest of these problems first. If a cut is unmotivated, …another reason you might choose to cut is to create or maintain the pace of a scene, or to build tension. You can see this kind of effect during this scene from The Godfather, …where editor, Walter Murch, in a moment of silence, …chooses to cut back and forth between these two characters. It’s almost like the audience is anxiously looking back and forth between them, waiting to see who will speak. Using pacing to create tension or emotion, however, can’t just be forced upon a scene through the edit. You’ve to work with and complement the performances and cinematography. And in fact, the faster the pace, the more attention must be paid to things like spatial continuity. Errors will simply lead to more difficulty following the action. The pace of this scene is incredible. In this 104-second scene, there are an astounding 60 cuts for an average shot length of 1.8 seconds. To put this into perspective, …this 136-second fight scene from Transformers: The Last Knight …only has 49 cuts and an average shot length of 2.8 seconds. That’s an action sequence from one of the most notoriously hyperactive directors out there. Compare that to the scene of some guys sitting around a table. That’s over 30% faster. Absolutely nothing about this scene justifies or requires this kind of ridiculous pace. The rest of the film is fast-paced, and the pace fits a little bit better for the musical and concert sequences I can see how they were possibly trying to keep the energy level high for the dialogue scenes as well, …but it just doesn’t work. The pacing is the most obvious issue, but it’s far from the only one. Let’s examine some of these cuts in detail and the other two things that make the edits so jarring. The primary thing that motivates most cuts is the revelation of new information. Most important is emotional information. A large majority of the cuts in a dialogue-driven scene are so we can see a character’s face, …as they deliver a line or are reacting to somebody else’s line. New information can also be geographic, to establish the character’s relationship to each other spatially, …or to let the audience see an action that’s taking place. Of course, a shot can contain multiple pieces of new information, …but it’s rarely a good idea to make a cut when that shot reveals no new information at all. Let’s examine what motivates some of the cuts in this scene. “Wow.” “I didn’t know it was fancy dress, Fred.” “I’ve gotta make an impression, darling.” “You look like an angry lizard.” The scene starts off decently. We get a nice shot that starts with Freddie Mercury coming through the doors, and pans into a wide. The second shot gives us a better view of Freddie approaching the table, …and the third allows us to see the delivery of the first line by Brian May. “I didn’t know it was fancy dress, Fred.” Then we cut back to the shot of Freddie to see him showing off the outfit, …and then to a close-up of his emotional reaction to Brian’s line. We probably could have stayed on the line here, but jumping into the close-up isn’t a huge issue. Then we cut to Roger Taylor’s reaction to Brian’s second line, …and then back to Brian’s reaction to Rogers laugh. We cut back to Freddy to see his laugh and the action of him sitting down, …as well as John Reed entering in the background. So far, okay. This isn’t Oscar-worthy editing, but the cuts reveal new information and makes sense. It’s a little bit too fast, but it’s establishing the nervous energy of the band as they wait for the meeting to begin, …but this is where the scene begins to run into some major trouble. Let’s watch. “Very subtle.” “You gonna fly away?” “Can I borrow it for Sunday church?” So here we cut to Brian’s line, …but then we cut back very quickly to see the rest of Freddy sitting down, …and then quickly back to Brian again. We already know Brian is making these wisecracks, so seeing him deliver the line isn’t super important. We already know Freddy is sitting down, so returning to the shot of him sitting down is repetitive information, …and his reaction is still the same as before. Either of these shots would likely be fine to hold on, …but the quick back-and-forth creates the first sense of whiplash, that will only worsen as this scene progresses. On the shot of Brian, we see John Reed pass by. John grabbing the chair interrupts the band’s casual chat. Following that shot, we have two reaction shots back-to-back: One from Brian, and one from Freddy, …where they’re both looking up towards where John Reed’s face would be However, since two shots have passed since we last saw John standing in that position, …the eyeline of these reactions is a little bit awkward. Also, both of these reactions would be happening simultaneously. It looks like the editor tries to make it feel more simultaneous by cutting quickly, but it doesn’t sell. Now we get a shot of Reed that establishes the correct eyeline height, …but his eyeline looks like it is directed at John Deacon and Roger Taylor. But instead of cutting to them, we cut back to Brian for a second reaction shot. We can even fix this fairly easily just by swapping these two shots. Still not great, but it’s a little bit better. After John Reed sits down, the eyeline is again completely ignored. While we’ve just cut from John and Roger, it now looks like he’s looking at Freddie. Then Reed shifts his eyeline over to where John and Roger are sitting, and we cut to… …Freddie. This section flows much better if we just remove some of the complexity. Here’s the original edit: “So this is Queen.” And here’s my simplified cut: “So this is Queen.” Again, it’s not perfect, but if I can smooth things out just by shifting the existing shots around, …there’s no reason an editor with access to all the footage couldn’t have cut a better scene. Let’s look at the next section: “So, this is Queen.” “And you…” “…must be Freddie Mercury.” “You’ve got a gift. You all have.” “So tell me… What makes Queen any different from all the other wannabe rock stars I meet?” After this line, “So this is Queen,” we immediately run into another problem. Reed says, “So this is Queen,” and we cut to a shot of exactly 3/4ths of Queen. It would make way more sense to show all four of them here. There’s not anything that these three are doing that explains specifically cutting to just the three of them. We cut quickly back to Reed, but he’s completely shifted in his seat. The character making this kind of movement off-camera is usually fine, …but less than a second passes between these cuts, so it almost appears as a jump cut. Also, this spatial orientation of where he’s pointing is confusing, coming off of this poorly-chosen wide shot. It would make a ton of sense to break up the pacing here with a longer shot of Freddie, …but instead of holding on Freddie for a longer reaction, we cut back to a completely strange new angle of Reed. This new angle gives us nothing by the way of new emotional or spatial information, …and it just continues to add complexity to a scene that’s already going by too quickly. Then we go back to this awkward wide that includes only three of the band members, …presumably because there’s no wide of all four band members to show all their reactions The editor has to patch together an awkward combination of this wide and this close-up, …which just doesn’t gel at all. The lack of a good wide including all four members of the band, I think, is a core difficulty with this scene, …and it might be a clue that part of the blame here falls on the director or cinematographer …for not getting proper coverage, or just blocking and composing the scene poorly. We continue to get reaction shots that are unnecessary. We’ve already seen this expression on these band members’ faces in shots 22 and 24. We don’t need to see it again, and this would have been a great chance to slow things down. I could continue to work through each cut in this scene, but many of the cuts have these same repeated issues. One key offender sticks out: Here, we cut to a wide shot where Paul magically appears beside John Reed, …not to mention this jump to a super wide shot is completely unmotivated and doesn’t make any sense. It’s usually difficult to judge who’s at fault when it comes to editing. If an editor is given a scene that’s poorly blocked and composed, it’s difficult to fix that in the edit. However, it seems unlikely that cutting this scene in this way and choosing this pace …was the best option the editor had with the scene. This is easily the worst edited scene in the film, …but many of the dialogue scenes have these same issues this scene has. There are plenty of scenes with perfectly functional editing, …although I’d be hard-pressed to find examples of the kind of editing you’d hope would earn an Academy Award. There’s also examples of awkward transitions, or montages that cover periods of touring, …but do a poor job of conveying the necessary feeling. So why did this film win an Academy Award for Best Editing? Just like I mentioned, editing is hard to judge. Good editing should rarely be noticeable. Good editing tells the story effectively. And when a movie is edited well, you usually walk away from it thinking, “That was a great film,” …not, “That editing was good.” So, counter-intuitively, the Oscar sometimes ends up going to films with the most noticeable editing, …which, generally, is not the film with the best editing. There was a lot of turmoil during the production of this film, …so I can understand how this film maybe ended up how it did. It’s easier to pick apart bad editing than it is to edit a scene that’s not shot well, …but an Academy Award for Best Editing for this film is completely undeserved. An editing like this, ultimately, is disrespectful to the audience. It assumes your attention span is so short that your attention has to be held with quick, flashy cuts. Sometimes an editor just needs to step back, slow down, …and trust that an audience member who’s chosen to come see your film is interested and invested in the story. Thanks to Audible for sponsoring this video. Sign up for a 30-day free trial today, and get a free audiobook when you go to audible.com/thomasflight, …or text ‘THOMASFLIGHT’ to 500-500. You’ll get an audiobook and two audible originals each month, so I have some suggestions for you. If you’re interested in learning more about Queen and Freddie Mercury, …and don’t want to subject yourself to hyperactive editing, …you can check out ‘Mercury and Me’ by Jim Hutton. One of my favorite books about business is ‘Anything You Want’ by Derek Sivers. I’ve listened to it again every couple of years, since I first listened to it in 2011. I used the audio book as a way to help keep my priorities and focus on track. Give Audible a try today, …and maybe you’ll find that audiobook that you keep revisiting for the rest of your life. Just go to audible.com/thomasflight, click on the link in the description, or text ‘THOMASFLIGHT’ to 500-500 …to try Audible free for 30 days. Thanks so much for watching. If you enjoyed this video and want to see more of this type of content, hit that ‘SUBSCRIBE’ button, …and go to patreon.com/thomasflight, where you can learn more about how you can support my channel, …and get extra cool stuff while you do. Special ‘thank you’ to my patrons.

Holding Long and Cutting Short: 2 Brilliant Moments in Editing

Holding Long and Cutting Short: 2 Brilliant Moments in Editing


>>Speaker 1: The art of editing
isn’t just about placing one thing after another. Each frame matters. And sometimes choosing more or
less of them can make a big difference. This is holding long and cutting short. Two brilliant moments in editing.>>[MUSIC]>>Speaker 1: What happens when a shot
stays on screen that seems out of place? When there is no immediate relevance,
no apparent purpose. At first, maybe it’s a mistake, maybe the
director is just lingering to linger, but after a certain point
the intentionality becomes obvious. Our minds switch modes from an unconscious
viewing method of passively consuming information to inactive,
searching, meaning making mode. We talked a bit about this late time with
regards to horror in The Exorcist III, how holding on this shot
of an empty hallway for long enough eventually convinces
us that it won’t be empty forever. But if you like that, you’ll like this, our first brilliant
moment from 2013’s Ida. After Ida and her only remaining relative,
Wanda, take a trip to track down the fate of Ida’s parents and Wanda’s son after
WWII, both are left profoundly changed. This is Wanda’s response.>>[MUSIC]>>Speaker 1: If you’re
Game of Thrones fan, you might remember how Miguel Sapochnik
did this brilliantly in the recent season six finale. And without giving anything away, you’ll immediately notice
the similarities to his window shot. And here, as there, the brilliance of
the shot lies in its relentless length, despite its complete lack of
apparently meaningful content. The frame is twice empty,
and yet it persists. What does it mean to put a shot on screen? What assumptions are made by the audience
when they are shown something? When we enter into a movie,
especially a narrative one, there’s an unspoken
contract between viewer and filmmaker, that promises us we will
only be shown relevant things. The images will mean something. There is meaning in the moment. Thus the simple act of
selecting a shot is a choice. It is a message from the director and
the editor to the audience. This is relevant. This is worth viewing. This is important. So, when there’s nothing
immediately relevant about a shot. We have two options. Assume the filmmaker has
broken the contract, or assume that the meeting
will soon become clear. And I think that here, as in most
good examples of the over long shot, we choose the latter and the inexplicable
link arouses our suspicion further. The longer a shot is held, the more
it insists upon its own importance. Every extra second without
a cut is another decision. This is still relevant,
this is still important. All of a sudden, it’s not what’s
on screen that’s speaking to us, but the way it’s on screen. Which is to say we’re not learning
things from what’s in the shot from the story itself, but
from the method of the story telling. The film making itself
contains clues to the story. There’s a president to this shot of this
type especially because it’s static. The camera moves zero, it’s as if it knows
that the future will happen within it’s frame, that the actual be
contain by its four wall. But what we have in front
of us is a record player, a room and a recently opened window. And when we’ve we run of things to watch
in the frame our mind begins to wonder to what might be happening outside of it,
beyond it and into to film making itself. And what we probably don’t arrive at
the right answer before we see it, we believe that deep down
after thousands and fact. Thousands of cumulative hours of media
experience, the audience can intuitively predict the general shape of storytelling
patterns with shocking acumen. You know that something is afoot, even before you’re able to pass
that suspicion into clear language. So, when we finally do see her jump,
it is sudden, but not unearned. It’s not this.>>[MUSIC].>>Speaker 1: That feels cheap,
no, it shocks us and yet makes perfect sense all at once. Because it wasn’t just the content
of the shot we were learning from. It was the length of the shot itself.>>[MUSIC]>>Speaker 1: Filmmakers do
the opposite of this too. If we’re talking about cutting short
as a form of communication in itself, the most obvious example is the smash cut, the jarring abrupt ending of one
scene in its abutment to another. It cuts out time to reveal
a meaningless In the removed portion. Often, it’s combined with an implied
expectation that you’ll see something next that you don’t. Another variation is the smash ending. Inception is probably the most
iconic version of this, but it is not the only one. Cutting before something the audience
is anticipating tells the viewer, no, you don’t get to see it. But also in a sense it tells them,
no, that isn’t the point, so if holding a shot from longer than feels
natural is to suggest that something important is going to happen. One of the effects of cutting
a shot shorter than we expect is to say very specifically that it isn’t. So take a look at No Country for
Old Men for our second brilliant moment.>>Speaker 2: This is the best I can do. Call it.>>Speaker 3: No, I ain’t gonna call it.>>Speaker 2: Call it.>>Speaker 3: The coin don’t have no say. It’s just you.>>Speaker 2: I got here
the same way the coin did.>>[SOUND]>>Speaker 1: It’s like a soft quiet
smash cut and it feels so hopeless. It feels cold, a cold subtle violence. The Cohen’s have already pushed us out of
the previous scene without a satisfying sense of resolution. So we’re already in a heightened, scrutinizing mode asking
ourselves did he kill her? Did she survive? And while we think the answer is pretty
clear, especially if you take it in context with the last scene we analyzed
from No Country, we are primed and looking for answers. Before we talk too much about the cut
itself, we wanna first look at the rest of the Dave Coen where, for clues as to what
the Coens are going for in this section. This is a complicated ending. Narratively, and especially thematically. But I think the emotions are pretty clear. The entire ending involves us,
as an audience, Not getting what we want. Our hero perishes. The sheriff fails. The villain makes off with the money. We don’t even get a final battle. It happens off screen,
and then not at all. So, we are left waiting
expecting a resolution, justice, confrontation, comeuppance. Stories come with neat
endings we’ve been told. Our myths wrap up nicely. So, where’s ours? And the story is still going. Just like the from Ida, this is subconsciously tells us that
there’s something worth waiting for. But the Cohens seem to be very
specifically frustrating this expectation and nowhere is this more clean than in the car
crash where the film appears to offer us. Contribution before revealing
it to be a misdirect. The resolution never comes,
chance really does prevail. So this entire section is about us
waiting for the other shoe to drop. And it just kinda doesn’t. And and in the midst of all this,
we get our moment. And we’re asking ourselves the same
questions we ask in any shot. Why are we watching him check his boots? Why are we watching him
walk off the porch? This isn’t something we
usually see in films. Irrelevant walking from place to place
is usually ellipsed by transitions, but we’re seeing it here. What’s going to happen? And then awkwardly, off rhythmically
mid-step it cuts, it smash cuts. Listen to the audio, there’s no
fade here as in scene transitions. Additions prior. It’s a hard audio. That says something. Will something happen to him, we ask. No the movie says. No, he gets away. This part doesn’t matter. We can skip forward. There is no tense get away,
no shout from inside, no witnesses emerge. We are not actually showing you
this moment, because it’s trivial. Painfully uneventful. and the cut says this intentionally
in its method, not its content. You see, a story has two parts, it’s
narrative, the story that’s being told, and it’s narration,
the way the story is being told. Here, nothing spectacular is happening,
but the way it’s being told, that’s where we’re being played with. That’s where we’re being talked to. For a point of comparison,
try the scene cut more conventionally. [SOUND] Less impact, no? But that wouldn’t let the Coens talk
to us through their storytelling. Wouldn’t have them teach us a lesson
about how artificial happy endings are. About how the universe has no justice. Just cause, effect, and a little chance.>>[MUSIC]>>Speaker 1: So what do you think? Do you have any other brilliant
moments you want us to take a look at? Any thoughts on the ones
we mentioned here? Let us know in the comments below and be sure to subscribe for
more Cinefix movie lists.>>[MUSIC]

The Art of Glitch | Off Book | PBS Digital Studios

The Art of Glitch | Off Book | PBS Digital Studios


Glitch art builds on the aesthetic and experience
of computer malfunction. Glitch art is a lot about getting beyond this notion
that these faults are actually faults. You know, it’s trying to find the soul in the machine. A lot of these images are really
compelling and very interesting. Something’s exposed that maybe you
weren’t quite prepared for it to be exposed. Glitch art is manipulating electronics and how they can be gateways into understanding the cultural values that are associated with our technology. Although they may be intimidating
electronic technologies are actually still open mediums for expression and creativity. When technologies are new we’re filled with all these promises. Manufacturers tell us that these new tools are supposed to become a seamless way for us
to express ourselves. And then we run into unwelcomed behavior, which artists manipulate those tools on
another level to expand our vocabulary for communicating with each other. In the way that punk music was a
reaction against this hyper polished commercial rock and roll of the time glitch art is also a reaction against the hyper
realism that is portrayed in contemporary media. These super high-definition images saturated beyond real resemblance to actual color. Glitch art is really providing people
with material to create their own voice. It’s this notion that we don’t have to
accept what’s been handed to us. Glitch art is a way of taking these fractures in existing
systems and examine them in a way that tries to make sense of them and whether it’s through a still image or moving video or a sound file. There’s a bunch of
different ways of creating glitches. There’s true glitches which are things that
make themselves manifest inside of systems without your intervention.
Like upload an image to flickr or something and somewhere along the way some of the data gets corrupted and you wind up with this weird picture that looks like an image and then all of a sudden you get these like bizarre colors. That’s sort of like a happy accident. Or you can replicate it through other
processes. So what you do is you take like a mp3 file and instead of dot mp3 you rename that file to dot r-a-w. You open up that image in photoshop. It opens it
up as if it were a raw file, which is an image format, and
it reads through it bit by bit and each bit inside of there then becomes a visual
representation of what’s inside that sound file but inside this
black-and-white image. Another way is to take an image and open it up with the text
editor and then you go in and you delete stuff, add stuff in. You’re gonna get
something totally weird. In glitch art, more so than a lot of other
artforms, I am a really big proponent of the idea that the process is more
important. Part of the process is empowering people
to understand the tools and understand the underlying structures in what is
going on inside of a computer. So as soon as you understand the system enough to know
why you’re breaking it then you have a better understanding of what the tool is
built for. I stumbled onto this world of live video performance and
live video software and glitches in an aesthetic choice for me to explore. That was a
revelation because it made video malleable. It made it like clay where you can mold it and bend it and change it in real time. And do edits in real time. Do some limited
effects in real time and then express yourself live. I think a lot of what
glitch art is is finding out all of the strange nooks and crannies and exposing
them and bringing them out to the forefront and showing that they can be
quite interesting and do interesting things. I actually write a lot of my own software
to do these sorts of effects. So some software when i run it, I don’t know what I’m going to get and so part of it is an iterative process of maybe you’ve gone too far you’ve broken the file and it’s unreadable. Maybe you dial it back a little bit. Some of it is faking glitch and making
things look glitchy when maybe they really weren’t or finding ways to actually make it glitch out
in interesting ways. I want to be able to improvisationally react to what’s
going on in the environment. And so if i know that there’s something that I want, there’s like a feeling or emotion with a certain visual, I try to reverse engineering and
in that reverse engineering process I’m trying to find something that’s
beautiful in these moments. And that’s fleeting. I quite like that. I think a
lot of the glitch art will work in that sort of sensibility of
fleetingness and in the moment and it is a very live sort of a thing. Every time you walk through Times Square one of the billboards is glitching out. And you don’t even necessarily notice it at first but if you’re looking for it, they’re there. At first they’re
upsetting but, personally, I find them beautiful. I don’t think any glitch artist is going to say that they have a lot of anxiety about technology. Glitch artists mostly love technology. There’s a project by Jeff Donaldson and Antonio Roberts called Glitch Safari which is just a collection of glitches found in the wild. It’s this way of collecting these found glitches and documenting them. When you start to see the things that you
discover through it that are interesting about the images it becomes less traumatic. And then when you go back and see the glitches it does tend to relieve that anxiety that people have when they see these things break down. Now it has been incorporated into like advertising and all sorts of commercial
work. There’s the Kanye West video and glitch artists have been able to present glitch work in all kinds of institutions. So it’s a good place to be to find
pleasure in these things that are normally upsetting. Being able to control what you’re doing but not completely, that’s the kind of thing I’m interested in. The way that we misunderstand each other and the way that we misunderstand the world. All of a sudden we can misuse things and start experimenting and seeing where it leads you. For me it’s about the aesthetic, about the
moment, about being able to have something that’s happenning with a certain sense of live-ness. One of the reasons that this has become more prevalent as an art form is because people are starting to see
more frequently these sorts of exposures. Glitch is always going to change as our relationship to technology changes. Glitch art is wild. It’s a frontier. It’s sort of
like this really quick and easy way that you see the world.

Pauranoia

Pauranoia


We’re on air again to let you know about another
horrifying episode that shook Europe. According to unconfirmed information
a terrorist attack is involved. But let’s switch to our correspondent at site. Yes, Stephania, unfortunately the number of
victims is growing continuously. In addition, the whole country is alert, because one of the two terrorists who fired at
the crowd had managed to escape. According to the French secret services, the man
in white you can see in this video posted on Twitter has crossed the border to Italy last night. And now his pursuit continues in the immediate
vicinity of our homes. The man is probably armed and dangerous. Thank you, Marko. So far, we have no information about any Italian
residents among the victims and the injured… We will get back to you later, but now let’s hear
what happened from some of the witnesses. I can tell you that I felt terrible
fear. I was afraid I would die. I hid behind the corner at the end of the street
and stayed there waiting for over twenty minutes… 112, emergency.
I can locate you in Milan. I just heard a strong explosion! Or a shot … I
don’t know! Perhaps it’s terrorism… Calm down. Are you alone? I have locked myself at home,
but not for long. I saw an Arab person dressed in white walking
the stairs of the building. Sir … The war on terror, away from the hot fronts of
the battles, strikes a blow to European cities. Because the situation is obviously extremely
tense at the moment… We hear people screaming around us… The situation is getting worse… This is terrorism! We were swiped by a
true wave of panic! Everyone says the terrorists were Muslims… You can undeniably feel the tension. And if every story has a hero,
no doubt this one has found its own! Bashir, enough!
The whole block went crazy from your balloons.

The Art of Editing and Suicide Squad

The Art of Editing and Suicide Squad


Let’s do this. [theme music] I didn’t get out to nearly as many films this year as I would have liked. And many of the films I did see just kind of… ran right through me. Well, so, ‘Under the Shadow’ was a really good, really effective horror-thriller. Um.. ‘Lace Crater’ was an inventive, personal drama with a supernatural twist. ‘Nuts!’ was a clever documentary about quack doctors Um.. ‘Arrival’! ‘Arrival’ was another good personal drama with a supernatural twist. Uh.. I enjoyed ‘Deadpool,’ And-and ‘Rogue One.’ Uh, ‘Kubo’ ‘Zootopia’ ‘Finding Dory’ Uh Oh! I actually really liked ’10 Cloverfield Lane,’ – ending and all! So. I mean- There were a lot of good films this year There were a lot of, y’know, niche genre films and some broad stuff but i mean Overall just… y’know “That is a three-syllable word for any thought too big for little minds.” “Save… …Martha…” My original plan was to talk about a cross-section of some of the worst editing that I saw this year because my LORD Editing is going down the crapper these days So I lined up a few films to showcase some of the particular trends in the ways that films are being cut these days Uh ‘Gods of Egypt’ for its bad action, ‘Ms. Peregrines Home for Peculiar Children’ for its poor dialogue cutting ‘Batman v. Superman’ for its awful, awful just- plot construction But…no. ‘Suicide Squad’ It was just- It was-it was shockingly awful That’s how I described Suicide Squad when I came out of the theatre The editing was SHOCKINGLY awful in every way. See, ‘Gods of Egypt’ has generically mediocre action and overall flow The focus in many scenes doesn’t really go anywhere, the camera often just floats around, moving without purpose or intent and there’s a few…egregious, specific cuts in the movie. [panicked noises] [roars] [panicked noises] ‘Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children’ is a generally enjoyable film with some charm, But it’s marred by some really, really bad dialogue editing, where there’s no tension or flow to the dialogue, and there’s zero breathing room between scenes. It isn’t a pervasive problem but it happens a lot throughout the movie. Taken as a whole, it’s a problem of over-tightening the film with a scattering of just bad, aimless edits. “I’m sorry buddy, I know how much you worshipped him, but there it is.” ‘Batman v. Superman’… is its… …It’s own can of worms “MARTHA” The first thing that needs to be acknowledged about Suicide Squad is its troubled development. The specifics are hard to nail down because the people who actually know aren’t going to say what happened because they either need to play nice for the sake of their careers, or they’re contractually restricted from ever mentioning it. But here’s what we know: David Ayer had only 6 weeks to bash out the script and then shot about 230 hours worth of footage Basically trying to find the movie in the process of shooting it. At some point, Warner Brothers hires Trailer Park- -The team that cut ‘The Queen’ trailer back in January- -to do an alternate cut of the film, and test-screens both of them However, audiences still didn’t particularly like either cut, So a very expensive round of reshoots was scheduled for April, May, and a compromised THIRD cut – -based principally on Ayer’s version merged with the reshoots, and some ideas lifted from the Trailer Park cut -is screened for audiences in June, with something fundamentally the same released to theaters in August. The result is more or less what you think it would be from that description. We’re mainly going to be focusing, but not exclusively, on the film’s bad editing. To really get into this, first, a primer When people say a movie has “bad editing” they’re going to be mainly talking about two different kinds of editing: Shot-to-shot and scene-to-scene Or Momentary editing, And Structural Editing Momentary editing is the nitty-gritty editing: What kinds of cuts are used, where are they placed, how far apart are they spaced, and how well is continuity preserved. Does a match edit actually work? Does intercut dialogue feel right? Can we follow the action properly? And so on and so forth. Structural editng is the bigger picture: What order are scenes in, how is the movie as a whole paced, when are flashbacks inserted, Are locations and geography properly established, are foreshadowing and callbacks properly implemented, and…all of that. Man of Steel is a good example for illustrating the difference The Momentary editing in Man of Steel is generally okay, The editing problems are all structural; with the flow from scene to scene being really poorly executed. Ideas and themes are abandoned, or strung out in the wrong order And the overall package is really poorly paced. In equal measure, The Last Airbender is a great example of bad momentary editing. With lots of poorly selected cuts, bad reverse shots, and just a lot of terrible decisions all around. Suicide Squad, likewise, is so full of problems from structural to momentary, that I would seriously advise anyone with an interest in the art of cinematic editing do their own full autopsy to see just how much went wrong and plain old doesn’t work. Now whenever a studio starts to meld with a film, there’s an instinctive response, a desire for a clean narrative that casts one side as the villains and the other as either the heroes or victims The evil, greedy, heartless corporation beating up on the poor, misunderstood, visionary artist. Now there have been a few times in history where a potentially great film was ruined by a studio that either didn’t get it or maybe an executive had a personal beef with the director, or just something else happened that led to a chain of bad decisions. Most of the time, though, the underlying movie wasn’t that good to begin with. Notoriously, Sony meddled heavily with Josh Trank’s 2015 Fantastic Four film, Fanfourstic, ordering a round of heavy reshoots that, as a result of Kate Mara’s awful wig, stand out like a sore thumb The problem is that if you actually look at Fan4stic as a whole, the stuff that wasn’t reshot isn’t that good either. Trank’s cut of the film was likely better in the sense that it was more cohesive, but it wasn’t a lost masterpiece. From Sony’s perspective, they had a worst-case scenario on their hands: Something that was neither broadly marketable, nor particularly good on its own merits. And this is the situation that Suicide Squad was almost certainly sitting in. The unfocused production resulting in a movie too grim and moody for mass appeal, while being too…loose and meandering to draw an audience through critical acclaim and positive word of mouth. Like Fan4stic, The earlier cuts of the film were likely more coherent, but would’ve been paced even worse and still plagued with various plot incoherencies. So there’s an element in Suicide Squad It-it’s a tiny thing An insignificant thing in the scope of it all, but I’m going to start with it because it’s emblematic of the kind of problems that the movie has as a pretty direct result of it’s chaotic development. There’s this really old standby rule in screenwriting: The Rule of Threes: You set up an idea, you remind the audience, then you pay it off It’s a rule because it’s a really effective way of keeping the audience informed about smaller details that the characters would be familiar with so that when they come into play, they don’t feel like they’re coming out of nowhere. So it really stands out when Suicide Squad manages to screw it up even though they were sort-of clearly using it? Alright: Captain Boomerang has this pink unicorn It’s first introduced as a gag during his titlecard where it flashes, “Fetish: Pink Unicorns” Leaving aside the sexual implications, during the gearing up segments, he pulls a pink unicorn stuffed animal out of his duffel bag and covertly tucks it inside his jacket. So that right there is the setup We’re shown a prop, and we’re shown exactly where it’s put: Inside his jacket, left side. It’s a very deliberate action. Moving forward to the first big action scene, Boomerang gets knocked around a bit, fights a bit, and the stuffie flies out of his jacket during the melee. And afterwards, he again, covertly stuffs it into his jacket, left side Again, super deliberate. There’s the reminder. Then, in the tower brawl, Captain Boomerang is wrestling with a tar monster who stabs him right in the heart And, for a second, you go “Oh no!” But, being a savvy and attentive viewer, you immediately go “Ah, wait! The unicorn.” And you pat yourself on the back as Boomerang pulls out the knife… …stuck in a wad of money. The unicorn, incidentally, is never seen again after the reminder. Now, the apologetic reaction is to assume that this is intentional. That it’s deliberate misdirection, a subversion of expectations. You’re expecting the unicorn, but are surprised when it’s not the unicorn. However, if you were trying to subvert the expectation, you would still want to show the unicorn at the moment of subversion So, what happened? Well, maybe the unicorn was orignally a wad of bills, but one day Jai Courtney decided a unicorn was funnier, but they’d already shot the office brawl a month earlier and no one caught it in the chaos. Well maybe there was a payoff for the unicorn but it hit the cutting room floor. Well maybe the unicorn was never meant to pay off, and the wad of cash was better established, but later edits biased towards the unicorn because its funnier, and establishing the cash hit the cutting room floor. Like, maybe amidst Boomerang’s looting he finds the cash and stashes it in his vest or something but we never saw that in the finished cut. Either way, it’s a pretty bad edit for something really minor And it’s a microcosm of the problems with this film: How the edit does a poor job of keeping track of all the balls that are in the air, how it foreshadows things that never pay off, and how its plagued with extraneous elements that exist only as set up for future films. Swinging to the other end of the spectrum is an element that the movie actually does establish well and clearly, and then just ruins. So the antagonist of the movie is ‘The Enchantress’ An ancient witch who’s weakness is her heart: this wicker-looking thing that Waller keeps in a box strapped to a bomb So we’re told about the heart, “Some say the witch has a secret buried heart, and whoever finds it can control the witch.” Then the functionality of the heart is demonstrated [screams] Then it’s reinforced, [speaks foreign language] [foreign language] It’s the raising of the stakes when Enchantress gets her heart back And going into the final fight, Rick Flag lays out the plan: “You got a move here Flagg?” “We gotta cut her heart out!” And just in case you weren’t aware of the jeopardy, the visual design of Enchantress reminds you constantly by giving her a visibly glowing green heart. This is, at this point, INCREDIBLY well-established It’s the single best established rule of the films fiction If there were anything in this movie, that you could feel 100% confident trusting the audience to follow along in a chaotic moment, this is it: The Enchantress’ weakness is her heart. And then THIS happens “You messed with my friends!” “Her hearts out, we can end this!” “Her heart’s out, we can end this!” [distorted] “HER HEARTS OUT” So all the momentum, both emotional and kinetic, the flow of action across the screen is stopped dead, So that Flagg can reexplain what’s going on. Then, just to keep it awful, the edit completely loses track of where Enchantress is. She doesn’t come back onscreen until this super-close -up shot that does nothing to help orient where she is in the room, We cut before she fell down, so from the point of view of the rest of these slow-mo shots, she just kind-of…vanishes and Harley, who was standing right next to her, isn’t anymore And, just.. Okay? Oh, and then the heart! Harley pulls the heart out with her hand, Rips it right out, full-fist! And then it’s just -poof!- gone until Boomerang picks it up under a bench after everything’s over Normally a detail like that wouldn’t matter, except it’s the object that the jeopardy revolves around. Now editing is a process of decision making. What do you show? What do you NOT show? And it’s often a zero-sum game, with huge opportunity-costs because you’re working within relatively small chunks of time in order to communicate everything vital while still managing making the timing feel – and here’s a big word: verisimilitudinous. That doesn’t mean real, That means a plausible simulation of real You know it’s fake, but it feels acceptable. You can buy in, you can suspend disbelief. So, that opportunity cost, they either didn’t shoot or chose to cut Enchantress falling down, Harley throwing away the heart – Anything that would help keep track of the action, but… they included a re-explanation of the one thing the audience should thoroughly understand. [distorted] HER HEARTS OUT That right there, is bad editing. Alright, so this one is just a singularly awful edit. “-games with you man. It’s not real!” “He’s right. It’s not real.” There’s no motion to lead into the cut, We’re focused on the wrong character leading into the cut, And the crew is already way too far into the action on the far side of the cut. In a moment where they’re trying to build up momentum and action, they end up skipping too much time and space The difference between the two sides of the edit are too discontinuous, making the edit feel jarring in a moment where it should feel fluid. This is honestly the kind of edit you’d expect to see from a mediocre film student, or, well. A trailer house. Speaking of things that feel like they should be cut by a trailer house the opening seconds of a movie are so critical. I mean – I-I shouldn’t even need to explain that There’s a littany of terrible movies out there that at least managed to get their opening few seconds right, And Suicide Squad doesn’t even manage that. The opening shots of the film live in the void between punchy, fast-paced cuts and slow, deliberate cuts. They don’t hang out long enough for you to really take in what they’re trying to tell you, but they’re not fast enough to blur together into a single conceptual image. This is a problem that’s aggravated by the fact that the movie throws up a lot of hard-to-read-text in the first few seconds Like, let’s look at this opening shot: This is actually an example of how a bunch of good ideas can be layered together to create a single bad idea This transition is really three different transitions that, combined, turn the opening seconds into visual soup. We transition into the shot through the slit in the rotating DC Comics logo, so right off the bat we got lines all pulling our focus right to the horizon. which… works with the first frames being the dark blob of terrain in the middle of the shot. because on TOP of that transition we also have a focus racks. so it actually takes a handful of frames for things to snap into focus for your eyes can really grab something. And then, on top of that, is this surreal, neon-color grade, which, itself, takes a few more frames to transition into the awful shades of concrete that is the films’ normal color grade. So that’s a really visually busy first two seconds. And, in the midst of that, they toss up location titles in the lower right. And, before you have a chance to read it – -because your eyes were almost certainly focused on this tower and these two white balls as the primary objects of interest in the frame- -the camera starts flying over dark grass. So, now you have black text in a hard-to-read font flying over noisy, dark, dark, green grass, And then it’s gone because we immediately cut to this: Now, your eyes, which were down in the lower right, trying to read the location, are first going to reset to the middle of the frame Both out of instinct, and because there’s a skull, and the brain is hard-wired to seek faces. Next priority is all the text, but first a truck drives in front of everything, Then soldiers walk past the camera, then you actually get a chance to read, and around the time that you’re getting frustrated by this half-demolished word, we cut into the guard post. And you’ve got about two seconds to absorb any pertinent information, before we cut to inside Deadshot’s cell. And it was at this point I knew I was in for an editing nightmare. There’s a phenomenon in film called ‘The Kuleshov Effect,’ which we could talk about in length but the underlying idea is that more meaning is created from the interaction of two shots than of a single shot in isolation. We can already see this in the movie: We start flying over the water towards the compound, and then cut to the writing on the wall, and assume that this wall is a detail of the building from the previous shot. And then we cut to the guard room, which we assume is inside the building we were just looking at, and then it falls apart, in a very small way when we go inside the cell. This guard is sitting here, watching these monitors We’re instinctively going to follow, or try to follow this person’s eyeline. But, rather than cutting to an angle that reflect’s the guard’s perspective via the security cameras, we’re instead much lower to the ground, looking up at Deadshot working his punching bag. It’s a cut that’s….technically correct, in that we’re moving deeper into the facility with each cut But, it’s off. It’s the cinematic version of putting the emfases on the wrong sillabbles. And here’s the thing: they use this exact technique that I’m describing in reverse when the next scene with Harley ends. Heck, they use it again at the end of the movie They’re clearly not trying out some methodical avant-garde style of editing, It’s – it’s just bad. So the first 20 minutes of the film are consumed by a bad musical montage It’s also highly redundant and full of dead ends Now Suicide Squad has a big cast – it’s an ensemble piece with like, eight core characters. It’s a lot of people to introduce with the added complexity of explaining what their comic book gimmick is, and maneuvering them into place within the plot. Further complicated by the fact that the underlying conceit of the film is that the cast are all antisocial villains working for the government more or less against their will. That’s a lot to set up. Now they introduce almost everyone with capsule sized flashbacks narrated by Waller, which…. …is a pretty bad way of introducing your protagonists Suicide Squad, like ogres, has layers, except in this case its layers of bad, awkward decisions. So the bad musical montage is bad because it’s cut like a movie trailer. It’s all sizzle at a time where the film should be busy establishing themes and conflict. As with many things we’ve already addressed, what they’re doing here isn’t 100 percent wrong, It’s not an idea that’s rotten to the core, it’s just incredibly inefficient. Cutting your opening for sizzle isn’t a bad idea until it’s gone on for 30 minutes and you’re just starting to get around to the actual plot. The original movie would’ve been much longer, and much slower paced but by cutting the introductions for sizzle, trying to turn it all into a high-energy peppy montage, that inefficiency stands out because they keep needing to come back to the introductions over and over again. To the point that halfway through the movie, they’re JUST finishing introducing the first four characters. So where a five to eight minute scene with Deadshot could easily fit in all the pertinent details plus some, trying to do it all in poppy trailer-style means that they need to keep coming back Which in turn means there’s no time for anyone else, putting the story in a place where the core conceit doesn’t work because they were only able to squeeze in negotiations with Deadshot and no one else. And I haven’t even addressed the soundtrack yet This trailer-style peppy montage relies heavily on pop music in the bluntest way possible. It’s a prison in Louisiana! ‘House of the Rising Sun’ by the Animals! Harley isn’t your plaything, ‘You Don’t Own Me,’ by Lesley Gore Amanda Waller is bad and she’s going to introduce a bunch of devils ‘Sympathy for the Devil!’ Harley’s a superfreak, so Let’s just play ‘Superfreak.’ An Aussie? Who does dirty deeds? ‘Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap.’ El Diablo lost control and he’s ♪ ‘Slippin into Darkness!’♪ Jesus, this writes itself. Killer Croc is unfortunate so, hey! ‘Fortunate Son!’ Will Smith is black and he shaved his head! ‘Black Skinhead!’ They’re assembling? Like an army? ‘Seven Nation Army’ They’re flying in a helicopter? ‘Spirit in the Sky!’ Like, any one of these on it’s own would be blunt, but appropriate. However, when it’s you’re one trick that you use over, and over again? Oh yeah, and that wasn’t even all of them. In fact, from the opening shot to the title card, it’s end to end. They’ve already used three different songs before the title even comes up. Baz Luhrmann has more restraint than this!! On repeat viewings, the first half of this movie becomes almost unbearable because you already know how it ends, so you spend the first 50 minutes sitting through numerous threads that you know don’t matter One of the most obvious is this guy, Griggs Griggs is one of the head guards at Belle Reve, And the first three minutes of the movie aren’t spent introducing us to Deadshot and Harley, they’re spent showing us just how awful Griggs is. Not Belle Reve, not being locked up in general, Griggs in specific. Now if they wanted him to be a bit of comic relief, that’s fine In fact, if there’s one thing that this movie actually really needed, it was a lot more…meh…antagonistic rapport between the squad and the rest of the world So our fist bit is this back and forth between Griggs and Deadshot which could’ve built up to that kind of a beat: Grigg ribs Deadshot, Deadshot ribbs back, they both laugh, call each other an asshole, walk away. Instead… Griggs has Deadshot beat with batons by a dozen guards. Next up is Harley – and it’s the same deal. This could be banter Antagonistic banter, but still banter. Instead, the scene cuts to a flashback of Griggs outright abusing and humiliating her. These are the opening scenes of the movie. This is the pace and tone being set. They’re clearly setting up a direct obvious antagonism between the squad and Griggs. Through that first 40 minutes they keep reinforcing that antagonism and upping the stakes: Foreshadowing future resolution to the point that Harley outright tells Griggs, “You’re SO screwed” “What do you mean by that?” [Harley laughs] “What do you mean by that?”
[Harley continues laughing] “Get off, me, get off!” “Harley what do you mean by that?!?” And…that’s the last we see of Griggs. He doesn’t even show up at the end of the movie when the squad are back in prison. Now, there’s a couple different problems going on here. The first is a scripting problem, Griggs was overdeveloped in the first half of the movie and then dropped. The second, is an editing problem. Because of that lack of payoff, Griggs should have been significantly trimmed down Well, there’s another scripting problem, which is that the staff at Belle Reve are so consistently absurdly abusive to the squad, that it strains the credulity when it comes to the plan of recruiting them to do missions. I mean, these aren’t people who are going to be cooperative and useful, because you’ve treated them like absolute garbage In turn, this doesn’t make Waller look like a master tactician Someone who is, as she claims, “the best at getting people to act against their own self-interests,” It-it just makes her look like an idiot. “Psychotic anti-social freaks – it makes no sense.” So a twist is a surprise subversion of the audience’s expectation. But, in order for a twist to work, expectations need to be established before they can be subverted. So there’s a twist in the middle of the movie where Boomerang tricks Slipknot into trying to escape and Flagg blows up the bomb in Slipknot’s neck The twist doesn’t work though because Slipknot was clearly introduced as disposable. Everyone else in this squad is introduced with the heavy-handed soundtrack choices, name cards, logos and a bio from Waller. It’s bad, but it still sets a precedent. So when Slipknot steps out of an SUV and gets a one-line introduction, “Here comes Slipknot, the man who can climb anything. Wonderful.”
[Seven Nation Army plays in the background] It’s a pretty clear tell to the audience that he’s not important and you shouldn’t care. So when he dies, it doesn’t mean anything. It’s…. Who cares? You were told not to care. I suppose we should take some time to talk about the actual antagonist of the film, Enchantress who’s possessing the body of June Moon, who’s in love with Rick Flagg. Now there’s a lot of problems here and this is going back to the underdeveloped script, I mean, the biggest that she’s being an absurdly powerful opponent for a team that should be busy doing…like, a heist or something I mean this speaks to the basic fiction of the movie, that Waller’s putting together a task force because…..what if, “What if Superman had decided to fly down, rip off the roof of the White House and grab the President of the United States right out of the Oval Office? Who would’ve stopped him?” But if that’s the case why is Captain Boomerang here? Or Harley Quinn? Or Killer Croc? Or Slipknot? Like, sure, Killer Croc is a big guy and he’s scary, and he can take a punch, but at the end of the day, he’s a linebacker with a skin condition. He’s not superhumanly strong, he’s just…regular strong. Boomerang isn’t even special. He’s just a thief with a gimmick. Harley? Harley is pure liability. Anyway-okay-So- Enchantress is introduced as part of the team, and then her powers demonstrated to the brass at the Pentagon, And then she more or less immediately betrays Waller and releases her brother in Midway City as part of her plan to escape But, at the same time, in between those points, And this is speaking directly to the poor structure, There’s the demonstration at the Pentagon, followed by a second montage of introductions to the Squad None of which move the plot forward at all because the parts where Waller and Flagg try to negotiate with Croc, Boomerang and Harley were all cut, And Diablo just tells them to piss off, so the only one they actually get to negotiate with is Deadshot. But, that doesn’t go anywhere either, because they then immediately ignore the entire conversation, so… Okay? The only one that tells us anything new is the conversation with Diablo. Which builds his character a bit, shows the audience that he’s basically at peace with his punishment, So that’s useful character development, even if the structure of the scene does nothing to progress the movie itself. Also, keeping in mind that the actual plot hasn’t started yet. Oh, also they bring June Moon to the prison and highlight her presence with a close-up reaction shot, as they arrive But she never interacts with any of the rest of the Squad, so when she goes rogue, no one on the team except Flagg has any emotional stake in the situation. Anyway, all of these largely pointless meetings culminate in Flagg telling Waller that it’s a dumb plan because they’re mostly worthless and their hostility just makes them a liability in any operation where loyalty would be an asset. Which is every operation ever. The scene ends with this ominous line where Flagg asks Waller what she’s really up to And Waller tells him “Its a need-to-know and all you need to know is you work for me.” Now, that’s actually important, because it tells the audience that she is, in fact, up to something. It’s foreshadowing a reveal. Waller has secret plans, that are at odds with the interests of either her bosses, or the Squad, or both. Don’t worry though, we don’t find out what they are. Because she doesn’t actually have secret plans. At least not as far as this movie is concerned. So…. Yeah? Then there’s a couple scenes with the Joker and he starts to orchestrate Harley’s break-out… And then we finally get the plot rolling with Enchantress releasing her brother in Midway City. And – oh yeah! Her brother! So, if this feels like it comes out of left field half an hour into the movie, that’s because it more or less comes out of left field a half hour into the movie. Now, prior to this, Enchantress’ brother Incubus is only mentioned in her title card which were all written by Trailer Park for comedy, and freeze-frame easter eggs for the home audience. Like, Flagg’s list his golf handicap. The point is these are jokes. The next glancing reference is Enchantress looking at this page, during the demonstration at the Pentagon. Except, when the camera is looking at this page, Waller is talking about Enchantress and telling the room “Everything we know about her is in your briefing packs.” So the relevance of this shot, that it represents some potential jeopardy, really isn’t clear until you’re already familiar with the plot. The visual difference, between what we’re being shown, and what we’ve been shown in the past is nominal. No one’s mentioned that there’s a second statue that poses a similar risk and Waller is summing up information that we’re already familiar with, All of the film’s signifiers are telling us that ‘this is old information, we don’t need to care.’ So, when Enchantress is snooping around Waller’s apartment and finds her brother’s statue sitting on the shelf like a tchotchke, It….comes out of nowhere. And this whole ‘betrayal’ culminates in one of the best worst moments in the movie. So, from the audience’s perspective, Incubus is wrecking Midway City and we know that Flagg knows that Enchantress was up to no good. He doesn’t know exactly what she did, but, presumably, he can put two and two together. Well, he clearly doesn’t, and he doesn’t even bother to tell his boss that maybe we can’t trust the witch right now, because she might be responsible But, anyway, putting that aside, Flagg and Moon are suddenly in the subway under Incubus, and he berates her into transforming, and.. [whispers] “Enchantress” “Flagg, talk to me, what’s going on down there?”
[phone rings] “Amanda, she bolted.” “Say it again?!” “She bolted!” Okay, so, this is an important moment: This is the moment that Flagg realizes he’s made a big mistake And it’s the moment that really kicks the plot into high gear, and instead of using that to build tension, Hard cut, and we learned what happened, Over the radio. A masterpiece of bad decisions. Coming back to the subject of twists, This movie actually has a twist, I guess? But… It’s bad. Surprise. After the squad finally gets assembled, at the midpoint of the movie, Waller gives them their mission, which is rescue HVT-1, which… I mean, wasn’t the whole point of Task Force X to throw them at metahumans that are wrecking stuff? “What if Superman had decided to fly down, rip off the roof of the White House, and grab the President of the United States right out of the Oval Office?” “NY City’s under attack. It’s nonhuman entity.” “I take it you know what to do, sir.” “Activate Task Force X. Get Amanda Waller and her whole circus on scene ASAP” Okay so that’s confusing in it’s own right but they eventually get to HVT-1 And it turns out it’s…Waller… She was in Midway City this whole time… So this is a twist that isn’t actually a twist because it’s pointless. Nothing changes by hiding that information, Nothing changes when you find out that Waller is the target. Waller being in the city doesn’t make sense in the first place, and..and then Waller kills her staff and says, “What? They weren’t cleared for any of this. Any of it.” Well, then-then who were they? What’s going on? Why are you here? Why were they here? What are you ACTUALLY doing? This is one of those moments that exists to try and surprise the audience, but it just raises more questions than it could ever answer And they’re bad questions, it’s not enticing questions it’s… …questions of confusion. There’s-there’s a lot more that I havent even touched on. Like how the Joker’s plot culdesac is used, How Harley’s story was gutted because it was an endless downer that still didn’t pay off How the wrap up doesn’t even mention that Diablo sacrificed himself for the squad, But instead I’ll just rattle those off in list form to give you the idea that they’re there. This, I think, is a pretty good vertical slice of the kind of editing problems that plague Suicide Squad from beginning to end. 2016. [bottle drops on floor] [slightly upbeat music]

My Camera Setup for YouTube (Filming, Editing, Lighting, Audio)

My Camera Setup for YouTube (Filming, Editing, Lighting, Audio)


What’s up guys? It’s Aileen. Today I’m going to share my camera setup and all the equipment that I use to film YouTube
videos. This is part of a Q&A series on starting a channel or blog. If you want to watch my other video on advice
I have for people starting out then you can watch
that right here. It has a lot of good information, but this
video is purely technical. I know a lot of you guys are just starting
out so how I’m going to structure this video is I’m going to share the equipment that I use
now. Then I’m going to share equipment that I recommend for people who are just starting
out. Alright let’s start with the camera. I literally just upgraded to a new camera a couple months ago, so the camera I’m shooting
with now is the Canon 80D. This is a brand new camera. I got it because of its autofocus ability. It can autofocus really fast and really well,
which is great for video. Before the 80D, I was shooting with a Canon
T4i for about four years. The T4i is a great entry-level DSLR. Honestly for those of you starting out, I highly recommend you invest in a Canon Rebel
series. I think the new one is a T6i but you can also get a used T3i, T4i, T5i,
whatever. If you want to invest in a DSLR, this is a really good one to start with because
it can do a lot for being small and compact. But if you’re looking to start with a point-and-shoot
camera, which is the smaller ones, then I recommend the Canon GX 7. I think that one is super popular for vlogging. A lot of people recommend that one. Or if you don’t have any budget, you can definitely just use your phone to
film your videos at the beginning. Just starting using like an iPhone, it’s great
quality already, better than the MacBook quality I started
with a long time ago. Next up, let’s talk about lenses. The lens that I use for vlogging, that’s on
the camera right now, is the Sigma 30 mm f/1.4. This is my favorite lens to shoot most things,
honestly, because f/1.4 is an aperture that lets you
open it up real wide. It lets in a lot of light so it shoots well in darker areas and it allows
for that blurry background effect. The next lens that I’m really enjoying right
now and just learning to use is my new 18-135 lens that came with my 80D. I got this because it has a huge zoom and because this lens is made for this 80D
camera, because the 80D is great at autofocus and this lens is really quiet at autofocusing. So if I’m filming a video where I need to autofocus quietly, then I will use this lens. I’m really, really, really loving it. It’s amazing. Because with my Sigma lens, I just manually
focus because the autofocus is too loud. Those are my two main lenses right now. I also have a Rokinon fisheye lens that’s
8 mm. That one I used for all my travel vlogs in
the past, but it’s just not a very practical lens. I haven’t found many cases where I needed
to use it. So for anyone starting out and who wants to find a good lens for YouTube,
I highly recommend the Sigma 30 mm one. And another one that’s really popular is the
Canon 50 mm one. That one’s really affordable and gives you
that beautiful background blur effect. Next up in my camera kit system are my tripods. I also got a new tripod recently and it is
amazing. It’s the Manfrotto, I don’t even know what
number it is-I’ll put it down below. It’s a Manfrotto tripod that has a three-way
pan, so it has a smooth video motion. If you watched my closet tour video, that’s
the tripod that I used for that video with all those smooth pannings. But before that I had these other two, relatively
cheap tripods. One of them is this simple tripod that I didn’t
even buy. It was at my house because it was my uncle’s old tripod for his
camcorder. Basically I found it and I used it for many years in YouTube. That one is similar to one that’s on Amazon
right now and I’ll link that below. Another tripod that I started with was this
tiny Sony one, and it’s because it’s a table tripod. It was very convenient for me to film at my
old house because I could just put this on a table or
on my dresser in front of my bed to film my old videos. But now I have this giant Manfrotto tripod
that I love. But yeah, you guys don’t really need to start with much. Sometimes I just stack books and put my camera
on there. Be creative. If you’re starting out, just stack things
and make it work. Also there’s tons of cheap tripods that you
can find on Amazon. I’ll link those below. Next up in the system is this handy dandy
remote. I got this from Amazon. It’s pretty affordable. Basically this remote is so essential to start
and stop videos. You can use it to take photos of yourself. It’s just so convenient to have a remote so you don’t always have to be going behind
the camera, press start, and run back here. Because once you’ve set that focus, like I
said I do manual focus most of the time, I sit here, make sure it’s focused then I
just press the button to start shooting and to stop shooting. It’s so convenient. Definitely invest in a remote. For my videos, I record audio through this
mic that sits on top of my camera. It’s called a shotgun mic. It’s the Rode Videomic shotgun and it’s about
two or three years old. I didn’t buy it, I got it from my job where
I worked as a video producer, so perks of working in video. It gets the job done basically because it
takes higher quality audio than what your camera takes but this mic has
been causing me problems recently and I would upgrade to another one. Basically I do enjoy having a shotgun mic on top of your camera for vlogging but if
you’re shooting things where you’re really far from the camera then
you have to have a lav mic which is a mic that you wear on you. I don’t have those kinds of mics so I can’t
talk about it, but you guys, if you’re starting out, you
can honestly use your phone to record audio. Your iPhone’s mic is actually really, really
good. So what you do: you take your iPhone, you open that voice recording app and you
put your phone as close to you as possible but out of shot. Then you just press record, press record on
the camera, and you have to clap. You basically clap so that later when you
edit the video, you can sync up the clap from the camera to the clap from
the iPhone audio. So after you’re done recording your video, you just stop recording
on the phone, and you send that audio file to yourself whether through email or whatever. And when you edit your video, you pull in that audio file, you match in
that clap and then voila! You have amazing audio for your video. If you guys ever watch movies where they have
that slate, that’s what it’s for: to sync up the video
and the audio, because it’s always recorded separately. Next let’s talk about lighting. Honestly, nowadays, I try to use natural light
as often as I can. I don’t really like to use artificial lights,
but I do have two umbrella lights that I’ve used for my videos. Especially in the past, you can go back to
my old videos in my old bedroom, I have two umbrella lights
right here towards me. And that did the job because I didn’t have
any natural light in that room. But now that I have more natural light, I
try to use it. And naturally light is free, so if you don’t have a budget, just film right
in front of a window. That’s the way to go. If you’re looking for another cheap alternative
lighting, then you can get those paper lanterns. I think they’re like five or six dollars each. Just hang those white paper lanterns in front of your face and you have lighting. Currently I use Adobe Premiere Pro CS6 and
I love it. Previously, I started with iMovie, that’s free on the MacBook. Then I upgraded to Final Cut Pro X that a
lot of YouTubers use. Honestly, Final Cut Pro is probably the most
common program for YouTubers to use, but I switched over and I wanted to learn
Adobe Premiere because I learned that’s what filmmakers use to edit films and
I kind of got into the film industry at one point. So I was like, “Oh, I should pick up that
skill.” After I used Adobe, I think I edit faster on Adobe than Final
Cut so that’s my program of choice. But honestly, you can use any program and
it doesn’t matter as long as you have somewhere you can edit your videos. It really doesn’t matter what you use, it’s
how you use it because you still have to use your own creativity. For editing graphics, like making my thumbnail or graphics for my
blog, I use Photoshop. I basically use Photoshop for everything. I know that not a lot of people can get Photoshop so another really popular program that I’ve
used in the past is PicMonkey. You just go on PicMonkey [dot] com and you
can upload your graphics and create your thumbnail or whatever graphics
from there. It’s pretty useful. And I know that there’s a ton of apps out
there that make creating graphics really easy, so go out there and do your research. Lastly, someone asked what kind of laptop
I have, so I thought I’d mention it. I have a MacBook that I got in 2015 that is
a 15-inch retina screen. I don’t really know the specs right now, but
it’s a good laptop. I made sure that I upgraded to this one last year because my old MacBook
died out. I think creating videos takes up a lot of space and takes up a lot
of memory so you have to make sure you get the fastest
laptop that you can afford to get. I also can’t forget to mention my external
hard drives. I have so many of these. This is my main one right now. It has two terabytes, Seagate. Basically when I edit videos, I edit it off my external hard drive because
this has more space than my laptop. You want to make sure that you edit your videos
on something that has a lot of space and is really fast, because you don’t want
to have videos that get malfunctions. That can happen: those green screens pop up. Anyway I’ve learned my lesson editing videos on my computer, so now I only
edit videos off of a hard drive. And as you can see I have a ton of hard drives. I think I have four hard drives right now, but this is my main one. All the other ones just have my old stuff,
my old videos on them. When buying a hard drive, just buy the biggest
size you can afford because you don’t want to get a smaller hard
drive and then have to upgrade to a bigger one and then a bigger one. You just want to try to have everything in one big hard drive, which is the lesson
that I’ve learned in the past few years. Alright that’s it for this video. Make sure you check out my other videos in
the series, such as advice for people starting out on
YouTube and how to start a podcast, if you’re interested. I’ll see you next time. Bye!