Selecting a directional methodology for a creative practice film

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contributionResearchpeer-review

Abstract

An actor’s performance, as it appears on screen, is unstable. The viewing audience has no way of knowing to what extent the performance was the actor’s creation in front of the camera when the scene was filmed, or re-constructed, by the editor and director, in post-production. Editors will often describe how they took a look from this take, a sentence from that take, a reaction from yet another take, and then had the actor ADR (automated dialogue replacement) that line that had a slight word stumble in it (Seger, 1994; Rosenblum, 1979; Travis, 2002; Bare, 2000; Proferes, 2008). However, when exploring how directors read an actor’s performance is the central thesis of a doctoral exegesis, as it was in my case, then it is vital that the actor’s performance is captured in such a way that it remains as stable, and un-recreated, as possible. Only then can a director claim to have read the actor’s performance when it was created and recognised it as being satisfactory. Otherwise, it would not be possible to know whether it was the director, the editor or the producer who truly was able to distinguish the quality of the actor’s performance. In order to achieve this, I had to select a directorial methodology that would enable me to capture the actor’s performance in such a way that I could begin to understand how a director reads an actor’s performance on set. I would then be able to present that same unaltered performance for examination and peer review. In Figures traced in light: On cinematic staging (2005), Bordwell undertakes a close examination of the directorial methodology of Greek director Theo Angelopolous and Japanese director Kenji Mizoguchi: two exceptional proponents of the long-take mise-en-scéne shooting style. In Notes: On the making of Apocalypse Now (1993), Eleanor Coppola describes a similar directorial methodology used by Francis Ford Coppola. And in Sherman’s Directing the film: Film directors on their art (1976) other notable directors describe similar methodologies. This paper sets out the directorial methodology used in the production of the film Gingerbread Men, the creative component of my Doctorate of Creative Arts, and describes how that methodology is grounded in the work of significant directors.
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationRefereed proceedings of the Australian and New Zealand Communication Association (ANZCA) conference 2010
Subtitle of host publicationMedia, democracy and change
EditorsK. McCallum
Pages1-11
Number of pages11
Publication statusPublished - 2010
EventAustralian and New Zealand Communication Association (ANZCA) conference: Media, democracy and change - Old Parliament House, Canberra, Australia
Duration: 7 Jul 20109 Jul 2010
http://www.anzca.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12:anzca10-conference&catid=46

Conference

ConferenceAustralian and New Zealand Communication Association (ANZCA) conference
Abbreviated titleANZCA
CountryAustralia
CityCanberra
Period7/07/109/07/10
Internet address

Fingerprint

Methodology
Peer Review
Francis Ford Coppola
Creative Arts
Art
Film Director
Onset
Exegesis
Apocalypse
Replacement

Cite this

Sergi, M. (2010). Selecting a directional methodology for a creative practice film. In K. McCallum (Ed.), Refereed proceedings of the Australian and New Zealand Communication Association (ANZCA) conference 2010: Media, democracy and change (pp. 1-11)
Sergi, Michael. / Selecting a directional methodology for a creative practice film. Refereed proceedings of the Australian and New Zealand Communication Association (ANZCA) conference 2010: Media, democracy and change. editor / K. McCallum. 2010. pp. 1-11
@inproceedings{c050fb62469045ed86d7f6df407f2150,
title = "Selecting a directional methodology for a creative practice film",
abstract = "An actor’s performance, as it appears on screen, is unstable. The viewing audience has no way of knowing to what extent the performance was the actor’s creation in front of the camera when the scene was filmed, or re-constructed, by the editor and director, in post-production. Editors will often describe how they took a look from this take, a sentence from that take, a reaction from yet another take, and then had the actor ADR (automated dialogue replacement) that line that had a slight word stumble in it (Seger, 1994; Rosenblum, 1979; Travis, 2002; Bare, 2000; Proferes, 2008). However, when exploring how directors read an actor’s performance is the central thesis of a doctoral exegesis, as it was in my case, then it is vital that the actor’s performance is captured in such a way that it remains as stable, and un-recreated, as possible. Only then can a director claim to have read the actor’s performance when it was created and recognised it as being satisfactory. Otherwise, it would not be possible to know whether it was the director, the editor or the producer who truly was able to distinguish the quality of the actor’s performance. In order to achieve this, I had to select a directorial methodology that would enable me to capture the actor’s performance in such a way that I could begin to understand how a director reads an actor’s performance on set. I would then be able to present that same unaltered performance for examination and peer review. In Figures traced in light: On cinematic staging (2005), Bordwell undertakes a close examination of the directorial methodology of Greek director Theo Angelopolous and Japanese director Kenji Mizoguchi: two exceptional proponents of the long-take mise-en-sc{\'e}ne shooting style. In Notes: On the making of Apocalypse Now (1993), Eleanor Coppola describes a similar directorial methodology used by Francis Ford Coppola. And in Sherman’s Directing the film: Film directors on their art (1976) other notable directors describe similar methodologies. This paper sets out the directorial methodology used in the production of the film Gingerbread Men, the creative component of my Doctorate of Creative Arts, and describes how that methodology is grounded in the work of significant directors.",
author = "Michael Sergi",
year = "2010",
language = "English",
isbn = "9781740883191",
pages = "1--11",
editor = "K. McCallum",
booktitle = "Refereed proceedings of the Australian and New Zealand Communication Association (ANZCA) conference 2010",

}

Sergi, M 2010, Selecting a directional methodology for a creative practice film. in K McCallum (ed.), Refereed proceedings of the Australian and New Zealand Communication Association (ANZCA) conference 2010: Media, democracy and change. pp. 1-11, Australian and New Zealand Communication Association (ANZCA) conference, Canberra, Australia, 7/07/10.

Selecting a directional methodology for a creative practice film. / Sergi, Michael.

Refereed proceedings of the Australian and New Zealand Communication Association (ANZCA) conference 2010: Media, democracy and change. ed. / K. McCallum. 2010. p. 1-11.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contributionResearchpeer-review

TY - GEN

T1 - Selecting a directional methodology for a creative practice film

AU - Sergi, Michael

PY - 2010

Y1 - 2010

N2 - An actor’s performance, as it appears on screen, is unstable. The viewing audience has no way of knowing to what extent the performance was the actor’s creation in front of the camera when the scene was filmed, or re-constructed, by the editor and director, in post-production. Editors will often describe how they took a look from this take, a sentence from that take, a reaction from yet another take, and then had the actor ADR (automated dialogue replacement) that line that had a slight word stumble in it (Seger, 1994; Rosenblum, 1979; Travis, 2002; Bare, 2000; Proferes, 2008). However, when exploring how directors read an actor’s performance is the central thesis of a doctoral exegesis, as it was in my case, then it is vital that the actor’s performance is captured in such a way that it remains as stable, and un-recreated, as possible. Only then can a director claim to have read the actor’s performance when it was created and recognised it as being satisfactory. Otherwise, it would not be possible to know whether it was the director, the editor or the producer who truly was able to distinguish the quality of the actor’s performance. In order to achieve this, I had to select a directorial methodology that would enable me to capture the actor’s performance in such a way that I could begin to understand how a director reads an actor’s performance on set. I would then be able to present that same unaltered performance for examination and peer review. In Figures traced in light: On cinematic staging (2005), Bordwell undertakes a close examination of the directorial methodology of Greek director Theo Angelopolous and Japanese director Kenji Mizoguchi: two exceptional proponents of the long-take mise-en-scéne shooting style. In Notes: On the making of Apocalypse Now (1993), Eleanor Coppola describes a similar directorial methodology used by Francis Ford Coppola. And in Sherman’s Directing the film: Film directors on their art (1976) other notable directors describe similar methodologies. This paper sets out the directorial methodology used in the production of the film Gingerbread Men, the creative component of my Doctorate of Creative Arts, and describes how that methodology is grounded in the work of significant directors.

AB - An actor’s performance, as it appears on screen, is unstable. The viewing audience has no way of knowing to what extent the performance was the actor’s creation in front of the camera when the scene was filmed, or re-constructed, by the editor and director, in post-production. Editors will often describe how they took a look from this take, a sentence from that take, a reaction from yet another take, and then had the actor ADR (automated dialogue replacement) that line that had a slight word stumble in it (Seger, 1994; Rosenblum, 1979; Travis, 2002; Bare, 2000; Proferes, 2008). However, when exploring how directors read an actor’s performance is the central thesis of a doctoral exegesis, as it was in my case, then it is vital that the actor’s performance is captured in such a way that it remains as stable, and un-recreated, as possible. Only then can a director claim to have read the actor’s performance when it was created and recognised it as being satisfactory. Otherwise, it would not be possible to know whether it was the director, the editor or the producer who truly was able to distinguish the quality of the actor’s performance. In order to achieve this, I had to select a directorial methodology that would enable me to capture the actor’s performance in such a way that I could begin to understand how a director reads an actor’s performance on set. I would then be able to present that same unaltered performance for examination and peer review. In Figures traced in light: On cinematic staging (2005), Bordwell undertakes a close examination of the directorial methodology of Greek director Theo Angelopolous and Japanese director Kenji Mizoguchi: two exceptional proponents of the long-take mise-en-scéne shooting style. In Notes: On the making of Apocalypse Now (1993), Eleanor Coppola describes a similar directorial methodology used by Francis Ford Coppola. And in Sherman’s Directing the film: Film directors on their art (1976) other notable directors describe similar methodologies. This paper sets out the directorial methodology used in the production of the film Gingerbread Men, the creative component of my Doctorate of Creative Arts, and describes how that methodology is grounded in the work of significant directors.

M3 - Conference contribution

SN - 9781740883191

SP - 1

EP - 11

BT - Refereed proceedings of the Australian and New Zealand Communication Association (ANZCA) conference 2010

A2 - McCallum, K.

ER -

Sergi M. Selecting a directional methodology for a creative practice film. In McCallum K, editor, Refereed proceedings of the Australian and New Zealand Communication Association (ANZCA) conference 2010: Media, democracy and change. 2010. p. 1-11