The finished version of my ‘Kitchen Sink Drink’ project is featured below.
Editing was done in the way of iMovie on my iPhone. I found this easy to use as it is a programme I have used a few times before; however, it is harder to get the precision that is possible on a computer.
Another awkward thing about iMovie, is the display of media in a consecutive line, meaning you have to scroll from left to right to view the footage you are working with. In this case, I preferred the side bar where your footage is stored on the computer program we use at school.
I enjoyed using techniques, such as match on action, to keep the editing exciting, but as mentioned above, complete accuracy was sightly difficult. I tried to do a bit of framing, like having the poison label showing through the handle of the mug.
I had 10 minutes worth of raw footage (having already narrowed it down to the best takes) and I found it a challenge to cut down on so much. I knew that showing extensive amounts of my mum making a cup of tea was not the most exciting thing, so I attempted a sort of montage, where I sped up the footage and played some music over the top. This helped me cut down the footage and made it more fun to watch, in my opinion.
I struggled with cutting out footage from the middle of a shot where my actors were completing an action, because I wasn’t sure it would make sense to the viewer or would make the editing look harsh and jolting. On the other hand, I knew I couldn’t keep all of it in, so I was brutal in my decisions and tried to cut out all the useless parts that didn’t have any effect.
I am rather happy with the finished product, although I would have liked to spend more time searching for the right music and sound effects to add in; finding a way to add ‘Chelsea Dagger’ was hard enough and I picked the few sound effects I used from iMovie’s selection as it was the easiest option. If I knew where to find good sound effects for free, I would definitely have taken advantage of this to round off my project more completely, as I am not sure I am happy with just the sound I have added.
I enjoyed the project, but may have been able to finesse it better for an improved final product.
First, I had my actors (my mum and dad) read their scripts to learn their lines, although I knew we would need to keep the scripts on hand during filming. Then, I started filming with the first shot of the project, the outside door one. I instructed my dad how to walk in the door and did a couple of takes from outside then inside. With that completed fairly quickly, we moved on to the kitchen scenes involving both my mum and dad.
I decided to shoot the shots generally in the right order, to save myself time when it came to editing, and this was definitely useful in post-production but was slightly awkward during filming. I often did allow my actors to complete an action and then re-shot from a different angle if I wanted; this gave me various option whilst editing so I didn’t just have a series of long single shots. I already had in mind where I wanted to use match on action and other editing techniques so I made sure to film accordingly so this was possible.
Another rule I had to be very aware of whilst filming was the 180º rule. I found it difficult to keep track of where the line would be and when it came a shot reverse shot sequence, I was very careful to make sure I filmed the correct side of each person so it would not break the rule.
Throughout filming, I tried to give my actors directions on how to improve a shot on the next take. We had occasional moments of laughter that meant we had to re-shoot, especially when my dad was fake-dying.
Overall, the process was quite long, as my story was much lengthy than I thought, and my parents got a bit tired and grumpy towards the end (understandably so). However, it was fun to experiment with shots and have complete control over the camera, as before this task, I had not entirely filmed a practical project myself. I also felt more relaxed being in my home environment with my parents acting; I knew I had plenty of time to film and felt comfortable directing them. Using my iPhone to film took away the stress of using unfamiliar equipment and having to set up a camera on a tripod, although, obviously, a camera would have produced better quality and more stability.
In general, not too many takes were required and I got most shots to my satisfaction. In an ideal world, I would have had time, and the willingness of my parents, to do some re-shoots after I had viewed and started editing the footage, but I still had plenty of footage to work with and practicalities, such as lighting, meant any re-shots would not have looked quite right anyway. Natural lighting was a key element I had to take into consideration: the skylight in my kitchen meant that there was no way to escape or hide roughly what time of day it was.
I drew a floor plan of my kitchen (/diner/living space) and then took photos of each main area, so it was clear where each was. Below is the floor plan and photos taken.
EntrancePantry door and binsKitchen areaDining tableSofasClose-up of chosen sofa
I also did a storyboard, but it was really messy and rough so I have chosen not to feature it here. I did not stick to my storyboard all the way through, as I preferred seeing what shots looked good at the time. This was rather time-consuming, so if I were to do another project like this, I would definitely do a complete and relatively neat storyboard to follow during the filming process.
I think I underestimated the value of a storyboard on this task, and as a consequence, I feel that some of my shot types are a bit repetitive; however, this does achieve the effect of reinforcing the Wife’s struggle to successfully poison the Husband and gives a Groundhog Day feel. Not following a storyboard exactly did allow me to experiment more with shot types and this was useful for my first completely independent practical project.
Husband unlocks the front door and walks into the kitchen where Wife is stood by the sink, making a cup of tea. Husband calls out to alert Wife that he has arrived home and he is shown entering the kitchen where Wife greets him by asking if he wants a cup of tea, as she is just making one. Husband accepts, so we see Wife finish making the cup of tea but then go to a cupboard and retrieve a bottle labelled as poison. She discreetly adds some of the liquid to the cup of tea and hands it to Husband.
Husband is disgusted with the cup of tea and after lifting it up, puts it straight back down and refuses to drink it as it has milk in. Wife takes the mug back from him and is about to drink it when she remembers it contains the poison that she added. She proceeds to make a fresh cup of tea, this time without milk, and add more poison.
Wife gives the fresh cup of tea to Husband who brings it to his lips before receiving a phone call. This prevents him from taking a sip and he puts the drink back down to pick up the phone. He starts talking on the phone and gets up, pacing about the room and going back into the hallway. Wife is frustrated as her two attempts to poison him have failed and she has little poison left. She looks at the clock, which has moved forward significantly.
Husband finally returns, after some time has elapsed. He feels the mug and rejects the drink again, as it is now too cold. Instead, Wife offers to get him his evening glass of red wine and adds the remaining poison to this. Husband gets Wife to bring the drink over to him on the sofa, where he is now sitting, playing Candy Crush on his iPad. Wife gives him the drink, which he places on a coaster beside him and does not touch for a while, completely immersed in the game.
Eventually, he absent-mindedly picks up his wine and takes a sip, whilst Wife looks on with glee from the kitchen. Husband has difficulty breathing and clutches his heart dramatically, before slumping, dead, in his seat. Wife walks over, triumphantly, but when she tries to move the body, she realises it is too heavy. She remarks aloud to herself that she thought her plan was foolproof.
The task is to completely plan and organise a sequence in which two characters are in a kitchen and a drink is offered and accepted but has something added to it. That is the entire brief so we were given quite a lot of room to make it our own, and as we are each doing the task individually, the end results are likely to be very different.
We must film and edit the sequence ourselves and document the various stages of production, before embedding the final sequence in a blog post.
A treatment is a piece of prose that summarises a project, but is usually longer than an outline. It is not always necessary to write a treatment, as it is essentially a novelised version of the screenplay, but it can be useful as a form of communication between the writers and production company to show the writers’ intentions for the story. It can reduce the number of edits to the screenplay, as both the production company and the writers will already have an idea of what they want for the screenplay and how it will progress.
Independent screenwriters who have not already been commissioned to write the screenplay for a set project may use a treatment to pitch their idea to a film company.
In ‘The Grand Budapest Hotel’, there are representations of different ethnicities, genders and classes.
Out of the three, there is less to address in terms of gender. There are few significant female characters in the film; Madame D’s significance lies more in her death than her life, as her will is the catalyst to the events that occur in the film. Whilst alive, she is portrayed as an anxious, silly woman, who is worried about leaving the hotel, but is reassured by Gustave. She is representative of all the wealthy, elderly women Gustave apparently sleeps with and who are only important in developing his character, not as people themselves. Gustave’s relations with them makes him seem mysterious and charming, whilst the women may just be seen as foolish to fall for his charms.
The main female character of any importance is Agatha, but even she is known largely through her relation to Zero, as his love interest. She plays a part in the retrieval of the portrait, which allows justice to prevail for Gustave; however, she ultimately dies after marrying Zero, a point mentioned briefly in Zero’s tying up of the loose ends in the story.
Therefore, there is little female representation in the film, although when she is shown, Agatha is presented positively as courageous and hard-working.
There is representation of different classes, although the class divide is not really addressed. The film is largely concerned with the hotel staff and the upper class guests who stay there.
There is a brief acknowledgment of the working class, when a crippled shoe shine boy is shown, but he is quickly dismissed from the mind, as the audience’s focus is shifted back to the hotel.
The upper class is shown to be foolish and evil, through the characters of Madame D and Dmitri respectively. As previously mentioned, Madame D is presented as perhaps naive, manipulated by Gustave who doesn’t even hold any real affection for her, only slight disdain veiled by a pretence of tenderness. Dmitri is the greedy villain, who already has a large share of the wealth left by Madame D, but has to have it all, including the single portrait left to Gustave. His appearance is stereotypical of a villain, with an exaggerated hairstyle, dark hair and eyes, black clothing and an evil glare.
The hotel staff, only the other hand, are shown to be conscientious and there to serve the guests. The renown of the hotel is down to them and largely Gustave, whilst there is little reference to Madame D being the owner until her passing. She certainly doesn’t behave likes its owner, instead Gustave plays the role of ruling the hotel and leading the staff, suggesting that the upper class Madame D may not be worthy of her ownership of the hotel.
Zero represents the ethnic diversity in the film, although his ethnicity is not a major part of the storyline, only providing some inconvenience at times. His ethnicity is implicitly addressed during his interview with Gustave, when Gustave asks questions about his education, experience and family. His disadvantaged background can be picked up from his limited education but his extensive list of previous jobs suggests he has had to work from a very young age to provide for himself, as it is then stated he has no family. Later in the film, it is learned this is because his family was killed in a war in his home country, forcing him to flee. This causes Gustave to feel genuine sympathy towards Zero and regret his prior racist statement where he “suppose[s that] this is to be expected in Aq Salim al-Jabat, where one’s prized possessions are a stack of filthy carpets, a starving goat, and one sleeps behind a tent flap, and survives on wild dates and scarabs.”
On the various train journeys, Zero faces questions in regards to his paperwork, which is not considered substantial enough. On the first occasion, Gustave is recognised by the captain, who intervenes and grants Zero safe passage. However, on the second occasion, the military is shown to be more aggressive and unforgiving, as they do not listen to Gustave or care about the paper provided by the captain the first time, and proceed to attack both Zero and Gustave, who, now having bonded with and holding great affection for Zero, attempts to stand up for him. Here, Zero’s race is considered above his hard work, reputation and association with Gustave, a respected concierge at a renowned hotel.
However, by the end of the film, Zero has married and had a child, despite both dying, and owns the hotel, with the military regime and war far in the past. He has overcome the difficulties and prejudices he faced earlier in his life and is shown to be an interesting, compassionate and successful man.
Over time, there have been many changes to the size of the standard aspect ratio. William Kennedy Dickson created the first ever aspect ratio, 4:3, which was the standard silent film ration. However, the Academy Ratio was created in 1932 at a size of 1.37:1 because to add sound, a little strip has to be left at the side of the film for the track to be recorded on. On September 30th 1952, Fred Waller pioneered a new cinema aesthetic: Cinerama. It used a 2.59 aspect ration and gave an 147º field of view, but was soon replaced by the simpler CinemaScope, with a 2.35 aspect ratio, created by Twentieth-Century Fox. Paramount sought to compete, so created their own system, VistaVision, with a 1.85 aspect ratio. There have been various other aspect ratios, but a 16:9 ratio was settled on as a compromise between the standard TV screen size (4:3) and the typical film’s 2:35.
In ‘The Grand Budapest Hotel’, different aspect ratios are used to show the change in time period. The narrative is the tale of Gustave. H, told by an older Zero, within a story by The Author and the aspect ratios mimic this.
The start and the end of the film are set in the present day and are filmed in the 1.85:1 aspect ratio that is used commonly today and is recognisable to a modern audience.
In the scenes where the older Zero is telling the story of Gustave to the younger Author, an aspect ratio of 2.35:1 is used. This time period is set in the late 1960s, and the aspect ratio chosen is one that was very common in the 50s and 60s. Therefore, Anderson seems to be using the aspect ratios that reflect the time period he is portraying.
The main proportion of the film directly follows Gustave and the young Zero and is filmed in 1.37:1 aspect ratio, the Academy Ratio established in 1932. Interestingly, the events of the film in this section begin in 1932 so it seems evident that Anderson is using the aspect ratio of the time in which each part is set.
Chapters 4 & 5 – M. Gustave (00:09:21 – 00:10:50):
The scene begins with Gustave H. (Ralph Fiennes) standing on a balcony, looking out of the window, taking a moment to compose himself before the bustle of getting everything ready for his continental breakfast with Madame D. Fiennes portrays a man taking a moment for himself to appreciate the view, but who never stops thinking and planning. Then, he turns around swiftly and takes precise measured steps, as if choreographed, to open the door and begin directing everyone on where to go. Fiennes concise, clipped speech presents Gustave as a no nonsense, calculated man, who has already thought of what he is going to say and is in complete control. Gustave organises everything and everybody with ease and speed, Fiennes not pausing for a beat between each instruction, to emphasise the authority and ability his character has. Fiennes also speaks louder than the other actors, to show Gustave’s dominance and importance; they all listen to him and respect what he says.
When Zero goes up to Gustave to hand over the tickets, he then doesn’t turn his back on Gustave as he moves away again, instead doing an awkward backwards jog. This suggests Gustave is so important and high up in rank compared to Zero, it would be disrespectful for Zero to turn his back on him.
The performance of both actors in the conversation scene between Madame D. and Gustave suggests they are anxious; he is anxious and impatient for her to leave, and she is anxious about leaving, shown by her darting eyes and quivering voice. Fiennes’ voice is calm and makes Gustave seem reassuring towards Madame D. but when he comments on her nail varnish, his true feelings of disgust are revealed and his indifference towards her seems more clear. On the other hand, Madame D. is shown to be very fond of Gustave through her seeking of comfort from him. The change from serious to trivial conversation shows that Gustave has such a keen eye for detail, he has to point out his observations and his opinion on what he sees.
The tone of the conversation between them seems rather formal, but perhaps not as formal as one would expect between a staff member and a guest of the hotel. Gustave swears, and the way Fiennes delivers the swear words implies his character is comfortable in doing so, and it is a deliberate choice, not an unexpected, mistaken reaction. This suggests Gustave sees Madame D. as an equal, and therefore thinks nothing of swearing around her.
This sequence is taken from right near the beginning of the film, and straight away, Wes Anderson’s auteur approach is obvious in the mise-en-scène, from colours, to costumes, to props. Two very prominent colours are red and purple, with red connoting passion, sex, and anger and purple connoting wealth, luxury, regality. This sets the tone for the film: The Grand Budapest is a luxurious and expensive hotel that important people stay in, and the film’s events occur due to a sexual relationship between Gustave and Madame D. and the anger her family has when they find out she left the portrait ‘Boy with Apple’ to Gustave in her will. Red is present in the elevator and on Gustave’s bow-tie (another symbol of class, luxury and formality), whilst the hotel staff’s uniforms are purple.
Another interesting colour choice is that of the exterior of the hotel. It is pink and white, giving it a doll-house or fairytale-like feel, giving the impression that the hotel is somewhere to escape to and relax, far away in the mountains of the fictional Zubrowka.
Even the background characters have carefully chosen costumes: one guest wears a big fur coat and Russian-esque hat, suggesting the hotel receives exotic and well-travelled guests.
The classical architecture, marble pillars, sweeping arches and the indoor plants again add to the sense that the hotel is as its name describes, ‘grand’. The architecture also suggests the hotel is established and traditional, a place older and orthodox people would appreciate, so these are its implied guests and fits the description of those we do see.
A small side character, the crippled shoe shine boy, seemingly featured only for comic effect, puts the hotel into context and gives and insight into the world of those around the small percentage of rich guests who stay there. The crippled boy juxtaposes the luxury and extravagance of the hotel and shows the massive class divide, something present in most places, not just this fictional one. However, the boy is glazed over, forgotten immediately by Gustave, who priorities interviewing Zero over the previous task he just set him of visiting the church, lighting a candle and giving the remaining money to the shoe shine boy. In this light-hearted, ethereal film, there is no room to address serious issues such as poverty, so it is quickly put out of mind and the audience are hurried along with Gustave and Zero into the hotel, and away from anything or anybody that detracts from the magnificence of the story. After all, if the hotel and the film both allow escapism, why dampen that with the reality of the outside world?
Ralph Fiennes’ performance presents Gustave as busy, commanding, efficient and important but certain elements of mise-en-scène add to this, such as his notepad, which is always on hand, the fact that people are constantly rushing up to him to get his opinion or permission, and in the elevator, he is the only one of the three men to sit down, and earlier in the film, he also sits down in the elevator with Madame D, a distinguished guest, suggesting he is on par with her. Gustave’s neatly parted hair and carefully trimmed moustache give the impression he takes pride in his appearance and show him to be well-groomed and tidy. This reflects his perfectionist personality. His formality in appearance and behaviour contrast his dialogue, however, as he uses rather vulgar phrases, such as “shaking like a shitting dog”. This suggests he is blunt in his opinion and indifferent towards how others feel and, on surface level, is just funny to hear with a posh, precise accent.
In comparison, Zero has a tilted hat, suggesting his inexperience and draws on his moustache, which implies he is ambitious but youthful and has a naivety and innocence about him at the start of the film.
Daisy Samra's Film Studies Blog 