Media Research Project

During my 2nd year I also got the chance to help out on two different 3rd year productions. The first one is called Grandpa's Magical Greenhouse (d. Matthew Edmonston) and the shooting phase took place between 16/02/09 and 20/02/09; the second one is called Love Life (d. Luke Proctor) and the shooting took place between 07/04/09 and 15/04/09.
I have chosen specifically to work for these productions mainly because of the crew involved in both of them which, ironically, were pretty much the same people. Matt and Luke are extremely reliable and professional in their approach to the filmmaking process and I believe that was one of the main reasons that led me to participate in their final year productions. I had also previously worked with both of them last year in Eyeless, a 16mm film.
Not only everything was taken care in advance (which, more than anything, turns things much easier for the whole crew in the long run...), but also during shooting all possibilities were explored in order to get the best out of the footage captured. During my time in both productions I was helping out as Camera assistant, so basically responsible for ensuring that everything went as smooth as possible for the Cinematographers. Fortunately, I was lucky enough to work with two cinematographers which were (to a certain extent) quite perfectionist about image composition and all the steps involved in the process of constructing each individual shot; Matt was one of them and the other one was Michael Gandham. With both of them I have developed my knowledge on (but not limited to) lighting techniques, colour temperatures and other effects the director was attempting with. I recall this scene for Love Life, in a nightclub, in which we filled the whole function room (in a Hotel in Middlesbrough) with white smoke and then each one of us had to rotate one redhead covered with some coloured gel in order to stage the lighting effects and artificial smoke which can usually be found in nightclubs. This is for me a perfect example of "going the extra mile" and the way I believe all productions should aim to work. I am quite aware that sometimes certain things may be simply impossible to achieve, but working with this team made me realise that the quality of the final product is highly dependable on the level of effort and the standards that we set ourselves in the pre-production of a film. Thus if we allow ourselves to be creative, not just in the production phase, but also in the pre-production, the chances for a better film increase greatly. Plus, if the pre-production is accomplished effectively, the team will feel extra motivated when going through the production and even editing stage of the film.
Overall, I am quite happy about the fact that I have participated in both of these productions and I am certain that all the advice I got from each of their crew members will serve me positively in my final year project.

Here I will be exposing all the main realist positions in cinema, streching back from the very begginings of cinema until today. In order to do this I will base my argument in some of the key figures that have brought forward the discussions of the so-called "realism" in cinema and the ideological intents behind the same. Nevertheless, because my focus is not entirely on the pure state of reality, firmly defended by Vertov and the likes, I will be exposing solely the main (valid) positions of all these different filmmakers and critics and, at the same time, contextualize these within the premise of a cinema that borders the limits of both reality and fiction.

The ideology of realism is, first and foremost, a search for "The Truth" behind all things; the search for an essence which is latent in all aspects of the real world. Robert Flaherty and others seem to have found this essence more readily available either in nature or among unprivileged classes of society. The greater the proximity to the bottom of the human existence (people that, due to hunger, poverty, ignorance, etc, seem to be closer to the basic notion of instinctive survival) the greater the chances to capture that essence, or "Truth". An argument similar to this was put forward by critic Colin MacCabe, while examining the ideology of the realist text, which identifies the working-class as "the simple possessors of truth". The only drawback in Flaherty's working methods is that he would spend exaggerated amounts of film footage in search of that "moment of truth" which, according to him, could emerge from where you least expect it. Thus, realism in cinema could be achieved by shooting huge amounts of footage and then look out for "signs of reality" throughout all the footage obtained. Obviously this method does not prove to be very efficient nowadays and so the only way out may be to identify (as efficiently as possible) these "signs of reality" a priori and then incorporate these in the filming process. After this, the aesthetic realism should "construct itself out of certain usages of formal conventions" (Christopher Williams in Realism and the cinema). At the same time, the search for "Truth" in realist cinema is directly linked to an urge for "self-clarification" (in Roberto Rossellini’s words) or a hunger for knowledge of a wider world, which accepts reality as it is instead of simply igoring it. It is thus not a surprise that realist cinema is put forward as one of the most important forms of education, especially in Britain, by promoting (but not limited to) cultural, political and economic discourse. According to this premise, cinema becomes, then, a constant source of information about the world we live in and the problems in it. It may be partly due to this function of the cinema that MacCabe associates the realist film (Cathy Come Home, to quote his own example) with a "social-democratic concept of progress - if we reveal injustices then they will go away". Other critics, such as Peter Brunette, perceive the search for the essence (or "Truth") in realist cinema as being rooted in the belief of a "higher entity" (God). Thus the search for an assertive explanation (and, indeed, grasping) of what is considered to be the essence of something may be a direct signifier of our fear of the unknown and the inexplicable: "If reality is a whole, and if cinema can convey this wholeness, then everything that we experience in life that is contingent or in some way compromised (in other words, everything) can be naturalized and made to seem ultimately explicable and thus less threatening. The fixity of the end-point (God, the totality, the essence of reality) can then be seen as grounding the play of difference and the endlessly receding chain of signification". In what concerns the real and its reproduction, it can be argued that realist cinema relies mostly in national specificity in order to convey effectively the notion of the "real", for the reproduction of the "real" is usually linked to the isolation of specific (or outstanding) characteristics of a determined environment. For example, if in Hollywood cinema characters, places and storylines adopt a certain international quality (which, according to several critics, represents the main reason for Hollywood's sucess up until today), appealing to worldwide audiences, in realist cinema this is somehow unattainable for the reproduction of reality is primarily focused in notions of subject and location as opposed to Hollywood's focus on effective storytelling.

The narrative in realist filmmaking is mainly derived from raw material, in other words, stories are taken from real lives as opposed to entirely fictionalised storylines, which usually display exceptional characters in incredibly exceptional circumstances. Instead there is a greater emphasis on the genuine and real experiences of ordinary people, from which the essence of reality ends up springing. In an essay on Rossellini's style, Peter Brunette declared that the former simply "directs facts", based on the premise that the true meaning (or essence) of things will end up emerging all by itself at a later stage. However, this "all by itself" does not prove to be so much "all by itself" at all, for Peter goes on by arguing that the director also plays an important role in this "emerging" process. The reason for this is because if reality was to be taken as it is, it would be extremely shallow and innefective; instead real facts have to be kind of filtered by the creative mind of the director, which would then allow for a deeper (and richer) reality to emerge. So, in fact, the meaning of reality would not be so much to be found in the facts themselves, but somewhere else. According to Neo-realist ideology, then, the meaning would be external to the facts (or the "real"), representing kind of a suplement to reality. Among all the realist theories I have been researching, this seems to me as the most appropriate for a cinema which defies the laws governing reality and fiction, and it is definitely the most flexible in approach for it takes on board mostly just realist conventions and, at the same time, allows a minimum amount of manipulation to occur (the director's filtration of reality). During the 1920s, the russian documentarist Dziga Vertov put forward a project called "Kino-Eye" in which interesting stories are drawn from the simple observation of people; according to his writings, the “Kino-Eye” consists on a group of collaborators which, on a first stage, observe ordinary lives and try to identify any outstanding details or occurences that may lead to a good story; on a second stage, the equipment is taken to the location and the footage is shot, as unobtrusively as possible. Despite its original naivety when attempting to capture reality in its most pure state, the "Kino-Eye" has nevertheless its valid points and an important lesson can be drawn from it: the best stories may lie right under our noses, sometimes where we least expect it... Reality becomes, then, and endless source of filmic material, readily available to be explored. As Zavattini puts it: "Excavate, and every little fact is revealed as a mine. If the gold-diggers come at last to dig in the illimitable mine of reality, the cinema will become socially important".

The modus operandi of realist filmmaking basically consists on "pushing the barriers" of realism in a way which constantly challenges the spectator with the material presented. In order for the material to be considered realist enough when presented on the screen, it needs to display a certain degree of originality or it must be something new in the eyes of the spectator. So, in a certain way, it can be argued that unpredictability plays an extremely important role in realist cinema for it manages to convey a sense of "real life" more effectively than any other method, and this allows a closer relationship to emerge between the audience and the film text. Just to exemplify my point, let us look at Neo-realist films: these films usually feature no build-up in the plot and events usually come across more as a shock than simply as the portrait of any ordinary event; in Paisa, for instance, there is a scene where two Fascists are taken out of the frame and killed without any sort of hullabaloo. Vernacular speech is something which is quite often used in Neo-realist films as well; by presenting us with characters which detain a type of language that includes all sorts of sounds, such as mumbling, and other (almost) imperceptible features of our everyday language, the "barriers" of realism are once again stretched beyond what audiences may have initially taken for granted as being "real". Of course this sort of practice is something which demands to be constantly re-invented as familiarization with the filmic material will eventually lead to the general acceptance of certain techniques as a norm. A perfect example of this is the use of hand-held camera in recent years; this method has become so increasingly popular among filmmaking practice that most of its initial inventiveness has inevitably been lost year after year. Another formal technique realist cinema usually relies when conveying a sense of authenticity and credibility to the film text is the use of non-professional actors. These are people that do not carry any "baggage" in what concerns awareness of dramatic conventions and instead rely solely in their real-life experiences as a basic framework upon which their representation will be contructed. This process resembles the typage method of Sergei Eisenstein and other Soviet filmmakers, which relied mainly in facial and bodily characteristics when selecting actors for their films. At the heart of both of these techniques there is a certain appeal to the basic instinct of identification between personages and audiences; realist filmmaking can be just as engaging as any other Hollywood drama, with the exception that any human emotion or character traits will be explored in a much deeper and complex way. This "complex way" will be, then, no more than a clearer reflection of reality itself and a step closer towards the unpredictability of the everyday life. A similar ideological position was adopted by Zavattini which, not only deflects the mythologization of "stars" but it also draws upon a very important notion of identification: "I am against 'exceptional' personages. The time has come to tell the audience that they are the true protagonists of life. The result will be a constant appeal to the responsability and dignity of every human being. Otherwise the frequent habit identifying oneself with fictional characters will become very dangerous. We must identify ourselves with what we are. The world is composed of millions of people thinking of myths".

It may be, then, due to its bold approach towards the "truth" (and, indeed, the polemical outcome which springs from the exposure of this "truth") that realist cinema is very often surrounded by all sorts of criticisms and popular agitation. Some critics go even further by declaring this strand of filmmaking as being not only politically and ideologically "dangerous" but also extremely socially divisive... However, should we really be naming films which denounce social/economic/political problems in the best interest of the public, as "socially divisive"? The truth is, these films may, in fact, cause a certain discomfort among the masses, and sometimes its material may not even be the most pleasurable to experience, but in the other hand its main objective still lies in attempting to force the governing systems to be re-evaluated and (hopefully) improved. Thus, from this point of view, realist cinema is not so much perceived as "socially divisive" but instead as a type of filmmaking which promotes social cohesion instead, by exposing problems that a nation (or even the World, on a larger scale) may be experiencing and urgently need to be acted upon by a colective society. John Grierson goes on defending this ideal of social cohesion by declaring that "our gentlemen [Englishmen] explore the native haunts and investigate the native customs of Tanganyika and Timbuctoo, but do not travel dangerously into the jungles of Middlesbrough and the Clyde". At the same time, this comment from the "Father of Documentary" underpins some of the tension that still can be felt among contemporary audiences when confronted with contemporary issues such as (but unfortunately not limited to) poverty, child abuse and terrorism. Issues which, instead of ignored, need to be confronted and fought against.

Realist film has gone a long way in order to obtain the distinctive status that it detains nowadays. So, for example, if realist filmmaking in the UK before 1942 was generally associated with a lower strand of cinema, in the period ranging from 1942 to 1948 this prejudice was replaced by a recognition which placed a greater emphasis on the acting, directing and mise-en-scene achievement of socially meaningful material. This differentitation between realist (or "quality") cinema and Hollywood can still be seen today, especially in specialist film publications, where critics seem to indentify in realist filmmaking a more productive ground for art to flourish. Others, such as the right-wing commentators E.W. and M.M. Robson, go the extra mile when defending the artistic value of the Hollywood product: "It has become an idee fixe among the coteries that a film can rarely be a work of 'art' if it appeals to the many and makes money - especially if it makes money. It is only allowed within the sacred category is a film is abtruse, restricted in appeal to a few, subjective in outlook, loses money and delivers a message with a negative content". What the Robsons seem to be missing from their comment is that, despite all this, the humanist element usually displayed in these "obtruse" films is worth any special effect or artificial emotion fabricated within the colossal constraints of Hollywood's money-making machine.

I have conducted two different types of photographic shoots in the last 4 months and these focused mainly in realist principles such as poverty, the appeal of the "common" and the rawness of life itself, in a larger scale. Extensively backed up by various books I have been reading on realist ideology, I have taken the time to plan each of these photographs to the point that each of them would strive to demonstrate the above mentioned "rawness" and essence of the photographed subject. If this indeed has been achieved I'm not too sure... Nevertheless I still believe this photo shoot greatly increased my awareness towards the purity and "truth" behind each of these photos. Now I admit there is not a simple definition of what this "truth" may be... However, when I took these photographs I tried to stick to a basic idea that "truth" or "essence" is no more than a symbiosis between function (the utility of the photographed subject in the wider World), location (the place that it belongs to and its relationship to it) and, of course, shape (its physical aspect as perceived by human vision).
On the technical side, I have mainly used high f-numbers (around 8), which offered an astonishing sharpness to the picture and, at the same time, boosted depth-of-field to a level which offers a better rendition of subjects both in the background and foreground. Nevertless, in some photos I have used relatively wider apertures in order to obtain higher control over focus and, this way, convey a certain sense of perspective to the picture. In what concerns lenses, I have used a Nikon 18-55mm; although this zoom lens provided quite a fair amount of flexibility when switching between focal lenghts, I have mainly sticked to lower numbers such as 18, 20 or even 30mmm. This greatly heightened the sense of the 3-Dimensional space and thus placed extra emphasis on realist principles such as the influence of environmental factors over man.
At a later stage, I have adjusted the photos on Adobe Photoshop in order to enhance even further their sense of realism and "rawness". On all of them I have used the "High Pass Sharpening" technique which basically consists on creating a duplicate de-saturated layer of the original photo and then allows us to control the sharpness of the edges. Both layers are then merged together and the sharpness specified for the duplicated layer is used to transform the original photo. This briefly resembles the ENR method, which is basically a silver retention technique in film processing (for more info on this check my previous post on "Processing Techniques"). In addition to this, I have also altered the colour rendition on certain photos in order to eliminate any unwanted tinges.
Below are a few samples of both "Place" and "Subject" photo shoots. In "Place" I tried to explore the singularity of each space presented and in "Subject" I have mainly focused in exploring the relationship between subject and place. Each photo is presented both as it was originally taken and also as it looked after all changes had been applied in Photoshop. And, although both photos may look exactly the same to the naked eye, try clicking on each photo and compare the texture definition on both. Then you will notice the differences.

For more photos follow these links:
http://www.blog.co.uk/srv/media/media_items.php?album_ID=347217
http://www.blog.co.uk/srv/media/media_items.php?album_ID=347202

---------------------- Before ------------------------------------------ After ----------------------

I am currently working on a project called Spilled Milk, which deals with controversial themes such as child abuse and teenage pregnancy. I am one of the cinematographers of the project and I am basically focusing on realist "gritty" cinematography, in order to depict Kelly's story (the main character). It was agreed with the Director (Emma Richardson) that we would be dividing the film into two different photography styles: one giving a sense of presence and immediacy which will be applied to the flashback scenes, and another one which will depict Kelly in a cold school office, telling the story of her life. I am going to be responsible for the latter and, in the meantime, I have conducted a video test with some of the crew members and taken a few notes on my research. Here they are:

*17/03/2009*
After a few try-outs on different settings on the camera Sony Z1, I have arrived to the following conclusions:
- After the white balance was done (using a plain white surface), I was able to adjust the blue/orange wavelengths to a maximum/minimum of 7. So basically this means that, although I’ve used the usual way to achieve the correct white balance for the scene, afterwards I was able to shift the actual “blueness” of the image in order to convey the sense of cold and grittiness I was looking for; I’ve set the shift value to -3 (3 steps “colder” than the correct white balance). Nevertheless, this shift value will have to be revised as light conditions in the actual corridor/ office that we gonna be shooting may differ from the ones in my bedroom, where I conducted my experiment. This whole process proved extremely useful as now I won’t have to go through the use of any 81A or 81B filters, in order to bring out the levels of “blue” in the image.
- The sharpness of the picture can be adjusted in the Sony Z1 as well. There are 15 different levels of sharpness that can be selected ranging from 0 to 15. I’ve selected level 15 of course. Just in case, I’ve tried with different levels of sharpness just to check the visual shift in detail. There is indeed a great change from “0” to “15”… so I guess this is a very important function to look out for in upcoming productions. A great deal of realism in the picture derives from the use of increased sharpness and other functions such as this.
- The colour level amplitude ranged from -8 (Black & White) to +7 (maximum saturation). I have checked very carefully through all levels and the one that best seems to serve my purposes for the scene is -7. This shift of -7 in the colour spectrum removes most of the saturation from the colours in the scene and gives it a “gloomier” look and, in a certain way, increases the shadows (blacks) in between edges. I’m extremely happy with the results I have obtained by shifting the colour of the picture, however I’m not too sure we are going to be shooting using these settings; after all we can always apply changes to colour during post. I’ll expose this to Craig and then we’ll decide what to do.
- Apparently, the level of detail in skintone can also be changed in the Sony Z1. There are 3 different types of skintone detail (Type 1, 2 and 3), and within each of these three there is a choice of “Low”, “Medium” or “High”. I haven’t tested this myself, but for now I’ve just selected “Type 1” and set the level to “High”. I’m not too sure of the shift between levels but I hope I can test this tomorrow, when Emma and the others come to my place to conduct (kind of) a test shooting.
- Sony Z1 also features an option which (apparently) gives a “film look” to the footage… This is pretentiously called “Cinematone” and apparently it changes the interlaced to progressive scan, internally. I’m not too sure if this really works as I’m quite sceptic towards all these digital functions which aim to offer a “film look” to digital material. Regardless, I have selected “type 2” of the above mentioned “Cinematone” function and I’m gonna get some test footage using this. Then I’ll make a comparison to see if it really works…
- In what concerns image contrast, there isn’t a function in the Z1 which allows this to be shifted, so I guess I’ll just have to try that later on during post.
- I have kept an aperture of 8 for the whole time I was testing the camera and, even with just one redhead on, a very well illuminated picture could be obtained. I’m using such a minimal aperture as I want to sharpen the edges of the image and, at the same time, use this to emphasize the desolation of the nurse’s office, where Kelly is sitting. My intention is, then, twofold: I want the nurse’s office to reflect Kelly’s soul and, at the same time, the coldness and rigidity of the former to have a psychological effect on Kelly, which is sitting uncomfortable. Still, the aperture may be adjusted at certain stages of the production as I won’t be discarding completely the use of selective focus; using an aperture of 8 places pretty much everything in focus and sometimes this is simply not needed…
- As far as lighting, I’ve used 2 redheads and this proved to be more than enough in order to obtain the look I am aiming for. I could notice that the best effects in lighting, like extremely “shadowy” eye sockets, were achieved by positioning the lights above head level and sending off the beams of light in the opposite direction from where the subject is. This created an extremely powerful tone which improved the shadows (made them denser) and gave an overall “gloomier” look to the scene.

*18/03/2009*
- We are going to be shooting the film with the colour changes already applied. Emma advised me that she had tried before to change colour tonalities in post-production and this looked pretty fake (!) So we decided that we are applying low-contrast colours during the process of shooting the film.
- I tried to fiddle a little bit more with the white balance shift today; the colour temperature of the lights changed greatly the “cold” (blueness) effect that I had applied to the image last night. This leads me to confirm that the WB shift is something we will have to look out for and adjust correctly according to the lighting conditions of the space where we will be filming.
- In regards to “Skintone Detail” function in the camera, apparently its main purpose is to disguise blemishes and wrinkles in the actor’s skin. I suppose this will be “softening” the image to a certain degree, so this definitely doesn’t serve my purpose. “Skintone Detail” function is OUT!
- I have shot some footage on “Cinematone” and some in “Normal” mode. I plan to compare both visuals and see which one works the best… When we all looked through the camera’s viewfinder it definitely looked much better in “Cinematone”. Still, while I was surfing the net for some more info on this function, the critics really didn’t seem to praise this extra feature of the Z1… Not sure of the reason though. After Emma and the others left, I tried connecting the camera to my TV to check both “looks” and the “cinematone” is definitely much better!! It’s kind of hard to explain but it just seems to enhance the shadows and the darker colours of the image to an extent that it looks really filmic (!). Nevertheless, I’ll try to do some more research on this in the upcoming days.

Link to Spilled Milk video test: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nhnsgc8KQvA

With the advent of HD (high definition) video, I found important to include this new medium in the discussion of realism for my Media Research and Development project. As previously mentioned, realism is characterised by constantly striving to bring to the screen the reality of life and, to a great extent this reality is achieved by embracing specific cinematic techniques which enhance the "truth" of the photographed material. At first this may sound absurd, "to enhance the truth of the photographed material", considering that the camera is there solely to record reality as it is and whatever is recorded should be taken for granted as representing reality... The problem is that, indeed, it merely "represents" reality, it does not go any farther than that. Thus the claim for reality in cinema can never be too ambitious as the camera is always present and this creates straight away a dividing barrier between "reality" and the "representation of reality". Both 16mm film and video (in general) have been the main pioneers in what concerns the attempt to erode this dividing barrier; HD video comes now to take this ambition even further...
HD video features an astonishing maximum of 1080 horizontal lines of resolution as opposed to the 480 of standard video, and this translates in a higher detail in surfaces and in the image in general. Thus details that are practically imperceptible in film such as wardrobe, make-up and other "tricks" of the filmmaking process, become extremely visible in HD video. Some critics in fact argue that this represents a step back in the development of cinema as this ruins the illusion created by its artifice. In fact this may be true in the case of mainstream "polished" cinema, for it relies much more in the "suspension of disbelief" than realist cinema does. See, both realist and mainstream cinema rely on the widely known effect of "suspension of disbelief", however realist cinema makes less use of it as its purpose is not so much of abstraction (or escapism) of the real world, but instead its objective is the complete opposite: to engage the spectator into the image that is being shown but, at the same time, "loosen" the effect of "suspension of disbelief" so that the spectator has some time to reflect on his own upon the film and develop a much more truthful relation to it.
All in all, HD video allows a more realistic reflection of the world and, used in conjunction with the correct choice of lenses and adequate lighting, it can greatly increase the sense of presence and "truth" which is usually attributed to realist cinema. Nevertheless, there are certain points which should be kept in mind when shooting in HD video:
- Even though HD picks up most shadow details, and you may not want this to happen, don't crush the blacks! If you are planning on doing this leave it for post as this is irreversible;
- Try to get the exposure the best as you can; however, if for some reason this is not possible, then opt for underexposure as opposed to overexposure;
- Shoot on progressive mode (24p). Remember that interlace always looks like video and shooting on progressive mode can give your image a boost towards a more filmic look;
- If you want to get the best of HD cameras, opt for lenses specially built for this type of camera or, even better, opt for film lenses. The standard zoom lenses designed for standard video simply don't have enough resolution;
- HD cameras usually use extremely small CCD video receptors (e.g. 2/3") which results in a very long depth-of-field similar to 16mm film; this can an obstacle if you are planning on working with selective focus (e.g. throwing background out of focus in order to emphasize your subject within the frame);
- Don't fall in the usual misconception that HD video, just as any other type of video, doesn't require as high amounts of light as film. HD cameras feature an ISO sensitivity of around 320; as for film, the currently available high speed stocks go up to ISO 800. So, in fact the same amount of lighting power and expertise needs to be applied for both formats, especially if you are attempting to give a professional look to your piece.

References:
- Blain Brown, Cinematography: Theory and Practice (Book)
- http://hometheater.about.com/cs/television/a/aavideoresa_4.htm (internet link)
- http://www.ehow.com/video_2280374_difference-between-high-standard-definition.html (internet link)

Here I will be exposing all the changes that can be applied to the film, as a solid medium, in order to obtain different levels of "realism" and "rawness" in the image projected. The first of the methods is "flashing"; Flashing consists in pre-exposing the film to a controlled amount of light, which then raises the inertia point of the film and lowers the overall contrast of the image. Because flashing operates mainly in the shadow areas (or blacks) of the image, the end result is a more even distribution of tonalities and the reduction of the ratio between shadow and highlights. This becomes extremely important when trying to portrait man as a subordinate agent of Nature. Furthermore, it is especially true to realist ideology to place a greater emphasis on environmental factors when deciding the fates of ordinary people. Thus, in the visual field this is achieved by using techniques such as non-saturated colouring and contrast reduction, which allows the characters to kind of "merge" with the landscapes that their story is constructed upon. A second type of pre-exposing the image comes in the form of Varicon. This is basically a device which places optical glass in front of the lens and introduces a controlled amount of glare on the glass. This results in pretty much the same effect as Flashing, the only difference being that the Varicon flashes the image rather than the film, allowing a higher degree of control from shot to shot. Both Flashing and the Varicon have immediate advantages over the use of low-contrast filters, in a sense that using the former methods does not degrade the image in any way, while using filters not only affects the image but it also affects it as a whole rather than solely in low exposure areas.
In addition to this, during the lab stage there are several techniques that can be used to alter the look of the film and enhance it with certain characteristics the filmmaker may have in mind. So, keeping in mind the conventions derived from realism, and indeed the "look" of realist films, the following techniques can be used when processing film stock:
- Double Printing - This technique basically consists on printing a colour interpositive and a black-and-white positive of the same original colour positive, together. The black-and-white positive functions as a mask to control highlights and colour saturation, and the exact density can be applied to the black-and-white positive depending on the level of de-saturation we are looking for.
- Silver retention - there are several types of silver retention in the film print, but most of them are based on the same phenomenon. When colour film is processed, the dark areas are where the most silver is developed; highlight areas don't have any silver halide crystals that remained unaffected photochemically. As colour stock is developed, these silver halide crystals are then replaced by colour dyes. Under normal circumstances the silver halide crystals would be removed by a bleaching process, but in silver retention processes, as the name clearly indicates, the silver is left on the final print resulting in lower contrast and colour saturation for the image. Within this type of process there are several variations and, in most cases, each of these are owned by different Laboratories: ENR (Technicolor), which was used in Saving Private Ryan, applies an additional black-and-white developing bath onto the film which results in blacker blacks and an increase in shadow detail and apparent sharpness of the image; CCE (Deluxe) deepens the blacks, adds grain and, at the same time, raises the contrast of the image by limiting the levels of silver retention onto the final print (usually 75%) - David Fincher's Seven employed the CCE process in various scenes; ACE (Deluxe) allows the enhancement of blacks without significant effect on colour saturation.
- Bleach-Bypass - this process is simply another type of silver retention, however it is essentially incomplete processing, for it skips all or most of the bleach step of processing (e.g. John Frankenheimer's Ronin).
As a final note, it is still important to refer that if film is to be developed using any of these silver retention techniques, some further considerations should be made when adjusting the exposure levels. A rule of thumb when filming for posterior silver-retention processing is that film should be underexposed by at least 1 f/stop. The reason for this is because the silver halide crystals left on the film essentially represent the same as adding exposure; if the film is not underexposed slightly at the shooting stage, it will become a little bit overexposed after being processed. Underexposing by 1 f/stop compensates for this.

Link to Seven trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIBiVBkGwWU
Link to Ronin trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SShMYqzAxqo

The Motorcycle Diaries emerges, amidst all sorts of popular iconography surrounding the heroicity of Ernesto "Che" Guevara, as one of the most sucessful atempts to tell the story of his life, way before he decided to embark on the journey that would ultimately lead to his execution in 1967. From the very beggining, this film was committed to "detach" the mythical projection of "Che" and, instead, present him as an average human being which simply "let the world change him" (as the film trailer declares). Thus the film basically tells the story of the famous journey Ernesto and his loyal companion Alberto Granado embarked through various countries of South America, a journey which would have such an impact on the young Ernesto that, from the moment he returned to Argentina, he left his medical studies behind and decided to pursue a career in politics.
The Motorcycle Diaries is contructed through the blending of both fictional and documentary material, much of this latter drawn from Che's own diaries and Alberto Granado's book Traveling with Che Guevara: The Making of a Revolutionary; backed up by such accurate and assertive sources this film sets off, then, to re-create the duo's journey with an (almost) unquestionable veracity. Indeed, Alberto makes a brief appearance in the final scene of the film, where he contemplates, nostalgic, the same place where he saw Ernesto for the last time... But this special relationship with reality does not end here: along the way, the filmmakers would occasionally meet certain people that they would, later on, add to the film and present them as "real people"; this, to a great extent, served to certify the veracity of the film itself and the experiences the characters went through during their 8-month journey. In fact, Walter Salles (Director) once declared that, more than a simple work of fiction, this film reflects the search for the cultural identity of all the people from South America and the assurance of this same identity. So, actors, the characters they played and crew members alike, they all played the same part in the process of exploring the humanist preoccupations of this film and, at the same time, each of them were allowed to embark on a journey of self discovery through various locations of their Motherland. Also, true to the realist ideology is the constant evocation of nature as having supreme authority in the lives of ordinary people; so, not only do the characters seem to "blend in" with the landscapes (mostly by using non-saturated colours which resemble those of the roads and deserts the characters travel through), but also their will and perseverance is constantly challenged by the most adverse climatic condictions, in a dynamic metaphor opposing men and nature.
As mentioned above, the cinematography in The Motorcycle Diaries is characterised by an extensive use of non-saturated colours with a clear naturalistic impetus, which serves to bring out the documentary approach of the plot and the landscapes the characters travel through. There is also an emphasis on the shadows (blacks) of the picture which becomes extremely important when depicting the precarious conditions in which Ernesto and Alberto travel and also the humility of every place/ person they meet along the course of eight months.
Overall, The Motorcycle Diaries represents one of the earliest forms of the realist project: that that tells the essence of a nation. If the plot isn't perhaps one of the strongest aspects of this film, that is party bacause the director's main focus was to explore the storyline purely in ideological terms and not so much by following the conventional framework of setup/ crisis/ resolution. At the heart of this film there is an honest search for cultural identity and, at the same time, a denouncement of the so-called "progress", which sometimes signifies a step forward for some, but a few steps backwards for others.

Link to The Motorcycle Diaries trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7u0U3dbVMHk

Another important technical feature of the filmmaking process, which is able to
greatly improve the quality of the image and increase the sense of "realism", is
the selection of shutter angle. Different from shutter speed, shutter angle relates
to the angle through where the film is exposed and for how long this exposure will
last. The shutter in most film cameras is a circular plate which rotates right in
front of the film and thus allows light to pass through; the amount of light that
effectively is allowed through the shutter is dependable on the angle of the
shutter (in other words, the area of the circle which is exposed). Now, the shutter
angle used in most productions is 180º, which means the film will be exposed to
light for half of the time (as 180º is a half of 360º, which represents the full
area of a circle), to be more precise, for 1/48th of a second when shooting 24 fps.
Increasing or decreasing the shutter angle has psychological implications for the
image: as the shutter angle increases so does the motion blur in the image; in the
other hand, if shutter angle is reduced, and thus exposure time reduced as well,
not only does the image become much sharper but there is also an increase in the
resistance to blur derived from any kind of movement. Effectively, if shutter
angles are dropped below 90 degrees we will start noticing a certain stuttering
motion effect which is nothing more than a result from the fact that the subject
has now more time to move between exposures; this happens, for example, when a 70º
shutter is used, which "blocks" the exposure for the remaining 190º of the circle.
An angle of 90º was used the film Saving Private Ryan, which not only conveyed
a certain sense of documentary approach to the film, but also boosted significantly
the realism behind the "gritty" photographic style and served to emphasize the
human horrors of World War II.

Link to Shutter Angle description: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutter_angle

It is widely known that the correct selection of lenses plays an extremely important role in the filmmaking process. In this argument, however, I will focus mainly on a specific type of lenses which has been used for decades in the "recreation of reality" and is very often identified with "deep focus" cinematography; these are the wide-angle lenses. Foveal human vision (which allows us to distinguish between different details) sits around an angle of 40º; this same angle of vision can be achieved by using a 35mm-40mm wide-angle lens in order to render on the screen the same space/subject relationship perceived by human vision. Wide-angle lenses of lesser focal lenght have thus the ability to compress a larger amount of information onto the photographed plane and this becomes extremely important in the capture of wide areas such a city GV. At the same time, wide-angle lenses of higher focal lenght, such as the 35mm, can be used with tighter work such as full shots or even medium shots. A famous example of this is the magnificent work done by American cinematographer Gregg Toland in the film Citizen Kane, which features some of the most astonishing "deep-focus" shots, which were then possible by the use of wide-angle lenses. Furthermore, because wide-angle lenses compress large amounts of information onto a (proportionally) smaller plane, the edges of the image become more accentuated and this allows the image reflected to have a sharper, or "grittier" look. Nevertheless, it is up to the cinematographer to be extra cautious when choosing the right type of lenses as in closer shots the image may be become vertically distorted due to the curved shape of wide-angle lenses. As a practical example, I would say that a 25mm lens is about the minimum one can work when filming these type of shots, and even then extra care must be taken especially with the subject, which should be kept away from any of the corners of the frame (as these are the first ones to present distortion in wide-angle lenses). As Stanley Leary, a professional photographer, argued "the wider the lens the more you get this feeling of being there". Furthermore, he also reveals that "working close to people with wide-angle lenses tells their story in an intimate and personal way". Following this thought, wide-angle lenses become, then, one of the most powerful tools a realist cinematographer can use in order to convey the sense of truth and "reality" to his shots; not only it conveys a sense of "being in the scene" to the audience, but it also presents the story in a more intimate and involving way.
By presenting this argument I don't mean to undervalue, in any degree, the use of telephoto lenses in narrative filmmaking; telephoto lenses usually possess a very shallow depth of field and this can be extremely important when playing with selective focus; it is widely know among cinematographers all over the world that focus is a very important storytelling tool and this statement remains true until today. However, telephoto lenses have the ability to render space in the opposite way a wide-angle lens does: in the former, three-dimentional space perception is lowered and, to a great extent, subject becomes kind of "merged" with the background (especially if focus is pulled for the whole frame). When the focus is positioned solely on the subject, and the background is out of focus, the perception of depth increases, but still the 3-D perception is not as strong as with wide-angle lenses. And exactly in this "3-D" perception lies the secret to convey the spectator with the sense of presence and participation. Without "presence" and "participation" the realist cause in filmmaking becomes meaningless.

References:
- Link to Stanley Leary's "The Psychology of the Wide-Angle Lens": http://www.stanleyleary.com/blog/2009/01/psychology-of-wide-angle-lens.html
- Christopher Williams, Realism and the cinema
- Blain Brown, Cinematography: Theory and Practice

A camera technique that is very often regarded with a particular scepticism (or at least has been, until very recently...), is the use of zoom "punch-ins". It is common knowledge among cinematographers all around the world that zooms are just something to be avoided at all cost in fiction productions. If in documentary filmmaking this can be deemed acceptable, partly due to the nature of the content, in the production of fictional material, which is very often directly connected to mainstream cinema, this is simply considered "forbidden grounds" within the prevailing production standards.
Indeed, zoom "punch-ins" can be something quite distracting... but only if they are not used properly and based on a careful planning. Based on a few films I have been watching, I could distinguish a constant technique which helps to disguise the zoom on itself and, at the same time, achieve a level of efficiency as high as regular cuts to a tighter framing; this technique is the hand-held camera. If a zoom "punch-in" is combined with a hand held framing, the movement of the camera when moving into the character is somehow "masked" by the constant oscillation of the frame and thus the spectator is not so easily distracted; nevertheless the sense of tension and honesty remains constant as the zoom simply works as a means of bringing the spectator closer to the character without making use of the traditional "invisible" cuts. It is important to refer that my intention in presenting this new approach in camera operation is not meant to completely devaluate the use of mainstream editing; I simply believe that the prosaic and "cold" style of this method can be effectively countered by a fresh alternative, which not only heightens the interaction between spectator and image but also delivers a more effective mode of storytelling. Commenting on zoom lenses, the neo-realist filmmaker Roberto Rossellini once declared that by working with this type of lenses "the camera works more like an eye, and so you can develop a system of constant direct participation". Although Rossellini was mainly referring to the increased control which the director gains over the image and, indeed, the unfolding of events, by shooting with zoom lenses, the truth is that this "direct participation" can be extended to the audience as well for the image is presented in its most essential state, depicting an immediacy which can only be compared to the way human eye would actually perceive reality.
Of all films I've based my research on, Princesas - Princesses (d. Fernando Leon de Aranoa) poses to me as one of the most successful examples in the use of zoom "punch-ins", for it manages to capture the misfortune and suffering of the two main characters to an unprecendented level. This is especially true in the conversation scenes where the camera subtly invites us to "look closer" into the characters' souls and relate to their latent cry for help.

References:
- Link to Princesas ("Princesses") excerpt: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrrOXyXjIpY
- Christopher Williams, Realism and the cinema