The Second Conversation

Assignment 2 : People and Place

Down - select stages two and three:

Stage two:

Spending time studying a diminishing number of photographs is not something I’ve done a lot of and there is something that I would like to say about each of these photographs that didn’t get to the next and subsequent final round. I’ll limit the comments to a selection and attempt to explain the process I’ve gone through.

As I said in my previous entry the constant narrative that I searched for in the selection process was that of “conversation”; I searched in the original set for conversations of varying types, literal, metaphorical, private and internal. I was also aware that I needed to bring as much to the final selection as the assignment required, which included activity explanations as well as “telling moments”.

The second round cut starts with one of the final shots of the whole series, the “curtain call”. As the players take their place and bow to the applause of the audience we can see (or not, as the case may be) different conversations taking place. This first shot, taken with a flash attachment, on the left has two conversation taking place in the row of players and a third one with the audience and the players. Some of the players are “in position” whilst the others are “poised”. The audience is at one with themselves applauding the stage. The reason it was culled is that to better depict the final bow it would be more appropriate to have the actors as one with the audience. The other curtain call misses the applause as this shot was taken without a flash and the audience is in the dark, though some detail is present in the blurred hand-clapping, it isn’t strong enough (and the cast seem a bit disorganized as well). I hadn’t used flash for any of the performance or the rehearsal period, using it only at the last moment on the last performance I went to.

Jean and Pat in conversation – connected at eye level by the visual contrivance behind them works well I think, Jean’s expression and Pat’s attentive regard also helps. I had deliberately included Pat’s reflection in the mirror behind (I have used the mirrors a few times in this assignment as devices in composition), but I think on this occasion it detracts. I also think that the foreground figure would have made this photograph more telling if it had been inclined to Jean’s expressive profile. Mike, who was "technical" (lights and sound) along with Bradley, for this show enjoying both a pre-show drink of bubbly (a group tradition on opening night) and a conversation with someone; it is the fact that it is a “someone” that it has failed at this stage – the image is unresolved. It must go.

Conversation's that are either ill-defined from a compositional perspective or where the conversation appears unresolved and therefore not really amplifying the assignment call as well as photographs that, well, simply don't make the grade compared to later ones.

A complex conversation, the females intent on each other, whilst the male is portraying an "informant" to the viewer. This could be taken as two differing humours, I don't know what either set is smiling about, but there definitely seems to be two conversations at two levels going on here. On the right we can see clearly the conversation on view. This greeting an "embrace" between old friends, intimate and private, it could possibly be a word from the one on the right of the picture to the other, it is almost certainly a kiss. If the "kissee" had been more in shot then maybe it might have moved forward!

Getting changed. There isn't a changing room as such, the players get changed when and where they can. This show has a minimal set of costume changes, so there is little room for embarrassing moments, though in other shows decorum and tact need to play a significant part in the proceedings... I wanted to have some costume moments in the series. This one with Dave and Ken pre-show has them in conversation whilst donning the role. The shot on the right has a young person in one conversation via the mobile 'phone and as a mute correspondent in another conversation as the older person looks down on her. If there had been more tension in the photograph it might had made it further forward.

These two are in an animated conversation, ignorant of the rest of the world; but the shot is relatively placid and without a great deal of energy. Whereas there is a lot of energy in Jeff's profile as he prepares for his first entrance on opening night. I did two shots here - see later, and this one is worse in terms of blurring. There is motion blur around his head as he gets himself in the right state of mind for his entrance. Different players have different routines to get themselves across the boundary. I decided to talk about this particular shot as there is a nice allegorical statement about focus and blur, state of mind and approach to the entrance. The notes that surround him are the Stage Manager's notes. I think it portrays a good sense of tension, but this didn't make the cut as I think a better one did.

Third round cut before moving to the final phase I realised I needed to cut more to make the assignment number requirement.

I was torn with this image on the left. Karen and Sharon involved in a private conversation. Karen graphically telling some part of the story and appearing to demonstrate with her hands under her bust; I think the link at this point with the production is helpful as Sharon holds the script towards the viewer. There is an intensity in Karen’s eyes and Sharon doesn’t need to be in focus, I feel there is enough of her in view (although out of focus in the main) to know that it is a conversation and between two people. There is a shot that I took moments after that I have chosen which is why this shot flounders at this stage. Another attempt at a make-up shot. This time the action is even more intimate, the application of lipstick with both the player and the make-up artist in focus and both caught in a reasonable composition. Hands on faces, hands close to lips, the player’s eyes on the process in front of her. Not many people get this close.

These two were the last to go. I was reluctant to chop the Make-up shot as I had reviewed the photographs from the first night and vowed to make an improvement. I decided to move in closer for these shots, to capture the intimacy and the connection better. This viewpoint make it difficult to get a visual connection between the faces of the two, but this one - discarded after it's twin shot below - seemed to offer most. There is a steady focus on Ken's face allowing the movement of the powder brush to do it's work, so there is physical connection, but maybe because the eyes are closed (for very good reason) it didn't make enough of a connection with the viewer and so failed at the last. This is disappointing as I wanted a make-up shot in the final down select and failed. The other last minute rejection has Pat and Jean in conversation. Pat in flow, engaged at eye level and fully in focus - on safe ground as it were, whilst Pat, out of focus is in abeyance in this shot.

Which leaves the final assignment selection

The Conversation

Assignment 2: People and Activity

I have made the down-select, some 67 photographs capturing people in a meaningful event. “Telling moments” and “explanatory activity” was the brief. I had a clear idea of the various types of shots I would be looking for from an “AmDram” production. Make-up, changing, entrances; the public, the production support etc. I was limited to two evenings only and after reviewing the opening night's collection I sought to either fill the gaps or improve with augmenting shots on the second night's performance.

I printed these 67 shots and looked at them and a narrative began to appear as I looked for the shots that best filled the assignment requirements. I started to draw out the reason why certain shots began to emerge stronger than others, looking for that “telling moment” that “instant” that delivers a narrative comment acting as an attribute to the image, augmenting the purely visual and engaging me, the viewer, to dwell a moment longer.

The shots that rose from the crowd were ones, in the main, that had an element of conversation in them, some stronger, some weaker. This conversation might be a literal conversation i.e. two (or more) people in conversation with each other, or, as in some of the more interesting images, with either a metaphorical conversation, implied by the connection between eyes or in body form, or, in the engagement with something or someone “off frame”. I decided to start the culling process by looking for weaker photographs using “conversation” as the theme.

 The first to feel the knife is this shot of Ken and Jeff setting the Hall up for production. Ignoring that Jeff is already in costume, which could bring another layer to the image that I wasn’t seeking to draw out; they are both fixed (visually) on the point that Ken’s hand is working on; they are both firmly in focus and focused on the job in (Ken’s) hand, though the out of focus flowers detracts from the visual resolution of the two subjects. A tighter crop might have helped, but it didn’t survive the chop. I don’t plan to deconstruct all the images that didn’t make the cut, but this was the sort of reasoning behind the shots that didn’t make it. A fully annotated largish contact set is in my written log book with the results.

This couple appear to have negative conversation between them, but only I (in the context of this entry) know that they are a couple and to depict them as having none, when I know they are married is a deceipt on  my part. The lady on the right having a conversation with a white blob isn't working at all. Thirdly, the Stage Manager mixing the drinks (props) with an actor watching the process isn't capturing the process enough - suggesting a short conversation.

Bradley, is focussed on something, not quite sure what, but in not making the cut it exemplifies one of the fundamental issues that all Drama Groups face - that of a lack of youth both in the Group and in the audience. The lady right is in conversation but we (the viewers) cannot discern either the with whom or the with what.

The two Directors not looking in the same direction, demonstrating a lack of conversation, when in fact they were in agreement, so the image would project a falsehood. The raffle tickets being sold - clearly another conversation, in fact one of many similar conversations, but this shot is unresolved visually.

















Jeff, in thought. There were a few that I took of Jeff as he composed himself for entrance and performance; this isn't the best for portraying that intensely personal conversation - see later. The lady right in conversation (in fact with lady above), but the viewer doesn't know that. We can see that she is animated and engaged; but that is about all.

I had set out to provide some make-up images, and whilst this photograph is set out compositionally "ok" it is static - though not staged, as it was taken during the process. Make-up is an intimate experience between two people, there are a number on conversations going on. The verbal discussion can sometimes be a bit one-sided as in the dentists chair (though without all the pain); but other non-verbal conversations take place as the make-up artist works on the mask, leaving the player to acquiesce mutely to the lop-sided conversation.

Here two shots of the same married couple, linked at eye level - separated by about two yards, but not in conversation as depicted by these shots.