The workshop finished a few days ago, and I am exhausted, in part from talking too much, but also because my head has been filled with so many questions and new ideas.
It exceeded my expectations. The actors, Phil, Emma, and Helen, jumped in and pushed the story about, asked a lot of questions and came up with some great suggestions. It moved ahead more in those three days in the workshop than in two months locked in my room.
Some successes:
Despite some gaping holes in the story (which became apparent in preparing for the workshop) overall it worked. The actors understood the characters, and could add layers on top of what I had come up with.
I experimented with the iconic image. Did it belong in the story? Yes, it is a very powerful idea, especially considering the structure of three stories. Should it happen where it does, eg. was this the moment of recognition for the character? Yes, most certainly, though Paul's moment needs to be clearer.
Needs development:
I played with the idea of abstractions for each character, but its use was limited. Partly this was purely practical. We needed to be in that room, that place, hearing that sound, seeing him or her through this or that, or holding or touching or feeling that thing. We weren't.
Partly this was because the abstraction is also created in the shooting method, and the actors were uninterested in this, and shouldn't be.
And most importantly the abstraction needs to grow more from the character and the actors were only just finding and discovering this person.
I have a lot more to think about over the next week. I am on holiday until December 28th and then I will have some more to say.
Friday, December 22, 2006
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
The abstract to the metaphysical
I have been busy preparing for the workshop next week. I have of course realised that even three full days is not enough to explore all that I am interested in. So, I will have to make some decisions.
Of course, I always intended to develop this story with actors and improvisation, in a workshop situation. I think that you only need to have someone, especially an actor, read your work out loud , and you quickly sees the problems and errors. A great way to regain your objectivity.
But it is far more than that. I am really interested in seeing what the actors can do improvising alone - not speaking, just doing, and what meaning can be infused into the story.
And also improvising everyday things. Those parts of the day that I have not written into the script. Brushing your teeth. Doing the laundry. Drinking a glass of water. I think that scenes like this provide a sense of the completeness of the person. Again, what meaning can be infused into the story?
And finally what has been referred to as abstractions (again see Joseph Kickasola and The Films of Krzysztof Kieslowski), which can be character's gestures, an object that the character refers to, the way an character looks at the world, literally, or just the way that some part of the character is shot. These abstractions seemed to suggest another level, above the literal or real world around us. Perhaps the metaphysical. Kickasola, in his book on Kieslowski, discusses the many abstraction of hands, specifically in Red. In this way a sequence opens with a close-up of a pair of hands. We don't know whom they belong to. They live in a place beyond the real. Or the opening of The Double Life of Veronique. Dark as night at the top, then dark blue and purple. Flashing lights. Then that strange curve towards the bottom. Soon we learn that it is a view of the city at dusk, seen upside down. This is Veronique, as a little girl, turned upside down, looking out at the sky.
Each of my main characters have motifs, if you will, which are abstracts. More on that in the next posting.
Of course, I always intended to develop this story with actors and improvisation, in a workshop situation. I think that you only need to have someone, especially an actor, read your work out loud , and you quickly sees the problems and errors. A great way to regain your objectivity.
But it is far more than that. I am really interested in seeing what the actors can do improvising alone - not speaking, just doing, and what meaning can be infused into the story.
And also improvising everyday things. Those parts of the day that I have not written into the script. Brushing your teeth. Doing the laundry. Drinking a glass of water. I think that scenes like this provide a sense of the completeness of the person. Again, what meaning can be infused into the story?
And finally what has been referred to as abstractions (again see Joseph Kickasola and The Films of Krzysztof Kieslowski), which can be character's gestures, an object that the character refers to, the way an character looks at the world, literally, or just the way that some part of the character is shot. These abstractions seemed to suggest another level, above the literal or real world around us. Perhaps the metaphysical. Kickasola, in his book on Kieslowski, discusses the many abstraction of hands, specifically in Red. In this way a sequence opens with a close-up of a pair of hands. We don't know whom they belong to. They live in a place beyond the real. Or the opening of The Double Life of Veronique. Dark as night at the top, then dark blue and purple. Flashing lights. Then that strange curve towards the bottom. Soon we learn that it is a view of the city at dusk, seen upside down. This is Veronique, as a little girl, turned upside down, looking out at the sky.
Each of my main characters have motifs, if you will, which are abstracts. More on that in the next posting.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Next phase
Just a small note to say that I am busy preparing for a workshop of the script December 18th-20th. I have found three actors who will me develop the story in improvisation. I am especially interested in what we may create with the character alone, without dialogue.
I will be experimenting with a lot of what I have been discussing here, including the shooting style, the iconic pose, temp mort, the long take, etc.
I will be experimenting with a lot of what I have been discussing here, including the shooting style, the iconic pose, temp mort, the long take, etc.
Kieslowski and the iconic image
There is something that I am interested in and I have so far failed to mention. This is the iconic look or pose, seen in both Tarkovsky, and especially Kieslowski.
At a certain moment actor breaks the fourth wall, and looks right into the camera.
You can see this moment in almost all of Kieslowski's later films.
An example, in Blue. It is the day of the funeral of her husband and daughter. Julie burying herself beneath the covers of her hospital bed, watches the proceedings on a small television. She runs her fingers across the image of her daughter's small coffin. In extreme closeup, the edges of her mouth turn up. Some tears flow. Then the television goes blank, and Juliet Binoche looks directly at us. A picture of grief. It is most uncomfortable, so boldly addressing us in this way.
If I was at film school and did such a thing I would probably fail. And to be fair, it is not something to be done without good reason.
In my research I have been reading The Films of Krzystztof Kieslowski, by Joseph Kickasola, which discusses this motif in some detail.
Kieslowski chooses his moments, when the "metaphysical weight of the scene warrants reflection". We are forced to become involved.
Kickasola goes on to discuss the source of the iconic pose in Kieslowski's Catholic heritage, the religious icon painting. (Of course Tarkovsky not only used the iconic pose, he told the story of one of the greatest icon painters, Andrey Rublev - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrey_Rublev)
In each story I am interested in that moment when the characters recognise where they have succeeded or failed. Sophie has overcomes fear, sets herself adrift. Claire knows she will never change, will never be able to give herself. Paul understands he has been defeated by chance, crushed, and worse, it is not personal. Each of these moments is about their relationship to the universe. They see where they stand.
Am I justified? I shall see.
At a certain moment actor breaks the fourth wall, and looks right into the camera.
You can see this moment in almost all of Kieslowski's later films.
An example, in Blue. It is the day of the funeral of her husband and daughter. Julie burying herself beneath the covers of her hospital bed, watches the proceedings on a small television. She runs her fingers across the image of her daughter's small coffin. In extreme closeup, the edges of her mouth turn up. Some tears flow. Then the television goes blank, and Juliet Binoche looks directly at us. A picture of grief. It is most uncomfortable, so boldly addressing us in this way.
If I was at film school and did such a thing I would probably fail. And to be fair, it is not something to be done without good reason.
In my research I have been reading The Films of Krzystztof Kieslowski, by Joseph Kickasola, which discusses this motif in some detail.
Kieslowski chooses his moments, when the "metaphysical weight of the scene warrants reflection". We are forced to become involved.
Kickasola goes on to discuss the source of the iconic pose in Kieslowski's Catholic heritage, the religious icon painting. (Of course Tarkovsky not only used the iconic pose, he told the story of one of the greatest icon painters, Andrey Rublev - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrey_Rublev)
[The icon plays] an intermediary role...between the perciever and God.... [At] the heart of this image is a new sprirtual dimension that...opens up for the viewer by directly engaging him or her in a visual look. It functions as an arrest of the passive, voyeuristic mode of the spectator.So why might my story justify the iconic pose?
In each story I am interested in that moment when the characters recognise where they have succeeded or failed. Sophie has overcomes fear, sets herself adrift. Claire knows she will never change, will never be able to give herself. Paul understands he has been defeated by chance, crushed, and worse, it is not personal. Each of these moments is about their relationship to the universe. They see where they stand.
Am I justified? I shall see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
