Claire, the iconic look and locations

I mentioned some time ago that I had begun to scout locations.
Several weekends ago I was Hamstead Heath. I chose this park because of Parliament Hill, the highest point in London. Here Paul spends the night, and awakes to see London below him.
I did not find the images I wanted so more on that later.
But I was also interested in looking for locations for Claire's story: the final scene of her part, where she pursues Nick into the park.
This requires a location where several paths cross:













I remembered this location from when I lived nearby. It is not ideal, as one path looks up (to Parliament Hill), not down. I will look for another crossing the next time I am back.
I have Claire entering from the right, then turning her back to the camera and looking to the background and left. From this crossing she is able to see in three different directions and Nick is nowhere to be seen (this is the way I set it up in the workshop before Christmas).













Weary, defeated, she wants to surrender.
She turns to the grass (where the camera is set) and comes towards it. She almost collapses.













She scans the night sky, but it is a gray nothing. No relief anywhere (I have some video of this idea I shot in the summer).
Then the iconic look. She looks directly at us/the camera. A drawing I made from the workshop video:













(as you can see there is no danger of me ever getting a job as a storyboard artist)

My script and the 1 page = 1 minute rule

I am close to finishing the 1st. draft of the script and there is something alarming: it looks to be about 60 pages long, which is well short of a conventional feature-length script.
I am sure most of you are aware of the general rule that one page of a script generally equals one minute of screen time. A script must formatting in a certain way, with margins to certain sizes, and the Courier font set at a certain point size (I have a Word template that does all this for me, so I don't know all the numbers offhand). Production companies require this so that they can quite reasonably determine how long the film would be and so much it would cost.
I think if I submit this script to a reading service I can expect them to say either that the script is too short for a feature or that due to the style it is impossible to determine the true length. I think the latter is the truth.
I have been busy this evening timing some of the scenes from the workshop, and even without the insert shots scenes are coming to be one page of script equals two to four minutes of screen time.
I wonder if anyone else has had this problem?

technorati

Technorati Profile

The workshop and the iconic look

Last weekend I completed the revisions on the outline. It was painless. The workshop made the strengths and weaknesses so clear.
Going over the video record I was struck by how good my actors were (I find it difficult to notice in the middle of the workshop, struggling to keep them in the frame of the camera).
I was especially happy at the effectiveness of the iconic look, the moment of recognition. The actors jumped in and committed to it.
For Sophie: she has come through the dark passage and come into the parking garage. Fear is overcome, and she has broken through. Released. Then the moment of recognition. Of what? It is not about what she has been through. More, about where she is going. The next scene. She has allowed herself to let it be.
For Claire: until now she has never really looked at anyone. She cannot see what is immediately in front of her. But just before this scene, with Nick, she has been able to finally look at someone. She has understood his weakness, thought of someone else, which for her is progress.
She has a relapse. She wants it back, even though it is a lie. She rushes to the park, thinking of calling him back, but he is gone. Nowhere to be seen.
She turns away and goes to the grass, nearly collapsing. She cannot hold herself up any more. She lies on her back scanning the dark, gray sky. But it is a nothing. No break anywhere.
And then the iconic image, the moment of recognition. She realises she will not be allowed this.
(I will have more to say about this scene later: on early Sunday morning I was scouting locations for this scene).
I think Paul' moment is the least clear.
It starts with confusion over it's placements. The moment precedes the scene where he breaks into Sophie's house. He believes that he can somehow know her by seeing the mundane, everyday elements of her life. Perhaps he is right.
In the workshop my question was would it be more logical if it followed the break-in? It all depends. The question then is, what is Paul when he breaks in? Or more importantly what is Paul in the forest?
This is Paul at the trees. It begins with frustration and anger. It is place he can break something without consequences. He takes his revenge, or attempts to. Actually it is not so easy to break large tree branches. More than just frustration, Paul is struggling not to submit to the universe, becomes small. He is not going to drift with it, but swim against it. And he fails, and becomes the animal he was struggling against. This is the moment of recognition. He has become what he has always fought. He is no longer the complete man that Sophie rejected.
Now if the break-in is to follow...what does it mean? Paul is able to go to a place where he is no longer concerned with normally acceptable behaviour (this is not the man Sophie saw give that too perfect presentation on the day his wife left him). Does this ring true?

Kieslowski vs Haneke

I recently purchased the Michael Haneke Trilogy which includes The 7th Continent, Benny's Video, and 71 Fragments Of A Chronology Of Chance. I recommend these films, but only on days when you feel good about yourself (http://www.play.com/DVD/DVD/4-/1120303/The_Michael_Haneke_Trilogy/Product.html). They are difficult.
What struck me about The 7th Continent was Haneke's use of fragments of everyday, mundane events. The husband tying his shoes. The family car being washed. Breakfast being cooked.
Their use here contrasts with 71 Fragments, where the fragments are static, single shots, making up a single scene (he uses this method again Code Unknown), short or long (up to 9 minutes), which describe an emotional note.
In interviews Haneke has said the family in The 7th Continent is living a life of routine because that is all there is. The realisation comes to the wife in a powerful scene as the family car is put through the car wash. She despairs at this life, where life is not lived. She turns to her young daughter for comfort, instead of her husband who can do nothing.
I won't tell you what happens, but only say from this point the story goes in another direction (even though these events are still presented, by Haneke, as everyday - he doesn't falsely dramatise).
In The Double of Veronique Kieslowski uses the everyday/mundane in an altogether different way. Irene Jacob tells how together developed sequences of everyday actions that are full of feelings and premonitions. These moments of solitude can bring moments of completeness. These events are not what is talked about at the dinner table at the end of the day, but they are where life is lived.
I don't believe Haneke used the everyday/mundane this way in 71 Fragments. In this film he fills these type of events with critical moments. A women brushes her teeth. Suddenly she lets out a sob. That is all. The effect is powerful, because that is all we know.

Update

I looked forward to returning from the holidays ready to begin revising the outline. Unfortunately, I picked up a cold in Berlin so my I worked much slower than I would like.
Still, I did manage to begin transcribing some of the improvisations, removed a few scenes, and wrote several new ones (and in Berlin I did come up two short scripts as well).
Part 1 (Sophie): rewrote two scenes which were left-overs from previous versions. They had their place there, but not in this version. The new scenes:
Party. Paul and Sophie. Some simple images: Paul in groups, bored, distracted, looking to Sophie.
Sophie, in groups, engaged, interested. And never looking for Paul.
The way home. Paul, jealous, angry, confused. He can't really get angry because it seems so petty, but he realises that she is drifting away.
Sophie decides to give him a chance to understand. She stops the cab they are traveling in. They are in the middle of nowhere. She wants to get out and walk. She asks Paul to come with her. She just wants to know what may happen. But Paul does not understand, or understands enough that he is not capable of going with her.
These scenes also make what Sophie wants clearer as well.
I also added several of the everyday scenes that the actors conceived in the workshop. Two of them came from Scene 4. This is a dinner scene where Paul and Sophie first broach the issue that is causing Sophie to pull away from Paul: chance versus destiny.
We created two out scenes from Scene 4.
One was to see Paul washing the dishes and pots. This is a man in control. And this night more than ever he needs to control events, even if it is only the pots and pans.
This is mainly a moment of reflection.
The other scene is Sophie preparing for bed: she enters the bedroom and fills a glass with water on both sides of the bed (Paul and Sophie).
There is less reflection here. More a sense of how repeated events carry us through difficult times.
I was interested in both of these scenes in how they are filled by the characters. I thought of them as barometers of where the characters are at that moment, between their interactions.
And I also saw how these are different than the way that Haneke uses events like this in films such as The 7th Continent. More on that in the next blog post.
Part 2 (Claire): Helen (who played Claire in the workshop) pointed out a contradiction: Claire takes up with Nick, her sister Natalie's boyfriend, because she wants to the subject of an obsession. But as written Nick is not obsessed with her. He actually treats her quite well. This was just one part of a lack of consistency and quality at the end of Part 2.
I rewrote several scenes. I think it makes a lot more sense that Nick is obsessed with Claire, like he was Natalie. Nick projects onto Natalie, so he is as dishonest as Claire. And that is what Claire discovers. She actually is able to see another, which for Claire is progress.
We were also able to develop Sophie's character here: the focus in Part 2 is Claire, but we need to understand that Sophie has another thread, another life that she is living, even though we only catch a glimpse of it.
Scene 35 is a cafe meeting between Claire and Sophie. Sophie catches Claire out at her self-deception. She does not mean to be malicious, but she is worried, jealous, and too honest. So Claire leaves her there. But the scene doesn't end. I think it is important that the story is allowed a small tangent (it reminds of the those other stories we catch in Antonioni's The Passesnger). And somehow (we needed to develop this) Sophie cracks. She is in despair and probably came here really needing to speak to Claire. She won't get a chance.
I have much more work to do. The plan is to revise the outline by this coming weekend. And then begin writing the first draft of the script.