Once I finished the edit I was finally able to gain some objectivity.
I began writing notes, where the story was week, where the directing fell down. Still, I knew needed some help deciding if what I was trying to communicate was coming across. I mean the basics. Was it clear he was leaving? Was it too subtle? This has always been my downfall. So I was looking forward to my friends coming over with fear and anticipation.
I called Ana, the designer, David, the photographer and Nic, the DOP. All of them I thought would be honest and have something intelligent to say. I also expected them to tell me the truth. None of them suffer fools.
They had some criticism. Certain things just plainly did not work. The gesture that he makes once he finishes packing was a failure. It looked too much part of the packing. It was not the gesture out of nowhere that I intended it to be.
Some of the shots were clunky (actually I think the worst shots happened just before lunch, and towards the end of the day, as my blood sugar was getting low). Partly this was lack of preparation, but some just failed. I could not solve them. The kitchen scene for example. I was so busy trying to get everything in one shot it became really weak. I realised, without foundation, that I was trying to keep everything in the frame. By accident there were shots wher the characters broke the frame. Some of these shots were the most popular.
A key observation: all wanted the film to be shot in black and white. Why? Colour was a distraction from a film where every detail was critical. Shooting on a small DV camera meant everything was in focus. Clashing colour, and background images which had no meaning were distracting. I took from this that I had to be extra careful in the art direction, and that the costume and props had to be in subdued colours.
But overall I was genuinely amazed at what I had managed to communicate. Not just the basics. Some of the larger ideas that I thought were only obvious to me.
Friday, May 25, 2007
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
The shooting style - 2
I had written that scenes were conceived with a certain pace in mind. But in shooting during the workshop I found something else I could use: in the scenes the couple shared I created a pace for each of them that was often at odds with each other. For example, in the lunch scene it opens with her fussing about over the food, and he frozen there. When she sees his look, not understanding what it is about, she becomes despondent, and slows. He picks up his pace, begins eating, as if he could banish his thoughts by moving quickly enough.
What else can I say about the shooting style?
For every part of the story there is one shot. There is no establishing shot. Only one point of view in the edit you are not able to choose from this or that. You better get it right. This is where a producer would be pulling his hair out, if I had one. For of course there is no coverage.
One scene does not lead obviously to the next. This is not conventional drama. It is an open text. Why something happens is open to interpretation.
In effect the shots accumulate, add one on top of another. Since there is no establishing shot there is way to go back, so to speak. Only forward. This creates a momentum which would normally have been created by the plot, eg. he shoots his wife, now he is running from the police.
All in all I would say I am very glad I have chosen Haneke's contrivance for this experiment. It has helped clarify my thinking of the shooting style. That is how this whole blog started after all.
What else can I say about the shooting style?
For every part of the story there is one shot. There is no establishing shot. Only one point of view in the edit you are not able to choose from this or that. You better get it right. This is where a producer would be pulling his hair out, if I had one. For of course there is no coverage.
One scene does not lead obviously to the next. This is not conventional drama. It is an open text. Why something happens is open to interpretation.
In effect the shots accumulate, add one on top of another. Since there is no establishing shot there is way to go back, so to speak. Only forward. This creates a momentum which would normally have been created by the plot, eg. he shoots his wife, now he is running from the police.
All in all I would say I am very glad I have chosen Haneke's contrivance for this experiment. It has helped clarify my thinking of the shooting style. That is how this whole blog started after all.
The shooting style - 1
I have written some about the shooting style of Reconciliation already, but from the workshop I have had more time to think about it, and refine my understanding of it.
For the workshop I needed to not only have the actors push against what I had written, but test the shooting style (which is essentially Haneke's). In preparation I planned every shot. The day before I went through each scene, planning it out, checking it with the DV camera, and the director's viewfinder. There were practical considerations. I needed to know how much I could get into a shot. Could I shoot that scene in one shot? Would both characters fit into one shot?
I went back and examined Haneke's 71 Fragments. Perhaps this should have been obvious from my early viewings but I did not notice the significance of several things:
There is no establishing shot. Since the story is about fragments this is only right. He might provide numerous shots of a location, the scene in the armoury where the gun is stolen is an example. He shows the thief, inserts of him breaking the locks on the pistols, light coming from a ventilation shaft, from which the thief hears the sounds of someone walking by, the ammunition cabinet, and so on. But he never knits these shots together. He never shows you where this is or that is in a room. All you can know you must take from the eyeline of the actors.
A scene is generally told from one point of view. That is from one character's point of view. Sometimes he swaps points of view, but it is swap. And it never goes back.
This forced me to reconstruct certain scenes in the story. This was awkward, but I find these contrivances force you to be more creative.
Rhythm is created by jumping from one set of characters to another. I have already written about this, and come up with a practical solution: I had written certain fragments with a certain speed in mind. I even thought of writing pace into the script, like a score.
More on this...
For the workshop I needed to not only have the actors push against what I had written, but test the shooting style (which is essentially Haneke's). In preparation I planned every shot. The day before I went through each scene, planning it out, checking it with the DV camera, and the director's viewfinder. There were practical considerations. I needed to know how much I could get into a shot. Could I shoot that scene in one shot? Would both characters fit into one shot?
I went back and examined Haneke's 71 Fragments. Perhaps this should have been obvious from my early viewings but I did not notice the significance of several things:
There is no establishing shot. Since the story is about fragments this is only right. He might provide numerous shots of a location, the scene in the armoury where the gun is stolen is an example. He shows the thief, inserts of him breaking the locks on the pistols, light coming from a ventilation shaft, from which the thief hears the sounds of someone walking by, the ammunition cabinet, and so on. But he never knits these shots together. He never shows you where this is or that is in a room. All you can know you must take from the eyeline of the actors.
A scene is generally told from one point of view. That is from one character's point of view. Sometimes he swaps points of view, but it is swap. And it never goes back.
This forced me to reconstruct certain scenes in the story. This was awkward, but I find these contrivances force you to be more creative.
Rhythm is created by jumping from one set of characters to another. I have already written about this, and come up with a practical solution: I had written certain fragments with a certain speed in mind. I even thought of writing pace into the script, like a score.
Monday, May 21, 2007
The workshop
I have a lot to report, and hopefully can make up for my long silence.
I have been very busy with this small project, the short film Reconciliation.
I have been through numerous drafts, of course. Fine-tuning the script. But three weeks ago I came to a dead-end. I could not go forward without some intense feedback. So I arranged a workshop with Emma Choy and Phil Evans. These two actors helped me back in December, workshopping the Tidal Barrier project.
They spent the day at my flat, working our way through the script. I had decided beforehand that I wanted to conduct this workshop a little differently. Most often I begin workshops discussing with some intensity the script, before getting it on its feet. This goes back to my training at the Drama department, University of Alberta, in Canada. That school was known for the intense preparation of a script by the actors, directors and the rest.
But this time I wanted to do it differently. We spent an hour over breakfast, talking about the script, but quickly we put the story on its feet. We set ourselves up, had a short discussion about what we were doing, and then I shot it on a small DV camera. Then there was my reaction, with the actor feedback, and then we tried to refine what we had done. And I shot it again. We spent the day and worked our way through the whole script. Not by chance the script takes place over one day, and our working day conformed with shooting day. We finished at 5:30 and I had 95% of my shots.
During the week I captured the footage and began to edit towards the end of the week. I made up for missing footage with the some stills I had taken previously for location scouts, especially those shots I had taken from Hampstead Heath. I added a few sound effects and ambient tracks, as it became apparent that the sound was going to be crucial to making this work.
By the next weekend I had finished the cut and was ready for some feedback.
I will write more about all this:
The feedback. The shooting style. And where it goes from here.
I have been very busy with this small project, the short film Reconciliation.
I have been through numerous drafts, of course. Fine-tuning the script. But three weeks ago I came to a dead-end. I could not go forward without some intense feedback. So I arranged a workshop with Emma Choy and Phil Evans. These two actors helped me back in December, workshopping the Tidal Barrier project.
They spent the day at my flat, working our way through the script. I had decided beforehand that I wanted to conduct this workshop a little differently. Most often I begin workshops discussing with some intensity the script, before getting it on its feet. This goes back to my training at the Drama department, University of Alberta, in Canada. That school was known for the intense preparation of a script by the actors, directors and the rest.
But this time I wanted to do it differently. We spent an hour over breakfast, talking about the script, but quickly we put the story on its feet. We set ourselves up, had a short discussion about what we were doing, and then I shot it on a small DV camera. Then there was my reaction, with the actor feedback, and then we tried to refine what we had done. And I shot it again. We spent the day and worked our way through the whole script. Not by chance the script takes place over one day, and our working day conformed with shooting day. We finished at 5:30 and I had 95% of my shots.
During the week I captured the footage and began to edit towards the end of the week. I made up for missing footage with the some stills I had taken previously for location scouts, especially those shots I had taken from Hampstead Heath. I added a few sound effects and ambient tracks, as it became apparent that the sound was going to be crucial to making this work.
By the next weekend I had finished the cut and was ready for some feedback.
I will write more about all this:
The feedback. The shooting style. And where it goes from here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
