As I work my way through the edit of Reconcilation, coming to see the strengths and weaknesses, and worst of all the missed opportunities, I have begun to think of how I might approach Tidal Barrier/Claire.
I think I have already said so long ago that I have subscribed to Tarkovsky's ideal, to build each shot on the shoulders of the last. This implies that each scene or moment or has its ideal shot/ position/angle and the film making process is the struggle to discover it.
This also implies an abandonment of continuity editing, conventional establishing shot to close-up, to reverse close-up, to two-shot, back to the establishing shot. Instead of moving forward continuity editing moves in a circle. Instead of the pure film making pursuit of finding the shot, and then the next, it serves the demands of staging of a scene, which is something Tarkovsky believes was stolen from the theatre, and has no place in film.
Could I have achieved this in Reconciliation? I have already said that I have failed at points in that film (described below), where I have found myself, I feel, going in a circle instead of going forward. But then in the feedback the other night, JC (my cinematographer) suggested an idea that would solve the problem, or could have if we had the footage. I have spent this Sunday deciding if I shoot a pickup.
So, yes, is the short answer.
The best part of rejecting staging and continuity editing? I can already see a place for it in Tidal Barrier/Claire, at the point when her life goes into reverse. Can you imagine the power of the wide shot, then close-up if you have not seen a close-up for 25 minutes?
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Sunday, July 22, 2007
What I have learned so far
I am have completed three rough edits of Reconciliation (see my other blog for the latest information) and have become objective enough to see two major weaknesses.
First, a problem that I has come up before: the weakness what has been referred to in Ozu as codas, those static shots, inserted between scenes. Kieslowski did something else. He often used objects, which became extensions of scenes or characters. Think of the glass ball which Veronka plays with in The Double Life of Veronique, or the fabulous cube of sugar in the cafe in Blue. In Reconciliation the results have not been very strong and seems it is down to the fact that I am not able to communication what is required and how critical these shots are. Perhaps one of the problems is that they are called inserts in the film industry here, which makes them an afterthought. I am uncertain how to solve the problem.
Secondly, I have found that I was not as successful as I would have liked in developing the shots in the in Scene 5. Remember, one of the experiments was to develop the story with successive shots, never returning to the same shot, such as the establishing shot as you would in continuity editing. In Scene 5 he is in the kitchen talking on the phone. This is 5A, a medium close-up.
At one point he bumps into some pots and looks off. Then we cut to her in the living room. This is 5B, a medium shot.
We hear him in the background, still on the phone, as she tries to read a magazine without much success. Finally she gives up, goes into the kitchen and retrieves the vacuum cleaner, he still on the phone. I went wider on the last shot. This is 5C.
Looking at these shots now it seems that shots don't succeed each other. There is not enough of a difference between 5A and 5C. It feels we are going backwards. Now this is not a matter of the shots or angles, but rather the script: For him 5C is a continuation of 5A. A weakness of the script.
First, a problem that I has come up before: the weakness what has been referred to in Ozu as codas, those static shots, inserted between scenes. Kieslowski did something else. He often used objects, which became extensions of scenes or characters. Think of the glass ball which Veronka plays with in The Double Life of Veronique, or the fabulous cube of sugar in the cafe in Blue. In Reconciliation the results have not been very strong and seems it is down to the fact that I am not able to communication what is required and how critical these shots are. Perhaps one of the problems is that they are called inserts in the film industry here, which makes them an afterthought. I am uncertain how to solve the problem.
Secondly, I have found that I was not as successful as I would have liked in developing the shots in the in Scene 5. Remember, one of the experiments was to develop the story with successive shots, never returning to the same shot, such as the establishing shot as you would in continuity editing. In Scene 5 he is in the kitchen talking on the phone. This is 5A, a medium close-up.
At one point he bumps into some pots and looks off. Then we cut to her in the living room. This is 5B, a medium shot.
We hear him in the background, still on the phone, as she tries to read a magazine without much success. Finally she gives up, goes into the kitchen and retrieves the vacuum cleaner, he still on the phone. I went wider on the last shot. This is 5C.
Looking at these shots now it seems that shots don't succeed each other. There is not enough of a difference between 5A and 5C. It feels we are going backwards. Now this is not a matter of the shots or angles, but rather the script: For him 5C is a continuation of 5A. A weakness of the script.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
New film by Tsai Ming-Liang
One of my favourite new directors has a new film out, I Don't Want to Sleep Alone, this Wednesday at the Barbican (http://www.barbican.org.uk/film/event-detail.asp?ID=4349). If you are not familiar with his films, I highly recommend them. My favourites include The Hole, What time is it there? and Goodbye Dragon Inn.
Here is a great example of someone who ignores the conventions of continuity editing. I don't think I have ever seen a close-up in any of his films. The camera remains at a distance, in long-shot or medium-shot, detached, observing.
This is a man not afraid to take the lengthy shot to the extreme. I especially remember the cinematography and sound in Goodbye Dragon Inn - a proper sound system is a must.
Here is a great example of someone who ignores the conventions of continuity editing. I don't think I have ever seen a close-up in any of his films. The camera remains at a distance, in long-shot or medium-shot, detached, observing.
This is a man not afraid to take the lengthy shot to the extreme. I especially remember the cinematography and sound in Goodbye Dragon Inn - a proper sound system is a must.
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Looking again at Part 2 - Claire (-Paul)
So, I am waiting to begin editing my short film, Reconciliation (I am trying to get a deal on a transfer to hard drive and waiting for some parts from the US), and so I am beginning to rewrite the Tidal Barrier project, with the focus on Part 2/Claire. Why? I suppose this part is the most complete and clearest. I have some ideas how to make the other parts work, but Part 2 is close enough. I am hoping that making this part first will give me more confidence for the other parts.
Revisiting the outline, I was struck by a few things.
I still feel that it is missing that one strong, central image. I think it is there, obscured by plot, or psychology.
The weakest scenes were those that were (too) cleverly making connections to the other parts of the script. It would be simpler and stronger to keep to the main thrust of the story.
This also means there are too many location. Making it simpler means it will be cheaper to make.
So what next?
A revision of the script, and then a workshop, as I did with Reconciliation, shot and edited onto DV. More revisions and workshopping, with an aim to shoot the real thing in November.
Revisiting the outline, I was struck by a few things.
I still feel that it is missing that one strong, central image. I think it is there, obscured by plot, or psychology.
The weakest scenes were those that were (too) cleverly making connections to the other parts of the script. It would be simpler and stronger to keep to the main thrust of the story.
This also means there are too many location. Making it simpler means it will be cheaper to make.
So what next?
A revision of the script, and then a workshop, as I did with Reconciliation, shot and edited onto DV. More revisions and workshopping, with an aim to shoot the real thing in November.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
