I continue to work on notes for the new script.
I feel comfortable with most everything - that is comfortable enough to hold a workshop with actors - but for one element: an image for Claire. One that is personal to her, she takes part in. I mean in contrast to an image of which she has a passive role, the way that Antononi would put his actors in a landscape or in front of a building.
I always look back to Kieslowski, specifically The Double Life of Veronique, where Veronika carries with her a clear marble from which she observes the world, fish-eyed and turned upside down. This idea is repeated when she watches her father at work, seen from behind, through the thick lenses of his spectacles.
Veronika's glass is a habit, part of her. Is this what I am looking for?
In Blue, which I watched again for the 15th time, Julie has her habits too, though not objects. Instead we see that well-known image of her dissolving sugar in her coffee. Kieslowski went to a great deal of trouble finding a sugar cube that would absorb liquid in a given amount of time. And what did he say about it? That for him it was about Julie looking inward. Self-absorbed. And she is, considering what has happened to her. For Kieslowski abstractions are just that, abstracted, taken from the real. Is this what I am looking for? Do I need to sit with the actor and work and find that image?
But I am looking also to use this image to tie together some other images. The final scene, with Claire on the ground of the park, staring up at the sky, looking for an opening, some understanding.
Claire exploring her sister's flat, trying to know it intimately, standing on a ladder, looking over the top of the bookshelves, and there thinking that she can smell the Thames. Water.
So here I am at the beginning of the story trying to say something about Claire and her relationship and all this too. It is too much.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Monday, August 20, 2007
More blackouts
I have been working through Robert Bresson's Notes on the Cinematographer, which has been an inspiration. It just occurred to me that I do not how the notes are organised, but it is logical that they are presented as Bresson discovered them, so as you read you are privy to not only his discovery but the way the discovery came to be.
(And later tonight I will be seeing Mouchette for the first time. )
So I was very excited to come across a section titled Sight and Hearing, considering that I have been thinking on the use of sound in Tidal Barrier/Claire and the concept of blackouts.
First he writes:
Now I realise he is certainly could not have been thinking of my idea to use sound over black, but he might at least consider it a worthwhile experiment. Perhaps too self-conscious? Probably. But perhaps if I develop my idea further it might not seem so formal.
Further along:
Now he seems to articulating I only understood vaguely or instinctively. Perhaps that is what I am getting at? That the sound over black is to be used where we are moving within of the Claire. In her story she finds nothing when she looks at herself. It is bare, and that is why she despairs. So the the sound over black is her discovery of how she is wanting. She tries to reach within by pretending something else, pretending to be someone else and fails. The sound over black then must be the accumulation of sounds which have been articulated previously. So they have a logic, but now become something else, are abstracted by their use over black. So I need to establish these sounds earlier. And the black needs also to be articulated earlier in the literal sense. That is I need to show at least briefly black as part of the narrative. So imagine we cut to black. We can make out nothing. The sound of her breathing (we won't know it is her for a time), perhaps the ticking of a clock, and then something else, something odd. A light comes on. It is the bedside lamp. She has been sleeping and has heard this same sound and is now frightened.
But even before that I can imagine using black near the beginning of her story, as she hears, but does not listen to Paul's litany of complaints of her lack of commitment. The camera is fixed up on her, who is distracted (not sure of the image here), and then Paul, who we only see in fragments, at the edge of the frame, has had enough. He gets up and goes off and the camera pans with him and finds itself pointing at black (this is the first time I have thought of moving the camera in a long time, and I think it is good to use camera movement so sparingly). And we only hear the sound of her image - still don't know what that is.
If I build these pieces then I may be free to present the black as part of the climax, the articulation of her realisation. My only problem that I can only see this happening right at the end. Of course this is obvious, the climax would come near the end. The problem that by convention this is the black at the end of the film, where the credits would appear. If this story were first then audience would note the oddness of its placement, but if it were later they might just think this was the end.
Well one problem at a time.
(And later tonight I will be seeing Mouchette for the first time. )
So I was very excited to come across a section titled Sight and Hearing, considering that I have been thinking on the use of sound in Tidal Barrier/Claire and the concept of blackouts.
First he writes:
If the eye is entirely won, give nothing or almost nothing to the ear. One cannot be at the same all eye and all ear.
And vice versa, if the ear is entirely won, give nothing to the eye.
Now I realise he is certainly could not have been thinking of my idea to use sound over black, but he might at least consider it a worthwhile experiment. Perhaps too self-conscious? Probably. But perhaps if I develop my idea further it might not seem so formal.
Further along:
When a sound can replace an image, cut the image or neutralize it. The ear goes more towards the within, the eye towards the outer.
Now he seems to articulating I only understood vaguely or instinctively. Perhaps that is what I am getting at? That the sound over black is to be used where we are moving within of the Claire. In her story she finds nothing when she looks at herself. It is bare, and that is why she despairs. So the the sound over black is her discovery of how she is wanting. She tries to reach within by pretending something else, pretending to be someone else and fails. The sound over black then must be the accumulation of sounds which have been articulated previously. So they have a logic, but now become something else, are abstracted by their use over black. So I need to establish these sounds earlier. And the black needs also to be articulated earlier in the literal sense. That is I need to show at least briefly black as part of the narrative. So imagine we cut to black. We can make out nothing. The sound of her breathing (we won't know it is her for a time), perhaps the ticking of a clock, and then something else, something odd. A light comes on. It is the bedside lamp. She has been sleeping and has heard this same sound and is now frightened.
But even before that I can imagine using black near the beginning of her story, as she hears, but does not listen to Paul's litany of complaints of her lack of commitment. The camera is fixed up on her, who is distracted (not sure of the image here), and then Paul, who we only see in fragments, at the edge of the frame, has had enough. He gets up and goes off and the camera pans with him and finds itself pointing at black (this is the first time I have thought of moving the camera in a long time, and I think it is good to use camera movement so sparingly). And we only hear the sound of her image - still don't know what that is.
If I build these pieces then I may be free to present the black as part of the climax, the articulation of her realisation. My only problem that I can only see this happening right at the end. Of course this is obvious, the climax would come near the end. The problem that by convention this is the black at the end of the film, where the credits would appear. If this story were first then audience would note the oddness of its placement, but if it were later they might just think this was the end.
Well one problem at a time.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Blackouts
While Reconciliation moves slowly along I have been quite rewriting Tidal Barrier (Claire).
There is a lot to say, so much of it coming from the work on Reconciliation, and I am very excited about where it is going.
More on that soon, but first about the blackouts.
I have found it very exciting how they have worked in Reconciliation. 1 second blackouts between scenes. I cannot describe the effect, except that in the first and second instances they are a bit of a shock, and then one begins to want them, expect them. It would be odd if they stopped. It is all about rhythm.
So now I am thinking of something different. Longer blackouts that are themselves elements of the story. There length would vary, but would be at least be 15 seconds long. For practical purposes the first would need to arrive early in the story so people would not confuse it with the end of the film. Sound? Perhaps that is why they would be there (in Reconciliation it seemed that they must be silent). I can see that they are part of the soundscape, and this is becoming critical to the story. As I remove dialogue sound is freed, can become its own element. The blackouts could support both abstract and real sounds.
There is a lot to say, so much of it coming from the work on Reconciliation, and I am very excited about where it is going.
More on that soon, but first about the blackouts.
I have found it very exciting how they have worked in Reconciliation. 1 second blackouts between scenes. I cannot describe the effect, except that in the first and second instances they are a bit of a shock, and then one begins to want them, expect them. It would be odd if they stopped. It is all about rhythm.
So now I am thinking of something different. Longer blackouts that are themselves elements of the story. There length would vary, but would be at least be 15 seconds long. For practical purposes the first would need to arrive early in the story so people would not confuse it with the end of the film. Sound? Perhaps that is why they would be there (in Reconciliation it seemed that they must be silent). I can see that they are part of the soundscape, and this is becoming critical to the story. As I remove dialogue sound is freed, can become its own element. The blackouts could support both abstract and real sounds.
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
A proposal for a formal approach - II
I just managing to keep my two projects together in my head.
From the editing of Reconciliation I have been pushing along of my formal principles: limiting dialogue to the absolute minimum. By dialogue I mean an exchange of words between two characters, and that these words act as a narrative element. In Reconciliation I have a character speaking on the phone, but we only hear his part of the conversation, and the words are not a narrative element.
I have been encouraged how far I was able to take this. The short film now has two lines of dialogue.
Of course it comes down not having a narrative that needs dialogue to support it. In my last draft of Tidal Barrier I had these long dialogue sequences between Sophie and Claire and absolutely hated them. Now I am starting to see what is essential in the these scenes and I am able to comfortably excise the rest. The characters may have words, and some of it may come to dialogue, but the minimum. I have found I am able to reduce three-pages of dialogue to a sequence of shots, and one question. In these sequences I have found freedom.
And more, the end of dialogue has meant that now I am better able to see how sound how can shape the story in a fundamental way.
My last great insight from Reconciliation is about the blackouts. For next time.
From the editing of Reconciliation I have been pushing along of my formal principles: limiting dialogue to the absolute minimum. By dialogue I mean an exchange of words between two characters, and that these words act as a narrative element. In Reconciliation I have a character speaking on the phone, but we only hear his part of the conversation, and the words are not a narrative element.
I have been encouraged how far I was able to take this. The short film now has two lines of dialogue.
Of course it comes down not having a narrative that needs dialogue to support it. In my last draft of Tidal Barrier I had these long dialogue sequences between Sophie and Claire and absolutely hated them. Now I am starting to see what is essential in the these scenes and I am able to comfortably excise the rest. The characters may have words, and some of it may come to dialogue, but the minimum. I have found I am able to reduce three-pages of dialogue to a sequence of shots, and one question. In these sequences I have found freedom.
And more, the end of dialogue has meant that now I am better able to see how sound how can shape the story in a fundamental way.
My last great insight from Reconciliation is about the blackouts. For next time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
