Where to now?

I think I have detailed enough about the comments and my thinking...so now what? How do I respond? I have always said, in the feedback I want to be in position of having too much, to cull, not add. But I think I need to add.
My first reaction was, I should have done in the first place, but this is wrong. First, I could never afford to shoot that way, that is shoot something I was never sure I would need. And then I only know what to create by the edit, by having all those other bits. I can now write scenes that I feel comfortable with because they seem to fit, to come organically.
These past few weeks I have been thinking of adding new scenes, and rewriting others. The characters will even say things, dialogue, something I have avoided. I feel that is just a matter of balance, that the other elements, the visual and sound, will be stronger with more dialogue.
And energy and tone and texture. I have written a new scene 5. Here Claire and Paul visit the pub. In my original it is about the lack of connection between them, the fundamental distance, but I have plenty of that. When do we see what brought them together?
So I have written a new pub scene, this time at night, still no dialogue, but loud music, dancing and drinking, and Paul and Claire can be together for a reason.
I still have more work to do, there are still missing elements so I need to get to them. The next step? Back to the video camera and the workshop. I want to put them on video and cut them into the edit and then do some test screenings before I go out and spend money on film.

Third showing

Now, I already posted about the showing to David. Two weeks ago now - yes, a long time, I know, a lot has happened - I showed it to John, Amelie and Peter.
This was probably the most critical of the showings. First they knew nothing about the film so they were blank slates. David has been part of the process from the beginning.
And second the edit was in good enough shape to judge where it was going to go. What I show Isabella, Sophie and JC was still too rough to judge.
Their conclusions?
Like David they thought it was too long, it too long to get to what I was trying to achieve. And they also had many of the same practical criticisms, that the blackouts were too long, and not necessary, they did not need a rest. They confused the sister, Natalie, with the friend, Sophie. They thought they looked too much alike, but I know this is not the case. I simply have not set it up well enough to make it clear.
They diverged on a few things.
Peter did not feel the friend was necessary and that she could be cut. Amelie did not see the necessity of the friend but still though there would be something missing if she were not in the film.
Peter and Amelie felt that there was enough development to sustain the first two segments, but not in Norway. Not enough happened until Natalie showed up. When she did they all found the scenes with the sister powerful.
But John disagreed. He thought there was enough in Norway to sustain the film.
They all agreed on one thing, and this is the biggest criticism: that right now Claire is too one dimensional. You don't know enough about her to feel for her, or at least understand her. David said the same thing, and JC alluded to much the same.
So that is my biggest problem, and why it has taken me this long to write this. I have never been worried about what I have. It will work its way out, but missing elements, that's a problem. On Saturday I plan to begin writing some new scenes, and rewriting some new scenes. More on this.

Second showing

So this past weekend I had two separate viewings of the latest edit.
On Friday I showed it to David. Since he has been quite involved in the production I wanted to show him the cut by himself.
His response? I will start with the practical.
First, it was clear, on the most basic terms, what was happening. Now I have always been worried about this. I have always been an abstract thinker and I too often assume that people are able to follow me. I need to fill in the gaps.
The biggest gap at this stage was the lack of sound design. It was difficult to know if some of the problems could be solved with the sound, which is so central to what I am trying to do.
He thought that perhaps the first segment was too long, but also wondered if it had to do, to set out the plan of the film. I have to say that there is a lack of texture in the first segment, to set it apart from the second segment. This was a weakness in production along with a few technical problems as well. For example, the pub scene, which added some noise, opened up the story to the outside world, and presented Claire in a human situation, meeting her best-friend, Sophie, I removed from the last edit. First, I could not see their conversation making sense in light of the other changes I have made to the edit. And secondly, the primary shot was soft and so unusable.
He also that the blackouts were too long, and also needed sound (I will talk about this more in the next post).
In Norway, specific repeating shots were quite striking, and others were quite weak.
But I would have to say that his strongest criticism was that it was now too cold, too intellectual, that we are able to see Claire as human.
Now of course this is rather a fundamental problem, but I will for now avoid making any conclusions. I will add another post from the third showing from last Saturday.