More on the end

Whew, this has been a long time in coming. I apologise. I have had everything but the film to do this past month. Now it is officially August it is time to get back to it. I have nearly a month to get ready for Norway.
So I promised more on the ending. I have known for a while that it needed work. It was John who asked back at Christmas time, seeing the old edit, 'so, what happens at the end?'
First some comment from David. I am going to paraphrase. Remember in my last post, so long ago, that David changed his mind about the last shot after seeing the edit?

A problem might be that the pace, the shooting style, all the elements are the same as the other parts of the film. Perhaps they need to change and evolve? What about a different approach to the storytelling, shooting, editing and sound? Perhaps there is a faster pace as Claire moves through the forest?

David even detailed a sequence of shots that begins when Claire leaves her sister at the cabin and arrives at the final shot. I am not going to detail this here as I am going to meet David to work through this sequence on video.


I think that the new edit made the final shot work, but I think it was really down to the last shot but one: the shot of the mountainside. Prior to that I think the sequence of the landscape images works, but perhaps would work better with being set up: that is if Claire is absent in these shots she needs to be present before then. This means setting up something where we find her in the forest in a sequence between leaving her sister and this sequence.
More ideas below...but first some of the comments from David on the ending:
So altogether...
We create another part at the end, along with the first three, a part that starts after her view of her sister below and runs to the final shot. This includes a sequence of landscape shots where Claire is absent, it doesn't need her. This final sequence will develop the language of the film, perhaps a slower film stock (64ASA), a wider lens (we may to have borrow one!), perhaps a different pace for Claire, a different way she moved through the landscape, and then more. In what happens there is a difference too. I have been imagining images of her, capturing as if an animal, that is not self-conscious, instinctive, as a part of the place. A landscape, trees and shrubs, a small creek. It is light at the top, but down low, where the shrubs are concentrated it is dark, filled with shadows. We have not seen Claire for sometime so it takes some to make her out at the bottom-right of the frame, crouched over, concentrating on some task. We don't know what. Yes, she is drinking from the creek, like an animal at the watering hole. We come closer. She continues to drink, then looks up, hearing something. Then we write the sounds with the images, that is instead of sounds being an adjunct of the image, rather the images picture the sound, eg. we see what is making noise. Again we have left Claire behind.
We eventually reach the shot of the mountainside that presently work so well - JC calls this is Ozu shot. We use the last shot, but we also create other shots which build it, eg. fragments of her or the place, with perhaps her out of focus (soft) in contrast with the a sharp image in the foreground. The idea is that we play with the idea that she is a part of the landscape, using focus, light and shadow...
Is that what happens between leaving Natalie and the final shot?
Well more on this later this week after I meet with David. I promise to be more involved this month.