Reaction

So I finished the edit last week and my first viewer was David. I wanted him to see it first, I suppose, for a little security. He has really been involved in the whole project but at the same time has always been able to stand back and see the larger picture. Quite the feat. So I wanted to test the new edit with him first, so that I could make some changes.
This was my first view of the edit now complete, with some shape.
I was still struggling with the club/bar scene. I just could not make this work, no matter how many tricks I tried. David thought I was trying too hard, that what I had achieved was competence primarily because I was trying to make it into something at odds with my own sensibility. I had to admit that whereas it has always been a struggle to find my voice during this project I was at least always singing alone. Now I had all the worlds music videos crowding into my thoughts - how do you escape? So, taking his advice, I simplified, reminded myself what I was trying to achieve with this scene, a mood, and re-cut on the weekend.
I have been thinking of the shape of the film. It has been broken into three segments purely for practical reasons. Now I realised that there other more natural structures arising. The first part of the film ends just when Claire decides to leave Paul. She has been offered Natalie's flat, her sister has just left, she climbs the stairs and comes to the doorway of the bedroom and observes the sleeping Paul.
From this stage a on of the structural piers of the film begins: we move into a realm of singular sound, that is there is no dialogue, Claire has no conversations with anyone, she does, acts, and in each of these acts there is a singular sound, one sound that stands or the scene. She washes the sheets, the sound of the washing machine, she rearranges the closet, the sound of the hangers moving about, she walks into Natalie's living room, the sound of the train across the street. This section ends when she goes out into Natalie's neighbourhood, enters the park, and looks into this void again. That is she has found that void has follower her here too. This structure happened by accident or not. I can't really remember, I only know now that I have to go back to Roland and begin finding quality sounds for this section, as currently these scenes use crude bits and pieces I found in the edit or off free sound fx websites. The quality of the sounds will be everything in this.
This section ends with the void, a blackout, the non-music underneath, and then a sequence of scenes, mostly with dialogue, where Claire has taken on this life. This is less contemplative, less reflective, Claire just does, and this continues until Sophie comes calling Claire, reminds her that she is living a lie.
The next pier now begins where she enters the forest and faces that void. Here now this is not about singular sounds. Is this section I started to play with layers of actual music. This is just temp track stuff, things I could never use, but I wanted to see how they would play out.
David thought that while a crescendo might be true here, it would not be made with melody and I think I knew that before we even sat down and watched it. But you want to certain of the wrong direction, and watching I was certain. Instead I re-edited, working on layering of sounds instead, that is non-music, non-melodic sounds, sound effects, and other incidental and natural sounds, the crescendo achieved instead by the layering of all these sounds.
Finally the question of the overall pace, now that it was running at just 93 minutes? He thought that now it was well within the limits of tolerance, so no longer of the long-take variety. Was this right direction? I don't know yet, as I didn't realise I was going here.
So last night it was the turn of my flatmate, Jerry, and his girlfriend Maria. Now, the showing was ruined somewhat my problems with the sound mix. I was trying with FinalCutPro to mix the sound so decided to try SoundtrackPro. A nightmare. The sound in the second segment was a mess, and with my film it made hard to gauge their reaction.
Still, I would say that I don't think the liked it, but they understood it. I think I succeeded in fixing the club/bar scene and overall the pace was not too long, actually sometimes it was too fast. I think I need to go back to certain scenes and extend them.
Two issues. They seem to find their answers to the questions I posed, for the most part. I had succeeded in making the questions clear, but for one part, in the girl's night-in, where Sarah brings out the book of family photographs. Due to the way it is handled, it seemed to have more significance than it warranted and caused some confusion, as they expected to find out more about this.
And lastly, Maria found the first part of the Norway sequence to be repetitive, but when I asked if it was too slow they said no. So how to solve that problem?
I start the new edit later this week. I am trying to arrange new viewings between Christmas and New Years. More on that.

New edit one week away

So I have enough time with the edit these past two weekends to see where I am.
First, the new scenes? Well, I made some mistakes. The club/bar scene is missing a few shots, but of course we were short of time - 2 hours less than I had planned - so that is to be expected. As I have discovered with an edit, it is not that it needs to be longer, rather that you need to have choices, and I don't think I will have many. That would be the down side. Still, I can probably manage something with a few well planned interstitials, and also I have to keep reminding myself that I am still missing the music. I think in the scheme of the whole film I think you have to accept that you will find disappointment and I will probably be the only one who notices.
With the other scenes I am closer to what I had planned. Yes, I also made mistakes in the girl's night in scene, where I forgot a few transitions, but I can manage to get these fairly easily with a few pickups and music. Music in the scene is an essential part of the texture, just as it is in the club/bar scene.
On Sunday I already shot a few of the transitions and sound effects I need to complete the edit.
Onto the edit itself. Other than cutting in the new scenes I have been first trying to give the film more shape, first by deciding where it will be fast and where it will be slow. Fast and slow are relative terms of course. This film never clips along.
So I have been rather mechanical about this to start, but that would be the nature of the edit up until now, which was in some ways just an assembly, with the view to seeing the overall picture. Now I have gone to trim, deciding where I will make it tighter, cutting as close as I dare. I know I will need to work my way up to this, but it is start. This has been more successful than I imagined, as I have trimmed 6 minutes from the length just by this crude method alone.
I was especially happy how I trimmed the second segment. I had decided months ago that the part between moving into Natalie's, and the realisation Claire has in the forest needed to be be shorter and tighter. The incidents were simple, did not require a lot of contemplation, but also they needed to be shorter so that the bookends, moving into Natalie's, and the scene in the forest, when she overcomes her fear and enters the forest, could be longer. Now a shape is becoming clearer, and new ideas, especially around sound and music are arising.
I have included a kind of non-music, provided to me by Roland, since last spring. This was perhaps not a temp track as such, but it was just an idea. Now I can see that in the sequence where Claire enters the forest, before her trip to Norway, can hold more of this non-music, as a way of giving an emotional layer to Claire's internal shift. Next I can begin to think how I could start to think about the nature of this music or non-music.
I am missing a few ideas about sounds in the first and second segments, in the same way that I discovered in the third segment. More on this for the next post.
Next weekend I will finish shooting the new video pickups and then it will be time to show again. Now the true editing begins.

I've said this before...

I've said this before, so I am wary of repeating myself.
But this past Sunday we finished the last of the planned shooting. How is that for a caveat. Only a year late!
JC and I had planned to watch the rushes at iLab last evening but they weren't ready yet. So we have the DV dubs and on Saturday I planned to begin capturing. This includes not only the cafe scene and girl's night scenes, but the car/argument and club/bar scenes as well.
I am now going into the next editing session with some trepidation. I can no longer hide behind the excuse that we still had more material to come. This is it. I have to say that, for better or worse, this is what we have to work with.
And how long will it be? And how can I give shape and pace?
More on that to come...

Next...

Just a quick update to say that we are shooting the cafe scene, and the girl's night scene this coming Sunday. This is the last of my planned shooting, that is the end of production, other than the odd shot or pickup we will get in the next month or so.
And also to say that JC were at the lab on Tuesday to take a look at the footage, and other than one shot that was a tad soft everything went well. I have not had a chance to place the footage into the edit yet. That will wait until after Sunday.
I can't say how much I am looking forward to getting back to the edit.

Photos of the club/bar scenes

So JC and I still have not made it down to the lab to see the footage, so I can't report back on our sucess or failure. I am still nervous about the whole thing. This day was probably our most costly relative to the number of minutes we shot. I wouldn't want to do it again.
I think there are too many other things going, especially getting ready for our next shooting day on the 22nd.
We are planning to take a look this coming Tuesday, but in the meantime David's photos...













Fritz and I discuss shots. Fritz was our 1st AD.














Lukas was JC's First Camera Assistant














JC adjusting lights. He had lights! This is probably the second time we had more than practical lights.


























The scene begins with Paul and Claire getting settled in.















Two of our extras doing their part to be a part of the scene.






































Thelma worked as our Bargirl, here talking to one of her regulars.


























Paul cues up at the bar.














Thelma behind the bar.














Bruno helped us organise the crowd.














Amy was JC's second assistant.






































Fred and Flora on the dancefloor. This is what it was about.

Club scene...

Just a quick note to say that we shot both the argument and the club scene on Sunday and it all went well. The footage went in yesterday and we expect an answer tomorrow. More news then, along with David's great photographs.

Next: the club/bar

Just a quick update. I have been busy getting ready for our next shooting date, November 8th. It took a lot of texts and emails to arrange this, and JC to reschedule his video shoot (thanks JC) to make this happen.
We will start in the afternoon, shooting the argument between Paul and Claire. This happens in the car and on the streets in Shoreditch. In the evening we are in The Camp, a new venture from James Priestly on City Road, from 6pm. So I am busy trying to raise a crowd, with a lot of help from Joana. We need a bar full of happy people.
A lot at stake - I can't afford to make any mistakes with this many people. We are not going to go back.
At the same time I am now busy trying to arrange the next and last shooting date, the cafe scene, with Claire and Sophie, and the girl's night in, with Claire, Sophie and Sarah. I am also busy casting this new part as well. More on that to come.

Feedback and the next step

So first David came by last Thursday to see the latest edit. This included all the new Norway footage, the footage from the September/Dalston shoot, and the new structure in the second segment. It has become a bit of a blur, all these changes, the point where I forget all the work I have done.
I think that this is the first time that David had nothing to say. So, yes, the edit gets better and better. What before may have caused some discussion or was questioned is no longer. It is coming together, in big and small ways.
And then the next steps. More scheduling problems means that the original plan to shoot the cafe scene and the girl's night in has to be delayed until mid-November. This leaves the bar or club scene to shoot. Does it make any different which we shoot first? None at all. I think I was simply putting off shooting the bar/club scene because of the expense and the risk. I don't have a lot of experience shooting crowd scenes and I can't afford to make mistakes and have to go back again.
I need help with the logistics of this so I turn to Joanna who has helped us in the past. I have just come from meeting her at the Green Papaya. Nothing really phases her (I wouldn't want to get in her way for any reason) so I just set out what I need and she is already on it. We will be looking at a club tomorrow night. More on this.

October update

Okay, a few things have happened since I last posted.

I have finished the revised edit and showed it to my friend, the actor and filmmaker Robert. I had been holding back showing it to Robert. He is a fan of my work, so on the one hand he would be too forgiving. On the other he is quite sharp and critical as well.

First I was disappointed in some ways with this comments. He did not notice the changes I made in the new edit! But of course I was being ridiculous. The whole point of that work was to make sense of this or that part. The test is whether he would not notice the new parts.

Well Robert had a few minor comments but generally was very impressed. So far so good. Yes, there is still a lot of work to do. There is still no shape or pace in the edit. There are decisions to be made in regards to incidental music and the non-music that Roland suggested in the spring.

I have rewritten all the scenes that I workshopped back in the spring. There was always something that bothered me about these scenes. One night I showed Flora the edit, and then we went to watch some bits from Antonio's L'Eclisse. I was especially interested in the scene where Vittoria first meets Marta. It is is girl's night in. There is no drama, and the thematic elements only appear by the by. I had written my scenes as drama, and clearly they were not. I, the writer was also imposing myself into the film.

One of the changes involves bringing in a new character and now I have to cast another actor. That is my next step.

And finally I applied to Cinemart at the Rotterdam Film Festival. This is market to meet co-producers. I send in two applications for two new projects for development, and also for Tidal Barrier for post-production. Of course my chances are slim but it is my first test of the film outside friends and colleagues visiting my flat. So we shall see.

Dalston report

We spent Sunday shooting pickups in Dalston. It was a long day, but very productive.
I wanted to fill in a few gaps we found in the editing. As I said previously this is my shorthand being rather too short.
It is amazing what a few shots will do to an edit. For example, in the final scene of this segment Claire watches Paul leave for work. This was shot from high, at a distance, too much of a distance to know who we are watching. We just needed a shot of Paul leaving the flat. I shot this from the top of stairs, as to suggest that here too this is Claire watching Paul.
The scene that followed has caused some confusion as well. When Claire is sure that Paul is gone she goes about erasing herself, removing all traces of herself from the flat and his life. But there was never enough detail for anyone to understand what was happening. I added another segment on Sunday, where Claire gathers up her clothes into a bin bag and throws them in the trash. Starting over again. Will this scene now make sense? Well I will need to show the new edit to a few people and find out.
In both these cases, given a larger budget you would simply shot them in the first place, but as I can only shoot what I am going to use I was happy to do it this way.
We also re shot scene and 8 and 9 to change the emphasis of this scene.
Yesterday Marc passed me the sound files and I synced them up with the rushes. Everything looks good. I spent yesterday with the edit, trying to piece it together. There are a few cuts which still need some more work, but overall what we did has been very effective.
Next steps. I now have more scheduling headaches. I am going to start writing a revised scene with Claire and Sophie, and a new character, and I will need to find this new actor. Then I will try to squeeze a day of shooting of this new scene in to October.

Norway results and more

Last Friday we got the Norway pickups returned from the lab and... everything was absolutely fine. We probably have one soft shot, but it is looks so amazing I think someone might think we did it on purpose.
I did a rough cut of the footage on Saturday, but I was without the sound files, so I did not spend too much time on the edit. More on that later. For now I am distracted.
I have more scheduling mayhem, so I working to shoot pickups here in the flat in Dalston this Sunday. Of course this means a load of preparations, especially just finding all those costumes. I may have to reshoot some scenes just because of costume alone, but in a way it is just as well. The scene concerned is Scene 8, when Natalie first visits Claire and Paul, and then Scene 9, the argument that Paul and Claire have after. This scene was always weak. First I think that the dialogue between Paul and Natalie is given too much emphasis. It it Claire's relationship to Natalie and Paul that is important. I also went too thin again, that is the shorthand is too short. There is too little material. So, it is just as well that I have to reshoot. I am going to look at rewriting or restructuring the scene tonight. More on this after Sunday.

Norway II Report

We returned from Norway late on Friday night and I think I have recovered enough to make sense of it all.
It did not start well. We made it to the airport in good time but were shocked to see how many people were at Stansted at that time in the morning. Sorting out the baggage was complicated but finally we managed and were told by Ryanair that we had enough time. We went through security, picked up a few things at the Chemist and went to the gate...and the plane was gone. It had left a few minutes early and we were a few minutes late. Essentially the long lines in security plus the crowded Stansted trains delayed us enough we missed it. So now what to do? Ryanair would put us on the next plane for £100 each. What a deal! This was hard to stomach considering all those people were there because Ryanair tries to get out so many planes at the time in the morning. Why reassure us we had plenty of time when they know very well we did not? If we had ran to the gate we would've made it.
After adding the costs of this fee against flying the next day but having to include the baggage costs, plus most importantly missing another day of shooting I decided to swallow this fee. There was a lot of messing around, first retrieving the luggage, then getting new boarding passes and checking the luggage again, going through security again, etc. All the while Flora is quite ill. Is this going to be a complete disaster?
Finally we airborne, Flora is at least able to sleep a little, as do we. All of us only had 4 hours sleep, if that. We land at Torp, buy as much wine and beer as we can carry, knowing the cost of alcohol in Norway, retrieve all of our luggage, and then wait while Roland gets the rental car. Another problem: EuropaCar has given our car away. We were more than three-hours late. They have another car, but it costs more than the one we rented and we have to make up the the difference. This is even more incredible than the Ryanair situation. We have already paid for the car. They would not lose anything regardless how late were were and they could've still rented the more-expensive car to the other customer. Apparently poor service from this company is not unusual.
Finally we are on the road and arrive in Risor in two hours. We do a little grocery shopping, load the boat and putter down the fjord. We settle in, eat some lunch, and then while Flora sleeps the rest of us, that is JC, Roland, and Lara and I, go out to reccy some of the locations that are away from the cabin. The weather is warm, with cloud and sun. The beach area is beautiful at that time of day. We probably need to do 2/3rds of our shooting here in the sun, but the weather forecast is not promising. Tuesday, Thursday and Friday shows rain with periods of cloud. Sun is only forecast for Wednesday. Can we do all this on Wednesday?
After dinner, with Roland and Lara sharing most of the cooking duties, I make my plan.
We will shoot the arrival scene on Tuesday. This is essentially a development of Claire's arrival at the cabin. I had struggled to show Claire's relationship to her past, with a set of mementoes that she carries with her throughout the film, even bringing them along to show to Sophie in one scene, but this idea was never clear to anyone. I finally realised that the past is already represented in Claire's return to the cabin in Norway, and that we required more detail here. How does she see the cabin? How does she approach the cabin? What does she do while she is waiting for nightfall? How does she break-in? Why does she wait until night-fall to break-in? How does she feel when she gets in? For continuity this is meant to happen in the rain.
On Wednesday we then had the unenviable task of trying to capture all the sun material in one day. We started by a couple of pickups, Claire seeing Natalie sunbathing out on the lawn. Of course Katrine, who plays Natalie was with us in Norway, so we cheated her presence by dressing Flora in some Natalie-like clothing.
Once that was complete we moved by boat to the beach area which was to be our base for the day. I have wanted to simplify the Norway segment by establishing some clear geographical locations, which partly meant showing Claire making her to the beach. I wrote a new scene to follow in the final part where we find Claire after she leaves her sister at the cabin, which we shot in the thick forest at the base of a ridge. We also developed the beach scene itself, and then the scene where she goes hiking with Natalie. Again, we cheated one shot by shooting from the neck down, and putting Lara into Natalie's jacket and scarf.
That brought us to around 7pm, the sun was fading and we were exhausted. We returned to the cabin and had a few beers out by the water, knowing that this might be best day we had and we needed to enjoy it.
We also later found that in tramping about in the forest we had managed to attract a large number of tics. Nasty little things. I had one on my neck, and two in the crotch. Everyone else was afflicted as well. We sat in the kitchen in our pants, checking each other thoroughly with a bicycle-lamp, and removed the little parasites. Roland now doubled as sound man and tick-removalist-specialist.
On Thursday, once the rain stopped in the afternoon we decided to return to the beach area and picked-up a few of the shots we missed on Wednesday. We shall have to see if we are able to change the colour-temperature of these shots to match the other material.
Friday was the same, except that Flora was now feeling well enough to go swimming in the fjord with Roland.
As we were loading the boat at 5pm, getting ready to leave, the sun came out again. It looked beautiful, but was too late to help us.
JC brings in the footage tomorrow and we shall see the results on Thursday. That's the next post.

More weather

And as soon as I posted the weather forecast changed.
Norway weather forecast.

I suppose this is better, but what does mixed sun and cloud really mean?

We shall see.

Sweating the weather

So the preparations are well enough along for me now to sweat over the long-range weather Norway weather forecast.
Hmmm. Only one day of full-sun. This is a problem. This is the Friday we are leaving. In the evening, yes, but we have a lot of material to cover (17 shots). And ground too, as the locations are some ways from our base (the cabin).
One day of rain is good. We have a number of shots (13) around Claire's arrival at the cabin, which for continuity, happens in either the rain, or it's-going-rain.
I have scheduled a number of shots for the Thursday (mixed sun and cloud), but that is being optimistic. It would better if it were sunny that day too. So, I can only hope for some change as we come closer to our shooting dates.

Norway preparations

So what are we doing in Norway?
I have just finished a first draft of the shot list, which includes nearly 50 shots, around 10 a day. Some of these are alternates, so I would guess in the end we will shoot 45 different shots.
This is certainly not about shooting pickups, this is all about developing the story of Claire in Norway.
Some highlights...
Claire arrives at the cabin
Until now I have included a metaphor for her past in a box of momentoes she carries with her, which included antique jewelery and photos of forgotten relations. It always felt a weak idea and most everyone found it either confusing or pointless. Now I realise that the image of the past is the cabin itself. She arrives in the day but waits until dark to break in, like a burglar. What does she do/feel in the meantime? It is David's idea to make the cabin a character itself - how does she see this place? Claire has come here because it is about the past, so her arrival and how she relates to this place are central.
Claire goes swimming
On Claire's first full-day in Norway she goes to the beach. This is about Claire finding a new energy in beauty and nature. Currently the scene is weak. I would like to simplify the whole Norway segment by first showing Claire making her way to the beach area. This means we will have a short-hand for these locations later, that is I we will be able reuse them again. And by creating a simple construct - Claire is going to the beach - I will be able to express more conceptual ideas.
Once she arrives at the beach we need to develop the swimming sequence so we understand what this means to her. More on this below.
Not quite the ending
Along with a few shots which are missing or which we felt are weak there is the ending. This too is underdeveloped. Some ideas, such as the coda sequence that follows her view of her sister, is strong, but I think could get more out of this scene by using shots of locations where we have previously seen Claire. For example, the places she passes through on the way to the beach. They would take on another resonance because Claire is now absent from them.
Before the ending itself it also felt that we needed another scene with Claire. She needed to develop in between. So what happens? I am calling this my Claire-as-an-animal sequence, in that I would like to see Claire now changed, as no longer self-conscious, as focused, and full of energy.
The ending
I have already written quite a deal about this, but suffice to say we thinking of other elements around that final shot. Or is it another ending altogether? I suppose we won't know until we have the material and have edited it altogether.
More on preparations coming soon...

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.

The last shot is saved

I said that I would like to do a post on the ending alone, but actually I think I could do more than one. There has so much discussion and thought on this end, I didn't know where to start.
So let's start with that last shot. This shot was my original idea for the ending going back over 1 1/2 years.
Here are three shots that illustrate the sequence.


The shot opens with Claire in the foreground, her back to the camera, standing still. She turns her to the right, as if she was looking at something or was going in that direction.
Instead she walks forward, to the middle ground, but to her left, goes behind some shrubs, and then goes under the large tree trunk that bisects the shot, then appears on the other side.

On the other side of the tree trunk she begins to climb the rock face.
At points she pauses in her climb, finding her way, or turning to look from where she came.

Eventually the climbs to the top of the ridge, and makes her way into the forest at the top. She is gone, and the shot is held there for some time. In the final take on our final day there were scattered clouds, so the sun would come and go. During the long hold after Claire has disappeared the sun came through some slight cloud, so the light seemed to pour on. It was probably my imagination but it also felt as if the bird song suddenly rose in volume and filled the air. In fact it was probably filled with the rackets of the speedboats in the fjord, but such is the power the moment.

Claire moves from being an oddity, an aberration to having a part in the landscape and eventually disappearing into it.
In the early edits the power of this shot, if there was any, was not apparent. It seemed weak, an unsatisfactory ending. I wondered if the gap between inspiration and execution was just too great. A good idea, but we hadn't found the shot or the location or the action or all three to support the idea.
I met up with David an expressed my misgivings about the shot. We were planning to return to Norway and should we consider another ending entirely?
He thought back and gave his verdict: is the problem with shot is that is some ways a literal reiteration of the story of Claire and the film? It's weakness then is that it is a repetition but not a development of the theme. Perhaps if the idea of the shot were expressed instead of the shot itself it could be stronger? This might be a simple as cutting the shot just after Claire turns her head to the left. Then going to black and the sound scape of the ridge, the wind in the trees, and the bird song rising in volume.
All this made sense, but David was referring back to an edit he had seen six months previously. He was coming later that week to see the new edit. What would he make of it?
So as it turned out, another example of the power of editing, for when David saw the shot, complete, in the new edit he changed his mind. As it stood the shot was strong and its power now seemed clear. The problem lay not with that shot, but with shots around it. It was a lack of material, and this needed to be remedied on the new trip to Norway.
We then went to discuss some new ideas and later David emailed some new thoughts as well. More about this in the next post, but to be certain about the final shot I created a different ending, one in which I cut the shot short. I showed this to a number of people but all of them agreed. The final shot, complete, is the strongest.
Now more about what happens to lead to that shot, for the next post.

More on the new edit and Norway

So a long time since my last post. Everything has been in limbo.
First, there was the Kent vs Norway issue. Could the Kent forest stand in for Norway? Well that question was answered by way of the new edit.
Since the showing at JCs place I have also shown it to David. Beforehand I felt that this edit was truly make or break. If I could not start to make it work now I would be in trouble. So David's response was quite important.
The shots we inserted from the Kent workshop made sense, for the most part, as part of the story, even if Kent didn't look like Norway. But what the new edit made clear was what could work worked, what didn't work was down to a lack of material and development.
Most of this revolved around the ending. Would that long take, of Claire starting in the foreground and climbing the ridge, and then disappearing into the forest, would it now work? I had met the week previously and his comment then was that the shot was in a way a literal representation of the film up until the point. Seeing the shot was not development, but repetition. But when I showed him the edit he felt that perhaps it did work. I could see now that we would be in for some difficult choices, but again this was also part of the process, and a great sign of progress.
The ending is where we will spend most of our effort, and it is also the most exciting part. I would like to do a whole post just around the ending, because think there is so much to say.
I also feel that we can no longer move forward without more development of the sound design, and so to that end, Roland is coming over to see the edit tomorrow. What might we do with sound as part of the ending?
And I am looking for some new test subjects, people who have not seen the film before. More on that.
So yes, we are going out to Norway for a second trip. We will not only fill in the gaps we had identified previously, but also develop other parts. This is tentatively planned for the end of August. We are just waiting to find a Camera Assistant and to be certain that David can come as well, and then I will begin making all the arrangements.
And the next post, soon about the ending.

New edit and more

I finished the latest edit on Sunday. I had already cut in the workshop video we had shot in May and April, and so the past two weeks I had been editing for pace, and patching up the sound. At the end, even though I had trimmed a large number of scenes, with the new material the latest edit was now longer. 98 minutes, versus just over 90 minutes.
I wanted to meet up with JC so that we could look at the Kent footage and make a decision - will it stand in for Norway? So I took the edit over to JC's place so we could watch it on his new projector.
Some conclusions.
Now, as edits do, even though it was longer than the last edit, it seemed shorter. There was a sense of focus, pace and rhythm. It was clearer because it was simpler, and the opportunities were more obvious. That is I could see the gaps, where I needed to do work, and what could work. I think that it was a big improvement on the last edit. I could also see that once I had shot the new material I would come to a point where I could no longer add anything more to the edit. I mean that if it needed to go further then I would need an editor, someone who bring something new to the project. I feel this is progress too.
The other conclusion was that the new material went a long way in addressing the lack of balance in the film. What I still don't though is whether the other new scenes I wrote are necessary. We haven't work-shopped those yet.
As to the Kent question, what gave it away was the lack of inclines and the dirt ground. Our Norway locations were steep and there is stone everywhere.
So I am now thinking of returning to Norway. More on this...

Kent workshop

It seems so long ago, but that is my fault for taking this long to post. So, Flora, JC and myself went out to Ashford to workshop some new scenes and a few new shots. These are meant to fit into the Norway segment of the film. We were looking for a coniferous forest that could stand in for Norway if you didn't look to close. Lucy, who plays Sophie, told us about a forest where her friend Huf worked. So out to Ashford we went.
Now a small disaster, as I had not known that there was an Ashford in Surrey, as well as one in Kent, and Surrey is where we ended up. Aughh! No matter, we managed to turn it around quick enough.
I wanted to add some elements to the Norway segment in response to the feedback I had over the edit back in January. First, there was a lack of clarity in what Claire goes through before her sister Natalie shows up. I wanted to develop these parts. So, what happens when she first arrives? Why does she wait until nightfall to break into the cabin? Well of course, I am not one to provide easy answers, but at least a new scene would be able to ask the question.
I wanted to develop the concept of Claire's relationship to the opaque image near the end, and this is the only part we were not able to finish (we would have made it if I hadn't taken everyone to Surrey first).
Still, if we need to develop that we need to develop that earlier as well, and so we worked this into another scene we needed to develop.
Last weekend I cut this footage into the latest edit and then I began to rework each segment, trying to simplify and clarify. I was especially aware that I had made so much too complicated. I also wanted to repair much of the sound, only in that I needed to test the edits, and having sound click, flip from one channel to another, and jump from level to another made it difficult. So that's where I am.
I have to say that presently I am quite unsure that Kent will be able to stand in for Norway, but I need to test this on a number of people who will be more objective than myself.
More on this subject later.

Back from Cannes

Okay, I am well behind in my posts.
This past weekend I went out to Kent with Flora and JC for another workshop, but I haven't even report back from Cannes yet. First things first.
I went out with my friend Robert, who had a short film there and was trying to set up meetings with various producers and governmental bodies about a feature he is working on. We arrived mid-day and went straight to it, after a drink on the beach in the UK pavilion. I first scoped out the Marche, to see where my intended victims were located. About half of the sales agents I wanted to meet were located there. The other half were scattered about Cannes, mostly in the Grand Hotel. Once we were happy we knew the landscape we gathered up our bags and headed up to our digs, in Mougin.
In the next two days I introduced myself to as many sales agents as I could. I really just wanted to put a name to a face. I did not want to pitch the project to them, and most of them were not interested in hearing a pitch anyway. They had films to sell.
It was easy speaking to those in the Marche as they had booths, and were expecting to receive the public, but with those in hotel rooms it could be awkward. Some of the larger companies had receptionist, but most just had a hotel room. This was a little like cold-calling. But after a few apologies and few questions most were happy to speak for a few minutes.
My other mission was altogether more difficult. All the big festivals send programmers to the festival to see films and this is an ideal way to meet a number of them and begin to sell them the film. Ideally you set up a meeting beforehand, which they would probably refuse, or accept and then cancel, but it is a start. Some of the pavilions set up parties so the programmers could meet a group of people, but I was already on my way home. So no luck there, but again it is a start.
Next step is to follow up with emails to everyone I met. I am sure they won't remember meeting me but...
And soon, an update on the last workshop.

Off to Cannes

Yes, we had the workshop last weekend and it went quite well. I have already managed to edit most of the footage.
But I will wait to tell you all about it, as I am busy preparing for Cannes. This is really my first time there so it is a bit overwhelming. This is really just an opportunity to make contact with sales agents. I will also get a chance to see Lu again, who is now working in Berlin for a film producer.
When I return we are heading out the into forests for Kent to do another workshop.
More on that and everything else when I return next week.

Sound design and non-music

There is a lot to discuss. This coming Saturday I have another workshop. This time I am working on two new scenes between Claire and Sophie. Besides trimming and readjusting the dialogue, I have been continuing to find new ways to approach choosing and setting up shots.
This time I wrote a parallel visual narrative. This is from the viewpoint of what we might know from the outside of the scene, without reference to the dialogue. Then I drew up a storyboard of shots, again trying to think less, and draw with reference to the actors and how they might be set in the frame from an emotional point of view. That is to follow my instincts.

But I know I did say that I would talk about sound and my visit to Roland's new studio.
He has set himself up with a 5.1 surround-sound system. Very sexy in a sound geeky way.
The best part was that he introduced me to what might we have crudely termed sonic experiments. Perhaps non-music would be better? Liminal music? These sounds that sit at the threshold of sound becoming music.They suggest a music that never arrives.
These sounds are created by the interference between sine waves. That is two waves meet and reflect off each other creating a third sound. These can only be heard on a set of speakers. You hear three sounds, left, right and middle, but removing one sound removed the middle sound as well - it could not exist. It was created inside our heads.
A lot of these experiments were developed by the composer Alvin Lucier, but the music Roland played for me was created by a friend who for now is only known as Ashley. So we will shall see where the experiments take us. If we decide we want to try them I will meet up with Ashley and we will go from there.
The effect is disconcerting to say the least. I think these are the sonic equivalent of the Rothko images, those at the edge of perception. I have included them at a number of places throughout. I have almost already dismissed them from the Norway segment. They just don't seem to make sense there. I need to explore their use in the middle segment, but so far they have been most effective in the first segment. I have taken them to be a part of the calling theme, that is the sense that Claire is being affected by something she does not understand. This is part of the idea of looking into, into the opacity of the object.
As you watch you are not certain that you have actually heard the sounds, and then even more strangely you begin to hear the sounds in all sorts of places, even though they are not present. You brain begins to manufacture them on their own accord.
Of course the idea of this music is linked to the Rothko ideas, the liminal image, at the threshold, the edge of perception.
I need to develop their use more, and I integrate more of the other sounds that Roland passed my way. And then there is the workshop on Saturday, so more about that.

The workshop edit

The weekend was rather full, so I can't say I have gone far enough with the edit but perhaps I am just a little closer to I want.
My aesthetics is never to use the same shot twice, that each moment will have it's own shot, but when you are shooting a scene with dialogue? The need to return to the other party as they discourse? Does this become a pointless convention? Well I suppose first you avoid the ping-pong of dialogue, but sometimes...
Next, forget the geometry, and consider how you represent what is actually happening.
Part of the solution is apparent when you watch directors like Antonioni, who defies convention by cutting from one shot to another with out varying the angle, eg. a medium-shot straight on to the subject to a medium close-up of the subject.
I tried this in the workshop. Here we are shooting a scene outside the bar. Paul and Claire have been having a great evening. They come out of the bar and into the street. They are giddy, a little drunk, by mostly giddy fro each other's company.
























Does it work? I cannot say I have the objectivity to be certain as yet. I have an insurance shot to place between the two if this fails, but having tried using it I really dislike the whole idea.
And also I wonder if this is skill? How each shot is framed, the intensity of what is happening...perhaps I just need to dig deeper?
So what I was playing with during the workshop is to vary the angle just slightly, so that as we cut from subject a to subject b, and then return to subject a, the angle has varied slightly and/or the camera has moved in closer. This choice is very much down to serving the scene.
The viewer might not be conscious of the change but it changes the emphasis and creates a form of intensity, eg. the viewer is still forced to learn the new shot, they are kept off balance.











Here Paul begins talking to Claire. Then the waitress interrupts him and I cut a side-on shot.












We return...












Now closer, but also with Paul on the left. I did not considering what this means. As I said I tried not to think too much.
It just felt that we needed to feel off balance. And that he trapped himself.
Now what if I were to cut out the intervening shot, and cut from one to the next directly?












Here is the angle I go to, when the waitress enters.












And later, for this finally words, a slight variation. Looking at it might think of varying this a little more in the shooting, but the idea is there.
Meanwhile I am reading an essay on Robert Bresson, The Rhetoric of Robert Bresson, by P. Adams Sitney:

...he has further emphasised the isolated "take" , or camera set-up, as an independent molecule of narrative, rather than as a facet of an illusory crystal.

This approach might be referred to as linearity, as opposed to geometrical, which is the preference of most formalist filmmakers. Not Bresson.

...he has linearized the metonymic principles by discrete movement of the camera which change carefully set-up long shots to significant close-ups, and vice versa, in an effort to attain maximal economy of means.

So on Saturday I am off to visit Roland in his new sound studio. Very exciting.

Workshop update

Okay, workshop number one is complete.
It was over so quickly, partly because I did succeed in not spending so much time worried about psychology.
I spent very little time talking. I shot and shot, set up the camera quickly, just worried about where the camera was placed, in relation to other shots, and for the most part left the actors to do sort it out themselves. We trimmed the dialogue in parts, mostly to make it less explicit and long-winded, and only spent a little time discussing what it meant. In all I shot over 60 minutes of video.
I have this weekend to edit the scenes together, and I may find out that I have made a mess of it, so we shall see.
I am quite certain that the second scene will be more difficult to judge. This is because it is meant to take place in a bar and I will have very little in the video to suggest this. When I show it, my viewers will really have to use their imagination. I will have to layer it out with sound effects and loud music to suggest the location.
Now to that end I am finally meeting up with Roland in his studio the weekend after next. I am quite excited about this, as he has set up proper studio with a 7.1 sound system, and Dolby encoder. I am thinking of all the possibilities of the sound as part of the edit. But for now, we are just there to play and so more on that later.

Workshop preparation

So we are set for the workshop to take this Saturday. Scheduling issues mean we are focusing on the relationship between Claire and Paul.
The work with Claire's friend Sophie will have to wait.
The three scenes we will devise comprise of the latter part of a day out for Claire and Paul.
We have already see them travelling in the car, and then drinking at an outdoor pub.
But what this is really about is about the nature of their relationship, and in this too, where Claire is at this moment, so that we will know where she started from.
At the same it is also to show how the relationship does work when it does. I have already said that Claire cannot leave this relationship because it is bad.
Finally, it is about adding another layer or texture. Noise. Speed. Volume. Crammed. Crowded. Stuffed.

Now I think I keep saying this, but I would like to try a new way of working.
I am very comfortable speaking from the perspective of psychology. Do I believe in it? No, I just feel like I can play it.
I often write instinctively. When challenged as to the meaning of this or that I find myself rewriting to make sense of it psychologically, and so rationalise it. What comes out is rational, but bloodless too? It has lost something.
So now I wondered if what I need to do is develop this in another way, emotionally, instinctively.
I need to move out of my comfort zone.

How could I start?
Writing in the opacity, that is writing what we see, without including what the character is thinking.
In dialogue, pushing away from the psychology of what is said, and working on the surface. Don't look for what is behind it.
Of course get rid of the spoken word, or even just dialogue.
Leaving the psychology to the actors. Never justify, let them do that, if that's what they do.
And perhaps another experiment? What if I could rewrite this scene, without dialogue, include only what we see from the outside, the way that the light reflects off them, the way they are.
And from here to the way that it is shot? That this instinct must be indistinguishable from the form that records it. This is something I have always wanted, but I know I have not achieved.

Not slice of life

So, while I prepare for the next workshop, sometime in early April, I have a lot of time to think.
I have been studying Bresson again, reading a series of essays edited by James Quandt. In an essay by Amedee Ayfre, The Universe of Robert Bresson, he points out something which seems obvious once you think about it, but I missed.
Yes, Bresson, is the master of the everday, mundane detail. He has stripped his people to their essence, in the activities we observe of them.
L'Argent opens with the main character going about this work, disconnecting the hose from the his fuel truck, placing the cash for the job in a wallet, getting into the cab to do onto the next job, and so on. In A Man Escaped he may show a number of scenes of the men going about their everyday activity, for example doing their daily wash in the shower room. We see Mouchette leaving school, going home to her mother, feeding the baby.
Still you would never say that Bresson is showing a slice of life. Mundane these activities may be, but the way that Bresson treats them is something more. Their activities and these objects and transfigured. Ayfre would say that we glimpse the character's soul.
So, now looking back at all the new scenes I have written how would I treat them? Thinking now I would say that if I were to treat them as slice of life they would not sit comfortably with all the rest, and to be honest I don't think I am that person. Just turn on the camera and see what happens? I don't know how to do that.
No, I think what I am looking to do involves another quality, lighter, brigher, fuller, louder, intense even, but it is not loose. How will I do this? I really don't know. Some more thinking.

Revised script

Well just distracted, that's why I have written lately. When I go into writing mode it is hard to take some of that energy and put into the blog. Besides, what would I say?
I feel as if I have enough now that I can prepare for the workshop. I intend to put in one long day at the end of the month and shoot it on video. I will cut this into a new edit and then...more feedback.
What have I written?
I have added another layer to Claire, as we see her at work, in her neighbourhood, interacting, now affecting, not inert, taking an opinion, having a view. I thought of this as the plateau that she can later throw herself from.
I keep struggling to keep all of these new scenes simple. I spent a lot of the time trying to think of major events but always came to realise that I will succeed in small increments. I do not need to create these seismic situations. I have those already. I need the little things. For example, a scene where Claire goes into the local grocery store. She hears a song she knows being played. She goes home excited to discover it once again, but when she puts it on she is disappointed. It is inadequate. That' s all it needs. No great revelation.
I really need more of these small pieces now, not great ones.
I have also developed her relationship with Paul, extending and developing a day out together.
My one question is around Sophie. Do I have enough? It is hard to know now. I am the point I need to see the edit. I have once again lost objectivity and it is timed to take it out to other people.

More on textures

So I continue thinking through my next steps.
I met with another David on Friday. This is not David the photographer, but David the interaction designer and since I hadn't spoken to him for quite some time I needed to update on the progress of the film. He had an interesting way of putting my dilemna: I am by myself in a dark house at the top of the hill with nothing but a candle.
It helped me recognise the fact that I am still making a film. What I mean is that in an industrial situation once you are in post it is almost as if the process of creation had ended. For this project this is not the case. I
Recently I have been quite taken with the work of Philipe Grandrieux, such as Sombre or Un Lac. I am especially interested in the way that he creates an emotional texture with a series of near abstract shots. These shots might be soft-focus, they might be just slightly oblique to the previous shot, and they invariably involve a moving camera. In no way does he compromise by making a scene, with a number of shots of the action, a theatrical situation, and then cutaways and inserts. The layer of abstraction, is one and the same with what is happening to the characters we are following. His process is organic. Or better there is no form and content. They are one and the same.
I am missing an element, in that we are not able to see Claire as human, or human enough, so that she is difficult to follow. Do I need theatre? Scenes? Not at all. So what am I afraid of? In all of what I am trying to do I am not afraid of what the character feels emotionaly, rather I don't believe that we know that by means of theatrical techniques transposed onto film.
I need to find a way, with my own style, which could not be more different than the style in Sombre or La Vie Nouvelle or Un Lac, where I am able to work in this new layer.

***

I am yet to see Nuri Bilge Ceylan's latest film, Three Monkeys now playing at the BFI Southbank. If you have not seen any of his previous films, such as Climates or Uzak I would highly recommend them.

Dramaturgy

Okay, yes, it has been a while since I've posted.
It is not that I have not been working on the film, just that it has been a slow burn.
So, I have written 5 new scenes.
2 of these involve Sophie, Claire's friend. As the edit stands, it is hard to see what Sophie adds to the story. I had to make a choice, either make it into something important, or cut the character from the story. I still felt that it was important, for our view of this world, that we see Claire with a friend. As I have been putting in my head, Claire must jump of a cliff, but as it stands she is already stepped off. We need to see her on the plateau and then make the choice to jump off.
The gist of these 2 scenes? One, to help us put Claire's attitude to the forest in context, and to show how this might relate to her relationship with Claire. It also allows us to tie together some pieces that were never clear, and became muddier as the process of editing continued. Her relationship to her past, in the way that she carries a box of remembrances with her from Paul's flat, to Natalie's flat, to Norway, where she discards them.
There are three new scenes with Paul. Here to we are able to put into context the gap in their relationship and how Claire sees it, plus we see them together happy. We see how they are good together, so that it might mean something when she throws it away. Basic dramaturgy, yes, but I missed it.
And there is more. These scenes also take the film into London, and so the wider world, and provide another texture, that of sound that is loud and aggressive.
So far I have met with the actors and we are in the process of arranging the workshop. More when that is arranged.

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.

First showing

I had the first showing just before Christmas, for my flatmate Sophie and our neighbour, Isabella
The verdict? It was very encouraging. They felt there was a film there.
Clearly the edit is still a mess. There is too much, too many shots. What I wanted to achieve was clear and then there was no development, just repetition.
Why is this encouraging? That I just needed to reveal the film there. It was matter of whittling away what is not and finding what is.
Discouraging? Sometimes they had difficulty understanding some of the simplest things, confusing the sister Natalie with the best friend Sophie, even though they look nothing alike. Here I have probably gone too close to the edge of the minimal with the narrative. This may be my biggest gap, something I may have to solve with some pickups or even some new scenes.
At this point I have not had to make any painful decisions. For the most part it has been about revealing what is there, not about choosing between this option or that option. That will happen soon I am sure.
Still, one question that both JC, Sophie and Isabella brought up: that we really don't know any of the other characters, that is the boyfriends Paul, Nick, the sister Natalie, or the friend Sophie. Now what do they mean? The other night I watched Bresson's Mouchette and there was a comment that we watched for 90 minutes and still didn't know anything about Mouchette. Now what they mean is in the conventional sense of character, actually meaning characteristics, that she likes oranges but not apples, wants to be a nurse when she grows up, etc. The character of Mouchette is revealed in action, and there was plenty of her action. Now I never wanted to show characteristics, I wanted to show action. So what does mean for my film? Is there enough of these people in action to reveal them? If not...?
I have since been busy, made some minor adjustments to the cuts in the first part, conflated some events in the second part, and done two or three reedits of the third segment. The edit I showed last week was 110 minutes. The latest edit is 96 minutes. I feel this is a lot stronger and clearer with a lot less. Now I have to find some new victims.

First cut

On Saturday evening I showed the the first edit to JC. I of course had been avoiding doing this, as I was afraid to look. I knew it would be a telling moment.
Of course I had seen the film in bits and pieces since I began editing back in October. But it is one thing to see bits and pieces on a computer screen, another to see the whole on a large screen.
It was the only way to know if we really have something.
So was it good? I have to say that I am now so close to it I am in no position to say. I think at best I could say it wasn't bad. There was nothing in it that I thought, 'that's no good'.
What was clear was that it is a film. It is one complete piece, this I was happy about.
On the practical level, the cutting worked. The way in which I conceived the edit was successful. I also had done enough work with the sound so that it didn't interfere with the edit. Rough sound can make it difficult to determine if this or that cut worked. The sound design was also fundamental to my concept of the film, so the no edit could ever be complete without at least some crude sound design.
Aesthetically, JC and I were happy that the original concept of the shooting style was very successful. That is, going from the longer to shorter lenses in Norway was very effective. We begin with the 25mm. The world is in fragments, closed and circumscribed. It is almost as if Claire had to fight to put herself together. By the time we come to the final segment, in Norway, we were using the 12mm. It is not that she has been successful in assembling herself, rather that she had given in to nature and dissolution. Here she is within the place, or absent. It doesn't matter one way or another. The view of the world is wide, almost as if the world could drift away.
The few scenes of drama? Dialogue? These worked very well.
And the many scenes of non-drama, where we watch Claire looking, searching? They were interesting, compelling to watch. I have to say that I was very happy with all the actors and their performances.
Less successful, because it still incomplete, was the layer of the story presented visually and with sound. This is the other Claire story. It still needs work and has been my fixation for the past few weeks. It is moving along slowly. Yesterday I was already making tweaks. It is like sculpting. Each day I am paring off one part, and adding another part. I need to shoot more test material and will probably do this over Christmas.
Now JC had some questions and observations. We don't know Claire in the conventional sense. There is little dialogue or drama. JC wondered if there was enough interaction between the characters to get to know them. I would say no, we don't know them this way, but of course I never intended this. I rejected drama, I was always interested in the way that cinema is able to achieve an emotional effect without resorting to tricks from the theatre. But have I accomplished this? If not, this would be my biggest problem.

True black versus Rothko

What a series of tangents this whole project takes me on.
So I have gone back and smoothed out the assembly edit and then reviewed it.
I have already described how I had written into my outline blackouts, breaks in the visual narrative at key moments. In the edit I created these blackouts and then...they didn't work. They broke the narrative, the flow. Did I lose my nerve? I began to think how they might develop the narrative.
First I added sound. I had been working with Roland to create another layer of meaning with the sound and the blackouts seemed to be a logical place to develop the sound design. But I found that sound alone was not adequate.
Then I began to look for means that the blackouts might be see as logical extensions of present images. For example scene 28. Claire is asleep, and is awoken by...? The scene began with a shot her asleep, awakes suddenly and turns on the light. I became interested in the abstraction of the image in the dark.
Then were a few influences.
In October I saw Un Lac, by Phillipe Grandrieux at the London Film Festival. A lot of this film impressed, but specifically the liminal images, inside a cabin in near darkness, the figures and objects just at the edge of perception. I made a literal connection between Claire's darkened bedroom and the idea of a semi-conscious searching or reception of the transcendental.
In November I watched Antonioni's Red Desert. In this Antonioni uses soft-focus to create colour abstractions. Grandrieux also made use of soft-focus extensively.
At the Tate Modern there was the Rothko exhibition. I was especially taken with the the Black-Form paintings, where Rothko layered a series of blacks and different coatings. What happens as you look into these? You might say that you are drawn into them, that they are a void, but they also push outward, they extend beyond the frame. They seem to pulse, move about.
I began to imagine that in these sequences I would develop a series of images from facts, objects in the location, for example Claire's bedroom, which become liminal by way of the lack of light and the soft-focus. I experimented by drawing and painting images in Photoshop, based on top of images from the shoot. So in a long-take of these images there should be sense of searching, grasping for what...always remains out of reach, at the threshold.
Soon it became clear that these sequences had nothing to do with the blackouts.
Now I don't know if I just lose my nerve? Or did I need to find out how the blackouts might work by first discovering how they would not?
However it came to me, I realised that the blackouts did not require sound or any logic, the blacks are true, negation, the absence of sound and image, no extensions to existing image, rather negation of the images. It should be expected that they break the flow. That is what they do. If they failed perhaps they were in the wrong place, or more likely that the place was wrong, that is the edit, the material around it was not strong enough.
I realised that what I had were two different ideas. The true blacks on the one hand and what I called the Rothko sequences on the other.
I don't certainly don't consider the work I did on the Rothko sequences a waste. On the contrary, as I come close to the first version of the edit I have begun to extend the development of these images.
Presently I have developed a language based on three or four colours.
White is an invasion, the exterior coming in, drawing Claire out.
White is images of light entering the flat, or clouds with the sun behind them, over-exposed.
Blue and brown are the interiors, the bedroom at night, they are present but not dynamic like the white images.
Green is the exterior, the location of fear, the world of nature. This past week, as I revised the final segment I began to see how the green images would form a part there.
If the first two segments are about Claire searching trying to construct an identity then the final segment is a realisation that identity in the face of nature is an indulgence. The extinction of identity. Here then I will explore the concept of Claire in the landscape, dissolving, smeared into the pine groves.

Editing continues

So last Tuesday I finished the assembly edit of the film. What I mean is I assembled footage according to my shooting script, or outline really, since I don't use a script. There was no regard for pacing or feel in the assembly edit.
At the finish of the assembly the film looked like this:
Segment 1 = 31 minutes
Segment 2 = 43 minutes
Segment 3 = 36 minutes
Total length = 110 minutes.
(Actually the film is now longer as I have adding more material in the blackouts. See below).
Now I have never thought that shortening a film is any virtue in and of itself. Milos Foreman told a great story about editing one of his films for a studio. He showed them a version at 115 minutes. Too long, make it shorter. He went away and cut 10 minutes out of it. Still too long. He got it down to 95 minutes. Still too long, shorter. Well he didn't know what to do. He couldn't see how he could make any shorter. He went back to the editing suite and thought and thought. He added three minutes to the film and presented it to the studio. Yes, that's better. You see, shorter is better?
So, I am not going about this edit thinking that the film must shorter, I am going about thinking it must simpler and clearer and that may mean making it shorter. At 110 minutes the film is too long.
This past Saturday I started going through the assembly and tried to cut with some sense of pace, and necessity. I have been most happy cutting dialogue from certain scenes, which seems less and less useful when you see all the bits put together. It is almost as if a I have this toy constructed in my hands. It is held together with all sort of bits and pieces and it works, but it would work better without some of those bits. How many bits and pieces can I get rid of? That is what this whole process is about.
Right now the cutting is relatively pain free. Cutting away extra bits has meant that scenes are smoother and make more sense. Other scenes just work better at a certain length. Some scenes were intended to feel a certain pace and cutting brings this out. Some of the dialogue scenes were deliberately extended so that I could decide in the edit parts I wanted to use.
But before long I know this easy bit will be over and some hard decisions will need to made. Is this scene necessary? Is it necessary to explain this or that? Is that character necessary?
Between last Tuesday and last Saturday I have been preoccupied with another problem, the blackouts. I think I have already posted on the subject (http://tidalbarrier.blogspot.com/2007/10/blackouts-and-7th-draft.html) previously. I had decided that I needed to find a relationship between the blackouts and images within the narrative. I would like to post separately on this subject, as I have a lot to talk about. For now suffice to say that I have been very much inspired by Phillipe Grandrieux and his new film, Un Lac, which was part of the London Film Festival (http://www.bfi.org.uk/lff/lake). If you have not seen it please call the ICA and nag them to distribute the film.
My other influence has been Rothko, and the exhibit at the Tate Modern. More on all of this soon.