As I work my way through the edit of Reconcilation, coming to see the strengths and weaknesses, and worst of all the missed opportunities, I have begun to think of how I might approach Tidal Barrier/Claire.
I think I have already said so long ago that I have subscribed to Tarkovsky's ideal, to build each shot on the shoulders of the last. This implies that each scene or moment or has its ideal shot/ position/angle and the film making process is the struggle to discover it.
This also implies an abandonment of continuity editing, conventional establishing shot to close-up, to reverse close-up, to two-shot, back to the establishing shot. Instead of moving forward continuity editing moves in a circle. Instead of the pure film making pursuit of finding the shot, and then the next, it serves the demands of staging of a scene, which is something Tarkovsky believes was stolen from the theatre, and has no place in film.
Could I have achieved this in Reconciliation? I have already said that I have failed at points in that film (described below), where I have found myself, I feel, going in a circle instead of going forward. But then in the feedback the other night, JC (my cinematographer) suggested an idea that would solve the problem, or could have if we had the footage. I have spent this Sunday deciding if I shoot a pickup.
So, yes, is the short answer.
The best part of rejecting staging and continuity editing? I can already see a place for it in Tidal Barrier/Claire, at the point when her life goes into reverse. Can you imagine the power of the wide shot, then close-up if you have not seen a close-up for 25 minutes?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment