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:

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.

Project update - June

I know that it may look like I have been so preoccupied with the Reconciliation project that I haven't had time to focus on what started it all, the feature film.
I have to say though, shooting this film has helped clarify how I might go about shooting the feature, strategically and creatively.
Strategically, I mean how do you shoot a feature film with a limited budget and few resources? And creatively, I go back to some of the original questions I had, about the shooting style.
The stringent form that I borrowed from Haneke has helped me find a way to an answer. And I have been more attracted to Tarkovsky's solution: this shot leads inevitably to the next, even suggests it. Focus on this shot and the next will reveal itself. There is no concern with convention - I cannot tell you how liberating it is to be free of the establishing shot/medium shot/close-up rules. If the scene is not changed by your choice of shot then you are not being honest.
And tied up into this is more thoughts on Haneke, Tarkovsky and especially Bresson, and the idea of removing psychology. I feel this is the greatest weakness of my story so far.
As for strategy, doing this project has only made me more confident that shooting parts, as if a series of short films is the best strategy. I think though that I will look at them as more self-contained parts than I had prior to the project. More on this and future plans...

Short film Reconciliation and the transcendent (or not)

I have been getting through Schrader's book, Transcendental Style in Film, and revising my short scripts at the same time.
I have been comparing Schrader's descriptions of Ozu and Bresson, and looking back on Kieslowski and Haneke, and thinking of what I am trying to achieve with Reconciliation.
(There is one important point that Schrader makes regarding Ozu, that did not make an impression on me at the time. He speaks of the 2nd, point, Disparity as "an actual or potential disunity between man and his environment which culminates in a decisive action." But in Ozu's Zen world man is part of the nature. The Japansese have no western duality concept, man versus nature, so that to be alienated from nature is also to be alientated from other people. You can see this in Ozu' s, focus on inter-generational conflict, parent-child.)
The Everyday
Bresson captures surface of reality, in minute detail, treating all equally, without connotation or significance. For this to work he strips away the conventions of cinema, which I will discuss in detail later. This is necessary to allow room for the surface-reality to be seen clearly by us the viewer. Schrader's makes the important point that this is not the idea of cinema-verite, the cinematic truth, but the surface reality.
The surface-reality is achieved, Schrader says, quoting Ayfre, through "a very precise choice of details, objects and acccessories; through gestures charged with an extremely solid reality." (Amedee Ayfre, "The Universe of Robert Bresson"). This reminded me of the interview with Irene Jacob regarding work with Kieslowski on The Double Life of Veronique, and the scenes of Veronique alone, reading, absently looking out of the window of her flat....Jacob tells us these are not the events you recall at the end of the day, but these are where life is lived, and can bring a sense of completeness. I wonder what Ozu would have made of those scenes in The Double of Life of Veronique.
I have already been interested in this idea of the surface reality. Everyday events are central to the story of Reconciliation. Actually, but for one scene, where the male character packs his suitcase, and then angrily empties the contents onto the floor, the everyday is all that happens in Reconciliation. The female character is seen reading the paper, vacuuming, washing the dishes, and he takes out the rubbish, and talks to a friend on the phone.
At the same time I have also contained the couples enstrangement in these everyday events, and their reconciliation. The story opens with the couple waking on this central day, and gulf between them. I don't think I could say these scenes are surface-reality.
Plot
Both Bresson and Ozu viewed plot with disdain, and as their careers progressed, reduced the amount of plot in their stories.
Bresson believed that the plot was only a necessary in how could be used to hang the his style, the transcendental. He set out to ensure that the plot could not be used to manipulate the audience's emotions, by making the outcome obvious from the beginning. In The Trial of Joan of Arc her guards say 'she will die' and 'she will burn'. Even the title of A Man Escaped removes all doubt as to the outcome. The audience members will not sit in the dark wondering if the man will escape?
Perhaps that is why I was attracted to this title, Reconciliation? I begin the story sharply, with the gulf between them, but the audience will know they are to be reconciled. I think there is more: in the short film form I am able to focus on something other than plot, which is a hindrance to a story that must be told in 5 or 10 minutes.
More on Plot, Acting, and Camerawork, later.