The other night I decided to watch Haneke's The 7th Continent again. Based on a true story, a typical middle-class Austrian family find life does not offer anything more than a series of an emotionally-empty, mundane events. They decide to destroy their lives and commit suicide (yep, not the most upbeat of stories). The 7th Continent refers to Australia, but in an abstract sense, a image of another world, perhaps where what is missing in their lives will be fulfilled? It is probably not that simple.
(In the film, when their bank asks them what they need all their money for they tell them they are emigrating to Australia.)
This image Haneke represents with an impossibly beautiful visual of a beach with waves crashing against the shore. The picture is so artificial it is almost becomes disturbing in its own right, and I would guess that if this image is what the family believes is missing in their lives then Haneke is saying this too is false.
Well, I had forgotten all about this picture when I was discussing my questions of the 'blackouts + sound' these past few weeks. Of course this picture acts in the way that I intend my blackouts to work, as an abstraction of a state, expressed at key points in the film. I can't remember if I had already said that JC, my DOP, thought these blackouts would act as an alienation effect, that the audience would suddenly be made aware of their presence in the cinema. This is not to say this is good or bad, just what would happen. But now, after seeing The 7th Continent again I have to think that this is not the case. Or perhaps in a conventional film this would be the case. In film structures like Haneke's, or what I am attempting to pull off in Tidal Barrier, these abstract images act in another way.
Showing posts with label Haneke. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Haneke. Show all posts
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Sunday, June 24, 2007
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...
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...
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
The shooting style - 2
I had written that scenes were conceived with a certain pace in mind. But in shooting during the workshop I found something else I could use: in the scenes the couple shared I created a pace for each of them that was often at odds with each other. For example, in the lunch scene it opens with her fussing about over the food, and he frozen there. When she sees his look, not understanding what it is about, she becomes despondent, and slows. He picks up his pace, begins eating, as if he could banish his thoughts by moving quickly enough.
What else can I say about the shooting style?
For every part of the story there is one shot. There is no establishing shot. Only one point of view in the edit you are not able to choose from this or that. You better get it right. This is where a producer would be pulling his hair out, if I had one. For of course there is no coverage.
One scene does not lead obviously to the next. This is not conventional drama. It is an open text. Why something happens is open to interpretation.
In effect the shots accumulate, add one on top of another. Since there is no establishing shot there is way to go back, so to speak. Only forward. This creates a momentum which would normally have been created by the plot, eg. he shoots his wife, now he is running from the police.
All in all I would say I am very glad I have chosen Haneke's contrivance for this experiment. It has helped clarify my thinking of the shooting style. That is how this whole blog started after all.
What else can I say about the shooting style?
For every part of the story there is one shot. There is no establishing shot. Only one point of view in the edit you are not able to choose from this or that. You better get it right. This is where a producer would be pulling his hair out, if I had one. For of course there is no coverage.
One scene does not lead obviously to the next. This is not conventional drama. It is an open text. Why something happens is open to interpretation.
In effect the shots accumulate, add one on top of another. Since there is no establishing shot there is way to go back, so to speak. Only forward. This creates a momentum which would normally have been created by the plot, eg. he shoots his wife, now he is running from the police.
All in all I would say I am very glad I have chosen Haneke's contrivance for this experiment. It has helped clarify my thinking of the shooting style. That is how this whole blog started after all.
The shooting style - 1
I have written some about the shooting style of Reconciliation already, but from the workshop I have had more time to think about it, and refine my understanding of it.
For the workshop I needed to not only have the actors push against what I had written, but test the shooting style (which is essentially Haneke's). In preparation I planned every shot. The day before I went through each scene, planning it out, checking it with the DV camera, and the director's viewfinder. There were practical considerations. I needed to know how much I could get into a shot. Could I shoot that scene in one shot? Would both characters fit into one shot?
I went back and examined Haneke's 71 Fragments. Perhaps this should have been obvious from my early viewings but I did not notice the significance of several things:
There is no establishing shot. Since the story is about fragments this is only right. He might provide numerous shots of a location, the scene in the armoury where the gun is stolen is an example. He shows the thief, inserts of him breaking the locks on the pistols, light coming from a ventilation shaft, from which the thief hears the sounds of someone walking by, the ammunition cabinet, and so on. But he never knits these shots together. He never shows you where this is or that is in a room. All you can know you must take from the eyeline of the actors.
A scene is generally told from one point of view. That is from one character's point of view. Sometimes he swaps points of view, but it is swap. And it never goes back.
This forced me to reconstruct certain scenes in the story. This was awkward, but I find these contrivances force you to be more creative.
Rhythm is created by jumping from one set of characters to another. I have already written about this, and come up with a practical solution: I had written certain fragments with a certain speed in mind. I even thought of writing pace into the script, like a score.
More on this...
For the workshop I needed to not only have the actors push against what I had written, but test the shooting style (which is essentially Haneke's). In preparation I planned every shot. The day before I went through each scene, planning it out, checking it with the DV camera, and the director's viewfinder. There were practical considerations. I needed to know how much I could get into a shot. Could I shoot that scene in one shot? Would both characters fit into one shot?
I went back and examined Haneke's 71 Fragments. Perhaps this should have been obvious from my early viewings but I did not notice the significance of several things:
There is no establishing shot. Since the story is about fragments this is only right. He might provide numerous shots of a location, the scene in the armoury where the gun is stolen is an example. He shows the thief, inserts of him breaking the locks on the pistols, light coming from a ventilation shaft, from which the thief hears the sounds of someone walking by, the ammunition cabinet, and so on. But he never knits these shots together. He never shows you where this is or that is in a room. All you can know you must take from the eyeline of the actors.
A scene is generally told from one point of view. That is from one character's point of view. Sometimes he swaps points of view, but it is swap. And it never goes back.
This forced me to reconstruct certain scenes in the story. This was awkward, but I find these contrivances force you to be more creative.
Rhythm is created by jumping from one set of characters to another. I have already written about this, and come up with a practical solution: I had written certain fragments with a certain speed in mind. I even thought of writing pace into the script, like a score.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Reconciliation and Haneke's form
I have been busy revising of the short scripts, Reconciliation. This is the short in which I am borrowing Haneke's form, from 71 Fragments, of one or more shots or fragments(some short, some long), which are then closed by a cut to black.
I am just realising the limitations of the form for a short. In 71 Fragments, Haneke as a number of character sets that he alternates with. This means that he can easily create texture and rhythm by moving from one set of fragments to another. In each fragment he has another set of characters, a different location, and potentially a different pace.
Because I want to keep the focus sharp I am sticking to one location, which means I feel there is no place to go. I just had a scene in the kitchen - what now? I have already been in the living room, kitchen, bedroom, bathroom, even the the closet!
In a feature this is not a problem.
I know, I know, I suppose I was really asking for it, taking this on.
I have now revised the script three times. Where is it going, despite my problems with pace and texture?
One addition I made, in part to defuse the drama, but also to make the story more focused, was to make it clear near the beginning that this is the day he is planning to move out. It was important that the audience is not left wondering what the events of the day are about, or how they will resolve themselves dramatically (it is clear in the title afterall).
I have already posted previously about how I have explored surface-reality in the story - packing, emptying a closet, vacuuming, doing the dishes. But my worry was that I also presented the couples estrangement in these everyday scenes - waking together (or rather not) in the morning. That these parts are not surface-reality, and may become drama.
I am now less worried about this. I might rationalise these elements as what Schrader calls disparity, the second element in the transcendental style (which leads to decisive action). I am happy with the story and I suppose the irony of the title, and how the reconciliation happens, in the mundane - he takes out the trash. I was most interested in how our lives are truly lived in these kinds of events.
Finally there is Schrader's final element, the transcendent:
I am just realising the limitations of the form for a short. In 71 Fragments, Haneke as a number of character sets that he alternates with. This means that he can easily create texture and rhythm by moving from one set of fragments to another. In each fragment he has another set of characters, a different location, and potentially a different pace.
Because I want to keep the focus sharp I am sticking to one location, which means I feel there is no place to go. I just had a scene in the kitchen - what now? I have already been in the living room, kitchen, bedroom, bathroom, even the the closet!
In a feature this is not a problem.
I know, I know, I suppose I was really asking for it, taking this on.
I have now revised the script three times. Where is it going, despite my problems with pace and texture?
One addition I made, in part to defuse the drama, but also to make the story more focused, was to make it clear near the beginning that this is the day he is planning to move out. It was important that the audience is not left wondering what the events of the day are about, or how they will resolve themselves dramatically (it is clear in the title afterall).
I have already posted previously about how I have explored surface-reality in the story - packing, emptying a closet, vacuuming, doing the dishes. But my worry was that I also presented the couples estrangement in these everyday scenes - waking together (or rather not) in the morning. That these parts are not surface-reality, and may become drama.
I am now less worried about this. I might rationalise these elements as what Schrader calls disparity, the second element in the transcendental style (which leads to decisive action). I am happy with the story and I suppose the irony of the title, and how the reconciliation happens, in the mundane - he takes out the trash. I was most interested in how our lives are truly lived in these kinds of events.
Finally there is Schrader's final element, the transcendent:
3. Stasis: a frozen view of life which does not resolve the disparity but transcends it.From the reconciliation - he, taking out the trash - to the macro view of the world, London at dusk, with lights coming on in flats just like this one.
The final codas of Ozu's films are reaffirmations of nature; they are the final silence and emptiness.This is the first time we have left the flat, and looked at the world beyond the couple and their flat.
Saturday, March 03, 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
A short film
I promised I would describe the new scripts in more detail, and try to explain how they related to the feature.
One script, with the working title of Reconciliation, will borrow the form, without shame, from Haneke's 71 Fragments. Principally these are the short fragments, of one to many, which are followed by a short cut to black, and which constitute a scene, in loose terms. Reconciliation, at present is made of 8 scenes. At present I am uncertain the number of shots per scene, but my aim is to keep these to a minimum, if not 1. I am also thinking of Haneke's Code Unknown, which followed the 1 shot = 1 scene convention, but he allowed for some complex camera movements, such as the elaborate opening sequence in the Paris street, which are out of the question for a budget such as mine.
Besides these conventions, the rule is that there is no cutting on action, in the conventional sense, a minimal of dialogue (two sentences, 1 each), which consequentially means I rely on visual storytelling, and compression and minimalism, so that little will mean more.
I am interested (have always been interested) in structures that allow for cumulative and amplifying affects, to create an impression, as opposed to linear narratives. I was taken, many years ago, on seeing Buchner's Woyceck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woyzeck).
What is this story about? As the title indicates, it is about reconciliation, in this case between an estranged couple, on the verge of separating. It is set over 1 day, starting the morning and ending in early evening, in which they never speak, and find that reconciliation comes in the mundane, everyday events, not in grand gesture. In fact I think I am using an anti-grand gesture. And finally, that this anti-grand gesture leads a sense of the transcendent, for him at least. Their reconciliation is not romantic, but is found in an accommodation with the natural world.
I hope this doesn't sound terrible pretentious. I will have to be careful I am honest.
One script, with the working title of Reconciliation, will borrow the form, without shame, from Haneke's 71 Fragments. Principally these are the short fragments, of one to many, which are followed by a short cut to black, and which constitute a scene, in loose terms. Reconciliation, at present is made of 8 scenes. At present I am uncertain the number of shots per scene, but my aim is to keep these to a minimum, if not 1. I am also thinking of Haneke's Code Unknown, which followed the 1 shot = 1 scene convention, but he allowed for some complex camera movements, such as the elaborate opening sequence in the Paris street, which are out of the question for a budget such as mine.
Besides these conventions, the rule is that there is no cutting on action, in the conventional sense, a minimal of dialogue (two sentences, 1 each), which consequentially means I rely on visual storytelling, and compression and minimalism, so that little will mean more.
I am interested (have always been interested) in structures that allow for cumulative and amplifying affects, to create an impression, as opposed to linear narratives. I was taken, many years ago, on seeing Buchner's Woyceck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woyzeck).
What is this story about? As the title indicates, it is about reconciliation, in this case between an estranged couple, on the verge of separating. It is set over 1 day, starting the morning and ending in early evening, in which they never speak, and find that reconciliation comes in the mundane, everyday events, not in grand gesture. In fact I think I am using an anti-grand gesture. And finally, that this anti-grand gesture leads a sense of the transcendent, for him at least. Their reconciliation is not romantic, but is found in an accommodation with the natural world.
I hope this doesn't sound terrible pretentious. I will have to be careful I am honest.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
More on Haneke
I watched Haneke's 71 Fragments of a Chronology of Chance again this past Saturday.
I have already mentioned that I was interested in using this form as a contrivance to work with some short film ideas.
What is the form?
There are 71 fragments, or shots (actually I don't know that there is, I didn't count them), and in combination make up scenes. I use the term scenes loosely. They are marked by the use of a black fragment at the end of the scene.
The number of shots per scene varies from one short shot, to one very-long shot (in time, not in terms of the lens), which is 9 minutes long, to scenes which are made of up 13 individual shots.
The scenes revolve around groups of characters who all will cross paths by chance at the end of the film, in the bloody ending. The story moves from one set of characters to another.
More about these scenes:
It attracted me for a lot of reasons, but fundamentally, by reducing the elements to a minimum it allows the filmmaker to compress and so say a lot more in a short film than can be said in a film with a conventional structure.
I have already mentioned that I was interested in using this form as a contrivance to work with some short film ideas.
What is the form?
There are 71 fragments, or shots (actually I don't know that there is, I didn't count them), and in combination make up scenes. I use the term scenes loosely. They are marked by the use of a black fragment at the end of the scene.
The number of shots per scene varies from one short shot, to one very-long shot (in time, not in terms of the lens), which is 9 minutes long, to scenes which are made of up 13 individual shots.
The scenes revolve around groups of characters who all will cross paths by chance at the end of the film, in the bloody ending. The story moves from one set of characters to another.
More about these scenes:
- though there were scenes of up to thirteen shots, most of the scenes involved three shots
- there were sequences with one shot with camera movement, such as a pan or tilt up
- some shots involved a focus-pull
- variety of CU, MS and inserts
- but he never cuts on action (that is he would not cut from a MS of man sitting in chair to a CU of man sitting in chair on the action of sitting. He preserves the fragments). Each individual shot stands by itself
It attracted me for a lot of reasons, but fundamentally, by reducing the elements to a minimum it allows the filmmaker to compress and so say a lot more in a short film than can be said in a film with a conventional structure.
An update and new projects
Just a short note to say that since finishing the first draft of the script I have been busy working on a few short film ideas. Basically, I want to experiment with some of the ideas I have been discussing here before I commit to a feature.
I have to say that I basically don't like short films. Fundamentally, I believe they are another form from features. There are a few things you can learn from them, but much more that you don't, such as building a character and sustaining a story over 90 minutes plus.
But the main problem I have with short films is my own lack of short-film ideas. I really don't think in those terms.
It was seeing Haneke's film 71 Fragments of a Chronology of Chance that changed my outlook. I decided that I could use this form to generate ideas. It is really a contrivance.
I have three short scripts, one of which I feel is ready to shoot. I conceived of it over Christmas, which I spend in Berlin. I went with a friend. We would wander about for most of the morning and afternoon, and then being tired and cold we would retire to our rooms to recover before the evenings. I took advantage of the large bathtub to work. I find, like many before me, that the combination of heat, and water to be conducive to working.
The second script is probably the weakest, though I did make some progress with it over this weekend.
The third needs fleshing out.
The plan is to shoot all three before the summer is done, while developing the feature project further. More on these scripts later.
I have to say that I basically don't like short films. Fundamentally, I believe they are another form from features. There are a few things you can learn from them, but much more that you don't, such as building a character and sustaining a story over 90 minutes plus.
But the main problem I have with short films is my own lack of short-film ideas. I really don't think in those terms.
It was seeing Haneke's film 71 Fragments of a Chronology of Chance that changed my outlook. I decided that I could use this form to generate ideas. It is really a contrivance.
I have three short scripts, one of which I feel is ready to shoot. I conceived of it over Christmas, which I spend in Berlin. I went with a friend. We would wander about for most of the morning and afternoon, and then being tired and cold we would retire to our rooms to recover before the evenings. I took advantage of the large bathtub to work. I find, like many before me, that the combination of heat, and water to be conducive to working.
The second script is probably the weakest, though I did make some progress with it over this weekend.
The third needs fleshing out.
The plan is to shoot all three before the summer is done, while developing the feature project further. More on these scripts later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
