I need to have a completed short film by July 21st. That gives me a little more than three weeks. Going start-to-finish in three weeks is reminiscent of my days in the experimental video series, when I was making a short film a month for about a year's worth of time. It was an intense experience and was ultimately what laid the foundation for my further study of the craft.
In the three years since I started the series, I've studied playwriting, short story writing, story structure, story design for animation, storyboarding, 3D animation, cinematography and editing for 3D animation, screenwriting, acting, and directing the actor. And that is a lot to pack into three years, I am proud to say.
Since I completed the video series two years ago, however, I have only made six short films: a vignette, Truth in Fiction, Mousetrap, Man & Tree, Kings, Punchline. That is an average of one short film every four months. Now to be fair, the latter three are films of exceedingly heightened ambition. Man & Tree was shot on 16mm and took a year of post to lock the sound design. Kings is a 3D animated film and is still actually in production after two years of development. And Punchline was my first foray into HD video and multiple actor scenes. It also is still in post-production -- though so very close to being finished.
Since then I have also written some half-dozen short stories, the first act of a three-act play, and the first draft of a feature length screenplay. At 200 pages however, it's misleading to call the script simply "feature-length".
So now where am I?
Now, I have to scale back the size of the canvas to which I've become accustomed. And after having been locked in front of a computer either writing, animating, or in post-, I now have to readjust the scale of my turn-around periods.
My brain doesn't quite grasp the start-to-finish in three weeks concept, and as such, whatever ideas I come up with continually seem to be beyond my capacity to fully deliver them.
Of course, if I could only land on an idea that I find inspiring, I could probably pound it into submission in one form or another. But that isn't happening. Nothing is happening. I sit here and think until I get distracted. Then I do whatever it is I do to procrastinate -- browse websites, walk around, pet my cats, watch a movie. Then I return to my laptop and fuck around some more. Writing in here is just another way to make myself feel good about generating content, even if it's not the kind of content I should be generating.
Part of my problem is that I'm not focusing on the process. I'm focusing on what the piece will be in the end, instead of enjoying the moment of creation. This should be a joyous time, I love writing. But it isn't. It's painful and frightening. It has consumed almost my entire weekend so far, preventing me from getting much in the way of pleasure out of anything. Especially today, Saturday. I haven't done anything today but sit at this computer, nap, finish Point Break -- which I watched with a feeling of guilt -- and then return to stare at a half-finished blog.
I understand that anyone who creates anything worthwhile experiences this same paralyzing fear. Frank Capra had a nervous breakdown. I imagine it's what has kept James Cameron from the feature film department for these last twelve years -- though to be fair, he started production on Avatar in 2006, which meant he probably wrote it sometime between '03-'05, which leaves at least six years, at most nine. And he did still produce three feature-length documentaries, two of which in stereo, as well as produce the "Dark Angel" TV show. Not bad for someone in a post-success paralysis.
And I don't even have the "success" to be paralyzed by, hence the quote "You're not important enough to have writer's block." So what is it then? Am I just burning out? In need of a rest? Did my 200-page orgy of content wipe out my creative bank account, if only for the moment? Or am I intellectualizing the process too much? Spending too much time thinking about what I want the project to be from an intellectual perspective, and not enough time actually doing work?
Maybe it is as simple as just starting to write. Something. Anything. Putting words on paper and stringing them into a coherent pattern of thought.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Picking up the Piece(s)
Where to from here?--The eternal question--What next?
I have a few ideas.
A few ideas:
1. Have an FM motive serving as the spine that changes, but almost imperceptibly, to serve as the armature and generate tension. Contrapuntal to this would be a granular harmony that is never static or repetitive and is ONLY composed of changing elements.
2. Have a granular motive that appears to change very, very little. Would serve the same purpose as the FM motive in the previous idea: to generate tension and carry the piece. Have an FM motive that would be nothing but change. The FM motive would be the primary melody.
Problems with these two ideas: there is not enough overall change, simply an extended contrast of two distinct layers. How can we move toward a compelling climax? How can we continue to change?
......
I really need to do more research into FM and granular synthesis, create a few mini-experiments, and find my central idea, before I can nail down anymore what exactly I want to do.
......
So many of my DXARTS projects are self-reflexive. Only a while after have I been able to apply what I've learned and generate something that exists without being self-consciously aware of what it is, without being a direct response to what it is. But isn't all great art by nature, aware of what it is? Isn't it through this awareness that it is able to transcend past nearsightedness? By being aware of itself, by knowing fully what it is, can it know what it is capable of. And by knowing what it is capable of, it can become, realize that capability.
But all of this flows out of knowing. Knowing flows out of doing. Doing flows out of knowing.
Ouroboros.
That's my generative idea. Badda-bing.
Listening to: Mozart's String Quartet No. 1
I have a few ideas.
A few ideas:
1. Have an FM motive serving as the spine that changes, but almost imperceptibly, to serve as the armature and generate tension. Contrapuntal to this would be a granular harmony that is never static or repetitive and is ONLY composed of changing elements.
2. Have a granular motive that appears to change very, very little. Would serve the same purpose as the FM motive in the previous idea: to generate tension and carry the piece. Have an FM motive that would be nothing but change. The FM motive would be the primary melody.
Problems with these two ideas: there is not enough overall change, simply an extended contrast of two distinct layers. How can we move toward a compelling climax? How can we continue to change?
......
I really need to do more research into FM and granular synthesis, create a few mini-experiments, and find my central idea, before I can nail down anymore what exactly I want to do.
......
So many of my DXARTS projects are self-reflexive. Only a while after have I been able to apply what I've learned and generate something that exists without being self-consciously aware of what it is, without being a direct response to what it is. But isn't all great art by nature, aware of what it is? Isn't it through this awareness that it is able to transcend past nearsightedness? By being aware of itself, by knowing fully what it is, can it know what it is capable of. And by knowing what it is capable of, it can become, realize that capability.
But all of this flows out of knowing. Knowing flows out of doing. Doing flows out of knowing.
Ouroboros.
That's my generative idea. Badda-bing.
Listening to: Mozart's String Quartet No. 1
Lessons of Suckness*
I'm going to transcribe the notes from my midterm critique, and then I'll add some additional thoughts to that before segueing into a rumination on starting my sound synthesis final.
-----------------------------
NOVEMBER 12, 2008:
..."Our brain focuses on the thing that changes"...pitch/amplitude/rhythmic variations keep the thing active in our ears
..."Below 60hz...be sure you want the sound"...
See Grisset re different orderings of the same pitch
Developing a little bit to the point that you feel like it should be developing, but static to the point that you don't feel the development. Doesn't develop enough nor is it static enough.
Don't be afraid to start layering earlier.
I think I approached this project with a lot of big ideas that were dealt with very simply. What I should have done is choose a small idea, and develop it with complexity.
It was also missing something underneath--like an armature. Some spine that the piece could rest on, be supported by.
Also, I introduced too many 'characters' who change very little. The first phrase and the subsequent phrases are not one character going through changes, but separate characters going through little change. They are all introduced over a period of time that is too long. And they change very little.
In other words, I didn't scale my 'cast' to the parameters of the piece. Too many characters, not enough change, nor were they used effectively.
What did I learn? I learned that structure is useless if it's hollow. Structure cannot be compelling in and of itself, it can only carry something that is.
STATIC ACROSS THE BOARD.
But all that is a-okay! Because guys, I learned something today. I learned that while structure may carry story, and story may carry character, and armature may carry structure, YOUR CHARACTERS CARRY AUDIENCE.
----------------------
'Character carries audience' is probably my most profound realization, the most applicable epiphany I could have gotten out of that project/critique. It's an incredibly simple idea, but deceptively so. And one that I've 'known' for as long as I've tried to be a writer/filmmaker--but until you make the mistake of not using this concept, it's really difficult to see precisely how profound it can revitalize your work--and how pervasive a failure your project can become if neglected. In my case, it's really taken 20+ short films/videos/animations, dozens of short stories and plays, a 'bell study' plus this one, educational-if-not-representational midterm sound synthesis project to really, really realize the ramifications of such a simple statement.
Character carries audience.
Apart from that little insight, it didn't help things that I was lacking in an idea to communicate, or an emotion to evoke, or an experience to generate. I just wanted to apply what I knew about story structure to sound/music and see what would happen. Lesson: not much. There is the appearance of structure, but none of the affect. At its worst, structure is an excuse. At its best, structure is a vehicle that clarifies, refines, strengthens, and ultimately enables your idea(s) to be received and, ideally, comprehended by your audience. Of course, structure can't make a bad idea good, nor can it stand in for that good idea.
Structure gives form to content. And both rest on this concept of the armature--premise--thesis--concept.
Thesis + Content + Form = Expression.
----------------------
Some other misc notes:
Find a way to use the same motif you establish without actually repeating it, or the same internal logic/structural logic...Then you can invert it or make other variations and it will sound completely different.
Sketch more specifically your formal ideas, gestures, notes, phrases, relationships.
REPETITION IS MUSIC
Examples:
Loud ==> Quiet
Slow ==> Fast
Low ==> High
Left ==> Right ==> Center
ETC
Let go and see musically where you can go with the software
Be aware of musical time / minute changes
IOW in ONE area, like simple phrase repetitions, these are not changes that are captivating.
Use your imagination! What music do you like? STEAL IT!
Some repetition ideas:
ABACADA
ABABCBABCDCBA
ABABCABCD
...ETC...
not abcdefgabcdefgabcdefg = boring (this is more or less what i did)
There is no need to literally go back to something you've done before, just to create closure.
REPETITION not 'replication'. difference
Thoughts on elements:
Spine: a rhythmic pattern underlying everything; this supports the piece
Motive A: Primary point of expression
Motive B: Counterpoint, secondary expression
Where these(^) run parallel, where they intersect, are the relationships that the 'story' arc should be built upon.
Parallelisms create symmetry, harmony. The movement from this(^) to this(v) is where the tension lies. Perpendicularities/intersections create conflict.
Relationships:
Attacks
Rhythms
Tonalities
Panning
Forget about emotions ATM and focus on how sounds are shaped, developed and interrelated.
The first two seconds of a piece tells you everything it's about...
........
*Very tenuously ripped-off of Herzog's 'Lessons of Darkness'
-----------------------------
NOVEMBER 12, 2008:
..."Our brain focuses on the thing that changes"...pitch/amplitude/rhythmic variations keep the thing active in our ears
..."Below 60hz...be sure you want the sound"...
See Grisset re different orderings of the same pitch
Developing a little bit to the point that you feel like it should be developing, but static to the point that you don't feel the development. Doesn't develop enough nor is it static enough.
Don't be afraid to start layering earlier.
I think I approached this project with a lot of big ideas that were dealt with very simply. What I should have done is choose a small idea, and develop it with complexity.
It was also missing something underneath--like an armature. Some spine that the piece could rest on, be supported by.
Also, I introduced too many 'characters' who change very little. The first phrase and the subsequent phrases are not one character going through changes, but separate characters going through little change. They are all introduced over a period of time that is too long. And they change very little.
In other words, I didn't scale my 'cast' to the parameters of the piece. Too many characters, not enough change, nor were they used effectively.
What did I learn? I learned that structure is useless if it's hollow. Structure cannot be compelling in and of itself, it can only carry something that is.
STATIC ACROSS THE BOARD.
But all that is a-okay! Because guys, I learned something today. I learned that while structure may carry story, and story may carry character, and armature may carry structure, YOUR CHARACTERS CARRY AUDIENCE.
----------------------
'Character carries audience' is probably my most profound realization, the most applicable epiphany I could have gotten out of that project/critique. It's an incredibly simple idea, but deceptively so. And one that I've 'known' for as long as I've tried to be a writer/filmmaker--but until you make the mistake of not using this concept, it's really difficult to see precisely how profound it can revitalize your work--and how pervasive a failure your project can become if neglected. In my case, it's really taken 20+ short films/videos/animations, dozens of short stories and plays, a 'bell study' plus this one, educational-if-not-representational midterm sound synthesis project to really, really realize the ramifications of such a simple statement.
Character carries audience.
Apart from that little insight, it didn't help things that I was lacking in an idea to communicate, or an emotion to evoke, or an experience to generate. I just wanted to apply what I knew about story structure to sound/music and see what would happen. Lesson: not much. There is the appearance of structure, but none of the affect. At its worst, structure is an excuse. At its best, structure is a vehicle that clarifies, refines, strengthens, and ultimately enables your idea(s) to be received and, ideally, comprehended by your audience. Of course, structure can't make a bad idea good, nor can it stand in for that good idea.
Structure gives form to content. And both rest on this concept of the armature--premise--thesis--concept.
Thesis + Content + Form = Expression.
----------------------
Some other misc notes:
Find a way to use the same motif you establish without actually repeating it, or the same internal logic/structural logic...Then you can invert it or make other variations and it will sound completely different.
Sketch more specifically your formal ideas, gestures, notes, phrases, relationships.
REPETITION IS MUSIC
Examples:
Loud ==> Quiet
Slow ==> Fast
Low ==> High
Left ==> Right ==> Center
ETC
Let go and see musically where you can go with the software
Be aware of musical time / minute changes
IOW in ONE area, like simple phrase repetitions, these are not changes that are captivating.
Use your imagination! What music do you like? STEAL IT!
Some repetition ideas:
ABACADA
ABABCBABCDCBA
ABABCABCD
...ETC...
not abcdefgabcdefgabcdefg = boring (this is more or less what i did)
There is no need to literally go back to something you've done before, just to create closure.
REPETITION not 'replication'. difference
Thoughts on elements:
Spine: a rhythmic pattern underlying everything; this supports the piece
Motive A: Primary point of expression
Motive B: Counterpoint, secondary expression
Where these(^) run parallel, where they intersect, are the relationships that the 'story' arc should be built upon.
Parallelisms create symmetry, harmony. The movement from this(^) to this(v) is where the tension lies. Perpendicularities/intersections create conflict.
Relationships:
Attacks
Rhythms
Tonalities
Panning
Forget about emotions ATM and focus on how sounds are shaped, developed and interrelated.
The first two seconds of a piece tells you everything it's about...
........
*Very tenuously ripped-off of Herzog's 'Lessons of Darkness'
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Blog of no content
In addition to the below sound project (due Nov. 10), I also have a proposal due for my final project in the physics class I'm taking right now: Light and Color. My final project can be a research paper into any of the material we've touched on (give me a break) or it can be an artwork that explores and experiments with some of the topics we've learned (break me off a piece!).
I'm dead certain my project will be a video, hopefully HD. What little film I have is too precious -- I'm saving that for my general studies thesis -- and as much as I love my PD150 and the DVX100, it's time to step it up a little bit. You know, "experiment"? I have access to an HVX100, in theory at least, through my department's research center CARTAH. But whereas it was once possible to get any of their pretty stellar equipment through a simple go-through-the-motions application process, it has become bafflingly difficult to get access to their equipment now. At any rate, I at least need a mini-proposal to submit to them in order to maybe obtain access, so I need to get a jump on that, as submitting my Cartah app by Monday (when my Phys prop is due) is getting a little too late for comfort.
The initial proposal involves: identifying a subject or theme (optics/lenses), where I will obtain information and materials, what exactly I will produce. Fairly straightforward.
But beyond that, the snag I hit is on -- as ALWAYS -- the fucking "what"? And by that, I don't mean "film or video or photograph or painting", I mean "what the fuck is this thing going to be about?" One thing I look forward to after I graduate, is not having to create an idea to suit a project, but instead having to create a project to suit an idea. Which is exactly as it should be. However, having a skill such as that is likely useful in the sink-or-swim world of professional filmmaking.
I, of course, want to continue my movement into narrative filmmaking, especially after all of the play- and screenwriting I've done in the past few months. So drumming up a story that isn't overly ambitious, but just enough so, in order to encourage me to continue to move toward self-experimentation. Shooting high-def will get me halfway there. The scope of the project will be the other half. Naturally, I also hope to work with actors -- but do I really have time to audition for this thing? Jan is always reliable and down for a little guerrilla videomaking, but whether or not I need a more professional performance or I can use my old friend will and should depend wholly on the content of my piece.
Content. That word, it seems to be continually resurfacing. Interesting.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
'This shit just got real'
I've come to my first real sound project (midterm). Up to now it's been only coding and listening assignments. And only with the last one have we been granted any real measure of creativity. The small 'bell study' I came up with for that assignment is really rather simple, a quality I like, even if it fails to exploit any sense of spatialization (as was made abundantly clear to me by listening to a classmate's piece :)). But having listened to it countless times now, I'm still rather pleased with it. At least, as pleased as I might be with a 30 second mini-experiment. There's something about its simplicity that I'm drawn to. That I'm drawn to simplicity is probably why I created it as such. Or I could very well just be completely and utterly disillusioned with my compositional talents simply because I've never sonically composed something before. I'm sure there's at least an element of that. At any rate, I enjoy the piece because it's simple in the way that 'Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star" is simple, if not quite sublime. You can listen to it here.
That however, was a 'study'. This current project must be 'a piece based on my own compositional concepts.' That's a 7-word difference of expectation. So. Where do I start?
Structure. We've been given direction to model our piece either on one of the pieces we've studied in class, or to use another discipline such as visual and literary arts or a scientific concept. Since the ultimate aim for me to take this series is to explore how to use sound to tell and shape narrative, I figure storytelling structure is a more appropriate form for my piece than anything else.
Now, which form of story structure?
The 'Armature & Seven Steps' story structure from my mentor/friend Brian McDonald: [Once upon a time.../And everyday.../Until one day.../And because of this.../And because of this.../Until finally.../And ever since that day...] All of which serves to develop, prove, and reinforce the theme/premise/thesis or 'armature' of the story.
Syd Field's screenplay structure: Opening Scene, Plot Point I, Midpoint Scene, Plot Point II, End Scene. He stipulates that for a feature length screenplay, Act I will end with Plot Point I, when the story really begins; the Midpoint Scene of Act II should be the turning point of the story from which every scene that follows is fallout from this midpoint scene (see 'The Wild Bunch', 'Heat'); and that Plot Point II is the end of Act II, spinning the action in a final direction toward the climax.
Stanislavsky's Method: Given Circumstances, Super Objective, Objective, Action, Obstacle. This is an acting methodology, but even if it doesn't provide a beginning-to-end structure for telling a story, it does provide a framework for embodying a story. I'm sure there is something structurally worthwhile to be gotten from it.
...there are many, many more, (Campbell's Hero's coughoverusedcough Journey) but these are the three dramatic forms I've studied the most.
Perhaps the best recipe for compositional structure is to crib a little (or a lot) from all of these. Approach this two-to-five minute piece the same way I've approached my feature screenplay:
1) Narrow an area of interest to a specific idea/thesis; this is the Armature. 2) Use the 7 Steps to hash-out the macro-progression of beats towards proving the Armature over time. 3) Use Field's Beginning/PlotPt1/Mdpt/PlotPt2/Ending to create a more specific scene-by-scene -- movement-by-movement(?) -- development of the idea. 4) Use Stanislavsky's method to embody the melodies of the piece and help develop a more emotional progression for them.
That seems pretty reasonable to me. It probably portends a lot more sophistication than what I'll ultimately make -- two minutes is two minutes is composed by a filmmaker -- but it can only help. Structure is a beautiful thing. That's something I've been learning with snowballing momentum lately. The importance and vitality of structure to writing a screenplay finally clicked for me last summer after a year's worth of intensive storytelling study came to a climax of sorts. And now I have the opportunity to study using those same techniques in a different medium.
I feel a little hesitation after writing the above paragraph, mainly because I'm not comfortable labeling myself and my interests, I'm not entirely comfortable using one word to encapsulate everything that makes my sensibilities mine, that kind of goes against pretty much everything I've tried to be. But if I were to choose *something*, I guess it would be 'structuralist'. At the moment at least, I can't think of any artistic ideology more appropriate.
Now, what's my Armature?
Listening to: Beethoven's Symphony No. 9 / RATATAT
That however, was a 'study'. This current project must be 'a piece based on my own compositional concepts.' That's a 7-word difference of expectation. So. Where do I start?
Structure. We've been given direction to model our piece either on one of the pieces we've studied in class, or to use another discipline such as visual and literary arts or a scientific concept. Since the ultimate aim for me to take this series is to explore how to use sound to tell and shape narrative, I figure storytelling structure is a more appropriate form for my piece than anything else.
Now, which form of story structure?
The 'Armature & Seven Steps' story structure from my mentor/friend Brian McDonald: [Once upon a time.../And everyday.../Until one day.../And because of this.../And because of this.../Until finally.../And ever since that day...] All of which serves to develop, prove, and reinforce the theme/premise/thesis or 'armature' of the story.
Syd Field's screenplay structure: Opening Scene, Plot Point I, Midpoint Scene, Plot Point II, End Scene. He stipulates that for a feature length screenplay, Act I will end with Plot Point I, when the story really begins; the Midpoint Scene of Act II should be the turning point of the story from which every scene that follows is fallout from this midpoint scene (see 'The Wild Bunch', 'Heat'); and that Plot Point II is the end of Act II, spinning the action in a final direction toward the climax.
Stanislavsky's Method: Given Circumstances, Super Objective, Objective, Action, Obstacle. This is an acting methodology, but even if it doesn't provide a beginning-to-end structure for telling a story, it does provide a framework for embodying a story. I'm sure there is something structurally worthwhile to be gotten from it.
...there are many, many more, (Campbell's Hero's coughoverusedcough Journey) but these are the three dramatic forms I've studied the most.
Perhaps the best recipe for compositional structure is to crib a little (or a lot) from all of these. Approach this two-to-five minute piece the same way I've approached my feature screenplay:
1) Narrow an area of interest to a specific idea/thesis; this is the Armature. 2) Use the 7 Steps to hash-out the macro-progression of beats towards proving the Armature over time. 3) Use Field's Beginning/PlotPt1/Mdpt/PlotPt2/Ending to create a more specific scene-by-scene -- movement-by-movement(?) -- development of the idea. 4) Use Stanislavsky's method to embody the melodies of the piece and help develop a more emotional progression for them.
That seems pretty reasonable to me. It probably portends a lot more sophistication than what I'll ultimately make -- two minutes is two minutes is composed by a filmmaker -- but it can only help. Structure is a beautiful thing. That's something I've been learning with snowballing momentum lately. The importance and vitality of structure to writing a screenplay finally clicked for me last summer after a year's worth of intensive storytelling study came to a climax of sorts. And now I have the opportunity to study using those same techniques in a different medium.
I feel a little hesitation after writing the above paragraph, mainly because I'm not comfortable labeling myself and my interests, I'm not entirely comfortable using one word to encapsulate everything that makes my sensibilities mine, that kind of goes against pretty much everything I've tried to be. But if I were to choose *something*, I guess it would be 'structuralist'. At the moment at least, I can't think of any artistic ideology more appropriate.
Now, what's my Armature?
Listening to: Beethoven's Symphony No. 9 / RATATAT
Thursday, September 25, 2008
My 6th Autumn Quarter at UW
Jesus Christ. I really can't believe that. Hahaha. Man I'm either REALLY dedicated or REALLY lame. More likely somewhere in-between. At any rate, an old year is over, a new one beginning. Now that the wheels are kind of spinning on my study of storytelling after last year's devotion to it, I'm embarking on a few things that are to varying degrees, beyond my comfort sphere.
Acting: I realized that the single most extensive component involved in filmaking that I hadn't yet studied was acting. I realized this as I tried to seriously pursue getting into the drama dept's directing program. Once it became a do-or-do-not situation, I was like, "Oh fuck, I don't know how to talk to an actor from a place of any experience or confidence at all." Some people don't need to embody every skill that falls within their sphere of influence, but I've always lived by the "lead from the front" creed. And this tends to prevent me from having confidence in situations in which I lack experience. Thankfully, I got into my back-up: acting. So far, I think it's going to be fun, exciting, challenging, and ultimately enlightening. The true super-curriculum challenge for me will be to use my experiences in the class to erect some sort of formalism for approaching the coaching and interpretation of a screenplay (or a play for that matter) with an actor. The paradox is that if I keep this thought too much to the fore of my mind, I'll fail to achieve any sort of real acting experience because I'll be constantly trying to refocus it into my super-objective (Bam! an acting term!), instead of being present and embodying the experience as it is.
The same is true of my other, much more intimidating pursuit: digital sound synthesis and design. I added the "design" component, because that makes me feel more interest in the course, than merely synthesis. On second thought, perhaps I ought to remove that and, in the spirit of the preceding graph, focus on appreciate and embodying the experience as is, instead of attempting to graft my presuppositions onto it. At any rate, my ultimate hope would be to complete my DIY filmmaking skill array, with this last, crucial and potentially crippling facet of audio-visual storytelling. I'll let that phrase perc for a beat. Oh yeah! AUDIO-visual storytelling. Whoops. I missed that memo initially I think. And many of my early experimental films suffered for it. In fact, I'm at the moment mired in an interminable post-production process on my short film from last spring. Visually its beautiful and makes kinetic and spatial sense, but has the pretenses of a narrative without the actual presentation of one. My last hopes for its clarity and salvation lie in some sort of audio narrative being formed to guide and reinforce the visuals that are already there. My super-objective with this year-long class is to acquire the skill-sets necessary to compose and communicate with a composer, ultimately for my films. But as in the prev graph, if I don't focus on being and embodying, I'll lack a true inner space of knowledge and experience to inform my intent. Not to mention that these sound classes are known for being fucking hard. Hard. And the last time I took a challenging class not directly related to filmmaking (or writing)...well, I didn't do so well. So to say I'm a bit nervous, would be an understatement. But I'm hoping to exorcise those demons here and not look back.
I am confident that given the proper attention to detail, the proper expenditure of effort, and the proper level of receptivity to a new experience, I can succeed and perhaps surprise more than just myself. I'd like to. I really would. I'd really like to not say goodbye to a 3.43 gpa that took 3 years and a helluva lot of 4-ohs to raise from a 2.75.
We all have lines that won't be crossed. Mine is to not give an inch in terms of the quality of my education in so far as I can control both my level of effort and the quality of my product.
Acting: I realized that the single most extensive component involved in filmaking that I hadn't yet studied was acting. I realized this as I tried to seriously pursue getting into the drama dept's directing program. Once it became a do-or-do-not situation, I was like, "Oh fuck, I don't know how to talk to an actor from a place of any experience or confidence at all." Some people don't need to embody every skill that falls within their sphere of influence, but I've always lived by the "lead from the front" creed. And this tends to prevent me from having confidence in situations in which I lack experience. Thankfully, I got into my back-up: acting. So far, I think it's going to be fun, exciting, challenging, and ultimately enlightening. The true super-curriculum challenge for me will be to use my experiences in the class to erect some sort of formalism for approaching the coaching and interpretation of a screenplay (or a play for that matter) with an actor. The paradox is that if I keep this thought too much to the fore of my mind, I'll fail to achieve any sort of real acting experience because I'll be constantly trying to refocus it into my super-objective (Bam! an acting term!), instead of being present and embodying the experience as it is.
The same is true of my other, much more intimidating pursuit: digital sound synthesis and design. I added the "design" component, because that makes me feel more interest in the course, than merely synthesis. On second thought, perhaps I ought to remove that and, in the spirit of the preceding graph, focus on appreciate and embodying the experience as is, instead of attempting to graft my presuppositions onto it. At any rate, my ultimate hope would be to complete my DIY filmmaking skill array, with this last, crucial and potentially crippling facet of audio-visual storytelling. I'll let that phrase perc for a beat. Oh yeah! AUDIO-visual storytelling. Whoops. I missed that memo initially I think. And many of my early experimental films suffered for it. In fact, I'm at the moment mired in an interminable post-production process on my short film from last spring. Visually its beautiful and makes kinetic and spatial sense, but has the pretenses of a narrative without the actual presentation of one. My last hopes for its clarity and salvation lie in some sort of audio narrative being formed to guide and reinforce the visuals that are already there. My super-objective with this year-long class is to acquire the skill-sets necessary to compose and communicate with a composer, ultimately for my films. But as in the prev graph, if I don't focus on being and embodying, I'll lack a true inner space of knowledge and experience to inform my intent. Not to mention that these sound classes are known for being fucking hard. Hard. And the last time I took a challenging class not directly related to filmmaking (or writing)...well, I didn't do so well. So to say I'm a bit nervous, would be an understatement. But I'm hoping to exorcise those demons here and not look back.
I am confident that given the proper attention to detail, the proper expenditure of effort, and the proper level of receptivity to a new experience, I can succeed and perhaps surprise more than just myself. I'd like to. I really would. I'd really like to not say goodbye to a 3.43 gpa that took 3 years and a helluva lot of 4-ohs to raise from a 2.75.
We all have lines that won't be crossed. Mine is to not give an inch in terms of the quality of my education in so far as I can control both my level of effort and the quality of my product.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
A 20-30 page, one-act, multiple-character play. That means in 20 to 30 pages: setup, conflict, resolution between multiple people. For some reason, most literature seems to suggest, and most feelings about one-act plays or similarly timed short films, that a piece of that length is too short to tell a complete and compelling story with multiple characters. To this moment, I can't imagine how one couldn't tell a complete and compelling story. I suppose a part of me has yet to make use of more than half that many pages, and so I am probably either intimidated by the length of the proposition, or simply can't imagine how one could use so much space given how little I've worked with. Though that begs the question, have I ever created a complete and compelling story in that much time.
I think the key to this is to fully explore the characters' personalities and interactions, to make full use of the whole universe of possibilities broached by the barest of bones outline of my story.
Take In Bruges, a wonderful film I saw yesterday for the first time. The basic premise: two hit-men hide out in Bruges following a botched job. That doesn't even scratch the surface of what playwrite(!)-turned-writer/director Martin McDonough has created in his first feature. I think the strength of the piece is in how it fully explores the humanity of its central characters--even the villain--and their interactions. It goes places few movies dare do--that of ultraviolent dark comedy--and comes out as possibly one of the feel-better films I've seen all year. Bizarre? Not really, considering how well it elucidates on its hidden armature. What the film is really about is the potential for a human being to change who he is. Colin Farrel's character wants to change after the gravity of his occupation hits home when he kills the kid. Brenden Gleeson's character does everything he does because while he may be too old to change, he needs to believe that its possible for someone like him to change and to live a good life. The girl Farrel's character hooks up with at first tries to seduce him into a stage tourist robbing scheme, but then she ends up falling in love with him when even after he is held at gunpoint, he still wants her.
...
I've gone on too much. It is a wonderful movie. My favorite so far this year by a long shot--but it has nothing to do with my play beyond what I said above.
To the point: what is a story worth telling, that has the potential for characters worth embodying?
...
Satan is a good guy. The genesis of all evil...isn't evil at all? Or isn't the genesis of it? Or simply exists in a universe where entropy is the natural order? What was it about the "satan is a good guy" idea that I liked so much? Surely there was more beyond simply wanting to see the greatest villain of all time portrayed as good, yeah? Perhaps it was more a desire to see god portrayed as the villain. But is there anything there worth mining that hasn't been already? I'm sure there is. But I certainly can't think of it. So. Satan is a good guy. Now what?
...
Satan is a hero. What did he do and why? Do I have to play by rules? Maybe not.
...
Sample monologue:
I am god's nemesis. I am his most-hated, most-feared enemy. I am all that he pits his all against. I am not satan. I am not the devil. Those don't exist. They are modes of control. Created by a jealous entity that exists beyond and within the fabric of this space called space. Not because you people are the There are issues at stake larger than any collection of parchment could contain.
...
Operating param:
"The devil is in the details"
Even the grandest project depends on the success of the smallest components. This version of the proverb often implies that the details might cause failure.
NOW WHAT?
I think the key to this is to fully explore the characters' personalities and interactions, to make full use of the whole universe of possibilities broached by the barest of bones outline of my story.
Take In Bruges, a wonderful film I saw yesterday for the first time. The basic premise: two hit-men hide out in Bruges following a botched job. That doesn't even scratch the surface of what playwrite(!)-turned-writer/director Martin McDonough has created in his first feature. I think the strength of the piece is in how it fully explores the humanity of its central characters--even the villain--and their interactions. It goes places few movies dare do--that of ultraviolent dark comedy--and comes out as possibly one of the feel-better films I've seen all year. Bizarre? Not really, considering how well it elucidates on its hidden armature. What the film is really about is the potential for a human being to change who he is. Colin Farrel's character wants to change after the gravity of his occupation hits home when he kills the kid. Brenden Gleeson's character does everything he does because while he may be too old to change, he needs to believe that its possible for someone like him to change and to live a good life. The girl Farrel's character hooks up with at first tries to seduce him into a stage tourist robbing scheme, but then she ends up falling in love with him when even after he is held at gunpoint, he still wants her.
...
I've gone on too much. It is a wonderful movie. My favorite so far this year by a long shot--but it has nothing to do with my play beyond what I said above.
To the point: what is a story worth telling, that has the potential for characters worth embodying?
...
Satan is a good guy. The genesis of all evil...isn't evil at all? Or isn't the genesis of it? Or simply exists in a universe where entropy is the natural order? What was it about the "satan is a good guy" idea that I liked so much? Surely there was more beyond simply wanting to see the greatest villain of all time portrayed as good, yeah? Perhaps it was more a desire to see god portrayed as the villain. But is there anything there worth mining that hasn't been already? I'm sure there is. But I certainly can't think of it. So. Satan is a good guy. Now what?
...
Satan is a hero. What did he do and why? Do I have to play by rules? Maybe not.
...
Sample monologue:
I am god's nemesis. I am his most-hated, most-feared enemy. I am all that he pits his all against. I am not satan. I am not the devil. Those don't exist. They are modes of control. Created by a jealous entity that exists beyond and within the fabric of this space called space. Not because you people are the There are issues at stake larger than any collection of parchment could contain.
...
Operating param:
"The devil is in the details"
Even the grandest project depends on the success of the smallest components. This version of the proverb often implies that the details might cause failure.
NOW WHAT?
Friday, April 25, 2008
All Agony, No Ecstasy: an email exchange
The following is an email exchange that took place over the last 24 hours between one of my teachers at DXARTS and myself. I think it holds a microcosm of personal and universal artistic agony, especially as it relates to filmmaking. I've replaced my instructor's name with "prof" and struck the name of one of the films that I reference just in case the person isn't comfortable being quoted directly.
--------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:23:32 -0700
From: Prof
To: Erik LeDrew
Subject: Re: scripting troubles
yeah no problem, the most important thing is to make something, and the biggest obstacles are usually
1. agonizing over "is my idea good enough?"
2. ideas that are too ambitious for the reality of your timeframe/means
On Apr 24, 2008, at 2:20 PM, Erik LeDrew wrote:
ah. well...of course. :)
I guess I was thinking of that crazy way you went about hand-cranking your HD
footage from the cat and the owl.
Enough said. Thanks for hearing me out.
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, Prof wrote:
you are misunderstanding me. all i'm saying is that when you're young, you
shouldn't agonize over the ideas so much. just decide on something and
execute it. that's how you'll get better.
On Apr 24, 2008, at 2:02 PM, Erik LeDrew wrote:
Hear, hear.
I'm not exactly a technical innovator though, as I'm sure you can tell.
And going back down the technical chain to a photochemical medium seems
less about innovation and more about just being an exercise for the sake
of experience -- which is what it was intended to be.
I've always thought content and ideas were my strengths, so making
something less about what and more about how seems counter-productive to
me -- even if I agree with you.
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, Prof wrote:
Don't cancel your tests or your casting call, just write another little
scenario that kinda connects (i.e. uses the same character) but is
separate.
give yourself till tomorrow night to come up with the new concept.
when you're shooting on film, the story of a wet dude limping down the
street and talking someone into buying him a hamburger can be
sophisticated. it matters less what the film is about, more how you make
it, at this stage in your career. (that's my opinion more and more these
days, i think it's true for all of us while we're "nobodies")
On Apr 24, 2008, at 1:45 PM, Erik LeDrew wrote:
Monkey-wrench man, monkey-wrench.
Actually, I had considered that, but I ended up tabling it because
we're already going into the fifth week of the quarter and to start
from square one content-wise seemed like an unsafe endeavor.
You have a good point though. It would be nice to leave 202 having a
complete work. That said, at this point, how sophisticated can it
actually be? I've lost a month's worth of work.
At some point I have to draw the line. I mean, I could ideate and see
what I come up with, but I have already ordered film and my tests are
this weekend which can be pushed back but...fuck man. I don't know
what to do. I've already put out a casting call and everything...
I'll tell you what. I'm going to cancel camera tests this weekend.
I'll give myself until Sunday to have a new story conceived, written,
shot-listed, and sketched. If I don't have at least those first three
elements in place, I'm going to push ahead with the beach scene.
Thoughts?
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, Prof wrote:
you don't need to make something self-contained, but it might be
more satisfying ultimately, speaking from personal experience.
what about just coming up with a new idea altogether and waiting on
the current one until such a time when you can do it right?
On Apr 24, 2008, at 1:32 AM, Erik LeDrew wrote:
hey man --
i'm having trouble reverse-engineering a stand-alone piece out of
the two beach scenes. It loses a lot of its specific meaning
without the rest to contextualize it. It becomes ambiguous in a
way that i don't think is good. I'm wondering if i should just
shoot it as-written, with the intention of filming the rest.
I also don't really like how it essentially makes it a
naturalistic version of the video I made last year in 453. not to
mention that by removing the acting and narrative-driven elements,
it removes a lot of the things that I wanted to experiment and
challenge myself with in the first place.
I've come to this line of thinking after about five hours of
sitting, and thinking, and sitting and I don't really like where
I've ended up. i don't feel good about it, and i'm not intrigued
by it. so unless there's something lively and poetic that i'm
missing, i think the scene belongs as a piece of a larger film,
not a stand-alone.
if you're cool with it, i think what i'd like to do, is shoot the
scene the way i would want it to be in the finished piece, and
maybe storyboard out the rest of the film, and create a sort of
tempcut, substituting the storyboards for the two missing scenes.
do you think this would be satisfactory? or do i really need to
make a self-contained piece?
or am i going in the wrong direction entirely?
sorry for the bombardment -- erik
--------------------------
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:23:32 -0700
From: Prof
To: Erik LeDrew
Subject: Re: scripting troubles
yeah no problem, the most important thing is to make something, and the biggest obstacles are usually
1. agonizing over "is my idea good enough?"
2. ideas that are too ambitious for the reality of your timeframe/means
On Apr 24, 2008, at 2:20 PM, Erik LeDrew wrote:
ah. well...of course. :)
I guess I was thinking of that crazy way you went about hand-cranking your HD
footage from the cat and the owl.
Enough said. Thanks for hearing me out.
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, Prof wrote:
you are misunderstanding me. all i'm saying is that when you're young, you
shouldn't agonize over the ideas so much. just decide on something and
execute it. that's how you'll get better.
On Apr 24, 2008, at 2:02 PM, Erik LeDrew wrote:
Hear, hear.
I'm not exactly a technical innovator though, as I'm sure you can tell.
And going back down the technical chain to a photochemical medium seems
less about innovation and more about just being an exercise for the sake
of experience -- which is what it was intended to be.
I've always thought content and ideas were my strengths, so making
something less about what and more about how seems counter-productive to
me -- even if I agree with you.
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, Prof wrote:
Don't cancel your tests or your casting call, just write another little
scenario that kinda connects (i.e. uses the same character) but is
separate.
give yourself till tomorrow night to come up with the new concept.
when you're shooting on film, the story of a wet dude limping down the
street and talking someone into buying him a hamburger can be
sophisticated. it matters less what the film is about, more how you make
it, at this stage in your career. (that's my opinion more and more these
days, i think it's true for all of us while we're "nobodies")
On Apr 24, 2008, at 1:45 PM, Erik LeDrew wrote:
Monkey-wrench man, monkey-wrench.
Actually, I had considered that, but I ended up tabling it because
we're already going into the fifth week of the quarter and to start
from square one content-wise seemed like an unsafe endeavor.
You have a good point though. It would be nice to leave 202 having a
complete work. That said, at this point, how sophisticated can it
actually be? I've lost a month's worth of work.
At some point I have to draw the line. I mean, I could ideate and see
what I come up with, but I have already ordered film and my tests are
this weekend which can be pushed back but...fuck man. I don't know
what to do. I've already put out a casting call and everything...
I'll tell you what. I'm going to cancel camera tests this weekend.
I'll give myself until Sunday to have a new story conceived, written,
shot-listed, and sketched. If I don't have at least those first three
elements in place, I'm going to push ahead with the beach scene.
Thoughts?
On Thu, 24 Apr 2008, Prof wrote:
you don't need to make something self-contained, but it might be
more satisfying ultimately, speaking from personal experience.
what about just coming up with a new idea altogether and waiting on
the current one until such a time when you can do it right?
On Apr 24, 2008, at 1:32 AM, Erik LeDrew wrote:
hey man --
i'm having trouble reverse-engineering a stand-alone piece out of
the two beach scenes. It loses a lot of its specific meaning
without the rest to contextualize it. It becomes ambiguous in a
way that i don't think is good. I'm wondering if i should just
shoot it as-written, with the intention of filming the rest.
I also don't really like how it essentially makes it a
naturalistic version of the video I made last year in 453. not to
mention that by removing the acting and narrative-driven elements,
it removes a lot of the things that I wanted to experiment and
challenge myself with in the first place.
I've come to this line of thinking after about five hours of
sitting, and thinking, and sitting and I don't really like where
I've ended up. i don't feel good about it, and i'm not intrigued
by it. so unless there's something lively and poetic that i'm
missing, i think the scene belongs as a piece of a larger film,
not a stand-alone.
if you're cool with it, i think what i'd like to do, is shoot the
scene the way i would want it to be in the finished piece, and
maybe storyboard out the rest of the film, and create a sort of
tempcut, substituting the storyboards for the two missing scenes.
do you think this would be satisfactory? or do i really need to
make a self-contained piece?
or am i going in the wrong direction entirely?
sorry for the bombardment -- erik
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
