“I am thinking about how screen stories are crafted, and wondering…”
For me so far, what has got me “wondering” about “screen stories” is the sheer depth in which one can delve into these worlds. While contrasting my own work’s development, with the writing prompts (about what we hate/like) we were given and the process of answering the prompt, I found it very powerful to see how much depth these characters and worlds had. In contrast with a lot of my work, which seemed to only really have superficial, face value development. The characters were underdeveloped and the overarching themes took control. This meant that my work seemed to only think of and exist in the short form world, because the world seemed impossible to expand. However, now I can see the limitless possibilities worlds have.
The other exercise was also intriguing, as we had to take an already established world and develop it further. The collaborative nature of this exercise was very unique to the art of story telling and world building. Everyone was throwing out ideas, what ifs, trying to link concepts, genres and character attributes into a unique whole. As soon as we knew we were going against the believability of the original world, we would backtrack or start anew. We, like every other group it seems, started out with a revenge tale. We also contemplated developing the story and the world from the man’s perspective. All of these concepts led to something entirely different, and possibly too dramatic for the class, a borderline agoraphobe (believes she is steadily becoming afraid of the outside world), who works as a phone sex worker (acting like someone new and entirely different in the process), and continuously day dreams about what her life would be like if she did have social contact.
Even though to me this seemed like a great fit for a very meek and shy character, I found, once I had explained the idea out loud to the class, it wasn’t as true to the original character as I had once thought. This new version was far more frustrated, numb and hollow. She was a shadow of herself, which in context of the day dreaming could make sense, but I still believe was too much of a negative jump. Possibly adjusting her character to someone who is sick and tired of seclusion, and decides to re-explore the world, gradually building herself up both mentally and physically, for the task at hand, would suit this world better?
Scriptwriting. A necessity of sorts in this industry. But it’s more than that. Not only is it a dream for many, but you could consider it the art of translating dreams. Translating our perspective, how and what we observe into a format, a bare bones structure, that is born specifically of the mind. It is not a visual sensation we absorb and disseminate. The visual translation is someone else’s job, the job of the director, cinematographer, set designer… It’s your job to build the WORLD in which they work. The WORLD they must translate into a visual context and reality. And this is where my final studio comes into the picture.
Another World is a studio based on creating scripts and observing screenworks from the perspective of the worlds they create.
We kicked things off with probably one of my favourite writing prompts:
Write something you like. Then something you hate. Add five reasons why you like what you like and why you hate what you hate. Write five reasons why someone might like what you hate, and five reasons why someone might hate what you like. Who would these people be? What stories could they tell?
This exercise was the first time I had every really thought in depth about characters, and with each point of the exercise, I could feel these unique characters forming and coming to life. Worlds developed around them the further into their reality I went. Previously I created characters based on myself or on tropes. They were never really multi-dimensional. This exercise really drove me to develop characters far beyond that point, on the verge of uniqueness.
Exercises like this make you think outiside the box and realise just how large that space is. How much can truly occur outside the box, as opposed to skirting the boundaries of the box. Go out into the wild, green yonder. I dare you, and I bet it’ll be worth your while.
The design of this studio may seem strange, but I found it to be a highly rewarding and insightful experience. While we were only required to do two observations a week I chose to write as many as I could. This led to a very fruitful reflection process within my own observations, as I found the more observations I wrote the more I actively observed what occurred around me and noticed the details in what was occurring. I also found it progressively easier to engage on a higher level with these observations, thinking philosophically about what was occurring, until I reached the point of writing entirely meditative observations, which were the basis of my film pitch and my final film.
For me the act of observation itself has provided unique insights into the subtleties of body language and gesture, the act of observing everyday normality and reality allowing us all to uncover hidden truths and character in our world. It has allowed us to decipher a uniquely visual language, the language of film. For me this realisation was pivotal in how I chose to create my film. I wanted to portray reality in its most realistic and simple form in order to subtly convey my argument. This meant grounding my characters and direction in actuality. I told my actors to act as though they were in a situation they had most likely been in at one point in their lives. I told them the specific beats I wanted to occur and then I let ‘reality’ unfold. This then created a strange mix of actuality and fiction, having no real place in either realm.
Our film, the Other is a very rare project. It is a film one can only really ever create when in university, as it is ultimately for ourselves and no one else. I wanted to make this film for my own philosophical and ideological purposes, to explore for myself an idea that intrigues me, and hopefully encourages others to contemplate and explore themselves. I made this film as an exploration of the human condition through our own individual lenses, as well as my own. I wanted to to try to understand and criticise human behaviour and interaction with the world, while also trying to interpret and express my own views, using film to decipher, unpick and create previously unseen connections between highly abstract and philosophical ideas. In a way this is my mind map of how humanity treats, is shaped by and understands what we have come to see as The Other through our very insular, isolated and individual lenses.
Making something that is ultimately for yourself, that you came up with and wrote, can definitely attract different kinds of people to the project; those who are also attracted to the idea and want to collaborate with you, and those who think the idea is easy to make and will get them an easy mark. I was lucky enough to get two people out of three who wanted to work and collaborate with me on the project. Ryan proved to be an indispensable partner who without I would have no music and no fourth moment to complete the project. Chynnae, although shy to begin with, proved herself more than once, and helped by not only acting but also writing the Facebook post. Both Chynnae and Ryan constantly contributed to intellectual discussions about the direction of the project. Sam however was frequently absent and left editing sessions early. I will admit that this could be due to the philosophical nature of the project and my inability to communicate the complex ideas to those working with me. For most of the project, until at least half way, I felt as though we weren’t all on the same page. It could also be due to the constantly shifting nature of the piece and the ideas constructing the bones of the piece, as my own attitudes shifted.
As the piece was experimental and required observational research as opposed to a script, the basis for the film was constantly shifting, creating a strange, unconventional environment that none of us were really prepared for, at least in a group work sense. I will admit that due to its philosophical nature, I did become very insular in my thinking around the ideas.I tried to bounce ideas off of my group members, but I could see they were struggling with it just as much a I was, so I wound up taking charge. I feel as though my own confusion around the ideas may have also caused greater confusion amongst the group, which led me to take further charge of the project as we were unable to communicate effectively about the topic to begin with. Towards the end of the project though, I feel as though we found ourselves on the same page and so were able to communicate much more effectively, as the ideas had become solid for myself and therefore the group. The ideas felt tangible. I feel as though this issue could have been solved if we had’ve had more open discussions around the subject matter, seeing that as an integral element, rather than trying too hard to be like a ‘regular’ short film production where every role, and the boundaries of these roles, is clearly defined. Nothing should have been compartmentalised, everything should have been disussed philosophically, allowing us as a team to fully understand the concepts we were working with.
I think that this film had another issue right from the beginning. There were too many cooks in the kitchen with nothing to do. The project could have, and should have been completed by three people with clearly defined roles who knew how to execute those roles in the context of the piece. With so many people we often had to sacrifice a great deal of time to discussing scheduling, as well as sacrificing the number of people we could have on set so we didn’t fall behind. Due to the nature of the project, filming section by section and building it up like that, hoping that as we go each piece will fit in with the other, we didn’t really get into much detail about the aesthetics of the production, or other possible areas of development, so it became, in the end, more of a three person project, leaving one person with nothing to do or two people sharing the load of one person at any given time.
Despite this, the project was on track for success, at least in the eyes of the production group, from the beginning. This was mainly due to the unconventional way in which we filmed the project. One bit here, another bit there; by spreading the load out over the course of the five weeks, we were able to not only complete the project faster and more effectively, but we could also experiment more with what we had filmed, seeing how it fit into the puzzle and then, designing and writing the other pieces to fit with that piece. It also gave us time to think of what the next move would be and to constantly assess what was needed, to look at the pieces of the puzzle and see where everything might fit, even as my own ideas shifted and adapted with the film.
In the end did my experimental film satisfy its goal of constructing a fluid argument around this thesis statement?
The below thesis statement was used throughout the process to develop and understand the concepts we were working with in the film. While I did write a second thesis statement at one point, I believe that this thesis statement captures the essence of the question we, or at least I, was curious about exploring and interpreting:
Through romanticism, personification occurs. Realising something is better in turn triggers humanity to want that something to be like itself. Romanticism ultimately occurs through observation of the Other. The Other “is dissimilar to and the opposite of the Self, of Us, and yet of the Same” (wikipedia), that is to say that although the Other is not us, it gives the self meaning and reality, while ultimately being perceived through the lens of the self. The Other is only perceived through the lens of the self therefore it can only ever be a version of the self.
So, was I successful, as the writer, director and editor of the project in exploring and conveying what I wanted to through the film? I believe that I was. What is present in the film may not actively be a representation of the above thesis statement, but it is definitely an exploration of it. As I was explaining the meaning of my film to my parents after they had watched it for the first time, I found myself using a very simple idea to explain it; each scene is a different way, a different observation/critique about observing and perceiving the Other, progressing to the audience ultimately becoming the Other. I just hope that the emotional context and the title of the piece at least make the audience contemplate and want to explore and question their own perceptions.
For a while now Robin has been pushing us to develop our concept past the original four moments to include a fifth moment, a moment we originally wanted to include but found the hardest to think of and source. We agreed with Robin that the piece felt somehow lacking without an addition, but it was finding the right part that was hardest. Once we’d completed all the other moments we found that our ideas had broadened and then condensed into a clear vision, allowing us to understand precisely what was needed to fill in that gap.
Using found footage, a motif we had developed throughout the piece, Ryan and I crafted a moment around the way people project their own ideals and desires onto others. This entailed finding footage that showed people treating technology or an animal the way they wanted to treat it, the way that suited their own personal agendas and desires as opposed to the way the animal naturally acts and behaves. We found this in the documentary Snowy, Chilly, Motley… and Me: A Personal View of Pets. As the documentary clinically objectifies these animals and treats them as pets, we were able to take that footage and re-purpose it, using harrowing music to emphasise the indoctrinating nature of what is unfolding on screen, to empahsise the way an animals basic behaviours are stripped to be replaced with cuter ones that fulfill our base desires.
On Friday and Saturday I decided to help out on the ‘Merlot with Mates’ film shoot. As I was interested with the film from the beginning, I really wanted to see how it would turn out. I was really glad that I had decided to help out, because as usually occurs, you have less time and less people than you need on the day.
I was really impressed with the way everyone worked together on set. If someone needed something, the next instant someone else would have it for them. The whole core group had organised all of their shots and set-ups prior to the shoot so that on the day it almost felt like they were speaking another language.
The film, while being simple in design was surprisingly complex to execute. We used an expanding pole and two c-stands to hang two LED light panels from. This was our sole lighting source for the whole shoot, but it was highly designed and created the right mood and feel immediately. Again, I was glad that I was there, because I was able to help Jenny, the cinematographer, set up the lighting while the production team conversed about the shoot and what needed to be accomplished.
Through working on this shoot I’ve really learnt the value of specific roles, in particular the use of segmenting knowledge to different departments, only communicating what is necessary to get the job done effectively, otherwise you are left with an inefficient ‘too many cooks in the kitchen’ situation. While we narrowly avoided that situation on this weekend’s shoot and still managed to be efficient, it is interesting to see how the system and the machine that drives traditional ‘Hollywood’ filmmaking work, and work surprisingly well at that.
Today, after meeting with Robin on Wednesday and explaining my convoluted mind map to at least three different people as I found that this was the only way I was able to explain my visit for the film to people clearly. But was it really clear? You’d have to ask them.
Since I doubt my beautiful mind map was clear at all:
I decided to rewrite my thesis statement. So here it is, my new two paragraph thesis statement as discerned from the above mind map by yours truly:
Observation is denoted by the romanticism and personification of the Other. Observation is an ultimately subjective act, an act that can only be performed in isolation. This isolation inflates our human desires as well as our selfish attitudes, such as narcissism and arrogance, as the isolated observation of the Other leads us to view ourselves as at the centre of the universe, or at least our perceived universe.
The Other as observed in this piece is animals and technology. Both have been designed for a purpose by humans, technology built, animals bred for their purpose. As we perceive animals and technology as the Other, seperate and yet a part of ourselves, we told our identity and our understanding of ourselves from our relationship to them. Therefore we create both ourselves and the Other due to our influence on animals and technology.
Today we were in the edit suites and Robin came in to look at what we currently have edited. Robin, as per usual had a great deal of insight for the project, and allowed me to see things I’d never really thought of before. I’ll be the first to admit that when I work on a project I become very insular and driven, and Robin’s feedback session’s have really helped me to continue brainstorming and thinking outside the box, even when my creative juices feel as though they are drained.
He had some minor notes for the structuring of the piece, such as how there should be a second scream in the ‘headphones sequence’, as well as a simpler, less context-filled piece of monkey found footage in the ‘dog sequence’.
In terms of the broader picture of the piece, Robin said that he thought the complex ideas within our piece needed to be framed for our’uninitiated’ audience, which once he said it, I realised its necessity. He also mentioned possibly strengthening the connections between sequences, which I do agree needs to be done to create a more cohesive experience.
Robin also discussed the themes of the project. If you can remember my previous post, where I discussed how I came about firming up the concept and even wrote a thesis statement for the project. After the discussion with Robin I realised those ideas were only one side of the coin and there was so much more I was trying to say. So to make sense of all those ideas, I wrote this ‘key ideas’ mind map, from which I will hopefully write a more encompassing thesis statement.
Hopefully.
——————————————————————————————————————————————
Update: I’ve since had a major brainwave in terms of how to approach increasing the connection between the sequences – connectivity. By using technology, mass communication and mass media to connect not only scenes, but the characters within the world, we will be able to create an interconnected universe, not just scenes that bleed into each other for seemingly no reason. By using connectivity to connect characters, sequences and the universe of the piece, we are also inherently critiquing technology and the isolation that it creates.
I am beginning to realise just how lucky I am to have gotten this far, riding not only on the sparks of my passion but the ideas that ignite that passion as well.
Up until now I was either working by myself or was very lucky to find myself with someone like-minded, passionate about the subject matter and more than open to discuss the project and its inner workings.
And now I find myself facing reality finally. I now realise just how lucky I was. I find myself at the creative head of the group. As the writer, director and editor of the project I am in creative control. Is that because one could call this project my brain child? I guess so. But I believe it is more than that. For me it seems as though I am the only one passionate about the project, the only one who sees that at the end of this process there will be a film and not a grade.
So I am filling every minute of this film with myself while I try to corral my other group members into doing the same, into believing as I do about the film, and I am reminded of the futility of the act through the struggles of my forbears, in a far larger institution with a much larger goal in mind for its creative commodity. Hollywood. The ultimate institution. No idea is safe from an ultimate ulterior motive, the motives of those who seek to own and monetise your creativity for their own ruthless purposes. Until only the fumes of passion keep the artist moving ahead to continuing the slowly depleting fibonacci cycle.
It may seem strange and ultimately melancholy of me to bring capitalism and the commodifying of creativity into a reflection about team work and collaboration, but if this past week and its subsequent reflections have taught me anything, it’s that everyone has their own reason for doing something. You’d better make damn sure that they’re all doing it for the right reasons, treating it the same way, with the same level of passion as you, or there will be major disparities in the workload and you will find yourself feeling alone, which is something no creative should feel on such a personal journey as creating something.
—————————————————————————————————————
The shoot this morning went surprisingly well despite the fact that we only had 3 people on set in total, including myself (director), Chynnae and Ryan (actor). This meant that we had to be resourceful. I honestly don’t believe we would have been able to do it had I not already had the experience of dealing with problems on low budget and crew-strapped sets. We were also very lucky that we had no dialogue to record so were able to simply record atmos and sound effects after the scene was over, this allowed for Chynnae to hold the diffusion as I positioned the camera and filmed. I was able to direct, film and act as first A.D during the entire shoot. This may have been due to the nature of the scene, or the fact that as such a small crew we were struggling with so few hands, but with me taking charge and taking on those roles we were able to complete the shoot comfortably in record time.
Also, I talked more with Ryan and Chynnae about what roles they would like to take on further into the project, if they would like to become more involved in the editing process, sound design, organisation, etc. Ryan has said that he’d like to come on board to do the music and sound design (which is awesome!) and Chynnae wants to be more involved in the writing and editing processes. While I said I’d love the help with writing, I did however find that once we’d sat down I had written the piece already in a moment of inspiration. Hopefully Chynnae will be able to get more involved in the final moment that is yet to be written.
*I was unable to talk to Sam, as he was not at the shoot. He seems to be interested in camera though.
After some soul searching and in-depth discussions with close, and very philosophical friends, I have finally uncovered what i really want to convey through my film.
Through their recommendations I looked into the definitions of the words which I previously used interchangeably:
Anthropomorphising – 1. to ascribe human form or attributes to (an animal, plant, material object, etc.)
Fetishising – a strong and unusual need or desire for something
: a need or desire for an object, body part, or activity for sexual excitement
: an object that is believed to have magical powers
A fetish is an extremely strong devotion to something. There are sexual fetishes and nonsexual fetishes: both are obsessive interests.
(Psychology) (tr) to be excessively or irrationally devoted to (an object, activity, etc)
ˌfetishiˈzation, ˌfetishiˈsation n
Personification –
the attribution of a personal nature or human characteristics to something non-human, or the representation of an abstract quality in human form.
“the book provides a sustained account of how literary personification works”
a figure intended to represent an abstract quality. “the knight is accompanied by two feminine personifications of vice”
Romanticize. : to think about or describe something as being better or more attractive or interesting than it really is : to show, describe, or think about something in a romantic way.
And I found the words that expressed what I was truly trying to say.
I also explored dense philosophical concepts, such as the Other:
THE OTHER
In phenomenology, the terms the Other and the Constitutive Other each identify a cumulative, constituting factor in the self-image of a person—the acknowledgement of being real. As such, the Other is dissimilar to and the opposite of the Self, of Us, and of the Same.[1]Otherness, the characteristics of the Other, is the state of being different from and alien to the social identity of a person and to the identity of the Self.[2] Another way of describing “The Other” is to portray oneself at the centre of focus and “The Other” on the outside.[3]
A cultural example of othering is when individuals that identify closely with their own ethnic or religious beliefs begin to gain the mentality that those who are different from them are problematic.[5] This can lead to extreme separation, alienation, and exclusion of the person or of people that is seen as different or unusual to the typical lens of one’s societal views.[6] Othering can be described as discrimination of people or a population that is different from the collective social norm; since they are different they are also seen as deviant or in need of being cultured by the group that is othering them.[6] (wikipedia)
As you can see, I only used Wikipedia for this exploration, but it was more than enough.
My friend Oliver even consolidated my ideas into two paths for me, which gave me two clear conceptual choices:
INSTINCT AS DESIRE – we romanticise animals in their unashamed pursuit to fulfill their desires – while social life is categorised by supression of desire.
INSTINCT AS STRESS – animals use stress to manage basic survival – whereas people use it for work and social interaction.
While neither of these expressed the entirety of what I was hoping to get across, it did bring to me to this buzzword sentence:
ROMANTICIZING ANIMALS and their ANIMALISTIC TENDENCIES
And
TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE OTHER
Which ultimately brought me to my thesis statement:
Through romanticism, personification occurs. Realising something is better in turn triggers humanity to want that something to be like itself. Romanticism ultimately occurs through observation of the Other. The Other “is dissimilar to and the opposite of the Self, of Us, and yet of the Same” (wikipedia), that is to say that although the Other is not us, it gives the self meaning and reality, while ultimately being perceived through the lens of the self. The Other is only perceived through the lens of the self therefore it can only ever be a version of the self.
Basically, a critique of human subjectivity.
I also want to bring across the idea of ‘avoidance of the terminal journey’ through my film. This will hopefully come across through the mood and alienation.
