I always like creating a character with flaws. I intended to write something ridiculous, humorous, comedic, a bathos with this shadow character. In a way it is like ‘The Katering Show’ we viewed but with less delightful tone and totally different themes. He is an antagonist without a protagonist in the story. A villain is interesting because the audience will be curious to seek humanity in them. As Christopher Vogler states, ‘shadows need not to be totally evil or wicked… it’s better if they are humanized by a touch of goodness, or by some admirable quality’ (pg.67).

 

There are two factors keeping my monologue corresponding with Voogler’s idea; one regards the time restriction. To maintain this video around 3 minutes, I had to cut down on the script, which made me realize that sometimes I pointlessly throw my character hateable characterizations, thus dehumanize him. I shall avoid unnecessary content much as possible in future. Another factor is these ideas from Vogler and Batty combined, ‘most Shadow figures do not think of themselves as villains or enemies’ (pg.68). ‘What do they dream of?’ is a powerful question to ask in development of a character (pg.62). So I gave the character a clean motivation ——to stay alive and rich, which himself declares at the beginning. The motivation also helps to give him an inner self, a man of capitalism and individualism. I also created an interlude of him and his daughter, which gives him a backstory (pg.63) so that the audience can spot a relatable father figure in him, many other films often adopt similar strategy to humanize a Shadow.

 

The feature of this monologue is the character picking different tones to have conversations with different people on the phone. I had two main struggles: I was worried my acting cannot portray him properly or act the tone correctly. The other concern is whether I have given the audience enough information to piece the story together. Since I am the writer, knowing the full narrative may affect my judgment. The latter is not resolved until now, reminding me that next time I shall seek for feedback from others before shooting the footage.

 

Using natural light as light source severely disrupted my continuity. Initially, it provides a soft lighting without solid shadow. But the sun soon shines directly into the room, resulting a big contrast in lighting; when it is blocked by the clouds the light intensity is weakened and noises started to appear on image. I have come up with some solutions to cope with similar issues for next time. For example, I can schedule the shooting in several days at the same time period, but the light quality will largely depend on the weather. If I had lighting equipment I can set them up to make up the intensity, but that is time-consuming and difficult to control. Working with natural light is convenient and cheap but really unstable.

 

I envisioned using jump-cut when writing, which not only keeps the runtime within requirements, but also reminds the audience to imagine the conversation happened in ‘the gaps’. Plus, it creates a chaotic feeling. With the multiple shots I took from different angles, I had more options in editing; surprisingly, I created an aesthetic style similar to The Thick of It (2005-2012), which I think I can explore further in the future.

 

References

Batty, C., 2012. Screenplays: How To Write And Sell Them. pp.62-63.

The Katering Show. 2015. Australia: Katering Production.

The Thick of It. 2005. UK: BBC.

Vogler, C., 1998. The Writer’s Journey. pp.29, 34-36.