Film-TV1- Analysis/Reflection 1 – Question 3

Select from one of the readings from week 1 or 2 and briefly describe two points that you have taken from that reading. Points that excite you, something that was completely new to you. 

Week two’s first reading “Slogans for the Screenwriter’s Wall” lists a collection of self-construcive comments and criticisms about film making as though they were sprawled upon a screenwriter’s wall. Below are two slogans I found quite insightful:

“Student films come in three sizes: Too Long, Much Too Long and Very Much Too Long.

If it can be cut out, then CUT IT OUT. Everything non-essential that you can eliminate strengthens what’s left.”

– Page 40-41

The importance of selecting content that is relevant from the ‘fluff’ is invaluable. The above quote outlines that student films are always too long and as a principle everything that isn’t necessary should be cut out. Perhaps student films are too long because there is an inability to refine the product and decide what stays and goes; or students have so many ideas and experimental inspiration they try to make space for everything rather than determine what’s necessary and make that excel.

“If you’ve got a Beginning, but you don’t have an end, then you’re mistaken. You don’t have the right Beginning.”

– Page 42

The importance of ending was also noted by Jasmine in her Screenwriting lecture, primarily it’s impact in short films. The above comment defines the importance of the ending so much so that the beginning is subordinate to the end. Therefore if you have a beginning and not an end, there is a sign of fault in the beginning. This idea isn’t relevant to whether the actual story is good or bad, but more so in order to achieve something right you have to understand where it’s going. So I offer this analogy, the journey of film relies upon transportation, if you can’t identify the final destination you won’t know what transport to take.

Reference

Mackendrick, A. “Slogans for the screenwriter’s wall.” On film-making, Faber & Faber, New York, 2004. Page 40-43.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *