https://vimeo.com/952213461/c3fdf34f2f?share=copy

An expression or facet of coverage that interested me was the idea that two directors could interpret and actualise the same piece of dialogue in completely different ways. For my independent research into coverage I decided to recreate a scene using an existing script from a film I had not yet seen.

For the purpose of the experiment I thought choosing a scene from a script written by and then directed by the same person would be the best kind of work to compare with. The script for the Pulp Fiction scene was also vivid and playful, exuding passion and a clear vision. Logistically I had to omit some aspects like shooting in a static car instead of  moving like the script outlined and conceptually I aimed to complete the scene with an alternate ending.

As a director I aimed to guide the performances to favour authenticity over imitation. My awareness of the original film to be a part of the crime/comedy/indie genres led for me to interpret the scene with a certain feel or exposition, with inspiration from films like Two Hands or Animal Kingdom to guide undertones and performance aspects.

At the end of the experiment, comparing with the original scene was an insightful analysis. Where and when they chose to favour the same characters I did, like in the ‘examples?’ line. I never chose to use close ups too, in my interpretation, the scene moves further and further away, not closer. In the original, there is no tension, both characters are passionate and the scene never quite ends and is not about what happens next either, it just cuts away into the next scene. This is typical of the directors’ style whose films often feel like a collection of conversations. I feel in both the original and my recreation the performances were left to shine using clean shot/reverse shot coverage.  It was a simple scene where the dialogue was what mattered, manifested in two different ways, making for a valuable inquiry into coverage.