This week was all about tying up loose ends before we start filming our project. Eric gave us some tips on just about every aspect of filming--from production to shooting to set design. Some of the ideas I didn't even think about until Eric mentioned them, such as: You shouldn't leave a wall blank in the background since it is a great opportunity to create atmosphere in a film.
I never thought background scenery was all that important but now I find myself noticing the setting behind the actors in shows and movies that I watch. The scene would be sterile without something in the background to add interest and believability. Little magnets on a refrigerator behind a family eating breakfast add a sense of realism.
Also he stressed the need for a Producer role in our groups. The producer is the person who manages the location agreements, the actor agreements and questionnaires, and organizes everything. This is perhaps the person I admire most in the filmmaking business. The main aspect of filmmaking that overwhelms and amazes me (when I see a quality finished product) is the organization is takes to put everything together. The producer seems to be the reason why filming runs smoothly (or not) on set. The organization required for those multi-million dollar blockbusters is especially overwhelming. I am an organized person in that I know (pretty much) where everything is. I can find what I need to find in time, but having to organize the workings of an entire film is a bit daunting. However, I think with everyone in my group working together we'll be fine when it comes to keeping things in line. We decided that everyone should have their own copy of the script and any other papers that pertain to their "job" in their own folder in order to stay organized.
After the workshop in class we were able to meet with our groups to discuss the first draft of our screenplay. I think our meeting was very beneficial. We ended up changing our film idea completely. I realize that it may sound a little stressful the idea of having to start over and write a whole new script. However I think since everyone in our group is a lot more comfortable and excited about our new story, the writing process will go a lot faster and smoother than last time.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Blow Out night
In class last week we watched Blow Out directed by Brian De Palma which I recommend to anyone wanting to watch a really thoughtful and carefully constructed film. Like Donna said, everything had a clear purpose and was placed in the film carefully but with confidence. From the prolific patriotism imagery to the constant reminder that we are watching a film, De Palma does what he wants with the movie and doesn’t make any excuses.
Particularly I find that the view on the role of audiences to be one of the most interesting aspects of the film. Blow Out is not a movie in which we get “sucked into” the created world on the screen. With the special camera shots (like the spinning shot, overhead shot, and just the camera reel prop in lots and lots of shots, etc.) we never really forget that we are in the audience watching a film. Also, just the content of the film serves as a reminder that we are watching a movie what with the shallow use of nudity and vulgarity (within the frame story film that is, Coed Frenzy). We are given a dramatized and mixed view of reality which emphasizes the idea that we are purely shallow entertainment-seekers as audience members.
Another thing that I thought was interesting in the film was the treatment of the idea of American ambition. I can’t decide if Blow Out was mocking the idea of the investigative, honest, skilled, good citizen-character making a difference or if the film genuinely tried to give a view of the ambitious “regular” guy doing something big (like figuring out a murder of a high profile political leader). Some part of me (the optimistic, patriotic side I guess) wants to believe that De Palma was actually making a comment on the patriotic spirit within some citizens. Jack (a very nondescript name—emphasizing how he could’ve been any guy off the street) fights for truth in that he refuses to back down in regards to the actual happenings of the murder. However, I also think that all this overt patriotic imagery and the ending in which Jack ends up where he started (just with a more authentic scream in the crappy movie he works for) only mocks the idea of the “American ambition” (all idealized and utopia-esque). I’m leaning more towards the latter, but I wish I could believe the former view. I think that’s De Palma’s intention though, to mock the audience’s idea of a “good” story—complete with damsel in distress, young brave attractive hero-man, and creepy demented bad guy. He “disrespects” the audience in giving us “reality chopped up and mixed with vulgarity and nudity” (noted from Donna’s end-of-movie comments). But he also makes fun of that type of entertainment by providing it to us using methods that keep us from forgetting that we are watching a movie.
I think the fact that Jack worked on the sound for a film, a job in which he must create/find each noise and make it sound believable, is particularly interesting in that it gives another dimension to the already multi-faceted views of reality within the film. We see the murder scenario from the media’s view, Jack’s view, and then our own view watching the film. Reality is a plaything throughout the entire film. The battle between these different views inspires much thought about what “reality” exactly is. Is it what the media shows us, what we see for ourselves…can we ever truly know and witness reality? If not, then what limits us? Is our own subjectivity keeping us from seeing the “real” in reality?
Particularly I find that the view on the role of audiences to be one of the most interesting aspects of the film. Blow Out is not a movie in which we get “sucked into” the created world on the screen. With the special camera shots (like the spinning shot, overhead shot, and just the camera reel prop in lots and lots of shots, etc.) we never really forget that we are in the audience watching a film. Also, just the content of the film serves as a reminder that we are watching a movie what with the shallow use of nudity and vulgarity (within the frame story film that is, Coed Frenzy). We are given a dramatized and mixed view of reality which emphasizes the idea that we are purely shallow entertainment-seekers as audience members.
Another thing that I thought was interesting in the film was the treatment of the idea of American ambition. I can’t decide if Blow Out was mocking the idea of the investigative, honest, skilled, good citizen-character making a difference or if the film genuinely tried to give a view of the ambitious “regular” guy doing something big (like figuring out a murder of a high profile political leader). Some part of me (the optimistic, patriotic side I guess) wants to believe that De Palma was actually making a comment on the patriotic spirit within some citizens. Jack (a very nondescript name—emphasizing how he could’ve been any guy off the street) fights for truth in that he refuses to back down in regards to the actual happenings of the murder. However, I also think that all this overt patriotic imagery and the ending in which Jack ends up where he started (just with a more authentic scream in the crappy movie he works for) only mocks the idea of the “American ambition” (all idealized and utopia-esque). I’m leaning more towards the latter, but I wish I could believe the former view. I think that’s De Palma’s intention though, to mock the audience’s idea of a “good” story—complete with damsel in distress, young brave attractive hero-man, and creepy demented bad guy. He “disrespects” the audience in giving us “reality chopped up and mixed with vulgarity and nudity” (noted from Donna’s end-of-movie comments). But he also makes fun of that type of entertainment by providing it to us using methods that keep us from forgetting that we are watching a movie.
I think the fact that Jack worked on the sound for a film, a job in which he must create/find each noise and make it sound believable, is particularly interesting in that it gives another dimension to the already multi-faceted views of reality within the film. We see the murder scenario from the media’s view, Jack’s view, and then our own view watching the film. Reality is a plaything throughout the entire film. The battle between these different views inspires much thought about what “reality” exactly is. Is it what the media shows us, what we see for ourselves…can we ever truly know and witness reality? If not, then what limits us? Is our own subjectivity keeping us from seeing the “real” in reality?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)