Some information on the current state of post-production for Reconciliation:
I had the film developed and transferred to Digibeta at Todd AO in Camden. I am now looking for somewhere to have a transfer done from Digibeta tape to an external hard drive (I don't have the kit for such a transfer, eg, a card to ingest Digibeta via a deck).
Ideally this would be the same place where I could get a online edit done in August. The other option is to do the colour myself in Combustion and then find somewhere to just do the final master, but I like the idea of making some contacts in the post-production world. Also finding someone who really knows what they are doing, instead of muddling through by myself.
I will do the offline edit in Final Cut Pro on either a MacBook Pro (laptop) or a borrowed MacPro, with a SATA Raid for the media.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Production update
Another update.
We completed shooting, this past weekend, June 9th/10th. I can't imagine it going more smoothly.
JC and I had spent the Thursday before going over shots.
I found the final crew member, Nichola, makeup, the Thursday before.
We shot 7 of the 8 scenes in one flat. We had an exterior for Scene 8, which we picked up in the courtyard outside the flat. Ed, who provided us with transport, found us a rooftop in Bethnal Green for our second location. Here we shot the last part of the film, 8b, a montage of shots of London seen by the male character from high up in his flat.
The shoot went over two days. This meant we shot 4 scenes, per day, with perhaps 5 set ups per day. This made for a very easy day, but allowed the actors, JC, the DOP, and myself to be comfortable with the performances and satisfied with the framing and angles.
JC asked for one light, but in the end didn't use it. He told me he was quite determined to shoot with all natural light. The stock he chose was Fuji Reala 500D. Plenty fast.
The natural lighting, the fast stock, the stringent shooting style, and the preparation with the actors meant the whole shoot went off without any major problems.
I will post some photos from the production as soon as possible. And update you on the beginnings of post-production.
We completed shooting, this past weekend, June 9th/10th. I can't imagine it going more smoothly.
JC and I had spent the Thursday before going over shots.
I found the final crew member, Nichola, makeup, the Thursday before.
We shot 7 of the 8 scenes in one flat. We had an exterior for Scene 8, which we picked up in the courtyard outside the flat. Ed, who provided us with transport, found us a rooftop in Bethnal Green for our second location. Here we shot the last part of the film, 8b, a montage of shots of London seen by the male character from high up in his flat.
The shoot went over two days. This meant we shot 4 scenes, per day, with perhaps 5 set ups per day. This made for a very easy day, but allowed the actors, JC, the DOP, and myself to be comfortable with the performances and satisfied with the framing and angles.
JC asked for one light, but in the end didn't use it. He told me he was quite determined to shoot with all natural light. The stock he chose was Fuji Reala 500D. Plenty fast.
The natural lighting, the fast stock, the stringent shooting style, and the preparation with the actors meant the whole shoot went off without any major problems.
I will post some photos from the production as soon as possible. And update you on the beginnings of post-production.
Reconciliation - Production update
I just wanted to send out a quick word about the Reconciliation project.
We are in pre-production, with the principle shooting taking place June 9th/10th. That is one week from today.
Tomorrow I have another workshop with the actors, Emma and Phil. I have my art director Lara out in the shops gathering the props and costumes we need, and Jun, my DOP is busy thinking of the shots and angles, as they do.
I still have some holes. Makeup, sound, and a second location.
I will try to post again closer to the shooting dates, and then upload some photos of the actual production.
We are in pre-production, with the principle shooting taking place June 9th/10th. That is one week from today.
Tomorrow I have another workshop with the actors, Emma and Phil. I have my art director Lara out in the shops gathering the props and costumes we need, and Jun, my DOP is busy thinking of the shots and angles, as they do.
I still have some holes. Makeup, sound, and a second location.
I will try to post again closer to the shooting dates, and then upload some photos of the actual production.
The feedback
Once I finished the edit I was finally able to gain some objectivity.
I began writing notes, where the story was week, where the directing fell down. Still, I knew needed some help deciding if what I was trying to communicate was coming across. I mean the basics. Was it clear he was leaving? Was it too subtle? This has always been my downfall. So I was looking forward to my friends coming over with fear and anticipation.
I called Ana, the designer, David, the photographer and Nic, the DOP. All of them I thought would be honest and have something intelligent to say. I also expected them to tell me the truth. None of them suffer fools.
They had some criticism. Certain things just plainly did not work. The gesture that he makes once he finishes packing was a failure. It looked too much part of the packing. It was not the gesture out of nowhere that I intended it to be.
Some of the shots were clunky (actually I think the worst shots happened just before lunch, and towards the end of the day, as my blood sugar was getting low). Partly this was lack of preparation, but some just failed. I could not solve them. The kitchen scene for example. I was so busy trying to get everything in one shot it became really weak. I realised, without foundation, that I was trying to keep everything in the frame. By accident there were shots wher the characters broke the frame. Some of these shots were the most popular.
A key observation: all wanted the film to be shot in black and white. Why? Colour was a distraction from a film where every detail was critical. Shooting on a small DV camera meant everything was in focus. Clashing colour, and background images which had no meaning were distracting. I took from this that I had to be extra careful in the art direction, and that the costume and props had to be in subdued colours.
But overall I was genuinely amazed at what I had managed to communicate. Not just the basics. Some of the larger ideas that I thought were only obvious to me.
I began writing notes, where the story was week, where the directing fell down. Still, I knew needed some help deciding if what I was trying to communicate was coming across. I mean the basics. Was it clear he was leaving? Was it too subtle? This has always been my downfall. So I was looking forward to my friends coming over with fear and anticipation.
I called Ana, the designer, David, the photographer and Nic, the DOP. All of them I thought would be honest and have something intelligent to say. I also expected them to tell me the truth. None of them suffer fools.
They had some criticism. Certain things just plainly did not work. The gesture that he makes once he finishes packing was a failure. It looked too much part of the packing. It was not the gesture out of nowhere that I intended it to be.
Some of the shots were clunky (actually I think the worst shots happened just before lunch, and towards the end of the day, as my blood sugar was getting low). Partly this was lack of preparation, but some just failed. I could not solve them. The kitchen scene for example. I was so busy trying to get everything in one shot it became really weak. I realised, without foundation, that I was trying to keep everything in the frame. By accident there were shots wher the characters broke the frame. Some of these shots were the most popular.
A key observation: all wanted the film to be shot in black and white. Why? Colour was a distraction from a film where every detail was critical. Shooting on a small DV camera meant everything was in focus. Clashing colour, and background images which had no meaning were distracting. I took from this that I had to be extra careful in the art direction, and that the costume and props had to be in subdued colours.
But overall I was genuinely amazed at what I had managed to communicate. Not just the basics. Some of the larger ideas that I thought were only obvious to me.
The shooting style - 2
I had written that scenes were conceived with a certain pace in mind. But in shooting during the workshop I found something else I could use: in the scenes the couple shared I created a pace for each of them that was often at odds with each other. For example, in the lunch scene it opens with her fussing about over the food, and he frozen there. When she sees his look, not understanding what it is about, she becomes despondent, and slows. He picks up his pace, begins eating, as if he could banish his thoughts by moving quickly enough.
What else can I say about the shooting style?
For every part of the story there is one shot. There is no establishing shot. Only one point of view in the edit you are not able to choose from this or that. You better get it right. This is where a producer would be pulling his hair out, if I had one. For of course there is no coverage.
One scene does not lead obviously to the next. This is not conventional drama. It is an open text. Why something happens is open to interpretation.
In effect the shots accumulate, add one on top of another. Since there is no establishing shot there is way to go back, so to speak. Only forward. This creates a momentum which would normally have been created by the plot, eg. he shoots his wife, now he is running from the police.
All in all I would say I am very glad I have chosen Haneke's contrivance for this experiment. It has helped clarify my thinking of the shooting style. That is how this whole blog started after all.
What else can I say about the shooting style?
For every part of the story there is one shot. There is no establishing shot. Only one point of view in the edit you are not able to choose from this or that. You better get it right. This is where a producer would be pulling his hair out, if I had one. For of course there is no coverage.
One scene does not lead obviously to the next. This is not conventional drama. It is an open text. Why something happens is open to interpretation.
In effect the shots accumulate, add one on top of another. Since there is no establishing shot there is way to go back, so to speak. Only forward. This creates a momentum which would normally have been created by the plot, eg. he shoots his wife, now he is running from the police.
All in all I would say I am very glad I have chosen Haneke's contrivance for this experiment. It has helped clarify my thinking of the shooting style. That is how this whole blog started after all.
The shooting style - 1
I have written some about the shooting style of Reconciliation already, but from the workshop I have had more time to think about it, and refine my understanding of it.
For the workshop I needed to not only have the actors push against what I had written, but test the shooting style (which is essentially Haneke's). In preparation I planned every shot. The day before I went through each scene, planning it out, checking it with the DV camera, and the director's viewfinder. There were practical considerations. I needed to know how much I could get into a shot. Could I shoot that scene in one shot? Would both characters fit into one shot?
I went back and examined Haneke's 71 Fragments. Perhaps this should have been obvious from my early viewings but I did not notice the significance of several things:
There is no establishing shot. Since the story is about fragments this is only right. He might provide numerous shots of a location, the scene in the armoury where the gun is stolen is an example. He shows the thief, inserts of him breaking the locks on the pistols, light coming from a ventilation shaft, from which the thief hears the sounds of someone walking by, the ammunition cabinet, and so on. But he never knits these shots together. He never shows you where this is or that is in a room. All you can know you must take from the eyeline of the actors.
A scene is generally told from one point of view. That is from one character's point of view. Sometimes he swaps points of view, but it is swap. And it never goes back.
This forced me to reconstruct certain scenes in the story. This was awkward, but I find these contrivances force you to be more creative.
Rhythm is created by jumping from one set of characters to another. I have already written about this, and come up with a practical solution: I had written certain fragments with a certain speed in mind. I even thought of writing pace into the script, like a score.
More on this...
For the workshop I needed to not only have the actors push against what I had written, but test the shooting style (which is essentially Haneke's). In preparation I planned every shot. The day before I went through each scene, planning it out, checking it with the DV camera, and the director's viewfinder. There were practical considerations. I needed to know how much I could get into a shot. Could I shoot that scene in one shot? Would both characters fit into one shot?
I went back and examined Haneke's 71 Fragments. Perhaps this should have been obvious from my early viewings but I did not notice the significance of several things:
There is no establishing shot. Since the story is about fragments this is only right. He might provide numerous shots of a location, the scene in the armoury where the gun is stolen is an example. He shows the thief, inserts of him breaking the locks on the pistols, light coming from a ventilation shaft, from which the thief hears the sounds of someone walking by, the ammunition cabinet, and so on. But he never knits these shots together. He never shows you where this is or that is in a room. All you can know you must take from the eyeline of the actors.
A scene is generally told from one point of view. That is from one character's point of view. Sometimes he swaps points of view, but it is swap. And it never goes back.
This forced me to reconstruct certain scenes in the story. This was awkward, but I find these contrivances force you to be more creative.
Rhythm is created by jumping from one set of characters to another. I have already written about this, and come up with a practical solution: I had written certain fragments with a certain speed in mind. I even thought of writing pace into the script, like a score.
The workshop
I have a lot to report, and hopefully can make up for my long silence.
I have been very busy with this small project, the short film Reconciliation.
I have been through numerous drafts, of course. Fine-tuning the script. But three weeks ago I came to a dead-end. I could not go forward without some intense feedback. So I arranged a workshop with Emma Choy and Phil Evans. These two actors helped me back in December, workshopping the Tidal Barrier project.
They spent the day at my flat, working our way through the script. I had decided beforehand that I wanted to conduct this workshop a little differently. Most often I begin workshops discussing with some intensity the script, before getting it on its feet. This goes back to my training at the Drama department, University of Alberta, in Canada. That school was known for the intense preparation of a script by the actors, directors and the rest.
But this time I wanted to do it differently. We spent an hour over breakfast, talking about the script, but quickly we put the story on its feet. We set ourselves up, had a short discussion about what we were doing, and then I shot it on a small DV camera. Then there was my reaction, with the actor feedback, and then we tried to refine what we had done. And I shot it again. We spent the day and worked our way through the whole script. Not by chance the script takes place over one day, and our working day conformed with shooting day. We finished at 5:30 and I had 95% of my shots.
During the week I captured the footage and began to edit towards the end of the week. I made up for missing footage with the some stills I had taken previously for location scouts, especially those shots I had taken from Hampstead Heath. I added a few sound effects and ambient tracks, as it became apparent that the sound was going to be crucial to making this work.
By the next weekend I had finished the cut and was ready for some feedback.
I will write more about all this:
The feedback. The shooting style. And where it goes from here.
I have been very busy with this small project, the short film Reconciliation.
I have been through numerous drafts, of course. Fine-tuning the script. But three weeks ago I came to a dead-end. I could not go forward without some intense feedback. So I arranged a workshop with Emma Choy and Phil Evans. These two actors helped me back in December, workshopping the Tidal Barrier project.
They spent the day at my flat, working our way through the script. I had decided beforehand that I wanted to conduct this workshop a little differently. Most often I begin workshops discussing with some intensity the script, before getting it on its feet. This goes back to my training at the Drama department, University of Alberta, in Canada. That school was known for the intense preparation of a script by the actors, directors and the rest.
But this time I wanted to do it differently. We spent an hour over breakfast, talking about the script, but quickly we put the story on its feet. We set ourselves up, had a short discussion about what we were doing, and then I shot it on a small DV camera. Then there was my reaction, with the actor feedback, and then we tried to refine what we had done. And I shot it again. We spent the day and worked our way through the whole script. Not by chance the script takes place over one day, and our working day conformed with shooting day. We finished at 5:30 and I had 95% of my shots.
During the week I captured the footage and began to edit towards the end of the week. I made up for missing footage with the some stills I had taken previously for location scouts, especially those shots I had taken from Hampstead Heath. I added a few sound effects and ambient tracks, as it became apparent that the sound was going to be crucial to making this work.
By the next weekend I had finished the cut and was ready for some feedback.
I will write more about all this:
The feedback. The shooting style. And where it goes from here.
April update
Update
Where have a I been?
My regrets that I have not been writing these past few weeks. I just decided that if I had nothing to write that I was better silent.
I have not been idle. I have been busy developing the short film, Reconciliation.
First I have approached an actor to play she. We had our first meeting last week and she already asked me some tough questions, which I was not yet prepared to answer.
The questions revolve around a scene I wrote involving he, in the bedroom, as he packs to leave. His actions (that is packing) are detailed. This begins as one of the everyday scenes, of surface-reality. But then I needed some decisive action from this. In the last draft he fills the suitcase with precision, but then, without pausing empties it again. My actor queried this. Myself, I have never been certain that this was right. I think I was trying to show how his decision to stay was directly connected to his action of parting. Or something like that. It really didn't make an sense.
So I began to think of something else that is happening in the story, in that they are parting, but they are not acting normally. That is they are not acknowledging this event. I put some of this down to pride, but more fundamental is the idea of alienation and disconnection. From what? Nature? Themselves? I am not sure, I only knew there is an imbalance. And that is what I needed to show in this scene in the bedroom. So I thought of the idea of the gesture, a movement, that follows hard on his precise, detailed packing. It comes out of nowhere. An aberration.
(The idea of movement sits comfortably with me: movement was a large part of the work I did in theatre. I was always interested in the emotional values possible with movement)
Where have a I been?
My regrets that I have not been writing these past few weeks. I just decided that if I had nothing to write that I was better silent.
I have not been idle. I have been busy developing the short film, Reconciliation.
First I have approached an actor to play she. We had our first meeting last week and she already asked me some tough questions, which I was not yet prepared to answer.
The questions revolve around a scene I wrote involving he, in the bedroom, as he packs to leave. His actions (that is packing) are detailed. This begins as one of the everyday scenes, of surface-reality. But then I needed some decisive action from this. In the last draft he fills the suitcase with precision, but then, without pausing empties it again. My actor queried this. Myself, I have never been certain that this was right. I think I was trying to show how his decision to stay was directly connected to his action of parting. Or something like that. It really didn't make an sense.
So I began to think of something else that is happening in the story, in that they are parting, but they are not acting normally. That is they are not acknowledging this event. I put some of this down to pride, but more fundamental is the idea of alienation and disconnection. From what? Nature? Themselves? I am not sure, I only knew there is an imbalance. And that is what I needed to show in this scene in the bedroom. So I thought of the idea of the gesture, a movement, that follows hard on his precise, detailed packing. It comes out of nowhere. An aberration.
(The idea of movement sits comfortably with me: movement was a large part of the work I did in theatre. I was always interested in the emotional values possible with movement)
Reconciliation and Haneke's form
I have been busy revising of the short scripts, Reconciliation. This is the short in which I am borrowing Haneke's form, from 71 Fragments, of one or more shots or fragments(some short, some long), which are then closed by a cut to black.
I am just realising the limitations of the form for a short. In 71 Fragments, Haneke as a number of character sets that he alternates with. This means that he can easily create texture and rhythm by moving from one set of fragments to another. In each fragment he has another set of characters, a different location, and potentially a different pace.
Because I want to keep the focus sharp I am sticking to one location, which means I feel there is no place to go. I just had a scene in the kitchen - what now? I have already been in the living room, kitchen, bedroom, bathroom, even the the closet!
In a feature this is not a problem.
I know, I know, I suppose I was really asking for it, taking this on.
I have now revised the script three times. Where is it going, despite my problems with pace and texture?
One addition I made, in part to defuse the drama, but also to make the story more focused, was to make it clear near the beginning that this is the day he is planning to move out. It was important that the audience is not left wondering what the events of the day are about, or how they will resolve themselves dramatically (it is clear in the title afterall).
I have already posted previously about how I have explored surface-reality in the story - packing, emptying a closet, vacuuming, doing the dishes. But my worry was that I also presented the couples estrangement in these everyday scenes - waking together (or rather not) in the morning. That these parts are not surface-reality, and may become drama.
I am now less worried about this. I might rationalise these elements as what Schrader calls disparity, the second element in the transcendental style (which leads to decisive action). I am happy with the story and I suppose the irony of the title, and how the reconciliation happens, in the mundane - he takes out the trash. I was most interested in how our lives are truly lived in these kinds of events.
Finally there is Schrader's final element, the transcendent:
I am just realising the limitations of the form for a short. In 71 Fragments, Haneke as a number of character sets that he alternates with. This means that he can easily create texture and rhythm by moving from one set of fragments to another. In each fragment he has another set of characters, a different location, and potentially a different pace.
Because I want to keep the focus sharp I am sticking to one location, which means I feel there is no place to go. I just had a scene in the kitchen - what now? I have already been in the living room, kitchen, bedroom, bathroom, even the the closet!
In a feature this is not a problem.
I know, I know, I suppose I was really asking for it, taking this on.
I have now revised the script three times. Where is it going, despite my problems with pace and texture?
One addition I made, in part to defuse the drama, but also to make the story more focused, was to make it clear near the beginning that this is the day he is planning to move out. It was important that the audience is not left wondering what the events of the day are about, or how they will resolve themselves dramatically (it is clear in the title afterall).
I have already posted previously about how I have explored surface-reality in the story - packing, emptying a closet, vacuuming, doing the dishes. But my worry was that I also presented the couples estrangement in these everyday scenes - waking together (or rather not) in the morning. That these parts are not surface-reality, and may become drama.
I am now less worried about this. I might rationalise these elements as what Schrader calls disparity, the second element in the transcendental style (which leads to decisive action). I am happy with the story and I suppose the irony of the title, and how the reconciliation happens, in the mundane - he takes out the trash. I was most interested in how our lives are truly lived in these kinds of events.
Finally there is Schrader's final element, the transcendent:
3. Stasis: a frozen view of life which does not resolve the disparity but transcends it.From the reconciliation - he, taking out the trash - to the macro view of the world, London at dusk, with lights coming on in flats just like this one.
The final codas of Ozu's films are reaffirmations of nature; they are the final silence and emptiness.This is the first time we have left the flat, and looked at the world beyond the couple and their flat.
A short film
I promised I would describe the new scripts in more detail, and try to explain how they related to the feature.
One script, with the working title of Reconciliation, will borrow the form, without shame, from Haneke's 71 Fragments. Principally these are the short fragments, of one to many, which are followed by a short cut to black, and which constitute a scene, in loose terms. Reconciliation, at present is made of 8 scenes. At present I am uncertain the number of shots per scene, but my aim is to keep these to a minimum, if not 1. I am also thinking of Haneke's Code Unknown, which followed the 1 shot = 1 scene convention, but he allowed for some complex camera movements, such as the elaborate opening sequence in the Paris street, which are out of the question for a budget such as mine.
Besides these conventions, the rule is that there is no cutting on action, in the conventional sense, a minimal of dialogue (two sentences, 1 each), which consequentially means I rely on visual storytelling, and compression and minimalism, so that little will mean more.
I am interested (have always been interested) in structures that allow for cumulative and amplifying affects, to create an impression, as opposed to linear narratives. I was taken, many years ago, on seeing Buchner's Woyceck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woyzeck).
What is this story about? As the title indicates, it is about reconciliation, in this case between an estranged couple, on the verge of separating. It is set over 1 day, starting the morning and ending in early evening, in which they never speak, and find that reconciliation comes in the mundane, everyday events, not in grand gesture. In fact I think I am using an anti-grand gesture. And finally, that this anti-grand gesture leads a sense of the transcendent, for him at least. Their reconciliation is not romantic, but is found in an accommodation with the natural world.
I hope this doesn't sound terrible pretentious. I will have to be careful I am honest.
One script, with the working title of Reconciliation, will borrow the form, without shame, from Haneke's 71 Fragments. Principally these are the short fragments, of one to many, which are followed by a short cut to black, and which constitute a scene, in loose terms. Reconciliation, at present is made of 8 scenes. At present I am uncertain the number of shots per scene, but my aim is to keep these to a minimum, if not 1. I am also thinking of Haneke's Code Unknown, which followed the 1 shot = 1 scene convention, but he allowed for some complex camera movements, such as the elaborate opening sequence in the Paris street, which are out of the question for a budget such as mine.
Besides these conventions, the rule is that there is no cutting on action, in the conventional sense, a minimal of dialogue (two sentences, 1 each), which consequentially means I rely on visual storytelling, and compression and minimalism, so that little will mean more.
I am interested (have always been interested) in structures that allow for cumulative and amplifying affects, to create an impression, as opposed to linear narratives. I was taken, many years ago, on seeing Buchner's Woyceck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woyzeck).
What is this story about? As the title indicates, it is about reconciliation, in this case between an estranged couple, on the verge of separating. It is set over 1 day, starting the morning and ending in early evening, in which they never speak, and find that reconciliation comes in the mundane, everyday events, not in grand gesture. In fact I think I am using an anti-grand gesture. And finally, that this anti-grand gesture leads a sense of the transcendent, for him at least. Their reconciliation is not romantic, but is found in an accommodation with the natural world.
I hope this doesn't sound terrible pretentious. I will have to be careful I am honest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
