I have been considering whether lighting is something I want to focus on in my shoots. I previously thought that I would only really make it a focus if it was central to the scene itself. However, now when I think about the scenes I immediately picture how the lighting looks and what kind of mood it gives. In particular, the scenes that I have written give me a sense of the type of lighting I would like to use and implement to convey the particular moods.
After doing a sketch shoot of the interrogation scene, I realised that lighting is super important in creating a suspenseful, dangerous mood for this scene. I would like to try and implement a hard yellow light to create interesting shadows on the victim’s face while keeping the rest of the room as dark as possible. I even think that the use of lighting could replace the black hood prop; by cutting out the minimal lighting at the end of the scene to complete darkness the sense of imminent danger would be obvious, while also being more ambiguous and less melodramatic than my sketch shoot (using the black hood).
For the script that I wrote which is set outdoors; I would like to use the natural sunlight to my advantage and in particular utilizing the soft light that comes through the tree branches in the location I want to film. This of course, depends on the weather as well as the time of day and will be something I investigate using even my iPhone to test the best time of day to film this particular scene, to get the soft sunlight coming through.
While lighting does pose another element for me to consider and think about, the benefits of utilizing it to my advantage are high and therefore I will try and experiment as much as I can with it to achieve the best result for my vision.
I wrote the prose as a reinterpretation of a short story I wrote previously. During the writing process, I thought about the likelihood of being able to get certain shots, locations, etc to inform my re-write of the scene. I also took notes on how I visualised the scene looking and the camera coverage I was after.
I decided to film the scene in my garage as it was the biggest, and emptiest space that I could find, that would allow me to make the character seem small and insignificant in the frame. However, the location I chose provided some constraints as well. There was a lot of clutter as well as two fridges, all of which I wouldn’t have been able to cover with theater blacks. This meant I had to carefully select my shots to ensure the clutter wasn’t framed, which restricted the camera set-ups. This meant that I had to ‘cheat’ the background of the shot of the hands tied and had to be strategic about the door opening shot. During filming, I liked the wide shot of the victim, and decided against doing the close-ups of his eyes darting around the room and gulping, as I felt the wide shot demonstrated his vulnerability. In hindsight, I wish I had shot them so that I had the choice in post-production as to what shots I would like to use or not.
Due to the constraints of the location, I also couldn’t get as many shots of the captor and the ones that I did manage to get were not interesting in my opinion. I would like to try and re-shoot this scene in a different location, possibly the breakout space in the edit suites to test out some different camera set-ups. Hopefully this will be closer to my vision than the one posted above.
I also couldn’t get my hands on a silver reflective table to experiment with reflections as I previously wanted to, however hopefully in future shoots I will be able to do so. I didn’t experiment with the lighting in my sketch shoot as I wanted to see whether I could get the desired effect with the natural light of the location chosen, or through post-production. I would like to test out using dim tungsten lighting in my future shoots of this scene and experiment with how it can set the mood.
Today I was thinking a lot about what script and prose I would like to film based on my own writing. I began looking through previous work to see if anything struck an interest in me to film a scene from it. As I read through my previous and more current work, a few issues began to arise. While I may have really wanted to film a particular scene, the issue of needing extras on set (to create a school hallway environment), costumes or props necessary for the scene, lengthy dialogue, and even the locations (divided glass between prisoner and visitor) all raised issues.
I tried to think of ways I could overcome these issues, and while it was possible, I knew that it wouldn’t be as good or exciting if I had to compromise these necessary elements to the scenes. I also thought about what I was visualising at the time of writing. While some of it came back to me, it wasn’t as easy as I expected it to be.
I thought about the importance of having a clear vision for informing not only the pre-production, production, post-production stages for the scenes, but also for my research proposal and reflections as a whole. I decided that in order to ensure a clear vision is reflected upon, it was important to note that from the very beginning of the pre-production – the conception and writing. Therefore, I have decided to write two scenes, which will most likely come from film and TV ideas I have jotted down or written rough summaries of; writing the scenes from scratch so that I can also record what I am visualising and imagining the scene to look, sound, and feel like. These notes will be important in informing the entire process. My goal is to have both of my written scenes (or at least a rough draft) by Wednesday.
Throughout this semester, one of the main questions I have continued to ask myself is how does the form of text that I am working with, whether it be a script or prose, affect the way in which I direct the coverage of a scene? How much creative liberty does a director take up when turning the words on a page into cinema? And how is this effected when they work with a text written and envisioned by them?
A script is a blueprint for a scene and the level to which a filmmaker follows it or creates their own interpretation of it is up to them. Even though I’m aware of this, when it came to filming the exercises over the past few weeks, I felt quite constrained by having to follow a script. I couldn’t think of creative ways to cover a conversation, and felt overwhelmed by having to show specific character movements. This led me to wondering whether working with prose would allow me to think more creatively about camera coverage. Another question that has continued to perplex me is if I filmed scenes from my own scripts, would my camera coverage and framing be more creative or constrained by my vision?
I want to investigate the relationship between the form of filmic text and camera coverage, and whether ownership of the text influences my framing choices. Does a script leave enough open for interpretation for the director, or is prose a way for directors to implement more creative camera coverage? Does a writer-director feel more empowered by having written the text they are working from, or more hindered by their own vision? Does a director have more freedom when they work from a text written by somebody else, when their level of collaboration with the writer is up to them? These are questions I wish to explore through a series of practical exercises and written reflections.
Over the course of two weekends, I will film four scenes, each of them being completely different stories. Two of these will be written scripts (one written by me and the other by a screenwriting friend of mine) and the other two will be in prose form (once again, one written by me and the other by another screenwriter). I will film the script and prose written by me in the first weekend, and the texts written by my friend in the second weekend. This will allow me to compare the camera coverage I choose for both the script and prose as well as comparing how ownership of the texts may influence this.
In preparation for each of the four scenes, I will location scout and use the camera as a tool for my pre-production in the location, taking stills to create a storyboard. I will then use that to inform a shot list and floor plan to use on the day of filming. I will need three actors from the StarNow page who will be in all four scenes. I will also need a sound recordist and a 1st AD to help me to coordinate the shoot and ensure everything runs smoothly. I won’t set lights and just use the natural lighting of the locations. I will edit the footage and post it and the filmic text I worked from on my blog with a written reflection on the whole process and how it informs my investigation.
For the second part of my investigation, I will be giving Amy my written script and prose and comparing her interpretation of the scenes compared to mine. I will post the edited scenes on my blog and compare the camera coverage and framing choices we have made as individuals. My writing will reflect how Amy’s chosen camera coverage compares to mine, and whether my ownership of the text hinders or allows for more creative framing choices. I hope that this part of my investigation will continue with more than one script and prose, and allow me to reflect upon how my ownership of a text affects my choices as a director.
I’ve been wondering about whether I should allow the actors I use to improvise dialogue for the prose texts I work with. I think it would be interesting to see how this may change or alter my ‘vision’, however I’m not sure whether this would just confuse my research. I still haven’t decided on whether I should just direct the actors and create the scene from prose without any dialogue at all. While collaboration with actors is necessary, not all actors improvise well, and I’m not sure which way to go about this. In order to be able to compare mine and Amy’s interpretations, I think it’s best that we both stick to the same ‘rules’ and this is something we both need to agree on and something I’ll discuss with her when I see her next.
In this interview, director Joe Carnahan discusses his experiences and beliefs on creative control. The main point he makes is that while it’s extremely important to stick to your guns and stand up for what you want as a director, and try not to compromise your vision, it is still important to listen to the advice of the creative people you are collaborating with; for example, the editor.
This is a point that I’m finding is continually raised when the concept of creative control is raised. While this is important for a film, I’m not so sure that it applies so much to my research practice in creating a scene. In fact, in order to test my theories, there should be no collaboration between myself and my screenwriting friend, or Amy and I.
A lot of the research I am finding in this area focuses more on studio VS independent films, and I’m more interested in hearing from writer-directors to understand how they work and how their vision may or may not change during that process.
While my research practice will be highly subjective and will be a learning process on my own perspectives of creative control and ownership, it is still important for me to research how other screenwriters and directors work together, how different writer-directors work to create their visions, and their opinions/experiences with creative control & the collaboration of filmmaking.
During my research I came across a name that was unfamiliar to me; Alex Garland an interview in which he discusses his experiences working as a novelist and screenwriter collaborating with directors, while also reflecting on his experience directing his first feature film (which he also wrote) Ex Machina. The interview is available online: http://www.indiewire.com/article/why-ex-machina-writer-director-alex-garland-doesnt-consider-himself-a-first-time-filmmaker-20150408 Garland has previously written The Beach, 28 Days Later, and Sunshine which were directed by Danny Boyle. His work is primarily science-fiction based, which is probably why I hadn’t been aware of his work, as I am not a fan of science-fiction.
When asked if he originally intended to direct Ex Machina, he replies with a definitive no. Explaining that he wrote the script not for anyone else except himself and having a sense of ownership of it, then led to a natural progression of him directing the film. “A film like this, to make it in the way that it was written, requires a certain amount of creative freedom.” From this quote, it becomes a bit clearer that perhaps he wouldn’t have trusted another director with his material, “It requires license to have conversations that go on a certain amount of time, or nobody saying, ‘you know what needs to happen now, is a car chase.’ ”
It’s interesting that despite not having directed any films previously, Garland feels as though he has been working as a filmmaker “for years”. He explains that he felt somewhat confident that he could “nail his vision” due to his experience collaborating with other directors and also having a crew around him that he had worked with for a long time.
Garland reveals that in the past he has made himself become involved in the production of his scripts, whether the directors liked it or not. He believes in collaboration, and that the neurotic idea of a director taking credit for their “vision” is not the way he likes to work – he values the collaboration of the people he works with. “We present films in a director centric way – I’m not very director centric and never have been.”
His way of working as a collaborative filmmaker came from working with director Danny Boyle, who was very inclusive in the entire process, ensuring that Garland was involved every step of the way. He took this experience with him and used it when working with other directors, despite their wishes for him not to be as involved. He would invite himself to the actors’ rehearsals and make sure he was a part of the process.
He also discusses working with actors and the notion of “getting performances out of actors.” His discussion struck a chord with me as to how actors can create a whole other meaning behind the dialogue written on the page, and how this may alter or even enhance the writer’s vision. He describes the actor as a collaborator, and that they will bring a performance to the film because of the director allowing them that collaborative freedom. “As a writer I got very used to that because I saw actors create meaning in lines that I never thought or intended.”
“Here’s the thing. As a reduction, I came from books, I came from sitting on my own and writing a novel. Now, that word auteur means author. That is an act of authorship. And it’s kind of miserable because you don’t have a lot of people to talk to or hang out with or share problems with. The exact thing that attracts me to film is the collaboration. That’s single truest thing I can say about that, is what I enjoy about it. When somebody looks at this film, such a large part of what they’ll respond to is the obvious stuff, the performances and stuff. But the production design, the way it’s shot, they’re harder to see. Part of the beauty with those guys is that they do it beautifully but don’t draw attention to what they’re doing so it doesn’t get in the way of he drama or the characters or something. All I’m really doing is acknowledging that.” Perhaps my experience during my research practice will be completely different from Garland’s, or maybe it will lead me to a better appreciation for collaboration and insight from different creatives.
Garland’s experiences are very interesting, however I still want to continue researching different people’s perspectives on the idea of creative control.
My movie is born first in my head, dies on paper; is resuscitated by the living persons and real objects I use, which are killed on film but, placed in a certain order and projected on to a screen, come to life again like flowers in water. – Robert Bresson
This quote really resonates with me, as I have always been told by media teachers even from high school that a film is made three times; when it is written, when it is filmed, and when it is edited. I have found these statements to be true with previous projects I have worked on, where the finished product is always different to the original vision that had been written by the screenwriter.
There are a lot of reasons as to why this may be the case. One could be that the screenwriter may not be actively involved in the filmmaking of the script, and therefore other people’s creative vision and interpretation differentiate from the original. Another reason could be due to the revision of the writer-director, who may decide to refine ideas or his/her vision through the processes of filming and editing. It could also be due to a lack of streamlined pre-production where planning of each step of the filmmaking process isn’t fleshed out completely. Filmmaking is inherently a collaborative process, and working with other people means that they will come up with different ideas and suggestions as to how to best film or edit the script in question.
I don’t want to look at these variables as negatives, but rather keep them in mind when putting my research proposal into practice. It’s important to be aware of how a vision can change over time, and to remind myself that it is not only okay, but exciting to adapt and change my perspective on how to film and edit a scene. The whole process of filmmaking is fluid, and changes are made constantly; rather than being afraid of this happening during my practice, I need to embrace it and reflect on it.
As I have said in previous reflections, I have always thought that my method of working would be restricted by working on something I had written and envisioned. The last thing I want is to not be able to think creatively and think outside of the box. To ensure this, I need to embrace the concept that ‘a film is made three times’ and allow my vision to change throughout the processes; reflecting on what factors may influence that.
The more I think about having a DOP film my scenes for my research proposal, the more I become more reluctant. Despite my previous reflections saying that working with a DOP is the way I want to go so that I have less to worry about on the day of shooting, and directing them to shoot the shots I have planned, I think I have changed my mind.
I still want to get a sense of my style of filmmaking and methodology of working, and I’m becoming more aware that in order to do this, I need to step out of my comfort zone and be confident behind the camera. Gabby’s research proposal really struck a chord with me as I can relate to her wanting to gain a confidence with directing and filming. Her presentation really made the penny drop for me that in order for me to get the most out of this process, I need to step up and get behind the camera.
I asked myself how I would feel to have a DOP film the scenes I am planning for my investigation. I wondered how I could accurately test my theories of ‘ownership’ if I didn’t film the scenes myself? Sure, plenty of famous directors use DOPs, however as this is a reflective course, I want to be able to reflect upon my own style of filming which require me to get behind the camera. This helped me decide that in order to have a better understanding of creative control, I would need to film the scenes myself.
The next natural question is then what camera should I use? I definitely want to use either the EX3 or Z7. I have used both of these last year, and I don’t really have much of a preference right now. It would be a good idea to experiment more with the cameras in class, or even out of class to decide which I would prefer to work with for my investigation.
After discussing with Amy what we were thinking to work on for our research proposals, we came to an understanding and agreement to work together. As Amy needed a script to film her scene, and I was thinking of how having my script directed by a different director would inform my research proposal, we discussed how we could help each other out.
Both Amy and I were excited at how our agreement would benefit each other. I was quite excited to think of how we could compare each other’s interpretations of my writing, and whether my ownership of the text would be hindered by my vision or more creative due to it. I also thought about how I might feel having a different director work on filming my script, and whether I would agree with Amy’s choices and be thrilled by them, or feel as though my vision had been lost.
This will inform the second part of my investigation, in a sense examining the roles and working methodologies of the writer-director VS the director. It will be interesting to see how much collaboration Amy wants to have with me as the writer and her as the director. In my mind, it would be best for us to not discuss our directing choices at all until after the fact so that we don’t influence each other’s work.