Well, I'm back. A little older, a little wise (ha!) and a whole lot more fearful about the direction my life is taking! YIPPEE.
In short, I think the real reason lecturers throw 'guest lectures' in every now & then is to scare the pants off people. Phlippa was an aweseome presenter - getting to hear about someone who is out there & 'living the (proverbial) dream' is always somewhat grounding... But it just makes you realise how BLOODY IMPOSSIBLE the Howard Government has made it for those of us who care deeply about documentary to make a real crust out of working with it.
I have done some research into this based on the information that was presented today and the reality is really quite bleak for our industry at present. I would like to take a moment to point you towards Lisa French's edited work, which has helped to contextualise exactly what we (as the future of this industry) are going to be dealing with.
French, L. (2001) Patterns of Production: The Australian Film Industry in the 1990s (ed. Craven, I.), Australian Cinema in the 1990s, first edition, Frank Cass, Essex
This piece – compiled by one of our homegrown lecturers – paints a very comprehensive overview of the political factors that have affected Australian film funding over the past two decades. It identified the election of the Howard Liberal government as the cornerstone of this demise, as its election in 1996 was made on the premise to cut spending to almost all areas, including the arts. Unlike its Labour predecessors – most memorably the Whitlam and Keating governments – whose public backing of federal funding towards cinema was at its peak, the Coalition has done precious little to encourage the production of local films. Rather, its strong Capitalist principles have resulted in the encouragement of foreign investment and the production of foreign films in Australia, which, predictably, has had a dramatic impact upon the local screen culture. With the market dominated by mostly American product, it has proven excessively difficult for Australian feature films (and to an even greater extent, documentaries) to replicate the successes they reap, mainly because the processes involved in getting government funding in the first place has become elongated and intensely limited. As French rightfully points out, there is no foreseeable time where films will not be reliant upon government support – thus the more restrictive and dollar driven it is, the less able we are to cultivate our unique cultural aesthetic.
----
Having an affinity for the creative? Sometimes, it just bites the big one.
Showing posts with label lecture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lecture. Show all posts
Monday, September 10, 2007
Monday, September 3, 2007
the hills are alive... with the sound of evasionnnnn
Well, I returned the gear this morning and, suffice to say, we did not end up doing any filming this weekend. I imagine this is how it must feel for pregnant women who end up going to the hospital, expecting to go into full labour but find out it is just a false alarm. Bollocks. It's not like it was anything any of us could control, but at the same time I just wish I'd got them to confirm their consent in writing so that we weren't all just stranded like that. Makes me feel unprofessional and amateurish, and no matter how true either adjective may be, they still don't sit any better with me.
Anyway, enough of that. Today's lecture focussed on - ta da! - Sound. Always a winner with me. It was good to get an idea of how to set up the perfect recording environment as far as lighting is concerned. As most of you are no doubt painfully aware, I am Technologically Challenged to a fault - not necessarily with all electronics, but certainly with filming equipment. Part of my being Challenged can be attributed to a deep-seated fear of the apparatus, and what will come of me if I damage it, and the other half is merely plain ignorance. Obviously there is no excuse for that. So you can imagine how beneficial it was to sit in on today's class and just get real pointers on how to achieve nice, clean sound.
As we've had it drummed into our heads over the past 2 months, sound is THE MOST IMPORTANT element within documentary filmmaking. Even if your visuals are shit, your last saving grace will come in the form is crisp, levelled sound. The reason for this? Well, think about it. If you're viewing a documentary about something unfamiliar to you, you could pretty much have any visual thrown at you, but if you're distracted by poor quality or stilted sound, there is no way you (or more specifically, your audience) are going to remain engaged for that entire 3-7 minutes.
There are also many varieties of sound one needs to take into account when crafting one's documentary. Keeping in mind we're working with stereo (thus working wtih both left and right channels) we are going to have to sub-divide all our sounds in order to make sure their effects are being maximised. Meaning we would need to keep all narration, music, atmos, sound effects, dialogue, foley etc separate, or at least in separate tracks. This is pretty much how it was done last semester - if there is one thing that horrific experience with ADR in drama has taught me, it is how to set up the perfect synch sound pallet on Final Cut - even though I'm not a pro with connecting all the gear up.
Besides, that's Anthony's job :P
Anyway, enough of that. Today's lecture focussed on - ta da! - Sound. Always a winner with me. It was good to get an idea of how to set up the perfect recording environment as far as lighting is concerned. As most of you are no doubt painfully aware, I am Technologically Challenged to a fault - not necessarily with all electronics, but certainly with filming equipment. Part of my being Challenged can be attributed to a deep-seated fear of the apparatus, and what will come of me if I damage it, and the other half is merely plain ignorance. Obviously there is no excuse for that. So you can imagine how beneficial it was to sit in on today's class and just get real pointers on how to achieve nice, clean sound.
As we've had it drummed into our heads over the past 2 months, sound is THE MOST IMPORTANT element within documentary filmmaking. Even if your visuals are shit, your last saving grace will come in the form is crisp, levelled sound. The reason for this? Well, think about it. If you're viewing a documentary about something unfamiliar to you, you could pretty much have any visual thrown at you, but if you're distracted by poor quality or stilted sound, there is no way you (or more specifically, your audience) are going to remain engaged for that entire 3-7 minutes.
There are also many varieties of sound one needs to take into account when crafting one's documentary. Keeping in mind we're working with stereo (thus working wtih both left and right channels) we are going to have to sub-divide all our sounds in order to make sure their effects are being maximised. Meaning we would need to keep all narration, music, atmos, sound effects, dialogue, foley etc separate, or at least in separate tracks. This is pretty much how it was done last semester - if there is one thing that horrific experience with ADR in drama has taught me, it is how to set up the perfect synch sound pallet on Final Cut - even though I'm not a pro with connecting all the gear up.
Besides, that's Anthony's job :P
Monday, August 27, 2007
cinematography - not just limited to 'drama'
As the title suggests, this is an aspect to documentary that requires virtually just as much planning across the genres. Today's was quite an informative lecture, and I really liked the fact that David and Paul has Christine sitting down as the subject, offering different suggestions about conducting our interviews. These suggestions ranged from the lighting, to mise en scene (eg- the rule of thirds), to depth of field and focal length - the kind of nitty-gritty that can dramatically affect the end product, and is pertinent to the day of shooting so needs to be well thought-out.
One thing I'll need to clarify with the boys is the way we intend to use lighting.. I think we can really do better than one redhead (currently what we've opted to hire) and think imaginatively about how lighting can compliment the transition our subject undergoes. It is something worth thinking about at least and definitely worth finalising in the next couple of days.
I found the reading about Kirsten Johnston quite inspiring this week. Particularly given that she has worked on a lot of autobiographical documentaries, a lot of what she had to say is both relevant and useful. Nicely tied in with the ethical boundaries we discussed last week, she commented on the notion of politically questioning documentaries, and the need to take risks with people who (she) believes have a vision about a particular subject matter. This really reflects the direction in which we wish to steer Amazon - ours (and his) dream is for the eventual cohesion within the gay community and worldwide understanding/acceptance of all character types, whether it be drag queens or another minority group.
The ways we then use the production elements can then act as a salient reinforcements of this positive vision, but only if they are executed in a subtle and engaging manner. The way the shots are framed, for example, needs to be quite specific depending on the content we are discussing. The start and the end of the film are going to be quite different in emotional tone, and thus the other elements such as lighting and compositon need to be able to complement this shift.
One thing I'll need to clarify with the boys is the way we intend to use lighting.. I think we can really do better than one redhead (currently what we've opted to hire) and think imaginatively about how lighting can compliment the transition our subject undergoes. It is something worth thinking about at least and definitely worth finalising in the next couple of days.
I found the reading about Kirsten Johnston quite inspiring this week. Particularly given that she has worked on a lot of autobiographical documentaries, a lot of what she had to say is both relevant and useful. Nicely tied in with the ethical boundaries we discussed last week, she commented on the notion of politically questioning documentaries, and the need to take risks with people who (she) believes have a vision about a particular subject matter. This really reflects the direction in which we wish to steer Amazon - ours (and his) dream is for the eventual cohesion within the gay community and worldwide understanding/acceptance of all character types, whether it be drag queens or another minority group.
The ways we then use the production elements can then act as a salient reinforcements of this positive vision, but only if they are executed in a subtle and engaging manner. The way the shots are framed, for example, needs to be quite specific depending on the content we are discussing. The start and the end of the film are going to be quite different in emotional tone, and thus the other elements such as lighting and compositon need to be able to complement this shift.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
defining and applying aesthetic concepts
To springboard this week's lecture discussion centering on aesthetics, we watched part of a documentary on John Wojtowicz (whose life was the basis of the film ‘Dog Day Afternoon’). If nothing else, watching this excerpt really hammered home the prevalence and centripetal nature of sound in documentary filmmaking.
The music, to begin with, was the most emotive aspect of the production. Whether to elicit suspense or create ambience, sound was the inherent vehicle upon which every internal reaction in the audience could be solicited. The phone call audio used at the very beginning was also a powerful tool, as it gave a feeling of authenticity and curious uncertainty - the audience were cast almost as voyeurs, listening in remotely on someone's private calls. Implicating viewers in such a scenario is the ultimate tool of engagement here, one that the filmmaker had obviously thought about well in advance.
I guess the most defining aspect of describing any kind of aesthetics is to be 100% familiar with its treatment of style. In the case of our own documentaries, we are aiming to produce a very experimental, boundary-cutting work. Given the nature of our subject and his own colourful existence, we can only do him justice by having our production style mirror the contagious idiosyncrasies of his character.
There will, of course, be some strict adherence to convention as well. Although it will structurally retain a clear beginning, middle and end, Amazon will not only portray a fusion of character, but also a fusion of styles. On one hand, it aims to give an overwhelming degree of visual continuity – that is, to have shots smoothly dissolve into one another accompanied by seamless voiceovers (i.e. to make viewers feel as though they are literally ‘turning the pages’ of a biography). However, to compliment the more complex natue of his personality, we wish to utilise several effects in post-production to manipulate the relationship between time, space and what it seen, giving our documentary an aesthetic edge. This will be done strategically and where appropriate to compliment the content of the subject's accounts.
As with the docmuentary on John Wojtowicz, the overall intention is to produce a technically cogent program to elicit a wide array of feelings, ranging from excitement to suspense (where necessary). Given that the notion of appearances will be thoroughly explored, his costume will be given significant treatment - though most certainly not at the expense of the aural component of the production. We intend to use several sounds – both diegetic and non-diegetic, each being employed to fill their own unique purposes. Sound montages will accompany visual montages, with calmer parts of the background music accompanying the still images, and more rapid bits of film being entwined with the faster beats.
The transition from 'guy to goddess' will provide viewers with a hands-on account of what it is truly like is to go from one persona to another. At the documentary's end, he will transpire as being much more than merely a 'boy in a dress'.
Monday, August 6, 2007
time is ticking away
Side note: Today marks the fourth week back at uni for the semester - and my head is totally spinning out at the fact that was are practically one third of the way through already. How scary is that??!!
The lecture today acted as a kind of follow-on from the last week. We're basically being given every hint/tool/tip and trick in the book in order to narrow our focus and establish our storylines on paper, the idea being that audiences will then have a reason to willingly sacrifice their time and embrace what you've put together.
We've so far managed to get about halfway through the proposal.. We've written a synopsis, character analyses, and discussed the 'story' aspect of the doco. The working title we have so far is simply 'Amazon', but we've agreed to change it if any one of us comes up with something more fitting. We're hoping to cover style, structure, and the audio side of things befoe the next class, that way we won't have to run around like headless chooks before Friday. Here's a small taste of what to expect:
Story
The storyline will adhere to classic narrative-style conventions. It will begin with an initial premise – i.e. the vibrant side of being Amazon – before confronting the internal conflict surrounding duality, and how drag queens are both received and perceived within the gay community. By uncovering the personal story of one of the Melbourne (and formerly International) drag scene's hidden gems, the many aspects of his personality will unfold as multi-dimensional layers in and of themselves Indeed, for someone with so much talent and experience in this arena, precious few Victorians (let alone fellow Australians) are aware of his impressively unique - albeit somewhat trying - history. This two-fold process of ‘revelation’ will take viewers on a journey that may well not be far in physical distance, but will nonetheless transport them to a captivating, yet painstakingly realist atmosphere (one which audiences either young or old can certainly appreciate).
We want this doco to have a few different textures to it, in the same way The Butcher's Wife does - i.e., we want to include elements of 'intimate conversation' and infuse those with more character-based activities, such as getting ready and taking to the stage. We've also tossed about ideas of weaving popular culture, or at least iconography into the mix - seeing as drag queens are so often associated with the realm of celebrities and stagecraft. Amazon's already indicated that he's more than happy to dig up some old photos for us to include, so at least we'll also have stills to play with and edit accordingly if need be.
The more ideas we come up with, the more excited I am about seeing this thing come to fruition. It's gonna be a long haul - I know that - but there is something incredibly rewarding about knowing that your idea has a real tangibility to it.. like you have a purpose, almost. I really can't explain it any other way.
The lecture today acted as a kind of follow-on from the last week. We're basically being given every hint/tool/tip and trick in the book in order to narrow our focus and establish our storylines on paper, the idea being that audiences will then have a reason to willingly sacrifice their time and embrace what you've put together.
We've so far managed to get about halfway through the proposal.. We've written a synopsis, character analyses, and discussed the 'story' aspect of the doco. The working title we have so far is simply 'Amazon', but we've agreed to change it if any one of us comes up with something more fitting. We're hoping to cover style, structure, and the audio side of things befoe the next class, that way we won't have to run around like headless chooks before Friday. Here's a small taste of what to expect:
The storyline will adhere to classic narrative-style conventions. It will begin with an initial premise – i.e. the vibrant side of being Amazon – before confronting the internal conflict surrounding duality, and how drag queens are both received and perceived within the gay community. By uncovering the personal story of one of the Melbourne (and formerly International) drag scene's hidden gems, the many aspects of his personality will unfold as multi-dimensional layers in and of themselves Indeed, for someone with so much talent and experience in this arena, precious few Victorians (let alone fellow Australians) are aware of his impressively unique - albeit somewhat trying - history. This two-fold process of ‘revelation’ will take viewers on a journey that may well not be far in physical distance, but will nonetheless transport them to a captivating, yet painstakingly realist atmosphere (one which audiences either young or old can certainly appreciate).
We want this doco to have a few different textures to it, in the same way The Butcher's Wife does - i.e., we want to include elements of 'intimate conversation' and infuse those with more character-based activities, such as getting ready and taking to the stage. We've also tossed about ideas of weaving popular culture, or at least iconography into the mix - seeing as drag queens are so often associated with the realm of celebrities and stagecraft. Amazon's already indicated that he's more than happy to dig up some old photos for us to include, so at least we'll also have stills to play with and edit accordingly if need be.
The more ideas we come up with, the more excited I am about seeing this thing come to fruition. It's gonna be a long haul - I know that - but there is something incredibly rewarding about knowing that your idea has a real tangibility to it.. like you have a purpose, almost. I really can't explain it any other way.
Monday, July 23, 2007
flashback
Today's lecture brought back missed memories from the Writing Media Texts days... it was great to have Christine back in the lecture theatre, and a treat to have her share her expertise in this field with all of us once more.
The primary topic for today's class was focus: we were forced to ask ourselves what we want to hone in out, topic-wise, so that our documentaries actually say something and now just show. To illustrate the case in point, we watched a bit of a documentary made last year about a Commercial Dominatrix - fascinating subject matter, but it didn't really hit the nail on the head with regards to storytelling. Thus, it didn't reach its full potential.
I think it's all too easy to get caught up in the 'drama vs doco' mindset and end up discarding elements that could enrich the genre you are working with. In the case of 'Dominate', the aforementioned doco, the group really neglected to shape the documentary with a beginning, middle and end. It might sound like basic narrative structuing here, but that's because it is - just because documentary is not fictional by definiton, does not mean that we can just do away with the basic premises that govern all forms of filmmaking.
I guess it was like a 'beware' to the rest of us - know your subject, know your focus. And most importantly, know your audience and what you want them to walk away feeling after seeing what you have to show to them...
The primary topic for today's class was focus: we were forced to ask ourselves what we want to hone in out, topic-wise, so that our documentaries actually say something and now just show. To illustrate the case in point, we watched a bit of a documentary made last year about a Commercial Dominatrix - fascinating subject matter, but it didn't really hit the nail on the head with regards to storytelling. Thus, it didn't reach its full potential.
I think it's all too easy to get caught up in the 'drama vs doco' mindset and end up discarding elements that could enrich the genre you are working with. In the case of 'Dominate', the aforementioned doco, the group really neglected to shape the documentary with a beginning, middle and end. It might sound like basic narrative structuing here, but that's because it is - just because documentary is not fictional by definiton, does not mean that we can just do away with the basic premises that govern all forms of filmmaking.
I guess it was like a 'beware' to the rest of us - know your subject, know your focus. And most importantly, know your audience and what you want them to walk away feeling after seeing what you have to show to them...
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
the home stretch - remember to breathe
It's week freaking 12, people.
It seems like only yesterday we were sitting huddled in a circle with Di and Paul, tossing around ideas for characters and script-crafting.
And now we're here. Some of us have already filmed, other are just about to. My group falls into the latter category, but I'm kind of glad we chose to grad it out. Especially considering that no matter how much time you get in pre-production, you're always going to feel half-baked when you venture out on set.
This week's lecture was another Final Cut intensive. Timely, I must say, and it's nice to have it shown on the overhead so that we can get some kind of mental feel for the software. I swear that program has a level of complexity that not even I'm used to coping with.. argh. Anyway. It was good to learn how to insert text - we are reccommended to use the fade in/out technique as opposed to lame-o rolling credits. I think we'd have gone that option anyway, considering the feel we have chosen to embellish our piece with.
It's good to know, too, that we have options in post to make our film look spiffy, should some of it turn out underexposed or just plain droll. The formula Paul used went something along the lines of 'white whites, black blacks, saturation, softened edges' - sounds simple enough, but I swear it made a hell of a difference to the footage once the settings were applied. Just like magic :P
Grounded some of the basics once more, I think more than anything so as to solidify them in our skulls. Some key things to remember when shooting, and I think Robin summed this up nicely back in week 9: 'Sun is light and silence is still sound'. Omission is a very deliberate move in film - which is why post counts for so much.
It seems like only yesterday we were sitting huddled in a circle with Di and Paul, tossing around ideas for characters and script-crafting.
And now we're here. Some of us have already filmed, other are just about to. My group falls into the latter category, but I'm kind of glad we chose to grad it out. Especially considering that no matter how much time you get in pre-production, you're always going to feel half-baked when you venture out on set.
This week's lecture was another Final Cut intensive. Timely, I must say, and it's nice to have it shown on the overhead so that we can get some kind of mental feel for the software. I swear that program has a level of complexity that not even I'm used to coping with.. argh. Anyway. It was good to learn how to insert text - we are reccommended to use the fade in/out technique as opposed to lame-o rolling credits. I think we'd have gone that option anyway, considering the feel we have chosen to embellish our piece with.
It's good to know, too, that we have options in post to make our film look spiffy, should some of it turn out underexposed or just plain droll. The formula Paul used went something along the lines of 'white whites, black blacks, saturation, softened edges' - sounds simple enough, but I swear it made a hell of a difference to the footage once the settings were applied. Just like magic :P
Grounded some of the basics once more, I think more than anything so as to solidify them in our skulls. Some key things to remember when shooting, and I think Robin summed this up nicely back in week 9: 'Sun is light and silence is still sound'. Omission is a very deliberate move in film - which is why post counts for so much.
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
we could all do with some theatrics
..to brighten the day.
David's lecture this morning was an absolute doozie. I love having my 6 hours of straight classes brightened by the nutso antics of my peers, namely Latch, whose ridiculously dispassioned performance might've helped demonstrat what to film - but certainly not how not to act. Gold.
We're coming up to break time now so with any luck we'll all be able to get out acts and our heads together enough to prepare ourselves for the ride the rest of this semester is going to be. I've got that much to do it isn't funny. I should probably be in bed now, but will have something more meaningful to contribute tomorrow when I've done the rest of the readings.
nighty night.
David's lecture this morning was an absolute doozie. I love having my 6 hours of straight classes brightened by the nutso antics of my peers, namely Latch, whose ridiculously dispassioned performance might've helped demonstrat what to film - but certainly not how not to act. Gold.
We're coming up to break time now so with any luck we'll all be able to get out acts and our heads together enough to prepare ourselves for the ride the rest of this semester is going to be. I've got that much to do it isn't funny. I should probably be in bed now, but will have something more meaningful to contribute tomorrow when I've done the rest of the readings.
nighty night.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
conceding defeat
Well, I've given up and given in to some extent on trying to get WordPress to be my friend. I figure that if I do get it up and running I can just set it up to feed straight from here anyway, so that's that.
This morning's lecture gave me a lot to think about regarding how I want my script to be shot. I hadn't really given it a great deal of thought prior, but the aspect ratio used to film with can make an enormous difference to the narrative structure. A film like Apocalypse Now, for example, would not have had such an oblique, end-of-days feel to it had it been done on 3:4 or even 16:9. Its very structure and cinematic dexterity is heavily reliant upon the inclusion of the wide-wide screen, and Coppola's meticulous attention to detail is enough to awe the pants off generations of audiences, 28 years on from its release.
It's funny to think that movies were awesome well before I was born.
(No, I'm not an ageist, damnit!)
I'm thinking 3:4 might be the go with mine, but we'll see. I've flirted with the idea of 16:9 but honestly, I think it's probably best to stick to convention - at least for the purposes of this task and the genre it pertains to. I have thought about filming in black and white though, not just for the memory sequence, but the entire piece. Hmmm. We'll see what transpires when I finish the script.
Speaking of which... I'd better get on it - while I've still got energy (and motivation).
This morning's lecture gave me a lot to think about regarding how I want my script to be shot. I hadn't really given it a great deal of thought prior, but the aspect ratio used to film with can make an enormous difference to the narrative structure. A film like Apocalypse Now, for example, would not have had such an oblique, end-of-days feel to it had it been done on 3:4 or even 16:9. Its very structure and cinematic dexterity is heavily reliant upon the inclusion of the wide-wide screen, and Coppola's meticulous attention to detail is enough to awe the pants off generations of audiences, 28 years on from its release.
It's funny to think that movies were awesome well before I was born.
(No, I'm not an ageist, damnit!)
I'm thinking 3:4 might be the go with mine, but we'll see. I've flirted with the idea of 16:9 but honestly, I think it's probably best to stick to convention - at least for the purposes of this task and the genre it pertains to. I have thought about filming in black and white though, not just for the memory sequence, but the entire piece. Hmmm. We'll see what transpires when I finish the script.
Speaking of which... I'd better get on it - while I've still got energy (and motivation).
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
'the art of ventriloquism'
So today's lecture moved onto the technical aspects of filmmaking. I can tell we are gonna be in for a long haul when it comes to learning the ropes with all of the gear we are expected to make use of this year. No more puncing around with mini-DV decks! Naturally I predict many a teary tantrum on my part, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it shall we.
In sum:
-Music can serve a variety of purposes in narrative, not the least common of which can be to act as a transition between shots.
-Sounds can be superficial (imaginary) or filmed on location (wild sounds)
-Silence can speak volumes (we watched a bit of footage from a movie where a rape scene was omitted and instead a clip of some wartime soldiers was inserted, whilst the characters continued to discuss the events - thus we were left to imagine what had happened, evoking a deeper sense of pathos than if we had just seen what these characters were speaking of)
-Dialogue is a key form of synch sound
-Music and sound-effects are known as non-diegetic
-You must choose wisely the location from which you record sounds
-Soundscapes provide good grounds for experimentation, particularly in reference to point of view (take Hitchcock's Rear Window, while Jeff is lying in bed)
Will write more once the readings are done, and will possibly comment on some more Hitchcockian use of sounds.
In sum:
-Music can serve a variety of purposes in narrative, not the least common of which can be to act as a transition between shots.
-Sounds can be superficial (imaginary) or filmed on location (wild sounds)
-Silence can speak volumes (we watched a bit of footage from a movie where a rape scene was omitted and instead a clip of some wartime soldiers was inserted, whilst the characters continued to discuss the events - thus we were left to imagine what had happened, evoking a deeper sense of pathos than if we had just seen what these characters were speaking of)
-Dialogue is a key form of synch sound
-Music and sound-effects are known as non-diegetic
-You must choose wisely the location from which you record sounds
-Soundscapes provide good grounds for experimentation, particularly in reference to point of view (take Hitchcock's Rear Window, while Jeff is lying in bed)
Will write more once the readings are done, and will possibly comment on some more Hitchcockian use of sounds.
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
meditating on creativity
So the first chunk of this subject seems to be devoted to getting us to 'unleash the dragon' in relation to our creativity reserves.
Most of us are a little rusty in that department. Me especially.
According to Di, it's a writers' volition to tell the world about things. The innate desire to create, to reflect, is something we are driven to share with those around us. Whether it be to make a serious comment on humanity or poke fun at its foibles, the propensity to share that without is part of our cultural makeup. It's what truly helps us form our social identity.
Subtle tension, irony and conflict must be used to a maximum extent, particularly if the piece has been created to serve a greater moral precept. Noir, for example, is a narrative device used to elicit tension. Often, a set of technical formula is so ingrained within a specific genre but that it is indeed subconscious.
Of course, nothing exists in stasis - so these genre are continually evolving, growing. This is also relative to ever-changing values of the viewing audience, who as educated moviegoers are anything but a static, homogenous group.
Today, the sky is in fact the limit when it comes to putting a pen to paper and writing for cinema. Though there may not be a one-size-fits-all approach, the main thing is to relax with the medium and trust one's instincts. Then, and only then will filmmaking retain an element of unrelenting truth... no matter how fictitious the premise or story.
Most of us are a little rusty in that department. Me especially.
According to Di, it's a writers' volition to tell the world about things. The innate desire to create, to reflect, is something we are driven to share with those around us. Whether it be to make a serious comment on humanity or poke fun at its foibles, the propensity to share that without is part of our cultural makeup. It's what truly helps us form our social identity.
Subtle tension, irony and conflict must be used to a maximum extent, particularly if the piece has been created to serve a greater moral precept. Noir, for example, is a narrative device used to elicit tension. Often, a set of technical formula is so ingrained within a specific genre but that it is indeed subconscious.
Of course, nothing exists in stasis - so these genre are continually evolving, growing. This is also relative to ever-changing values of the viewing audience, who as educated moviegoers are anything but a static, homogenous group.
Today, the sky is in fact the limit when it comes to putting a pen to paper and writing for cinema. Though there may not be a one-size-fits-all approach, the main thing is to relax with the medium and trust one's instincts. Then, and only then will filmmaking retain an element of unrelenting truth... no matter how fictitious the premise or story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
