#writingforfilm

[kev-doso]

13/90 - Script Revision 📝🎬

#ScriptWriting#Screenwriting#FilmScript#ScriptWriter#WritingForFilm#Screenplay#ScriptDevelopment#Storytelling#ScreenwritersLife#WritingProcess#ScriptRevisions#Rewrite#ScriptEdit#ScreenplayEdit#ScriptDoctor#ScriptPolish#FilmEditing#PostProduction#EditingRoom#FilmEditor#VideoEditing#CinematicEditing#FilmProduction#FilmMaking#OnSet#Filmmaker#ProductionDesign#BehindTheScenes#FilmmakingLife#indiefilm

[nandininegi97]

The line between documentary and fiction

In its most basic principle, if a film is a representation of something, then in a lot of fiction and non fiction films, in fact amongst the various categories of non fiction itself, the differences amongst them only lie in the degree of reality they represent. Amongst these, “documentaries” are often entrusted with representing reality most accurately with little to no manipulation of it or as John Grierson more rightly called them the “creative treatment of actuality”. However, if pointing a camera at something and filming it inevitably alters reality to an extent then is it right to assume that “documentaries”, even being as close to reality, are only merely a representation of it?

When Nanook of the North first released in 1922, it became a pioneer of what we today know as modern documentaries. Before this, documentation footage was common but when Flaherty took footage and edited it and gave it a sort of narrative structure, he made Nanook of the North which easily became recognised as the first feature length “documentary”. Later though, Flaherty was criticised for the film’s strategies of representation, which included a certain level of staging, casting, and editing of events. But if a “documentary” is anyhow only a representation of what is real, then what remains in question is the extent to which Flaherty’s methods are justified.

What Flaherty did when he created Nanook of the North is that he provided narrative to a life which otherwise may seem uninteresting. He even calls it “A story of life and love in the actual Arctic”. Here, by calling it a “story” he makes no claims about the “story” of Nanook being exactly how it is in reality as a “story” is mostly always just an account of something that once happened.

The film is frequently criticised for staging and showcasing Nanook and his family far behind their “actual” time, Flaherty’s instructions to build an igloo with a missing side, casting actors in place of real Inuits and editing out parts where guns and pistols were used to help stage the hunts. However, in Flaherty’s defence, these only help one build a clearer picture of the struggle and beauty of survival in the “actual” Arctic. Set against the bleak beauty of the Arctic, the film is an attempt to recreate the past in the undoubtedly real space. Flaherty may have used traditional tools and staging but the cold was still real, the animals were still real, the people and igloos were still real, they still butcher a real seal and really eat it. As Robert Ebert puts it more concisely, “If you stage a walrus hunt, it still involves hunting a walrus, and the walrus hasn’t seen the script”. With help from this staging and editing coupled with inter-titles and beautifully composed shots, Flaherty is able to provide a dramatic narrative to otherwise observational footage. Although, it must be noted that even observational documentaries which represent reality as it is, have narrative in them, which if not provided by the director, is provided by the interpretations of the viewer. In such a case then, when narrative becomes inevitable, narrativising “Nanook’s” life is only adding another layer to something which is a representation of reality. As Bill Nichols said, “Documentary operates in the crease between life as lived and life as narrativised”, the “story” of Nanook of the North is still very much a “documentary”. If Flaherty had never built an igloo with a side missing, we still wouldn’t

know what the inside of an Arctic igloo looks like and if Flaherty had not forced the use of harpoons for the huntings, we wouldn’t know how the Inuits used them to hunt. It must also be argued that even though harpoons were not used as frequently during the time of filming, one can clearly see how the hunters, including Nanook, knew how to use them. Since the film does not make any historical claims, it does not matter if these traditional tools were used in everyday life because a certain way of living and struggle was still being portrayed and by the people who knew the best about it.

However, it is also true that in this struggle between representation and reality, Flaherty compromises on reality for the purpose of representation. What is true though is that the film does capture the harshness of life in the Arctic. Under any condition, any excessive criticism of the film is not very well grounded because when Nanook of the North released in 1922, there was no clear “documentary” genre anyway. There were no rules that a “documentary” had to satisfy. Even if it was not a completely unstaged documentary, it was not complete fiction either. It was in between, it was reality but also representation.

[unblockingtheblock]

“Talent is required, but much of writing is a matter of craft, which develops with time, attention, patience and practice, like playing an instrument or learning to dance.” - Susan Wiggs @susan_wiggs_

Click to read more on “Craft Your Wednesdays”.

[matthewhawkeldridge-blog]

#storytelling #story #writing #screenwriting #scriptwriting #writingforfilm #screenplays #novel #fiction

[darkpactstudio-blog]

Shore Scripts Competition, Pine View - Pilot.

[kayonfilm-blog]

The Strangers (2008) Review

The Strangers (2008)

★★(2/5) You look good, you sound good, but you’re ugly inside.

Plot

Couple, James Hoyt (Scott Speedman) and Kristen McKay (Liv Tyler), travel to their family vacation house out in the middle of nowhere. As the night tolls on, the air becomes sour as a trio of deranged people turn an ordinary night into a living hell.

Review

An hour and a half, what has it go to show for it? Not much. From the get go the film should have ended. Giving the direct his due (Bryan Bertino) it was his first feature... One of three he has made since.

The struggle to conjure up the belief that these two characters were in a relationship was hard enough let alone to sit through the duration. Speedman and Tyler were probably the worst casting choice for a film that needed the characters to be submerged in a hell-bound world. It was almost like the casting team had forgotten the flimsy acting Liv Tyler gave in the blockbuster Armageddon. The best acting came from the characters that never spoke.

Let’s not get onto the dialogue... but seems it was written by the director, it just has to be said. The delivery of speech was as flat as the writing itself, if I wanted to see a domestic drama I’d watch Eastenders. The only horror film the antagonist is being cheered on to quieten down this whining couple. It was almost Bryan Bertino wrote one draft thought he was Kubrick thus made a... Masterpiece? No.

What saves this film would be the fantastic cinematography from Peter Sova, also known for being the Director of Photography on ‘Good Morning America’. The warmly lit rooms clashing with the harsh darkness of the outside, tied into wonderful suspense from the awkward framing. The feel of Eastern style cinematography made the home very claustrophobic, even anxiety heightening in some points.

Along with the cinematography the suspenseful music can be praised. Not being overly used, the music by Tom Hajdu and Andy Milburn, played on the combination of silence and then a trigger noise. The build up to the pinnacle of reveal through the use of the music was one of the perks of this movie. Never truly knowing what was going to happen next, but the heart still racing due to the clashing chords playing on the mind. These two composers give worth to the shambles.

Verdict

This is your typical 2000s horror film. Filled to the top with jump scares it’s almost predictable. If you want a to watch a real horror, watch the classics. This film is not worth the time invested into it. A film is not about looking pretty, it need substance, in this case it’s dissolved.

★★

Review by Alex Kay

[amuskol]

Idlip break muna sa pag chi check ng script. #midterm exams #mma #writingforfilm

[nandininegi97]

The “truth” in documentary - Chronique d'un été (Chronicle of a summer)

Filmmaking, I believe, has always been a road full of many questions about how things should be. Entrusted with the responsibility of representing “reality” as closely as possible in the case of a making a “documentary” film, these questions of how things should be become even more relevant. In an attempt to show the “truth”, “documentary” films often employ different ways but as Ralph Lee once said in an interview, “The idea that there is a truth that you discover is like chasing the end of a rainbow”. He states here that there is an important difference between a true story and the true story. One such film, that I believe not only attempts to construct a “truth” but also question it is Chronique d'un été ("Chronicle of a Summer”).

Chronique d'un été is a 1961 French documentary film shot during the summer of 1960 by sociologist Edgar Morin and filmmaker Jean Rouch. Shot in Paris at a time during the Algerian War, the film is a curious exploration of the form a documentary itself. Jean Rouch was sceptical that “reality” was inevitably compromised in the presence of a camera yet using a camera to capture uncompromising reality was what he wished to attain. The experiment thus resulted in an innovative film around happiness, human nature and life in the city which not only attempted to construct uncompromising reality but also questioned and introspected it. In many ways, the film became one of the first experiments in the field of Cinéma vérité, “truthful cinema”.

Using the cinéma vérité style of “documentary” filmmaking, filmmakers Jean Rouch and Edgar Morin interacted with their subjects directly and the audience was made aware of the obvious presence of the camera and the filmmakers. Many followers of the cinéma vérité school of thought have often argued that the filmmakers often acknowledged this presence as “the only way to reveal the truth behind cinema”. In this film itself, the filmmakers hold active discussions with the subjects, question them and even introspect and ask for their feedback. At many instances there is a silence between the filmmaker and the subject where there is nothing left to say and that reveals their bond and the “truth” behind the film.

The film opens up with Rouch and Morin speculating whether what they want is achievable and if they really could film the “truth”. Also a part of this discussion is Marceline, who is later revealed to be a holocaust survivor, and together they wonder if it is possible to record a conversation naturally in the presence of a camera. They then request a small favour of Marceline and the film moves to the streets of Paris where Marceline asks a simple question to passers-by, “Are you happy?” The varied range of responses coupled with the interviews

of the other participants make up for the thematic “truth” of this film, which Morin puts directly in the beginning of the film as a film about “how people live”.

The film later includes more intimate interviews with other subjects, few of which include insights into the life of a factory worker Angelo and a young student from Africa managing to get by France, a married couple and their adjustments and Mary Lou and her vulnerability. The film also includes a scene where Marceline is overcome by memories of her father and talks to herself on the road, walking away distraught. Many of these scenes question the nature of happiness, life in a city and even a foreign city, isolation, the simplicity and complexity of routine and things and ideals one must hold onto to get by. Many of these scenes are extremely intimate and make one question the bond between the filmmakers and the subjects and how does one decide what must be included in the film in order to represent “reality” as truthfully as possible, especially so in the scene with Marceline. Although, the “truth” in the “reality” of this film can also be argued as even though the scenes are unrehearsed and the people real, despite Morin and Rouch’s efforts, the camera has somehow still managed to alter the nature of the conversations as sometimes the people come off as highly self-conscious.

However, that again brings us back to Rouch and Morin’s awareness that a camera inevitably alters “reality”. As Bill Nichols says, “Documentaries always were forms of representation, never clear windows onto “reality”; the filmmaker was always a participant witness and an active fabricator of meaning, a producer of cinematic discourse rather than a neutral or all-knowing reporter of the way things truly are.” In some ways in reference to this definition, even if Chronique d'un été fails to highlight the “truth” it really hoped to attain, in many ways it still constructed its own truth, questioned it at the end of it and then also disregarded it.

Regardless of its thematic “truth”, Chronique d'un été was true and aware of its process and its limitations. It felt close to “reality” in ways with the handheld camera, however it did bot particularly use long takes which are generally associated with the style of observational cinema. The sound hardly included any external soundtracks except for the opening scene. In this self reflexive method, the film included no re-enactment of events, no casting and the people were their true selves, including Marceline, interaction with characters like who hardly existed before. The discussions were generally allowed to take their own shape and were intimate and conversation like, almost making them seem like everyday life where friends sit down to introspect and reflect on their days. However, I feel, that it can also be argued that questions presented by the filmmakers already carried the weight of the answers they were bound to receive. Anyhow, despite the probable influence of the cameras on the subjects, the filmmakers undoubtedly attempted to be truthful. They exposed their vision to help the audience understand the purpose of the film. Consequently, in the same self

reflexive method, they not only took the viewers through the experience of making the film but also through the experience of watching and criticising it.

In a film as intimate as Chronique d'un été, what is also critical is the choice of including or not including something in the film. One can wonder if the film makers while editing the film realised the probability of certain scenes coming off as rehearsed or even dramatic. The inclusion of these scenes along with the scenes where the subjects watch the film and criticise it, along with Rouch and Morin themselves criticising it brings forth another different kind of “truth” which certainly validates the “truth” in the process of making such a film.

In its attempts of constructing a “truth” close to the reality and questioning the same “truth”, Chronique d'un été also wonders if it is possible to construct such a “truth”. In many ways, it comes very close to to the same “truth” and its process - taking the audience on a journey where the film makers doubt their own desire, attempt to construct it, have people and themselves question it and then also admit their failure to do the very same. If the purpose of a “documentary” is to attain “truth” along with, as put by John Grierson, “the creative treatment of actuality”, does something like Chronique d'un été become a lesser “documentary” because it fails to achieve the hoped “truth” and is also not creativised enough?

However in many ways it is also a brave film as it acknowledges all of its shortcomings. As Bill Nichols says, many films “disavow the complexities of voice, and discourse, for the apparent simplicities of faithful observations or respectful representations”. Chronique d'un été breaks these and engages with its own “reality”, constantly attempting to make it and break it and at the same time realising and admitting why it fell short. But it does attain is own “truth” of representing the “reality”, if not of happiness, then of filmmaking. As Edgar Morin says in an ending shot, “I thought the audience would like the people I liked”, it really could not have gotten any closer to representing the “truth” than that.

[matthewhawkeldridge-blog]

Why Every Author Should Take an Acting Class.

I used to write stories with wonderful descriptive settings, lively action, and a favorable, multi-layered plot. And while the story was good, my characters were often underdeveloped. I took some acting classes, learned some acting methods, and started acting. Understanding how to act (and bring a character to life in the real world) has changed my writing forever. I now feel character development has become my strength. I suggest acting classes for every author of fiction. It will change you as a writer. #fiction #writing #novels #acting #writingdialogue #writingcharacters #characters #screenplays #scriptwriting #writingtips #fictionwriting #storytelling #shortstories #writingforfilm #writingscreenplays #charactercreation #actor #actingclasses #chubbucktechnique #chubbuck #writingtechniques #screenwriting #playwriting

[kayonfilm-blog]

Seashore (2015) - Film Review

Seashore (2015)

★★★★(4/5) The Sensual Seaside Show.

Plot

Martin (Mateus Almada) ventures to his father’s seaside villa, conducting a family orientated task after the passing of his grandfather. Joining him, his closest friend, Tomaz (Maurício Barcellos). Together, they explore their relationship as they learn new aspects of each other as they verge close to adulthood.

Review

Filipe Matzembacher and Marcio Reolon (directors) bring to life what can only be described as an excellent representation of modern love. The crescendo of homosexuality allows the film to develop its characters while keeping the audience guessing what the next progression will be. Due to the directors also being the writers of the film it can be seen that their ability to put script to screen is well practised.

Cinematographer, João Gabriel de Queiroz, allows the audience to be engrossed with the use of imagery. The easy flowing handheld shots allow the scenes to merge quite nicely while not jarring the eyes as the cuts are made. While also throughout the film the use of out of focus visuals captivates a sense of uncertainty adding to the complexity of the young characters.

However (most likely down to the budget restraint) it can be seen that in certain scenes it would have been wise to revisit for a reshoot. Whether it was due to the editing or lack of shots it could be seen that towards the end of the film it was almost rushed. The third act was almost let down from slacking filmmaking but was still kept standing due to the performance of the two leading actors.

Duos that work well together is hard to come by these days, that said these two Brazilian boys make one of the most believable friendships on screen that has been seen in a long time. The soft tones of their line delivery and the subtlety in the way they look at each other made sure the viewer was drawn into this affair. Martin and Tomaz refined connection made sure that everything that occurred, at least something someone watching could relate to weather it is the hassle of waiting for someone, the addictions

revealed throughout the film or quite simply the emotional levels presented from scene to scene.

Despite this film being defined as a LGBT film, that is only its undertone. The creators made sure that being gay wasn’t the main subject in this film, as in real life, it is an aspect of someone’s life [Tomaz] but is not the only attribute to a personality. That is why this film works so well, an almost neorealist film, real people in a real situation.

Verdict

Putting everything comprising of this film together, overall it works extremely well. The creators and everyone who worked on the production should be proud to have produced such a quaint film. Despite a few minor issues, it cannot be faulted and coming from an almost unknown film industry it is another great addition to the Brazilian archive of film.

★★★★(4/5)

Review by Alex Kay