I have been taking it fairly easy over Easter which is grand, but I have nosed around at some TV items which I think might be worth a muse or two.
Newswipe
I find this programme rather fascinating. It's entertaining and rather daft in places but it is very incisive in the way it highlights the bizarre way news is presented. This is not a show which just picks up on some of the wierd satellite channels from America where the local newscaster gets things wrong and laughs about it. This is looking at BBC, Ch4, Sky, ITV and others and making very sharp remarks on their coverage of events. The first episode I saw picked out the way a gunman who kills several folk and shoots himself is often portrayed as some sort of tragic anti-hero. He is a voice for all the frustrated millions out there. As one psychologist pointed out, this 24 hour celebrity becomes an inspirational figure for other like minded killers. The second episode I saw looked more at how objectivity has been replaced by emotionalism. It took the coverage of Jade Goody's death as its centrepiece, showing the ridiculous adulation, the irrational hatred and the intrusive voyeurism with which this story was presented. In particular it viewed this whole saga as essentially a fight between the tabloids, the broadsheets, the glossy magazines and the TV channels for who could make the most money out of Jade's death.
In many ways I hope this program is overemphasising the way things are, but it smacks of truth. There is little that is subtle or sophisticated about this show, but it makes its point very effectively.
Rome
I got round to watching the last few episodes of this TV series this week, running up an irritating £2 fine in the process. Despite that I very much enjoyed it. My knowledge of Ancient Rome is very scanty. My knowledge of Caesar's life was taken in the main from once reading Shakespeare's play "Julius Caesar" and watching "Carry on Cleo" - never the most accurate of historical chronicles. So I found this portrayal of the life of Ancient Rome fascinating, from the first episode where Caesar crosses the Rubicon river at the head of his legion, marching on Rome, to the dramatic final episode when Caesar is assasinated on the floor of the Senate.
So many of the characters of that time have passed into legend: Marc Anthony, Cleopatra, Pompey, Cato, Brutus, Cicero and Cassius. But the story focusses on two very human and endearing characters, soldiers in Caesar's legion. Sometimes the plot seems a little contrived to enable them to take part in every aspect of the political life of the time: the most striking example would be sailing off a desert island on a raft made from corpses only to be washed up hundreds of miles away right beside Pompey's family as they flee to Egypt. But in general, things flow fairly smoothly and the characters are all well rounded enough that you can watch without getting pulled out of the experience.
The production values are exceptionally high, especially in the design. Only occasionally do you notice the budget stretching at the seams. Caesars triumphal parade through Rome was a notable example. It was grand but it wasn't as lavish as we would have expected from, say, a feature film.
The series ends with the closure of certain story arcs and with others left hanging, leaving the whole thing open for a second series, which I believe they have now done. I would recommend it highly. I did occasionally feel the sex and violence was a little blatant: the show was certainly marketed on the "tits and gore" factor but it often ended up feeling stapled onto a rather more intelligent show for a ratings boost, rather than an integral ingredient.
Thursday, 16 April 2009
Thursday, 26 March 2009
Week Beginning 16/3
I have to cast my mind back a little to be able to recall this far back. Shooting two films back to back has been nothing short of exhausting.
Monday was a day of pre-production for Melissa's Mail. We worked out our various spheres of responsibility within the shoot and divided the production work between us all, overseen by Gavin. This certainly eased some of the pressure on pre-production. It was my job to essentially find everyone we needed cast-wise and also to get a make-up person.
We are very fortunate in the Academy to have top-class actors wandering all over the place, so casting three out of four roles from within RSAMD was very helpful. The fourth one was quite a nightmare to source, but we eventually found a gentleman called Tony who was perfect for the role. I also gained some experience of working with a casting agency from the point of view of a director, as opposed to as a background artist.
Tuesday was a lecture on the Golden age of Hollywood, followed by our final Screenwriting class, where we presented a further selection of premises and got our assignment over Easter. One three-minute script, ten seven-minute premises, three of which are developed into three paragraph outlines.
Wednesday was a PAT tutorial, followed by a Program Meeting and a screening of Cathy Come Home. Undeniably a powerful piece of TV drama, which I had heard of but never seen. It interested me that it was quite unafraid to proclaim it's message very loudly. It did not try to follow the "I'm just asking questions?" or even "It's whatever you make of it" approach that seems to be somewhat in vogue at the moment. It was verging strongly towards what might be termed "preachy" today, and although this is usually seen as a defect, it did not seem like that to me in this piece. I wonder how well something like this would be received today, when it seems mandatory to prefix every conclusion, even in a documentary, with the word "Perhaps".
Thursday was a Technical class, where we looked at various aspects of a shoot in a somewhat random fashion as words of wisdom queued themselves up inside Ray's head. Some of this I found useful, some less so, but it was good to have a time to ask any questions about the technical side of the project.
Friday was an open day (AKA intense pre-production day), and at 1630 we got the kit out for filming Lord of the Rings in 60 Seconds. I was filming this on Friday evening and Monday daytime and went immediately into Melissa's Mail on Tuesday and Wednesday. This, of course, was not good for the nerves, but Lord of the Rings had been well into pre-production long before the two course-led films had been selected and the dates of filming revealed.
So what have I learnt from the experience?
Lord of the Rings
We only had four DFTV students involved in Lord of the Rings while we were shooting. Phil was directing, I was 1st AD and also helping out with the lights, Luke was on camera and Graeme on sound. However we had about 8 TPA students involved over the two days, doing everything from Set Dressing to being an improvised Dolly Grip or Focus Puller. (In the absence of a dolly, we borrowed a small platform on wheels which was found lying discarded at the back of an emapty room, and set the camera up on that. I was particularly pleased with that shot, where one person was on camera, two were moving the dolly, and a fourth was pulling the focus while a fifth cable bashed!) I found this initial collaboratio to be very promising in terms of what TPA and DFTV can deliver when they work together and look forward to our next collaboration next term.
Melissa's Mail
Overall, having not seen the footage, I am still very pleased the way Melissa’s Mail turned out. The shot list was terrifying, with close to sixty set-ups. However, with an even light, with a schedule cleverly designed by Gavin and with a continual eye on the clock we managed to get through the marathon and had cleared the office building by half five on the dot.
Monday was a day of pre-production for Melissa's Mail. We worked out our various spheres of responsibility within the shoot and divided the production work between us all, overseen by Gavin. This certainly eased some of the pressure on pre-production. It was my job to essentially find everyone we needed cast-wise and also to get a make-up person.
We are very fortunate in the Academy to have top-class actors wandering all over the place, so casting three out of four roles from within RSAMD was very helpful. The fourth one was quite a nightmare to source, but we eventually found a gentleman called Tony who was perfect for the role. I also gained some experience of working with a casting agency from the point of view of a director, as opposed to as a background artist.
Tuesday was a lecture on the Golden age of Hollywood, followed by our final Screenwriting class, where we presented a further selection of premises and got our assignment over Easter. One three-minute script, ten seven-minute premises, three of which are developed into three paragraph outlines.
Wednesday was a PAT tutorial, followed by a Program Meeting and a screening of Cathy Come Home. Undeniably a powerful piece of TV drama, which I had heard of but never seen. It interested me that it was quite unafraid to proclaim it's message very loudly. It did not try to follow the "I'm just asking questions?" or even "It's whatever you make of it" approach that seems to be somewhat in vogue at the moment. It was verging strongly towards what might be termed "preachy" today, and although this is usually seen as a defect, it did not seem like that to me in this piece. I wonder how well something like this would be received today, when it seems mandatory to prefix every conclusion, even in a documentary, with the word "Perhaps".
Thursday was a Technical class, where we looked at various aspects of a shoot in a somewhat random fashion as words of wisdom queued themselves up inside Ray's head. Some of this I found useful, some less so, but it was good to have a time to ask any questions about the technical side of the project.
Friday was an open day (AKA intense pre-production day), and at 1630 we got the kit out for filming Lord of the Rings in 60 Seconds. I was filming this on Friday evening and Monday daytime and went immediately into Melissa's Mail on Tuesday and Wednesday. This, of course, was not good for the nerves, but Lord of the Rings had been well into pre-production long before the two course-led films had been selected and the dates of filming revealed.
So what have I learnt from the experience?
Lord of the Rings
- The Props department are truly amazing (Elven shears, the Eye of Sauron, a sword, etc)
- The Costume folk likewise (hobbit costumes, a gown, a cloak)
- If you want something done, don't ask a Designer.
- Risk Assessments are a minor nuisance, but they make you very safety conscious throughout.
- A reflector board, being waved around in a light beam, produces a lovely flickering effect.
- Lighting a set takes ages compared to setting up for another camera angle within a lit set.
We only had four DFTV students involved in Lord of the Rings while we were shooting. Phil was directing, I was 1st AD and also helping out with the lights, Luke was on camera and Graeme on sound. However we had about 8 TPA students involved over the two days, doing everything from Set Dressing to being an improvised Dolly Grip or Focus Puller. (In the absence of a dolly, we borrowed a small platform on wheels which was found lying discarded at the back of an emapty room, and set the camera up on that. I was particularly pleased with that shot, where one person was on camera, two were moving the dolly, and a fourth was pulling the focus while a fifth cable bashed!) I found this initial collaboratio to be very promising in terms of what TPA and DFTV can deliver when they work together and look forward to our next collaboration next term.
Melissa's Mail
- Once a white room is lit with a general even wash, it becomes much easier to light it in future. The problems are with trying to avoid seeing lights in wideshots and trying to find a little bit of highlight in tighter shots. A pepper is very useful for this.
- Don't wrap people too early just because you feel sorry for them getting bored!
- Have plenty water on set for cast and crew.
- Don’t leave complex shots to the end of the day. You will be too tired to care.
- It’s best to be able to pay extras. Two out of four never showed, though the two that turned up were brilliant and very professional.
- Having an extra couple of folk standing by on set is very useful if anything unforeseen should occur.
Overall, having not seen the footage, I am still very pleased the way Melissa’s Mail turned out. The shot list was terrifying, with close to sixty set-ups. However, with an even light, with a schedule cleverly designed by Gavin and with a continual eye on the clock we managed to get through the marathon and had cleared the office building by half five on the dot.
Saturday, 14 March 2009
Week Beginning 9/3
This week has been a little hectic with continued pre-production for "Lord of the Rings in 60 Seconds" as well as pitching my TPA/DFTV collaboration proposals to Ros and Adam on Wednesday. Over and above that we had classes.
Monday was our pitches to Barbara for a programme for the 8pm Sunday evening slot on BBC or ITV. Galina, Charlotte and myself pitched a drama set in a theatre called the Millennium Hope. I have to say I did quite like the idea, and if we have time it would be nice to look at developing it further after we had the notes back from Barbara.
Tuesday was a Gaelic class in the morning. Grand. Then a Screenwriting class in the afternoon where we did some work deconstructing Shawshank Redemption in discussion. This shows me just how far the classical structure can be twisted into something more unique
Wednesday was a PAT tutorial followed by a Programme Meeting and a class on TV, where we watched both Hancock and Steptoe. I had never seen Steptoe before and found it to be more of a comedic drama than a true comedy. Perhaps the later episodes had a different tone, but certainly the one we watched was only intermittantly comical. I can't imagine that these rag and bone men were any more representational of the people of their time than the Larkins (or whatever they were) who had come previously. Perhaps, however, there was something in the aspirational character of these individuals that struck a chord with the nation.
Thursday was a packed day with a morning class with Abigail looking at contracts for writers in quite significant detail. This is all quite useful as general background information for the TV/film industry, but given that Abigail is convinced we will be lucky, when we graduate, to be employed as runners, it all seems a little academic.
At lunch I was helping Phil with auditions for Lord of the Rings, then quickly nipping along to the second half of a screening of Apparitions by Tony Wood. Graeme and myself were supposed to be filming this Masterclass, but as we had no time to adjust the camera before he began talking, as the backfocus was significantly out of kilter and the only microphone we had was a cumbersome boom mike, the whole affair was less than professional. The talk itself was very engaging. I like that fact that Tony was rebelling against the PC culture within broadcasting.
On Thursday night I was ushering a play at the Citizens done by Langside College. It was entitled the Pillowman, and I was blown away by it. In terms of quality, it stands up against anything that has been performed at the Citz in the last two years. I won't go into much detail in terms of the plot or the characters, but the theme is quite clear. The pen, it is said, is mightier than the sword. But that does not mean it is better than the sword. (I suppose I had always taken it that way.) The pen (words, ideas, stories) simply has greater power than the sword (violence, government, death). Power for building up or for pulling down. Lives can be wrecked by the pen just as by the sword, and they can even be wrecked accidentally. The play is a plea for all of us who are writers or who aspire to be writers to take our work seriously and not to underestimate the ability we have to change society, or to change a persons life for good or for bad. We cannot be careless or thoughtless when we write, anymore than we should be careless or thoughtless when handling an AK-47.
Friday was a screening and discussion of Sea of Souls, which was enjoyable to watch for one episode, but which looked as though it could quickly become formulaic if the characters were not allowed to develop. The afternoon was a screening of Casablanca, which was an even better watch the second time round! Wonderful stuff.
Monday was our pitches to Barbara for a programme for the 8pm Sunday evening slot on BBC or ITV. Galina, Charlotte and myself pitched a drama set in a theatre called the Millennium Hope. I have to say I did quite like the idea, and if we have time it would be nice to look at developing it further after we had the notes back from Barbara.
Tuesday was a Gaelic class in the morning. Grand. Then a Screenwriting class in the afternoon where we did some work deconstructing Shawshank Redemption in discussion. This shows me just how far the classical structure can be twisted into something more unique
Wednesday was a PAT tutorial followed by a Programme Meeting and a class on TV, where we watched both Hancock and Steptoe. I had never seen Steptoe before and found it to be more of a comedic drama than a true comedy. Perhaps the later episodes had a different tone, but certainly the one we watched was only intermittantly comical. I can't imagine that these rag and bone men were any more representational of the people of their time than the Larkins (or whatever they were) who had come previously. Perhaps, however, there was something in the aspirational character of these individuals that struck a chord with the nation.
Thursday was a packed day with a morning class with Abigail looking at contracts for writers in quite significant detail. This is all quite useful as general background information for the TV/film industry, but given that Abigail is convinced we will be lucky, when we graduate, to be employed as runners, it all seems a little academic.
At lunch I was helping Phil with auditions for Lord of the Rings, then quickly nipping along to the second half of a screening of Apparitions by Tony Wood. Graeme and myself were supposed to be filming this Masterclass, but as we had no time to adjust the camera before he began talking, as the backfocus was significantly out of kilter and the only microphone we had was a cumbersome boom mike, the whole affair was less than professional. The talk itself was very engaging. I like that fact that Tony was rebelling against the PC culture within broadcasting.
On Thursday night I was ushering a play at the Citizens done by Langside College. It was entitled the Pillowman, and I was blown away by it. In terms of quality, it stands up against anything that has been performed at the Citz in the last two years. I won't go into much detail in terms of the plot or the characters, but the theme is quite clear. The pen, it is said, is mightier than the sword. But that does not mean it is better than the sword. (I suppose I had always taken it that way.) The pen (words, ideas, stories) simply has greater power than the sword (violence, government, death). Power for building up or for pulling down. Lives can be wrecked by the pen just as by the sword, and they can even be wrecked accidentally. The play is a plea for all of us who are writers or who aspire to be writers to take our work seriously and not to underestimate the ability we have to change society, or to change a persons life for good or for bad. We cannot be careless or thoughtless when we write, anymore than we should be careless or thoughtless when handling an AK-47.
Friday was a screening and discussion of Sea of Souls, which was enjoyable to watch for one episode, but which looked as though it could quickly become formulaic if the characters were not allowed to develop. The afternoon was a screening of Casablanca, which was an even better watch the second time round! Wonderful stuff.
Wednesday, 11 March 2009
A quick note about reading
Since Andy mentioned he was looking for stuff we have been reading, I thought I'd breifly mention a couple of things that have passed through my fingers recently.
In the last few weeks I'd been really struggling to find anything worth reading. I was meandering through "First King of Shannara" by Terry Brooks, a truly awful novel. I cannot imagine how Terry Brooks has come to have such a huge fanbase when the novels he writes are as poor as this. The plot was predictable and sluggish, the characters paper-thin caricatures of Dungeons and Dragons proportions, the writing style was flat and unexciting. Altogether dreadful, and I was only reading it as I had nothing else small enough to fit in my pocket.
I then moved onto a book called Thraxas Under Siege, which interestingly combines a fantasy world with a film-noir private detective type. The film-noir effect is acheived by writing in present tense singular, which I found very off-putting at the beginning, but to which I gradually adapted myself. A strong comic vein ran throughout this novel, and the centre character was always more interested in getting a drink of the Abbot's Darkest Ale than in solving the mystery or fighting off the hordes of marauding orcs. The book ended on a cliffhanger, with Thraxas rushing towards the shore, hotly pursued by a dragon. All in all a very unusual book, but I loved the combination of detective genre with fantasy.
Continuing with the fantasy theme, I am reading a dark fantasy called Heathen, where a widow sets off to uncover the mystery surrounding her husbands death and insteead finds Satanists of witches or a gang of lunatics of some description. (I haven't got to that point in the book yet, and I'm not desperate to find out either.) The book is very depressing in its tone and tells you every little detail of the persons life, including what they have for breakfast each day.
I am also reading "Candide" by Voltaire, in a modern English translation. I am finding it quite gripping and I love the piercing satire with which Voltaire takes the established philosophies, constructed in ivory towers, and confronts them with the terrible realities of war and earthquake. One striking example is Jacques, the noble-hearted Anabaptist, too afraid of failure as a Christian, to ever let himself be baptised. Now, in the middle of a terrible storm at sea, he pulls a sailor back from certain death. When the next wave hits the ship, Jacques is thrown overboard and the sailor doesn't give him a second thought. Jacques drowns in the sea: a permanant and involuntary baptism. The whole incident is related starkly in about five lines, and the rest of the book is like it. The writing is prosaic and tongue in cheek, which contrasts most effectively with the terrible events told in page after page. I'm loving it, so far.
Finally I'm also reading the massive Calvin's Institutes (a couple of pages a week!) Its a very insightful look at the Bible, looking in depth at issues such as Who is God? What is the nature of man? Can the Bible be trusted? Are we free? What is the importance of Jesus Christ? I think the one main thing it says is that Christianity is most certainly not blind faith (regardless of how it is frequently portrayed in the media). It is rational, thoughtful, intelligent. It is not a faith which goes against reason, but a faith which leads on from reason.
On a more general note, the books which really stand out to me which I have read over the last year would be the Lucifer series by Neil Gaiman, Scar Night by Allen Campbell and the Children of the Serpent Gate trilogy by Sarah Ash. These are all very original and thought provoking and the last one especially would be wonderful as a high budget TV drama.
And a weblink to http://www.petting-zoo.org/TinyStories.html where I have found some inspiring stories for adaptation into short films.
In the last few weeks I'd been really struggling to find anything worth reading. I was meandering through "First King of Shannara" by Terry Brooks, a truly awful novel. I cannot imagine how Terry Brooks has come to have such a huge fanbase when the novels he writes are as poor as this. The plot was predictable and sluggish, the characters paper-thin caricatures of Dungeons and Dragons proportions, the writing style was flat and unexciting. Altogether dreadful, and I was only reading it as I had nothing else small enough to fit in my pocket.
I then moved onto a book called Thraxas Under Siege, which interestingly combines a fantasy world with a film-noir private detective type. The film-noir effect is acheived by writing in present tense singular, which I found very off-putting at the beginning, but to which I gradually adapted myself. A strong comic vein ran throughout this novel, and the centre character was always more interested in getting a drink of the Abbot's Darkest Ale than in solving the mystery or fighting off the hordes of marauding orcs. The book ended on a cliffhanger, with Thraxas rushing towards the shore, hotly pursued by a dragon. All in all a very unusual book, but I loved the combination of detective genre with fantasy.
Continuing with the fantasy theme, I am reading a dark fantasy called Heathen, where a widow sets off to uncover the mystery surrounding her husbands death and insteead finds Satanists of witches or a gang of lunatics of some description. (I haven't got to that point in the book yet, and I'm not desperate to find out either.) The book is very depressing in its tone and tells you every little detail of the persons life, including what they have for breakfast each day.
I am also reading "Candide" by Voltaire, in a modern English translation. I am finding it quite gripping and I love the piercing satire with which Voltaire takes the established philosophies, constructed in ivory towers, and confronts them with the terrible realities of war and earthquake. One striking example is Jacques, the noble-hearted Anabaptist, too afraid of failure as a Christian, to ever let himself be baptised. Now, in the middle of a terrible storm at sea, he pulls a sailor back from certain death. When the next wave hits the ship, Jacques is thrown overboard and the sailor doesn't give him a second thought. Jacques drowns in the sea: a permanant and involuntary baptism. The whole incident is related starkly in about five lines, and the rest of the book is like it. The writing is prosaic and tongue in cheek, which contrasts most effectively with the terrible events told in page after page. I'm loving it, so far.
Finally I'm also reading the massive Calvin's Institutes (a couple of pages a week!) Its a very insightful look at the Bible, looking in depth at issues such as Who is God? What is the nature of man? Can the Bible be trusted? Are we free? What is the importance of Jesus Christ? I think the one main thing it says is that Christianity is most certainly not blind faith (regardless of how it is frequently portrayed in the media). It is rational, thoughtful, intelligent. It is not a faith which goes against reason, but a faith which leads on from reason.
On a more general note, the books which really stand out to me which I have read over the last year would be the Lucifer series by Neil Gaiman, Scar Night by Allen Campbell and the Children of the Serpent Gate trilogy by Sarah Ash. These are all very original and thought provoking and the last one especially would be wonderful as a high budget TV drama.
And a weblink to http://www.petting-zoo.org/TinyStories.html where I have found some inspiring stories for adaptation into short films.
Friday, 6 March 2009
Week Beginning 2/3
Monday was a late start: not in till the afternoon for a class with Barbara, looking at the use of the family unit in TV drama. This is not necessarily a literal family, but is a nucleus of individuals with a conscious or subconscious leader and depute. Within this "family" there can be conflict, but when push comes to shove, they are essentially a team. We were set the task of devising in groups a TV drama that would be suitable for families to watch in the Sunday 8pm slot of BBC1 or ITV. It has taken us a good deal of thought to come up with something, but we think we eventually have the seed of an idea for it.
Tuesday was an early start, with a technical assessment at 8.45. Despite over-running and a couple of momentary mind blanks, I passed and wrote up a 500 word evaulation of the assessment.
Tuesday afternoon was Screenwriting. Richard was absent, so instead we had a screening of The Shawshank Redemption and made notes about it for discussion next week. It's going to be a mammoth class on Tuesday coming, with notes on Shawshank, feedback on the redrafts of 7 scripts, and not forgetting the 72 premises we have been told to come up with in total.
Wednesday at 1pm was our TPA/DFTV Production Meeting. There were less than ten TPA folk in the room, and almost everyone from DFTV1/3. Although I know a lot of the TPA students were working at the time, I think it shows the mixed feelings the TPA dept has for working with DFTV. Having said that, I am still bringing together a team of DFTV and TPA students to pitch a collaborative film to the two departments by next week, and certain individuals within TPA are almost scarily keen to work with film.
Wednesday afternoon was a continued look at commercials on TV, particularly with regard to representation. I find it very interesting to see adverts from the past, and see how little has changed after the initial "finding their feet" period. In particular, I found that some of the old adverts kept me just an interested as modern day ones.
Thursday started with a lecture on Cinema. In particular, we looked at cinema attendences during the Golden Age of Hollywood and how the Great Depression put, initially, an upwards pressure on the audience figures, before pulling them down again. I wonder if a similar thing will happen in the recession. I doubt it. While the cheap form of entertainment in the Depression may have been the cinema, now the cheapest form of entertainment (beyond meeting your pals for a blether!) is watching TV or renting a movie. Those watching their pennies (such as myself) rarely go to the cinema (though recently it has been more of an issue of time (the management and justified use thereof) than finance).
Thursday afternoon was Mobile/Web tecnhology. I have to confess I find this whole area somewhat bewildering. For someone like myself, who is still blinking my way gingerly into the 21st century, the concept of watching TV on a mobile seems faintly bizarre. Surely the cost of the internet connection long enough to download whatever it was you were watching, and the microscopic nature of the screen would combine to make this a most unappetising prospect. Further, the lack of a good business model leading to a lack of production values means that most stuff created for the web or for mobile (without a TV series or feature film to front it) is rather poor quality.
I think its something to do with my mindset. (I would far rather read a book a few pages at a time, or watch a feature film in five minute bursts that read a magazine or watch a short film.) But anyway, I have yet to get round to watching the links that we have been given.
Friday was a Screening of Stagecoach, followed by a Screening of Double Indemnity. In the gap between the two, we had a production meeting for Lord of the Rings in 60 Seconds. Things are beginning to get moving on this one and hopefully we will soon see it getting properly off the ground.
Tuesday was an early start, with a technical assessment at 8.45. Despite over-running and a couple of momentary mind blanks, I passed and wrote up a 500 word evaulation of the assessment.
Tuesday afternoon was Screenwriting. Richard was absent, so instead we had a screening of The Shawshank Redemption and made notes about it for discussion next week. It's going to be a mammoth class on Tuesday coming, with notes on Shawshank, feedback on the redrafts of 7 scripts, and not forgetting the 72 premises we have been told to come up with in total.
Wednesday at 1pm was our TPA/DFTV Production Meeting. There were less than ten TPA folk in the room, and almost everyone from DFTV1/3. Although I know a lot of the TPA students were working at the time, I think it shows the mixed feelings the TPA dept has for working with DFTV. Having said that, I am still bringing together a team of DFTV and TPA students to pitch a collaborative film to the two departments by next week, and certain individuals within TPA are almost scarily keen to work with film.
Wednesday afternoon was a continued look at commercials on TV, particularly with regard to representation. I find it very interesting to see adverts from the past, and see how little has changed after the initial "finding their feet" period. In particular, I found that some of the old adverts kept me just an interested as modern day ones.
Thursday started with a lecture on Cinema. In particular, we looked at cinema attendences during the Golden Age of Hollywood and how the Great Depression put, initially, an upwards pressure on the audience figures, before pulling them down again. I wonder if a similar thing will happen in the recession. I doubt it. While the cheap form of entertainment in the Depression may have been the cinema, now the cheapest form of entertainment (beyond meeting your pals for a blether!) is watching TV or renting a movie. Those watching their pennies (such as myself) rarely go to the cinema (though recently it has been more of an issue of time (the management and justified use thereof) than finance).
Thursday afternoon was Mobile/Web tecnhology. I have to confess I find this whole area somewhat bewildering. For someone like myself, who is still blinking my way gingerly into the 21st century, the concept of watching TV on a mobile seems faintly bizarre. Surely the cost of the internet connection long enough to download whatever it was you were watching, and the microscopic nature of the screen would combine to make this a most unappetising prospect. Further, the lack of a good business model leading to a lack of production values means that most stuff created for the web or for mobile (without a TV series or feature film to front it) is rather poor quality.
I think its something to do with my mindset. (I would far rather read a book a few pages at a time, or watch a feature film in five minute bursts that read a magazine or watch a short film.) But anyway, I have yet to get round to watching the links that we have been given.
Friday was a Screening of Stagecoach, followed by a Screening of Double Indemnity. In the gap between the two, we had a production meeting for Lord of the Rings in 60 Seconds. Things are beginning to get moving on this one and hopefully we will soon see it getting properly off the ground.
Friday, 27 February 2009
Week Beginning 23/02
Monday started off a little unusually with some confusion about the timetable. It eventually turned out to be the course leader for the Contemporary Theatre Practice course giving us a rather extensive account of what it is that her faculty are actually doing, followed by the news that we were to film them doing it.
When she asked for feedback regarding the content, I have to confess I blurted out my honest and heartfelt irritation, verging on contempt, for the whole discipline. With the benefit of moderation and hindsight, I realised I had allowed myself to speak from the heart without properly engaging the head (not something I am particularly prone to, with good reason!). After an emailed apology for disrespect, I feel it is now incumbent upon me to provide a clearer and more objective critique.
It seems to me that the majority of CTP is akin to the story of the Emperor's New Clothes. When the story was put around that only the wise could truly see the wonder of this new cloth, nobody wished to be thought unwise and so everyone claimed to be able to see the non-existent cloth. It took the unaffected honesty of a small child to smash these pretensions to pieces.
Similarly with CTP we are in the situation where the only the "properly cultured" can appreciate the wonder of the contemporary performance. Nobody - certainly within a certain social class - wishes to be considered uncultured and therefore everyone claims to be able to see the "deep and meaningful truths" underlying contemporary performance. I do my best at all times to keep my feet firmly on the ground, and it is my considered opinion that there is as little insight, art and profound truth in contemporary performance as there was cloth round the proverbial Emperor's buttocks.
Let me back up that bold statement. When I see something and think to myself "I couldn't do that" I acknowledge there is talent there. For example I see a drawing by Galina, a painting by Charlotte, when I hear a piano played by Phil, Benoit or Graeme I know there is clear talent on display. When I consider a Van Gogh, a Mozart, a Tolkien, a Tim Burton or a Milton I can only stand back in amazement and appreciation. But when I see something else and think "I could do that just as well, if not better - and I haven't even been properly trained" I strongly question whether any particular talent is on display.
For example, last Thursday, in my work at the Citizens' Theatre, I had to usher (and therefore to watch) the Reid-Kerr acting students in a rendition of Romeo and Juliet. I spent most of the performance thinking: "I could take almost any part in this production and do it better." My conclusion? There was little talent to be seen.
Turning to the contemporary performances highlighted by Debbie on her DVD of the global best, I have to say the same. Perhaps there is talent involved. I didn't see it. All I saw pointed me to the deduction that an exhibitionist psyche and pretentions to grandeur is really all that is required.
Let us suppose for a moment that I was to stand on a public stage, holding a huge piece of cheese in one hand and a large dead mouse in the other, and was to spend twenty minutes shouting over and over "I will not be trapped". Now I conceived this piece in about twenty seconds and yet I do not see how that would be distinguishable from any other performance I saw. Perhaps I would get bonus points for taking off all my clothes and - who knows - maybe slitting my wrists for a bit of variation. Please note that the fact that I wouldn't do this (especially the nudity and self-mutilation) does not mean that I couldn't do it.
In conclusion, CTP seems to me to be on a par with the very worst forms of abstract modern art. These pieces that are nothing but a black dot in the middle of a blank canvas, or a Maroon strip painted over a Red one. The mantra "Art is whatever you make it." (the wooliest definition conceivable) has been subverted until the only criteria for this particularly obscure strand of art is that it is something not seen before. It is no surprise that students have resorted to blood-letting. They are desperate: anything, anything that hasn't been done before, that is shocking, controversial, avant-garde. The next logical step would be a live castration, amputation or even a suicide. After all, an audience who are only interested in seeing something "new" will find that even the voyeuristic excitement of watching self-mutilation will fade away after a while.
Occasionally - very very occasionally - there may be a performance which throws up an unusual or intriguing image, which can be incorporated into a film or stage play in which it is made sense of. But I reckon most of the time CTP involves people dressing up like pillocks and bouncing around thinking they are the cat's pyjamas.
So. Enough regarding CTP and my critique of it. On to the rest of the week.
Monday afternoon was a class with Barbara: our first proper one. We looked at TV schedules again, particularly focussing on drama and the different audiences that watch different channels at different times. We also looked again at promoting our pitched ideas with a two sentence blurb for the TV magazines.
Tuesday morning was cancelled, and I enjoyed the extra hour in bed. Tuesday afternoon was a class with Richard, looking at Conflict and Tension and how they can be best used in a screenplay. We heard that several of our scripts will be taken forward for Production this term and next term. This is, of course, very exciting, and I've been working on redrafting my script, trying to make the best use of the feedback I received.
On Wednesday morning I attended a seminar hosted by an amalgamation of six college Media courses. Only myself and Gilly from DFTV 3 were there from RSAMD, but I found it to be quite a helpful event. We had Ewen Angus, head Commissioning Editor for BBC Scotland talking to us, followed by Harry Bell from Tern TV and someone else from a smaller indie production company whose name I forget (Demas production os something). They covered the same sort of ground as we have been looking at with Adam in Content Origination. The key thing Ewen Angus was highlighting was the need for a relationship between producer and commisioner. They will not give a budget to someone they do not know, so it is best, he said, to approach him informally with any ideas, so he can engage you with dialogue, rather than coming with a fully formed pitch. However he said other Commissioners work differently. Harry Bell spoke passionately and at length, but the key note he kept returning to was that we should all be watching TV as much as we can. I find this a little difficult for myself as I often find myself without time to cook food, let alone to sit down to watch telly. Half an hour a day is my maximum I can squeeze in, and its usually just a round of "Being Human", "Film 2009", "QI", "Doctor Who" episodes I missed first time round and the odd documentary. So I'll do my best!
Wednesday afternoon was a TV class, looking at advertising. We watched a documentary, which while not rivetting, helped me to gain an more of an appreciation for the art of the advert. I think some of the interviewed individuals were understandably a little harsh in their judgement of the advertising scene today. I consider it to still throw up quite a lot of half decent adverts.
Thursday was a day without classes, which I spent redraftign scripts and working on a project I am hoping to pitch as a TPA/DFTV collaboration. I have pretty much given up on my group now. Nobody responds to emails. Ever! So I am considering finding folk from both DFTV and TPA who might be interested, poaching them from their groups (after all none of the groups seem to be productive) and setting up my own new group. This could be seen as mutinous but I prefer the term innovative.
Friday started with a screening of King Kong (see my other blog) followed by an introduction to the Mobile/Web Module. Not much to say on that one yet. The afternoon's class with Abigail was mercifully brief as we were suffering a severe information overload concerning the duties of the Lead, Associate, Executive, Co-, Assistant and Line Producers. It all seems strangely theoretical and divorced from reality, not least because Abigail indicated that if we graduated looking to eventually become a Lead Producer, we'd be lucky to be taken on as a Runner.
I have now uploaded Fire and Ice. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lO4TFOddxsc) I am quite pleased with the result. It's not perfect I know, but I suspect my lack of perfectionism is a character flaw I shall bear with me to the grave. I lack the patience, you see. Nevertheless, I am not at all displeased with it.
When she asked for feedback regarding the content, I have to confess I blurted out my honest and heartfelt irritation, verging on contempt, for the whole discipline. With the benefit of moderation and hindsight, I realised I had allowed myself to speak from the heart without properly engaging the head (not something I am particularly prone to, with good reason!). After an emailed apology for disrespect, I feel it is now incumbent upon me to provide a clearer and more objective critique.
It seems to me that the majority of CTP is akin to the story of the Emperor's New Clothes. When the story was put around that only the wise could truly see the wonder of this new cloth, nobody wished to be thought unwise and so everyone claimed to be able to see the non-existent cloth. It took the unaffected honesty of a small child to smash these pretensions to pieces.
Similarly with CTP we are in the situation where the only the "properly cultured" can appreciate the wonder of the contemporary performance. Nobody - certainly within a certain social class - wishes to be considered uncultured and therefore everyone claims to be able to see the "deep and meaningful truths" underlying contemporary performance. I do my best at all times to keep my feet firmly on the ground, and it is my considered opinion that there is as little insight, art and profound truth in contemporary performance as there was cloth round the proverbial Emperor's buttocks.
Let me back up that bold statement. When I see something and think to myself "I couldn't do that" I acknowledge there is talent there. For example I see a drawing by Galina, a painting by Charlotte, when I hear a piano played by Phil, Benoit or Graeme I know there is clear talent on display. When I consider a Van Gogh, a Mozart, a Tolkien, a Tim Burton or a Milton I can only stand back in amazement and appreciation. But when I see something else and think "I could do that just as well, if not better - and I haven't even been properly trained" I strongly question whether any particular talent is on display.
For example, last Thursday, in my work at the Citizens' Theatre, I had to usher (and therefore to watch) the Reid-Kerr acting students in a rendition of Romeo and Juliet. I spent most of the performance thinking: "I could take almost any part in this production and do it better." My conclusion? There was little talent to be seen.
Turning to the contemporary performances highlighted by Debbie on her DVD of the global best, I have to say the same. Perhaps there is talent involved. I didn't see it. All I saw pointed me to the deduction that an exhibitionist psyche and pretentions to grandeur is really all that is required.
Let us suppose for a moment that I was to stand on a public stage, holding a huge piece of cheese in one hand and a large dead mouse in the other, and was to spend twenty minutes shouting over and over "I will not be trapped". Now I conceived this piece in about twenty seconds and yet I do not see how that would be distinguishable from any other performance I saw. Perhaps I would get bonus points for taking off all my clothes and - who knows - maybe slitting my wrists for a bit of variation. Please note that the fact that I wouldn't do this (especially the nudity and self-mutilation) does not mean that I couldn't do it.
In conclusion, CTP seems to me to be on a par with the very worst forms of abstract modern art. These pieces that are nothing but a black dot in the middle of a blank canvas, or a Maroon strip painted over a Red one. The mantra "Art is whatever you make it." (the wooliest definition conceivable) has been subverted until the only criteria for this particularly obscure strand of art is that it is something not seen before. It is no surprise that students have resorted to blood-letting. They are desperate: anything, anything that hasn't been done before, that is shocking, controversial, avant-garde. The next logical step would be a live castration, amputation or even a suicide. After all, an audience who are only interested in seeing something "new" will find that even the voyeuristic excitement of watching self-mutilation will fade away after a while.
Occasionally - very very occasionally - there may be a performance which throws up an unusual or intriguing image, which can be incorporated into a film or stage play in which it is made sense of. But I reckon most of the time CTP involves people dressing up like pillocks and bouncing around thinking they are the cat's pyjamas.
So. Enough regarding CTP and my critique of it. On to the rest of the week.
Monday afternoon was a class with Barbara: our first proper one. We looked at TV schedules again, particularly focussing on drama and the different audiences that watch different channels at different times. We also looked again at promoting our pitched ideas with a two sentence blurb for the TV magazines.
Tuesday morning was cancelled, and I enjoyed the extra hour in bed. Tuesday afternoon was a class with Richard, looking at Conflict and Tension and how they can be best used in a screenplay. We heard that several of our scripts will be taken forward for Production this term and next term. This is, of course, very exciting, and I've been working on redrafting my script, trying to make the best use of the feedback I received.
On Wednesday morning I attended a seminar hosted by an amalgamation of six college Media courses. Only myself and Gilly from DFTV 3 were there from RSAMD, but I found it to be quite a helpful event. We had Ewen Angus, head Commissioning Editor for BBC Scotland talking to us, followed by Harry Bell from Tern TV and someone else from a smaller indie production company whose name I forget (Demas production os something). They covered the same sort of ground as we have been looking at with Adam in Content Origination. The key thing Ewen Angus was highlighting was the need for a relationship between producer and commisioner. They will not give a budget to someone they do not know, so it is best, he said, to approach him informally with any ideas, so he can engage you with dialogue, rather than coming with a fully formed pitch. However he said other Commissioners work differently. Harry Bell spoke passionately and at length, but the key note he kept returning to was that we should all be watching TV as much as we can. I find this a little difficult for myself as I often find myself without time to cook food, let alone to sit down to watch telly. Half an hour a day is my maximum I can squeeze in, and its usually just a round of "Being Human", "Film 2009", "QI", "Doctor Who" episodes I missed first time round and the odd documentary. So I'll do my best!
Wednesday afternoon was a TV class, looking at advertising. We watched a documentary, which while not rivetting, helped me to gain an more of an appreciation for the art of the advert. I think some of the interviewed individuals were understandably a little harsh in their judgement of the advertising scene today. I consider it to still throw up quite a lot of half decent adverts.
Thursday was a day without classes, which I spent redraftign scripts and working on a project I am hoping to pitch as a TPA/DFTV collaboration. I have pretty much given up on my group now. Nobody responds to emails. Ever! So I am considering finding folk from both DFTV and TPA who might be interested, poaching them from their groups (after all none of the groups seem to be productive) and setting up my own new group. This could be seen as mutinous but I prefer the term innovative.
Friday started with a screening of King Kong (see my other blog) followed by an introduction to the Mobile/Web Module. Not much to say on that one yet. The afternoon's class with Abigail was mercifully brief as we were suffering a severe information overload concerning the duties of the Lead, Associate, Executive, Co-, Assistant and Line Producers. It all seems strangely theoretical and divorced from reality, not least because Abigail indicated that if we graduated looking to eventually become a Lead Producer, we'd be lucky to be taken on as a Runner.
I have now uploaded Fire and Ice. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lO4TFOddxsc) I am quite pleased with the result. It's not perfect I know, but I suspect my lack of perfectionism is a character flaw I shall bear with me to the grave. I lack the patience, you see. Nevertheless, I am not at all displeased with it.
Saturday, 21 February 2009
Week Beginning 16/2
Monday was a break from classes, and I was involved in directing Fire and Ice (or is it Ice and Fire...) a 90 second film that allows us to experiment with lights as well as giving us practice in production logistics and editing. With three different camera kits booked out by the class, there was a real feeling of productivity this weekend, and hopefully we are now turning a significant corner in the course and are slowly beginning to produce one film after another.
What did I learn from this shoot?
Tuesday was an early start when the kit had to be booked back in for 8.30, and Paul and myself went off to edit our various projects. It is great to have our own footage to be able to experiment with in the DTU.
Also at lunch, I went to Gaelic class with Phil. I quite enjoyed it. So if you hear Phil and myself talking in "Dwarvish" as John referred to it, we are practising saying "Does Charlotte have a cat?" and such like in Gaelic.
Tuesday afternoon was Screenwriting. We all were reading out our screenplays and getting feedback from all the class immediately. This would definitely have been better broken up by a break, as we were really beginning to wilt by the end of it. It was very useful, though to hear feedback on our scripts and see the way different people had tackled the premise.
Wednesday morning was a Technical class, getting more practise in the 3-point lighting set up. Useful and helpful class.
Wednesday afternoon was our first class in TV and Society, developing on from the old TV class. We watched a documentary on the waning moral standards of TV upon which I have commented more extensively in a Moodle forum.
Thursday morning was a lecture on the transition from silent to sound. I'm fairly sure we watched a documentary and had some sort of discussion afterwards, but the details are slipping my mind. We certainly noted that by 1930 sound design had been born with All Quiet on the Western Front.
Friday was a screening of That's Entertainment, a documentary charting the rise of the MGM musical. I have to confess I still have an aversion to the "classical" musical, with vast numbers of people bouncing about singing rather irritating songs on a giant stage, usually with an enormous staircase to be seen. I appreciate the pull they have for some people, but I think that for myself a black and white musical would have to be something very outstanding before I would appreciate it. The generic, indeed formulaic, production line treatment which they often received means that little stands out from them except the vast numbers of extras and the - admittedly often mega-charismatic - stars. With the colour revolution, it seems to me the musical finally came of age, but even here I would not be interested in the stage-bound "show-stopping number". In Singing in the Rain, the part I liked least was the Broadway Melody, which is closest in form to the traditional musical form. There are musicals like The Wizard of Oz, Show Boat and Singing in the Rain which rise above the rest, and stars like Judy Garland and Gene Kelly are incredibly watchable, but the classic musical is not a genre in which I have any great interest.
Having said that, I am quite fond of some of the more recent musicals, such as Phantom of the Opera and Moulin Rouge.
The afternoon was a dreary Production class with Abigail's unfeasible number of PowerPoint slides. I have yet to learn anything in this strand of the course, and I fear that this module is being aimed a little too low. We watched a remarkably boring low-budget feature film called Big Things. We were asked to hand in a three-hundred word summary of all the elements that went into making this production. I shall save my biting comments on the artistic merits of this film for that report.
In addition to all that this week, I have been continuing to edit Fire and Ice and have also managed to watch my way through three quarters of an episode of Generation Kill. It's not my thing, but I can certainly appreciate the high production values. I have also had a minor cold, and hopefully I am over that. Oranges are truly marvellous creations.
What did I learn from this shoot?
- Lights take a huge amount of time to set up.
- It is almost impossible to book a room in the Academy
- It is a bit of a challenge to light someone standing in a corner.
- Back focus has to be rigorously checked and rechecked.
- Polaroids do not catch fire unless you have a small incendiary bomb or equivalent.
- It is important before moving location to triple check that you have everything you need.
- Log sheets are invaluable: a lot more so than a clapper board.
- Getting eye lines right is very important.
- Using "proper" actors is a huge advantage
Tuesday was an early start when the kit had to be booked back in for 8.30, and Paul and myself went off to edit our various projects. It is great to have our own footage to be able to experiment with in the DTU.
Also at lunch, I went to Gaelic class with Phil. I quite enjoyed it. So if you hear Phil and myself talking in "Dwarvish" as John referred to it, we are practising saying "Does Charlotte have a cat?" and such like in Gaelic.
Tuesday afternoon was Screenwriting. We all were reading out our screenplays and getting feedback from all the class immediately. This would definitely have been better broken up by a break, as we were really beginning to wilt by the end of it. It was very useful, though to hear feedback on our scripts and see the way different people had tackled the premise.
Wednesday morning was a Technical class, getting more practise in the 3-point lighting set up. Useful and helpful class.
Wednesday afternoon was our first class in TV and Society, developing on from the old TV class. We watched a documentary on the waning moral standards of TV upon which I have commented more extensively in a Moodle forum.
Thursday morning was a lecture on the transition from silent to sound. I'm fairly sure we watched a documentary and had some sort of discussion afterwards, but the details are slipping my mind. We certainly noted that by 1930 sound design had been born with All Quiet on the Western Front.
Friday was a screening of That's Entertainment, a documentary charting the rise of the MGM musical. I have to confess I still have an aversion to the "classical" musical, with vast numbers of people bouncing about singing rather irritating songs on a giant stage, usually with an enormous staircase to be seen. I appreciate the pull they have for some people, but I think that for myself a black and white musical would have to be something very outstanding before I would appreciate it. The generic, indeed formulaic, production line treatment which they often received means that little stands out from them except the vast numbers of extras and the - admittedly often mega-charismatic - stars. With the colour revolution, it seems to me the musical finally came of age, but even here I would not be interested in the stage-bound "show-stopping number". In Singing in the Rain, the part I liked least was the Broadway Melody, which is closest in form to the traditional musical form. There are musicals like The Wizard of Oz, Show Boat and Singing in the Rain which rise above the rest, and stars like Judy Garland and Gene Kelly are incredibly watchable, but the classic musical is not a genre in which I have any great interest.
Having said that, I am quite fond of some of the more recent musicals, such as Phantom of the Opera and Moulin Rouge.
The afternoon was a dreary Production class with Abigail's unfeasible number of PowerPoint slides. I have yet to learn anything in this strand of the course, and I fear that this module is being aimed a little too low. We watched a remarkably boring low-budget feature film called Big Things. We were asked to hand in a three-hundred word summary of all the elements that went into making this production. I shall save my biting comments on the artistic merits of this film for that report.
In addition to all that this week, I have been continuing to edit Fire and Ice and have also managed to watch my way through three quarters of an episode of Generation Kill. It's not my thing, but I can certainly appreciate the high production values. I have also had a minor cold, and hopefully I am over that. Oranges are truly marvellous creations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
