Monday 20 February 2012
Oh by the way,
It all worked. I got in. I still feel I'll be a little behind some of the students so there's still work to do before September, but for now I think I'll take a few days of responsibility-free video gaming.
Tuesday 14 February 2012
I've not updated for the past few days because I'm not sure what to say. I've been alternating between drawing and watching short films. I like watching short films, I can't say the same for drawing. All the written parts of the portfolio are complete - two drafts of the script, five hundredish words on Rian Johnson and this blog. Well, the blog isn't complete but these things won't ever be. I guess the script isn't complete either as I'd like to have a go at another draft.
I'm not proud of my sketchbook. There's nothing in there I can look at and go "hey, that's awesome. Glad I did that!" Logically I know that all I need is practice, practice, practice and pretty soon I'll be doing doodles of Carnegie hall but right now my hands are cold and are cramping a little bit, which is something those lovely comfortable keyboards have never done to me. Maybe the fact that my sketchbook is part of my portfolio shows I understand its importance in film production, even if it's not my strongest work? Certainly I feel it has to be included.
I've not really a lot to say on watching short films either. I've been splitting my time there between NUCA's vimeo channels and various music videos on YouTube. The NUCA shorts seem to be split into Fiction, Documentary and Abstract, with the latter category always shot in black and white and featuring some unsettling imagery. I don't get them, but then I've never really been a fan of conceptual art in any form.
Music videos are even more diverse. There's ones that try to tell the story of the song, ones that try to tell a different story, ones that just want to show how cool the band are, ones that just want to show how cool the director is. That sounds like I'm being kind of negative, I don't mean to be. Watch the official video for "The Greeks" by Is Tropical (or along a similar theme, the banned-on-MTV video for Fightstar's Paint Your Target) for a wonderfully creative look at the games children play. Or watch every single OK Go video. Music videos are a chance for the director to show off, perhaps, or to experiment. To develop their style with a bit of a budget behind them. I'm not just talking about the bands and directors that are actively trying for something original. I'm watching manufactured pop bands with their expertly choreographed routines. I guess these fall into the documentary category? If the TV of my youth taught me anything, its that we are to assume S Club 7 danced everywhere they went. Whatever the truth, you can't just point a camera at them and hope for something the studio executives will love.
All these videos are starting to hurt my eyes. I had an optician's appointment this morning and it turns out I need glasses now. If you're thinking of applying to film school and you found this blog on google somehow and you're looking through for some advice, here's some: get your eyes tested, you'll be watching a lot of stuff. Here's some more: Don't faint during your eye examination, even if you agree that eyes are really icky and no-one should be allowed anywhere near them.
What I'm learning about myself is that I like there to be a narrative. This is not surprising news. I like beginnings, middles and sometimes even endings, though they don't have to be in that order. While I can appreciate the technical awesomeness that goes into Here It Goes Again or the visual aesthetic of Ladytron's Destroy Everything You Touch video, the ones that wow me the most have a story to tell even if it's just a life and a car crash getting all mixed up in the Simple Math video I linked in a previous post. Eatliz - Lose This Child is a great example of visual trickery being applied to a narrative. It's not just in the music videos either, I prefer the short films that tell stories to those that just represent an emotion, no matter how skillfully it's done.
One day left to finalise everything, one day until I find out if we're in the middle or at the end.
I'm not proud of my sketchbook. There's nothing in there I can look at and go "hey, that's awesome. Glad I did that!" Logically I know that all I need is practice, practice, practice and pretty soon I'll be doing doodles of Carnegie hall but right now my hands are cold and are cramping a little bit, which is something those lovely comfortable keyboards have never done to me. Maybe the fact that my sketchbook is part of my portfolio shows I understand its importance in film production, even if it's not my strongest work? Certainly I feel it has to be included.
I've not really a lot to say on watching short films either. I've been splitting my time there between NUCA's vimeo channels and various music videos on YouTube. The NUCA shorts seem to be split into Fiction, Documentary and Abstract, with the latter category always shot in black and white and featuring some unsettling imagery. I don't get them, but then I've never really been a fan of conceptual art in any form.
Music videos are even more diverse. There's ones that try to tell the story of the song, ones that try to tell a different story, ones that just want to show how cool the band are, ones that just want to show how cool the director is. That sounds like I'm being kind of negative, I don't mean to be. Watch the official video for "The Greeks" by Is Tropical (or along a similar theme, the banned-on-MTV video for Fightstar's Paint Your Target) for a wonderfully creative look at the games children play. Or watch every single OK Go video. Music videos are a chance for the director to show off, perhaps, or to experiment. To develop their style with a bit of a budget behind them. I'm not just talking about the bands and directors that are actively trying for something original. I'm watching manufactured pop bands with their expertly choreographed routines. I guess these fall into the documentary category? If the TV of my youth taught me anything, its that we are to assume S Club 7 danced everywhere they went. Whatever the truth, you can't just point a camera at them and hope for something the studio executives will love.
All these videos are starting to hurt my eyes. I had an optician's appointment this morning and it turns out I need glasses now. If you're thinking of applying to film school and you found this blog on google somehow and you're looking through for some advice, here's some: get your eyes tested, you'll be watching a lot of stuff. Here's some more: Don't faint during your eye examination, even if you agree that eyes are really icky and no-one should be allowed anywhere near them.
What I'm learning about myself is that I like there to be a narrative. This is not surprising news. I like beginnings, middles and sometimes even endings, though they don't have to be in that order. While I can appreciate the technical awesomeness that goes into Here It Goes Again or the visual aesthetic of Ladytron's Destroy Everything You Touch video, the ones that wow me the most have a story to tell even if it's just a life and a car crash getting all mixed up in the Simple Math video I linked in a previous post. Eatliz - Lose This Child is a great example of visual trickery being applied to a narrative. It's not just in the music videos either, I prefer the short films that tell stories to those that just represent an emotion, no matter how skillfully it's done.
One day left to finalise everything, one day until I find out if we're in the middle or at the end.
Tuesday 7 February 2012
An Example of Written Work
The first and second drafts of the screenplay are written, printed and ready for presentation. Ideally I'd like to have a go at a third draft, since I still feel I could expand on the world a little more but I want the storyboard to run from a finished draft, so I'll leave it there and work from that. That's for tomorrow, though.
Today's task is the written section of the portfolio. The written section other than this blog, that is. The part that will actually get read in the interview. NUCA's website suggest I include an example of marked work from a relevant A-Level course or, if none exists, 500 words on someone I admire, relevant to the course.
A film-maker, then. A director. Ridley Scott and Christopher Nolan would be the first names that come to mind if you asked me who my favourites are, but I'd rather write about someone with a more unique style, like Wes Anderson. Tarantino would also be an excellent choice, since he never went to film school, he just watched all the films. I think, however, that I'll go for Rian Johnson, since that gives me plenty of chance to talk about Brick, a film I like to talk about.
In fact, having just done a first draft of it, 500 words is not nearly enough to talk about Brick and The Brother's Bloom, let alone my thoughts on Looper and time-travel in general so the title has been changed from "Rian Johnson" to "Rian Johnson and Brick", giving me more room to waffle on about the links between Romeo+Juliet, Reservoir Dogs and Dashiell Hammett.
Today's task is the written section of the portfolio. The written section other than this blog, that is. The part that will actually get read in the interview. NUCA's website suggest I include an example of marked work from a relevant A-Level course or, if none exists, 500 words on someone I admire, relevant to the course.
A film-maker, then. A director. Ridley Scott and Christopher Nolan would be the first names that come to mind if you asked me who my favourites are, but I'd rather write about someone with a more unique style, like Wes Anderson. Tarantino would also be an excellent choice, since he never went to film school, he just watched all the films. I think, however, that I'll go for Rian Johnson, since that gives me plenty of chance to talk about Brick, a film I like to talk about.
In fact, having just done a first draft of it, 500 words is not nearly enough to talk about Brick and The Brother's Bloom, let alone my thoughts on Looper and time-travel in general so the title has been changed from "Rian Johnson" to "Rian Johnson and Brick", giving me more room to waffle on about the links between Romeo+Juliet, Reservoir Dogs and Dashiell Hammett.
Thursday 2 February 2012
Gloves.
I watched some of Inception earlier, pausing the film every now and then to sketch the characters on screen. The less said about my attempts, the better. I'm itching to have a go at the second draft, so I'll start planning the changes now and then later I'll try the storyboarding practice technique from the website linked to in the last post, watching a scene then sketching the shots for it. I get how it's important to storyboard, but this is the work I'm looking forward to least. I can feel good about things I've written, I never get feeling for things I've drawn.
Let's talk about changes to the script. A friend with an MA in scriptwriting wrote a wonderful two page report on my effort which has given me a fair bit to think about. His main concerns were that the setting isn't established early enough, then not developed as far as it could. Let's take those one at a time. I've never written a script before and I approached it in much the same way I'd approach a short story, having the setting establish itself through dialogue and description as the narrative continues, but I guess I've been looking at it all wrong. A script isn't being written for the viewing audience, it's being written for a director or producer and they need to have a clear image of the world right from the start. This one can be sorted easy enough, I just need more description in the opening action.
Developing the setting further, that's the challenge. I held back because I didn't want the new technology to be the focus of the story, more the background to it, but I guess it would help to throw a bit more in, give a clearer idea of the scope to which it's used. I'm thinking in the second scene, out in the street, there are adverts everywhere for Voting channels. Perhaps drop the character of Jenny and have Tom recieve a vote on his tablet computer while Pete talks on the phone to get the plot. That short phone call will give us enough to to explore the world a little more.
Dropping a character was another thing suggested. There's perhaps too many for such a short film. Cut down on the news- hold on, I had a thought. Instead of setting the second scene just out on the high street, have it at a bus stop, with some voting advert on the billboard, another on the side of the bus when it arrives. Anyway, dropping a character. It'd let me add a little depth to the others, perhaps. Drop two maybe, get rid of Alison as well. That leaves us with Megan, who is professional and assertive, pro-war and Pete, a pacifist, fancies himself a bit marxist, as the anti-war voice. Tom is stuck in the middle, unable to decide. I tried seating the characters who agreed with each other together in the big argument in scene 4, but just having three people in the room, two speaking one listening, might make things smoother. I like the idea of Megan telling someone to fuck off, though. It backs up her character, that she won't just sit back and take stuff. I also like having a character just super excited to finally be voting, but I guess I can fold that part of Jenny into Pete. Or keep Alison, make her the excited one then have her kicked out for not being serious enough about voting.
Okay, so I have six scenes at the moment. The first introduces the characters of Tom and Pete - including Pete's pacifism - and establishes the world. The second scene brings in the possibility of war and - crucially - of a major vote. Tom is given agency, a voice, a vote: the ability to affect events in the larger world. In the third scene we meet Megan, and a little exposition explains what's about to happen, setting up the confrontation in scene four and the conclusion in scene six. Megan is pro-war, she's Pete's opposite. The fourth scene is an argument between the two sides. It's done as a kind of montage, so I can show key points without actually needing to explain too much about the political situation in the world. Scene five is just whichever characters make the cut letting us know what's going to happen at the end. We're all going to sit around for The Big Vote. Scene six is very little dialogue, very tense, Tom making a choice and regretting it, the counter counting down to the end. I like that, I don't want to mess with the order too much. It was recommended I cut down on the exposition in scene three because it breaks the flow, and that's another good suggestion, but I don't want to change the narrative arc too much.
Just noticed I only actually mention one character's name in dialogue. That's fine for the minor ones, but it's near the end of the film Megan refers to Tom by name. At that point it's kind of redundant to name him, right? That's something to fix in the second draft.
It should be noted this post has been written in parts over a couple of days. This is the worst time of year to decide to take up drawing; my hands are freezing. Gloves are the big lesson I've learned over the past 48 hours. I had a run at the second draft tuesday evening. I haven't looked at it since. I'm going to read through it now and see how I feel about the changes.
Let's talk about changes to the script. A friend with an MA in scriptwriting wrote a wonderful two page report on my effort which has given me a fair bit to think about. His main concerns were that the setting isn't established early enough, then not developed as far as it could. Let's take those one at a time. I've never written a script before and I approached it in much the same way I'd approach a short story, having the setting establish itself through dialogue and description as the narrative continues, but I guess I've been looking at it all wrong. A script isn't being written for the viewing audience, it's being written for a director or producer and they need to have a clear image of the world right from the start. This one can be sorted easy enough, I just need more description in the opening action.
Developing the setting further, that's the challenge. I held back because I didn't want the new technology to be the focus of the story, more the background to it, but I guess it would help to throw a bit more in, give a clearer idea of the scope to which it's used. I'm thinking in the second scene, out in the street, there are adverts everywhere for Voting channels. Perhaps drop the character of Jenny and have Tom recieve a vote on his tablet computer while Pete talks on the phone to get the plot. That short phone call will give us enough to to explore the world a little more.
Dropping a character was another thing suggested. There's perhaps too many for such a short film. Cut down on the news- hold on, I had a thought. Instead of setting the second scene just out on the high street, have it at a bus stop, with some voting advert on the billboard, another on the side of the bus when it arrives. Anyway, dropping a character. It'd let me add a little depth to the others, perhaps. Drop two maybe, get rid of Alison as well. That leaves us with Megan, who is professional and assertive, pro-war and Pete, a pacifist, fancies himself a bit marxist, as the anti-war voice. Tom is stuck in the middle, unable to decide. I tried seating the characters who agreed with each other together in the big argument in scene 4, but just having three people in the room, two speaking one listening, might make things smoother. I like the idea of Megan telling someone to fuck off, though. It backs up her character, that she won't just sit back and take stuff. I also like having a character just super excited to finally be voting, but I guess I can fold that part of Jenny into Pete. Or keep Alison, make her the excited one then have her kicked out for not being serious enough about voting.
Okay, so I have six scenes at the moment. The first introduces the characters of Tom and Pete - including Pete's pacifism - and establishes the world. The second scene brings in the possibility of war and - crucially - of a major vote. Tom is given agency, a voice, a vote: the ability to affect events in the larger world. In the third scene we meet Megan, and a little exposition explains what's about to happen, setting up the confrontation in scene four and the conclusion in scene six. Megan is pro-war, she's Pete's opposite. The fourth scene is an argument between the two sides. It's done as a kind of montage, so I can show key points without actually needing to explain too much about the political situation in the world. Scene five is just whichever characters make the cut letting us know what's going to happen at the end. We're all going to sit around for The Big Vote. Scene six is very little dialogue, very tense, Tom making a choice and regretting it, the counter counting down to the end. I like that, I don't want to mess with the order too much. It was recommended I cut down on the exposition in scene three because it breaks the flow, and that's another good suggestion, but I don't want to change the narrative arc too much.
Just noticed I only actually mention one character's name in dialogue. That's fine for the minor ones, but it's near the end of the film Megan refers to Tom by name. At that point it's kind of redundant to name him, right? That's something to fix in the second draft.
It should be noted this post has been written in parts over a couple of days. This is the worst time of year to decide to take up drawing; my hands are freezing. Gloves are the big lesson I've learned over the past 48 hours. I had a run at the second draft tuesday evening. I haven't looked at it since. I'm going to read through it now and see how I feel about the changes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)