Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Saturday, February 9, 2008
EXPERIMENT #2
CRACKS IN THE FLOOR
Lab Report
2.3.08
PURPOSE:
To explore spontaneity and impulse as a means of expression, while keeping that expression held within the context of specific guidelines, rules, or disciplines, in hope that through limitation the expression will gain strength. By giving free reign within a strict syllabus, the goal is both parts growth for the actor and an overall emotional truth for the story.
METHODS:
Each character should be developed separately, as a collaboration between director and actor. The actor will be responsible for coming up with the basic inner-workings of the character and the director will be responsible for helping that character grow into something will support the piece as a whole. I.E. If two people come up with the idea that their character is passionate about volleyball, that is less interesting than one character who is passionate about volleyball, and another who thinks that people who are passionate about sports are idiots. The point is, both actor and director will bring something to the table, and through discussion, an agreement will be reached that will support the whole of the production.
In order for this method to be effective, it is important that the director discusses and rehearses with the actors individually before they are brought together as a group. No acting should happen until the actor has a solid idea of what they are portraying. That doesn’t mean everything about them must be known, but the what-makes-a-person-what should be in place, the situation should be set for the subject to evolve.
Once the parameters are set, we will begin a number of experiments, which will be filmed, and reviewed by actor and director. Discussion will take place. The experiments will be repeated with differences (and surprises). Some experiments will work on scenes that exist in the play, and some will be strictly for character building.
As the experimental process continues, the writer/director will be thinking of the big picture. At a certain point, the what-will-be-done will be revealed, the play will be on paper, and rehearsing the play as a whole will begin. Again, during this time there will be some room for experimentation, as this is an exercise in following one’s instinct and growing as a result, not in how well one can memorize something that once was off the cuff, One point of caution: to remember, and for working in this way is to avoid and go deeper than anything that borders on phony naturalism.
Lab Report
2.3.08
PURPOSE:
To explore spontaneity and impulse as a means of expression, while keeping that expression held within the context of specific guidelines, rules, or disciplines, in hope that through limitation the expression will gain strength. By giving free reign within a strict syllabus, the goal is both parts growth for the actor and an overall emotional truth for the story.
METHODS:
Each character should be developed separately, as a collaboration between director and actor. The actor will be responsible for coming up with the basic inner-workings of the character and the director will be responsible for helping that character grow into something will support the piece as a whole. I.E. If two people come up with the idea that their character is passionate about volleyball, that is less interesting than one character who is passionate about volleyball, and another who thinks that people who are passionate about sports are idiots. The point is, both actor and director will bring something to the table, and through discussion, an agreement will be reached that will support the whole of the production.
In order for this method to be effective, it is important that the director discusses and rehearses with the actors individually before they are brought together as a group. No acting should happen until the actor has a solid idea of what they are portraying. That doesn’t mean everything about them must be known, but the what-makes-a-person-what should be in place, the situation should be set for the subject to evolve.
Once the parameters are set, we will begin a number of experiments, which will be filmed, and reviewed by actor and director. Discussion will take place. The experiments will be repeated with differences (and surprises). Some experiments will work on scenes that exist in the play, and some will be strictly for character building.
As the experimental process continues, the writer/director will be thinking of the big picture. At a certain point, the what-will-be-done will be revealed, the play will be on paper, and rehearsing the play as a whole will begin. Again, during this time there will be some room for experimentation, as this is an exercise in following one’s instinct and growing as a result, not in how well one can memorize something that once was off the cuff, One point of caution: to remember, and for working in this way is to avoid and go deeper than anything that borders on phony naturalism.
ACTS OF BALANCE
Clamatore 3 goes into full production next week.
At this point I feel a clearer vision for the film than I have felt over the entire long process (more realistic even than when I was writing the script). Much time to myself with lots of quiet thought and meditation and walking everywhere has brought me to this place. It is a place of solidarity and quietude, a head-space that feels calm and open, yet fierce enough to allow me to strike when I need to.
We will have more breathing room this time, more time to shoot and think, so I am planning on using that time to experiment. Filmmaking has to be about spontaneity on the set, much more than rehearsing a prepared script.
In Clamatore has been such an intensive learning experience, much different and more challenging than film school was. I now have a much better understanding of the process of the way I want to make films, and an idea of the amount of time it all takes, and the way you change over that time, and how that effects where the film goes, etc. I know now that I cannot simply make another film, I have to completely redefine the process based on everything I have learned from In Clamatore. I've spent so much time coming up with new ideas for what will be "the next film" but only now am I beginning to realize something needs to change in the groundwork.
Every film is a scientific experiment; I plan to approach them in this way from now on. We did an experiment called Siblings, which had some success. I wanted that to have complete spontaneity, so we went about shooting little films in my apartment with no script, briefly discussing what the scenes would be about and who are characters were beforehand. This created a certain amount of uncomfortable humor (largely due to the subject matter) but at times it seemed obvious to me that we were improvising, and thus it occasionally lacked truthfulness. I hate phony naturalism. But this was only an experiment, and I wanted to try it just to see if anything could be accomplished out of basically nothing, and something was accomplished. It was a funny, realistic awkward comedy that had 5 ten minute episodes.
I ended Siblings because I wanted to start a new experiment from the beginning, and I wanted to go deeper into character than we went with Siblings. And I did not want to act in whatever it was we did next, mainly so there would always be someone to hold the camera. In Siblings we always had an actor holding the camera, and when one character would exit, and then they would hold the camera, and the other one would enter. Holding the camera became kind of like a right of passage, you weren't allowed to act until you held the camera first.
After Clamatore 3 is shot, I'm going to be directing my second experiment, which will take the form of a play called Cracks in the Floor, through Insurgent Theatre. They approached me with a story idea that they wanted to use improvisation for, but that they needed someone to direct and guide the improvisation. The method of working was up to me, so I said sure. I feel like this experiment will be invaluable in my quest to find a way to write screenplays that are conducive to getting real, organic performances from people. I feel like it has to come from within the performer, but they need something in order to have a reason to go there. Slick lines on a page are not enough for everyone. I am in search for the perfect balance.
At this point I feel a clearer vision for the film than I have felt over the entire long process (more realistic even than when I was writing the script). Much time to myself with lots of quiet thought and meditation and walking everywhere has brought me to this place. It is a place of solidarity and quietude, a head-space that feels calm and open, yet fierce enough to allow me to strike when I need to.
We will have more breathing room this time, more time to shoot and think, so I am planning on using that time to experiment. Filmmaking has to be about spontaneity on the set, much more than rehearsing a prepared script.
In Clamatore has been such an intensive learning experience, much different and more challenging than film school was. I now have a much better understanding of the process of the way I want to make films, and an idea of the amount of time it all takes, and the way you change over that time, and how that effects where the film goes, etc. I know now that I cannot simply make another film, I have to completely redefine the process based on everything I have learned from In Clamatore. I've spent so much time coming up with new ideas for what will be "the next film" but only now am I beginning to realize something needs to change in the groundwork.
Every film is a scientific experiment; I plan to approach them in this way from now on. We did an experiment called Siblings, which had some success. I wanted that to have complete spontaneity, so we went about shooting little films in my apartment with no script, briefly discussing what the scenes would be about and who are characters were beforehand. This created a certain amount of uncomfortable humor (largely due to the subject matter) but at times it seemed obvious to me that we were improvising, and thus it occasionally lacked truthfulness. I hate phony naturalism. But this was only an experiment, and I wanted to try it just to see if anything could be accomplished out of basically nothing, and something was accomplished. It was a funny, realistic awkward comedy that had 5 ten minute episodes.
I ended Siblings because I wanted to start a new experiment from the beginning, and I wanted to go deeper into character than we went with Siblings. And I did not want to act in whatever it was we did next, mainly so there would always be someone to hold the camera. In Siblings we always had an actor holding the camera, and when one character would exit, and then they would hold the camera, and the other one would enter. Holding the camera became kind of like a right of passage, you weren't allowed to act until you held the camera first.
After Clamatore 3 is shot, I'm going to be directing my second experiment, which will take the form of a play called Cracks in the Floor, through Insurgent Theatre. They approached me with a story idea that they wanted to use improvisation for, but that they needed someone to direct and guide the improvisation. The method of working was up to me, so I said sure. I feel like this experiment will be invaluable in my quest to find a way to write screenplays that are conducive to getting real, organic performances from people. I feel like it has to come from within the performer, but they need something in order to have a reason to go there. Slick lines on a page are not enough for everyone. I am in search for the perfect balance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)