I just finished watching a video about Charlie Chaplin and the background efforts of the great director. The relatively old video from Thames video show only archival footage with the focus (if not the hypothosis!) of the 5 part series was to see how creative Chaplin was on the set... always funny, never angry and really an 'out of the box' thinker. This is especially evident in the first part of the series where he worked 6 films in 3 years for Mutual Pictures. He was given a large sum of money (over 750,000USD in 1916) to make these pictures. An incredible amount of money and some incredible work.
However, the reason I bring this up on the blog is the fact that he didn't work from a script. He allowed an initial premise to guide his thoughts and then moved through hundreds of 'slates' to create his narrative. NO SCRIPT seemed like it took film to a process which was more like a painter experimenting with a canvas. A shape turns to a flower, which ends up a figure....
In our class we spend some time noting the differences between the film director and the painter... and process usually was gone by a group of people, utilized machines, elongated the narrative, etc. But perhaps this was a time when they were the most similar. This was the time when process was sheer creativity. Making it up as he went along.
Today's' film doesn't have this luxury.
But why don't film makers return to this idea.. now that Video is Cheap... and friends can act... and you don't need too many lights. Think about this... and let me know. Is this process happening? Can you give examples of this process taking place today? Should we use this process in the creation of films? Perhaps Central Europe can start a new PROCESS movement for film making.... perhaps they already have.
7 comments:
This is a quite interesting question... but I have to tell you that most of the young people, who ever tried to make any kind of a movie or something similar were just starting like Chaplin did work.
A good example for this kind of film making is the group of people I worked with couple of years ago as I first tried my wings in film making. We didn't had any script. We didn't had anything else then our camera and us. And we still managed to do couple of quite good and funny videos by only using our minds to create something out of nothing. It was a funny way to go along and explore all these experiences and also difficulties. With time we realized that if you want to make quality and something longer than 30 seconds you wont be able to shoot without a plan and a script. Otherwise your efforts will end up like a huge mess where even you as e.g., a "director" does not know any more what's happening.
But still, my opinion is that everybody should start and explore film making in such a way to know how it feels to work with ideas on the spot.
Good thought Bob. I do think there are some young film enthusiasts out there that just want to feel the sparks, rather than make the next Apocalypse Now.
Perhaps this is the joy of making a music video, because many times the script is not anything more than a beat or a single lyric which guides the visual ideas. It is then that the crew and director just have this fun, creative mode they can dwell in for a while.
There are other film festivals which give only 24 hours to produce a film... shoot and edit. I think this jungle style of filmmaking can be free flowing as well, because obviously there can be no written dialogue or extensive shot sheet to help the film get anywhere. It is just hanging by the roots of creativity.
It would be great to see what you produced.
Actually the funny thing is that about 2 years ago I took part on a compatition like the one you mentioned above. We had to make a movie in 24 hours. It was really a lot of fun and really tireing as we didn't sleep for 28-30 hours.
I would really like to show my earlier works but to be honest I don't have any of them as trough all these years they disappeared somehow. :( But I have some videos of my works from the ship-times as I worked as AV staff.
This relates to me very well too.
Once i had a video assignment that is limited to 3 mins. And the challenges is to plan/shoot in 24 hours. Of course the post production took the rest of the week (due to the slow pc that we were provided), it was unavoidable.
Nevertheless the pre-production was literally combined with the actual shooting period as well.
It was crazy,pure impulse and impromptu. Only at the end of the production do we realise the video is a successful one or not, and usually it does! And i find that totally amazing!
It was probably the most memorable video shooting i ever done.
PS: Here is the link to my video project i'm referring to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zcoHOjXDyE
Thanks, Fathir, for the lovely video. I think it turned out pretty well. I think this process is one of the best ways to creatively make a movie. But let me ask you this: do you think the film would have been better if you had more time to script and shoot? and secondly, do you think it was the process that mattered over the quality of the film? Finally: do you think that you learned about how to make a film by doing this process?
Because, I teach film making and I am hesitant to just give the camera to someone without a script...and tell them to shoot away. So, let me know!
Ah, yes. The democratization of media. It would be nice to think that people would start producing thoughtful "homegrown" video content in contrast to our "spamworld" - they're must be some interesting series on Youtube, but I don't know of them.
Having constraints (like time and resources) can be good for the creative process. Good for spontaneity.
Last thought: has anyone seen the films "Smoke" and "Blue in the Face"? One of them was a formally shot film and the other was a spontaneous film shot with the same cast. I would like to see them both, but haven't gotten around to it.
Democratization of media... well, this isn't exactly what I meant, but it raises an interesting observation, Uncle. I personally thought that the advent of decent video tape cameras which can be used in 'local' lighting situations would have led to a drastic increase in video taping... and perhaps lead to a mass of people using the camera for developing new styles of film making and narrative building.
But I have not seen this nearly as much as I thought I would. The only GREAT example might be the Flight of the Conchords or the film ONCE.
In fact, after a recent scan of You Tube, (perhaps the best example of Democratization of Media around)I see no serious increase in new or better styles of using the TOOL called a camera. And the subject matter... let's say it is MOSTLY uninteresting and not clever at all. In fact, a little training in the skills of developing a movie, may take some of these 'vloggers' over to another side.
However, I do see a change. I see that after the YouTube experience, I found myself enthusiastic about being able to do something like it or better. So, perhaps, in this seeding of the public, we are inciting some talented people to make that one film they have been dreaming about (and hopefully writing down) for all these years. And when they begin, perhaps they will shoot like Chaplin did and take the time to be spontaneous.
Post a Comment