A few weeks ago, I had my first case of pre-exam freaking out in the academy. When faced with any kind of assessment, my natural reaction is to panic, stress and worry, though the only external sign is usually a twitching eyebrow and a lot of revision; so despite assurances that this assessment was a progress test not a maker-or-breaker I was nervous.
Thankfully, it went pretty well. I remembered how to calibrate my monitor and viewfinder with only a little reference to my notes to make sure I was doing it right and Ray said it was good, with just a bit of tweaking required. I ran into a bit of a snag with a faulty BNC but once I'd run through everything else (am I using the right inputs/outputs? are the batteries charged? have I switched them on?) I tried out a different cable and it was all fine. Setting the timecode was a doddle, but then in a bathetic twist I floundered trying to find the record button. Really, how silly is that? Once I'd combed the entire camera, I found a likely-looking button, hit it and success! I'd found the elusive thing, just in time to dismantle the kit.
Overall, I'm pleased with how I did but it's abundantly clear I need more practice - eventually I'd like this to be second nature so that I can get on with recording things rather than just looking for buttons. I'd also like to think that I could stop worrying unnecessarily but I have a greater chance of becoming a mathematical prodigy; worrying is what I do.
Saturday, 21 November 2009
Saturday, 14 November 2009
The Seagull (RSAMD 2009)
In the interests, of switching things up a bit, let's have a blog about the theatre!
Along with Harry and Chris, I went to see the 3rd year actors' production of The Seagull, Anton Chekhov's first full play. I was especially pleased since it gave me the chance to see what I'd studied at great length at school - we had looked specifically at how Chekhov's plays influenced the Moscow Art Theatre and Stanislavski's practices, and I wanted to know whether they had decided to go down the 'system' route or were going at it differently. As it turns out, it was more Hamlet era MAT than early MAT.
The actors were all very good, though I would say that a few would be better suited to on-screen acting than onstage. One in particular struggled vocally, and while that could be because of illness or strain, it was a shame - it sounded as if she had dropped her vocal range by about an octave in order to project, which really isn't the point at all. Another, I think needed to delineate herself and her character more clearly, but then she had the challenge of playing an actress, which is deceptively tricky. Kostya, his mother and uncle were especially strong: absorbing stage presences and consistent physically and vocally. Masha was a tad over the top, but then it's in the character's nature to be hysterical; perhaps my taking against the character was intentional? As an ensemble, they gelled very well - the collective scenes felt very realistic, and I liked the little touches of background activity even while the focus was on a smaller group.
I almost don't want to say it, but I think the star of the show may well have been TPA. Well done you guys! The set was ingenious and meticulously detailed - I loved the way they had cabinets and the things on them separate by fixing plates, ornaments etc onto boards which then slotted into the furniture. The problem of one floor surface needing to serve as both indoors and outside was met with a very clever melding of wooden boards into bark chips, and an overall design style which was far enough into representational to make that work. My absolute favourite thing, though, was the change that occurred between Act 3 and 4 during the interval - what better metaphor is there for the change undergone by the characters than the destruction of the set and the opening up of the wings? It was bold, inspired, and quite possibly the best piece of set design I've seen since Black Watch's pool table.
The only real downside to the evening was the lack of legroom - they may have just redone the Athanaeum, but they designed the seating for people with very short legs indeed, and this is coming from me, so that shows you just how cramped we're talking here.
Along with Harry and Chris, I went to see the 3rd year actors' production of The Seagull, Anton Chekhov's first full play. I was especially pleased since it gave me the chance to see what I'd studied at great length at school - we had looked specifically at how Chekhov's plays influenced the Moscow Art Theatre and Stanislavski's practices, and I wanted to know whether they had decided to go down the 'system' route or were going at it differently. As it turns out, it was more Hamlet era MAT than early MAT.
The actors were all very good, though I would say that a few would be better suited to on-screen acting than onstage. One in particular struggled vocally, and while that could be because of illness or strain, it was a shame - it sounded as if she had dropped her vocal range by about an octave in order to project, which really isn't the point at all. Another, I think needed to delineate herself and her character more clearly, but then she had the challenge of playing an actress, which is deceptively tricky. Kostya, his mother and uncle were especially strong: absorbing stage presences and consistent physically and vocally. Masha was a tad over the top, but then it's in the character's nature to be hysterical; perhaps my taking against the character was intentional? As an ensemble, they gelled very well - the collective scenes felt very realistic, and I liked the little touches of background activity even while the focus was on a smaller group.
I almost don't want to say it, but I think the star of the show may well have been TPA. Well done you guys! The set was ingenious and meticulously detailed - I loved the way they had cabinets and the things on them separate by fixing plates, ornaments etc onto boards which then slotted into the furniture. The problem of one floor surface needing to serve as both indoors and outside was met with a very clever melding of wooden boards into bark chips, and an overall design style which was far enough into representational to make that work. My absolute favourite thing, though, was the change that occurred between Act 3 and 4 during the interval - what better metaphor is there for the change undergone by the characters than the destruction of the set and the opening up of the wings? It was bold, inspired, and quite possibly the best piece of set design I've seen since Black Watch's pool table.
The only real downside to the evening was the lack of legroom - they may have just redone the Athanaeum, but they designed the seating for people with very short legs indeed, and this is coming from me, so that shows you just how cramped we're talking here.
Tuesday, 10 November 2009
V (2009)
Through the power of modern technology I watched the recent pilot for V, the remake of the 80s V - a sci-fi story about reptilian aliens. Sounded fun.
And technically, it was very good. The CGI was pretty good, there were no glaring pacing problems, they had a strong enough cast including some of my favourites (Inara and Wash from Firefly and Juliet from Lost), and the basic premise is interesting.
What completely and utterly turned me off it was the politics. Sci-fi as a genre always carries ideologies - as does all tv, but the hypothetical nature of science fiction makes it that much clearer, and V wore its neo-conservative on its sleeve. Outsiders *cough*immigrants*cough* are sinister and evil, and what form does their evil take? UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE! Oh no, save us from the universal healthcare! Burn the witch! Burn it!
Seriously, if this is its way of staying current - tapping into the zeitgeist - then count me out. America is terrified of a healthcare system that doesn't condemn the poor to death - what sort of person wants to poke that fear with a reptilian alien shaped stick? I'm going to assume it's someone who's fully insured and who voted McCain in the last election, and no I don't mean tasty oven chips.
This has made me angry, especially since the makers have been all too keen to point how feminist it is to cast two women in powerful roles. Well, good for you - doesn't improve my mood any.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to find something a little less neo-con. Maybe I'll watch Fox News...
And technically, it was very good. The CGI was pretty good, there were no glaring pacing problems, they had a strong enough cast including some of my favourites (Inara and Wash from Firefly and Juliet from Lost), and the basic premise is interesting.
What completely and utterly turned me off it was the politics. Sci-fi as a genre always carries ideologies - as does all tv, but the hypothetical nature of science fiction makes it that much clearer, and V wore its neo-conservative on its sleeve. Outsiders *cough*immigrants*cough* are sinister and evil, and what form does their evil take? UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE! Oh no, save us from the universal healthcare! Burn the witch! Burn it!
Seriously, if this is its way of staying current - tapping into the zeitgeist - then count me out. America is terrified of a healthcare system that doesn't condemn the poor to death - what sort of person wants to poke that fear with a reptilian alien shaped stick? I'm going to assume it's someone who's fully insured and who voted McCain in the last election, and no I don't mean tasty oven chips.
This has made me angry, especially since the makers have been all too keen to point how feminist it is to cast two women in powerful roles. Well, good for you - doesn't improve my mood any.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to find something a little less neo-con. Maybe I'll watch Fox News...
Monday, 9 November 2009
Blade Runner (1982)
I was so excited when I saw we'd get to see this in the Final Cut version on a big(ish) screen. It's a strangely compelling film, and you who saw it this way for the first time - you don't know how lucky you are!
Part of why I love it is the film noir look, which is a style I really love in all its permutations (original noir, neo noir, horror noir, and this, future noir). Some of the details are purely fatuous - ceiling fans? trench coats? that's just window dressing. I really hate when a film adopts the outward characteristics of a genre without capturing its heart, it's like watching a bad actor put on the voice and the silly walk and completely kill a role. Thankfully, Blade Runner is noir through and through, with the detective story, the dark palette and, absolutely essentially, the anti-hero.
Because Deckard, whether you think he's a guy or not (see below for discussion ad nauseum of Deckard's status), is not a good guy. He kills without remorse, he drinks (that old staple of detective drama!) and his relationship with Rachel could charitably be called assault. And yet, through the magic of the movies, this guy is our white hat. Part of why it works is that it's Harrison Ford. This guy was able to play lovable rogues when dinosaurs roamed the earth (he made two of the biggest franchises of the century - Indiana Jones and Star Wars [don't even mention Mark Hamil, Han Solo was where it was at]). Plus, a brutally efficient character comes across very well in these kinds of films, far better than some sub-emo moral doubt. It's just a movie thing I guess.
I'm going to give an honourable mention to Gaff, played by Edward James Olmos because to me Edward James Olmos = Commander Adama, end of. Plus, you can credit him with coming up with "cityspeak", the peculiar hybrid language spoken in the film which was brilliant prescient in creating a cultural mix with heavy emphasis on oriental language and culture.*
Blade Runner is another excellent case of sci-fi taking a philosophical stand and examining religious and existential themes - what does it mean to be human? what would you do if you met your creator? the answer here is gouge his eyes out...**
Part of what makes it fun is the fact that there's so much to speculate on! Of course, this doesn't work with the majority of the audience who, quite understandably, would like to know what the hell is going on but for the geekier elements, it's hours of entertainment.
Take the question of whether Deckard is a replicant: according to Ridley Scott, he definitely is. But Harrison Ford said, "We had agreed that he definitely was not a replicant", and many of the other people who worked on the film agree, including the producer Michael Deeley: "That was just a bullshit, an extra layer Ridley put in. Also an obfuscation." But I've always believed you should trust the tale and not the teller, so you have to do your own Film Noir style detective hunt for the facts. Unfortunately, since the creators had no consistent plan, neither does the story. While it does make sense in many ways for Deckard to be a replicant (his emotional immaturity, his ability to take a beating, his needing to be filled in on basic details) they could just as easily be faults in the production, and it clashes with the fact that if Deckard was one of the six escapees, surely Pris, Leon and Zhora would recognise him? Also, I think that if you make Deckard a replicant you take away from the contrast between man and machine. It is interesting to think of what it says about humans if you contrast the affectionate behaviour between Pris and Roy with Deckard's roughness with Rachel, and it makes the final fight a matter of man vs his creation instead of just two robots hitting each other.
Still, I don't have the definitive answer - I don't actually think there is one. It's just something which is fun to play about with.
Having reached such a stunning conclusion, I finish yet another of my geeky blog posts.
*Seen also in the brilliant series Firefly
** Religion is a bit of a pattern when it comes to AI/robot stories, understandably, but I think I Robot does a really good job of being a non-typical philosophical robot film (what a sentence!) by actually looking at robots when it looks at robots, not at humanity. Or at least, not entirely; it derives its main theme from actual laws of robotics and offers really interesting insights into that. Plus - Will Smith. Need I say more?
Friday, 6 November 2009
Battlestar Galactica (2003-2009)
From the way that I seem to mention it every time tv comes up, you may already know that I love this show. If you're mystified as to what I was on about, then let me just say: go the library, take out the boxset, and watch it. I'd ask you what you've been doing with the last six years but the answer is probably "having a life".
For the spoilerphobic, don't worry. I've deliberately made this spoiler free because I'm trying to be evangelical.
The story follows the last humans left alive in a futuristic setting after a genocidal attack by the Cylons, a race of robots invented by the humans but who rebelled. From that, it could sound rather hokey - robots? spaceships? nah thanks.
What makes it work is first of all, that the creators made this world so detailed, from the Battlestar itself to the recurring hexagon designs. The militarty parts feel very real, and it's definitely in the school of sci-fi which shows you battered, lived-in spaceships rather than shiny white perfection.
For a sci-fi show, it's also determinedly realistic, with characters facing problems which range from the mundane to the cataclysmic, and actions having consequences episodes, sometimes whole seasons, down the line. It is actually addressed that this fleet needs to find fuel, food and water, and that it has limited weapons.
And then there's the fact that over the course of very few episodes, you get to know and love the characters. They're all a little messed up, and they all make mistakes, but it's because of that I care. So when some revelation is made, or when a character dies/nearly dies/kinda dies (if you've seen it you'll know what I mean) it hurts. It feels like even when they're not onscreen, people are living their lives. A tiny character who you thought was just a one episode wonder turns out to be pivotal for the entire series; it's been funny re-watching it seeing characters' beginnings again, having seen where they end up.
If you're put off sci-fi because it is overwhelmingly laddish, then you'll be glad to hear that there are plenty of really strong female characters on the show. They call the shots, they shoot the guns, they have meaningful storylines beyond love interests
One of the main things I love about sci-fi is its ability to take abstract themes and examine them, and BSG has a ball with that. Its whole central theme is about God, creation and destiny, with a whole bunch of others on the side. The great episodes engage your brain and your emotions, and the majority of episodes are good (I'm really not sold on one of the season 5 arcs, and its climactic episode was absolutely awful, but that's the worst episode of the whole series).
A good tactic if you're unsure would just be to watch the mini-series (it's the first disc of the boxset) and see if you like it. It's only the length of a film and it sets up the characters and the setting.
For the spoilerphobic, don't worry. I've deliberately made this spoiler free because I'm trying to be evangelical.
The story follows the last humans left alive in a futuristic setting after a genocidal attack by the Cylons, a race of robots invented by the humans but who rebelled. From that, it could sound rather hokey - robots? spaceships? nah thanks.
What makes it work is first of all, that the creators made this world so detailed, from the Battlestar itself to the recurring hexagon designs. The militarty parts feel very real, and it's definitely in the school of sci-fi which shows you battered, lived-in spaceships rather than shiny white perfection.
For a sci-fi show, it's also determinedly realistic, with characters facing problems which range from the mundane to the cataclysmic, and actions having consequences episodes, sometimes whole seasons, down the line. It is actually addressed that this fleet needs to find fuel, food and water, and that it has limited weapons.
And then there's the fact that over the course of very few episodes, you get to know and love the characters. They're all a little messed up, and they all make mistakes, but it's because of that I care. So when some revelation is made, or when a character dies/nearly dies/kinda dies (if you've seen it you'll know what I mean) it hurts. It feels like even when they're not onscreen, people are living their lives. A tiny character who you thought was just a one episode wonder turns out to be pivotal for the entire series; it's been funny re-watching it seeing characters' beginnings again, having seen where they end up.
If you're put off sci-fi because it is overwhelmingly laddish, then you'll be glad to hear that there are plenty of really strong female characters on the show. They call the shots, they shoot the guns, they have meaningful storylines beyond love interests
A good tactic if you're unsure would just be to watch the mini-series (it's the first disc of the boxset) and see if you like it. It's only the length of a film and it sets up the characters and the setting.
Monday, 2 November 2009
Russell Howard's Good News (2009)
Russell Howard has a new comedy show on BBC 3, and I've been tuning in on iPlayer: it's a perfect candidate for timeshifting since it pops up on the homepage and is on at an unreasonable hour.
I especially like the title sequence and inserts, even though they're blatantly ripped off of Juno:
It sets the tone for the programme and feels different from most other BBC comedies. I just love the way it plays with scale and dimensions!
The show itself is still finding its feet - whoever thought up the "Mystery Guest" feature needs to just let go and drop it - but Howard is popular for reason, and his jokes can carry the half hour. While I didn't laugh out loud that often, I did grin the whole way through.
I especially like the title sequence and inserts, even though they're blatantly ripped off of Juno:
It sets the tone for the programme and feels different from most other BBC comedies. I just love the way it plays with scale and dimensions!
The show itself is still finding its feet - whoever thought up the "Mystery Guest" feature needs to just let go and drop it - but Howard is popular for reason, and his jokes can carry the half hour. While I didn't laugh out loud that often, I did grin the whole way through.
Saturday, 31 October 2009
my tv for the last two days...
...reveals that I'm a giant nerd. What a surprise!
Thursday night:
7.30pm - 10pm I watched E4 on my television (which I do have a license for!)
I tuned in specifically for How I Met Your Mother, a sitcom which features the masterstroke of being just enough like Friends to be familiar, but just different enough to be fresh. That, and I adore Neil Patrick Harris in it.
After that, the real Friends came on, so I watched with half a brain - the other half focussed on my laptop. Look at me multitask! I'm so familiar with Friends, though, that I still know where to laugh at the jokes when it's been dubbed in Catalan so it's not really that impressive.
Then it was the new episodes of Scrubs, so I stuck around to watch them because I'm fond of the show, it's funny and since they were new episodes, I knew I wouldn't have seen them before. It wasn't brilliant - I do think it's running out of steam now that it's on series umpty-thrumpty. They're making Dr Kelso a good guy for goodness sake!
10pm - 12am-ish I took control of my viewing and broke out the boxset! I actually watch on my laptop because of several reasons:
*my DVD player attached to my TV is only actually semi-attached and you get the most awful fuzzy colour effect which just ruins it
*with the wonder of Mac's DVD Player app, you only have to watch the warnings at the beginning once since it remembers where you last were
I watched three episodes of the boxset I got from the Academy library: Battlestar Galactica. From the amount I mention this in class, it's pretty obvious I'm a fan, but it really is one of the best shows on television (yes, it still counts as "on" because while the seasons are done, Edward James Olmos is determined to fill in every gap with "specials" [that is, when he isn't advising the UN {and no, I'm not joking}] like Razor and The Plan) so I make no apologies. Three episodes in a row though... it's not exactly the sunniest programme in the world and a marathon makes for tough viewing.
Friday morning:
8am, I woke up to "time thieve" the latest episode of Supernatural which aired in America last night. Yup, I actually got up early in order to see it as soon as possible. It's a show I follow closely, and another which I'm a fan of, so it does matter that I see it soon - I couldn't wait the months it would take to come out on British TV. This is a case where I wish Hulu was accessible in Britain.
In the evening, I watched How I Met Your Mother at 7.30pm on E4, for the same reasons as above. I watch it whenever I'm in at that time, but it still isn't "appointment viewing" - if it was a choice between going out to the cinema, or just round to a friend's, I wouldn't mind missing the new episode.
After a gap of chatting on the phone and making some dinner (and by "make" I mean "heat up" [and by "heat up" I mean "eat cold"]), I watched Have I Got News For You at 9pm on BBC1. I like those kinds of topical news quizzes, and I especially like the blend of Ian Hislop and Paul Merton's humour. This is another show which, on the kind of night where absolutely nothing is happening, a re-run on Dave or the like is good entertainment.
Once that was over, it was back to BSG. This time, I watched four episodes (they're gripping!) and just stopped because it was midnight and I have a bus to catch tomorrow. Though, I have kinda negated that decision by blogging, but I'm away for the weekend and would rather get this complete.
Total hours: 7 hours, 30 minutes.
Not to sound like I'm making excuses, but this result is slightly skewed by the fact I'm gorging on a boxset at the moment. Usually, I watch a lot less unless something specific I like is on.
Thursday night:
7.30pm - 10pm I watched E4 on my television (which I do have a license for!)
I tuned in specifically for How I Met Your Mother, a sitcom which features the masterstroke of being just enough like Friends to be familiar, but just different enough to be fresh. That, and I adore Neil Patrick Harris in it.
After that, the real Friends came on, so I watched with half a brain - the other half focussed on my laptop. Look at me multitask! I'm so familiar with Friends, though, that I still know where to laugh at the jokes when it's been dubbed in Catalan so it's not really that impressive.
Then it was the new episodes of Scrubs, so I stuck around to watch them because I'm fond of the show, it's funny and since they were new episodes, I knew I wouldn't have seen them before. It wasn't brilliant - I do think it's running out of steam now that it's on series umpty-thrumpty. They're making Dr Kelso a good guy for goodness sake!
10pm - 12am-ish I took control of my viewing and broke out the boxset! I actually watch on my laptop because of several reasons:
*my DVD player attached to my TV is only actually semi-attached and you get the most awful fuzzy colour effect which just ruins it
*with the wonder of Mac's DVD Player app, you only have to watch the warnings at the beginning once since it remembers where you last were
I watched three episodes of the boxset I got from the Academy library: Battlestar Galactica. From the amount I mention this in class, it's pretty obvious I'm a fan, but it really is one of the best shows on television (yes, it still counts as "on" because while the seasons are done, Edward James Olmos is determined to fill in every gap with "specials" [that is, when he isn't advising the UN {and no, I'm not joking}] like Razor and The Plan) so I make no apologies. Three episodes in a row though... it's not exactly the sunniest programme in the world and a marathon makes for tough viewing.
Friday morning:
8am, I woke up to "time thieve" the latest episode of Supernatural which aired in America last night. Yup, I actually got up early in order to see it as soon as possible. It's a show I follow closely, and another which I'm a fan of, so it does matter that I see it soon - I couldn't wait the months it would take to come out on British TV. This is a case where I wish Hulu was accessible in Britain.
In the evening, I watched How I Met Your Mother at 7.30pm on E4, for the same reasons as above. I watch it whenever I'm in at that time, but it still isn't "appointment viewing" - if it was a choice between going out to the cinema, or just round to a friend's, I wouldn't mind missing the new episode.
After a gap of chatting on the phone and making some dinner (and by "make" I mean "heat up" [and by "heat up" I mean "eat cold"]), I watched Have I Got News For You at 9pm on BBC1. I like those kinds of topical news quizzes, and I especially like the blend of Ian Hislop and Paul Merton's humour. This is another show which, on the kind of night where absolutely nothing is happening, a re-run on Dave or the like is good entertainment.
Once that was over, it was back to BSG. This time, I watched four episodes (they're gripping!) and just stopped because it was midnight and I have a bus to catch tomorrow. Though, I have kinda negated that decision by blogging, but I'm away for the weekend and would rather get this complete.
Total hours: 7 hours, 30 minutes.
Not to sound like I'm making excuses, but this result is slightly skewed by the fact I'm gorging on a boxset at the moment. Usually, I watch a lot less unless something specific I like is on.
Tuesday, 27 October 2009
more navel gazing
I'm not quite sure how to reflect on my personal development but I feel like I've hit upon a bit of a writing streak so let's give it a go.
I enjoy my writing classes a lot. They're zappy and creative and I'm constantly amazed by some of the things which people come up with while we're describing scenarios. In last week's lesson, I found the free writing exercise quite difficult, and I'm not sure if it really suits me - it's a good warm-up, but as for uncovering my subconscious... there's a lot of silt over my subconscious and I don't think looking at a hanger will clear it off. Actually, my associative little brain just went into overdrive about "hanging" which led to a very despondent few pages. The group therapy bit was... well, we'll all know each other quite well by the time we graduate. Ok, I say group therapy - we had to talk about a time we were betrayed or when we betrayed someone else, and for everyone it was very personal. I'm not looking forward to when this gets even heavier, but then soul baring is this class's business and I'll never write a goods script if I'm too scared of people seeing me in them.
To skip to the other end of the week for no reason, I also really love the screenings. What a way to spend a Friday! The current run of classic American films in the morning is great, since I love most of them. That does make it harder to blog about - I'd rather talk about a flawed gem or a complete trainwreck, but it's more fun to watch something brilliant. Also, it sets the bar somewhat.
Skipping back to Content Origination, it can be quite bleak. It's good that we're learning the cold and brutal truth about the industry we may well work in, since I doubt we'd make it if we don't know what's going on, and it gives TV a new layer of significance watching it. The style of class is nice, feeling a lot like a conversation at times. I'm not sure how I hold up when it comes to looking at statistics - maths is not my strength, and while I can usually understand a figure given to me sometimes it can feel like I'm drowning in a sea of viewing figures (and wow doesn't that sound like a good idea for a horror film! Anyone? Bueller?). The same goes for the figures we get in all our classes, really - a powerpoint full of numbers makes my head swim.
In the technical classes, I still feel a bit of a dunce, but I'm reasonable enough to see that I'm learning and that soon(ish) I'll be able to put up a tripod quickly and efficiently, I just have to slog through the learning process. So far, editing is A-OK, since we've mainly been covering how to use a Mac OS (which I do every day) and the basics of Final Cut (which I do know). Still, I'm not sure if I'll really be able to memorise the log-in to Edit Share. There it is, numbers again...
In a more general sense, I really feel like I'm settling into life in the academy. Ok, I still get lost from time to time (and I swear they've moved our pigeon holes! I can't find them, let alone the pigeons) but I can usually find our regular rooms and I know where to go to get a blackpudding roll or a squirt of antibac alcohol. It still feels a little bit like a really great summer camp which will have to end eventually, but I keep telling myself I'm here to stay and hopefully I'll listen.
I enjoy my writing classes a lot. They're zappy and creative and I'm constantly amazed by some of the things which people come up with while we're describing scenarios. In last week's lesson, I found the free writing exercise quite difficult, and I'm not sure if it really suits me - it's a good warm-up, but as for uncovering my subconscious... there's a lot of silt over my subconscious and I don't think looking at a hanger will clear it off. Actually, my associative little brain just went into overdrive about "hanging" which led to a very despondent few pages. The group therapy bit was... well, we'll all know each other quite well by the time we graduate. Ok, I say group therapy - we had to talk about a time we were betrayed or when we betrayed someone else, and for everyone it was very personal. I'm not looking forward to when this gets even heavier, but then soul baring is this class's business and I'll never write a goods script if I'm too scared of people seeing me in them.
To skip to the other end of the week for no reason, I also really love the screenings. What a way to spend a Friday! The current run of classic American films in the morning is great, since I love most of them. That does make it harder to blog about - I'd rather talk about a flawed gem or a complete trainwreck, but it's more fun to watch something brilliant. Also, it sets the bar somewhat.
Skipping back to Content Origination, it can be quite bleak. It's good that we're learning the cold and brutal truth about the industry we may well work in, since I doubt we'd make it if we don't know what's going on, and it gives TV a new layer of significance watching it. The style of class is nice, feeling a lot like a conversation at times. I'm not sure how I hold up when it comes to looking at statistics - maths is not my strength, and while I can usually understand a figure given to me sometimes it can feel like I'm drowning in a sea of viewing figures (and wow doesn't that sound like a good idea for a horror film! Anyone? Bueller?). The same goes for the figures we get in all our classes, really - a powerpoint full of numbers makes my head swim.
In the technical classes, I still feel a bit of a dunce, but I'm reasonable enough to see that I'm learning and that soon(ish) I'll be able to put up a tripod quickly and efficiently, I just have to slog through the learning process. So far, editing is A-OK, since we've mainly been covering how to use a Mac OS (which I do every day) and the basics of Final Cut (which I do know). Still, I'm not sure if I'll really be able to memorise the log-in to Edit Share. There it is, numbers again...
In a more general sense, I really feel like I'm settling into life in the academy. Ok, I still get lost from time to time (and I swear they've moved our pigeon holes! I can't find them, let alone the pigeons) but I can usually find our regular rooms and I know where to go to get a blackpudding roll or a squirt of antibac alcohol. It still feels a little bit like a really great summer camp which will have to end eventually, but I keep telling myself I'm here to stay and hopefully I'll listen.
The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
When you become known as the local film nut, the one who is obsessed with all things movie, you tend you get given stuff. I was always being given torn out newspaper articles about film projects or statistics, and among these were plenty of "100 Films To See BEFORE YOU DIE", which is a grisly idea if you think about it. One of the films always on these lists is The Shawshank Redemption, and I'd never seen it before now despite the fact I've been meaning to for a long time. I think it was probably part of project "Don't Let Baby See Scary Films", which is fair enough since I've always wanted to see films far and above the BBFC limitations. My Six year old self has never quite gotten over not seeing Romeo + Juliet upon its first release. Now that I have, the lists say I'm ready to die, so I'm not sure what I'm living for. I guess I'll just have to make it up as I go along.
It deserves its reputation as a classic; it's very difficult to think of anything wrong with this film: it has flawless acting, cinematography, plotting, characterisation, direction and editing. It has deep moral themes without being preachy and it illuminates an aspect of history in a way which reflects upon modern day society. The only wriggle-room I could see for improvement is if the characters were see to age a little better, but it's a very small thing. Where does that leave the critic? Sitting on her sofa stuck for something to say, is where. (Sidenote: lots of sibbilants there!)
My favourite thing about the script was its careful laying down of looping structures. I love these. My favourite is actually purely visual: in Trois Coleurs: Rouge the protagonist is a model, and her image is up on billboards throughout the film advertising chewing gum. In a completely haunting bit of looping, the final shot is a perfect mirror of that image, although in very different circumstances. It does sound like much if you haven't seen it, but I get chills just thinking about it. I've got them now writing about it!
In Shawshank, it's things like the room where both Brooks and Red stay - it feels more like a unified whole. And then there's the signposting which makes the twist (or more like reveal I suppose, since it's never revealed that Andy is dead...) both surprising, but also make sense. There's nothing worse than a twist you can't understand, because rather than making the film look clever it just makes you feel stupid. I know this because I've written those scripts, and they've been rubbish. A good twist is clever, but of the "why didn't I think of that before!" kind. It's a tricky balance between obvious and incomprehensible.
I do expect that I'll watch this again, probably many times. The mise-en-scene create the kind of atmosphere which very special films do (I'd count The Godfather and Bladerunner too) which draws you in and immerses you in that world for 90 or 200 minutes. It's not necessarily a pleasant world, in fact, its brutality feels more realistic - real enough to get lost in. It's engrossing, and it only comes from a brilliant script well executed - that elusive combination! I was engrossed by The Shawshank Redemption, so that I didn't really want it to end despite the perfect note of the end.
On that subject, I think the addition to the ending was a good decision. It needed that confirmation - I couldn't bear the thought of Red possibly being apprehended on the border, or of him arriving to find that Andy wasn't there. Not patronizing the audience is all well and good, but I do actually like to know what the writer thinks happened - especially when it's a writer who has guided me through a film so well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
