It’s true when they say you only stop learning when you die, hence, it so important that everyone appreciate what learning capacities they've got.
The last few months I’ve been tossing and turning about how I’m ever going to make it (more like my pathways) as an actor/ filmmaker if I don’t start getting some learning skills in this area. I couldn’t afford the training, nor the time to and fro to the city. But then it hit me, the people around me are my sources of inspirations and tools of teaching.
In saying that, this Saturday filmmaker buddy Marie Setiawan was the woman in action as she crammed in a whole weeks worth of film studies in the 2 hour taster session that she lectured. Boy! That was hectic but it was a big time reality check on what I know and don’t know about film. I came to a realisation; I don’t know much, despite being a Digital Storytelling trainer and also teaching film in a local high school, after Marie’s session, I’m inspired to learn much much more about film.
I was happy to also find that my psychology degree did not go down the drain and there’s a huge link between movies and psychology; in most instances, you are observing a human behaviour. Also there’s another term I bumped into called “Movie therapy”. This is used to describe who learn to watch movies constructively so that they can reflect and pay attention to both the story and to themselves. In doing so, they can to learn to understand themselves and others much more objectively.
She ran through the basics: What is film? Understanding goals and motivations (Jaws, Vertical Limit) and storyboarding (Bladrunner). She introduced me to her tutor Duncan Thompson (An Australian screenplay developer) and his term “Palpable subjectivity”. I thought I give you the notes from "Geoffrey" because he did a good job of recording.
Duncan Thompson is one name that consistently appears in the development credits of Australia’s most successful films. He ran Aurora (script workshops) for many years and has played a part in developing many of Australia’s most successful screenplays including Japanese Story, Little Fish, Somersault and, more recently, The Black Balloon. He now runs the Sydney-based International Film School. Duncan gave a scintillating talk at the Australian Writer’s Guild on the weekend. Well – it was more like a sermon. Albeit a very engaging and intriguing one.
The following are some snippets from my PDA note-taking.
Some of this is my synthesis and interpretation, but I’m sure you’lll find it useful:
Films must have:
Palpable subjectivity with a thinking and feeling presence.
Conflict can also be defined in terms of the 4 C’s- contrast
- contradiction
- context
- character (who has needs and an objective)
Showed opening of Jaws.
Note that the story has stopped when the girl gets into the water?
The love story has been “stolen” from us (to make way for the real story).
Changing of relationships. When relationships change, we get a feeling ofSubstance.
A film is really about
The drama of being human.
General No-No in Dialogue:- characters can not tell Story (narratorial)
- No commentarial dialogue (characters can speak it- as their Pov.but the writer can’t write it)
- Decorative
- Q & A
- Characters should never discuss scenes they’re in.
WOVA note: Continue to film a scene after the 20 or so takes – without dialogue. Get the actor to internalise the lines and try to just think the thoughts.
Actions are- Verbal
- Physical
- Mental/emotional
We want to watch real “people”. Thinking.
The Ontological (hermeneutic) Structure of Palpable Subjectivity
palpable subjectivity
Mystery?
Don’t have characters that Suit their role
eg. the interpreter / cartographer at Start of Close Encounters works well because he is mis-cast.
We don’t need anyone in our film that can solve things easily.
Human beings try “to normalise” situations. eg. the pilots in the air traffic controller scene at the beginning of Close Encounters
We must experience “through” the characters – possibly by being “dimly aware that something’s afoot”.
Passive characters – this often means that your character isn’t dimly aware that something’s afoot.
“Keep your films banal” (ref, to child sleeping in Close Encounters … And the distant dog bark.)
Every character should have their own preoccupations – not those of the writer / audience. The specificity of your character’s response to what is happening is what people like to see.
Then we watched exerpt from Good Will Hunting and Something About Mary
character (will hunting – guardian/logal friend; In Something About Mary – the slimy P.I.) …
Character conflict is either
Physical / interior or intra-character or to do with the external world.
Need: To protect (GWH: why? – to prevent humiliation; SAM: – needs to beloved)
Motivation
Strategy (reveal flaws & create Misery 4 others)
Quality
Depth
Lengths (GWH: goes to far – relying on threat of violence)
New Insight (GWH: – is insecure)
Flaws (GWH)
moral (tendency to harm others)
psychological (tendency to harm self – thereby pushing people away)
Substance (flaw)
The Graduate
His fear of being inadequate makes him inadequate
At end of act 2, ice is thinnest – shit is deepest. It’s customary to begin the 3rd act with a reflection.
thin ice, deep shit
In final act.
Present main character with all antagonists, but in reverse order.
Go from general (eg. Cops in Thelma & Louise) to Specific (one cop).
It goes from Political to interpersonal to internal.
Separate main character nemesis by time and space
Sacrifice (ie. to have universal human resonance). Thereby expressing the theme of your story. Often happens at end.
Contrary to popular belief, characters don’t ”change” -they just becomemore integrated.
Massive subtext?
Your characters need to be talking drivel.
Exhillarating = gratuitous and dramatically justified.
It’s why we see movies.
