FILM-THOUGHT

This site is born out of the files migration from my hard drive to the light on the web. Now I have something else to think about -- "writing on-line as a performance." A different type of writing and a special way of thinking. In the tradition of postmodern theories I consider you, reader, as my co-author and therefore I do not apologize for mistakes. Thought (truth) is a process (Hegel). If you like finished and polished texts, get a book.
The idea to think about film as the northern type of sensitivity is new to me and drives me crazy. First, rethinking the "geographic" perception; thanks to postmodern writers it is not a totally new thought. Second, the revision of my approach to the film phenomena -- you go to "View Points" page and see for yourself. Keeping it in mind, you can see how I arrived at teaching a new course. I welcome comments and suggestions. I consider this class as Film Studies using the "Northern" cinema -- Scandinavia, Russia, Germany and US. My aim is to study the nature of film -- the new postmodern notion of film as thought-feeling, nomadic structure of viewing experience, and the northern origins of cinema. Bergman and Tarkovsky are the two directors most suitable as material for analysis. (I still don't know how this class could be arranged in order to cover the basic philosophy behind those ideas).

CONCEPTS

This word my students do not like. They don't understand it. That's how directing class begins -- with misunderstanding. If I don't understand something, there is a chance that I'll learn something new.

Directing is about directions. First thing to do is to direct yourself: your mind, your thought process, your feelings and visions. Since you're not an actor, there is no director to direct you. You have to do it. If you learn it, the rest is easy.

All great men and great directors are people of vision. The films taught in class are the trace of different new ways to see and to think about life, the world and yourself. Vision is a mature concept. Stanislavsky during his rehearsals liked to scream at his actors -- "I don't see it!" If your thought is strong enough for others to see, you have a concept. If you think that theatre is SHOW-BUSINESS, think again about film -- Film is the business of showing the invisible world of our soul.

I'm not sure that I understand the notorious division between art and craft. If you want to make a movie bad enough you will learn "how" to do it. Try and try again, try many times -- and you will end up studying how the best is done. For me the main question is WHY should I do it? It has to be personal, like everything of importance.

So, how is it born, the vision thing?

BAZIN (CRITIC)
History Note

The French word "auteur" has been employed since legal battles in the 1930s struggled to determine who deserved credit for a film. The question extended beyound the courts when film theorist Andre Bazin founded the quarterly journal Cahiers du Cinema in 1951, devoted to studying the art of motion pictures and hailing its greatest contributors.
Universities and film societies closely followed Bazin's criticisms and an underground film movement was born. From this wellspring came the French New Wave directors Jean-Luc Godard and Francois Truffaut, who took to the streets with 16mm cameras and explored new visions in film. Others simply applied these viewpoints into a new appreciation for the people who make movies.
Taking his lead from film critic James Agee, Bazin argued that the highest purveyors of the form were the fiercely independent American directors that continued to stamp their personalities on films in the assembly-line mentality of the studio system. Bazin reverred directors like D.W.Griffith, Ernst Lubitsch, and Charlie Chaplin, those who had succeeded in experimenting and improving despite contract players, union crews, dictated scripts, and impossible deadlines imposed by the studios.
Bazin's auteur theory is today the most pervasive position in the world. Almost all films seen today are viewed with a sense of their sole originator, and today's directors are often more popular and more controversial than the actors or scripts of their films. A sudden appreciation for the films of Alfred Hitchcock, John Ford, and particularly Howard Hawks, stemmed from this perspective. And contemporary directors such as Stanley Kubrick, Oliver Stone, Spike Lee, Francis Ford Coppola, and Martin Scorcese are now heralded for their distinctive styles.
Another important principle rediscovered by Bazin was mise-en-scene, a style of filming that emphasizes long takes, the placement of the camera, and choreography of action as an extension of the director's personal touch. Mise-en-scne, Bazin argues, is preferrable to the radical montage scenes of Sergei Eisenstein, for it shows that the director was planning all cuts before the editing stage. Bazin pointed to the works of Jean Renoir, Erich von Stroheim, and Orson Welles as the finest example of mise-en-scene directors, and renewed interest in their careers soon followed.
Bazin set a criteria by which film buffs could got back and evaluate the efforts of others, and molded thought for an entire generation of filmmakers, critics, and scholars.

BORN: April 8, 1918 in Angers, France. DIED: 1958

Simply, be an artist. Yes, like the one who paints his canvases. He has a blank space in front of him, you have empty space! Construct it, shape it, orginize... He will put the red paint, you, too -- the red dress crosses the screen, or red light... Paint it. Write you movies the way composer writes music.

What words? Sounds!

You don't need words...

HOMEWORK: select one 30 sec. commercial and describe its concept -- Commercial Archive*****

Read Bazin's book to understand that director is no less an artist, tha a composer, writer, painter! Being a "filmmaker" is only being a professional (craft of the trade)! Of course, a composer can read, write notation, play instruments -- but this is to support his artistic needs! You have to learn how to see the difference in Meyerhold's formula (for actors): Actor = Creator + Medium

How does this formula work for director? What is YOUR medium? The same: Director = Artist + Medium

Write down what you consider film directing medium (bring to class -- oral presentation).

Artist (Author) -- what is so unique about YOUR vision of the world, YOUR perception of life, your sensitivity? Do you know? Do you know yourself? You must -- because this is the REAL source of any new voice in filmmaking. If you have nothing to say about the world you are born in (never before existed and reflected upon), you won't make it as a director. You will end up assisting others.... at the best. Work on those both at the same time: Creator (Artist) + Medium (Craft).

Production Manager (PM)

PM is not postmodern, but the person who can save you a lot of blood, yours and your team. If you do not understand what I just said, you are not ready to direct anything. If you understand a value of a good secretary, you know it.

What is he talking about, this Anatoly? Where could I get all those people?

Oh, my friend, they will find you! You know how to inspire, to lead -- don't you understand that their future in your hands? If you come with the great film, they are set for life (if they are good). Your team will go from one project to another. Read the producer file again; do you understand that people will seek you to invest their money in you? Yes, yes, in YOU, silly one! You don't believe me?

Well, than you won't have PM and you are in trouble

steps of film making

You know, maybe you are not film director. It's okay. Maybe you are a screen writer! Or a producer?

You have to go through the whole experience once or twice before you will know who you are. Maybe you hate the production aspect of it? Pre-production period will give some taste of it.

storyboard
images

camera

crew
actors

director

producer

production manager

In your "shot-by-shot book each above topic should have a special section. The cast and crew must be on the contact lists (production manager, PM, builds the lists with the info regarding conflicts and etc.) IMAGES: You can keep your "scrap book" seperately, but for many the collection of the images proved to be very helpful (especially working with the camera person and designers, they can see what kind of effects or moods you are looking for).

The PRODUCER part is for your self-discipline, to look at your shooting script from a different, financial, perspective -- how much this or that shot will cost and if this is worthy.

I advise my students to use Editing Page not only while working on the script, but also again at the Preproduction cycle (you will use it again in the Post-production cycle, when you got the footage).

Also, I advise directors to keep their notebooks (or journals), so you can write down you think about, but something which is not ready to pass on the cast and the crew. You can see the breakdown of such an approach at HamletDreams online (the show I am doing in the Fall 2001). While the fasks becoming more complex moving through the production forest, you must keep the initial vision, this is the main resposibility of a director. You must communicated to everybody's involved constantly in order for them to work on the details.

One more time -- the time ratio: it takes years to put a movie together, months -- to get the producing machine, days -- to shoot, minutes -- on the screen. /\
/--\
/----\
/------\
/--------\
___________ The bigger the foundation of this piramide, the better result at the top!

In many film textbooks "mise-en-scene" defined as "the widly-used term for all the lements placed in a scene: setting, props, costume, makeup." Semiotic theory is the analysis of these elements as code or system of signs that creates meanings.

Tips & Quotes:

"Rehearsals (Acting)

Once the major roles for a film have been cast, directors can begin preliminary run-throughs (rehearsals) to help actors develop their specific characters. The amount of rehearsal time afforded depends greatly on what the director wants, the availability of the actor, and the overall time constraints on the film. Generally rehearsals last 2-3 weeks before the actual shooting process begins.
Rehearsals can be very helpful in establishing relationships between actors and directors, along with determining if a specific scene plays out as believable or not. It is a time when the actors can give input, ask questions and collaborate with the director on whether a scene will relay well to the audience. If not, this is the time to make changes.

Different directors have differing points of view as to whether rehearsal is important to the overall production of the film or not. On one side there are those such as Paul Williams, "I am very actor oriented, and am very concerned with performance. I don't know how to do it without rehearsals. Next there are directors such as Bernardo Bertolicci, "I don't rehearse too much. I try, if I can."

Then there are directors such as Robert Altman, "I don't have any real rehearsal period. I'm embarrassed to rehearse because I don't know what to do." Finally, there are directors like Michael Winner, who don't believe in rehearsal for a film.

For the actor, rehearsals are not just about nailing a part or figuring it out, but also discovering if there will be chemistry between the actors. Actress Mary McDonnell (Passion Fish, Dances With Wolves) contends that the best actors are the ones who aren't afraid to make mistakes. Invariably, actors discover something about themselves as they move through rehearsal."

comments of directors

It starts with the writer--it's a familiar dictum, but somehow it keeps getting forgotten along the way. No film-maker, irrespective of his electronic bag of tricks, can ever afford to forget his commitment to the written word. ~ Steven Spielberg


Directing is like putting together a collage. ~ Ethan Hawke

Independent Filmmaking

My name is Keith Aronowitz and I am one of those insane people that decided to fund their own film. Okay, maybe not insane, but it was just something I decided to do, or rather felt I had to.














Let me back up to give you some history. I have been professionally involved in the film & television industry for over 20 years, mostly as an editor working in network TV for companies like ABC News, MTV, Sony, Disney, etc. Having worked in TV for all these years, I have also had the misfortune of working on some pretty mindless stuff, i.e. reality shows and infomercials.



In 2006 I had pretty much decided I had had enough, and I started exploring other opportunities that were far removed from the industry. I decided I was going to go to Vietnam and train there to become a master diver and then move on to some idyllic location in the South Pacific where I would live out my days taking people scuba diving when I wasn't relaxing on the beach. Before I was to make this journey, however, I decided to go down to Peru to try something called Ayahuasca which I had read about in National Geographic Adventure Magazine. I won't go into too many details here, but Ayahuasca is a medicinal plant that has been used by Shamans for thousands of years to heal people of all sorts of ailments. Long story short, I go down to the jungle, where I participate in 5 incredible (and sometimes harrowing) ceremonies that had a profound effect on me. I also happened to take my camcorder and interviewed some people and recorded some of the process. I did this only because I had my camera and it was something to do. When I get back to the states, I quickly put my footage together and send out the mini-doc to the other participants that I had met while drinking Ayahuasca.







This is where it starts to get interesting. I start getting back some really positive responses to what I filmed and the wheels start spinning. I swear I'm finished with the business, but maybe before I head out the door I should give it one more shot and produce a full-fledged documentary on Ayahuasca. I feel this way because of the response and the fact that I feel this is a fascinating subject and would make a great story, one that hadn't really been told before. I also quickly realize, being somewhat unconventional, that I would never take the practical route of trying to secure finances because I don't have grant writing experience, etc., I don't have the patience, and I don't want to wait for a few years in hopes that I might get some kind of funding. So I dive right in, and after convincing (and a little begging) the Shaman who I worked with in the Amazon to allow me to come down for a few months to shoot, I start making plans.



As I mentioned, I have worked in the industry for 20 plus years, but as far as documentaries, I have cut one feature documentary and that's it. So early in 2007, before I was to return to the Amazon to film, I decided to immerse myself in a crash course on doc filmmaking. Over the next few months, I read anything and everything I could on how to make a proper doc (for example, don't fund it yourself, good advice like that). I also watched about 50 docs, including all the major award winners from the last 10 years or so. I wanted to immerse myself in that world to figure out what docs resonated with me and worked for me from a storytelling sense. I came to the conclusion that I wanted to tell a character driven story while also explaining the process of an Ayahuasca ceremony which can be a little complex. After purchasing about 15 grand worth of equipment and fighting off the nagging, doubting voices in my head that were screaming "what the hell are you doing, we were on our way to paradise, this is a pipe dream!" I was headed back down to Peru in May of 2007.



After somehow weaseling my way past customs, explaining that I have all this equipment and over 100 tapes because I "really like to shoot stuff in the jungle." I was on my way. As far as the shooting itself went, there were minor challenges here and there, but considering I was in a somewhat unforgiving environment (i.e., extremely humid) things went pretty well (except for when I tried to kill two birds with one stone and drank Ayahuasca, which kind of makes your limbs somewhat useless, and then tried to film). It took a few months of filming, but I felt confident that I had captured the story and all the elements needed to tell it. One quick word of advice for those who want to film in the rainforest - wear long sleeves and plenty of insect repellent, it sucks when you're trying to do that cool slow pan of a jungle vista and 30 mosquitos are snacking on the side of your face.



Jump ahead to the present. After a few more trips to the jungle for a little more shooting and about 15 rough cuts, here I am. It took about half a year to really flesh out a coherent, compelling story (the film follows several westerners as they partake in five intense ceremonies and experience everything from utter fear to outright ecstasy as well as an in-depth look at the shamans who work with the medicine), and another few months to cut it down to a good running time (95 minutes). I am glad I decided to follow my heart and my passion because this is one of the most difficult things I have ever done. I've put myself in the position where I have risked everything financially but I wouldn't have done it any other way, because I wanted creative control and didn't want to compromise my vision. I have also learned a great deal about independent filmmaking, including how to overcome the problems and challenges that will come your way when you are basically a one-man band in the wilderness (literally and figuratively). I have had to wear many hats, from the obvious ones like director and cinematographer to the less obvious (to me, anyway), like accountant and press agent (not to mention my own P.A.).



I am now in the process of submitting to festivals and preparing for self-distribution, which has been a whole new learning process in itself. I actually had a distribution deal, but decided that since this project is so close to my heart, that I have to see it through to the end (plus I've heard too many stories of distribution deals where the filmmaker never sees a dime, even if there's a profit, and that scares me). Up to this point, I have had several private screenings, and the response has been very encouraging, which helps a great deal, because this is such a long road, and it never hurts to get a little validation for all your hard work.



I have also been invited to screen the film at the 5th International Amazonian Shamanic Conference in Iquitos, Peru this July, which I plan on doing since the Amazon is the birthplace of this medicine, and it feels fitting that the film should premiere there.



After that, I hope that it has a decent festival run in the states and if I'm fortunate, have success selling dvd's as there is a fair amount of interest in the subject. Regardless of how well it does financially, I will have lived a dream in that I got to make a film in the Amazon and learned a great deal about true independent filmmaking and myself. How many people can say that?

1

The most intriguing part about Srabon's photography is that his work tries to say something through children's creativity. He expresses the essence of his inner feelings through the eyes of children. This deliberate depiction was perhaps because the expressions of children always speak the truth...their feelings are unalloyed.


Inaugurated by the eminent intellectual Professor Anisuzzaman and Shykh Seraj, director and head of news, Channel i, this exhibition started on June 06 and will continue until June 19 at the Alliance Francaise Dhaka.

Titled 'Beyond the dream', its generic theme is children, and our everyday expressions - joy, love, wrath and even joy of creation as modelled by the little ones. For example, the piece titled 'making dream' sports the picture of a little boy constructing his dream-thatched house. The picture threw a powerful real-life idiom 'as simple as children's thoughts' so to say, simple yet deeply meaningful.

Then, there is 'money maker', which boldly screams Survival; 'born free' - showing the exuberance, the jubilance, the essence of existence that a village kid is trying to find fun in water while diving in a river. Or even in the picture 'concentration', where a child seeks to become imaginative and a discoverer. It expresses how we elders can actually start to think simply like children and make our lives less complicated.

Talking to New Age the photographer, Srabon said, 'it is easier to work with children. Their expressions are unique and the gestures more friendly. And because of such simplicity, the overall compositions of the photographs bloom to a different proportion'.

Almost all the visitors felt that when children have creative control of their life for a while, they learn to look at the world a little differently, like noticing unique patterns, which they never did before. They observe with distinctive perspective, and develop their confidence in their own way.

Photography is essentially a means of not only documenting the past, but also communicating with the present and preparing for the future.

The art of capturing children learning to predict outcomes and expressing themselves as important component of this society - Srabon's presentation and vivid ideas of turning camera stills into learning about 'simplicity' have been amazing. It therefore deserves kudos all the way.