Another COP Post.

My central organizing principle is either one of two things. The first is something like, "Modernity succumbs to eternity." The main character is not just a modern person, he is THE MOST modern person. And the antagonist, Emily, is not just an eternal entity, it is THE MOST eternal entity. It is a head to head battle between these two ideals, and in the end, eternity wins, overcoming and devouring the modern.

The other option is my original one, though modified: "illusion overcomes reality." According to Egri, the COP has to start with character, specifically a character's defining trait. I feel that the main character, Sam, has one defining characteristic: he would rather see the world through a camera lens. This is a man detatched from the physical world around him. He is presented with an opportunity to spend the night in his ex girlfriend's new house to capture evidence of a haunting. Th ex sets up quite a DILEMMA, since it is obviously he is still attracted to her, despite the fact she now has a husband and a child. The main CONFLICT arrives when this filmmaker, left alone for the night, comes in contact with an entity that only shows up in his camera footage. He is forced to see the world with two eyes opened, because the digital image he has been using most of his life is now giving him seemingly false information.

I like the second COP better. But then again, everything could change once the cameras start rolling. Filmmaking outside the Hollywood model is a very organic process. Since there is so little money at stake, you have the freedom to do what you want and change as you see fit.

The resolution to this conflict happens when Sam, awake from being knocked out for a couple hours, finds his camera in a place it should not be. He sees his surroundings, which are empty. He then looks through the camera, where his dead body is lying on the ground in front of him. Which reality does he choose to accept? He believes the footage. Illusion overcomes reality. Emily, who may or may not even exist in any form but one in his mind, has taken over Sam.

On a separate note, I understand that we really need to have a clear vision of our films, but I think the "vision" aspect of the class is dominated by screenwriting. When Egri wrote about COP, he was mostly referring to the theater and literature. It is true that narrative has become a staple of cinematic art form, and I am making a narrative film, but there are so many wonderful ways to portray narrative and thematic elements through the combination of image, sound, and montage that I feel a bit slighted that we only focus on character and premise. COP does not a great film make. Avatar has a very strong and obvious COP, but does that make it a better film than The New World, which Malick was basically changing everyday as production moved along?

PERMA.

In reading about this PERMA model, I found two things: One, it is the most "Well, no shit!" things you can read about finding happiness, and two, that it already is applied to most feature films in Hollywood. I am quite tired of filmmakers and producers writing about the secret to successful films. If there was such a thing, every film would be successful. Then unsuccessful. Then the films that go against the successful model would be successful. Then the cycle starts again. Art is always reactionary, and by applying absolutes, it reduces it to formula. How many people right now are being entertained? A lot more than are doing math equations for fun.

Yes, it is important for characters to have personal relationships in films. It is also important for those to build. It is through this that conflict is created. And it is sometimes good to have that conflict resolved. Sometimes. Doran says that audiences do not care about a character's success, as long as they find a deeper meaning in defeat. Ok, this is true. You can't really argue that, though I would be hard pressed to find what Michael Corleone learned at the end of The Godfather. I guess what I am saying is, "Ok, Lindsay, that is one way to go."

But are writers really thinking about these kinds of formulas and tricks when in their process? Bruce Springsteen has said, and I am certainly misquoting, that he wrote a lot of songs early in his career that were very story driven. But as time went on, the mechanics of storytelling were eventually ingrained in him so he did not have to really consider them. Then he could focus on what the song was really about. It is hard to be a painter if you only read about the most effective ways to draw. You have to just put paint to canvas over and over again. The brain has muscle memory, just like everything else. You write and write, and read and read, and write and write. You get guidance, you get tips, you learn from better writers. Then you can stop telling stories and finally let the story tell you. Tarantino starts every script with two people talking. He says that it is like transcription more than writing, and that he is just as curious about what they will say next.

I digress. How does PERMA relate to my film? Not really, which, if you deal in absolutes, means my film is a failure. IF I thought that, I would have a very depressing 3 years of school. My film centers around one character alone in a haunted environment. He does not connect deeply with another character, and in fact ends the film devoid of any human interaction. It is a tragic end, of course, because that is the tragedy of that character. He is a man separated from humanity and lost in a cinematic compulsion. He would rather see his world through a lens than through his own eyes. If he does come to some grand realization it is after the credits roll, and after my personal interest has left. My character is a cypher in which to experience the film through. If anything, the realization comes from the audience's self awareness.

Is the PERMA model useful for micro-budget filmmakers? I feel it is something most of them already know, since they are vague human insights. I would say any of these tools, Egri, PERMA, McKee, etc, are useful if you have never picked up a pen to write. They are introductory level, and useful in that regard.

I can't wait to stop talking about my story and start talking about my film.

Bone Structure - Interior

SAM


Physiology
Sex: Male
Age: 28
Height/Weight: 5'11 / 200lbs
Color of hair, eyes, skin: Caucasian, Brown, brown.
Posture: Bad
Appearance: A bit disheveled, slightly over weight, untidy.
Defects: No real ones
Heredity: German Irish

Sociology
Class: Lower
Occupation: Freelance wedding and corporate videos. $1000 per video.
Education: B.F.A. in Film from UCF
Home Life: Parents divorced, but upper middles class. Single, has not had girlfriend since college.
Religion: Agnostic
Nationality: American
Place in Community: None
Political Affiliations: Former Occupier. Liberal.
Hobbies: Film watching, film collecting.

Psychology
Sex Life, Moral Standards: Has a non existent sex life, not by choice.
Personal Premise, Ambition: To be a great filmmaker.
Frustrations, Chief Disappointments: Has never made a decent film, though has never admitted failure.
Temperament: Very easygoing.
Attitudes Toward Life: Very resigned. Expects to be a great filmmaker, but is stuck in a rut of not doing anything.
Complexes: Compulsive film knowledge and interest. Does not care for much else.
Ambivert,
Abilities: Film trivia, film tech, computers.
Qualities: Great sense of humor. Somewhat fearless.
I.Q.: 120

EMILY


Physiology
Sex: Not a physical form
Age: Eternal
Height / Weight: 8ft / none
Color of hair, eyes, skin: Black, red, white
Posture: Straight
Appearance: Varies depending on who is watching
Defects: Not human
Heredity: Depends on who it is haunting.

Sociology
Class: None
Occupation: Ghost
Education: None
Home Life: People have invaded its space. It does not like them.
Religion: All
Nationality: None.
Place in Community: A local legend.
Political Affiliations: Politics don't exist.
Hobbies: Watching.

Psychology
Sex Life: No body.
Ambition: Announce itself. Attain identity.
Frustrations: Watching without control of physical world.
Temperament: Easily angered.
Attitudes Toward Life: Wants to take life from the living.
Complexes: Almost homicidal.
Extrovert
Abilities: Can move into the physical world.
Qualities: Curiosity.
I.Q.: 400

Film VS&F Essay: 1/17/12

When I was asked to come up with a central organizing principle for my film, I did not dismiss the exercise. I merely treated it as one, instead of the defining aspect of my film. The COP in my initial development document went something like "We create our fear," which is not actually a COP as defined by Egri. If anything, it is a message, and I am not making a film about messages, but merely creating a scenario for ideas to flourish; ideas about belief, technology, evidence, and the digital image itself. There is no great lesson to be learn from the film. Which is why the exercise seemed particularly difficult. In class, Charles proposed that my project's COP was, "Technology defies reality." Not bad, and it is one of the things I want to explore with the film, but there was something, to me, lacking in that. It has a subject, a conflict and a resolution, but I never thought I wanted the film to say just that.


Pascal's Wager is not just about the wager that since God's existence cannot be either proven nor disproven, it is best to bet that He does. More than that, it is about the crisis in man between reason and the unknown. Pascal say about religion, "If we submit everything to reason, our religion will have no mysterious and supernatural element. If we offend the principles of reason, our religion will be absurd and ridiculous." In essence, Pascal says mankind's ideas are limited by reason. He says mankind is a finite being trapped within an incomprehensible infinity. Perhaps this is why the COP is so important. In art, there are so many interpretations to be had, we need to limit the work to an understandable idea.


On the other hand, why can't I have it both ways? Why can't I explore the infinite from a finite point of view? I decided the best way to do this was to broaden the scope of my COP. I started with my original 'message': "We create our fear." Why did I write that? I suppose because the film is about a man searching for evidence of the supernatural in a house. I liked the idea that the man was in this house for the exact same reason the audience would be watching it: to get scared. 'We create our fear' is about the people watching the film as much as the film itself. But I had to go a bit deeper, and adhere to Egri's formula. 'Technology defies reality' was a good place to start, but what was I really trying to say? That is where I came up with my central organizing principle: "Illusion becomes reality." If there is any kind of grand resolution in my film, it is that, and it is something I wholeheartedly believe too. The illusion of religion, of the supernatural, of the recorded image, of interpretation, all of these become a reality not just in film, but in our everyday life. You post something on Facebook, a name with a picture next to it says it 'likes' it. You interpret this as your friend reading something and enjoying it. Illusion becomes reality. You see footage of a robbery, you know that robbery took place. The camera, though, is simply recording 0's and 1's, creating pixels interpreted by the human eye. Illusion becomes reality.


You make a wager. The existence of God can not be proven or disproven through reason, but since there is much to be gained from wagering that God exists and little to be gained from wagering that God doesn't exist, a rational person should simply wager that God exists and live accordingly. Illusion becomes reality.


By broadening the scope of my COP to something universal, I can have it both ways. Having a finite COP that is broad enough to explore infinite ideas. The ambiguity of the film remains in tact, though there is a resolution. Does this exercise work? For me, it yielded results. The only danger is locking oneself into a constrictive COP that can stifle the vastness of the material. That is kind of the same danger between God and religion.

What Makes A Great Film? Or, What Am I Doing!

What makes a great film? The simple answer is an equal combination of intelligence and showmanship. My favorite films all have this in common, be it 2001: A Space Odyssey, which is an effects heavy near-experimental work, or Altman’s Nashville, a subtle character drama and musical in one. An artist always has to keep their exhibitors in mind, just as a filmmaker must create an audience experience. If they are making art just for themselves, that is fine. It is also masturbation. In any film I make, I want to create an encompassing experience for the viewer. I can use the format o express any complex idea I want, but if it does no strike a chord in the viewer, if it fails on an emotional level, it fails no matter what.

My favorite art form is the cinema. No other form uses as many of the viewers senses, and no other form has a more direct access to the viewers’ emotions. If someone can see and hear something, they give themselves easier to the work than if they use their imagination. Kubrick’s view on cinema is that it should play like music, a series of moods and tones; what is behind the emotion, the meaning, comes later. The most extreme and effective use of this emotional manipulation is horror, which is my film’s genre.

The horror genre has always dealt with the manipulation of sound and image to create fear and dread in an audience. Using the cinematic form to instill fear in an audience requires the filmmaker, and, in a sense, the film itself to disappear. The audience cannot be made aware of the illusion, and as much as one can, must lose themselves in the experience. Most of the terror one feels during a horror film is fear for characters within and what will happen to them. With my feature film, I hope to explore the fear of film itself.

The recorded image used to be evidentiary, a solid confirmation of how events occurred. Even through the use of editing, the ultimate manipulation, the image remained intact, entombed in a frame. It is only through the last couple decades that the image itself could be manipulated with such stark realism, through the use of computers. In a culture where no image can be trusted, is the moving image open to as much interpretation as memory?

I want to explore these ideas for the sole reason that cinema is a dominant part of my life. But ultimately, none of these themes make any difference if the film fails on a base emotional level. If my film does not instill fear and dread in an audience, the film has failed no matter how true I am to the intellectual process. Intelligence and showmanship in equal parts; that is how I plan to make a great film. Boo-yah.