2013 e-Comm Reflection

If I could sum up the things I learned in this past semester of my video class into one it would be cooperation.

At the beginning of the semester, my class participated in Katy Perry's "Roar" music video contest. We worked for three hard weeks to plan, shoot, and edit a 2 minute video with 650 students and faculty in full costume and makeup. A few other students and I had been working on a short film that we had to put on hold because of the "Roar" video. We all worked so hard that by the end of it, we couldn't trace all the ideas and special moments back to any one person's idea.

With my short film, I've had to take the leadership role as the writer and director and producer. In this experience, I've learned that I really need to cooperate and lean on other people to take up some of the slack. 

Some things I didn't learn is how to use the glide cam (which I actually taught myself how to do over Winter Break). I don't know if there's any pin-point thing I didn't learn, I tend to learn as I do projects. This past semester, I don't feel like I did very many projects. It was filled with the "Roar" video and the planning of my short film. I was looking at my Junior year film real and I couldn't help feeling disappointed that I wasn't making good things this year. I've found myself incredibly busy and lacking of inspiration, but by the end, I'm disappointed that I didn't try harder.

Next semester, I want to film, film, film. I want to expand my knowledge of cinematography, especially moving shots. Overall, I really just want to get more experience.

Love So Strong It's Scary (#3)

Stephen King is perhaps one of the most well-recognized horror story writers in the world. With his new book Doctor Sleep (a sequel to The Shining), he is faced with some hesitation to readers' reactions, as this article by the BBC explains: Stephen King 'nervous' about reaction to Shining Sequel

An interesting thought King addresses is that "love creates horror". He explains that an audience is really gonna be scared for characters who they love. That really does seem to be the case in a lot of stories.

Characters are spent so much time forming because they drive the story. No one wants to read a story about a character who has these amazing adventures but is so self absorbed the adventures aren't appreciated, nor a character who is literally made out of cardboard. Characters are built with flaws and lovable attributes so the audience can relate and feel more a part of the story.


In general, if you're really engrossed in a book and you get to know the characters, anything that happens to them affects you in some way. I once read this book A Boy's Life by Robert McCammon. Excellent book, hooked me like a fish. One of the things that I loved about this book was the very diverse characters McCammon had created. The main character, Cory, is the adventurous young narrator. You fall in love with each and every character and any time something bad happens to one of them, it's like a little punch to the heart. At the climax of the book, Cory is in the most danger he's ever been and I remember feeling my heart pounding as he faced danger. In that case, my love for this character really did create that desperation in me that nothing bad should happen to him. Love created horror.

I, myself, am using this technique in a short film I'm currently making. One of my characters is a spunky deaf girl. The problem arises when she can't hear the warning of danger. I've made sure to give her a lovable sarcasm so the audience will fall in love with her and be terrified when she is faced with danger. It's a very interesting technique and a call to filmmakers to pay more attention in developing great characters. Have great characters, put them in danger, and have greater emotional response. Create horror.

Keeping the Faith: Adapting Books to Films(#2)

One of the reasons I decided to go into film as a career was my love for books. Oftentimes I'll get my hands on a really good book that I get completely absorbed in. I find that books project pictures into my mind, and movies can project the pictures in my mind onto the screen in a much more tangible, real-life way... if the adaption is done right. For years, filmmakers have either gotten book-to-movie adaptions completely spot on, horribly wrong, or right in the middle. So where do we, as an audience (and filmmakers), draw the line between a great book adaption, and a bad one?

What to Consider When Adapting

When adapting a book to a movie, it seems that there are a lot of things to consider. The story, casting, music, environment, sound. These and more all contribute to the faithfulness to a book, as well as the contentment of the audience. This is my personal list of considerations from most important to least (though all are important):

1. Story (Character Relationships, Plot, Point of View) 
2. Overall Feel (Music, Cinematography, Sound Effects)
3. Art Direction (Costuming, Environment, Props)
4. Casting

Story

One of the biggest things for filmmakers to get wrong in a book adaption is the story. No wonder theaters are filled with "I can't believe they left that out!", "That moment was what made the book great for me!", and "Whyyy????". A prime example of a story line that went wrong is the 2006 movie, Eragon. Trailer

Oi vey.

The 509-page novel by the young Christopher Paolini gained great success when published by Knopf Publishers in 2003. Filmmakers at 20th Century Fox picked up the rights to the film in 2004 and the movie was presented in 2006. The film did great financially, but the reviews were not as good. The overall look of the movie was cool and endearing. The script, dialogue, and acting, however, left much to be desired. I think the problem here, among others, was that longer books are simply harder to adapt.

Harry Potter was obviously a huge movie franchise that reached great success. The movie quality was able to back it up tremendously. As the books got longer, the adaptions grew tougher. For the last film, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, the producers made the decision to split it up into two films so they could include more scenes from the novel. This was an incredibly smart decision. Twice the amount of time for a movie means twice the amount of story.

The other route to go when adapting the story line is to be incredibly knowledgeable about the book. The Lord of the Rings was so successful, I think, because everyone involved in the production had a special tie to the novels. They knew everything about them and knew what fans would want to see, and yet apologized for things they knew they had to leave out for the sake of the flow.

Overall, story is the most important aspect to any film, and therefore is even more crucial to a book-adapted film. Be smart and intentional about what you're leaving in and leaving out.

Overall Feel

Every book has a specific mood, style, and underlying message. That is one of the things that gets readers so engrossed in a novel. Translated into a movie, that means getting the mood right through cinematography, music, sound, lighting, and color.

I recently watched The Hunger Games: Catching Fire and I was one of the thousands wanting more. Catching Fire was my personal favorite from the series for its seriousness, maturity, grittiness. Everything was just way more amped up. The Hunger Games series is all about corruption, starvation, the "haves" and "have-nots". There are some serious topics presented, and therefore, a serious movie has to be made. 

With the original Hunger Games movie, the filmmakers wanted to capture the "point of view" feeling with shaky cameras, deafening silence, uncomfortable close-ups. Originally, I liked this approach because it was unlike any blockbuster I'd ever seen. Now that I can look back at it, I'm afraid the multiple shots of all the "alien" Capitolists were redundant, the shakiness was too much, the pacing was too roller-coaster-y. With Catching Fire, it was way more "acceptable" that this was the society they're living in. I, as an audience member, felt way more "included" into the movie. The original emphasized gaudiness, the second emphasized naturalness. 

Overall Feel means keeping the overall theme and moods of the book in the movie so the audience feels like the movie is a reflection of the feelings they had while reading the book.

Art Direction

Art Direction is my favorite thing to talk about. 90% of a movie is literally what you see on the screen, so if it isn't visually pleasing, people are going to tune out and get angry.

Catching Fire was so visually stunning that I didn't want it to end purely because I kept wanting to look at the costumes, the makeup, the props, the sets. I once heard in a movie commentary that every detail counts, even if the audience never notices, because "they'll notice if it's not there". 

The Chronicles of Narnia: the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is also one of my favorites, artistically. Everything is very era-correct while in London, but everything is designed to draw attention to the characters as well. Then when the characters are in Narnia, everything is medieval and beautiful and detailed, yet it's all very natural and real. 

But where does this fit into the importance of a book adaption, specifically? Well I think that when I'm reading a book, sometimes I visualize how a certain character dresses, or what the location looks like, but sometimes I really can't place it. It's up to the art department to design what readers were thinking when they read the book. It's up to them to create an eye-catching piece of work.

Casting

There's a reason why die-hard fans of books create lists and lists of actors and actresses that could play different characters: characters in any story are what drive the story. Without the characters, there is literally no story.

People fall in love with specific characters while reading a book and create a visual in their head of what they should look like, how they act, how they dress. That's why the visual presence of an actor is so important. Readers pay attention to those little details like hair and eye color, height, bone structure and when Annabeth from Percy Jackson and the Olympians doesn't dye her hair blonde, fans revolt. 

So the appearance of the actor is important, but arguably, the skill is even more important. Back to Eragon. Edward Speelers may have looked like the Eragon in my head, but the lack of bravery and cheese factors did not. Acting takes a huge part in recreating a beloved character from a book and translating it onto film.

Overall

Like any movie, be smart when making decisions about the story, atmosphere, and characters. Always be mindful of who your audience is and what they want. But always be mindful of being faithful to the book that your film originated from.

Is the book always better than the movie? (#1)

The reason why I started to do movies was because they bring things to life. My skills in art were very limited and though they've improved, there is still only so much I can do to bring a character or scene to life. In movies, there is virtually no limitations. Our technology has gone so far that scripts we write and books we read can be projected onto a movie screen.

I'm a book lover, so I understand the angst over some movies adapted from the book. When I left the premiere of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1, I was devastated. The moments I had fallen in love with were brushed over or completely left out. I think if we don't want to be disappointed in movies, we have to not set ourselves up for it by being open-minded to different interpretations and styles.

Think about it, everyone who read Percy Jackson had a different image of the world in their mind. By itself, Percy Jackson is a good movie. It has a good solid plot, witty dialogue, good design aspects. Set side-by-side next to the book, not so much. Where's Clarisse? Aren't the characters supposed to be 11? Percy is definitely not supposed to find out who his dad is right off the bat. Did we all just forget who the lightning thief is? Annabeth's hair is blonde!

See, books and movies approach plots different ways. Books are all about developing characters and relationships, taking time to learn a lesson. Movies need to develop relationships and character flaws fast. Think about it. You read a book in a couple of days or even week. A movie has 2 and a half hours tops. Movies are put into the "entertainment" category for a reason. They need to be interesting at all times, or else you get bored and ask for a refund. That's why scriptwriters have to sacrifice Madge in The Hunger Games (a movie that actually followed the book really well).

The key to a great movie adaption is knowing the book inside and out. In the movie adaption of The Hunger Games, Suzanne Collins, the author, was one of the screenwriters, something that turned out to be a huge advantage. Sure, the movie had it's flaws (I'll save it for a later review), but the movie was able to capture the main theme of the book while keeping a PG-13 rating. I feel like something filmmakers should never overlook are the details. I look up to the Harry Potter films for the smallest details they include whether it be the labels on the Bertie Bott's boxes, or designs on the wands. Everything is seamlessly put together and nothing seems out of the ordinary.

So is the book always better than the movie? No. Books and movies are completely different mediums, each with their own flaws and triumphs. If we look at each as the way they are, we can enjoy movie adaptions so much more.