Friday, 26 February 2010

And more theory.

Okay, I've thought of a couple more points that I want to crack out in words but I can't be bothered to mess around with the formatting of the last post to make it coherent so I'm just throwing them here in a new post.

The focus of these ideas has all along been the writing. The films are a vessel for the writing. I think that is another reason why I am having an off screen voice over as opposed to an on screen actor. To put the emphasis on what is written/is being said and why there is little interaction with the scene other than simple signifiers to set the mood of the piece.

As my ideas exist now there seems to be a sort of ambiguity when it comes to a time frame. I'm not sure if what the character is saying is happening at the same time as what is being seen or if the snapshot of footage from this person's perspective exists independently of the speech. I'm not sure what the connotations of either interpretation are or whether I need to enforce one possibility and reject the other. The absence of the character from the scene is important I think for reasons I mentioned above. But what else does this suggest?

Diegetic sound is something else I need to consider. The use of background noises, do I re-record noises and incorporate them or do I simply take what was recorded originally and introduce the recorded speech? Again if the camera work is from the character's perspective then that suggests they experienced all the sounds and noises. How do I alter or edit these? There are integral messages in the background noises but they are not the focus as the speech is, they are simply there to guide the viewer.

It's all confusing, I need to continue to look at theory as I go along and create some sort of coherent explanation of why I choose to do things in a certain way because I am as yet unsure other than for very basic reasons that I can't quite communicate.

No comments: