Coming soon - Genre Abstraction for Action Lines

Yeah, we're getting geekier and more dry by the day but I also punch peopel so I can.... Ooops I romised i wouldn't let my lack of "life" to creep its way into this blog.

OK I have done very freaky things in clubs all around the country not to mention various "Spring Break" type events - god I could write a movie about it. Get back on track... ehhh shut up. Listen this post is about serious stuff. ....yeah, yeah, yeah.

Excuse my prsonality - excuse me - banality issues.

At any rate a new frontier has emerged after months of "dialog-action-personality" study we have found that the diverse types of genre require an abstract pattern to accurately represent the desired "scene-emotions." Much of this can be gleaned from the study of the active\reactive patterns of the involved personality but that more so influences description of character action rather than scene - "mise en scene" - description.

The key therefore lies in the use of abrupt, curt descriptive language. Scenes of motion will then become quick cuts

The cars smash together...smashing side to side....pedestrians scream

Because these are not descriptions such as character movement

He drops down amongst them a whirling dervish of blinding speed.

the shortness of the lines denote the pace. This works even when the pace of generated action is horror film limping slow like

The creature growls menacingly.....its flashing eyes reflect in the low light...it approaches on all fours....deformed.....nearly human...Jennifer stops...breathless.....eyes wide....legs immobile

When these lines are analyzed they contain the minimal information, doled out in visual chunks, some rooted in imagination, some rooted in emotional state, others vividly descriptive.

Because the script is merely a visual guide for a film maker it's a tightrope to grab the reader but also give the film maker a map that is direct and FILMABLE AS IS. (Some readers need Godard like thugs need Jesus.)

Some people believe in the multiple draft theory, but that's not the science in the craft. The science in the craft requires due diligence of thought before the draft is accomplished. As a software developer who has daily business in their hands I have learned the discipline of careful architecture. Film making is even more complex than any web site as the only linearity is time. The dialog-action narrative will bump and assuage, turn and rotate, characters adapt, change and are emotionally forwarded by a change in situation and intensity.

That's where creative abstraction can enable a more in-depth picture as it doesn't complicate but isolates traits, reactive emotion, dynamic interaction and overarching thematic construction. There have been millions of visual narratives presented all over the world and this allows for enough diverse comparison that modern film makers need just review their "list of catalogued cinematic examples," some of which may be found in the review of old movies, some may be be found in the various analyses of "the original film makers." Be they right or wrong they started the ball rolling and a true embrace of the tenets of cinema and not the trappings of fame can lead to a freeing of words to emotion.

Welcome to the Revolution.

Just when I thought I was out...

We've extended our thesis a little more to cover elements of story. We're not going to expound greatly at this juncture but in essence the extension follows the same hierarchical pattern as before where:

The Subtext of the Story is the Characters,

the Subtext of the Characters is the Situation,

the Subtext of the Situation is the Dialog,

the Subtext of the Dialog is the Emotion,

the Subtext of the Emotion is the Personality

and the Subtext of the Personality is the Soul.

As always this fits with my earlier Circular Argument - that everything in cinema is defined as circular, where no matter where you are on the circumference of the cinematic experience, whether it be character, story, structure, they all intersect along the path.

For instance Story will determine what type of Characters you need, but the Characters can influence the Story based on their Personality - or the Subtext of their Emotion (one personality responds differently to the ambush than another). At the same time the Character will determine the Story as different Characters will end up "on the run" for different reasons.

For example, the Accountant will probably not be in a seedy bar when they overhear "McGuffin plans" or pick up the wrong "bag."

From the opposite perspective the Soul you wish to reveal will affect each of the things on the pyramid. From Dictionary.com "Soul" means:

the principle of life, feeling, thought and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body.....

and

the emotional part of human nature, the seat of the feelings or sentiments

The definition of Story is:

a report or account of a matter or a statement of allegation

and

a narrative, either true or fictitious, in prose or verse, designed to interest, amuse or instruct the hearer or reader; tale

Looking at the definition one gets a sense of similarity in that we are in effect writing "a report or account of the emotional part of human nature."

Or Revealing the Soul.

The Circular argument extends to the relationships of the definitions applied to all of the "Steps" of the hierarchy and I think we'll get to those later. I've got some software code to write.

The Soul Has Been Revealed

A heavy sigh of relief emanates from deep within. I can slow down a little now and finish the six or so half done scripts in my pile.

Active vs. Reactive: The Art of Interaction

Howdy those who care,

We're back and though we've never used tags we seem to be coming back to this Active vs. Reactive thing. In my travels I've found that every conversation, meeting, presentation is based in this theorem. Cinema, as a reflection of life's studies and crises exemplifies this best as it transcends time making what happens today a reawakening memory after 20 years.

The one thing that is consistent in every form of cinematic expression is the necessity for personality interaction\conflict with the banality of the participants affecting the shape of the narrative where a mid level drug dealer and a scared rookie cop would make a different narrative than a cold blooded collector though the abstract view is that of cop chases or evades drug dealer and her minions. The dialog between disparate banality types - I'm an ENTJ who thought several questions sucked too bad to answer can cause characters to veer left or right which doesn't perhaps effect an increase or decrease in tension but does allow that 50 couples will react differently to a small kitchen fire.

Film makers need not worry why but use the abstract narrative to influence interaction. In those 50 couples there are an unlimited number of combinations of the active\reactive dialog types. A mixture of a Demanding Wife and Abrupt Husband creates a different character-dialog than even a Demanding Husband and Abrupt Wife where the Demanding Husband may use a humbling approach to retrieve admission of the source of the fire and the Demanding Wife may use a guilt-inducing approach to achieve the same result. The state of prominence of the character need not change with the difference in their active interaction though transposing character-dialog between them allows for a more rounded banality (used in place of personality for the purposes of international copyright) - wow hopefully the humor in my scripts is better. Wait who said that was a joke? OMG and he has multiple banalities - :-)

At any rate, the preceding is just designed to show that interaction is the key to good cinema which is why you don't want one-sided conversations, but everyone expressing themselves equally and subjectivity of the viewer (cinema of the seer) determines the leanings while the screenwriter merely determines who gets the last word - something Eula seemed to continually do to Rooster as they fought outlaws and carefully handled nitro.

In this sense we can say that underneath emotion is personality as different personalities will interact differently with other disparate personalities. On the one end of the spectrum you have the passive personality and the other end is of course the aggressive one. The most drama in these interactions can truly be garnered as personality types converge rather than diverge. If a character is too passive all interaction will be one-sided which can become tedious. But when there is an active verbal sparring that comes from "equally matched banality."(read:people who stand their ground)

This also enables a better path to "character parallels" as interaction with disparate personalities and types (dialog types - Demanding Sarcastic, Supportive Probing, Prohibitive Abrupt, etc). Active\reactive dialog is more so a way to look at personality by defining a person's purpose which then can guide you to the most "impressive" lines by determining both the active style of dialog and the reactive style for the character. Some characters may do better with more supportive active dialog but more Inhibiting reactive dialog whereas a different feel can be created by having the active dialog be usually Inhibitive while the reactive dialog can tend towards supportive. (Augie and Ronnie: Role Models)

Combining these types can paint a "dialog-picture" of the character more succinctly than a bio or history as the "dialog-picture" represents the moment where back-story can often cloud the scene - meaning a person should react in the moment as no one really has "flashbacks to childhood" before reacting. This is very important in cinema as everything needs to be more spontaneous and impactful as to elicit the most emotion in the viewer. When interaction is the key to your scene construction you have less opportunity to "talk to the audience" which is indeed a no-no. This violates the concept of the "cinema of the seer" where the viewer is a participant and therefore doesn't need "explanations" they need to be involved.

That's all for this post, but we will revisit the subject.

As an update, we actually did more fleshing out over at Go Into the Story:

I basically feel the same way. I think the writer can make implications about back story using props; I used a picture to imply the death of a parent, certainly actions; a character says, "Hey I've got a sister" when asked why he did something. The former being before the start and the former being after.

I always think about parents, siblings, birth place etc. as a part of the process and then I try to abstract the type of personality by showing their emotional reaction to situations.

I do this in the outline and then I will give that character a "dialog-interaction" frame - where they generally state things in a demanding way or supportive way or inhibiting way and respond to positive or negative interaction prohibitively or angrily or abruptly or sarcastically.

I've been working on a theorem that says using these emotional states leads better to personality which is in fact what people go to see.


So I guess backstory is good for the writer but not for the reader.



The full theorem is basically:
SITUATION sits above
ACTIVE DIALOG\REACTIVE DIALOG and
EMOTION sits above
PERSONALITY

OR

The subtext of the situation is the dialog, the subtext of the dialog is the emotion and the subtext of the emotion is the personality and the subtext of the personality is The Soul.

So after three years we have finally fulfilled the purpose of this blog. THough we will continue to refine the Active vs Reactive paradigm, we'll be doing more thought work for directing. As I've been studying it, I understand why you don't find a lot of Director blogs. It's nearly impossible to translate what you think in terms of blocking, framing etc. and how you work with actors could be considered trade secrets.

Onward and upward.

Happy New Year

Ringing in 2010. Obviously I'm too busy to post this on New Year's but hell I'm only 2 days late. Here's to a lot of Revealing of Souls in the new Decade.

Soon to be an Angeleno

Yep, FINALLY. I've been working, saving, writing, networking, blogging and partying but now, finances have finally fallen right to allow me to quit my job and move - NO unemployment in such a case.

Still, the stars - no pun intended perhaps - have aligned and I won't be spending 1000s of dollars to attend pitch fests and push for meetings. I plan on getting another software job but these means a lot.

The short I have in pre should be done by then and hopefully it's as good as the director and I think. Festivals here I come. Plus, I can think more about shorts and find more people who are hungry to see themselves in quality celluloid.

As an aside we're working on several new posts, including follow-ups to the Sex in Cinema and Active vs. Reactive posts. Pus, a bunch of framing, blocking and movement stuff. Unfortunately, the day job requires most of my "working-day hours" so it works how it works.

Stay tuned.

Now Using Movie Outline Software

Yes, that's right. After getting a special sale price, I decided to go for it now. For the 5 of you who may be interested, the code for the special discount is

XMASSALE

You save 50% off the regular price and $20 off the upgrade from FD price.

That's right, the most full-featured program for creating everything from Character bios to Step outlines to Scripts for only

$99

Click the title for the site. You can even get the download and start sequencing right away.

More RED Specs

Yes, that's right, the next info about Scarlet and Epic have been released over at Red - and it is looking too good. They're basically improving every facet of the Red One for very little more money with the modularity of Scarlet. Epic will be in another league with Monstro-X "Super-Incredible-Sensor" referenced a few posts ago. I guess we can expect some more info on Epic a month or so but the big news was RedRay. They hadn't talked about it for a awhile but the pics are creamy.

The specs are drool-worthy and it's due before Scarlet. Exciting.

Movie Outline Software

Howdy writers,

As the title says this post is about software. Screenwriting software to be exact. In my travels, I came across this new package called Movie Outline. It's actually recommended by UNK.

I grabbed a demo of it and I really think I'm going to switch. I can get an upgrade version for a few bucks more than FD8. I'm only upgrading because I use Vista X64 and the FD7 PDF printer doesn't work.

I definitely suggest that anyone give it a try. It has a lot more features than FD and Movie Magic. It lets you add character bios, outlines, story notes and lots more. It exports and imports from FD.

I like it because I have stacks of 5x8s that are flowing all over my desk and shelves. This would let me put all of my notes and stuff in the file for the screenplay. I just need to find out if they have a working 64-bit PDF driver. They do, I'll be getting it in a few weeks.

Here comes EPIC

Yes, that's right. THose of you who drool over the thought of an EVF sitting next to a Red ONE or better. THe pics of EPIC are comign out over at RED.com and they've begun the process of getting beta testers and trade-in programs.

No shots taken by it yet but it's great to see it ready for field testing. For those who don't know, the new versions of the Mysterium-X sensor go from still image 2/3" all the way up to the SuperWide Monstro at a massive 6.6" x 2.1". These cameras should change the game and put all other digital cameras on notice.

RED is reporting even surpassing their expectations for improved picture and processing. They say there will be an announcement at the end of the month and I hope it'll have some actuals screen shots from the new "brains."

Until then here's some images to whet the appetite.

UPDATE:

Blogger hates the width of these shots. Does that mean the web isn't ready for EPIC?