On Guard (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} onguard) wrote,@ 2003-05-14 11:47:00 |
|
double space
That script writing Web site let me down. I could have sworn it said to double space. Oh well, so we've got a script that's a bit short of the 70 minute minimum--for the moment.
We needed some revisions, which were bound to add length, anyway. Now underway.
Kevin wanted me to take a look at what Robin Wood had to say about Taxi Driver and Bladerunner (in a book referred to him by a friend of his on the Internet Movie Database). Not sure if he's suggesting that I'm what Wood called the quasi-fascist Paul Schrader and he is the more open Scorsese. I think he's concerned about creating an "incoherent text" (which Wood says resulted from the collaboration of Schrader and Scorsese).
I have to admit I have some reservations about being overly "coherent." Especially when we're trying to represent such a chaotic space (lobby), ordered by a narrow viewpoint (security cam) that can't hope to provide a clear understanding of what happens. But I suppose coherence refers to a consistent attitude toward the subject. This makes sense, but I'm more cautious, say, of presenting a "solution" to the "problem" presented by the story.
Wood seems to have a good sense of how slippery ideas can be, but I have to read a bit more. By slippery, I mean something that appears radical in fact being the opposite. For example, a film that shows a "way out," a revolution, could be seen as a fantasy, its effect to pacify.
The best thing I read recently about The Matrix were some comments by Slavoj Zizek, saying that the film is really a simple and savvy reversal. In the movie, humans are in a bleak and desolate reality, but they are provided with a fantasy world (the matrix) to keep them in control. When in fact, the real world _is_ this bland place of social interactions and steaks. And we are maintained by the fantasy that there is some deeper, more authentic self somewhere (perhaps stuck in a bucket of embryonic goo) that is pure because it is not part of this complex tangle.
So, what I take from that, is that this movie superficially portrays some revolutionaries who have freed their minds... but in fact it's about a group of psychotics who lash out at the real world because it is dirty and complex and demeaning, and because of that they don't think it really exists.
So while we still may employ the 360 degree still shot with kung fu in the final scene, we won't be using the same background theories as the Bros. Wachoski.
That script writing Web site let me down. I could have sworn it said to double space. Oh well, so we've got a script that's a bit short of the 70 minute minimum--for the moment.
We needed some revisions, which were bound to add length, anyway. Now underway.
Kevin wanted me to take a look at what Robin Wood had to say about Taxi Driver and Bladerunner (in a book referred to him by a friend of his on the Internet Movie Database). Not sure if he's suggesting that I'm what Wood called the quasi-fascist Paul Schrader and he is the more open Scorsese. I think he's concerned about creating an "incoherent text" (which Wood says resulted from the collaboration of Schrader and Scorsese).
I have to admit I have some reservations about being overly "coherent." Especially when we're trying to represent such a chaotic space (lobby), ordered by a narrow viewpoint (security cam) that can't hope to provide a clear understanding of what happens. But I suppose coherence refers to a consistent attitude toward the subject. This makes sense, but I'm more cautious, say, of presenting a "solution" to the "problem" presented by the story.
Wood seems to have a good sense of how slippery ideas can be, but I have to read a bit more. By slippery, I mean something that appears radical in fact being the opposite. For example, a film that shows a "way out," a revolution, could be seen as a fantasy, its effect to pacify.
The best thing I read recently about The Matrix were some comments by Slavoj Zizek, saying that the film is really a simple and savvy reversal. In the movie, humans are in a bleak and desolate reality, but they are provided with a fantasy world (the matrix) to keep them in control. When in fact, the real world _is_ this bland place of social interactions and steaks. And we are maintained by the fantasy that there is some deeper, more authentic self somewhere (perhaps stuck in a bucket of embryonic goo) that is pure because it is not part of this complex tangle.
So, what I take from that, is that this movie superficially portrays some revolutionaries who have freed their minds... but in fact it's about a group of psychotics who lash out at the real world because it is dirty and complex and demeaning, and because of that they don't think it really exists.
So while we still may employ the 360 degree still shot with kung fu in the final scene, we won't be using the same background theories as the Bros. Wachoski.
