Collected Data
Watch: "How Star Wars was saved in the edit"
Two points that I think are worth adding; ALL Rough Cuts suck and EVERY film is saved in edit.
"We don't really know where this technology or where the art of VR is going"
It's simply a matter of time, however, before the technology will catch up to whatever storytelling needs filmmakers have or can imagine, according to Robert Stromberg, an Oscar-winning American special effects artist, art director, designer and filmmaker whose credits include Maleficent, Avatar, Pirates of the Caribbean and Alice in Wonderland.
VR is not simply a film, or a videogame, said Stromberg, who also directed a VR experience that accompanied Ridley Scott's The Martian."It's this new thing and a form of entertainment at the level of Hollywood's biggest films," he said. "It's a new way for people to experience anything they want to experience and also a new way to tell stories. It's this sort of frontier, this brand-new world on its own."
Virtual reality: Future of filmmaking or cinema's latest gimmick?
Why does VR have to be a storytelling medium?
"Maybe it’s a matter of ditching the noun for an adjective. Of conceding that while certain films aren’t categorically propaganda, they’re propagandistic in part."
When attempting to identify a film as propaganda, we often resort to the same set of historical antecedents. There’s Eisenstein and Vertov fronting for the communist contingent. There’s Riefenstahl repping the fascists. Over here’s Capra standing up for Why We Fight. All of it is rather comfortably contextualized in an extreme era that necessitated an extreme methodology that, when it’s been evoked during the 70 years since, implies crass hysteria—which is also how it’s applied to North Korea, effectively a holdout from that earlier era, making it all the more hysterical and crass for enduring in this supposedly more enlightened era.
Thus a perfectly descriptive, non-qualitative word damns and is damned by dint of its historical associations. Officially, propaganda casts a wide net, encompassing, per Webster’s, “ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause,” whereas in popular discourse it’s become a blunt, zero-sum pejorative for art with an agenda. Which leaves us without a valuable tool for identifying what certain films are doing and why, and forces some of the savvier modern propagandistic practitioners into a defensive crouch.
Make It Real: Dramatic License
"Reinventing Hollywood: How 1940s Filmmakers Changed Movie Storytelling went off to the publisher this afternoon."
It’s the only study I know of how narrative techniques emerged and developed in a single era. No wonder it took five years. I watched over 600 films. I trawled through books and trade papers for hints about what the producers, directors, and writers thought they were doing. And because a lot of techniques weren’t unique to film (e.g., flashbacks, first-person voice-over, etc.), I wound up reading forgotten plays and neglected novels, while listening to hours of old-time radio.
Oof! Out!
"If much of the general public isn't aware of our constructions, and become disillusioned with documentary when they discover the creative choices we make, do we filmmakers need to rethink our narrative strategies and citation practices? Or are we obliged to raise public awareness of how constructed documentaries really are?"
most nonfiction filmmakers I know—wrestle conscientiously while filming and editing over how to represent the truths we perceive. Of course, that's the key: The truths we perceive. Most doc filmmakers and scholars agree that documentaries are subjective. I started to wonder to what extent general audiences understand that what distinguishes documentary from journalism is that docs are interpretive; they have a point of view, rather than being straight reporting or documentation. Today, when doc filmmakers exuberantly employ elements from the narrative toolkit—re-enactments, animation, stylized staging—to create powerful nonfiction cinematic experiences, has a credibility gap emerged between the general public and the film community? Are our narrative strategies becoming obstacles to audiences trusting our films?
Bridging the Credibility Gap - Drawing the Line on Manipulation in Documentary
"No one has even come close to mastering the medium, but it’s clear that holding on to the traditional rules of storytelling is a surefire way to make disappointing VR."
The best VR at the event were the pieces where the filmmaker created a world, and you experience the story from within it. The emotion evoked from the landscape and the characters in the world is the story. It’s not about watching a series of events; it’s about viscerally responding to the energy, the vibe, the spirit of a space.
Yes, everyone recognizes that this sounds like some trippy shit.
How Traditional Storytelling Is Ruining Virtual Reality Film
"If you’re going to kneecap a creator’s ability to tell a story, you’re going to reduce the quality of the story along with it."
Where the camera is positioned, how it moves within the scene, what type of lens is being used, the way your eyes are being guided around the frame or used to form bridges across cuts, composition, lighting… These are the foundations of movie making. The basic elements of the language of cinema itself. What I don’t understand is why creators would want to abandon huge pieces of this language and thus greatly diminish their storytelling capability. What is there to gain in this scenario? It’s like asking someone to convey a complex topic using only the vocabulary they had in the third grade.
Why I don’t believe in “cinematic” VR
"A big challenge here, and I don't think anyone has solved it, is how do you give the audience a 360-degree choice, all the time."
"Twenty-first-century tastemakers like to think of themselves as beyond highbrow vs. lowbrow—that monocle popped long ago—but our eye for subtlety persists. A decade ago, when TV recapping was still finding its footing, it was in vogue to look for anvils."
Others argue that doing interpretive work, having to search for meaning, is good not because it’s pleasurable, but because it exercises your brain, like a muscle, making it strong. This is the “no pain, no gain” theory of forcing audiences to dig deeper for hidden meaning. But here’s the thing: It’s still just a theory. Studies have tried again and again to prove it—both for literary fiction and, more recently, for prestige television—but when it comes down to it, there’s no real evidence that more subtle entertainment makes you smarter.
Against Subtlety
Watch: "In the Cut Part III: I Left My Heart in My Throat in San Francisco"
Jim Emerson;
Wrapping up the series with looks at William Friedkin's "The French Connection" (1971), Peter Yates' "Bullitt" (1968) and Don Siegel's "The Lineup" (1958).
Watch: "In the Cut, Part I: Shots in the Dark (Knight)"
A great video essay by Jim Emerson.
A (very) detailed look at the first part of a famous TDK car/truck chase sequence, analyzing how it is put together and whether the filmmaking grammar makes sense.
You can read a transcript here.
Watch: "Chaos Cinema Parts 1 - 3" by Matthias Stork
The video essay Chaos Cinema, administered by Indiewire's journalistic blog PRESS PLAY, examines the extreme aesthetic principles of 21st century action films. These films operate on techniques that, while derived from classical cinema, threaten to shatter the established continuity formula. Chaos reigns in image and sound.
""We don’t want this to be 3-D TV all over again"
But there's no guarantee that Hollywood is the solution to the Valley's content problem. Traditional movie and TV types never took the video game world by storm. Maybe they're not the visionaries who will prove the future of VR, either. Plus, with no rules or standards in place, how can companies explain this new field to a layperson who just wants to watch a new kind of movie?
How Hollywood Is Learning To Tell Stories In Virtual Reality
The future of VR is not storytelling.
"One part of interactive playable content with one part of scripted television style content."
Alex Wawro reporting for Gamasutra;
"For instance, if you play the interactive episode first, certain elements of the scripted episode portion will be tailored to reflect some choices made in your interactive play through," Bruner told EW. "If you watch the show before playing, some elements in the interactive portions may be presented differently than if you played first. The interactive episodes will never release without a scripted episode, they will always come out together."
He went on to add that non-interactive versions of the scripted entertainment would be made available on streaming networks and broadcast TV some time after the release of a given "Super Show" episode.
Lionsgate deal primes Telltale to make episodic TV/game hybrids
I’m not convinced that this is the future. Hybrids are tough. It’s a fine line between combining and compromise.
See also;
LIONSGATE INVESTS IN LEADING GAME DEVELOPER TELLTALE GAMES
Telltale Games CEO Kevin Bruner discusses new venture The Super Show -- exclusive
Read: "The Getting of rhythm: Room at the bottom"
Filmmakers solve the problem of rhythm in practice, often brilliantly. Those of us who want to understand how films work, and work upon us, want to get specific and explicit. What is this thing called cinematic rhythm? What contributes to it? Can we analyze it and explain its grip? Very few scholars have tackled these questions; they’re hard. In her new book, Film Rhythm after Sound: Technology, Music, and Performance, our friend and colleague Lea Jacobs takes us quite a ways toward some answers.
The Getting of rhythm: Room at the bottom
Watch: "The Bad Sleep Well (1960) - The Geometry of a Scene" by Tony Zhou
"The way I see it, from a formalist perspective, most videogames aren't particularly interesting."
Everywhere *we* look we see pretend worlds and childish make-believe, imaginary dragons, badly written dialogue and unskippable cutscenes in which angry mannequins gesture awkwardly at each other.
More Thoughts on Formalism
The above quote more or less sums up my thoughts on most video games and why I don’t play very many.
I used to work at EA. At the time, the first HD consoles were about 9 months away. It was a very interesting time to be there. I’m a “Formalist” and proudly so. I like to know how and why things work. That’s what I consider Formalism; the study of the basic mechanics of a medium. No one I met at EA was at all interested in exploring game mechanics, they were just interested in rendering.
I’ve found this to be true in the film and television industry as well. No one is very interested in trying to understand the mechanics of how the mediums function. Which is a shame, because I’ve seen a lot of great ideas wasted.
The comments to the blog post are interesting too.
Sam Stephens;
The problem I have with a term like formalism is the implication that those who have an interest in "mechanics and systems" (i.e. gameplay) believe these elements are the most important element of an artistic medium and that they are denying the importance or value of other elements of that medium.
I’d say this is not a problem with the term “Formalism” but with the writer of the comment. The term Formalism does not implicate anything other than what the term means. The definition IS open to debate, but regardless, just because it is not inclusive does not make it a ‘problem’; that’s what makes it useful.
There are people who believe the mechanics of a medium are more important than the content. There are people who believe the content is more important than the medium. Giving these positions names makes debate easier and more productive. (Even if that debate is over the meaning of the terms.)
Stephens comments further;
It's difficult to argue BioShock and Grand Theft Auto don't present themes, messages, aesthetics and world views. It's just that the art of these products is irrelevant to the gameplay.
This is false. The themes, messages etc of both of the example games are deeply tied to the game play and design choices made by their creators.
James Margaris comments;
That's the elephant in the room in most of critical discourse: it's for other critics and a specific, narrow type of developer interested in philosophical and semantic arguments, not for game developers as a whole. People arguing about what formalism is or is not, what sorts of games formalists are interested in, whether people are too or not enough interested in ludo-whatever or who would win in a fight, ludozealots or narratologists - almost totally irrelevant to the actual act of creating video games.
This is essentially a version of “Those who can Do. Those who can’t Teach” A lot of people in creative industries think this way.
It’s bull shit.
It is a very narrow minded and arrogant view point. Critical thinking, theory creation and discussion can add a great deal to creation. It’s a great tool to use. Critical thinking and theory is creative. It can be used as inspiration just like any other cultural artifact.
He does go onto add something I agree with;
Which matters "most" is irrelevant - they all matter. Good video games, and even good board games, have good rules and good presentation / theming that supports the rules and adds to the experience.
And then, the foot attempts to go in the mouth again, but misses and create comedy gold;
There aren't that many specialized words in film criticism - most of them are invented by practitioners, not critics, and describe something specific that comes up in day-to-day work, like a "two shot" or an "insert." But you can read film criticism without coming across a single invented-by-critics word.
He obviously isn’t up to date on film criticism.
Even though I think he’s wrong, Luis Guimaraes makes a very well stated comment.
Games are not Form, games are Function, so "games formalism" would actually mean the opposite of what it's used to say (again, just "scientism" by other name), as "formalist" implies a focus on "form" over function.
Games are Form AND they are Function. They are both. “Formalist” does not ‘imply’ a focus on form over function. It is the study of how form allows or creates function.
Lastly, Joe McGinn’s comment is spot on;
even narrative has formal aspects, related to game systems, especially if one is innovating in the area as in 80 Days or The Walking Dead.And it's like anything. If you break the "rules" without understanding them, results will be more random. So I teach my students formal game design elements, in part so that they can break the mold on purpose rather than by accident!
Intention is everything. If you do not understand your tools, you will never master your trade. It’s as simple as that.
Read: "The Power of Story" by Elizabeth Svoboda
The careers of many great novelists and filmmakers are built on the assumption, conscious or not, that stories can motivate us to re-evaluate the world and our place in it. New research is lending texture and credence to what generations of storytellers have known in their bones – that books, poems, movies, and real-life stories can affect the way we think and even, by extension, the way we act.
The power of story
Watch: "Empathy, Neurochemistry, and the Dramatic Arc: Paul Zak at the Future of StoryTelling 2012"
"Visual storytelling is seldom purely visual."
The result is nice case study in visual storytelling. It also indicates how even a pure instance needs non-visual elements to be understood.
Visual storytelling: Is that all?
Watch: "Jackie Chan - How to Do Action Comedy" by Tony Zhou
Tony Zhou;
The 9 Principles of Action Comedy
1. Start with a DISADVANTAGE
2. Use the ENVIRONMENT
3. Be CLEAR in your shots
4. Action & Reaction in the SAME frame
5. Do as many TAKES as necessary
6. Let the audience feel the RHYTHM
7. In editing, TWO good hits = ONE great hit
8. PAIN is humanizing
9. Earn your FINISH
Jackie Chan - How to Do Action Comedy
Jackie Chan, Buster Keaton and Gene Kelly are the three masters of physical action in film. No one else even comes close. You don’t edit a good action scene; you film it.
"Are artists first and foremost devoted to creation and exploration, or is that a handy excuse for some deep-seated need to impose order on one tiny corner of the universe?"
it’s possible that your creative choices may break the rules that define the medium you’re working in, which will then compel the people you’re communicating with to either adapt their entire conception of that medium to your choices, or to laugh in your face.
Storytelling and the Power of Mediums
"More and more companies are laying claim to expertise in producing transmedia content. But many using the term don't really understand what they are saying."
In transmedia, elements of a story are dispersed systematically across multiple media platforms, each making their own unique contribution to the whole. Each medium does what it does best--comics might provide back-story, games might allow you to explore the world, and the television series offers unfolding episodes.
Seven Myths About Transmedia Storytelling Debunked
"It’s always worth remembering that our openness to stories and our willingness to suspend disbelief leaves us vulnerable to exploitation by others."
The problem with The Pillars of Creation is that there is no up or down in space, meaning the orientation of the image — to say nothing of the consequent naming of the image — was an editorial choice.
Space and the Storytelling Reflex
movies4machines