Hinterland

The Rig

2012-02-03T13:27:00.000Z

Film equipment was, is, and probably always will be, ridiculously expensive. Since it's classed as specialist gear it seems to give suppliers the right to charge specialist prices. Boom poles (a long piece of metal that holds a microphone) can range from £30 to upwards of £100. No. It's just a piece of metal. This is why, especially for student filmmakers, ingenuity is the way to achieve effects that expensive equipment can provide. Equipment that in the industry is considered standard.

I've seen people make a track and dolly out of skateboard wheels and plastic tubing, and others lighting a night exterior scene with cheap LED lights from B&Q (and it looked pretty good). In fairness ingenuity like this takes place at all levels, it's just with different obstacles. For students it's no money. For professionals it's not enough budget/time.

In the past few weeks I, with the help of a few friends and some power tools, have been doing some homemade equipment building. I'm planning a 5-10 minute short based on the popular Modern Warfare series, and it's going to be in first person. I needed to make a rig for an unspecified DSLR that could make this possible.

Freddie Wong's HelmetCam Mark 2

Early ideas were based on Freddie Wong's HelmetCam, which he made for his Battlefield 4 video. However getting all of the pieces required brand new would still add up, so we instead went to looking for what we could get and use for free. My Dad was a builder and had some hard hats lying around. I had a few cheap tripods we could saw the heads off of for the camera mount. My Dad mocked up a prototype where he sawed off the 'head' off a plastic golf cart and attached it to the front. A strip of metal extruded out of the cart where the camera would be mounted. He had gotten a few brass door hinges, placed them in a packet of gaffer tape, and strung them up to the back of the helmet to act as a counter weight and pull the support inside the hardhat tight.

Our attempt at a First Person Camera Rig

We then refined. First of all we made sure the camera was centred and level, drilled a hole further up the metal strip to help counter balance and give the user a better view, and cable tied the golf cart attachment in place so it couldn't move. Then added a second strap to further secure the helmet to the wearer's head. Finally, we tested. Lots. We are changing between the Nikon D5000 (great infinite focus, low light performance) and the Canon 550D (good video mode, beautiful lenses) but the weights are quite similar so it doesn't impact on the balance too much.

Total cost of the build: Under £10. Scavenging and borrowing is the key. Out of interest I looked into the alternative of buying similar gear that could do the job. The best candidate was an extreme sports camera that could mount to helmets called the HD Hero 2. It was around £250. While that is a great price for what it can do (and I do still kind of want one) it's still £240 more than we spent.

Although our design may not be as sturdy or as particularly as good looking as Wong's design, it does the job. However I would be the first to say that if I were going to write a manual on how to do it, I would not do it our way. There are better designs. But that's the glory of filmmaking; everyone learns from each other and there are no right or wrong answers. Although some are better than others.

Below is a video of some of our test shoots with the rig so far.

Dan Murray, In Session

2012-01-26T12:00:00.000Z

One of the major parts of my final year is writing a feature film. Last semester we 'pitched' our features. I'm not sure if it's standard practice everywhere or whether it's personal coincidence, but every educational facility I've attended since high school has pushed doing presentations as they are 'good for confidence and social skills.' I have no problem with that mantra and actually enjoy doing them (I like to talk a lot, noticed?), but after nearly ten years of frequent presentations it's starting to get old. Still, at least it remains relevant in 'the real world' in the form of pitching to individuals or organisations.

However the 'pitches' we did we're not really pitches. We had fifteen minutes to give a logline, synopsis, three-act breakdown of the film along with the characters' wants and needs. Basically, it was a presentation designed to tick academic boxes dressed up as a pitch. It was like crudely putting a dress on Stallone and claiming he's a woman called Mrs. Featherbottom: clearly not what it claims to be. Not exactly proper 'real-world' preparation, but in the grand scheme of University, sadly necessary for assessment.

Anyway, I decided to take advantage of the time limit and do a short monologue to help demonstrate my protagonist's wants and needs. The piece was my protagonist, named Dan Murray, attempting to talk about his feelings in a therapy session to a 'faceless' therapist, and being pretty bad at it.

Retrospectively, I wish I had done two things with this piece.

Firstly was to trim the fat in places, make it tighter. The script was only three pages (normally equalling three minutes), but the delivery was intended to be broken up to show a passing of time and create an awkward atmosphere, meaning the piece came in closer to six minutes. It was also meant to meander to drive home Dan's unease in the environment, but didn't come across clearly enough.

Secondly was to think about the wider context more. The monologue foreshadowed events set to take place in the plot of the as-yet unwritten film, which means no-one will know (or likely care) that it's trying to foreshadow something. I also feel it wasn't set up clearly enough either. This was because in the context of the presentation, all of the set up would've been pre-explained. This falls down when wanting to upload to YouTube or to show to potential employees, as the audience would need this explanation to fully understand why they are seeing Dan flounder before the therapist. It basically needed to be more standalone.

But it's not all doom and gloom, as the piece helped me explore my character's backstory and flesh him out more, enabling me to write him more confidently when it comes to the feature. It also gave me a chance to act again, something I try to do as much of when I can, and explore my protagonist from his point of view. It wasn't always my intention to play him, but with a limited turnaround it was the most convenient option. Plus he's bitter and self-loathing, and I like playing that. Maybe I need the therapist...

Anyway I will have another chance to redraft and hopefully perform the piece live at UCLan's LIFE Festival in March, but that's up in the air at the minute. Below is the video and some of the minor details. Hope you like it, or at least have neutral feelings towards it.

------

Feature Title: Silent Cry

Logline: A private investigator returns to his hometown from which he is estranged to solve a cold case murder at the potential murderer's request.

Prologue Title: Dan Murray, In Session

The prologue is set one week before the start of the feature.
At 21, Dan Murray is considered young for a private investigator, and had been doing a pretty good job; until six months ago. Now he needs help, whether he wants it or not.

Nobody Tells This To Beginners...

2012-01-17T11:30:00.000Z

In my last year of University, with the worries of the finishing the course with a good grade aside, the main source of antagonism is coming from finding a place to live, and finding a job. Finding a place isn't too bad, but it is somewhat reliant on getting a job. What's the point in getting a flat without the money to pay for it? So the focus is on jobs, or paid apprenticeships, or grad schemes; preferably anything paid to do with film and TV. CV's are already going out, with work and experience being added to it as frequently as possible.

Another project on the go I have, to add to experience and as a possible future plan, is starting a production company with a couple of friends; making short films, sketches, and videos designed to be outputted via YouTube. The idea is modelled off Freddie Wong's success; by starting to upload videos regularly that grab people's attention, chart our improvement as film-makers, and then eventually get paid for it; by trying to make content different to Wong and other YouTube vets out there that people will like. That 'business plan' (and I use that term ridiculously loosely) is obviously what would happen to us in an ideal world, but we live in a world where Firefly got cancelled so we also administered large pinch of salt.

It's something every writer, filmmaker, and hell, every creative comes up against. It could take years of trying to get somewhere in your chosen field, and most would give up before they probably should. My friend Dan, the taller brain child of the project, introduced me to a quote that has been plastered around the internet and you probably will have read. Even if you have read it before, when you feel at your worst, when every door is shut and you feel your creativity just isn't enough, read it again. That's what I'm going to do...

“Nobody tellsthis to people who are beginners, I wish someone told me. All of us who docreative work, we get into it because we have good taste. But there is thisgap. For the first couple years you make stuff, it’s just not that good. It’strying to be good, it has potential, but it’s not. But your taste, the thingthat got you into the game, is still killer. And your taste is why your workdisappoints you. A lot of people never get past this phase, they quit. Mostpeople I know who do interesting, creative work went through years of this. Weknow our work doesn’t have this special thing that we want it to have. We allgo through this. And if you are just starting out or you are still in thisphase, you gotta know its normal and the most important thing you can do is doa lot of work. Put yourself on a deadline so that every week you will finishone story. It is only by going through a volume of work that you will closethat gap, and your work will be as good as your ambitions. And I took longer tofigure out how to do this than anyone I’ve ever met. It’s gonna take a while.It’s normal to take a while. You’ve just gotta fight your way through.”

Ira Glass; American host and producer of TV and radio show, This American Life.

Below is a video of Ira talking about storytelling, containing the above quote. It's part 3 of 4, and the other 3 parts are well worth a watch.

Now, let's make some films...

Discovery Channels

2012-01-16T11:28:00.001Z

The othernight I found myself watching JJ Abrams' Star Trek as part of a break fromwriting for the night. I was reluctant to do this as I have a lot of scripts anda research project to fill my time. Still, I decided to chill under thepretence of ‘it will only be a couple of hours’ and ‘what’s the harm.’

It's at timeslike these when studying film and its different components; theoretical topractical, script to screen; for nearly five years, you experience one of itstwo curses. I was expecting some enjoyable and relatively easy-going sci-fifun. I wasn't expecting the side order of narrative theory and structurerunning through my head afterwards. Anyone who has studied film in somecapacity experiences this curse of knowledge at some point, and you can’t helpbut notice all the little details you once picked apart on a course.

So what hadgotten stuck in my cranium this time? Glad I asked (just bare with me)...

Star Trek (2009)is, at its core, a story about friendship, and technically follows two leadprotagonists. Most would say Kirk is the lead, but they (Kirk and Spock) areboth treated to their own three act structure and their own character arc,which means their central relationship can be explored further, and take centrestage amongst the big set pieces and the antagonist. This is most apparent whenKirk and Spock enter the third act at different times, which is kind of oddwhen you think of the transition between acts as something the plot seamlesslygoes through as a whole. Each character has to (according to the principles ofstructure, anyway) make the choice to fight on after experiencing their lowpoint; Spock's low point being his demotion from captain, Kirk's being hisexile and near death from the ‘red Cloverfield monster.’ Kirk makes his choiceto enter act three by returning to the Enterprise to take control back. Spockenters the final act five minutes later when he returns to the bridge after atalk with his Father. If you haven’t seen the film, the details aren’t tooimportant. It is simply a great example of how to bend the principles of thethree act structure to fit plot or character. Plus it moves the story along;seen as Spock's transition into act three is almost reliant on Kirk deciding toreturn in the first place. In that sense, that probably does make Kirk thelead…

...and fromthere I went on to think about how well it was pieced together, the pacing, thevisuals, etc. All because of what is technically just a rebooted sci-fi blockbuster. It was a timely reminder thatit doesn’t matter whether you are making an art house movie, a blockbuster, ora low budget indie; if you put the effort in, it shows.

And there,somewhere, lies my somewhat bloated point (remember how I ask you to bare withme? Thanks for sticking around).

Being at thestart of a New Year people get an innate urge to better themselves insome form. For me this manifested in trying to read more fiction, more books onwriting, and trying to switch-up what I watch: try new things, even if theydon't seem particularly 'relevant.' For example I've been watching Earthflight,and also checked out Armando Iannucci's brilliant documentary on Dickens,despite not being the greatest fan of the Victorian icon after studying him inhigh school. I’ve taken positive things from both shows that I believe willhelp me in the future. But at the same time, I didn't think seeing Star Trekfor a second time would give me similar food for thought.

Don't get mewrong, this isn't a rallying call to slack off more to watch and read under thepretence of it being helpful, or technically calling it work. I’m trying to saythat sometimes non-stop work isn’t the way to better yourself. It is one way,but not the only way. So every now and again, allow yourself to watch orre-watch something that you at least will enjoy, and chances are you willbetter yourself without running yourself ragged.

The best wayI can explain it is via the other curse of studying film: speaking in filmquotes.

“Life movespretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could missit.”

Thanks Ferris.If you'll excuse me, I’ve got two shorts to write and Sherlock in my play queue.

The Social Network(s)

2011-11-23T19:59:00.000Z

Last week, Simon Devereux from 4Talent (the careers, development and opportunities arm of Channel 4), came in to give the students of UCLan a talk on getting a career in the media industry. Ever since starting my final year at University I've been immensely worried about this. Working for one of the big organisations like C4 and The Beeb were off my radar because, let's be honest, I'd be well off theirs.

However Simon, sporting some superb facial hair for Movember, gave one of the most interesting career talks I've ever been in (we've all been in a bad one, the ones that bore you while not helping) and helped calm my nerves about finding work, either with C4 or just in media full-stop.

One of the big topics was networking, which has become significantly 'easier' in the 21st Century. The creation of Facebook, Twitter, Google+, LinkedIn, YouTube (yes it's a social network, not just for cat videos) and many others make it easier to connect to like-minded individuals and peers in your field, as well as the added possibilities of marketing yourself to employers and audiences. This, however, adds a lot more pitfalls to networking and means there are still just as many ways to screw up as there are to make a useful connection. As well as your CV, you have your 'online CV' which is a CV you can shape and mould through what you do and how you conduct yourself on the web, but you have considerably less control over it.

For example, I am signed up to Twitter, LinkedIn and YouTube. I had a Facebook, but I have since had it deleted. I asked Zuckerberg's cronies to wipe it because, apart from it being stupidly addictive and a drain on my time, it out-wore its usefulness.

On Facebook, not everyone is on to network. Most are on it because in this day and age, it's the norm. On Facebook there is the opportunity for your personal life to be put on show. And that's fine. People are allowed social lives. The only problem is, this is happening in the same place as your potential employees, and it's usually common practice to keep work and personal lives separate (except for at the Christmas party). There's a strong chance that your 'online CV' could be tarnished by the actions of other people. On Facebook there was melodrama, bitching, and people just generally being tools; myself included.

Since Twitter and LinkedIn have started to rise as the online water cooler for professionals, I found that the only reason for me to be on Facebook would be for pleasure. It wasn't a pleasure for me. I'm not saying it's not a viable networking tool. I'm not saying it's a bad idea to use it for business or pleasure. For me, there are just better places to go.

However, with all this focus on new technologies changing the corporate landscape, the old ways of networking are starting to get overlooked. For example some departments at Uni have stopped holding seminars and started holding webinars. In all honesty, I prefer the old ways. I prefer a conversation where you can properly connect with someone, not just 'connect' the technical sense.

What I have learned about networking (so far anyway) is that if there is a workshop, or a mixer, or anything where you can meet peers and figureheads in your industry, just go. Sure they may be online, but you have more chance of making a useful connection in an appropriate setting, rather than looking like a bit of a stalker that cold e-mails anyone of interest.

Don't get me wrong. I do love social networking, maybe a bit too much. Hell, it's one of the reasons I'm writing this blog. But it's important not to forget that there is a difference between sending a friend request, and actually making a friend.

Writing the Wrong Way

2011-11-09T17:18:00.000Z

I could've been a dentist...

Actually I couldn't. I justneeded a profession to use for my opening cliché. I never really knew what Iwanted to be. I toyed with the idea of being a science teacher, a footballerand a professional pianist (maturity, please). However when I started toyingwith media, I knew immediately then...

SKIP TO THE END

...and I'm in my final year atUCLan, Preston. I'm majoring in Screenwriting, with a minor in Media Productionand Technology. I also wrote and directed a feature film when I was 16,but we'll do an origin story some other time.

Anyway, to the present, and oneof the main tasks of the year is to write a feature film. Something I have donebefore, but back when all I had were dreams, blind ambitions, and a freescriptwriting programme. Before I knew all of the theories and the principles.Before three acts, McKee, Syd Field, and even redrafting, I simply sat down andwrote 100 pages of pure... err... script.

These days, I find myselfredrafting Tweets. If I had written my first feature last week, it would notonly have been completely different (and better) but it would also have takenme three times as long to write. Then that added again for redrafting.

With added knowledge comes anadded burden. Over-thinking is a nightmare problem for me nowadays in damn neareverything. Especially writing. I will redraft scenes before finishing them. Iwill write eight pages, have a break, come back, and then redraft the sameeight pages. I will focus on dialogue, which should ideally be left until theend. I will basically take forever to do anything. Including getting to thepoint. Sorry, I'll get there now.

While suffering in the depths ofthis problem, I decided to pick a book from one of my reading lists whichcaught my eye: Vicki King's How To Write a Movie in 21 Days. I didn'twant to write it in 21 days, I just wanted to see what tools she had for makingit possible.

The best part (so far) explaineda conflict that so many writers will probably have; the conflict I have now: theconflict between your head and your heart. Your heart has every aspect of yourfilm planned. It knows the characters, the plots, the sub-plots, the tone, andthe themes, nearly everything. Theremay be some grey areas, but it's your raw imagination and your labour of love.Your head has the theories, and the logic. It will pick holes in your scriptand try to plug them immediately. That's great for draft two onwards, but ondraft one it gets in the way.

Write with the heart. Rewritewith the head.

It sounds ridiculously simple,but it's still easy for it to pass us by. It certainly missed me.

In lectures this semester(actually nearly every semester) we have been taught the theories and thestructure. The form and the process. Recently I was told to know every singlescene's purpose. This is correct, but not yet. The story needs to come out naturallyfirst.

So if there happens to be anyoneout there at University in a similar boat, or you are researching all of thisfor your first foray into writing; go ahead. Learn it all. Look at RobertMcKee, Blake Snyder, Syd Field and many more.

Take it all in. Write it alldown.

Then forget it.

Write your script.

Then bring it all out again.

I wish I could take credit forthis gem of a tip that has helped me properly write again, but Vicki King isthe hero of the piece (or heroine, whatever, she rules). Add her to yourreading list immediately.

Now if you will excuse me, I haveto redraft this blog post.