First reactions.

The initial test audience reactions, suffice it to say, were generally favorable in terms of what I was trying to accomplish. The film is funny in a genuine way. And I couldn't be happier.

The first screening was at Film Club, whose members represent a pretty broad range of tastes in film. There were reactions from people I hadn't expected. One of which was in regards to the music - one viewer felt that it didn't work, perhaps because he recognized it (the music has been commonly used in cartoons on Nickelodeon). That was a note that stuck with me. Another noticed a spot where you could see a boom mic in the shot, too. I had spent months looking at the footage of the film and I was really surprised that I hadn't even noticed! Some scenes meandered for too long, some also said, which I more or less agreed with, and changed what I thought needed changing..

The next screening was a bit more intense for me in preparation. This time it was for my fellow Capstone students, where we're allowed to be a bit more hypercritical. I had made changes and refined things a bit since the Film Club screening. And the response was generally the same, if not even more enthusiastically positive! Some said not to mess with it further but watching it in class made me think of a couple things I could try, especially in the montage sequence. And I asked them all what they thought of the music - and it was unanimously in favor of keeping it in.

In both screenings, I kept special attention to audience reactions, as opposed to any technical glitches that occurred while screening. One thing I noticed was that the laughter was not as consistent in class as the Film Club screening. That makes me wonder - perhaps the few changes I made didn't help much? Was it the climate - because we're there to critique, perhaps they were distracted by searching for flaws? Or perhaps they were awestruck, because they hadn't expected that kind of output from me (I'm getting a sense lately among my peers that I have a reputation that precedes me)? Hard to say exactly, but I think the answer will come from more test screenings from people who are more detached from the process.

One consistent criticism from both screenings concerned the ending. Responses to the end were very mixed and some even negative. Finding a solution will be a challenge. But I think it's safe to assume a picture lock is in the near future!

Facebook Fan Page!

Click here for the Official SHAKESPEARE PROCEDURE Fan Page on Facebook!

That is the place I will be posting behind the scenes materials leading up to the completion of the film. Enjoy!

Observation.

"The Shakespeare Procedure" is a lot like Scorsese's "Shutter Island" except that "Shakespeare" is much funnier and only 12 minutes long.

A Link Of Interest and Thoughts

HOW CAN YOU GET LIFE INTO YOUR DRAWINGS?

The above link is from John K's blog (cartoonist and creator of Ren & Stimpy) about storytelling in comics and cartoons. I think this can be directly applied to creating characters and stories in live action films as well. All you have to do is replace a lot of phrases and jargon - like "on-model" into "formulaic script", or "poses" into "dialog and action".

The basic thing to take from this is to not to write stories simply from an abstract concept, setting, or style. If that's all you give yourself to work with, then that's all you have in your film. When you just focus on that the entire time, all you end up with is a neat chase sequence, or a film with a lot of guns firing in slow motion, or a great-looking 3D landscape, or what have you. Nobody will remember your film beyond that. Some kind of context is what makes an audience really connect to and remember a film. Characters are memorable because of their motivations - wants and needs - and not necessarily their appearances or quirks.

I honestly couldn't tell you what the hell this was about.

SHAKESPEARE PROCEDURE began as a concept film. "A film about brain transplants". Not much else It was like that through a lot of the pre-production. It was like that through production. Granted, there were vague ideas of what the characters wanted, but it wasn't really made clear, even in the editing. It wasn't apparent to me until I screened it with Mark and Ula.

A lot of the jokes fell flat in the screenings with the professors (I think the above blog link could apply to joke-telling as well) They were mostly trying to figure out why the characters were doing what they were doing. I forgot the cardinal rule of storytelling, is that your characters have to want and/or need something in order for an audience to know what the hell you're trying to show them. And on top of that, it needs to be CLEAR. Then, through their experience, you can understand what the filmmaker/storyteller is trying to say.

This guy has a distinct way of telling jokes through stories. He contextualizes them so we can connect and invest our emotions. And then we laugh. Hard.

I'm lucky to have a potential solution (voice-over narration) that may at least be a step in the right direction to make my characters' motivations much clearer, thus making them stand out and relatable. And perhaps it may even make the jokes just a teensy bit funnier.

We'll see at the rough cut screening tonight at Film Club!

Working it all out.

Hey folks,

Long time no blog. Been busy getting this edit together and dealing with all things life-related.

I've met with both my professors, Ula and Mark, and they've graciously offered their input. Some of it I agree with, some I don't, some I don't completely understand. But it was all helpful nonetheless, in that it helped me understand how my film plays so far.

The thing they had the most to say about was "Dr. Giles" (that's the script name - he's unnamed in the film). They didn't understand what he was doing there, why he was reacting the way he was, what the purpose of the multiple brain transplants were. And I had a hard time coming up with the explanation on the spot.



I looked back on something that inspired the project: The "Pigs is Pigs" cartoon. Why was that evil dude trying to stuff that pig so much? It's not just to be evil. Evil has to want something. The pig overindulged on food and the evil scientist wanted him to regret it. He was making a point. I believe Dr. Giles is trying to make a point as well - that you should think with your head, and not the other one.

And so to emphasize that point, Alan and I recorded some voice-over narration last Friday at EXPO to make things a bit clearer. Once that and the music is laid in, I can finally begin showing the general masses!

Which means a lucky few of my friends will be asked to step aside into my edit lab... muahahaha!