Comedy + Drama = DRAMEDY

Developing a story is often a work in progress. Even the most experienced writers know that story telling takes time. Myself and the creative team behind "Scout's Honor" are discovering first hand the struggles that come with creating a well rounded plot. All the ingredients are there for us, diverse characters, strong environment and a premise we're happy with. And yet, even with all these elements we're still working to get over the hump between draft 2.99 to 3.0 One of the things we've been struggling with is the tone of the piece. We're tabbing our film as a "family dramedy," key word being dramedy. This genre of storytelling combines parts of both drama and comedy, elements we're looking to include in our film. As we write and revise, we've discovered the difficulties that come from this type of storytelling.

Dramedy is tough because the author must establish a fine line between laughs and drama. A big part of a successful dramedy (or any story really) is establishing a tone and keeping it consistent throughout. Part of this is creating reliable characters. If they are, the audience will never question their emotions. Moments whether sad or happy will feel appropriate.

Even with all of these elements, it can still be hard to walk that line between comedy and drama. In "Scout's Honor" we're covering something that isn't necessarily funny: death. While our plot covers a sad part of life, we've been trying to find humor in the situational's, the aftermath. We've tried to create characters that feel real and relatable, however sometimes it can be difficult when the comedic element is added. One of our characters, the attorney, has sort of become our go to guy for comedic relief. In each draft we've tried to work on him so that his character feels multi dimensional and real, not just funny. Once again we had to go back to this character's situation and use that to justify his actions, trying to make them consistent with his predicament. As we work to complete our script we're focusing hard on finding a reliable tone.

One of the things that got me thinking more about the line between comedy and drama, is the netflix show "BoJack Horseman". I started watching this show about a week ago and have already finished the first season. I had heard good things about it, but my expectations weren't exactly through the roof. I liked the premise and most of the voice actors working on it, but otherwise I didn't think it would be much more then an easy to watch comedy. The first couple episodes were about what I expected; funny, decent plot, enjoyable enough to keep watching. As I got deeper into season 1, I was surprised to see storylines carry over episode to episode. Plot points started to get darker and the character emotions became relatable. This is when it really started to differentiate between other adult cartoons such as "Bob's Burgers" and "Family Guy." While it continued to make me laugh, the 2nd half of season 1 really pulled me in with the dramatic aspects. "BoJack Horseman" began to waver between comedy and drama. And while you can't really sell it as a drama, you can't discount the dark moments that resonate with the viewer. In one of the later episodes in season 1 there is a scene where BoJack takes too many drugs and begins to hallucinate. At coming off as funny, his hallucinations take a reflective turn as BoJack starts to visualize what his life would be like if he had a family, if he made different choices. He sees how happy he could have been before he wakes up outside a gas station collapsed in the pouring rain. As silly as the show can sometimes be, this scene really resonated with me. With graduation a year away, I'll soon have a lot of tough decisions to make as I pursue a career and a family. Each of these choices I make could have a ripple effect on the rest of my life. And while these are things everyone will think about at some point, it was this "comedy" "BoJack Horseman" that got me looking to the future.

Dramedies are awesome in that they can connect with the viewer in all kinds of ways. If done right they can connect with all kinds of emotions. Make you laugh, make you cry, and more then anything make you think.

The Good, the Bad, and the Long Take

Long takes (or oners, or long shots, or whatever you feel like calling them) have been talked about endlessly among film buffs, film students, and really anybody that gives a shit about the aesthetics of film. If you know what a long take is, chances are you've got a favorite, whether it's Goodfellas or Gravity or Children of Men or Birdman or Episode 4 of the first (and only, as far as I'm concerned) season of True Detective. I'm pretty positive I even wrote a blog post last year around the time Birdman came out, fanboying over how sexy and cool the long take is, as a shot. By this point, just pointing them out is nothing new, though. They're there, they're good, and I won't talk about them any more.

While these shots should be praised for their creativity, determination, and, sure, length, I've recently gotten more interested in when it's acceptable to use one, and for what purpose. You might have seen this video about how Spielberg uses long takes in a far more subtle way than most directors; it's part of the really great Youtube channel "Every frame a painting," and it really dissects ways you can use a long shot to your advantage without calling attention to it. In particular, I think it's fascinating how you can essentially take a long shot and break it down into three or four basic shots: the Raiders of the Lost Ark scene stands out to me the most in that regard, with a wide, mid, close, and insert shot all being incorporated into a single take. It moves the scene along, keeps things interesting, and like the guy said, almost definitely saved time on set. 

What's the point of this though? Why not just do a scene four times and cover all your bases? This is just me conjecturing here, but I think every shot should elicit some kind of emotion from your audience. Don't just go about shooting everything willy-nilly: have a purpose. If a character feels isolated and alone, back that camera way up and make her look small. If someone is claustrophobic, slap that macro lens on and get in real tight. Make a powerful character more prominent in a shot than a weaker character, and switch this if their roles are reversed. All of these will, even if only subconsciously, help an audience to better understand whatever emotion you're trying to play up. 

So what emotion does a long take elicit? In short, all of these things, all at once. I know I said I wouldn't bring up Birdman again, but I lied, so deal with it. Birdman is filmed to make it appear as if the entire movie was all done in one take, using really clever transitions to cover up the cuts. It's about theatre and theatre actors, and throughout the film, you can't help but feel like you're watching a stage production instead of movie, mostly due to fluidity and lack of cuts. One of the intentions of this is to (probably) just let the actors take over and control the screen. This works, but only to a certain extent: the lack of cuts can sometimes be distracting, e.g. "oh, did they cut there? I think they cut there. But wait ok maybe not." 

This guy.

This brings us back to the subtlety of the Spielberg long take: it's long enough to let the actors act uninhibited from cuts and various camera angles, while still being short enough to not draw attention to itself. The "Every frame a painting" guy calls it "robust," and I think that's the perfect word for it. It's simple, gets a strong point across, and can free up time on set. Ideally, we'll find some way to incorporate it into our film this semester, and if we do it right, you might not even notice it.

Also, here's another great article about the evolution of long takes, both subtle and not-so subtle. Looking at you, Lubezki. 

Color and Why not

Over the course of this summer I shot thousands of photos over a two month period in Ghana. On my arrival home I realized I had enough portraits to make a series. So I set out sifting through and picking the very best of the photos. There were a few decisions I had to make when going into post processing. My first decision was to have them in color or black and white.

Of course I could have both but I wanted a certain consistency to extend through the series. Unlike many of my peers my roots in photography began in a darkroom. I shot on 35mm black and white film for the first two years before I switched over to digital. Because of this I tend to lean towards black and white over color in many of my photo editing decisions. The lack of color in many cases makes some of the photos more tangible to me. The image is less distracting and focus is more on the subject. Especially in portraits. My usual plan is to look at the un-edited photo with and without color. If I feel that the color doesn't add anything to the photo then it becomes black and white.

In the film world of today I feel as if we are seeing less and less black and white films and even less television without color. With newer cameras expanding dynamic range and colorspace at an alarming rate, black and white seems to many people an unviable option. In certain cases its seen as cliche or "retro". I disagree with these statements but I agree that b&w in video is much more of a difficult decision than in photography. In the end it comes down to the decision of the director and what you think will best help tell your story. Choose wisely.


Released in 2013 Ida was an Oscar nominated film in the Best Achievement in Cinematography category

These are some of the photos in my upcoming series.

What Editing Can Do to Feeling

Many people have seen the popular she show the seriousness, like the emotion of the actors in the scenes, what the actors are doing within the shot, how the show is composed, what music is chosen, and so many more. You can really give a show a certain feeling by the way you edit it. A perfect example of this is Breaking Bad The Sitcom. Many people have seen the popular show Breaking Bad. The show is a very serious crime drama. Youtuber Sacha Proctor created many videos from many different episodes of Breaking Bad. It is funny, but at the same time really hard to watch. Here is an example of Breaking Bad The Sitcom and an original clips from Breaking Bad.

Breaking Bad The Sitcom

Clips from the original Breaking Bad

So as you can see there is a huge difference in the feeling, even though many of the same scenes were used. The way it's edited can really set the mood. I definitely recommend watching some more of Sacha Proctor's videos.

Got Gump?

I don't think I've written about Forrest Gump, directed by Robert Zemeckis, yet so here it goes.

I'm going to focus on an aspect to it that I noticed it last time I watched it. This movie is highly adaptive to its audience. By this I mean that the same person, depending on their mood can get different meanings out of it every time they watch it.

Last night I watched it in a slightly darker mood than I normally watch it. And scenes meanings changed for me. For example in the scene where he says his last words to Bubba. Forrest Gump narrates "If I'd have known this was going to be the last time me and Bubba was gonna talk, I'd of thought of something better to say." Bubba asks Forrest why did that happen. And Forrest replies "you got shot." And then Bubba dies in Forrest's arms. In the past I had laughed because it was a funny line since he states the obvious, like always. But last night it had weight behind it, it wasn't funny. It was actually a very sad scene. He tried to save his best friends life, willing to lose his own, and he failed. 

There are many other aspects that were different too. Story changing too. Normally when watching this, pardon the french, but Jenny is a bitch and Forrest is the helpless victim to her acidic lifestyle. Last night though I was sympathetic towards Jenny and Forrest was more of her savior. It was more of Jenny's story and Forrest was just a tool used to explain it. I was drawn a lot more to her and her problems. Almost all of the references to birds, being free, and running came through.

It wasn't so much the story of Gump anymore, not the American Dream, but probably the human dream. The contrast between Forrest and jenny really showed this. Jenny, trapped by her past, drug addiction, not satisfied with her life and always trying to escape it. Forrest while "constrained" by his intelligence, "broke out" of it as a kid in the scene where he breaks his leg braces. He never lets anything hold him back and just lives life freely. He went with the flow, without too much thought as to what the consequences could be. He is completely free. Which is where Jenny wants to be, she even says she wishes she was like a bird. And birds typically and in this case as well are symbols of freedom. By the end she gets there right before her death.

There were many other examples of these new meanings depending on the mood. But I'll let you figure out the meanings for yourself. 

Montage: Oldies, Research, and Bill Viola

So I finally did it. I watched Chinatown. Surprisingly, the story line did have several parallels to the animation Rango. Although, I must say that I enjoyed Rango slightly more. 








Now, I love the old shows and movies. I grew up watching shows like Get Smart, I Dream of Genie, MacGyver, The Andy Griffith Show, Bonanza, and the list goes on. For some reason though, I wasn't sure if I would like Chinatown. In the end, I was pleasantly surprised. I loved the mystery behind the story and how the characters had both good and not so good characteristics. It made them feel very human.

The cinematography was great. Somehow they were able to create that feeling of suspense in some parts of the film just using slow pans or zooms. The lighting was great in every shot, definitely leading the viewer towards that more detective or mysterious feel. Overall it was a really great movie that I won't forget.

After watching Chinatown, I was inspired to find other older films to watch. So, I scoured Netflix and came across Love Is A Many-Splendored Thing released in 1995 and directed by Henry King. As I sat and watched this film, I couldn't help but chuckle. The acting was sometimes so over the top that to just imagine real people speaking and acting like that would just seem odd. The story plot was about a female doctor who meets a man (no surprise there) in Hong Kong. She is eurasian, her father being Chinese and her mother being English. She meets a traveling journalist, and their hushed relationship grows throughout the middle of the film leading to a tragic climax.

Both of these seem unrelated, and they are, but they both got me to thinking. If someone really wanted to re-produce these movies, there would be a lot of research involved. I started to think of all the things that would have to be looked up: period clothing, the politics of the time, the way people spoke...etc. Research is such a huge part of filmmaking that I never really considered before Professor Sinclair brought it up. This is such an intriguing idea to me because history and learning about different time periods is something that I LOVE to do. It is like learning about another culture. I'm so glad we have the resources here at Ithaca College to be able to do that kind of research.

Lastly, I would like to mention that I really enjoyed watching the video on Bill Viola and his work. The pieces that we saw in the documentary were just so moving. I think what really drew me in, from an actor's perspective, was that the slow motion allowed me to study the facial expressions of the actors in such detail. Their joy, or horror, or frustration, or despair was so intense and felt so real. Right down to their eyes you could just take one glance and understand the emotion they were feeling. It was just beautiful to see. I would love to go to an exhibition of his work someday.
~Amber Capogrossi