Cutting back on the rigmarole...

I believe that John and myself are benefitting from the liberty of filmmaking with less rigmarole upon this project. We both spent 2008 upon projects that required a lot more logistical organisation and to some extent, unnecessary procedure. Procedure is a fascinating piece of terminology. It suggests an obvious course of action, a predetermined sequence of events. However, as we proved when making "Watching & Waiting", it is possible to pervert that procedure, and still have a satisfactory result.

Similarly this time around, we want to rebuke 'procedure'. We are keen to keep the production team to a bare minimum, at most four persons. This requires versatile team members, who can perform a series of tasks as opposed to just one. Some critics will argue that this creates a 'jack of all trades, master of none' situation. It could also be seen to dilute the focus of any one team member, and create chaos on set. But here is my logic...

We are not rebuking 'procedure' per se, but the established perception of 'procedure'. The one which has scarcely been revisited since the days of the studio system and hideously fails to reflect the current possibilities within digital filmmaking. Therefore it is possible to develop new procedures, with new priorities that determine their shape and sequences. For example, finance continues to be a motivator, and therefore we cannot have a large crew that requires feeding and paying. Similarly, working with non-actors, I'd like to get as much time to them as possible, and not have my focus drawn away by numerous crew requiring attention. This would slow us down to attend to both, and time is another consideration. So these limiters, motivators, call them what you will, inform our procedural construction.

This procedure is also a developmental process. It is different from 'Peppermint' and 'Watching & Waiting'. I'm keen to explore ways in which to experience filmmaking processes. I can feel my filmmaking develop. I watched my African documentaries last night as I have a possibility of another next year, and I hated the constant fades to black, which I felt broke the rhythm of the narrative, yet informed the 'scrapbook' nature. In "Watching & Waiting" we only had three fades to black, which indicated the passing of time into the next day. However, I want to add another rule to the production of Rosie - no fades to black within the main body of the film. We will fade in from black and fade out to black, but nothing else... That is what I call development!!!

We must not lose sight of the experimental nature of this project. It is the usual cost attached to the rigmarole of filmmaking that prevents filmmakers from enjoying an apprenticeship or developmental phase. The pressure is on to create a 'hit' immediately, as opposed to develop your style or understanding. In any other art form this would be ludicrous, no-one would be expected to be a master painter without painting first. It is a craft. Similarly I have difficulty with the short-film approach to filmmaking... "make a short, get noticed, make feature". Would you only paint small paintings first before a larger canvas? Would you make doll's house furniture before making the dining table chair? Would you practice sprinting when training for a marathon? No. In my opinion, and it is an opinion and little else, we should take the focus away from the cost and business and put the attention back to developing a craft. Maybe then we can advance this cinematic art form.