DIRECTIONS UNIT: Richard Curtis

Director

Richard Curtis:

Richard Curtis was born in Wellington, New Zealand on 8th November 1956 (making him 60 years old). He is a screenwriter, director and film & tv producer. Curtis studied English Language and Literature at Christ Church, Oxford where he achieved a first class honours. He often works alongside Bill Nighy and Rowan Atkinson.

Curtis was awarded an MBE in 1994 before being rewarded with a CBE in 2000 in the Queen's Millennium Honors List for his services to TV and Film Comedy and for his services to Comic Relief (which he founded alongside Lenny Henry).

Main Directing Credits:

- Love Actually (2001)
- The Boat That Rocked (2009)
- About Time (2013)

His other well known works include:
- Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994) for which he was the writer and co executive producer
- Notting Hill (1999) for which he was the writer and producer
- Bridget Jones' Diary (2003) for which he was the writer
- Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason (2004) for which he was the writer
- Mr Bean's Holiday (2007) for which he was the executive producer
- War Horse (2011) for which he was the writer

Richard Curtis' Directing Style:

Since the majority of Curtis' films are of the romantic comedy genre, most of the shots he uses in his films reflect this. Many of the scenes are shot with a shallow depth of field creating a sharp image in the foreground and a blurred image in the background. This blur creates a romantic atmosphere which helps to convey the romance within the scenes.

Examples:




About Time (2013)

Love Actually (2001)












Curtis also has the tendency of creating and using eccentric characters. Although the creation of these characters lies in the writing process, Curtis directs these scenes is such a way to enhance their eccentric natures. For example: Rowan Atkinson's character in Love Actually is an eccentric sales consultant who takes his time gift wrapping Alan Rickman's character's present. The long pauses on the shots of his character contrasts to the short snappy shots of Alan Rickman's character who is becoming increasingly frustrated at the gift wrapping process.

The Original Scenes I Will Adapt:

The scenes I have chosen to adapt for my piece are these two scenes which focus around the characters Mark and Juliet.

The first scene: 
(Juliet calls round to Mark's flat in hope of finding a picture of her in her wedding dress from the footage he shot at the wedding, only to find out that he is in love with her).

I chose this scene as the majority of it has no dialogue, instead most of the story is shown through the characters emotions/ reactions as she realises all the footage of the wedding is of her. This is mainly shown through close up shots and medium shots that switch between the characters as the wedding footage is being played. Most of the shots have a shallow depth of field which helps to give the scene a slightly romantic feel as Mark's true feelings towards Juliet are revealed.

The second scene:
(Mark calls round to Juliet's flat which she shares with her husband and confesses his thoughts and feelings to her with a series of A3 cards).

I chose this scene as again the majority of it has no dialogue, instead the story is all told through action. This is arguably the most iconic scene of the film which is another reason I chose it as I liked the challenge of putting my own directing style onto such a well known and loved scene. Curtis also chose a shallow depth of field for this scene as it again helps to create a romantic atmosphere.

CONTEXTUAL STUDIES: Critical Review

Peep Show (2003-2015)

Peep Show is a British sitcom created by Jesse Armstrong and Sam Bain. In 2010 it became Channel 4’s longest running comedy, running from 2003 - 2015. The story revolves around Mark and Jez, two flatmates who’s lives are riddled with chaos and comical twists as they aim to continue with their everyday activities. 

The first thing that intrigued me about Peep Show was the unique camera work involved. The show completely breaks the fourth wall and uses mainly POV shots to convey the narrative. This use of POV shots helps to create an ‘intimate’ [1] and personal feel as the audience are placed in the shoes of the characters and are therefore engrossed in the action / activities of the characters. Furthermore, due to this method of filming, there is hardly ever any context or exposition. The audience are placed within the action and then left to watch the characters develop in the situations they are put in. This helps to create a much more immediate feel as the audience and the characters are experiencing the action together at the same time. 

The camera work helps to create a realistic and authentic experience for the audience, the mise-en-scene adds to this sense of realism. Mark and Jez’s flat is dimly lit with low key lighting, creating naturalistic shadows on the characters. This helps to create the effect of lamps and homely lighting, demonstrating to the audience what sort of environment these characters live in. 

The setting of a small flat in Croydon and the surrounding area helps to convey a sense of the characters’ wealth (or lack of) and shows a “real, affordable London… where people live relatively normal lives” [2]. This helps the sitcom to be more relatable with Channel 4’s 18 - 30 year old age demographic who are likely to live in similar conditions. Due to the sitcom being relatable, according to Blumler and Katz’s Uses and Gratifications model, the audience is able to use the show as a form of escapism as they can easily get lost in the action the sitcom has engrossed them in. The props and costume also helps to convey the sense of realism within this sitcom. The characters usually wear t-shirts or jumpers that are similar to those that can be found on the high-street, showing them as normal, realistic people. Their costumes are also used to show their personalities. Jez can often be seen wearing t-shirts with rather juvenile designs which reflects his immaturity, whilst Mark can be seen in a suit and tie, showing him as businessman / aspiring businessman. 

The unique POV camera work is complimented by the unique sound design of the sitcom. As well as there being the diegetic sound of the dialogue between the characters, non diegetic voiceover is used to convey their inner thoughts. As well as helping to convey the intimate feel created by the camera work, this technique has proved to be “a goldmine of comedy, because you never normally hear what someone’s thinking as well as what they’re saying” [1]. The comedy comes from their inner thoughts contrasting with what the characters are saying in their dialogue and the fact that the audience is aware of this contrast but the characters are not. For example, in Series 1 Episode 6 Mark is asking Jez whether he wants to come with him and Sophie on a holiday whilst his inner thoughts are saying “please say no”. [3] 

The editing involved within this sitcom is very simplistic, adding to the natural, authentic feel of the show. The pace of the editing is consistent with the action occurring on screen. When there is just a conversation occurring between Mark and Jez, the editing is slow paced. However, in the Rainbow Rhythms scene of Series 2 Episode 1, the editing is faster paced due to the increased level of activity of the characters.

In conclusion, Peep Show is able to create an element of realism through the camerawork, sound design, mise-en-scene and editing. This realism helps to engross the audience within the action and therefore allows the show to have greater comic effect.

Bibliography

[1] The Telegraph (2009) David Mitchell and Robert Webb on Peep Show: interview [online] Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/6173383/David-Mitchell-and-Robert-Webb-on-Peep-Show-interview.html [Accessed on: 06/12/2016]

[2] Inside Croydon (2015) How Croydon was the perfect comedy fit for Peep Show [online] Available at: https://insidecroydon.com/2015/12/16/how-croydon-was-the-perfect-comedy-fit-for-peep-show/ [Accessed on: 06/12/2016]

[3] Peep Show (2003) Available at: http://www.channel4.com/programmes/peep-show/on-demand/33196-001 [Accessed on: 06/12/2016]

STORY-TELLING UNIT: Project Evaluation

The Production Process

When the brief was first introduced to us, I found the whole thing quite daunting. I had no idea how I was even going to come up with an idea, let alone a 10 page screenplay, a 2 minute trailer and a whole load of research around the topic of screenwriting. The story-telling workshops were extremely helpful in terms of producing ideas. I ended up finding my idea from a newspaper article about a man searching for the person who talked him down from a suicide attempt. Obviously I couldn't just copy this story, so I decided to take inspiration from it and develop a story of my own. My initial ideas and developed ideas for my story can be found on my blog.

Once I had my idea, I then had to go about creating a 25 word pitch. 25 words seemed way to little for conveying the whole idea for a story, but after the story-telling workshops I found it a lot easier trying to convey the idea for my story concisely. The next thing for me to do was to create my characters. I already had a couple of characters in mind. I decided my character John would be the main character of my story. He would be a young, 24 year old man with a beard and slightly 'scruffy' clothes. My other character (Kyle) would be almost the opposite of John, a clean shaved, sharply dressed 22 year old man. I wanted the two characters to be opposites as I wanted Kyle to represent what John aspires to be. My 25 word pitch and character ideas can be found on my blog.

The next thing to do was to start the script. This is where I ran into some difficulty. I kept writing a page or 2 and then becoming completely stuck. I decided I needed to talk to Simon about it and ask him why I seemed to be getting nowhere with my script. The feedback I received was that I didn't know my characters well enough, I didn't know their past and I didn't know what they wanted to achieve. Following this feedback, I decided to completely work out my characters (even if some things would not be used in the story). Once I had discovered who my characters were and what their personal goals were, it became a lot more straight forward writing the script.

I then received some feedback from Steve about my script. I needed to add more structure to the script by adding more scenes, I needed to make some parts of the script less clumsy and I needed to work on some scenes with interaction between my characters. All the feedback really helped me to make my script stronger. When I gave in my first draft of my script, I had doubts as to whether it was any good at all, therefore, the feedback really helped as it showed I had the bones of a good story but just needed to work on a few bits to make the screenplay work as a whole. For my second draft, I decided to implement all of Steve's advice and see what this did to my script. Unfortunately, with all of his advice, my screenplay became too long. Therefore I had to cut out some of the original material and a small section that Steve advised I included - this became my third draft. I still wasn't entirely happy with my script as I had left out a vital moment that Steve thought would work really well in my script. I therefore went about cutting small irrelevant parts out of my script (that, looking back on it, really didn't need to be there in the first place) in order to fit in the scene in the doctor's office. My first, second, third and final draft can be found on my blog.

I actually decided to shoot my trailer before completely correcting my script. But before I could start filming, there were multiple things I had to sort out before the shoot. I had to find my actors and locations, fill out risk assessments, apply for film permits and come up with a shot list and shooting schedule. The shot list and shooting schedule really enabled my shoot to be quick and efficient as all the actors knew where they had to be, what they had to be doing and when. I did encounter some problems in filming, but all of these issues were easily resolved. A detailed account of how my shoot went can be found here.

After my shoot was over, I decided to get straight on with creating a rough cut for my trailer. I imported the footage and roughly cut it together into a sequence. I then showed this rough cut to Simon and Mike who both gave me their individual feedback. I agreed with all their feedback and began implementing it straight away. Once I had applied all their feedback and tweaked a few extra things I came up with a fine cut for my piece. It still wasn't perfect but it was a lot closer to being finished. The only things left to do were add a production logo and adjust the titles. Once this was done I had my final trailer. The rough cut, fine cut and final trailer can all be found on my blog.

What worked?

- The idea worked really well when coming to write the script. Although I did hit a few hurdles initially, once I had worked out who my characters were in detail, writing the script became a lot more simple.

- My organisation before the shoot was very good. My detailed shot list combined with my shooting schedule ensured that all actors knew where and when they were needed and what they were doing. I also had good contact with both the actors and we were able to constantly correspond to make sure the filming days still suited everyone's personal schedules. I also sorted out the film permits a couple of weeks before my shoot which allowed time for if there were any difficulties. This good organisation lead to a very efficient shoot day (I ended up only needed one out of my two days).

- I think the editing of my trailer works really well. I especially think the overlapped footage works well to convey the sense of confusion that my character is feeling. The fades to black follow the conventions of a normal film trailer, they work really well in my trailer because they help to build tension whilst also maintaining a sense of mystery and enigma.

- The previous editing workshops really came in handy when it came to edit my final trailer. I knew exactly what I was doing from the moment I started editing.

- I think the location of the pier worked really well and I was very fortunate with the weather. It was quite windy making the water look more dramatic. This helps add to the mood and tone of the trailer.

- The acting of my actors worked really well. Jason was able to convey a confused / distracted / panicked look very accurately -this enabled the audience to easily understand my character's emotion. Alex was excellent at portraying a believable character. His acting looked natural which helps to audience to feel at ease with the trailer.


What didn't work?


- I think the sound in my trailer could have been recorded slightly better. Due to difficulty getting to the studios to pick up the equipment, I ended up using my own camera equipment. However, my microphone was not as good quality as the microphones used in the studios meaning that I did experience a couple of sound issues. Although the majority of these sound issues could be fixed in post production, I feel like the editing affected the quality of the sounds. Therefore, in future I will use the studio's equipment.

- There was one bit of my footage which I really wish I filmed differently. When my character John is looking out over the pier, it may not be clear that his intention is to jump - leading to a bit of confusion when Kyle says "John, don't". Mike Rymer suggested I could use a 'trick shot' and get my character John to step up on a box (not seen in shot) to make it look like he is climbing the railings. However, I didn't have time to re-film so had to make do with the footage I had. To try and convey his desire to jump over the edge, I decided to use a POV shot of the camera changing angle to look down into the water.

- I actually ended up getting so much footage that some parts that I really liked had to be left out. In future I could add timings to be shot list so that I know roughly how much time each clip will take up in the trailer so that I don't end up having to cut out material that I really like. Having said that, I'm glad I got more coverage than I needed as I was able to use shots that I wasn't initially planning to use.

- I feel like my script could have been stronger. Even after implementing Steve's advice, I'm still not completely happy with my script. I feel that one of my big 'moments' (John going to jump off the pier) is resolved too quickly, yet I didn't know how to make the moment last longer without it becoming repetitive or boring.

- Although I did a lot of research into screenwriting, screenwriters, short films and TV dramas, I feel like I should have done more into mental health, especially schizophrenia. I found it hard to write the character in a believable way knowing only a few facts about schizophrenia which I learnt from A-level Psychology and from the newspaper article I used as source material.

What did I learn?

- Sound is very important to a piece of footage. Poor quality sound really does affect the quality of the whole trailer. Luckily, I was able to resolve my sound issues, however, it would have been better to use a proper rode directional microphone with a wind protector / dead wombat in order to get better quality sound.

- I learnt a lot about directing. I had to direct my actors and tell them exactly what I wanted to do. My direction was good as my actors performed exactly how I wanted them to. I had no experience about directing before the project, so I definitely learnt a lot about the role.

What could I develop?

- In future I will do more research into the actual content of my project rather than just research around the project. I will look for real life accounts from people in order to make my stories more realistic and to be able to work out how my characters would really react to certain situations.

- I will get my script checked more in order to make the screenplay stronger. I only obatined initial feedback from Simon and then another lot of feedback from Steve once my first draft was completed. In future, I will get the second and third drafts checked as well instead of relying on my own judgement. This will make my screenplay stronger and therefore my story telling and final trailer would also be stronger as a result.

Conclusion:

Overall I am very happy with how this project went, especially since it is my first project on the course. I think my trailer really captures a sense of my story well even with the weaknesses in my script.