Clown seminar exercise. Keep dancing the routine way.
Right, this is a seminar exercise for Clown. It considers a lot of points and opinions on how the director (I) sees the plot, character and events of the film. It is done in bullet-points however I've only gone and free-styled everything haven't I? Well, that's just the way I roll okay? Because I'm down. With the kids. Um.. anyway, instead of bullet-points I've just written it like an essay. Reading it back, it seems like it doesn't need much explanation so I'll just shut up right now:
For me, Clown is about a persons life career and the love for it. The need for it. However, the grass is always greener and any person with a love for their job surely wants, needs, further satisfaction? The period Clown covers is the breaking point of the Harlequin’s love.
So, the Harlequin’s life is his job. He has a love for life however; it’s not enough no more. He clearly wants something more. Or at least recognition of his love. This can be frustrating to earn. How does the Compere appear in comparison? He’s a simpler character for sure. For him, its about his money and reputation. This is the root of his own ideas of power; without either he is nothing.
Considering the facts of the film: it’s a circus, a popular show, a business, it features an act watched by an audience. You have to question the importance from an objective point of view. Subjectively, again, it’s the main character’s lives.
There is a big difference in atmosphere from the two scenes that Clown is set. Notably; the stage and the dressing room. The difference, obviously, is the audience. Behind close doors, acting doesn’t happen. At least, for the Compere anyway. His money and reputation is on the line, he can say how he truly feels when not in front of an audience. For the Harlequin, his life is on the line. His attitude remains the same. Bu then, both characters’ life goals have similarities; they are both selfish in a way. They both want appreciation, it’s just they see the reception of it differently. Perhaps, underneath, neither realises that they need each other to get their own goals.
A centre of research for me is Dumbo. Consider the imagery; big tops, audiences within the film, a story developing around a show. My finished product will have a lot in debt to Dumbo. In the end, as long as I achieve the sympathy for the Harlequin from the viewing audience I think I would have achieved my ideas.
How's that, you cow? As a director, I've *always* thought it important to have a back story on the characters. And not just the main ones. Perhaps this leaves my work more plot-based than visual-based but, with that in mind, I hope to accommodate interesting visuals, camera angles.
I've just realised I can't remember the lady who created this lovely exercise. It's in a book relating to directors working with actors for the greater good. Or something. So as soon as I find out I've Harvard reference her on here so hard her grandchildren will get a mention. She deserves it.
For me, Clown is about a persons life career and the love for it. The need for it. However, the grass is always greener and any person with a love for their job surely wants, needs, further satisfaction? The period Clown covers is the breaking point of the Harlequin’s love.
So, the Harlequin’s life is his job. He has a love for life however; it’s not enough no more. He clearly wants something more. Or at least recognition of his love. This can be frustrating to earn. How does the Compere appear in comparison? He’s a simpler character for sure. For him, its about his money and reputation. This is the root of his own ideas of power; without either he is nothing.
Considering the facts of the film: it’s a circus, a popular show, a business, it features an act watched by an audience. You have to question the importance from an objective point of view. Subjectively, again, it’s the main character’s lives.
There is a big difference in atmosphere from the two scenes that Clown is set. Notably; the stage and the dressing room. The difference, obviously, is the audience. Behind close doors, acting doesn’t happen. At least, for the Compere anyway. His money and reputation is on the line, he can say how he truly feels when not in front of an audience. For the Harlequin, his life is on the line. His attitude remains the same. Bu then, both characters’ life goals have similarities; they are both selfish in a way. They both want appreciation, it’s just they see the reception of it differently. Perhaps, underneath, neither realises that they need each other to get their own goals.
A centre of research for me is Dumbo. Consider the imagery; big tops, audiences within the film, a story developing around a show. My finished product will have a lot in debt to Dumbo. In the end, as long as I achieve the sympathy for the Harlequin from the viewing audience I think I would have achieved my ideas.
How's that, you cow? As a director, I've *always* thought it important to have a back story on the characters. And not just the main ones. Perhaps this leaves my work more plot-based than visual-based but, with that in mind, I hope to accommodate interesting visuals, camera angles.
I've just realised I can't remember the lady who created this lovely exercise. It's in a book relating to directors working with actors for the greater good. Or something. So as soon as I find out I've Harvard reference her on here so hard her grandchildren will get a mention. She deserves it.
Labels: direction
posted by Toddimus Prime at 2:46 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home