PLOT AND WORKSHOPS

During the first session with the NZCOPA students, I presented them with examples of motion graphic works, then placed them in groups and gave them descriptions of the characters and they went away to brainstorm scenarios for the characters. All kinds of interesting interpretations of character arose; however, the students were not engaging the characters with the problems imposed by the script. In a later workshop, they were given a draft of the script. Most of the real value of the workshops happened as a result of playing with the script itself. An example of development from this that proved useful can be seen in the syuzhet concerning Benje talking about the past as the others moved toward him.

In earlier versions of the script Benje had grieved over the loss of Karl who had died in an industrial accident in the pet food factory. Later Benje travelled around with the cans of what is implied to be Karl, dining as he went. Benje’s actions never really made sense in terms of motives and payoffs. Also I had gone too far and stepped outside of the Fantastic genre in which I had decided to locate the work. I had gone from something that could possibly happen to something extremely unlikely. We tried removing the sequence but the connection between Benje’s actions and Josh’s childish fairytale fantasy fears of cannibalism were lost. So was the twist that Josh was actually very close to the truth in his interpretation

of the world.

That Karl had lost his arm in the mincer rather than been killed toned down the event enough to bring it back into context. The idea of the Philippe Lars watch emerged at this stage. Up until this point, the only relationship between the content of the story and the clock form of the film was that Toby and Sarah were trying to be on time, whereas Benje was stuck in the past. At this point, I also decided to make Benje quite simply unaware of what he was eating. Benje developed into somebody who paid very little attention to any task at hand; it suited him well to be in a permanent muddle.

On another, level I was concerned about how the filmed elements of the

Figs: 80. Brainstorming workshops with students.

I started with a large group then later worked with just a few. In the final film I worked with professional actors.

My syuzhet also suggested that my actors’ performances become in some way graphical. Although I did not wish to turn the work into a dance piece, I did not want their actions not to appear too posed. It was Stephen Stocks, who was filming the workshops, who came up with one of the most fitting ideas at the time. He showed me a music video for the song Here it Goes Again by the band OK Go (OK Go, 2011) in which the band members walked around on treadmills. Although their movements are natural not posed, their actions create a comical sense of symmetry merging and diverging. I wasn’t making a music video and so proceeded with this mechanism with caution but found it useful to hint at graphical unity between my characters. This could, in Soviet montage terms, be described as a form of parallelism. It is a graphic syuzhet because rather than appearing sequentially, it appears simultaneously. If I was approaching a project like this again, I would include a second continuity person who just dealt with this type of action because some ideas that were storyboarded and scripted were lost during filming. This demonstrates that new systems of direction could be further investigated and areas of specialisation developed for this style of filmmaking.

Fig: 81. I considered how I could get my characters to move in symmetry and diverge, unite and link. The idea came from the band OK Go. Here they are dancing in their treadmill video.

PLOT STRUCTURE

In developing the plot so that it sat between a traditional three-part narrative and something more style-based (parametric), I worked with a visual representation system that predominantly shows (mimesis) and that carries the plot forward working in conjunction with Benje’s telling (diegesis) of past events. As already mentioned, narrators are common to motion graphic works. Although these lines become blurred through the use of type and symbols, I made the decision to keep aspects of my story in alignment with conventions. I was working with two strands of action, Benje was narrating and carrying the story backward though a form of diegesis. Conversely the other actors were functioning as a form of mimesis, showing us the way forward through the story.

Three-part narrative structures are deeply imbedded in Western culture. They date back at least as far as Aristotle. According to Aristotle’s Poetics (335 B.C.), drama contains six elements: these include plot (mythos), character (ethe), theme or thought (dianonia), diction (lexis), lyric poetry melody (melos) and spectacle (opis). “To Aristotle (as cited in Toberts and Bywater, 1984, p. 38-39), plot is not only the most important part, but the first principle, and as it the soul of tragedy even characters come in second place.”

There are many books on screen writing and they appear to centre on plot and are closely based on this convention. It is not uncommon for them to reference Greek tragedy or Aristotle. For example, Seger writes, “Whether it’s a Greek tragedy, a five act Shakespearean play, a four act dramatic series, or a seven act movie-of the-week, we still see a basic three act structure: beginning, middle, and end – or set- up, development and resolution” (Seger, p. 4). I utilised a summary of Linda Seger’s Making a Good Script Great, a book on Hollywood screenplays, to model my story structure around. Her book is well backed up with examples (Seger, 1987). (Her book also includes some analysis of the role of theme and character). Although my script is shorter than a typical feature film, the proportions are the same. I aligned both my forward-moving narration and my backward-moving narrative accordingly, as described in Figure 83.

Fig: 82. Seger’s diagram of a three part story structure.

My story structure/plot/in relation to Seger’s My plot back-story/ other connections. Seger’s setup gets the story started and gives us clues about the “spine”

(Seger, 1987, p. 6) of the story. She believes that the story should have a catalyst or event that changes things and sets the main character in motion. Examples of this could be “an explosion, a murder, a letter arrives…” (Seger, 1987, p. 12) Now the central question can be raised. This is the big “Who did it? Who will get what? Will they escape alive?” According to Seger this central question will be answered during the

climax of the movie. The first act sets up the action and provides us with

information about the character such as what is motivating them. Seger describes this as “back story” (Seger, 1987, p. 14).

Philippe Lars Watch setup

The film opens with Josh coming home from school to find his mother in bed asleep in the middle of the day. Type from the newspaper is drifting in a slightly agitated fashion around the room. It reveals that Sarah is dreaming about situations vacant. She does not wish Josh to know that she is worried, but she needs a job. When Josh opens the door the type flees. Josh’s fantasy world is also introduced in this set-up. Josh is carrying a book of really scary fairy tales. Problems in Sarah’s and Josh’s relationship are revealed and the scene ends in conflict.

Benje narrates backward through the story.

The first turning point occurs around pages 25 to 35 leading to a second

turning point around pages 75 to 85. Seger stresses the importance of

the first turning point because “it turns the action around…raises the

central question again…. it’s often a moment of decision or commitment on the part of the main character, it raises the stakes, pushes the story into the next act and gives us a sense of a different focus” (Seger, 1987, p. 16).

Philippe Lars Watch first turning point

Sarah and Josh resolve initial conflicts related to the loss of Josh’s Dad. Toby is acknowledged. The significance of the watch is introduced and the fact that Karl lost it in an accident at the factory

Mr Cutten is introduced to Sarah. Sarah tells Josh she has an interview and they are going out. They set off to the restaurant.

A connection between Josh and Benje is set up. Their actions line up through a split-screen-type effect. Benje’s ramblings provide back-story: he describes the decayed town they grew up in and discusses Sarah in the past. The stew is revealed. He reveals himself to be anarchic if not dangerous. This parallel scene finishes with the introduction of Toby, who nearly has his finger chopped off by Benje, introducing Benje as his immediate problem.

The story about the watch is introduced. So is the idea that somebody had an accident involving an industrial mincer. Mr Cutton is introduced to Benje. Fig: 83. Plot Structures

The italic type on left side of this chart represents key points in Seger’s plot structure. Below her points on the left, I cite these moments in my script. The right column describes Benje’s narrated back-story and demonstrates the relationship between what is being told and what is happening visually. My script is not a feature film, however the structure is proportionally the same.

Seger’s second turning point does the same as the first turning point

however it also speeds up the action. After the second turning point the

film builds to a climax at approximately (p. 110 -120)

Philippe Lars Watch The second turning point

Sarah and Josh are hitchhiking into town. Josh is reading his fairy tales. His fears about cannibalism are introduced. Chris picks them up and these themes are developed further. Josh steals Chris’ fish to set them free in the fountain. A homeless man kills the fish. Josh is still reading really scary fairy tales and he is now terrified. While wandering along the street they come across Mr Cutten. He drops his wallet; Sarah steals the money.

In the kitchen Benje’s actions are now starting to get really weird. Benje is eating the pet food and reveals that it could be meat from the batch in which Karl lost his arm. Benje reveals that he was never quite sure which tins of meat went to the cats and that he may have muddled them up. He continues to eat stew.

Toby talks, he reveals that he has left his wife and he is worried about the time and losing his job.

The climax answers the question and resolves the problems. Seger also discusses the importance of subplots suggesting that the theme is often carried in the subplot. Seger also demonstrates how the use of foreshadowing and payoffs can be used to create unity, integration and cohesiveness. She describes foreshadowing as a “visual clue” or “piece of dialogue” that sets us up for something that gets paid off much later in the story. This could be the laying of the foundations for a later joke or a clue that leads to a solution.

Benje loses his temper and leaps on Toby. Josh sees this and believes that a giant is going to eat his father. (A fear that has been well foreshadowed.) Benje chases Toby into the restaurant and smack into Sarah. The three all shout, “What on Earth are you doing here?” and argue. They realise that Josh is missing and race to find him curled up in the kitchen under the bench. They convince him that Benje is not an evil giant.

They unite for the first time. This in Soviet montage theory is termed simultaneity.

Resolution

Finally we have the resolution, which should be one to five pages. This

ties up any loose ends.

Philip Lars Watch Resolution

Toby finds the watch in the stew and realises its value could be the solution to his problems.

All seems well from what Benje has told us; we know how the watch got into the stew. We now know that Benje is a cannibal and that Josh’s childish fears are not so far from the truth.

Fig: 84. A selection of plates from the shoot involving Sarah and Josh.

Fig: 85. Unprocessed plates from second half of the film.