Summer Reading

As I mentioned in my last post, I have been doing a lot of reading on film this summer.

The first one was Shot by Shot by Steven Katz which is an excellent text on planning a shoot and the key considerations in taking things from page to frame. Mostly it focuses on the basics of camera technique, but is outstanding in explaining storyboarding. It shows various ways of planning a dolly move or the types of cranes you might run into. This book is beyond practical and highly recommended for anyone who thinks they can make a movie. My favorite part was when he points out that Citizen Kane itself breaks the "rule" that a low angle makes your character seem big. The book is lavish with graphics to make the points clear. I'm very glad I read it before school. Not only because I'll probably have an easier time trying to shoot than if I hadn't read it, but also because it solidified my choice to focus on cinematography. Katz's description of the difference in lenses will be nothing compared to the familiarity using them will provide, and the better I can communicate with a camera person, the quicker things can get done.

Making A Good Script Great by Linda Seger was slightly less useful than it was infuriating. She made some good points about certain story devices and it includes very helpful questions at the end of each chapter that can prod you in the right direction during a rewrite. However her axiomatic approach to what you can and can't do to a story made me really mad. For weeks I watched foreign films for the sake of proving the structure theory wrong. This also helped to make up for her revolting suggestions of good "watch and learn" movies. Both widely popular and generally unoffensive, Cocoon and Witness were two of the most boring and confounding films I had ever seen (thanks to Seger's suggestion), and worst of all, they don't even truly fit the mold that the book claims they do. If anyone reads this book trying to come up with an idea for a story, the best that they will end up with is a formulaic made for TV movie. Although, given the commercial approach of the book, some readers might not find this a problem.

In reaction to this, I read a couple scripts by Jean Cocteau. If there ever were scripts to prove there is no formula for scripts, it's these. Although a lot of people will say "you never put camera angles in a script" or "never write in direction unless it's important", I would have to say this advice is mostly applicable to people looking to sell the screenplay they write. For Cocteau, the scripts were for him alone, and they offer some beautiful insight into his thought process. Although for Testament of Orpheus, penetrating the dialogue of the late middle still seems to be a task that eludes me.

I then attempted to read Cocteau's most famous book The Difficulty of Being, but every page was as devastatingly poetic as the aforementioned dialogue. It was like trying to read another language or trying to read Scandinavian skaldic poetry. It's in English prose, but is so dense with meaning, connotation, and intention that is mostly serves to make your head feel like it's underwater. Although I felt like I was scratching the surface of his words, I did not feel ready to read the next 100 pages. To be continued.

Next I read How To Read A Film by James Monaco. Like Shot by Shot, the book is dense with images, but also with information of a widely varying nature. It gives a very comprehensive history of just about everything you can think of. To give a history of film, he starts with Daguerreotypes. To give a history of media he starts with the printing press. Although this might seem excessive, for the most part it is helpful in giving some context, at least for the film aspect. The book makes some very interesting comparisons and connections that I was delighted to consider. In addition, it shows a vast knowledge of film from all countries and in general provides a rough equivalent of a first year film student's education. He even tackles the large (and, in my opinion, irrelevant) topic of film theory in a way that is very helpful. The chapter is organized chronologically with competing theories (expressionism vs. realism) grouped together. It lays out the names of theorists and the gist of important theories in a straightforward manner without applying one or the other to any other part of the book. Much appreciated. The sections on media are rather outdated in the 3rd edition, but a 4th edition just came out this year. From my skimmings, it seems that Monaco has become even more cantankerous and embittered about the state of films since the 3rd edition. Poor guy. All in all, a very good read.

The last thing I read was Fifty Years of Serial Thrills by Roy Kinnard. Although not really a book about filmmaking, I am working on an idea for a serial-inspired short film about a turbaned mystic. The book was a delight giving plot and production summaries for the most notable serials, be they good or bad. At times hilarious, it was fascinating to learn about the turmoil of the Tarzan property and the psychotically economic ways in which studios filmed these things. It also provided an astonishingly complete index of serials; a real treasure considering how few of these films are left. It was a great read, clocking in under 200 pages. I read it all in one day. It also has wonderful interviews with the stars of Flash Gordon, one of whom died shortly before the book was printed. Highly recommended for people who have a hard on for the '30s and things that suck.

I like to think this has been a productive summer.