Wednesday, January 20, 2016

Research and Development


For this module it is my aim to create a short script, between 8 and 20 pages long. My main influences for my script are predominantly, Mr. Nobody and Pulp Fiction and Red Shift.

I have chosen to hand in a finalised script as my artifact to accompany my research as it is within my opinion that the script is what holds a production together. It gives everyone within a crew a general direction and aim and I feel that this is vital when it comes to creating something successful.

I will include screenshots and snippets of my script within my research portfolio, however, the finalised script will be a print out and handed in, in person. To finish off this module I will include a lengthy critical evaluation of my journey throughout this project.

I am also hoping to delve into other depths in terms of what it actually takes to create a successful production. The part of this I will be researching is mostly pre-production but will touch up on post-production as well. My reasoning for this is because even though my overall aim for this module is to delve into script writing, I feel that to keep a fairness I'd like to research creation of a film as a whole topic rather than separate topics.

List of resources being used within this research portfolio:


Red Shift

Pulp Fiction
Mr. Nobody


Beginning Film Making - 100 easy steps from script to screen by Elliot Grove
Pulp Fiction - The Complete Screenplay by Quentin Tarantino 
Screen Language by Cherry Porter
Cinematic Storytelling - The 100 most powerful film conventions every film maker must know by Jennifer Van Sijll 
Narration in the Fiction Film by David Bordwell
A History of Narrative Film (Third Edition) by David A. Cook  
Digital Filmmaking 101 - An Essential Guide to Producing Low-Budget movies by Dale Newton and John Gaspard
Red Shift by Alan Garner


Do you find it difficult to write a review about something you have only recently watched knowing that it is now going to be very difficult to find another that will even come slightly close to being as great as this one you've just watched was? Well for me, that film is Pulp Fiction. 

If we focus for a second on the multi narrative that plays out during Pulp Fiction, we begin to unravel such complexity that even Quentin probably didn't even fully understand and if we did then that guy is even more fantastic that I first thought. Watching this film was sort of feeling like you were riding a rollercoaster for the first time, unsure of whether you like it or hate it, you cannot help but keep your eyes focused on the television. What's going to happened next? Wait, why did that happen? Were both common questions I continuously asked throughout my viewing of this film. Until the end, when everything clicked in to place, all the characters linked together to create one fully story line and suddenly the complex multi narrative all made sense. 

With each separate narrative being told at separate times it gave the audience something new and for me something I loved the most was instead of the main character being killed off at the end of the movie, it could happen at any time. Pretty nail biting stuff, aye!?


Although I found this film to be a slight waste of time, I also found it to be one of the most amazing films I have ever watched. It's hard to depict what is original and not original these days with producers combining so many different elements and themes together but this had a real fantasia vibe to it, which I did thoroughly enjoy.

I found it weird watching Jared Leto act, be it not the first time I have seen him in a production. I follow his music closely too and have also met the fella and to see him on screen in a totally different element than I'm used to was a surreal experience. Nonetheless this experience I did find to be rather pleasant. 

I guess in a lot of ways you could describe this movie as being pretentious, and even though 'pretentious' isn't usually a word that is spoken in a positive way, i'm sure glad to say that time it is positive.

Overall, with the multi dimensions and multi narrative all based around the one character I have to say that you need to have an imagination in order to thoroughly enjoy this film for what it is. There are many elements to this film that I found to be enjoyable and the main one being is that I could not figure it out! I have spent a large portion of my life watching movies that now I seem to understand what's going on and what will happen within the first 20 minutes of a showing, but this one kept my brain spinning in to other universes until the very end. 


Jules Winfield (Samuel L. Jackson) and Vincent Vega (John Travolta) arrive at a San Fernando Valley apartment building. They are hit men in the employ of Marsellus Wallace and have come to retrieve a valuable belonging of Wallace's that has come into the possession of a group of young would-be crooks. They take back the valuable item -- kept in a briefcase, it glows warmly and transfixes whoever looks at it. Jules recites what he claims is a Bible verse, Ezekiel 25:17, before he and Vincent execute the young men. 

Just after Vincent and Jules finish killing the men who had stolen Marsellus' prized possession, a gang member they had not known about bursts out of the bathroom and empties his gun point blank at them. However, all of the bullets miss Vincent and Jules, hitting the wall behind them. Jules is certain this is a miracle but Vincent dismisses the idea. They leave with Marvin (Phil LaMarr), Marsellus' inside man in the gang. In the car, Vincent asks Marvin if he believes in miracles, but accidentally shoots him in the head and kills him. The inside of the car is now covered in blood and brain matter. Jules drives to the house of his only friend in the Valley, a former colleague named Jimmie (Quentin Tarantino). Jimmie lets them hide the car but angrily tells them that they have to decide how to get rid of the body before his wife comes home in an hour. Jules calls Marsellus, who calls Winston Wolf (Harvey Keitel), who solves problems. Wolf tells them how to clean up the car and themselves -- they have to strip out of their more stylish clothes and wear Jimmie's spare T-shirts and shorts (which explains their appearance at the strip club) -- then helps them dispose of the car and body at a junk yard belonging to a discreet friend. 

Jules and Vincent decide to have breakfast at the Hawthorne Grill, where they continue their discussion about miracles. Jules reveals his plan to leave his criminal life and travel the globe as a mendicant, helping those suffering under tyranny. Vincent mocks him, then goes to the bathroom. Honey Bunny and Pumpkin begin their robbery of the diner. They collect the register till and the patrons' wallets. Jules gives Pumpkin his wallet, but when Pumpkin tries to take Marsellus' briefcase, Jules pulls his gun and disarms Pumpkin. While Vincent holds Honey Bunny at bay, Jules explains to Pumpkin how, even earlier that morning, he would have killed Pumpkin and Honey Bunny without a second thought. He recites his ersatz version of Ezekiel 25:17 again: "The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who in the name of charity and good will shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. I will strike down with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you." 

Having talked to Marsellus earlier and finding out he is leaving town that evening Vincent agrees to take his wife, Mia (Uma Thurman), out for dinner to keep her entertained. Rumours abound that Marsellus gravely wounded another associate who he believed had been improperly friendly with Mia, so Vincent is nervous. Before picking Mia up, he visits his dealer, Lance (Eric Stoltz), and buys some high-quality heroin. Properly sedated, he escorts the cocaine-addicted Mia to Jack Rabbit Slim's, a theme restaurant. There, they dance the twist and win an award. After dinner, they return to the Wallaces' home. Vincent goes to the bathroom to talk himself out of making a pass at Mia. Meanwhile, she discovers the baggie of heroin in his coat pocket and, assuming it is cocaine, snorts some. She immediately passes out and begins to foam at the mouth. Panicked, Vincent takes the dying Mia to Lance's. Lance is able to revive her with a shot of adrenaline administered straight to the heart. Vincent takes Mia home. They agree not to tell Marsellus what happened. 

BREAK and insert Christopher Walkins speech which is a dream: 

CUT to Butch (Bruce Willis) 

Instead of throwing the match which he agreed to do to Macellus, he fights so viciously that he kills his opponent. He took Marsellus' money and bet it on himself; now his winnings will amount to a small fortune. He and his girlfriend, Fabienne (Maria de Medeiros) have left their apartment and are staying in a seedy motel. In the morning they will travel to Butch's hometown of Knoxville, TN and then leave the country. However, in packing their belongings, Fabienne forgot the gold watch, the belonging Butch cherishes above all others. Butch goes back to their apartment to get it. He finds it in their bedroom, but Vincent is also there. Butch catches him off-guard as he emerges from the bathroom and kills him. Leaving the apartment, Butch encounters Marsellus. He tries to run Marsellus over with his car but only wounds him and is hit by another car himself. Marsellus chases Butch into a pawn shop. There, Maynard (Duane Whitaker) overpowers them. Marsellus and Butch wake up in the basement of the pawn shop, bound and gagged. Maynard has called Zed (Peter Greene). While the Gimp (Stephen Hibbert), a huge man-child dressed head to toe in leather fetish gear, watches Butch, Maynard and Zed take Marsellus into the next room and begin to rape him. Butch escapes and knocks out the Gimp. Rather than leave the pawn shop, he procures a samurai sword and rescues Marsellus; Maynard is killed and Zed emasculated in the process. Marsellus will stay behind to oversee the torture-execution of Zed, but tells Butch that as long as he never mentions what happened and never returns to Los Angeles, Marsellus will forget that Butch betrayed him in the boxing ring. Butch agrees. He and Fabienne leave town on Zed's chopper-style motorcycle. 


The movie at the end. The old Nemo was living in 2092 when Anna in space predicted the big crunch would occur that is why after he died at the end he is shown waking up and walking backwards as everything would revert back to the beginning.Meanwhile even though the old Nemo narrates the story of his life to the interviewer,only one of his lives was real because the movie is based on the premise that choice affects outcome.The old Nemo felt the most crucial moment in his life was when his parents separated so beyond the choice of which parent he chose to remain with are possible alternative paths his life would take.The reason why the buildings fragmented at the end is because in hindsight it looked as if he was telling a story that had not happened but only as a possible consequence of the choice of the child Nemo, as long as Nemo chose one thing the alternative life would become unreal and in fact annihilated. 

That movie for example shows the different lives Nemo could have lived depending on which girl he chose to love.He really loved Anna throughout the movie and the movie shows how his or her life would have been if he had met someone else.In fact he and Anna were mutually in love while his marriage to Elise was problematic throughout because he loved Elise while Elise loved Stephano so it was an empty marriage with Elise , meanwhile his life with Jin was similarly flawed, but the role was reversed Jin loved him while he married her without really loving her(just to get back at Elise's rejection in his teen years).In fact i think in his life with Jin he was wealthy and had everything but was in fact a hitman for hire that is why he died by being killed in a hotel room under a false identity and was only identified as Nemo by Jin in the morgue. 

Another way to look at the movie is to see it as a near death experience of 15 year old Nemo after a horrible motorcycle accident.Remember the movie kept going to a scene of him in the hospital heavily injured and comatose.Plus there are about 3/4 scenes depicting an accident one is the obvious one where he falls off his motorcycle at high speed another is when he walks in the middle of the road and sees the headlights of a car about to hit him head on and they become two motorcycle lights on either side of him.In another scene he drives into a lake on his way from work when a bird hits his windshield and lastly when there is an explosion during a traffic jam that kills Elise but Nemo survives.So my view is that the only true accident was the one on the motorcycle as that was the point in life where after his thoughts could have wondered to what would have happened if he had not had the accident and had a relationship with Elise or Jin or even Anna, he also though in the other ways he could have ended up dying.All those other accidents were alternative ways in which he could have died in his other lives ,rather in an untimely fashion involving a motor accident. 

The movie generally shows many concepts of the butterfly effect which it shows directly because the theory is that a butterfly flapping wings in say new Zealand can cause a hurricane a month later in America.So for example the Brazilian boiling an egg caused it to rain in nemo's home town and blotted out the phone number of Anna that she gave him.It's a movie about life , love, choice , consequence, tentative outcomes , possibilities, what might have been. It just shows the viewer how our lives turn out the way they do and what unique circumstances are common to our own life as well as other peoples lives .For example in the movie nemo feared water and couldn't swim yet he almost drowned in the school pool as a kid, drowned in a car in a lake, got shot dead while in his bathtub which all shows a common thread that while some things in an alternative universe or life would change drastically, others may just change slightly but keep some common unique characteristics one could only describe as part of fate.


So from what we have learned since the beginning of the course, I know that a script is written in a particular structure which is called the Three-Act structure. It's basic but it works very well, this structure is set out as Act 1 ( Beginning), Act 2 (Middle) and Act 3 (End). Act 1 is where you introduce the main characters of your movie and set the scene. Act 2 is where the main character will start to face the obstacles and challenges needed which then flows in to Act 3 which is where the climax (or in some cases anticlimax) comes into play. There are many other ways in to structure a script, for example; Quentin Tarantino 'took the classic three-act structure and turned it on it's ear in Pulp Fiction, which contained a three-act structure, but ordered them as Act One, Act Three and then Act Two'. The way Quentin wrote the script, was new, it was different and took the cinematic world for a journey that it did not expect. Watching this film from a 21st century perspective it still holds that same uniqueness as it did many centuries ago. When it comes to writing my own script, not only am I going to flush the three-act structure down the toilet, I'm going to throw in genre after genre at different times which in my mind is a good thing to do as the audience will be confused but excited for what they're watching at the same time. Every time I have created something over the duration of this course I have looked to experiment and work a new side of film, to form something different, to manipulate both image and sound and I am not going to stop now. My experiments continue but this time they continue in to the form of a script and not a visual.

There is an interesting paragraph within Dale Newton and John Gaspard's book Digital Filmmaking 101 which I found to be quite interesting:

'Limit yourself to three main characters, or, barring that, don't include main than three main characters altogether in a scene or have them all interacting at the same time. For instance, if you have a party scene, break them up into subgroups of three or less. Why? You don't have the time or money to do more'.

I found this quote to be interesting yet vague. See I believe that Film is a form of art, and art has to be something that is not something; by this I mean we have to be creative, we have to break the rules and not follow in to a path of conformity. Hollywood seem like such conformists these days as every movie just looks and feel the same. They don't seem to be taking risks any more, they make to sell. they no longer make to create. This whole module for me is about experimentation, it's about looking at what the rules are and basically screwing with them for a bit of fun. I am to give my script a twist, to give it something different. Relating to the above quote written in Dale Newton and John Gaspard's book, I will say that my script will only have three main characters, in fact it will only have three main characters overall. But what I argue against the above quote is that my script will use the same three characters in every scene, they remain the same, the relationships remain the same, but the reality nor situation are different. I found this form of writing and film to be interesting which is why I chose to delve into such areas.

Another interesting quote I pulled out of Dale Newton and John Gaspard's book is:

'These are only the budgetary constraints you must suffer through. They'll seem easy once your project is facing a list of "artistic" requirements most potential distributors look for. Most of these requirements are so lowbrow (more blood, more girls, more blood, more bikinis, more blood, more sex, more nudity, and did we mention more blood?) that we were glad we didn't pander to them.'

I, again, find this to be negative. When I create a script and then turn that script into a visual, I don't aim to please an audience (maybe I should?), I aim to create something new, my mind tells me, so what I don't have naked girls or flashy cars or big sparkly mansions, what counts in the film I create is the story and for me a story is worth a lot more than some flashy care or nudity. I think people these days care too much about the content rather than focusing in on the narrative. My finalised script will aim to disagree, challenge and go against conformity and social rules.


Alan Garner - Red Shift

Before I started my course at Plymouth College of Art, I took a gap year and shortly before my gap year I studied for one very long year at Falmouth University. I studied a course titles English With Creative Writing here and during our very long weeks and long modules which we'd usually be crawling along the ground with sleep deprivation after we looked at some very interesting topics.

A couple of seminars that stood out for me were:

What makes good and bad writing?
Can we bend the rules and still have a good story?

First off, it was in my opinion at the time and still currently that nothing makes good or bad writing, not to an audience of 2 or more any way, and I believe that this is the case because good or bad writing isn't a fact, it is an opinion based on an individuals thoughts. My lecturer at the time argues that bad writing is when the rules of writing isn't followed. I spoke about this before being the three-act structure. But why do you need to follow the rules and if you don't why are you automatically classified as a bad writer? Well let's face it, you aren't. And this is where I move on to my second seminar that for me stood out; can we bend the rules and still have a good story? Yes, damn right you can! And Alan Garner proved it in his book Red Shift. Red Shift is a telling story that follows the lives of it's main characters but throughout different times in history, it's a story of realism, relationships, love and passion. It's book is set in the most peculiar way, where sometimes each timeline is written complete separate from one another and then there are times were all timelines are thrown together to make this really complex storyline. I read this book firstly 5 years ago and ever since it has became one of my favourites. Not because of it's simplicity or because it's famous or any other cliché reason such as that, but because it's different, it tells a story in a different way than what most people have come to expect and that lights my mind up in so many ways.

This is going down as my main influence for my project, because Alan Garner is incredible and definitely to be considered as one my most influential role models. I find his work to be different, weird but astonishingly brilliant.

I love to twist things around, make them different and even at times purposely make things out to not make sense, as been seen in a few of my past creations. I like the fact that in Alan's book you follow three characters (always remaining the same characters and never changing) throughout different timelines, it's fascinating. You don't just have a story here, you have a multi-genre masterpiece! 

Quentin Tarantino - Pulp Fiction

So I have mentioned Pulp Fiction a fair bit during this blog and I am going to mention it again. Pulp Fiction for me isn't my biggest influence for this module but it sure did play it's part. I had never seen it before in my entire life up until about a month ago. Me and my other half were sat watching TV with her family and her mom said Rose do you fancy watching Pulp Fiction? to which Rose replies 'yes', and that was it, I witnessed one of the most craziest and awesome films of all time. 

This multi-layered, multi-genre masterpiece played a huge part in my artefact for several reasons. First reason being, the structure, as have mentioned a couple other times before the majority of films are written in a common three-act structure (act 1, act 2, act 3) whereas Quentin Tarantino took the classic three-act structure and turned it on it's ear with Pulp Fiction, which contained a three-act structure, but ordered them as Act One, Act Three and Act Two. What Quentin did was make the decision to not conform with this movie. He chose to create something different, and he definitely achieved different. With the likes of John Travolta and Samuel Jackson being two of the main stars throughout this movie, it went from being a low budget spectacle to a high-end masterpiece. 

Do you ever look back at a film and think to yourself or have a conversation with someone and say 'I cannot picture that character being played by anyone other than *said actors name*? Well that's what it's like with Pulp Fiction. The characters throughout my script are going to stay continuous, they will not change, but each timeline that happens will change said characters role. Confusing? Not really, just a little thought provoking.

I like fact that Pulp Fiction pieces one overall narrative together in a different way, it chooses to overlap the narrative, creating something that you need to think about rather than just watch. Just like films where they put the conclusion at the beginning and then spend the rest of the film explaining the end, like Harold Pinter did in his film Betrayal, changing something to not fit the standard doesn't mean it doesn't make sense or is wrong, it means it's creative.

Mr. Nobody

This is where we move on to my third and final influence for my script. Not so much in terms of multi-narrative or even because the film itself is fantastic, but because this isn't your usual everyday Hollywood blockbuster. It uses CGI to make it work, it relies heavily on a futuristic look. However saying that, with it being pretentious and arty-fartsy, It does have a multi-dimensional feel to it, even though the film describes one life through multi-dimension it only ever feels as if you're following one story, one narrative and that's what is so fantastic about this film. 

I find it difficult to say why this film influenced me, I just know it did. How? Well 20 minutes in to watching it, I picked my laptop up and just started writing, words poured out through my watching of this movie. 

However what I can say is that, Red Shift is three timelines, Pulp Fiction is Three-Acts and Mr Nobody is three points throughout one persons life. They all link, all of my influences have that three part connection, and it's not until now at the precise moment of writing this that I have realised that. Maybe the number three stands out to me? Maybe before this module I thought that you could only do a limited amount of stuff with anything that had the number three attached to it, but now, with my research I have a more open mind and have realised that the number 3 is endless.


So when it came to researching pre-production I came across several sites that attempt to explain what it takes to create a successful video, all seemed a bit wordy and overdone, whereas I was looking for something that was simple, to the point and had everything I needed to know about pre-production in the simplest of forms. 

Here is a list a websites I originally read through before making my final decision:

The final site I decided to use to help me fill the pre-production segment of my blog was:

My reason for using this website over any other particular was predominantly because of it's layout. It was simple, effective and described everything you need to know without becoming pretentious over the topic it was talking about.

To begin with you need to define your audience. Who are you writing for? What sort of people are going to use this video? Is it short term or long term? These alone are some of the questions you need to answer effectively before starting to create your suggested video. According to 'narrowing down your video viewer to a specific buyer persona rather than a generic interested audience will help you create a much more targeted and effective video in the long run'. I completely agree with this statement as anybody can create something that is generic with a short term effect on it's audience, but my opinion is that if you can calculate what a wider range of audience is going to be then you can successfully create something that will stay implanted in the viewers minds for a much longer period of time.

You need to create one specific message as using multiple outcomes within one short clip can cause confusing and impatience within your audience. Although it is in fact important to know who your target audience is, it is also just as vital to know what your message is and you need to make this very clear before you start filming. What is the point of your movie? What is the story? If it's just an advert, what are you selling? Or if you aren't selling, what are you promoting? Singlegrain state that 'a tailored video with a specific message and a specific goal will be much more effective in the long run'. 

Depending on what sort of movie/advert/short film you're creating depends on whether or not you will have a budget. Even if you're a student and are making a film for class, it is always important to take in to account the subject of budget. My reasoning for this is because I believe that even if it just a small time student film that a small budget can vastly improve the quality of your work, regardless of whether it's paying someone on the animation course a small amount (even in just beer) to help you animate your film, it was vastly improve your final product. Singlegrain state that 'without a guiding budget at the beginning of pre-production, it's impossible to manage expectations. You're going to end up over-promising and under-delivering'. Again I will have to yet agree with singlegrain as it's always better in my opinion to over-prepare rather than under-prepare. This was is because if something goes wrong you're prepared for that circumstance and can find a quick effective way around it without too many problems occurring.

Now this is where it gets interesting for me as I will now slightly go in detail about the script writing element of pre-production. I believe that one of the most important if not thee most important part of a production is the script, as without an idea there wouldn't be a film. Even if you're creating a short film that is black and white and silent you still need some sort of script to navigate the characters around. The only way through this, and I believe the only way you would not need to have a script is if you're doing a film which is complete improvisation. Everything is done as the camera rolls and nobody really knows where it's going to go, end up as, or turn out. From my experience doing this module and writing a script as my artifact, I do believe that it is very important to get feedback from as many people as possible before writing your final draft, singlegrain state that 'taking time to get professional input at this stage of pre-production is an extremely worthwhile investment'. It's true, you can write 1,2,3,4,5 drafts of the same script and still not be happy with it, and leaving yourself unsure of where to take it you find yourself at a stalemate, therefore others opinions from peers and tutors is a good thing to look for.

I think film has far too many restrictions in place for it to be classified as a 'free art' nowadays. Pulp Fiction came out and basically put it's middle finger up to the industry by not conforming to what would have been traditional methods in that day and age. It turned a story into a whirlwind adventure, by cutting and splicing and putting segments all over the place but in a way that you could still follow the film as a narrative, rather than a bunch of nonsense that didn't make sense. When you create a film, I feel that you shouldn't worry about the length, because if at the end of a production, if your story is good enough you can cut the video down to fit a certain time scale (but only if you have to) and it will still be a fantastic spectacle.

One of the main aspects of filmmaking in my belief is storyboarding. Storyboarding is more than just a bunch of pictures laid out in order on a piece of blank paper. Storyboarding is a visual script, it's visualising the look of your film, putting all the correct props in the correct places. Placing the characters in the best positions for camera and to give the camera operators a sense of direction to which way they should be filming and how they should be filming rather than them just turning up on set and 'seeing how it goes'. Take your time to storyboard, if you have written something based on or aspired by something else, research the storyboarding used in those particular films and that way your script can either or not achieve the same style/theme/look.

There are some other overlooked (in non-professional terms) aspects of filmmaking that even myself haven't really thought about until researching what it actually takes to create a successful film. These aspects are shot lists, production schedules, location scouting and equipment needs.

Shot lists are very important, although they may not always be needed, it all depends on the type of movie you're looking to make. However, even in small productions of 10 seconds to 5 minutes long, having a shot list can be greatly advantageous. Why? Because it works well with the storyboard, it tell you where the camera should be in that specific scene, it tells you what setting your camera should be at, what shooting speed you should be at and more. This alone speeds up the production time and could greatly reduce both people's time and that reduces the overall cost.

Location scouting may be something stupid to a few people as I have heard in my experience however it can also be a great benefit when it comes to your own production. Location scouting isn't just about visiting somewhere, taking a few pictures and leaving it at then. Location scouting is so much more, yes, okay, granted you do just visit a place, take pictures but then there is the rest, print those pictures off, stick them in a scrapbook, annotate them, rip them apart, picture your film, your characters, props etc within each specific location, think about the amount of space available to both you and your crew and then you start to narrow down which one is the best location to use.

Equipment lists are also beneficial as if you take the time to research what equipment does what then you will know what equipment you will need to achieve that specific look you're looking for.

Production schedules are now a benefit to the whole cast and crew because it tells people when they're and are not needed, where they have to be, times they need to be there etc, it sort of gives the cast and crew a specific outline on the upcoming work they're partaking in.


At the start of this module, I wasn't present at college. The college knows my situation at this point in my life was a very difficult one which lead to a unfortunate happenings which then led to me having to take time off, of university.

Due to this I missed 95% of the core lessons for this module, so in a sense I have come in to this module blind. However I have given it my best shot and feel like my journey from start (September) to end (January) has been very worthwhile.

When you're going through a life changing situation you can do one of two things; keep beating yourself up and convince yourself that this is as good as it gets or; you can pick yourself up, become the person you know you're, and come out the other side of hell with arms wide up. The second choice is precisely what I chose to do.

To begin with I found myself a little lost, unsure of what direction to take my research and therefore I feel behind, but then I started reading through some of my old work, unfinished scripts, movie plans that were made in yesteryear and so on. And it hit me, I NEED TO MAKE A SCRIPT! And therefore it was my sole purpose from that point on to create something that was unique, experimental and crazy weird.

I started off by revisiting something I had written a while back; 'Unseen'. A story about a copper who lost her father as a child and then spent her time becoming the best possible agent so she could finally catch the killer. In the latter, the agency Henson (lead character) works for catches her fathers killer and Henson heads in to interrogate him, during this process the story takes an interesting turn of events where her father's killer turns out to be an alien. This idea of mine didn't go too far and didn't have much soul to it so therefore I left it and started aiming higher.

In John's module during our second year I created an experimental piece titled 'Just A Dream' where there were only two characters for the whole short. In the beginning half the screen was tinted black and white and the other half in colour which was used to resemble the line between reality and dream. During this short, the girl character begins to feel a sense of unease, as if she is being followed by a spirit, to begin with this spirit is unseen, however a course of events happen and during the end of the short, she finally sees the guy creator and so she asks him who he is to which he replies 'I am you creator'. This short was also completely experimental, I manipulated and altered both sound and image throughout. Replacing everything (sound wise) with something that didn't belong. Instead of hearing the sound of water, I replaced it with a distorted sounding echoed chainsaw which I found to work quite well with the flow of water that was on screen. There are many other examples I could write here but instead I will just post a link to the finished project below. Just to reassure you, I am reiterating a post project for a good purpose, that is because, even though I haven't written my short down as one of my influences for this module, I will however like to state that, my creating this unique short was the start of what has led to me creating more weird and deluded stuff. This short was filled with experiment, colour and then lack of, manipulation and the process of two simultaneous characters which has helped me in the writing of my artefact for this module.

This then spurred my next idea to come into action titled; 'Not So Clear' , which is a telling story created with multiple narratives which is a comparison between one event and another and then a separate storyline about another point of view. Two lovers, one dies, one lives, then they both die, then the story happens again, in the other order, and then again, from the hospitals point of view. A multi-narrative piece telling the same story from three different standpoints. I don't really have too much to write about this one because it was only a week after revising this idea that I watched Mr. Nobody, Pulp Fiction and Red Shift which then led to my final creation Neverland.

Neverland wasn't always called Neverland, it's original title was 'High'.