Tom Ramcigam (magicmarmot) wrote,
Tom Ramcigam
magicmarmot


Well, I'm good enough to be at work today. At least for now. Hit the
rack at about 7:30, woke up at 11:30, back in bed about 1:30, and awake
at 7:00. And I made soup.
I would really like to be able to do things besides work and sleep.
Hell, I need to be able to do things besides work and sleep.
I need to go home this weekend. Work has requested another "work this
Saturday", but I've already given notice on the weekends that I'll be
gone.
It's definitely a tea day.


Made progress on the treatment/synopsis for Six Days yesterday.
I'm right at the crux of the story, which needs some finessing: it's the
first major plot point, and I think it's the time when I need to
introduce another character that I hadn't planned on originally.
At first, Six Days was going to be a short film, and it still may
be. I did at one point think about making it into a feature, but really
I want the length to be driven by the story.
There is a Verboten length range for films; between 30 and 90 minutes,
films are pretty much unmarketable. Less than 30, they fall into the
realm of the short film and are accepted by festivals and anthologies;
more than 90, and they're a feature that can be distributed by itself.
That gray area in between is a no-man's-land of experimental
films that usually never see the light of day, even if they're really
good.
It's not a hard-and-fast rule-- I have seen 70-minute features and
40-minute short films-- but there is a perception in the viewer of how
long a movie should be, and a feature window is 90 to 120 minutes.
With the synopsis/treatment, I'm writing it a lot loke a script with no
dialogue, trying to detail the action and the flow. It's not really the
way that everyone else writes, but it seems to be working for me, so I'm
gonna give it a shot.
I've already written character synopses for the main characters so I
have a pretty good idea of how they behave. It's not a whole lot of
detail-- sketches mainly-- but it focuses me on how they operate, and
helps guide the action of the story.
I guess we'll see how it goes.


Bad acting vs. bad directing: how do you tell the difference?
This has come up more than once recently when I've seen actors that were
less than stellar in one role having depth and range in another.
Different director, different outcome.
Sometimes one or the other is obvious (Ecks vs. Sever: bad directing;
Vamps 2: bad acting). But what about those ones that are not so easy to
tell?
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 0 comments