Film stripping

The process of making this project was actually kind of fun. It was fairly easy and low maintenance to do. IT was broad and open ended and allowed a lot of room for artistic leeway. I find it a little refreshing to have just a good old fashioned art project to make, experiment with and just kind of have fun with. The objective was only to create the three elements and experiment with some different mediums of film. Now granted, as I think about with almost everything I do, I wonder how this could make me a better filmmaker. It was and interesting experience perhaps seeing the paint and animations over the premade film. It could be an interesting effect to somehow recreate digitally. I felt like I had seen something similar to this in a horror movie or some kind of horror movie spoof.

The animation was easily the most tedious and frustrating part since, whatever symbol I settled on, was stuck with it for the duration of that 100 frames. I started with a little sail boat because I figured it would be simple enough, but eventually I had to transition it out and go to a bird for simplicity’s sake. The sailboat was interesting for a while in trying to animate it to be rocking back and forth, but it eventually got repetitive and tedious by frame 25, so I moved a bird in to flap its wings by the 60^th frame or so.

The last thing that was really interesting was using the different materials to make see what the effect was. My partner and I found that using oil really helped to make the water element feel more liquid-y and bubbly. This project was pretty fun, and an interesting chance to use film as a medium

P.S. I hope the title made you giggle

R4 response: Thoughts on Rough theater

I all honesty, I'm not really positive about what I've drawn from this particular reading, mostly because I don't connect as well with theatre as much as I do with film. I suppose some of the information on rough/popular theatre doesn't consciously resonate with me because to me, the "trick" to Rough theatre, that is for example, to try to do a cacophonous gag when the audience is quieter, is just second nature to me in any public speaking situation. To me, it just seems like responding correctly to the energy of the audience should just make sense to do in any setting. Upon further thought, it does make sense for there to be a distinction between a dramatic type of theatre, improv theatre and rough theatre where. In the latter two, the performance is dependent solely on the script, and/or the other participants in the scene. So, if I understand Rough Theatre correctly, the performance is dependent on variables off-stage, in lieu of what is happening on stage. In traditional theatre, the performance is the same whether the audience is falling asleep or on the edge of their seats. In rough theatre, it seems that performance would shift to literally wake them up, and respond to the needs of the audience in the moment. I suppose much like how generally when people talk to each other, we often empathically mimic each other to "humanize" ourselves when listening. How this relates to film is what is challenging me. Unless its episodic content or live, there's really no efficient way to communicate with the audience and then respond to their energy. I suppose the best example we have at this time is YouTube episodic content. On YouTube, you get the content, the content creator can look at the YouTube comments and see what the response is, then make adjustments to the quality and performance of the show. I suppose an interesting experiment would be to make a show, that's literally written as the episodes come out, based on what the audience decides or figures out. That would be a very interesting way to attempt to emulate the main component from the rough theatre.