"Dave Watterson" <
dave.filmsocs@virgin.net> wrote:
When a good amateur makes a drama it almost demands more than 10 minutes
for the very reasons Ken Wilson spells out:
The difference is between film makers who can do it and those who cannot.
Ay, that's the rub. When amateur dramas run over 8 minutes then
very few hold me on the edge of my seat...mostly I guess the ending anyway.
A good story teller is a rare, rare breed.
As to documentaries ... if the subject has any complexity at all it is hard
to explain it adequately in a few minutes. I agree that there are many
tediously
overlong works but the appropriate length again has more to do with the
skill
of the maker than the genre of film.
There are too many unskilled makers using doc genre, because it's relatively
easy these days to shove a load of glorified holiday snaps onto the screen,
add musak to taste (or normally not to taste!), cut and gift wrap. That's
a rap.
Just a little aside re using too many types of transitions too in films,
as many still insist on doing....just finishing off a two minute film entitled,
"Transitions" using nearly every transition I could lay my hands on!!!!!
Hee, hee, hee, wot a larf!
For those still feeling their way into drama production, for example, it
is important to realise that the story may be conveyed not just by dialogue
but by action, camera angle and movement, sets, clothes, props and even
the
way character's look at one another.
But that runs into the thorny ol problem of amateur actors being able to
express facial subtleties. Get two man/female amateur actors to look at
each other and express, say love/anger with each other....try it!
Or in these days get two amateur MEN to express love! Bet the audience would
laugh.
Albert...curled up in the stalls.