Week 5 and we finally started filming. This is in part due to the fact that we have at last grasped a solid idea for our film. Week 5. Do I feel yet that I am beginning to understand the interweavings of Berlin yet? Definitely not enough to create the fictional movie we originally set out to film. Nor do I envision the ability to do so by the time I leave. The city is too complex. Our idea now does not require us to achieve such a understanding fortunately, but it does require that we make an attempt. We have decided to combine the ideas of creating a documentary of the creation of the fiction film and of creating a documentary of us carrying out our goals in the city. As Rossellini did so well, we want to develop characters that embody a group.
From our standpoint, the American boy character is more important to embody properly. This character embodies us. He will develop as a character throughout the film (the film that we will never actually make) based on how he is shaped by his experiences with Berlin. In the movie, the Berlin girl would embody Berlin. Berlin is obviously too big for a small group of Americans to change though, so naturally there is no development in this character throughout the film. We simply learn more and more about her. Obviously in cinema though, in order for the audience to learn about a character, someone (the writer) had to know her in the first place. Our documentary of creating a fictional romance film will focus on us striving to “meet and know” this character. The filming of our attempts to achieve our own personal goals will allow us to create our own memories of Berlin in film, and through this each one of us will resemble the development of the American boy character that is designed to embody all of us. In effect, a positive feedback loop is created.
This method will ultimately achieve two major goals for our film (once again, our film that we will never actually create). One, it will be effective for using the external world as a backdrop for the internal world. We will be able to decide the Berlin settings that represent our memories for the film. Two, we will be able to formulate a conclusion in which we build a real relationship between two characters that embody two different groups, a relationship of actual events, actual settings, actual progression, and actual memories.
The relationship written by Wolfgang Kohlhaase in “A Berlin Romance” does the very thing we are attempting. He creates a relationship between a West Berlin boy and an East Berlin girl, though in this relationship the characters embody equally sized groups thus both characters develop. This relationship may have been easier for Kohlhaase, being an East Berliner, considering his proximity to West Berlin. Still, he must have had more troubles creating Hans than Uschi. I would be interested in asking Herr Kohlhaase:
“In A Berlin Romance you create a symbolic relationship resembling a divided city by embodying the two divisions in the two characters of the relationship. And through their interactions, the two develop together toward a temporary common fate, in which this development resembles that of the divisions. What process do you use, if any, to develop characters for this purpose? How familiar were you with West Berlin at the time? How did you familiarize yourself in order to create Hans so effectively?”
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Week 4
We need to begin filming, for an epiphany is so hard to reenact. We missed the footage of this very thing this week. This week, Josh decided to “quit” Pepsi. Naturally, wagers arise and punishments for failure are devised. The final verdict was that Josh must approach a cute girl of our choosing if he were to fail. If you know Josh, this is quite a fitting “punishment.” While fine-tuning the details of the wager it came to mind that this would be a great means for our male character to meet the Berlin girl. That is, he loses the wager. This works into the film concept since it would bring about humorous memories for those involved. Of course, we would want to force Josh to meet a variety of Berlin girls in order to study the interactions. This would allow us to properly script a symbolic introduction of Josh to an all-encompassing Berlin. It then occurred that this is a group memory and that we should all force ourselves to meet Berliners and attempt to create an introductive interaction that embodies all of our experiences. In fact, we should scratch the entire fiction idea and create a documentary of us forcing eachother to go out of our shells/comfort zones and meet Germans and experience the city. This would truly bring out the full potential of our goal to understand that of which is [pause] Berlin.
The honeymoon phase of this idea passed very quickly though. We soon realized that such a documentary would not have much of a body or course that would captivate an audience, or for that matter, serve much purpose at all other than something to laugh at. It would also potentially cross into voyeurism, which would be improper filming. And we’re professionals here. We do, however, enjoy the concept of creating goals for ourselves to achieve in order to experience the city in ways that we may not have without the group “pact” to do so. How to shape this into a film will be our homework for the week (along with developing some goals).
Many aspects of Rossellini’s “Germania Anno Zero,” which we viewed this week, have brought about things to consider for our very own films. He too was an outsider looking in on a foreign city, coincidentally that city being Berlin. Though I doubt it was coincidentally chosen for our viewing. So clever. Rossellini created a film that was an objective assessment of a society in rough times. He documented memories of a city in ruins, both physically and mentally. Unlike Brecht, he did not cross the “fourth wall” of theatre in order to draw in the audience. He allowed the audience to take in his film as they may and experience it for themselves. This film portrays his own observations of Berlin, and that alone. There wasn’t necessarily any objective behind the film as was apparent in Brecht’s “Khule Wampe.”
Rossellini also effectively used the physical ruins of the city as a backdrop to demonstrate the psychological ruins of the city. He truly did achieve creating a film about Berlin as opposed to a film that happened to be in Berlin. This was enhanced by his use of non-professional, “authentic” actors, which allowed natural and real expressions and reactions to events that occur in the movie. Many of these characters were used to embody a group, which was an interesting technique used by Rossellini to demonstrate a certain demographic. This allowed him to bring a social dimension down to a much more personable and simple level of understanding.
Considering these aspects could be very influential in the development of our film. Our film should be objective, since it is our memories. No two of us will experience Berlin the same, thus we cannot really draw anyone but ourselves into the film. Our film should utilize authenticity in order to properly depict the real-life characters of Berlin. Our film should strive for simplified characters that embody an aspect of Berlin we want to portray. And finally, our film should properly use the external world to bring about recollection of the emotions, timing, and setting of our memories.
The honeymoon phase of this idea passed very quickly though. We soon realized that such a documentary would not have much of a body or course that would captivate an audience, or for that matter, serve much purpose at all other than something to laugh at. It would also potentially cross into voyeurism, which would be improper filming. And we’re professionals here. We do, however, enjoy the concept of creating goals for ourselves to achieve in order to experience the city in ways that we may not have without the group “pact” to do so. How to shape this into a film will be our homework for the week (along with developing some goals).
Many aspects of Rossellini’s “Germania Anno Zero,” which we viewed this week, have brought about things to consider for our very own films. He too was an outsider looking in on a foreign city, coincidentally that city being Berlin. Though I doubt it was coincidentally chosen for our viewing. So clever. Rossellini created a film that was an objective assessment of a society in rough times. He documented memories of a city in ruins, both physically and mentally. Unlike Brecht, he did not cross the “fourth wall” of theatre in order to draw in the audience. He allowed the audience to take in his film as they may and experience it for themselves. This film portrays his own observations of Berlin, and that alone. There wasn’t necessarily any objective behind the film as was apparent in Brecht’s “Khule Wampe.”
Rossellini also effectively used the physical ruins of the city as a backdrop to demonstrate the psychological ruins of the city. He truly did achieve creating a film about Berlin as opposed to a film that happened to be in Berlin. This was enhanced by his use of non-professional, “authentic” actors, which allowed natural and real expressions and reactions to events that occur in the movie. Many of these characters were used to embody a group, which was an interesting technique used by Rossellini to demonstrate a certain demographic. This allowed him to bring a social dimension down to a much more personable and simple level of understanding.
Considering these aspects could be very influential in the development of our film. Our film should be objective, since it is our memories. No two of us will experience Berlin the same, thus we cannot really draw anyone but ourselves into the film. Our film should utilize authenticity in order to properly depict the real-life characters of Berlin. Our film should strive for simplified characters that embody an aspect of Berlin we want to portray. And finally, our film should properly use the external world to bring about recollection of the emotions, timing, and setting of our memories.
Week 3
How many centuries did it take Ruttman to even begin to develop his symphony, or to create his first sketch of Berlin? I consider the task my group has taken on as I walk the streets of Berlin day to day. What embodies Berlin? I don’t have any grand illusion of understanding the interweavings of Berlin this soon, but can I within sufficient time for our film? I allude to the potential issues raised last week. How do we create a fictional character that is supposed to embody Berlin when we do not truly know Berlin? How do we make a movie about Berlin as opposed to a movie that happens to be in Berlin? We strive to create a cinematic portrait of a city of which all we see is the façade. In order for the film to be about Berlin and for the girl to embody Berlin, we must be able to look deeper into the city and extract that which is Berlin. This city is so deep and complex that I constantly fear the depressing ending of “Displaced Person.” I do not want to leave this city with the lack of understanding of this new city that I possessed upon my arrival.
It appears that the members of my group have experienced the same overwhelming feelings throughout this last week. We began to discuss alternatives to achieving the initial goal. What does this movie really hope to portray? We concurred that our film should strive to record memory. It should paint a picture of Berlin based on our memories and of that which we experience. The first alternative was to cut the script down to only a skeleton of the story as to allow our experiences to shape the body of the film. Although, it still seemed a bit too difficult of a task to produce such a film. Thus, we concluded with an outsider’s suggestion of filming a documentary of the development and creation of a fictional movie without ever filming the final product. This would allow all of our ideas and experiences to be documented and to give the audience a picture of what we had hoped to produce.
Bertolt Brecht displays an interesting technique in his film “Kuhle Wampe or: Who Owns the World?” to portray an aspect of a city in his film. At the beginning of the movie a boy that fails to find work for the day comes home for dinner only to be scolded by his father. He then proceeds to commit suicide. Throughout the remainder of the movie you seek to understand the driving force behind the suicide since the character was not properly introduced. Not much is known about him, his past, or his surroundings at the time of his suicide. You are driven to study the social and economic dimensions of Berlin that the rest of the characters face throughout the duration of the story in order to develop a sense of who this boy was a where he came from. By penetrating these dimensions, Brecht allows the viewer to imagine how this boy experienced Berlin, and indirectly allows the viewer to be introduced to him. As this is achieved, the viewer may recall the strong scene just before the boy’s suicide in which he places down his watch and appears to attempt to create a connection with the viewer by looking into the camera, as if searching for empathy.
What effect do we want our characters to have? Should they draw in the viewers so that they experience Berlin vicariously through them? Or should they simply reveal our memories of Berlin? It is interesting how Brecht only focuses on a rather narrow aspect of Berlin as well. Maybe we should attempt the same, given the short amount of time, in order to increase our ability to create a more complete film. Regardless, it has been three weeks now. We need to begin filming.
It appears that the members of my group have experienced the same overwhelming feelings throughout this last week. We began to discuss alternatives to achieving the initial goal. What does this movie really hope to portray? We concurred that our film should strive to record memory. It should paint a picture of Berlin based on our memories and of that which we experience. The first alternative was to cut the script down to only a skeleton of the story as to allow our experiences to shape the body of the film. Although, it still seemed a bit too difficult of a task to produce such a film. Thus, we concluded with an outsider’s suggestion of filming a documentary of the development and creation of a fictional movie without ever filming the final product. This would allow all of our ideas and experiences to be documented and to give the audience a picture of what we had hoped to produce.
Bertolt Brecht displays an interesting technique in his film “Kuhle Wampe or: Who Owns the World?” to portray an aspect of a city in his film. At the beginning of the movie a boy that fails to find work for the day comes home for dinner only to be scolded by his father. He then proceeds to commit suicide. Throughout the remainder of the movie you seek to understand the driving force behind the suicide since the character was not properly introduced. Not much is known about him, his past, or his surroundings at the time of his suicide. You are driven to study the social and economic dimensions of Berlin that the rest of the characters face throughout the duration of the story in order to develop a sense of who this boy was a where he came from. By penetrating these dimensions, Brecht allows the viewer to imagine how this boy experienced Berlin, and indirectly allows the viewer to be introduced to him. As this is achieved, the viewer may recall the strong scene just before the boy’s suicide in which he places down his watch and appears to attempt to create a connection with the viewer by looking into the camera, as if searching for empathy.
What effect do we want our characters to have? Should they draw in the viewers so that they experience Berlin vicariously through them? Or should they simply reveal our memories of Berlin? It is interesting how Brecht only focuses on a rather narrow aspect of Berlin as well. Maybe we should attempt the same, given the short amount of time, in order to increase our ability to create a more complete film. Regardless, it has been three weeks now. We need to begin filming.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Weeks 1 & 2
Weeks 1 & 2
Berlin has been an interesting city to immerse myself into. Its recent history of varying extremist governments has shaped a culture into one with much diversity and baggage. As an outsider it has been a challenge to learn to understand such a unique culture. I would consider myself a fairly conditioned traveler having the ability to observe a people and accustom myself to their ways. Each location I have traveled to has held a rather stable culture over time, making it much easier to acclimatize myself based on previous notions of the culture shaped by readings and people I have met from the country. Germany in itself has a rather distinct culture with some interesting variances throughout the regions, which I have observed a small amount of prior to my arrival in Berlin, but none of these compare to what I find in Berlin. I find myself here with no prior prejudice of what to expect. I enjoy this new challenge in my travels, especially for such a unique city.
I see myself in the film “Displaced Person,” by Daniel Eisenberg, constantly studying and restudying what I see around me. The frequent fogging of scenes is very symbolic of the failure to understand, though I hope I will be able to avoid the film’s rather depressing ending of a departure with just as much ignorance as the arrival. A quote from a person I do not recall embodies Berlin from what I have experienced as of yet.
“Berlin will never have an identity because it is always seeking to find itself.”
This has been the root of the difficulties, I believe, in finding an understanding of my new surroundings. The most evident aspect of Berlin that reflects this idea is in its architecture, of which we are learning about through the “Ghosts of Berlin,” by Brian Ladd. I have never been immersed into a culture that experiences so much controversy over its buildings and monuments. There is always a clash among the citizens of which parts of the city’s past should be preserved, memorialized, or “forgotten.” Berliners seem to see the city’s architecture as the façade of their culture and pride: the significance of their buildings, the impact of their memorials, and the symbolism of what replaces their “Ghosts” (those buildings that have been “forgotten”).
The people of Berlin seem to want to shape their identities by only displaying the parts of their history they are proud of. There will be a memorial here and there to remember those that have suffered under oppressive governments, but it seems there is a large effort to rid the city of large portrayals of eras such as Nazism and the GDR. I can understand the feeling of shame in the vulnerability of one’s country, one that you hold so much pride in, to atrocities such as those eras, but should you not carry your shame so as to not make the same mistakes? The words of the Seattle rapper Byrdie in reference to his father embody what I see in the people of Berlin so far.
“Into this world, given his last name,
It was later changed, I’ll be damned if I’m going to carry his name.
What a disgrace, look at my face, you’ll see his spitting image.
His very essence reflected, with no protection from my life.”
It seems that displaying your past shows more pride than hiding the parts you are not proud of. The “protection from [your] life” is how you show that you have changed and have the ability to not make the same mistakes.
I only hope that I can understand these efforts a bit more through walking around the city purposely with no purpose. Berlin is said to display the idea of “palimpsest,” that is to write and write over. In other words, Berlin is a city of layers. Through these layers you can gain a sense of the city’s past. Some layers are a bit more hidden than others, thus will take more keen observation. The discussion of counter-memory, very prevalent in Berlin, has brought my attention to aspects of the city of which I did not notice during the first week. A large monument such as the statue of Freidrich the Great does not allow you to reflect upon the past. You see it and think that this was an important leader, but nothing meaningful. Do you learn anything from a monument such as this? What about this era should we learn from? Counter-memory monuments, such as the Nazi book burning monument, the bricks that show where the wall lied, etc., display what is no longer there but had occurred. These monuments are subtle and draw reflection. You walk over the bricks and think about the people who had to do much more to do something what was just so simple for you. You look down into the empty shelves and see a library of no ideas because a government didn’t agree with them. This makes me begin to retract my earlier statements about the people of Berlin hiding their past. They find ways to not wear their bad past so prominently, but at the same time not to hide it. This way people do not have to be reminded every day of their shame, but can still reflect if they feel the need to do so.
My group has set a goal of to create a fictional movie of memory based on our experiences in Berlin. This interestingly draws a parallel to that of which I seek to understand most about the Berlin culture. Our film will not only record time, but produce and portray time through our eyes and how we desire to remember our time here in Berlin. Obviously, all four of us will experience Berlin differently. How will we decide to create a movie that will satisfy all that each player wants to remember or not remember? What’s important to one may not be so to another, or what’s too personal to one may be something that another wants to display. In our movie, a visiting American boy that will embody our group and a girl from Berlin that will embody Berlin will meet and fall in love. Inevitably, the American has to leave in a bitter-sweet ending. The clear symbolism of this relationship will show our experiences in Berlin.
I also think about the controversy behind Ruttman’s “Berlin: Symphony of a Big City.” This large montage of Berlin creates a symphony out of Berlin showing how the whole is larger than the individual parts. All the parts work together to create such a great city. Though many argue how Ruttman’s Berlin does not properly display Berlin. I see a similar difficulty in our female character. How will we, with our limited knowledge of Berlin, truly develop her character into one that displays Berlin? Is it important that she shows simply how we view Berlin, which may have been Ruttman’s purpose? Or was Ruttman’s purpose to use pieces of Berlin to create a symphony as opposed to re-creating Berlin through a symphony? Will aspects of Berlin create our love story or should we use the love story to re-create Berlin?
My role in the group will be to help out in all aspects but to focus on pre-production and directing. This is my first time making a film and taking a course of this type. I hope to learn a lot about film making and to learn new ways of discovering a foreign culture so as to enhance my future travels as well. As a group we seek to use cinema as a “memory machine.”
Berlin has been an interesting city to immerse myself into. Its recent history of varying extremist governments has shaped a culture into one with much diversity and baggage. As an outsider it has been a challenge to learn to understand such a unique culture. I would consider myself a fairly conditioned traveler having the ability to observe a people and accustom myself to their ways. Each location I have traveled to has held a rather stable culture over time, making it much easier to acclimatize myself based on previous notions of the culture shaped by readings and people I have met from the country. Germany in itself has a rather distinct culture with some interesting variances throughout the regions, which I have observed a small amount of prior to my arrival in Berlin, but none of these compare to what I find in Berlin. I find myself here with no prior prejudice of what to expect. I enjoy this new challenge in my travels, especially for such a unique city.
I see myself in the film “Displaced Person,” by Daniel Eisenberg, constantly studying and restudying what I see around me. The frequent fogging of scenes is very symbolic of the failure to understand, though I hope I will be able to avoid the film’s rather depressing ending of a departure with just as much ignorance as the arrival. A quote from a person I do not recall embodies Berlin from what I have experienced as of yet.
“Berlin will never have an identity because it is always seeking to find itself.”
This has been the root of the difficulties, I believe, in finding an understanding of my new surroundings. The most evident aspect of Berlin that reflects this idea is in its architecture, of which we are learning about through the “Ghosts of Berlin,” by Brian Ladd. I have never been immersed into a culture that experiences so much controversy over its buildings and monuments. There is always a clash among the citizens of which parts of the city’s past should be preserved, memorialized, or “forgotten.” Berliners seem to see the city’s architecture as the façade of their culture and pride: the significance of their buildings, the impact of their memorials, and the symbolism of what replaces their “Ghosts” (those buildings that have been “forgotten”).
The people of Berlin seem to want to shape their identities by only displaying the parts of their history they are proud of. There will be a memorial here and there to remember those that have suffered under oppressive governments, but it seems there is a large effort to rid the city of large portrayals of eras such as Nazism and the GDR. I can understand the feeling of shame in the vulnerability of one’s country, one that you hold so much pride in, to atrocities such as those eras, but should you not carry your shame so as to not make the same mistakes? The words of the Seattle rapper Byrdie in reference to his father embody what I see in the people of Berlin so far.
“Into this world, given his last name,
It was later changed, I’ll be damned if I’m going to carry his name.
What a disgrace, look at my face, you’ll see his spitting image.
His very essence reflected, with no protection from my life.”
It seems that displaying your past shows more pride than hiding the parts you are not proud of. The “protection from [your] life” is how you show that you have changed and have the ability to not make the same mistakes.
I only hope that I can understand these efforts a bit more through walking around the city purposely with no purpose. Berlin is said to display the idea of “palimpsest,” that is to write and write over. In other words, Berlin is a city of layers. Through these layers you can gain a sense of the city’s past. Some layers are a bit more hidden than others, thus will take more keen observation. The discussion of counter-memory, very prevalent in Berlin, has brought my attention to aspects of the city of which I did not notice during the first week. A large monument such as the statue of Freidrich the Great does not allow you to reflect upon the past. You see it and think that this was an important leader, but nothing meaningful. Do you learn anything from a monument such as this? What about this era should we learn from? Counter-memory monuments, such as the Nazi book burning monument, the bricks that show where the wall lied, etc., display what is no longer there but had occurred. These monuments are subtle and draw reflection. You walk over the bricks and think about the people who had to do much more to do something what was just so simple for you. You look down into the empty shelves and see a library of no ideas because a government didn’t agree with them. This makes me begin to retract my earlier statements about the people of Berlin hiding their past. They find ways to not wear their bad past so prominently, but at the same time not to hide it. This way people do not have to be reminded every day of their shame, but can still reflect if they feel the need to do so.
My group has set a goal of to create a fictional movie of memory based on our experiences in Berlin. This interestingly draws a parallel to that of which I seek to understand most about the Berlin culture. Our film will not only record time, but produce and portray time through our eyes and how we desire to remember our time here in Berlin. Obviously, all four of us will experience Berlin differently. How will we decide to create a movie that will satisfy all that each player wants to remember or not remember? What’s important to one may not be so to another, or what’s too personal to one may be something that another wants to display. In our movie, a visiting American boy that will embody our group and a girl from Berlin that will embody Berlin will meet and fall in love. Inevitably, the American has to leave in a bitter-sweet ending. The clear symbolism of this relationship will show our experiences in Berlin.
I also think about the controversy behind Ruttman’s “Berlin: Symphony of a Big City.” This large montage of Berlin creates a symphony out of Berlin showing how the whole is larger than the individual parts. All the parts work together to create such a great city. Though many argue how Ruttman’s Berlin does not properly display Berlin. I see a similar difficulty in our female character. How will we, with our limited knowledge of Berlin, truly develop her character into one that displays Berlin? Is it important that she shows simply how we view Berlin, which may have been Ruttman’s purpose? Or was Ruttman’s purpose to use pieces of Berlin to create a symphony as opposed to re-creating Berlin through a symphony? Will aspects of Berlin create our love story or should we use the love story to re-create Berlin?
My role in the group will be to help out in all aspects but to focus on pre-production and directing. This is my first time making a film and taking a course of this type. I hope to learn a lot about film making and to learn new ways of discovering a foreign culture so as to enhance my future travels as well. As a group we seek to use cinema as a “memory machine.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)