0:00:10.300,0:00:12.830
Hi my name is Tony and[br]this is Every Frame a Painting.
0:00:12.830,0:00:16.209
Today I’m going to switch things up[br]and talk about problem-solving.
0:00:16.209,0:00:19.270
One of the reasons I like filmmaking is[br]that sometimes you have to design
0:00:19.270,0:00:21.630
a solution to a particular[br]stumbling block.
0:00:21.630,0:00:24.750
For example, how do you show[br]a text message in a film?
0:00:31.400,0:00:34.610
It’s an interesting conundrum.[br]Texting is kinda visual, so in theory,
0:00:34.610,0:00:36.230
this shouldn’t be hard.
0:00:36.230,0:00:38.600
And yet every time a filmmaker[br]cuts to an insert of a phone
0:00:41.600,0:00:45.430
you can hear the audience yawning. Many[br]films make it so characters don’t text
0:00:45.430,0:00:47.680
or they read the messages[br]out loud like idiots.
0:00:47.680,0:00:51.300
Or worse, they invent some reason[br]for the phones not to work.
0:00:51.300,0:00:54.070
--97% nationwide coverage and we[br]find ourselves in the three percent
0:00:54.070,0:00:57.120
But in the last four or five years,[br]something’s happened. Filmmakers have
0:00:57.120,0:01:01.510
started adopting a new formal convention[br]the onscreen text message.
0:01:01.510,0:01:03.580
It has exploded in just a few years.
0:01:03.580,0:01:05.500
I first noticed it on the[br]BBC version of Sherlock.
0:01:10.000,0:01:13.229
But after consulting Twitter, we found[br]earlier examples in soap operas
0:01:13.700,0:01:15.670
teen movies
0:01:16.500,0:01:19.479
and in films from South Korea and Japan.
0:01:19.479,0:01:22.479
Regardless of where you first saw it,[br]this is a great example of how
0:01:22.479,0:01:24.140
film form is always evolving.
0:01:24.140,0:01:26.899
So why are filmmakers adopting this?
0:01:28.000,0:01:29.899
I think there’s 3 simple reasons.
0:01:29.899,0:01:33.750
First off, it saves money. If you have[br]a story where texting is important,
0:01:33.750,0:01:37.050
the director can save a ton of money[br]by not shooting 60 close-ups of phones.
0:01:37.050,0:01:39.250
All you need is AfterEffects & this guy:
0:01:39.250,0:01:41.440
--Andrew Kramer here[br]for Video Copilot.net
0:01:42.000,0:01:45.950
Second, it’s artistically efficient.[br]Shot-reverse shot is slow
0:01:45.950,0:01:48.819
because the phone has to be[br]onscreen long enough to read it.
0:01:48.819,0:01:50.890
Sometimes in huge,[br]ridiculous grandma font.
0:01:50.890,0:01:54.670
Onscreen texting solves a lot of this.[br]It allows us to combine
0:01:54.670,0:01:57.740
action and reaction in the same frame.[br]Best of all,
0:01:57.740,0:02:01.000
it gives us an uninterrupted view of the[br]actor’s performance which is always nice
0:02:02.869,0:02:06.150
But there’s a third reason this has[br]been noticed: elegant design.
0:02:06.150,0:02:10.669
And this is where Sherlock is definitive[br]This is beautiful, in and of itself.
0:02:10.669,0:02:12.840
You’ll notice: there’s no bubble[br]around the text, because
0:02:12.840,0:02:14.819
the bubble is the first thing[br]that becomes outdated.
0:02:14.819,0:02:18.380
The font has stayed consistent for each[br]season of the show. The color is white
0:02:18.380,0:02:20.370
instead of different colors for[br]different characters.
0:02:20.370,0:02:23.480
We arent told who’s sending or receiving[br]which is great because now the audience
0:02:23.480,0:02:26.280
has to infer based on the message, which[br]increases our involvement.
0:02:26.280,0:02:29.360
The words appear next to the phone[br]but they float independently.
0:02:29.360,0:02:32.420
Compare that to this film, where the[br]messages move as if they’re attached
0:02:32.420,0:02:34.400
to the device.[br]Wait no, to the person.
0:02:34.400,0:02:36.200
No, to the device.[br]Make up your mind.
0:02:36.200,0:02:38.239
So who knows? Maybe this[br]will be a new convention,
0:02:38.239,0:02:40.239
maybe it’s just a stepping stone.[br]--NO.
0:02:41.000,0:02:42.850
But while Sherlock seems to have[br]solved how to do text messages,
0:02:42.850,0:02:44.459
we have another issue.
0:02:44.459,0:02:47.790
Many many people have tried,[br]but we still don’t have
0:02:47.790,0:02:50.000
that one really good way of[br]depicting the internet.
0:02:50.000,0:02:52.410
Some methods are not exactly cheap.
0:02:53.500,0:02:55.010
Others are kinda inefficient.
0:02:57.010,0:02:58.850
And others... well, you know.
0:03:00.000,0:03:02.610
I am actually a big fan of one new[br]development: the desktop film
0:03:02.610,0:03:05.610
where all of the action takes[br]place directly on the screen.
0:03:05.610,0:03:07.000
--Let me show you.
0:03:07.000,0:03:09.709
I can’t speak for anyone else,[br]but these films are actually pretty
0:03:09.709,0:03:12.610
similar to how I receive information[br]on a daily basis.
0:03:13.500,0:03:15.190
Some have emotional resonance.
0:03:16.000,0:03:17.190
Some are mysterious.
0:03:18.190,0:03:20.000
And some are wonderfully experimental.
0:03:25.630,0:03:28.450
But if you want to explore the cutting[br]edge, there’s only one place to go
0:03:28.450,0:03:30.450
--One ticket to Tokyo, please
0:03:35.920,0:03:39.420
Where for the last 2 decades, animation[br]has been coming up with wild and crazy
0:03:39.420,0:03:41.090
ways to show the world online,
0:03:41.090,0:03:43.500
Whether they be Superflat and floating.
0:03:44.500,0:03:46.969
Or message board posts as intertitles
0:03:47.500,0:03:50.010
Or plugging into a separate[br]green online world
0:03:51.010,0:03:53.379
And there's a bunch of other[br]fascinating possibilities that
0:03:53.379,0:03:55.060
may or may not work in other films
0:03:55.060,0:03:57.500
but are really interesting[br]just to consider.
0:03:58.000,0:04:00.189
Even live-action films from[br]Asian directors have tried this.
0:04:00.189,0:04:02.000
Physical rooms where people chat.
0:04:03.500,0:04:05.420
An animated world within the cell phone.
0:04:07.420,0:04:10.300
All of these are experiments[br]and some are honestly failures.
0:04:10.300,0:04:12.250
But that’s good,[br]because people are trying.
0:04:12.250,0:04:15.150
And for once, this is a level playing[br]field. You and I have
0:04:15.150,0:04:17.459
as much of a chance of figuring[br]out the solution as the next
0:04:17.459,0:04:21.649
Hollywood film. For something[br]like this, lack of money is an advantage
0:04:21.649,0:04:24.300
Remember: cheap, efficient, elegant.
0:04:25.699,0:04:27.300
For all I know, the solution[br]is already out there.
0:04:27.300,0:04:28.910
--A hacker
0:04:29.910,0:04:31.500
Hell, Sherlock may have figured it out.
0:04:32.500,0:04:35.910
But in the meantime I think it’s[br]nice to appreciate a small formal step
0:04:35.910,0:04:39.509
in the right direction. This is proof [br]that film form is not set in stone.
0:04:39.509,0:04:43.169
People don’t stop inventing this stuff.[br]And right now, at least,
0:04:43.169,0:04:47.139
I see a big problem we haven’t solved[br]yet. And a very level playing field
0:04:47.139,0:04:49.300
for anyone who wants to go for it.