1
00:00:10,300 --> 00:00:12,830
Hi my name is Tony and
this is Every Frame a Painting.
2
00:00:12,830 --> 00:00:16,209
Today I’m going to switch things up
and talk about problem-solving.
3
00:00:16,209 --> 00:00:19,270
One of the reasons I like filmmaking is
that sometimes you have to design
4
00:00:19,270 --> 00:00:21,630
a solution to a particular
stumbling block.
5
00:00:21,630 --> 00:00:24,750
For example, how do you show
a text message in a film?
6
00:00:31,400 --> 00:00:34,610
It’s an interesting conundrum.
Texting is kinda visual, so in theory,
7
00:00:34,610 --> 00:00:36,230
this shouldn’t be hard.
8
00:00:36,230 --> 00:00:38,600
And yet every time a filmmaker
cuts to an insert of a phone
9
00:00:41,600 --> 00:00:45,430
you can hear the audience yawning. Many
films make it so characters don’t text
10
00:00:45,430 --> 00:00:47,680
or they read the messages
out loud like idiots.
11
00:00:47,680 --> 00:00:51,300
Or worse, they invent some reason
for the phones not to work.
12
00:00:51,300 --> 00:00:54,070
--97% nationwide coverage and we
find ourselves in the three percent
13
00:00:54,070 --> 00:00:57,120
But in the last four or five years,
something’s happened. Filmmakers have
14
00:00:57,120 --> 00:01:01,510
started adopting a new formal convention
the onscreen text message.
15
00:01:01,510 --> 00:01:03,580
It has exploded in just a few years.
16
00:01:03,580 --> 00:01:05,500
I first noticed it on the
BBC version of Sherlock.
17
00:01:10,000 --> 00:01:13,229
But after consulting Twitter, we found
earlier examples in soap operas
18
00:01:13,700 --> 00:01:15,670
teen movies
19
00:01:16,500 --> 00:01:19,479
and in films from South Korea and Japan.
20
00:01:19,479 --> 00:01:22,479
Regardless of where you first saw it,
this is a great example of how
21
00:01:22,479 --> 00:01:24,140
film form is always evolving.
22
00:01:24,140 --> 00:01:26,899
So why are filmmakers adopting this?
23
00:01:28,000 --> 00:01:29,899
I think there’s 3 simple reasons.
24
00:01:29,899 --> 00:01:33,750
First off, it saves money. If you have
a story where texting is important,
25
00:01:33,750 --> 00:01:37,050
the director can save a ton of money
by not shooting 60 close-ups of phones.
26
00:01:37,050 --> 00:01:39,250
All you need is AfterEffects & this guy:
27
00:01:39,250 --> 00:01:41,440
--Andrew Kramer here
for Video Copilot.net
28
00:01:42,000 --> 00:01:45,950
Second, it’s artistically efficient.
Shot-reverse shot is slow
29
00:01:45,950 --> 00:01:48,819
because the phone has to be
onscreen long enough to read it.
30
00:01:48,819 --> 00:01:50,890
Sometimes in huge,
ridiculous grandma font.
31
00:01:50,890 --> 00:01:54,670
Onscreen texting solves a lot of this.
It allows us to combine
32
00:01:54,670 --> 00:01:57,740
action and reaction in the same frame.
Best of all,
33
00:01:57,740 --> 00:02:01,000
it gives us an uninterrupted view of the
actor’s performance which is always nice
34
00:02:02,869 --> 00:02:06,150
But there’s a third reason this has
been noticed: elegant design.
35
00:02:06,150 --> 00:02:10,669
And this is where Sherlock is definitive
This is beautiful, in and of itself.
36
00:02:10,669 --> 00:02:12,840
You’ll notice: there’s no bubble
around the text, because
37
00:02:12,840 --> 00:02:14,819
the bubble is the first thing
that becomes outdated.
38
00:02:14,819 --> 00:02:18,380
The font has stayed consistent for each
season of the show. The color is white
39
00:02:18,380 --> 00:02:20,370
instead of different colors for
different characters.
40
00:02:20,370 --> 00:02:23,480
We arent told who’s sending or receiving
which is great because now the audience
41
00:02:23,480 --> 00:02:26,280
has to infer based on the message, which
increases our involvement.
42
00:02:26,280 --> 00:02:29,360
The words appear next to the phone
but they float independently.
43
00:02:29,360 --> 00:02:32,420
Compare that to this film, where the
messages move as if they’re attached
44
00:02:32,420 --> 00:02:34,400
to the device.
Wait no, to the person.
45
00:02:34,400 --> 00:02:36,200
No, to the device.
Make up your mind.
46
00:02:36,200 --> 00:02:38,239
So who knows? Maybe this
will be a new convention,
47
00:02:38,239 --> 00:02:40,239
maybe it’s just a stepping stone.
--NO.
48
00:02:41,000 --> 00:02:42,850
But while Sherlock seems to have
solved how to do text messages,
49
00:02:42,850 --> 00:02:44,459
we have another issue.
50
00:02:44,459 --> 00:02:47,790
Many many people have tried,
but we still don’t have
51
00:02:47,790 --> 00:02:50,000
that one really good way of
depicting the internet.
52
00:02:50,000 --> 00:02:52,410
Some methods are not exactly cheap.
53
00:02:53,500 --> 00:02:55,010
Others are kinda inefficient.
54
00:02:57,010 --> 00:02:58,850
And others... well, you know.
55
00:03:00,000 --> 00:03:02,610
I am actually a big fan of one new
development: the desktop film
56
00:03:02,610 --> 00:03:05,610
where all of the action takes
place directly on the screen.
57
00:03:05,610 --> 00:03:07,000
--Let me show you.
58
00:03:07,000 --> 00:03:09,709
I can’t speak for anyone else,
but these films are actually pretty
59
00:03:09,709 --> 00:03:12,610
similar to how I receive information
on a daily basis.
60
00:03:13,500 --> 00:03:15,190
Some have emotional resonance.
61
00:03:16,000 --> 00:03:17,190
Some are mysterious.
62
00:03:18,190 --> 00:03:20,000
And some are wonderfully experimental.
63
00:03:25,630 --> 00:03:28,450
But if you want to explore the cutting
edge, there’s only one place to go
64
00:03:28,450 --> 00:03:30,450
--One ticket to Tokyo, please
65
00:03:35,920 --> 00:03:39,420
Where for the last 2 decades, animation
has been coming up with wild and crazy
66
00:03:39,420 --> 00:03:41,090
ways to show the world online,
67
00:03:41,090 --> 00:03:43,500
Whether they be Superflat and floating.
68
00:03:44,500 --> 00:03:46,969
Or message board posts as intertitles
69
00:03:47,500 --> 00:03:50,010
Or plugging into a separate
green online world
70
00:03:51,010 --> 00:03:53,379
And there's a bunch of other
fascinating possibilities that
71
00:03:53,379 --> 00:03:55,060
may or may not work in other films
72
00:03:55,060 --> 00:03:57,500
but are really interesting
just to consider.
73
00:03:58,000 --> 00:04:00,189
Even live-action films from
Asian directors have tried this.
74
00:04:00,189 --> 00:04:02,000
Physical rooms where people chat.
75
00:04:03,500 --> 00:04:05,420
An animated world within the cell phone.
76
00:04:07,420 --> 00:04:10,300
All of these are experiments
and some are honestly failures.
77
00:04:10,300 --> 00:04:12,250
But that’s good,
because people are trying.
78
00:04:12,250 --> 00:04:15,150
And for once, this is a level playing
field. You and I have
79
00:04:15,150 --> 00:04:17,459
as much of a chance of figuring
out the solution as the next
80
00:04:17,459 --> 00:04:21,649
Hollywood film. For something
like this, lack of money is an advantage
81
00:04:21,649 --> 00:04:24,300
Remember: cheap, efficient, elegant.
82
00:04:25,699 --> 00:04:27,300
For all I know, the solution
is already out there.
83
00:04:27,300 --> 00:04:28,910
--A hacker
84
00:04:29,910 --> 00:04:31,500
Hell, Sherlock may have figured it out.
85
00:04:32,500 --> 00:04:35,910
But in the meantime I think it’s
nice to appreciate a small formal step
86
00:04:35,910 --> 00:04:39,509
in the right direction. This is proof
that film form is not set in stone.
87
00:04:39,509 --> 00:04:43,169
People don’t stop inventing this stuff.
And right now, at least,
88
00:04:43,169 --> 00:04:47,139
I see a big problem we haven’t solved
yet. And a very level playing field
89
00:04:47,139 --> 00:04:49,300
for anyone who wants to go for it.