WEBVTT

00:00:10.300 --> 00:00:12.830
Hi my name is Tony and
this is Every Frame a Painting.

00:00:12.830 --> 00:00:16.209
Today I’m going to switch things up
and talk about problem-solving.

00:00:16.209 --> 00:00:19.270
One of the reasons I like filmmaking is
that sometimes you have to design

00:00:19.270 --> 00:00:21.630
a solution to a particular
stumbling block.

00:00:21.630 --> 00:00:24.750
For example, how do you show
a text message in a film?

00:00:31.400 --> 00:00:34.610
It’s an interesting conundrum.
Texting is kinda visual, so in theory,

00:00:34.610 --> 00:00:36.230
this shouldn’t be hard.

00:00:36.230 --> 00:00:38.600
And yet every time a filmmaker
cuts to an insert of a phone

00:00:41.600 --> 00:00:45.430
you can hear the audience yawning. Many
films make it so characters don’t text

00:00:45.430 --> 00:00:47.680
or they read the messages
out loud like idiots.

00:00:47.680 --> 00:00:51.300
Or worse, they invent some reason
for the phones not to work.

00:00:51.300 --> 00:00:54.070
<i>--97% nationwide coverage and we
find ourselves in the three percent</i>

00:00:54.070 --> 00:00:57.120
But in the last four or five years,
something’s happened. Filmmakers have

00:00:57.120 --> 00:01:01.510
started adopting a new formal convention
the onscreen text message.

00:01:01.510 --> 00:01:03.580
It has exploded in just a few years.

00:01:03.580 --> 00:01:05.500
I first noticed it on the
BBC version of Sherlock.

00:01:10.000 --> 00:01:13.229
But after consulting Twitter, we found
earlier examples in soap operas

00:01:13.700 --> 00:01:15.670
teen movies

00:01:16.500 --> 00:01:19.479
and in films from South Korea and Japan.

00:01:19.479 --> 00:01:22.479
Regardless of where you first saw it,
this is a great example of how

00:01:22.479 --> 00:01:24.140
film form is always evolving.

00:01:24.140 --> 00:01:26.899
So why are filmmakers adopting this?

00:01:28.000 --> 00:01:29.899
I think there’s 3 simple reasons.

00:01:29.899 --> 00:01:33.750
First off, it saves money. If you have
a story where texting is important,

00:01:33.750 --> 00:01:37.050
the director can save a ton of money
by not shooting 60 close-ups of phones.

00:01:37.050 --> 00:01:39.250
All you need is AfterEffects & this guy:

00:01:39.250 --> 00:01:41.440
<i>--Andrew Kramer here
for Video Copilot.net</i>

00:01:42.000 --> 00:01:45.950
Second, it’s artistically efficient.
Shot-reverse shot is slow

00:01:45.950 --> 00:01:48.819
because the phone has to be
onscreen long enough to read it.

00:01:48.819 --> 00:01:50.890
Sometimes in huge,
ridiculous grandma font.

00:01:50.890 --> 00:01:54.670
Onscreen texting solves a lot of this.
It allows us to combine

00:01:54.670 --> 00:01:57.740
action and reaction in the same frame.
Best of all,

00:01:57.740 --> 00:02:01.000
it gives us an uninterrupted view of the
actor’s performance which is always nice

00:02:02.869 --> 00:02:06.150
But there’s a third reason this has
been noticed: elegant design.

00:02:06.150 --> 00:02:10.669
And this is where Sherlock is definitive
This is beautiful, in and of itself.

00:02:10.669 --> 00:02:12.840
You’ll notice: there’s no bubble
around the text, because

00:02:12.840 --> 00:02:14.819
the bubble is the first thing
that becomes outdated.

00:02:14.819 --> 00:02:18.380
The font has stayed consistent for each
season of the show. The color is white

00:02:18.380 --> 00:02:20.370
instead of different colors for
different characters.

00:02:20.370 --> 00:02:23.480
We arent told who’s sending or receiving
which is great because now the audience

00:02:23.480 --> 00:02:26.280
has to infer based on the message, which
increases our involvement.

00:02:26.280 --> 00:02:29.360
The words appear next to the phone
but they float independently.

00:02:29.360 --> 00:02:32.420
Compare that to this film, where the
messages move as if they’re attached

00:02:32.420 --> 00:02:34.400
to the device.
Wait no, to the person.

00:02:34.400 --> 00:02:36.200
No, to the device.
Make up your mind.

00:02:36.200 --> 00:02:38.239
So who knows? Maybe this
will be a new convention,

00:02:38.239 --> 00:02:40.239
maybe it’s just a stepping stone.
<i>--NO.</i>

00:02:41.000 --> 00:02:42.850
But while Sherlock seems to have
solved how to do text messages,

00:02:42.850 --> 00:02:44.459
we have another issue.

00:02:44.459 --> 00:02:47.790
Many many people have tried,
but we still don’t have

00:02:47.790 --> 00:02:50.000
that one really good way of
depicting the internet.

00:02:50.000 --> 00:02:52.410
Some methods are not exactly cheap.

00:02:53.500 --> 00:02:55.010
Others are kinda inefficient.

00:02:57.010 --> 00:02:58.850
And others... well, you know.

00:03:00.000 --> 00:03:02.610
I am actually a big fan of one new
development: the desktop film

00:03:02.610 --> 00:03:05.610
where all of the action takes
place directly on the screen.

00:03:05.610 --> 00:03:07.000
<i>--Let me show you.</i>

00:03:07.000 --> 00:03:09.709
I can’t speak for anyone else,
but these films are actually pretty

00:03:09.709 --> 00:03:12.610
similar to how I receive information
on a daily basis.

00:03:13.500 --> 00:03:15.190
Some have emotional resonance.

00:03:16.000 --> 00:03:17.190
Some are mysterious.

00:03:18.190 --> 00:03:20.000
And some are wonderfully experimental.

00:03:25.630 --> 00:03:28.450
But if you want to explore the cutting
edge, there’s only one place to go

00:03:28.450 --> 00:03:30.450
<i>--One ticket to Tokyo, please</i>

00:03:35.920 --> 00:03:39.420
Where for the last 2 decades, animation
has been coming up with wild and crazy

00:03:39.420 --> 00:03:41.090
ways to show the world online,

00:03:41.090 --> 00:03:43.500
Whether they be Superflat and floating.

00:03:44.500 --> 00:03:46.969
Or message board posts as intertitles

00:03:47.500 --> 00:03:50.010
Or plugging into a separate
green online world

00:03:51.010 --> 00:03:53.379
And there's a bunch of other
fascinating possibilities that

00:03:53.379 --> 00:03:55.060
may or may not work in other films

00:03:55.060 --> 00:03:57.500
but are really interesting
just to consider.

00:03:58.000 --> 00:04:00.189
Even live-action films from
Asian directors have tried this.

00:04:00.189 --> 00:04:02.000
Physical rooms where people chat.

00:04:03.500 --> 00:04:05.420
An animated world within the cell phone.

00:04:07.420 --> 00:04:10.300
All of these are experiments
and some are honestly failures.

00:04:10.300 --> 00:04:12.250
But that’s good,
because people are trying.

00:04:12.250 --> 00:04:15.150
And for once, this is a level playing
field. You and I have

00:04:15.150 --> 00:04:17.459
as much of a chance of figuring
out the solution as the next

00:04:17.459 --> 00:04:21.649
Hollywood film. For something
like this, lack of money is an advantage

00:04:21.649 --> 00:04:24.300
Remember: cheap, efficient, elegant.

00:04:25.699 --> 00:04:27.300
For all I know, the solution
is already out there.

00:04:27.300 --> 00:04:28.910
<i>--A hacker</i>

00:04:29.910 --> 00:04:31.500
Hell, Sherlock may have figured it out.

00:04:32.500 --> 00:04:35.910
But in the meantime I think it’s
nice to appreciate a small formal step

00:04:35.910 --> 00:04:39.509
in the right direction. This is proof 
that film form is not set in stone.

00:04:39.509 --> 00:04:43.169
People don’t stop inventing this stuff.
And right now, at least,

00:04:43.169 --> 00:04:47.139
I see a big problem we haven’t solved
yet. And a very level playing field

00:04:47.139 --> 00:04:49.300
for anyone who wants to go for it.