in

 

-"Ua
'— .5;—

-—-'-v‘ hr, .

 

a. lip! ‘
ml

-4,
w

P

E:

\

053$” ' ' .
51km“??? .17, 9' "milk
ﬁzzy. w ‘ . W-
; z. 3; gig ﬁd:
Shﬁﬁ? , ' V ‘.
Aiki‘r'ggé 9*“ a.
x. il‘ké‘;
a 9

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

THE FILMMAKING EVOLUTION

presented by
LAURENCE ZIMMERMAN

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

Master of degree in
Arts Telecommunication

7L V
‘ Major Professor’s Signature
5/) «(ﬂy 5/

Date

 

 

MSU is an Aﬂinnative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/CIRC/DateDue.p65-p.15

THE FILMMAKING EVOLUTION
By

Laurence Zimmerman

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Telecommunication

2004

ABSTRACT
THE FILMMAKING EVOLUTION
By

Laurence Zimmerman

Entry into the ﬁlm industry is difﬁcult due to the high cost of production.
Therefore, story content and delivery of that content is left to those fortunate
enough to be able to afford these costs. However, digital ﬁlmmaking, proposes to
open new doors for the beginning and independent ﬁlmmaker. The hype of the
medium is usually termed "The Digital Filmmaking Revolution." Rather than
follow the hype surrounding the digital medium as a revolution, this analysis will
focus on how digital technology has evolved, and how this evolution has affected
traditional ﬁlmmaking systems. This project will examine the current ﬁlmmaking
industry from an economic and cultural analysis to examine the effect that digital

technology will have on the ﬁlm industry from production to distribution.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................ iv
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 1
DIGITAL VIDEO TECHNOLOGY .............................................................. 3
Production ................................................................................... 3
Luminance and Color ..................................................................... 5
Compression ............................................................................... 6
Data Rate .................................................................................... 7
Pixel Resolution ............................................................................ 7
Post-Production .......................................................................... 10
Distribution ................................................................................. 1 1
THE DIGITAL FILMMAKING DEBATE ...................................................... 14
Aesthetics .................................................................................. 14
Technical Quality ......................................................................... 17
Standards .................................................................................. 20
Usability and Efficiency ................................................................. 21
Costs ........................................................................................ 22
THE DIGITAL BENEFITS ....................................................................... 24
DIGITAL FILMMAKING IN THE MOTION PICTURE INDUSTRY ................... 28
THE STORY WRITER: A DIGITAL SHORT ............................................... 34
Pre-Production ............................................................................ 35
Production ................................................................................. 37
Post Production .......................................................................... 40
AUDIENCE EVALUATION ..................................................................... 43
CONCLUSION ..................................................................................... 51
APPENDIX A ....................................................................................... 52
APPENDIX B ....................................................................................... 58
APPENDIX C ....................................................................................... 62
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................... 91

iii

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5

Figure 6

LIST OF FIGURES

Overall Ratings .................................................................. 58
Image Ratings ................................................................... 58
Sound Ratings ................................................................... 59
Editing Ratings .................................................................. 59
Acting Ratings ................................................................... 60
Music Ratings .................................................................... 60

iv

INTRODUCTION

Film is an important part and reﬂection of our culture. Can the digital
ﬁlmmaking process open new doors for ﬁlmmakers striving for a place in a highly
exclusive industry? The barrier to entry in ﬁlm is highly inelastic due to the
substantial cost of production. Therefore, story content and delivery of that
content is left in the hands of a few who are fortunate enough to be able to afford
those costs. Digital ﬁlmmaking is in its infancy. However, the technology behind
digital equipment is improving rapidIy. The future is pointing to all digital
production and distribution, but the debate becomes whether or not it can break
down high barriers to entry sustained by traditional ﬁlmmaking systems by
offering high quality production at cheaper production costs. There is no doubt
that the traditional Hollywood ﬁlmmaking system is a working system. Many
meaningful, entertaining, high quality ﬁlms result from this system. However, it
does not mean that there is no room for change and improvement in the system
to bring forth more ﬁlmmakers with diverse backgrounds and innovative stories to
bring to the screen. Digital ﬁlmmaking could provide the key for more aspiring
artists and business people alike to take hold of a medium that has become in a
little over a century, one of the most important cultural art forms of this age, and
in the world.

Since ﬁlmmaking is a complex conglomeration of business and artistic

endeavor, this project will examine the current ﬁlmmaking industry both from an

economic and cultural analysis, to examine the effect that digital technology will
have on the ﬁlm industry from production to distribution. Many opinions and
literature surrounding the topic of digital ﬁlmmaking are often times skewed by
the notion that digital ﬁlmmaking is the medium to end the traditional Hollywood
system. The hype of the medium is usually termed "The Digital F ilmmaking
Revolution." With technology behind digital systems improving at a rapid pace,
and falling costs, it is easy to get caught in the excitement surrounding digital
technology.

Rather than follow the hype surrounding the digital medium as a
revolution, this analysis will focus on how digital technology has evolved, and
how this evolution has affected traditional ﬁlmmaking systems to analytically
determine whether digital media may or may not help to restructure the
ﬁlmmaking industry and allow for easier entry into the ﬁlm market for aspiring
ﬁlmmakers. In addition, by empirical data from a survey, this analysis will also
examine audiences and their opinions of quality and aesthetics in digital
ﬁlmmaking after viewing a digital ﬁlm short The Story Writer. Professionals can
praise or criticize the medium to exhaustion, but it is also important to examine
the medium from the perspective of the audience. The audience and their
expectations play an important role to the current success or failure of digital
ﬁlmmaking as an alternative to traditional ﬁlmmaking processes for digital

ﬁlmmakers.

DIGITAL VIDEO TECHNOLOGY

Digital technology is improving at a tremendous rate. It can be expected
that the digital technology of today will double in technological advancement at a
rate about every two years. It is pretty safe to forecast that the motion picture
industry will eventually move to all digital production, distribution, and exhibition.

However, at the present time, digital ﬁlmmaking is still in its infancy
relative to traditional ﬁlmmaking. Therefore, it is highly debatable which medium,
digital or ﬁlm, is a better choice for ﬁlmmakers. Two major factors: quality and
price, make digital production an alternative to traditional celluloid ﬁlmmaking.
There are many different ﬂavors and kinds of digital ﬁlmmaking tools that range
in quality and price. In addition, there are many different major manufacturers
such as Sony, Panasonic, and JVC that are developing products on the cutting
edge of digital technology for consumers and professionals alike. There are three
stages, production, distribution, and exhibition that this study will cover in the
progression of digital technology. It is advances in technology that may level the

playing ﬁeld for aspiring ﬁlmmakers in the motion picture industry.

Production

In production, digital tools are available in abundance at differing price

ranges to meet the needs of ﬁlmmakers. Manufacturers provide cameras, the

basic tool of any ﬁlm production, in many different variations of price and quality.
However, whether it is an expensive high-end professional grade high-deﬁnition
camera or a low-end consumer grade mini-DV camera, the basic technology
behind the cameras remains the same.

Two major factors in the evaluation of quality for digital cameras are
lenses, and the amount of light information that can be captured on their charged
coupled device chips. Every digital video camera is made with a lens and a
charged coupled device, also called a CCD chip. In general, the better the lens of
the camera, the better image quality that can be obtained. Through the lens of a
digital camera, light is focused onto its CCD chip.

The CCD chip is composed of thousands to millions of microscopic cells
that convert the light coming through the lens of the camera to an electrical
charge proportional to the light striking the cell. In the camera electronics, the
electrical currents of the cells are converted to digital information. The most basic
consumer level cameras only have one CCD chip that combines the luminance
and the red, green, and blue color information from the light coming through the
lens. Mid-range to high-end cameras support three CCD chips. Each CCD chip is
designed to ﬁlter separately red, green, or blue (RGB) light information. The
result is a better retention of the color information from the image being recorded,
and a better quality image. In addition, the more cells on a CCD chip (larger size
of the chip) to capture light information, the better the resulting video image.

There are a few more important factors that involve video signal

processing that can be used to evaluate the quality of digital video cameras. The

factors are luminance and color information, compression ratio, data rate and

pixel resolution.

Luminance and Color

Analog signals are inﬁnite in the amount of information that can be
retained. Digital video signals, however, are always a representation of an analog
signal. Therefore, a digital video signal is ﬁnite in its representation of an image
the camera is recording. Recording analog luminance and color (RGB) signals
digitally requires a large amount of capable hardware. In most mid-range to high-
end digital video cameras, the recorder converts the RGB signal to a component
video signal. Component signals are a high quality format for video production.
They are usually written as an expression: (Y, R-Y, B-Y). The Y represents the
luminance component of the signal and the (R-Y) and (B-Y) represent the color
difference components of the signal. The (R-Y) is the color red minus the
luminance, and (B-Y) is the color blue minus the luminance. Green is expressed
as (R-Y + B-Y).‘

To keep digital video signals manageable, most digital video recorders
sample and compress a component signal. Different grades of digital video
recorders sample digital component video signals at different ratios. A sampled
digital video signal is expressed as ratio with three sets of numbers separated by
a colon. The first number in the set represents the luminance sample, the second

number represents the color red, and the third number represents the color blue.

 

' Billups, Scott. (2003). Digital Moviemaking (second edition), p. 35.

This ratio is a measure of the colorspace of the digital video signal. An ideal
value with equal sampling of a digital video signal would be 4:4:4, with luminance
and color difference components sampled equally. However, at the present time,
with the exception of some very high-end digital cameras and hard disk storage
devices to record their signals, all digital video cameras sample the red and blue
difference components to a lesser degree than the luminance component to keep
the video signal manageable. For example, a mini-DV camera samples at a ratio
of 4:1 :1, which means that for every luminance sample, red and blue are
sampled at seventy-ﬁve percent less rate than the original color information
entering through the lens of the camera. Mid-range cameras such as DV-CAM or
DVCPRO sample at 4:1 :1 ratios. High-end cameras such as HD-CAM can
sample at 3:1 :1. Some expensive high-end digital video cameras sample at a

4:424 ratio.

Compression

Digital video cameras also compress their sampled video signals at
differing degrees, further affecting the quality of the video signal. Compression of
a digital video signal is expressed as a ratio between the original signal and how
much it has been mathematically compressed. The more a video signal is
compressed, the lower quality the resulting digital image will be. Different grades
of cameras compress at different ratios, meaning that low and mid-range

cameras may compress at higher or smaller rates than some high-end cameras

and vice-versa. For example, a mid-range DigiBeta camera compresses at
smaller 2:1 ratio while a high-end HD-CAM compresses at a higher 5:1 ratio.
Some top-of-the line digital video cameras use no compression, but must use

special high-speed data recorders to record their signals.

Data Rate

Very little talked about in the world of digital video cameras, but just as
important, is the data rate at which digital video cameras sample their signals.
The higher the data rate, the more signal information is retained which results in
higher quality images. For instance, though the DigiBeta camera compresses at
a better ratio than the HD-CAM (2:1 to 5:1), the HD-CAM samples its video
image at a data rate of 140Mbs versus the DigiBeta camera that samples at a

data rate of 90Mbs.

Pixel Resolution

The pixel resolution is expressed as a ratio of the number horizontal lines
by the number of vertical lines of pixels that a camera possesses to reproduce an
image. For instance, a low-end mini-DV camera can reproduce an image
resolution of 525 horizontal lines by 480 vertical lines, or 525 x 480 lines of
resolution. Mid-range cameras produce a resolution of 720 x 480 pixels. High-

deﬁnition cameras can produce an image resolution of 1920 x 1080 pixels.

The bottom line for a technical analysis of digital video cameras is that all
the different factors that affect signal and image quality should be taken into
account collectively to effectively evaluate the camera.

The prices for digital video cameras are ideally based on the performance
and options available on the camera. Many low-end mini-DV cameras allow for
manual white balance, focus, and exposure settings that are standard on mid-
range to high-end DV cameras. However, often times, these functions are hard to
use or don’t allow for accuracy. In addition, the lenses on low-end mini-DV
cameras don’t compare in quality to the higher-grade lenses on mid-range to
high-end DV cameras.

However, there is also a trade off in price. Low-end DV cameras cost
about $2000 and up. Mid-range cameras cost from about $7000 and up. High-
end cameras cost about $90,000 and higher. The good news is that prices for
digital video acquisition are continually falling, while DV technology is continually
improving.

There are also other small, but important advancements in digital
technology that are transforming the ﬁlmmaking industry. Digital dailies are a
good example of the advancements being made in the industry with digital
technology. Dailies provide a way for the director and cinematographer of a ﬁlm
to see the ﬁlm footage that they have shot for that day to make assessments and
decisions for the next shoot. In the traditional method, a person would have to
run ﬁlm negatives to a lab where they are processed, then run the processed

footage back to a previewing theatre for review by above-the-line production

crew. It is a system that works and is beneﬁcial; however, it is also time
consuming and costly to the production.

Whether production is recorded digitally or on ﬁlm, digital dailies allow for
on the spot review of the day’s shooting. In “The Next Generation of HD Digital
Dailies,” Steven 8. Cohen remarks: “Dailies have long been a vital part of
feature-ﬁlm production. They provide the creative production crew and the studio
with a review system to conﬁrm that what they intended to capture was indeed
captured on ﬁlm or tape. Today, however, digital technologies are raising the
value and efﬁciency of dailies to a whole new level.”2 Digital dailies not only allow
for immediate review, but also allow the production crew to review each scene or
take with random access. In addition, digital dailies can be transferred
electronically to an editing station to be used by an editor to start creating a
rough-cut of the movie. Dailies can also be transferred quickly and efficiently to
producers to determine the successes and pitfalls of the production. The two
most important advantages of digital dailies are that they can save valuable time
and money. For aspiring ﬁlmmakers, taking advantage of efﬁciencies created by
digital technology, can help them keep costs of production affordable, and their

dreams alive.

 

2 Cohen, “The Next Generation of HD Digital Dailies,” DigitaICinemaMag, December 30, 2002.
http://wwwyemediacom/CPC/article—4037.shtml.

Post-Production

In editing, the digital conversion from traditional ﬁlmmaking editing
systems is complete. There are only a few ﬁlmmakers, either for learning or
nostalgia, who use the old ﬁlm editing beds to manually edit ﬁlm. Currently, large
and small budget productions alike use non-linear computer edit systems in post-
production. Like digital cameras there are many different types of editing systems
on the market and they also differ in prices. AVID non-linear editing systems are
the current standard choice in the ﬁlmmaking industry.

The beauty, though, of the non-linear editing market is that there are
enough low cost editing software on the market that are powerful enough to
mimic the performance of their high-end counterparts. The most popular are
Final Cut Pro, Adobe Premiere, and AVID DV Express. Low-cost NLE programs
are generally used by ﬁlmmakers to create rough-cut edits of their ﬁlms. The edit
decision list is saved and transferred to a high-end editing suite for the ﬁnal cut of
the ﬁlm. Low-cost editing programs allow ﬁlmmakers with tight budgets to
experiment and make creative decisions before renting costly professional
editing suites to make the ﬁnal cut of their ﬁlms.

Amazing advances for digital editing systems are happening not only in
the software itself, but also by the plug-ins created for editing software. Low cost
effects software can often produce compelling special effects that would,

heretofore, be limited to large budget ﬁlms. In addition, plug-ins are now being

IO

created that help video match the dream-like aesthetic of ﬁlm. The most
groundbreaking program to date is Magic Bullet. The program through
mathematical schemes is able to convert standard NTSC or PAL signals to 24
frames per second progressive. This enables video to more closely resemble the
ﬁlm aesthetic. In his article, “Magic Bullet Suite v. 1.0: The Look of Film at the
Cost of Video” Santiago Tapia remarks: “Magic Bullet enhances the ﬁnal image
by minimizing compression artifacts and improving low-resolution color imaging.
Finally, a variety of sophisticated ‘look’ ﬁlters may be added to color-correct the
image to more closely resemble traditional ﬁlm stocks or speciﬁc lab processes
and treatments.”3 The results of Magic Bullet are truly astounding and will only
get better as newer versions of plug-ins are created for the digital ﬁlmmaking

market.

Distribution

Digital technology is also evolving a new distribution system in the motion
picture industry. Digital distribution, however, is still in its infancy relative to digital
advancements in production and post-production. The most notable fact of digital
distribution is simply that it is an available option for ﬁlmmakers. Filmmakers can
now take advantage of the World Wide Web to market and showcase their ﬁlms
to audiences. The two most popular web distributors are Atomﬁlmscom and
iFilm.com. Atomﬁlmscom is the more prestigious of the two distributors only

because Atomﬁlms rejects ten percent of ﬁlm entries; lﬁlm will accept all entries.

 

3 Tapia, “Magic Bullet Suite v. 1.0: The Look of Film at the Cost of Video,” Videography, 27, p. 88.

II

The main technological inhibitor of growth of the World Wide Web as a
distribution system for ﬁlms is current available bandwidth technology. Digital
video images are large ﬁles that are streamlined over the web. Presently, digital
video images are too large in ﬁle size to be broadcast over the web at full
resolution and reach a broad audience. Therefore, digital video must undergo
heavy compression schemes. Often times, image quality and resolution are
severely sacriﬁced to ensure that an average audience member can adequately
receive streaming video data.

With the introduction of MPEG 4 and advances in programs such as
Media Cleaner, web distribution is advancing. Video can be streamed with
compression schemes that help retain the original quality of video while keeping
ﬁle sizes low. In addition, as web pipelines are replaced with superior technology
such as ﬁber optics, bandwidth will increase allowing for higher quality and larger
throughput of digital video.

Digital exhibition, like distribution, is still in its infancy. Large companies
such as Sony, Kodak, Panasonic, JVC, and IMAX are all currently developing
new and improved digital projectors to stay on the cutting-edge in digital
exhibition technology. In general, the quality of digital projection is determined by
resolution and brightness. Current digital projectors can produce 1280 x 1024
lines of resolution. Depending on the manufacturer, brightness ranges between
7,000 lumens and 12,000 lumens.

Although the resolution is signiﬁcantly lower than that of ﬁlm projection,

digital projection offers a few major beneﬁts. Traditional distribution for ﬁlm prints

12

requires that a duplicate negative be made from the original ﬁlm print. The
duplicate negative is then copied over and over to make release prints for
theatrical exhibition. This technique introduces scratches and dust every time the
duplicate negative is copied. In addition, every time release prints are played and
replayed the quality of the print continually degrades.

Digital projection eliminates the generation loss inherent in ﬁlm. The
release print can be stored as a data ﬁle then distributed to theatres via satellite
or a wide-band network. In theory, the ﬁrst exhibition of the ﬁlm should be the
same quality as the last. The second beneﬁt to digital projection is that it
eliminates the need to reprint and distribute ﬁlm. The printing and distribution of
ﬁlm are costly ventures to producers and distributors. Digital cinema could
signiﬁcantly reduce expensive distribution costs.

At all levels including production, distribution, and exhibition, digital
technology is rapidly advancing and gradually reshaping the motion picture
industry. Since digital ﬁlmmaking technology is still in its early stages, it is critical
for ﬁlmmakers to understand technical advantages and limitations of digital
technology. Digital technology is still hotly debated in the industry, especially at
the production stage of ﬁlm production. The debate between ﬁlm and digital is
essential to measuring the current impact of digital ﬁlmmaking on the motion

picture industry.

THE DIGITAL FILMMAKING DEBATE

The technological advances of digital technology are truly amazing, yet
the conversion to all digital production, distribution, and exhibition remains a slow
process. Traditional celluloid production, distribution, and exhibition are still the
mainstay in the motion picture industry. It is apparent that distribution and
exhibition will over time convert to digital technology as costs decrease.
Presently, the hottest debate is at the production stage of ﬁlmmaking. Though it
is generally agreed that eventually the industry will convert to all digital
production, many professionals feel that digital production has not yet reached a
level of efﬁciency and quality to meet the needs of their ﬁlm projects. The debate
focuses on aesthetics, technical quality, standards, usability and efﬁciency, and

costs.

Aesthetics

Film aesthetics have become a battle ground for digital and celluloid
ﬁlmmaking. If the camera is perceived merely as a recording mechanism,
subordinate to the story, then digital ﬁlmmaking aesthetics becomes less of an
issue, and the cost advantages to low-budget, low-end digital ﬁlmmaking

becomes apparent. In addition, if the documentary look of video is part of the

14

ﬁlmmaking aesthetic, then digital acquisition becomes a cost valuation in the
production.
However, if the aesthetics of a ﬁlm production are central to the story, then
the advantages and disadvantages of digital ﬁlmmaking must be weighted. Color,
shade, intensity, depth of ﬁeld, and focus can be used to inspire emotion, deﬁne
thematics, and create the essence of worlds and characters.
Cinematographers and directors responsible for the look of their ﬁlm
productions are the ﬁrst to speak in favor of the aesthetic advantages of celluloid.
The softness of images inherent in celluloid ﬁlmmaking is considered to be an
advantage over the hard edge video of digital ﬁlmmaking. Kuras, a professional
cinematographer in the motion picture industry, remarks: “As a cinematographer,
I still prefer shooting ﬁlm negative. With ﬁlm, you have a lot more control. It has a
different visceral image than any video. Film images are rounder—even the best
video today is harsher. This may change at some point, but it is true today.”4
Giles Musitano, a ﬁlmmaker, in his article “Small-Gauge for the Digital Age”
expresses an emotional view of image aesthetic in ﬁlmmaking by stating:
Video cameras merely record an event where
something beautiful took place, but the event is rarely
captured in a form that enables others to appreciate
the true essence of what the human eye saw to be
beautiful.”

He then goes on to state,
Video is such an ideal format for newsgathering and
current affairs programs, where raw immediacy and
realism demand a clean, ﬂat window on the world. But

this way of capturing images is usually completely
inappropriate for an average feature-length drama,

 

4 Silberg, “The Case for Film,” Millimeter, 30, p.25.

15

unless the director is intentionally trying to make an
audience question an emotional response.

The soft image is the norm in the industry and audiences have become
accustomed to the dream-like quality that celluloid images produce. If it is the
intention of the production to produce soft matted images for an aesthetic, then
celluloid is a strong choice. Digital ﬁlmmaking is continually trying to replicate the
aesthetic that is already inherent in celluloid. It can be argued that audiences
associate celluloid ﬁlm production to a standard of high quality productions and
video to low quality ﬁlm productions.

However, there are other strong interpretations of aesthetics and the role
of digital ﬁlmmaking in the industry. Digital ﬁlmmaking can be considered a
different medium than celluloid. Therefore, it could be a mistake to consider one
medium as aesthetically superior to the other. In his essay, “The Paradoxes of
Digital Photography” Lev Manovich remarks:

Even more fetishized is the “ﬁlm look” itself— the soft,
grainy, and somewhat blurry appearance of a
photographic image which is so different from the
harsh and ﬂat image of a video camera or the too
clean, too perfect image of computer graphics. The
traditional photographic image once represented the
inhuman, devilish objectivity of technological vision.
Today, however, it looks so human, so familiar, so
domesticated— in contrast to the alienating, still
unfamiliar appearance of a computer display with its
1280 by 1024 resolution, 32 bits per pixel, 16 million
colors, and so on. Regardless of what it signiﬁes, any
photographic image also connotes memory and
nostalgia, nostalgia for modernity and the twentieth
century, the era of pre-digital, pre-post-modem.

 

5 Musitano, “Small-Gauge for the Digital Age,” MovieMaker Magazine, Winter 200], Issue 41.
www.moviemaker.com/issues/4 l/super8.html.

I6

Regardless of what it represents, any photographic
image today ﬁrst of all represents photography.6

Manovich subtly argues that celluloid images should be valued only in the world
of analog photography and not in the realm of digital imaging. He further
emphasizes that ﬁlm in the past was a techniwl innovation, just as digital
imaging is today, and that the only difference is that photographic imaging with its
rich history has become the accepted aesthetic, while digital imaging is still in its
innovation phase. If digital ﬁlmmaking is viewed as its own aesthetic, separate
from ﬁlm, then it is the way its aesthetic is perceived that needs to be changed.
Rather than concentrate on how different the video image is to ﬁlm, perhaps,

audiences and professionals should adjust to the new look of digital ﬁlmmaking.
Technical Quality

On a less theoretical and more technical evaluation, proponents of
celluloid argue that celluloid retains better quality in highlights and high contrast
of images. Cinematographer Jack Messitt explains that on a direct technical
comparison between celluloid and Hi-Def on a same scene with the same
lighting, it was found that celluloid did have a greater latitude in the range of
brightness levels than Hi-Def, and that ﬁlm held truer to color and retained more
detail. However, Jack Messitt also concluded that the comparison was ﬂawed

because Hi-Def requires different lighting than celluloid. Lighting itself is a

 

6 Manovich, “The Paradoxes of Digital Photography,” Photography After Photography.
www.manovich.net/text/digital_photo.html.

I7

complex art form, but currently it is agreed that digital production requires lighting
for less contrast to help save detail and color information in the image.

Dan Curry, a visual effects producer for the Star Trek series, remarks on
HD Cam: “[T he 24p cameras] were also incapable of handling the kind of
contrast we wanted to light for. We have bright sources two to three stops over
[key]. The 24p camera clipped the highlights where ﬁlm held detail.”7 In digital
ﬁlming, bright images must be handled with care. If an image reaches over the
brightness limitations of the camera, then the camera will clip the information,
resulting in loss of information forever in the image. In the Star Trek series a lot
of special effect work is done that requires the camera to handle intense
brightness with minimal loss in detail. Currently, for their production, traditional 35
millimeter cameras proved to be the better choice.

Not only are there debates on color and contrast, but also image
resolution and compression that can hinder digital video production. Film has
4,000 lines of resolution compared to 1,080 lines of resolution for top of the line
digital video cameras. Film, however, will suffer generation loss every time it is
copied and also as wear and tear builds on the ﬁlm as it is replayed in theatres. A
ﬁlm will degrade to about 2,000 lines or less of resolution as it goes through its
cycle. Therefore, digital video is more comparable to ﬁlm in terms of resolution
after the generation loss.

However, maintaining the resolution of digital video signals is problematic.

lf digital video is converted to 35 millimeter, then it will suffer the same generation

 

7 Silberg, “The Case for Film,” Millimeter, 30, p.25.

18

loss. In addition, maintaining digital signals at its original resolution is a tricky
matter. Film through the process of telecine is converted to digital images for
editing. The edit decisions are saved, and the original ﬁlm negative is out based
on those decisions. No resolution is lost in the process unless special effect
sequences or the entire edit sequence is printed from the computer back to ﬁlm
to create a master print.

Digital video, however, always must remain in the realm of digital editing
and is subject to the compression schemes of the editing environment. The
resolution of a digital video signal will only be as good as the last environment
that it has passed through. For instance, if a production is shot on HDCam with a
sample scheme of 4:2:2, but is edited on a platform with a sample scheme of
4:1:1, then the digital signal will always remain at a 4:1 :1 colorspace. In “The
Case For Film” experienced Cinematographer John Bailey remarks on digital
post of his feature The Anniversary Party.

From online mastering to D1 to the 35mm intermediate
negative to striking an answer print and making release
prints, there were tremendous, unpredictable color
shifts. There was a serious loss of contrast and black
resolution. It was a constant ﬁght through every step of
the way to retain black, to retain color. I was ultimately
happy with the prints we got, but it was just fortunate
that I had the two-and-a-half months to devote to this.‘3

The loss in tonal and resolution quality and color shifts is a complex
technical matter as a digital video signal passes through all of the stages that are

required for a theatrical release. Film, being an analog system, can avoid a lot of

the limitations of digital video.

 

3 Ibid., p.25.

19

Standards

The water can get even muddier for digital ﬁlmmaking when standards are
thrown into the mix of issues. In the United States the standard frame rate for
video is thirty frames-per-second. In the world, the standard frame rate for ﬁlm is
twenty-four frames-per-second. Most mid-range to low-end digital cameras sold
in the United States record images using the NTSC standard at thirty frames-per-
second. To transfer a NTSC signal to ﬁlm, six frames must be dropped out of
every thirty resulting in about a twenty-percent loss of image information.
Presently, the ﬁlm format is the most widely used format for ﬁlmmaking in the
world. Therefore, digital productions planning on a wide theatrical release
eventually have to convert their projects to ﬁlm.

There are alternatives. PAL, a popular standard internationally, has a
video frame rate of twenty-ﬁve frames-per-second. This frame rate is much
closer to ﬁlm. Therefore, the conversion to ﬁlm results in less information lost in
the PAL format.

There is also the option to shoot on High-Deﬁnition cameras that record
video at a frame rate of tvventy-four frames-per-second, the same as ﬁlm.
However, this is the most expensive option for DV ﬁlmmakers as it is also
expensive to edit HD in its native format as well as rent or purchase a High-

Deﬁnition camera. Many ﬁlmmakers, at present, must down-convert to NTSC in

20

order to save money in editing expenses. As mentioned before, a digital video

signal is only as good as the last environment that it has passed through.

Usability and Efficiency

With all the technical considerations of digital ﬁlmmaking, it is debated, at
the present time, whether digital cameras really present usability and efﬁciency
over traditional ﬁlmmaking cameras. Cinematographer John Bailey points out
some of his frustrations with digital ﬁlmmaking:

I wouldn’t have had so much equipment...there

wouldn’t have been so many monitors, so much

tweaking, so much re-color balancing the cameras

constantly. You can’t look through the eyepiece of

those [DV] cameras and light. You can’t judge

anything. [The camera monitors] are horrible — black-

and-white. You have to constantly walk to your control

monitors or waveform monitors and check levels. You

have to isolate the monitors in an environment that is

dark, which means generally building some kind of

tent when you’re outside. You have all these umbilical

cords. It can really slow things down.9
At a production aiming for theatrical release at the highest standards of quality,
digital video production can prove as time consuming as traditional ﬁlmmaking.
Furthermore, digital video at present does require careful monitoring and
technical tweaking for ﬁlmmakers wishing to preserve image quality to meet the
high standards set in the motion picture industry. Also, digital ﬁlmmaking at the
theatrical level can produce problems in mobility. Since a digital video camera

requires close calibration it is usually hooked up through numerous cables to a

 

9 Ibid., p.25.

21

camera control unit where vital color and brightness information can be
monitored. To produce on-the-ﬂy shots the camera must be unhooked from all of
its cables, costing the production valuable time.

Presently, digital ﬁlmmaking at the theatrical level does not necessarily
equate to time saving, efﬁcient production. Digital ﬁlmmaking, though, must be
analyzed at all levels. It is certainly time saving when using a Mini-DV camera
with no or little calibration, but the trade off is lower technical and possible

aesthetic quality.

Costs

The cost savings in digital ﬁlmmaking is also up for debate. There is a
strong argument that digital ﬁlmmaking can save thousands of dollars on ﬁlm
telecine costs. In addition, tape costs are dramatically cheaper than the cost of
ﬁlm rolls.

In a fair assessment, the cost savings are a function of the quality of the
digital apparatus of the production. If a production budget is limited, then cost
savings can be made by ﬁlming on mid to low-end digital cameras for a trade in
quality. However, if quality is key to the production, then the cost savings for
high-end digital video equipment may not prove to be substantial enough to
render digital ﬁlmmaking a superior choice over traditional ﬁlm methods. For
instance, Jack Messitt, a professional cinematographer in his public email to the

Los Angeles Times states: "[Hi Def] wmera packages cost more per week to rent

22

than traditional ﬁlm cameras. While there are no transfer costs, High Def editing
bays are more expensive than more traditional Digi-Beta bays, so either add that
cost or the cost of the down-conversion of Hi-Def tapes (not cheap). But the
biggest added expense is often overlooked - on set time."‘° With major motion
picture production, time is expensive. Digital video production at a theatrical
level, as mentioned previously, requires technical maintenance and ﬁne-tuning
that results in time-consuming costs that can match or exceed their telecine

transfers and tape savings.

 

'0 Messitt, “Member Educates LA Times about Film and Digital,”
www.cameraguiId.com/news/techno/member_educates.htm.

23

THE DIGITAL BENEFITS

Despite the debates, the versatility of digital ﬁlmmaking provides options
that previously have been unavailable to ﬁlmmakers. Digital ﬁlmmaking has
opened avenues for a diverse range of ﬁlmmakers to take advantage of digital
technology that offers reasonable quality at continually decreasing costs. Digital
production allows ﬁlmmakers to take chances on their stories without having to
worry about catastrophic ﬁnancial risk. This leads to a diverse range of stories
being told at amateur and professional levels alike. Without large ﬁnancial risk,
ﬁlmmakers no longer have to conform to formulaic stories worrying that they will
not be able to recoup production costs by not reaching a mass audience.

For beginning ﬁlmmakers, the advantages of digital ﬁlmmaking are
signiﬁcant. Cost savings can lead to other advantages in small budget
productions. For instance, inexpensive digital tape allows for overshooting. Ray
Carney, a professor at Boston University and well established author of
independent ﬁlm literature states: “The downfall of most low-budgeted indie work
is acting. By necessity, young ﬁlmmakers usually have to use students, relatives,
and other non-actors in their work. Massive over-shooting allows them to
compensate.”11 Filmmakers can shoot as many takes as time allows in order to
let their actors settle into their roles. This could result in better quality acting,

while keeping the production costs low. In addition, overshooting allows

 

" Friedman, “An Interview with Ray Carney about the Digital Revolution,” MovieMaker Magazine, Fall
2002, Issue 48. http://webdelsol.com/SolPixlsp-rayinterOlahtm

24

ﬁlmmakers to explore camera placement and compositions. The same scene can
be shot from multiple angles and with different lighting and ﬁlters. The relatively
inexpensive cost of tape allows ﬁlmmakers to take more chances and experiment
with their ﬁlm projects. Experimentation by ﬁlmmakers can lead to fresh and
diverse stories as well as help them to develop their skills in ﬁlmmaking. Also,
ﬁlming on digital tape allows for instantaneous playback. Filmmakers can
immediately review their work to judge shots and to ﬁx any continuity problems.
Filmmakers have nothing to lose by burning inexpensive tape to improve the
quality of their work.

Digital ﬁlmmaking is not only providing opportunity for diverse stories, but
also diverse ﬁlmmakers. Artists dissuaded by the ﬁnancial burdens or elitism of
the major motion picture industry can take advantage of easy access and entry
into digital ﬁlmmaking. Film can be a powerful medium to convey thought and
expression. Diverse ﬁlmmakers can lead to diverse stories that reach niche
audiences that have been neglected by the motion picture industry. Minorities,
gays and lesbians, are just a few groups that are underrepresented in the
industry. Digital ﬁlmmaking can help make access to the ﬁlmmaking market more
egalitarian.

Either to push digital video technology, or for experimentation, established
professionals in the motion picture industry have delved into the world of digital
ﬁlmmaking. George Lucas, a proponent of digital technology, continually pushes
the envelope in digital ﬁlmmaking. His latest installment in the Star Wars series,

Episode II- Attack of the Clones, was shot completely with HD Cam. Of course,

25

with virtually an unlimited budget on the movie, George Lucas could afford to
have Sony and Panavision create custom cameras and lenses. In addition,
George Lucas can afford an extremely talented crew to work on his movie. The
signiﬁcance of his work, however, is that he was able to reach a level of quality
where the differences between digital video and ﬁlm are virtually undetectable.
As Lucas continues to push and promote digital technology, his successes of
today will become available on the average ﬁlmmaker’s desktop computer.
Presently, this is the true success and wonderment of digital ﬁlmmaking.

The popular ﬁlmmaker Steven Soderbergh has also experimented in the
realm of digital ﬁlmmaking. He shot his ﬁlm Full Frontal using a mix of
35millimeter ﬁlm and a Canon XL1 digital video recorder. He had the ﬁlm edited
on Final Cut Pro. Parts of the movie are very grainy and have lost resolution from
digital effect ﬁlters. In short, it looks like it was shot on an XL1, but the movie
itself is an experimentation making a feature ﬁlm with professional creative talent
using video technology that is easily accessible to any ﬁlmmaker. As more
professionals give digital ﬁlmmaking a chance, the more receptive the industry
may become for digital ﬁlmmaking to be a viable alternative to ﬁlm.

Currently for ﬁlmmakers, digital and celluloid each have advantages and
disadvantages that should be evaluated in determining the right medium for
production. Filmmakers can consider aesthetics needs, technical quality,
standards, efﬁciency and usability, and costs to determine the most appropriate
medium to ﬁt their budgets and stories. Celluloid still remains the medium of

choice in the motion picture industry; however, with the increasing quality of

26

digital production, and decreasing costs, digital production is destined to become

a major force in the industry.

27

DIGITAL FILMMAKING IN THE MOTION PICTURE INDUSTRY

The motion picture industry can be considered a bit of a paradox. It is an
ever-growing cultural art form of the modern era. Filmmakers use the medium to
entertain, express ideas and provoke thought through sound and images.
However, it is also a multi-billion dollar industry. It should not be forgotten for
aspiring ﬁlmmakers that it is a mass medium business with high risks and high
stakes involved. The average major motion picture costs forty million dollars to
produce, not including advertising and marketing costs. This number can be
daunting to new artists and business people wishing to enter into the motion
picture industry at the theatrical level. Nevertheless, the attraction of motion
pictures as an art medium and business prospect, compounded by the dream of
fame and success, continues to lure ﬁlmmakers.

The basic deterrninates of success in entering the motion picture industry
are talent, persistence, connections, and luck. Of course, in the motion picture
industry, nothing is a guarantee for success. Though the odds are almost always
stacked against ﬁlmmakers, the goal of bringing dreams to reality on the silver
screen is not impossible.

Digital ﬁlmmaking proposes to provide leverage to aspiring ﬁlmmakers to
help them overcome some of the barriers to entry in the industry. Though the
digital medium has its limitations, it does provide opportunities, heretofore, never

possible in the industry. Part of the excitement of digital ﬁlmmaking is that it

28

allows ﬁlmmakers to achieve an acceptable level of quality while reducing risks
and costs. Therefore, digital ﬁlmmaking is liberating to ﬁlmmakers who want to
produce their stories independently without having to worry about the
bureaucracy of the industry and an empty bank account. Presently, digital
ﬁlmmaking has become the hot medium to realizing dreams for ﬁlmmakers.

However, there are still formidable barriers to entry in the industry. Digital
ﬁlmmaking is certainly being pushed by established names in the industry such
as George Lucas, Robert Rodriguez, and Mike Figgis. However, the focus of this
study is more relative to aspiring independent ﬁlmmakers with limited budgets
and exposure.

The motion picture industry still remains a concentrated market with power
remaining in the hands of studios and distributors. In this light, the motion picture
industry has changed very little from its history. The studios, however, have
shifted from in-house production to outsourcing for ﬁlms created by independent
producers. This allows the studios and distributors to reduce their costs and risks
of investing in major motion pictures. In addition, this allows the studios in many
ways to pick and choose whether to be a distributor, studio, or both.

For the digital ﬁlmmaker the problem of entering the motion picture
industry resides heavily in barriers to entry in the distribution sector. A movie can
be made cheaply in digital, relative to the industry, but getting it to the big screen
and to ancillary markets to reach a mass audience is a monumental barrier to
surpass. Part of the problem is the economies of scale that have developed in

the motion picture industry. Major motion pictures involve large costs and risks

29

that are expected to make a large return on investment. Therefore, studios are
more likely to make and choose movies that have proven formulas that have
been successful in the past. In addition, the studios can only release so many
movies per year, therefore, they are more likely to distribute movies they feel will
be the next blockbuster, rather than take chances on unknown ﬁlms and
ﬁlmmakers.

However, studios have the most money and capital with rich corporate
parents to take on risk, yet they still choose to stick to formulaic ﬁlms rather than
to gamble on a few. Economist Barry Litman, in his book The Motion Picture
Mega-Industry sums up the conglomerate barriers to entry in the distribution
sector by stating:

Yet, surprisingly, [the studios] are cautious in tapping

into the vast ﬁnancial wealth of their [corporate]

parents, preferring instead to balance the long shots

with conservative undertakings. This is not to say they

are unwilling to gamble on big budgeted ﬁlms; rather

such large pictures must have bankable stars, be

adaptations from other popular media, or be sequels

to what has proven successful in the past before the

‘go’ signal is given.12
Most aspiring ﬁlmmakers not only don’t have an extra twenty million in their back
pockets to distribute their ﬁlms, but also don’t have bankable stars in their
productions. The star system was born long ago by chance taking independent

ﬁlmmakers, yet it has been adopted by the studios and has become a major

barrier to entry into the major motion picture industry. Furthermore, ﬁlmmakers

 

'2 Litman, The Motion Picture Mega-Industry, p.31.

30

that tell risky or avant—garde stories, diminish their chances of a major motion
picture release through a major studio or distributor.

The cost of entering the industry is not necessarily a ploy by major studios
and distributors to create barriers to entry, but more of an outcome of the way the
industry has evolved. The motion picture industry has become a mass medium
intent on reaching a mass audience. Also, it should not be forgotten that in the
end, it is the audiences’ votes through dollars that determine the type of ﬁlms that
survive the market place.

In the past few years the studios have realized that there is a market for
smaller independent ﬁlms. Twentieth-Century Fox has created an independent
distributor, Fox Searchlight, to distribute small independent ﬁlms, and hugely
successful Mirimax has continued its tradition of distributing independent ﬁlms
that otherwise wouldn’t have a chance with a major distributor.

Nevertheless, independent ﬁlmmaking still remains a tough road to
breaking into the motion picture industry. Digital ﬁlmmaking can help leverage
independent ﬁlmmakers in several important ways. lntemet distribution may
become a viable means to bypassing traditional distribution systems while still
being able to reach a mass audience. Of course, the trade off is content and
quality. In general, comedy shorts tend to fare the best over the lntemet.

Though the Web presently will probably not provide a big return on
investment, it still can be used by independent ﬁlmmakers to get recognized and

to create clout concerning their ﬁlms. This can be equally as valuable as a

31

monetary return. The Web could potentially lead to ﬁnancing and distribution
deals for future independent ﬁlm projects.

In addition to distributing on the Web, large independent ﬁlm festivals have
become more receptive to digital ﬁlm projects. For instance, Sarah Woodward of
“Shoot” magazine in her article, “Digital Realm In Flux At Sundance” reports:
“More than 50 ﬁlms at Sundance this year were digitally produced and/or
projected. Other digital offerings included the inaugural Sundance Online Film
Festival and a newly christened Sundance Digital Center, which took over
10,000 square feet of prime Main Street real estate in addition to its original
venue at Prospector Square.”13 As major festivals recognize the importance and
value of digital ﬁlm projects, it opens more avenues for ﬁlmmakers to showcase
their work to possibly acquire funding and distribution deals to enter into major
motion picture deals.

If an independent ﬁlm project is not picked up by a distributor through the
Web or ﬁlm festivals, there are still numerous ways digital ﬁlmmaking can help
leverage independent projects. Digital media for ﬁlms are easily transferable to
DVD. Digital videodisc authoring programs are becoming easier to use and DVD
creation is dropping in price. Though not a mainstream method, it is not unheard
of that some ﬁlmmakers like the days of old travel from town to town showcasing
and distributing their own work for a few dollars and a lot of recognition. In
addition, it is not unfeasible that an independent ﬁlm can be self-distributed

straight to video stores, cable networks, and other ancillary markets.

 

‘3 Woodward, “Digital Realm in Flux at Sundance,” Shoot, 16, October 2003.
ﬁnarticles.com/cf_dIs/m0duo/7_42/7 1 88603 Up I /article.jhtml.

32

The money saved by shooting digitally can be used to market the ﬁlm.
Money saved can be used for the process of four-walling that can give a small
independent ﬁlm a limited theatrical release in hopes that over time and nurture,
the ﬁlm will catch in popularity and grow into a major release. In addition, the
money saved from digital production can also be used to possibly bank a
recognizable star to help leverage the chances for a ﬁlm to reach a theatrical
release.

Though digital ﬁlmmaking will not immediately democratize the major
motion picture industry it certainly has opened alternative avenues that in the
past were non—existent. Over the past hundred years the ﬁlm industry has
developed into a mass-market medium where a substantial amount of capital and
risk is required to enter into the industry. Through cost savings and alternative
distribution systems, digital ﬁlmmaking practices have the potential to relieve
some of this burden on ﬁlmmakers while increasing the chances that a mass
audience can enjoy their ﬁlms. Though nobody can predict the future of digital
ﬁlmmaking, it holds the promise of being one of the most exiting times to watch

and listen as it evolves.

33

THE STORY WRITER: A DIGITAL SHORT

The Story Writer, a digital ﬁlm short, was produced as part of this study as
an exploration into the world of digital ﬁlmmaking and to demonstrate the
successes and failures of the medium and the ﬁlmmaker. The Story Writer in
terms of budget is considered to be a micro-budgeted ﬁlm. The only production
expenses of the ﬁlm were digital tape, prop, and miscellaneous items that totaled
$200. Fortunately, and unusual for ﬁlm production, all production and post-
production equipment could be utilized free of charge. Production equipment
including camera, lighting, and audio equipment, was provided by the
Telecommunication Department at Michigan State University. Millennium
Productions, an event video production company, provided editing equipment.
Without these benefits, the production cost of The Story Writer utilizing the same
digital equipment would have been closer to $12,000.

The actors worked on a voluntary basis and provided for their own
wardrobe as the script called for nothing extraordinary for clothing. No formal
audition was held and no minimum requirement was placed on the actors except
for an expressed interest and passion for acting.

The production was shot using a Sony DSR-300 digital video recorder with
a professional grade Canon lens. Lighting consisted of a kit with three 500 watt

Omni lights and accompanying diffusion and gel materials. Production sound

34

recording consisted of a microphone stand, a boom pole, a shotgun microphone,
a water jug as a countenrveight, and a lot of duct tape.

The following is an analysis on my successes and failures of producing
The Story Writer in the digital medium, and also a measure of my successes and

failures as a beginning ﬁlmmaker.

Pre-Production

Every good ﬁlm production begins with a good story. With different tastes,
experiences, and perceptions of ﬁlmmakers and audiences about ﬁlms, it is not
easy to determine what makes a good story. In general, for low-budgeted
dramatic ﬁlm shorts with little or no special effects, character is central to the
story. One easy rule in any production is the KISS rule. Keep it simple stupid.
Keep the plot simple and make the characters complex. The goal of any good
script should be to draw the audience into the story world to sympathize with its
characters— not an easy task for the limited amount of time in ﬁlm shorts.
Therefore, building character becomes even more important. The Story Writer
falls a bit short in conforming to this rule. The complexity of the plot seems to
overshadow the importance of the characters. In retrospect, it may have proven
to be beneﬁcial to simplify the plot while bringing more life to the characters of
the ﬁlm.

Another important factor in consideration in the pre-production of The

Story Writer was the selection of the cast. The three main roles of the ﬁlm

35

required sensitive actors that could give realism to otherwise over-
sentimentalized characters. Of course, with a micro-budget, the production relied
on friends as actors. Using friends is not always a good course of action when
casting. However, when faced with a limited or no budget production, casting
becomes more of a challenge to ﬁnd the actors that most comfortably ﬁt into the
roles of the ﬁlm. In addition, there is no shortage of undiscovered actors willing to
work for screen credit or experience. The drawback for the production, though, is
the ﬁlm is harder to market with undiscovered talent.

Setting also received heavy consideration in pre-production. The Story
Writer was intended to be a dramatic production with ﬂavors of romance.
Therefore, settings were selected at Michigan State University gardens that
provided for somewhat romantic scenery while upholding a theme of The Story
Writer. Exterior settings selected for most scenes had water in the scene either
from a river, a lake, or a fountain. The water itself was intended to symbolize life
and death, and at some points a baptismal cleansing. The drawback to low-
budget production is that environmental sound whether from people, machines,
or nature can't always be controlled. Therefore, some setting selections posed
monumental problems for audio. The fountain setting not only was a popular
place for people to visit, but also the fountain itself sounded more like a waterfall
once recorded. It would have proven better to select a spot further away from the

fountain to reduce background noise.

36

 

The bottom line for pre—production is the more thought and planning that
goes into ﬁguring out potential problem, and the overall goal of the production,

the better the chances for a successful production.

Production

Some of the major beneﬁts of digital video production at a low budget level
are the conveniences that the technology adds. For instance, in the production of
The Story Writer production crew was not even skeletal, but a bone. The director
acted as sound and cameraperson, as well as set all the lighting. Though this is
not recommended, as a result, the ﬁlm is a true production of an auteur. This
would have been impossible if The Story Writer had been shot on ﬁlm. Film
would have required at least one other crewmember to set and monitor sound.
However, the Sony DSR-300 camera provides for two XLR inputs and syncs the
incoming sound directly to video. Through the camera, audio and video can be
simultaneously monitored and adjusted.

The cost to a production with minimal crew is time. Time for proper set-up
required at least two hours not including time for resetting lighting for camera
placement changes. For some scenes two hours is all the time actors could
afford to spend for the scene making some situations very challenging.

Lighting for digital video for ﬁlm production must be handled with care. It is
not a forgiving medium. Too little light adds to unwanted grain in the image. It

also can result in loss in detail and an overall ﬂat image. Too much lighting can

37

not only over-expose the image, but also make the image look like glossy hard-
edged video. In most cases, the trick is getting video to look more like the
traditional ﬁlm aesthetic while attempting to avoid as much image degradation as
possible.

For the production of The Story Writer the distribution destination was
DVD. Without the worries of blowing-up the ﬁlm to ﬁt a large theatrical screen, a
little more latitude in lighting could be acceptable. There are a lot of software
programs that claim to make video look like ﬁlm, but for the most part it involves
degrading the video signal. The best programs through math wizardry will soften
and clean video while offering options to change the frame rate to 24p, although
this causes a few minor problems with audio sync. For the ﬁnal print of The Story
Writer no ﬁlters were used. For purposes of experimentation and audience
opinion, it was decided to let digital video be what it is— video.

Little talked about but very important is good lighting techniques and
proper exposure that can produce good images that help digital video ﬁt closer to
the ﬁlm aesthetic without having to degrade the image. The DSR—300, though a
mid-range digital camera, can produce stunning images that look somewhat like
ﬁlm under certain lighting conditions. Of course, the medium is after all video,
and some images will look like video under any circumstance.

However, after producing The Story Writer a few tips on lighting
techniques that helped the video to look less like video were learned. Most of the
images in The Story Writer look like video. However, in some instances the video

images look a little like ﬁlm. In general, softer diffused lighting around the faces

38

and outlines of people help take the hard edge look out of the video image. For
exteriors, or light coming through windows, diffusing light through a thin white
sheet can help provide softer light for softer images. Lastly, high contrast with
low-key lighting can produce images that amazingly look comparable to ﬁlm.

Scenes in The Story Writer that used hard lighting look good in most
instances, but also looks like video. Also, ﬁnding the right mix of natural light and
artiﬁcial became a challenge. A few chances were taken by letting mostly natural
light ﬁll the scene, however, this did not always equate to good video. Also, dark,
ﬂat lighting pretty much equated to bad digital video ﬁlled with unwanted grain.
Finally, working in small rooms with white walls makes everything a challenge as
the background in many shots became signiﬁcantly brighter than characters in
the mid—ground. Since most of the production was converted to black and white,
3 red saturated gel placed over a light to ﬁll the walls could have helped to
decrease the perceived brightness of the background.

There were inherent difﬁculties working in digital video for a ﬁlm
production. One problem was the ability to achieve deep-focused shots at a
resolution that can keep clarity in the shot. Part of the problem is the smaller
focal length inherent in video lenses. The DSR-300 is more equipped as a video
and broadcast production camera than a ﬁlm camera. To make up for the lens,
the mmera simply had to be moved back further and the subject shot in a wide
angle. However, in tight situations where the camera can only be moved back a
short distance, the shots turned out tighter and ﬂatter than intended. In addition,

the camera did not have the option to shoot in a native 16:9 aspect ratio. A crop

39

had to be added in post that made tight shots tighter by the loss in screen
resolution. Some low-end digital cameras have the option of shooting in a 16:9
aspect ratio; however, it is not a true 16:9 ratio. The image is cropped and pixels
are squeezed to ﬁt the ratio. Hopefully, as popularity of digital cameras used for
cinematic production grows, manufacturers will develop new lenses and
accessories to accommodate the needs of a ﬁlm production. In addition, the
lower resolution of the DSR-300 made it difﬁcult to retain any detail in a wide
angle if the subjects were positioned approximately over ﬁfty feet away from the

camera.

Post Production

In post-production, The Story Writer footage was ﬁre wired into an Adobe
Premiere digital non-linear editing system. The compression ratio of the system
is 4:1 with a colorspace of 4:1:1. Therefore, no matter the speciﬁcations of the
camera, this was as good as the video signal would ever remain within the
editing system.

Editing The Story Writer in a low-budget system required that a lot of
obstacles had to be overcome. Basic video tools such as a vectorscope,
waveform monitor, or even an audio level meter were non-existent in the
program. However, it should be noted that other low-cost editing software and

set-ups do have these features.

40

Digitizing source material through ﬁre wire did not allow for video or audio
adjustments until after the source material had been digitized into the system.
This posed some major problems— especially for audio. In many of the scenes
during production, audio levels had been adjusted between takes, leading to
inconsistent levels in the audio between scenes and sometimes between takes.
Without being able to address these issues during the digitization phase, each
clip in the timeline had to be readjusted to even out sound levels between shots.
Without an audio meter, it became a nightmarish guessing game to achieving
acceptable audio levels.

The other time-killer was the need to render just about everything. For
thematic purposes most of The Story Writer is black and white. However, the
original source footage was shot in color. Usually it is not a major issue to make
simple color correcting adjustments on higher-end non-linear editing systems.
This is not always true for low-end NLE systems. To render all the color
adjustments for The Story Writer took upwards to three hours for a thirty minute
short. To make a change meant having to re-render which became a real
workﬂow killer.

Another major obstacle working in a low-end system was not being able to
accurately judge color and brightness levels. Similar to adjusting audio levels,
adjusting color and luminance settings became a game of trial and error.

Since The Story Writer needed very little visual effects work, not a lot of
computing power was necessary to complete the project making it better suited

for a low-end editing solution. Overall, the performance of the Premiere system

41

still proved to be more convenient and beneﬁcial than any linear system. The
program is easy to use and being able to quickly rearrange and change editing
decisions is the beauty of digital non-linear editing. In addition, desktop NLE
editors are continually advancing in design and functionality. In the near future,
many of the problems encountered in the post-production of The Story Writer will
be ﬁxed and solved.

The ﬁnal cut was mastered to DVD using Sonic Solution’s DVDit. The only
problem found with mastering to DVD is the shift in brightness levels when
converting the source material to MPEG2. Though a time consuming problem, it
was easily ﬁxed by creating two different versions of the ﬁnal cut of the ﬁlm. One
version was optimized in brightness for VHS mastering, and the other was
optimized in brightness for DVD mastering. In addition, it is important in the
production stage to record the best video image possible. Any grainy shots were
compounded in grain as the video was compressed during digitization, then
reduced in resolution from color effect ﬁlters, and then recompressed to MPEG-2

for DVD distribution.

42

AUDIENCE EVALUATION

The survey was created to better understand the successes and failures
of The Story Writer as a digital ﬁlm from the perspective of its viewing audience.
In addition, from audience opinions the survey form measures the successes and
failures of the digital ﬁlmmaking medium compared to traditional ﬁlmmaking.
Despite all advantages or disadvantages of the digital medium, the audience is
the ﬁnal judge of digital ﬁlmmaking as a viable substitute for traditional celluloid
ﬁlmmaking.

This analysis covers a small audience’s opinions of the quality of The
Story Writer, and the audience’s experiences and opinions of ﬁlm viewing and
the digital ﬁlmmaking medium.

It should be noted, the survey is analyzed relative to low-budget digital
ﬁlmmaking. Large budgeted digital ﬁlms shot on high-end digital cameras such
as Star Wars: Attack of the Clones or Spy Kids 2 are aesthetically undetectable
in differences from traditional celluloid ﬁlmmaking to average movie audiences.
Therefore, the survey has more importance to low-budgeted ﬁlms that use low to
mid-range digital equipment to produce high quality productions as a substitute
for celluloid ﬁlmmaking

The survey consisted of a variety of questions (see Appendix A) that
measured the quality of The Story Writer, the audience’s background with ﬁlm

viewing, and the audience’s experiences and comments on the digital ﬁlmmaking

43

medium. Twenty surveys were handed to an audience that varied in ﬁlm viewing
experiences. Eight of the twenty surveys were handed to friends and
acquaintances of the ﬁlmmaker after a home screening of The Story Writer.
Therefore, some bias is inherent in the survey. The eight viewers known to the
ﬁlmmaker varied in lifestyles and age, from college students to professors. The
eight acquaintances and friends were then asked to hand a DVD copy and a
survey to a person unknown to the ﬁlmmaker.

The survey incorporated questions designed to get a sense of the
experiences and tastes that the participants have had with ﬁlm viewing. The
questions revealed that forty-eight percent of the audience favored comedies
over any other genre. Thirty-three percent of the audience favored dramas while
only ten-percent of the audience favored romance. Nine-percent of the audience
had no favorite. The audience was also asked by the survey to pick the two best
factors that affect their decision to watch a particular movie. The audience was
almost evenly dispersed between stars, director, story, reviews, and genre.
Visual appeal and to socialize were least picked among the audience. Lastly, the
survey asked the audience to mark if they had viewed a ﬁlm short other than The
Story Writer. Seventy-two percent of the audience had seen a ﬁlm short prior to
The Story Writer. These questions were only used to create a rough sense of the
experiences and factors with ﬁlm viewing that may have swayed the participants’
opinions about movies.

The opinions of the audience about the quality of The Story Writer are

important to understand and could possibly affect the way the audience

perceives digital ﬁlmmaking. The Story Writer is a digital ﬁlm, however, it may not
be the best example of a digital ﬁlm in its budget level and class range of the
digital medium. Therefore, it is important to understand how the audience reacted
to The Story Writer.

The survey incorporated seven quantiﬁable deterrninates to examine the
opinions of the audience on the quality of The Story Writer. The deterrninates
consisted of overall impressions, sound, image, acting, music, editing, and story.
The audience was asked to rate each determinate on a scale of one to ﬁve, ﬁve
being the best (see Appendix B for graphical illustrations). Forty-seven percent of
the audience felt that the ﬁlm quality was average. Forty-eight percent of the
audience felt that the ﬁlm was above average or better, while five-percent rated
the ﬁlm below average. The Story Writer scored high in the Image category with
seventy-nine percent of the audience rating it above average or better. The ﬁlm
also scored high in the editing category with seventy-nine percent rating the ﬁlm
above average or better. The lowest scores in the ﬁlm came from ratings in the
acting category. Forty-seven percent of the viewers felt that the acting in The
Story Writer was average. Forty-two percent felt that the acting in the ﬁlm was
below average.

The story category resulted in mixed ratings. The Story Writer scored high
with ﬁfty-two percent of the audience voting it as above average in story
elements and ten percent voting it as excellent. However, it also scored the
lowest of all the categories with sixteen-percent of the audience voting the story

content of the ﬁlm as poor. The sound quality scored mostly average at forty-two

45

percent and a close second with thirty-two percent of the audience voting the
sound quality as above average.

On a pure technical analysis relative to digital ﬁlmmaking the two most
important categories are image and sound. The Story Writer scored pretty well in
the image and sound categories, at least suggesting that it can be used as an
acceptable example of digital ﬁlmmaking in its class range. Many positive
comments from the audience arose about the shot compositions and editing of
the ﬁlm.

However, an analysis of the survey suggests that most audience members
focused on how well the story elements were put together in the ﬁlm as well as
the ﬁlm's entertainment and thematic value rather than how well the ﬁlm stood
technically. Audience members, in addition to a technical analysis, were also
asked to give their general opinions about the ﬁlm. Most criticisms of the ﬁlm
from the audience members focus on their ability to relate to and feel
compassionate about the characters. It was suggested in many surveys that the
characters could use more development and the lines in the script written with
better focus on the characters rather than theme. In general, the audience would
have liked to see more reasoning behind the suicide of Anthony and the
contemplation of suicide by Tesa. Also, the audience felt that the relationship
between Anthony and Tesa could have been developed better to describe the
love relationship between the characters. The survey from the audience suggests
that more important than platform, digital or celluloid, a good and entertaining

story is what really will make or break a ﬁlm.

46

However, it is still interesting to explore the audience’s acceptance of The
Story Writer as a digital ﬁlm. Although professionals can view digital and celluloid
and make distinctions, it is the audience’s perspective that is being measured to
determine the viability of digital technology as a substitute to traditional celluloid
ﬁlmmaking. A few questions on the survey were constructed to measure the
audiences' ﬁlm viewing backgrounds and experiences to get a base sense about
the audience and their reactions to The Story Writer as a digital ﬁlm. The
audience was asked how many movies they watch per month to measure how
many ﬁlms in their repertoire they have to make comparisons between ﬁlms.
Twenty-one percent of the audience frequently watches more than ten ﬁlms per
month. Twenty-six percent of the audience watches between ﬁve and ten movies
every month. Thirty-seven percent of the audience, a tight majority, watches
between two and four ﬁlms every month. These statistics suggest that the
audience members for The Story Writer are fairly frequent ﬁlm viewers, which
provides a nice base of ﬁlms for them to make a comparison between digital and
celluloid.

The audience was further asked if they had seen a ﬁlm shot on digital
video other than The Story Writer. Thirty-three percent of the audience marked
that they have seen a ﬁlm shot digitally while seventeen percent of the audience
marked that they have not seen a digital ﬁlm. Interestingly, ﬁfty-percent of the
audience were unsure if they had seen a digital ﬁlm, suggesting that they either
don't pay much attention to the aesthetic differences between ﬁlm and digital, or

that they do not perceive much of a difference at all.

47

The survey reveals that The Story Writer is a digital ﬁlm and asks the
audience to determine if they had perceived a difference between digital video
and ﬁlm. Forty-two percent of the audience marked that they could perceive a
difference between the digital video format for The Story Writer and ﬁlm. The
survey then asks the forty-two percent of the audience to describe the
differences that they saw or felt and in what ways digital video enhanced or
hindered their ﬁlm viewing experience. A few of the audience members described
the movie as brighter and sharper than their normal ﬁlm viewing experiences.
Others could not describe exactly what the differences were, but just felt that The
Story Writer didn't look like a normal ﬁlm. A couple of the audience members
stated that the bright and sharper video images are usually what they equate to
amateur ﬁlmmaking, thus, hindering their ﬁlm experience. One audience member
perceptively noted that a softer ﬁlm-like quality would have been more applicable
for the content and nature of the story, thus improving the ﬁlm experience. Some
audience members remarked that while they did perceive a difference, it did not
matter to them. One audience member stated that the video look of the ﬁlm was
right for the content of the story. From the mixed comments, it is apparent that
whether digital video or ﬁlm is right for the production is debatable. The answer
rests in the eye of the beholder.

Sixteen-percent of the audience marked that they did not perceive a
difference between digital video and ﬁlm. This suggests that to these audience
members, the medium is not important to them, making digital video a good

choice for ﬁlmmakers with small bank accounts.

48

Interestingly, forty-two percent of the audience members marked that they
were unsure if they perceived a difference between digital video and ﬁlm. Again,
while viewing a ﬁlm, audience members may not be interested in formats over
the content and story of the ﬁlm.

Some questions on the survey were designed to measure the audience’s
experiences with digital and ancillary distribution in order to get a sense of how
effective those distribution systems can be for ﬁlmmakers. Audience members
were asked which distribution mediums they mostly use to watch movies. Video
rental scored the highest with fifty percent of the audience mostly watching their
movies through rentals. Movie theatres came in second at twenty-one percent
followed by broadcast television at twelve percent of the audience. Only four
percent of the audience marked that they mostly watch movies over the lntemet
while none of the audience members marked that they mostly watch movies
through pay-per-view.

The survey suggests that while it does help a movie to be theatrically
released for the exposure, it is not necessarily a requirement. A ﬁlm could
possibly have a successful run by being distributed through video rental and
other ancillary markets.

Though lntemet viewing scored low in frequency compared to other
different distribution systems, the survey also asked the audience to mark
whether they have ever viewed a ﬁlm over the lntemet at all. Forty-four percent
of the audience marked that they have viewed a ﬁlm over the lntemet, while ﬁfty-

six percent of the audience marked that they have not seen a movie over the

49

 

lntemet. The survey suggests that though the lntemet is not the most frequently
viewed medium, the Internet still proves to be a potential medium to reach a
mass audience. The audience members that checked that they have seen a ﬁlm
over the Internet were asked to rate their experience with lntemet viewing.
Twelve-percent of the audience had rated their experience as excellent. Fifty-
percent of the audience marked their experience as good, while twenty-ﬁve
percent of the audience marked their experience as being average. Only thirteen
percent of the audience marked their experience as poor. The survey reveals
that though the lntemet has its problem with low-resolution distribution, it does
not seem to inhibit the audience enough to ruin their experience.

In conclusion, the survey suggests that the medium, digital or ﬁlm, is not
the most important factor for determining a good ﬁlm to an audience. Rather, a
visual style that ﬁts an involving and entertaining story is what is more important
to audience members. Therefore, digital ﬁlmmaking becomes an aesthetic and
cost effective choice to the ﬁlmmaker without the ﬁlmmaker having to worry so
much about audience reactions to the medium. The survey also suggests the
Web may be a viable source for distribution that could be used by ﬁlmmakers as

an alternative avenue to market a ﬁlm and reach a broad audience.

50

CONCLUSION

Whether digital ﬁlmmaking can revolutionize the motion picture industry to
allow a more democratic entry into the business for aspiring ﬁlmmakers with
fresh and new ideas, or not, is a very involving question with no right answer.
Very strong arguments can be made for proponents and opponents of digital
ﬁlmmaking.

However, it is apparent that digital ﬁlmmaking is continually evolving and
is becoming an integral part of the motion picture industry. In this light, it is
important for the ﬁlmmaker to understand all the aspects of digital ﬁlmmaking and
to decide if the medium ﬁts the goals of the ﬁlm production. For beginning
ﬁlmmakers with low budgets, digital technology offers an attractive solution. A
variety of digital tools are readily available at low cost relative to the industry.
Digital distribution allows alternate avenues to distribute ﬁlms that will not or
cannot be theatrically released.

Audiences seem to be less sensitive to whether a ﬁlm is digital or celluloid,
and have the desire to watch ﬁlms that peak their interest irrespective of the
medium. If the industry and audiences alike begin to embrace the digital medium,

the time will be right for a true digital revolution.

51

APPENDIX A

1. What are your overall thoughts, impressions, comments, and concerns of The
Story Writer?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. What did you like most about The Story Writer?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. What did you like least about The Story Writer?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

52

4. Was there anything you found confusing about The Story Writer? If so, please
specify.

 

 

 

5. The Story Writer was shot on digital video tape rather than ﬁlm. Did you
perceive a difference between digital video and ﬁlm?

Yes

No
Unsure

a. If Yes, please explain the differences that you saw or felt.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

b. If Yes, in what ways do you feel digital video enhanced or hindered your
viewing experience of The Story Writer? Or did it matter to you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

53

6. Please use the ﬁve-point scale listed below to rate The Story Writer.

5 = Excellent

4 = Above Average
3 = Average

2 = Below Average
1 = Poor

a. Your overall impression of the movie:
b. Sound quality:

c. Image or picture quality:

d. The overall acting:

e. Music:

f. Editing:

9. Story:

7. If you would like, please write any additional comments on The Story Writer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8. How often do you watch movies?

At least 1 movie within 3 months.
At least 1 movie every month.
About 2 — 4 movies every month.
About 5 —10 movies every month.
More than 10 movies every month.
Other

 

9. Which medium do you mostly watch movies on?

__ Broadcast television or cable channel

Pay-Per-View

Premium Cable Channel (HBO, Cinemax, Stars, etc...)
Movie Theatre

Video Rental

lntemet

Other

 

54

10. Other than The Story Writer have you ever watched a movie that was not
previously released in a movie theatre?

_ Yes
_ No
_ Unsure

a. If Yes, please explain where and how you discovered the movie (video
store, lntemet, festival, advertisement, word-of-mouth, etc...).

 

 

 

 

11. What criteria affect your decision most about choosing to watch a movie?

Stars

Director

Story

Reviews and recommendations
Genre

Visual appeal

To socialize

Other

 

12. What type of ﬁlms interests you the most?

Studio released ﬁlms
Independent ﬁlms
Experimental I Art ﬁlms
Animation
Documentaries

Other

 

55

13. What is your favorite genre?

Romance
Comedy

Dmma

Horror

Action 1 Adventure
Other

 

14. Other than The Story Writer, have you ever viewed a ﬁlm short (Less than 60
minutes)?

_ Yes
_ No
__ Unsure

15. Have you ever watched a ﬁlm over the lntemet?

_ Yes
_ No
_ Unsure

a. If Yes, how would you rate your experience?

_ Excellent

__ Good

__ Average

__ Below Average

__ Poor

b. If Yes, what are your likes and dislikes about the lntemet as a ﬁlm delivery
medium?

 

 

 

 

16. Have you ever downloaded a ﬁlm from the Internet?
__ Yes

No
Unsure

56

17. Other than The Story Writer, have you ever watched a ﬁlm shot on digital
video?

_Yes
_No
_Unsure

18. What do ﬁlms mostly represent to you?

Entertainment

a. If Other, please explain:

 

 

 

19. If you wish, please write any other information you would like to tell about
your movie viewing experiences and what movies mean to you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

57

 

I

 

 

APPENDIX B

 

Overall Ratings
47%

 

 

 

 

Figure 1
Overall Ratings

 

Image Ratings l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

40% -- .- .. '
30:? L... -»——--21%v.-_...-_-_#__.._...___...- __ y
20 o ....._. r———--- " ' a - I
133? ”T 7““ I“ ----- 0% -0%—--'
O i , T ‘
E a) 8) 3: g 8: '6 i
3 > e a o g g i
8 3 9 2 a s l
E < < < < ,

 

I

Figure 2
Image Ratings

58

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l .

j Sound Ratings

I 50% . . 42% i

I :83? ......._..-____.-_..-32%W.. L .. -M -1

O ”‘7“ . “T” ”T;

l 202/0 PW“: r—---10%-——~ ~—--—~‘t

‘ , _ W. l w _ 0 _____i

I r . r 1 01° 2

j .. c c in h

. é a s 3 3 §

1 3 ‘3 9 “>’ E 9

I 33 < < o: <

I t i — Figure3 — ’

Sound Ratings

l Editing Ratings 1
30% T“ ”“589? i i
60% ~— I
40% as-azmmJ cum - AAAAAAA -: j

o _._ _E. v . -._-..{ .

, 2802 FT— , 1 r U/o 0% i

l 0‘ o , s 1

l (58° 04% 4&9 \va Q°° I

l “5* ‘59 V“ c“ l

I- _ _zl

Figure4
Editing Ratings

59

 

 

 

Acting Ratings

 

 

 

Music Ratings

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I 0
l 40% 1r.-_-320/0---...---:.3--7- -./°_--..-- 0 . .. . .. . .. . 1‘ J,
30% La 4.29-26 /°~————~+ i
20% a . i
10% _- -- -_,.- ,.-_--- --___5_/o_------O%_--,; =
0% w I i—i , |
*- 0 c in h
g s a a g a 8 l
a 8 g a s
“>3 < < < < 1
- i - _ -2 E-l
Figure6
Music Ratings

60

 

Story Ratings

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

50% -_- 42% _
332;, WM“ 'M—T 1 ”T” 210/ “T"T‘TTT“,
O W ID _ f”
20% --10%._--._ ‘ ' 11%“““‘1‘6%"’i
l 10% ' l i l ‘ l ”'3
g 0% . i i i l
' *-' m c in s-
t :2 it a 3.33 8
. 8 a s s 2 s “
I ,3 < < < 4:
Figure 7
Story Ratings

61

 

APPENDIX C

The Story Writer
FADE IN:
Waves of light and darkness as we ﬂoat over ANNA lying in bed.
She turns on her lamp. Anna lies wide awake, almost motionless. Her eyes tell of
thoughts swarming in her mind. Wearing a necklace and nightgown, she hurries
to her desk and grabs out of her drawer old and worn papers. She pages through
them thoroughly, and then begins to write down her thoughts on a notepad.
FADE TO BLACK:
CREDITS
FADE IN:
Her pen runs ﬂuidly over her notepad as her thoughts come to mind. Soon her
notepad is ﬁlled with broken notes. Her soft eyes are focused and concentrated
despite the late night.
FADE OUT:
TITLE: THE STORYWRITER
FADE IN:
We ﬂoat over Anna lying in bed as still as the night and in half wonderment.
She turns out the light.
FADE OUT:
FADE IN:
INT. STUDY ROOM - DAY
Books and half-typed papers lay around a lab top on a table. Anna moves aside

the lab top and sets a dusty typewriter next to it. She dusts off her typewriter,
tidies some papers, and sets her notepad written full of thoughts on the table.

62

She sets a piece of paper in the typewriter, glances at her notepad, and begins to
type-

We ﬂoat around ANNA as we hear the CLINKING of her keystrokes.

A Close-up of the paper shows the title “Evening Tide, a Short Story by Anna
Stevenson” typed by Anna. She takes a moment to contemplate and begins to

IYPe-

A Close-up shows the words typed on the paper “Wouldn’t it be marvelous to be
a tide in a vast ocean of freedom?”

DISSOLVE TO:

INT. ROOM — NIGHT

We see nothing but darkness mocked by faintly twinkling starlit spots and streaks
of light.

NARRATOR
(calm, serene voice)

Wouldn’t be marvelous to be a tide in

a vast ocean of freedom? Free. Free
moving as the wind glistens along your
back while the moonlight sparkles about
your eyes. Calmly ride. Ride under the
gazing stars and twinkling sky. Ride,
ride, ride. . .

We tilt down from the darkness of the window and twinkling of the streetlights to
reveal the back of TESA on top of her CLIENT.

Like a dream we ﬁrst see Tesa illuminated by the light from the window.

The room is dark and quiet except for the PIGLIKE SQUEALS from the Client as
he orgasms. Tesa quickly gets off him and lies by his side.

CLIENT
You look so good tonight.

TESA
What is it that you like so much about
me?

63

CLIENT
Everything. The softness of your skin. The
smell of your hair. The beauty of your face.
Every sweet curve of your body. And your
eyes...

TESA
What about my eyes?

CLIENT
The way they look at me when I make
you...

Tesa quickly removes herself from the bed.
INT. BATHROOM - NIGHT
Tesa splashes water over her face.

NARRATOR
Like water free running. Each drop a
baptism of your body. Run. Run free
stopping for nothing.

A Close—up reveals Jesus on Tesa’s necklace. It stops dangling as she rests to
look in the mirror. Again she begins to wash. She splashes almost excessively,
each splash particular and thorough.

NARRATOR
Tesa, like a tide, wanted to walk across
the ocean. To let the night air carry her
careless and free.

INT. ROOM — NIGHT

Tesa’s body is silhouetted against the light from the window as she puts on her
dress. As she leaves the room, she quickly grabs the Client’s money off the
nightstand. The Client sits up in bed.

CLIENT
Where are you going? We still have ten
minutes.

Tesa does not respond. She puts his money in her purse and starts for the door.

CLIENT
Hey!

Tesa exits the room. The client is left alone in bed.
INT. CAR - CONTINUOUS

Tesa is in a tranquil gaze. On-coming car lights ﬂash before her eyes. Tesa
reﬂects on her life. Slow tears begin to trickle down her face.

The passing car lights become slower, brighter, and rhythmic. Tesa loosens her
grip on the wheel, almost letting go. Her eyes teary, calm, and careless.

FLASH! Tesa out of the corner of her eyes spots ANTHONY crossing the road.
EXT. STREET — CONTINUOUS

The car SCREECHES as Tesa slams the brakes and swerves but is late.
ANTHONY makes no attempt to move. The car brushes Anthony sending him to
his back.

CUT TO BLACK:
We hear FOOTSTEPS of a PEDESTRIAN over Anthony.

PEDESTRIAN
Goddamn boyl Are you blind? What in
the hell is da matter wit you?

We hear the CAR ENGINE RUNNING, DOOR SLAM, and FOOTSTEPS.

TESA
Oh, oh, is he OK. I didn’t see him. He’s
not moving. I think he needs a doctor?

ANTHONY
No, I’m quite ﬁne.

PEDESTRIAN
He need a doctor alright. Git his head
checked. Crazy.
FADE IN:

65

 

INT. STUDY ROOM — DAY

Anna puts in piano music into her CD player. We see the study room decorated
with books. The music ﬁlls her eyes with warmth. She takes a moment to think
about her story.

We hear the CLINKING of the keys as she types the words “Anthony was a
whisper in the wind...”

DISSOLVE TO:

INT. ROOM — DAY
A close-up of Anthony.

NARRATOR
Always calm and cool, yet shining with
the brilliance of the sun.

We pull out to REVEAL JOSHUA helping Anthony with his tie. Anthony looks
straight ahead with a calm stare.

ANTHONY
Joshua, are you sure I should do this?

JOSHUA
I haven’t been sure about
anything these days, but I’m sure
about this.

Joshua looks up from the tie to see Anthony unconvinced.

JOSHUA
What was she like anyway?

ANTHONY
Not sure. Wasn’t exactly up to much
conversation.

JOSHUA
I guess you were...on the ground mostly.

Anthony is more nervous than amused.

JOSHUA
At least she was brave enough to ask
you out you know.

ANTHONY
She hit me with a car.

Joshua ﬁnishes Anthony’s tie and looks up at Anthony with a hard stare.

JOSHUA
Come on, I’ll give you a ride.

DISSOLVE TO:
EXT. COURTYARD - DAY

Tesa in her summer dress carrying her purse walks down a path complimented
by rows of trees. The path leads to a fountain surrounded by benches. As Tesa
reaches the fountain we see Anthony waiting on a bench.

Tesa, more beautiful than her surroundings, begins to tense as she reaches
Anthony.

Tesa stops almost directly in front of Anthony, but he still won’t acknowledge her
presence. Tesa looks down to see if anything is wrong with her dress, and then
starts to straighten her already perfect silky hair. Tesa looks confused at
Anthony’s indifference.

TESA
Hello?

Anthony always looks serious and sophisticated.

ANTHONY
Tesa?

Silence. Tesa sits on the bench next to Anthony. Anthony only looks straight
ahead.

TESA
How are you feeling?

ANTHONY
All right.

67

Silence. Tesa's cell phone rings.

TESA
(to caller)
Hello. I know, but I can't work tonight...

Tesa gives Anthony an empathetic look as she waits and listens.

TESA
I know Julie, but I have an appointment
with the doctor. I know, but I wanted to
do it early this year. Bye.

Tesa hangs up the phone, now at a loss for words. Tesa looks around as she
searches for a word, a thought, anything to break the silence.

TESA
You know I come here a lot. It's my
favorite place to come and think.

Anthony responds by turning his head towards her, but he does not make eye
contact with Tesa. His line of sight is towards her chest.

ANTHONY
(calm)
It's quite peaceful here.

Tesa notices he's staring at her chest, but remains casual.

TESA
Yes it is.

Tesa, becoming more self-conscious about his staring, takes a quick peek down
to see what he's staring at.

TESA
(struggling for conversation)
So, what is it that you do. .. for work?

ANTHONY
I write music.

TESA
Really, what have you—

68

 

ANTHONY
Why did you want to meet me?

Tesa is a little taken back by his directness.

TESA
Well, I felt like I needed—

ANTHONY
Well you don't.

TESA
Well, I just wanted to say—

ANTHONY
(emphasizing well)
Well... I told you, you don’t need to.

TESA
(Almost saying ’well' again)
We... why do you keep staring at my chest!

Anthony frowns slightly, then puts on his sunglasses.

ANTHONY
How's that.

TESA
Unbelievable, you're such a pig!

Tesa's cell phone rings.

TESA
(on phone)
I told you Julie I can‘t work. No, I can't
reschedule. I’m in the doctor‘s ofﬁce
right now. I know work has been slow.
I'm so sorry. Yes, tomorrow. O.k. Bye.

Tesa hangs up and her attention returns to Anthony who is still staring at her
chest, only now with sunglasses.

TESA

And you, all I wanted to say is that l
(MORE)

69

 

should have hit you while I had the
chance! And stop looking at me like
that. I'm not a piece of property for all
of you to look at!

Anthony stands up.

ANTHONY
(calm, but ﬁrm)
I guess our business is done.

Anthony pulls out his walking stick and begins to walk away.

Tesa realizes that he is blind.

TESA
Wait. that’s not what I wanted to say. I
wanted to say... I’m sorry.

Anthony stops and turns.

ANTHONY
For me being blind or for almost hitting
me.

Tesa becomes emotional.

TESA
I don't know... I guess I'm sorry for...

ANTHONY
If it's any consolation, you're not
responsible for either.

TESA
(under her breath)
Yeah.

Temporary silence. Anthony tries to lighten up the mood.

ANTHONY
What is it that you do again?
TESA
(not listening)

What?

70

 

ANTHOHNY
For work?

TESA
l model.

ANTHONY
(look of interest)
Oh.

Tesa notices his overreaction, and lets out a slight smile. Anthony using his
walking stick heads back to the bench. He removes his sunglasses and pretends
to look Tesa up and down. Tesa becomes slightly amused.

ANTHONY
I thought I recognized you from
somewhere.

TESA
What are you talking about?

ANTHONY
Cover of Cosmopolitan.

Tesa lets out a slight smile.

TESA
I do local work but it’s not enough to
survive.

Tesa and Anthony's conversation begins to ﬂow freely and naturally... soon they
lose track of time. We ﬂoat around Tesa, Anthony, and the garden as they talk.
The fountain ﬂows rhythmically in proximity to their conversation.

ANTHONY
You know I'm not a Mozart on the piano
or anything... actually I don't even think
I've written a whole song.

TESA
Why not?

ANTHONY
I suppose I lost my passion.

71

TESA
I've always had a passion for writing.

Tesa looks at the fountain.
TESA
If I could have one wish, just one wish I
would like to be able to write stories.

ANTHONY
I think that's an easy wish. One that can
come true.

TESA
Honestly, I barely made it through high
school.

ANTHONY
I never made it through high school, but
it didn't stop me from playing music and
it shouldn't stop you from writing. All you
need is a pen and an imagination.

Tesa looks at Anthony 3 little surprised.

TESA
Even so, what’s the point of writing if no
one will see it? it's like trying to play
music when no one will listen.

ANTHONY
I'll listen.

Tesa makes eye contact with Anthony then sifts through her purse. She pulls out
a penny and hands it to Anthony.

TESA
Here, make a wish. It's tradition for me
when I come here.

Anthony reaches until he ﬁnds her hand and takes the penny then throws it into
the fountain.

TESA
What did you wish for?

72

ANTHONY
To see you again.

Tesa gives a look of awe. Silence.

TESA
(half-mocking Anthony)
That's an easy wish. One that can come true.

Anthony smiles for the ﬁrst time.
FADE OUT:

ANTHONY
Are you going to make a wish?

Tesa’s cell phone rings. And rings.

TESA
Hold on.

Tesa throws the cell phone into the fountain water. A SPLASH is made as the
phone collides with the water.

ANTHONY
That's one expensive wish.

TESA
Yes, but it came true.

FADE IN:
INT. KITCHEN — NIGHT
A Close-up shows Tesa wiping the dust off an old typewriter. She sits down at
the table and begins to ﬁddle with the typewriter hitting random keys. She stops
and stares at the typewriter, lets out a slight sigh and pushes the typewriter back.
She sits and stares for a moment. She pulls the typewriter back towards her and
starts to type slowly. As she continues to type, her keystrokes become faster
and more rhythmical. Soon her ﬁngers are dancing on the keys of the typewriter.

We see a close-up of Tesa‘s ﬁngers on the keyboard as she begins her story.

73

INT. STUDY ROOM — NIGHT

We see a close-up of Anna's ﬁngers typing as she ﬁnishes her scene. The
musical piece playing on the CD player ends. She turns off the CD player.

We see a close-up of her face as she takes a moment to think. She closes her
eyes and hears piano music in her head.

Her face expresses calmness and warmth as she opens her eyes and begins to
type her next scene.

CUT TO:

INT. ROOM — DAY
Anthony plays the music Anna hears in her head, a slow melodic piece.

INT. LIVINGROOM - CONTINUOUS
Joshua, studying, is surprised by the sounds.
INT. ROOM — CONTINUOUS

Anthony continues to play the keyboard as Joshua stands in the background in a
bit of wonderment. Anthony stops and silence moves in.

JOSHUA
First time I've heard you play in
years.

Anthony slightly twitches his head and eyes as he realizes he has an audience.
ANTHONY
(under his breath)
Time?

Anthony becomes a little more aware.

ANTHONY
Josh, what time is it?

JOSHUA
No need to rush... she's already here.

Tesa walks into the room with papers in hand. Anthony turns from the keyboard.

74

ANTHONY
(to Tesa)
Sony you had to hear that.

TESA
Sorry you will have to hear this.
Tesa walks to Anthony and hands him some papers.

ANTHONY
What's this?

TESA
The ﬁrst pages of my story.

ANTHONY has a look of wonderment as he looks towards Tesa.
EXT. WOODEN DOC - NIGHT

We ﬂoat up from the water to see Anthony and Tesa sitting on a wooden bench
overlooking a river. Tesa holds her story in her hands.

ANTHONY
You wrote a story?

TESA
These are only character sketches, but I
will start writing soon, with your help.

ANTHONY
You actually took my advice?

TESA
A person once told me even if only one
person in the world sees it, it could
make all the difference in the world.

Anthony smiles.

ANTHONY
Sounds like a smart man.

TESA
Sometimes

Anthony's smile disappears.

75

ANTHONY
Huh?

Anthony takes the papers from Tesa and ﬁddles with them acting like he's
reading them. Tesa laughs.

ANTHONY
So what is this all about?

TESA
It would be easier for you to read
if you weren’t holding it upside
down.

Anthony has an over confused look on his face. Tesa laughs.
ANTHONY
Oh.

TESA
I'm writing a story about a call girl
who falls in love with a blind man.

The playful air turns solemn.

ANTHONY
Oh.

A moment of silence.
Anthony now a little nervous.

ANTHONY
Why a blind man?

TESA
Though he’s blind, he can see
her for who she really is.

ANTHONY
Oh.

Silence.

ANTHONY
Why a call girl?

76

TESA
She knows she can trust him to know the truth.

ANTHONY
(serious)
I take it she's not a model.

TESA
She is but supports herself as a call girl.

Anthony looking deﬂated looks out to the water.

ANTHONY
(trying to understand)
Why?

Tears start to form in Tesa's eyes. Her voice trembles slightly.

TESA
She knows better, but the security.
Much more secure than love will ever
be.

Silence.
Anthony's face turns soft.
Anthony sets the paper between them. He reaches out for Tesa and touches her
face for the ﬁrst time. He lightly touches the contours of her face and her hair.
ANTHONY
If I could have one wish... just one
wish... I'd give anything to see you right

DOW.

Tesa desperately tries to hold back from crying as Anthony continues to explore
the shape of her face.

Tesa leans onto Anthony. He holds her in his arms.

TESA
You do see me. You do see.

77

 

INT. STUDY ROOM — NIGHT

The study is calm and serene and so is the look on Anna’s face as she takes her
ﬁnal page of the night out of her typewriter.

INT. BEDROOM — CONTINUOUS

The room is quiet and warm. We ﬂoat over Anna across her necklace then to her
face. In thought, small tears begin to form in her eyes as she turns out the lamp.

FADE OUT:
FADE IN:

INT. STUDY ROOM — DAY

Close-up of a glass of water being set on the desk. We slowly ﬂoat around Anna
as she sets a piece of paper in the typewriter. We zoom into the paper as Anna
begins to type.

DISSOLVE TO:
INT. KITCHEN - NIGHT

Tesa is concentrated and animated as she types her story. We see a close-up of
her ﬁngers dancing on the keyboard.

NARRATOR
The hour of their meeting became days,
and the days became months. In this
moment Tesa's words would ﬂow form
her heart trough her ﬁngertips to the
typewriter.

CUT TO:
INT. LIVING ROOM — CONTINUOUS

The room is dimly lit. Books and notes are spread across the coffee table.
Joshua sits on the couch.

His eyes are with a hard look at his notes. He pages through some text, then
adds a few notes to his large collection.

78

ANTHONY
Studying hard for your test tomorrow?

Surprised Josh looks behind him to see Anthony standing over him with a glass
of water. Joshua continues to study and write notes.

JOSHUA
Yeah, I had to be an engineer.

ANTHONY
Fascinating how you turn numbers into
reality.

JOSHUA
Right now my numbers turn into crap.

Anthony and Joshua both chuckle.
Joshua sets down his pen and turns to Anthony.

JOSHUA
l have a feeling you didn't come to talk
to me about numbers.

Anthony feels his way to the couch and sits next to Joshua and takes a sip of
water.

ANTHONY
It's funny how water can take a life while
give it all the same.

Anthony takes another sip.

JOSHUA
What?

ANTHONY
You’re right. I didn't come to talk to you
about numbers. I want to talk to you
about Tesa.

JOSHUA
What about Tesa?

ANTHONY
I can't see her anymore.

79

JOSHUA
You could never se her anyhow, so
what's your point?

ANTHONY
You know what I mean. There's no point
in me seeing her except to hurt her.
That's the point. She'll never
understand.

JOSHUA
She's been nothing but good for you.

ANTHONY
I'm nothing but bad for her.

Silence. Anthony takes another sip of water. Joshua becomes upset.

JOSHUA
Your right, what does it matter anyway?
Nobody ever understands you. Poor blind
orphan boy has to rely on his orphan
friend all the time. Thinks the world owes
him something for his blindness, but the
world owes him nothing. He doesn't
understand life. That's his real blindness.
Life is not good, nor bad, cruel, or
forgiving. But what life is, is short, and you
have to cherish every breathing moment.
Tesa is that moment. You may be blind,
but you have a chance at something that
I've never had. I would trade my eyes for
all the blindness in the world for one drop
of warmth that you so blindly throw away.

We hear the CLINKING of keys.
CUT TO:
INT. KITCHEN — CONTINUOUS
Anna continues to type her story.
ANTHONY (0.8.)

I would trade my life so that you could
(MORE)

80

have the world. You don‘t understand life
like I do, because you are blinded by its
ironic gift. Life brings death. That's what
makes it short to you because you spend
most of it being afraid. To me, life brings
life. It's not about what I'm throwing away,
but giving to gain.

INT. LIVING ROOM - CONTINUOUS
Joshua now frustrated grabs Anthony by the shoulders.

JOSHUA
You know you’re right about death.
Everyone's afraid of it, but that's not the
point of life. The point is that you lived.
You lived!

ANTHONY
I want to live again.

Joshua in frustration lets go of Anthony and calmly tries to concentrate on his
studies.

ANTHONY
You still going to help me? Help me live.

JOSHUA
(ﬂattened)
Yeah.
Silence.
JOSHUA
(under his breath)
Asshole.
The CLINKING of keys typing can be heard.
CUT TO:
INT. KITCHEN - CONTINUOUS

Tesa continues to work vigorously on her story.

81

ANTHONY (0.8.)
What does Tesa look like?

JOSHUA (0.8.)
More beautiful than you'll ever know.
When do you want to go on your so-called
afterlife? Damn gypsy.

ANTHONY (0.8.)
When Tesa ﬁnishes her story.

Tesa's vigorous typing stops. She pulls out a page from her typewriter stares at it
and smiles.

EXT. DOCS — TWIGHLIGHT

Underneath the long wooden docs, the water sparkles with the setting of the sun.
We see Anthony sitting alone at the edge of the doc as we ﬂoat closer and closer
towards him. We are about to reach him as he turns. Tesa stands behind him
holding a draft of her story.

TESA
I wish we could have met a little later.

Tesa takes her shoes off and sits next to Anthony at the edge of the doc. She
dangles her feet in the water.

TESA
A few more days and I'll have a whole
story to read to you.

Tesa smiles. Anthony only looks straight ahead out into the water.

ANTHONY
Tesa, I won't be here in a few days.

TESA
What? Where are you going?

ANTHOHNY
Somewhere I've wanted to go for a long time.

TESA
Where?

82

Silence.

TESA
At least tell me when you'll be back.

Tesa pages through her story.

TESA
I would like to ﬁnis this with you.

Silence.

TESA
Since you're not talking anyway, I'll read
what I’ve written to you now. We'll ﬁnish
later.

ANTHONY
You're a beautiful writer. You’ll ﬁnish your
story with or without me.

The papers tart to tremble from Tesa's hands.

TESA
Please be honest with me. What's wrong?

Tesa's cell phone rings.
TESA
(on phone)
Hello. I'll be there. Yes for sure.
Tesa hangs up the phone and puts it in her purse.

TESA
I have to work tonight.

Silence.

TESA
Tell me what's wrong.

Anthony takes a moment.

83

 

ANTHONY

(calmly)
I want to...
TESA
What?
ANTHONY

Move on with life.

TESA
I don't understand you.

ANTHONY
I'm going somewhere out there Tesa.

Anthony points to the water.

ANTHONY
And I’m not coming back.

TESA
(trembling)
That's not called moving on that's called
ending your life.

ANTHONY
For me It's a beginning.

TESA
You're going to hell.

ANTHONY
Hell is not being able to see you.

TESA
Hell is you not seeing how much I need you.

ANTHONY
Hell is always needing. You should take
off that chain that binds your neck.
You'll be more free to understand—

Tesa takes her papers and throws them at Anthony.

84

TESA
(Trembling)
You really are blind.

Tesa picks up her shoes and walks off.

Anthony's face begins to show pain as Tesa walks further and further away.
Soon she is gone. He starts to vigorously salvage all the papers he can.

INT. ROOM — NIGHT

CLIENT #2 lays sprawled on the bed as Tesa walks in. He stares at her
emotionless as she begins to undress.

TESA
(lifeless)
You like what you see.

CLIENT #2
Yeah. Turn around and let me see you.

Tesa turns as she continues to undress. Her face is devoid of life.

INT. STUDY ROOM — NIGHT

A Close-up shows Anna's glass of water now ﬁnished. We ﬂoat around Anna as
she types, her face calm yet stem. The keys CLINK from her vigorous typing.

DISSOLVE TO:
EXT. DOCS — NIGHT
The water twinkles form the surrounding lights. We ﬂoat down the docs until we

reach Anthony and Joshua sitting at the end of the docs only accompanied by
the surrounding trees.

ANTHONY

You know what to say to the police.
JOSHUA

Yes.
ANTHONY

Joshua, for the ﬁrs time I feel alive.

85

 

JOSHUA
I know you do.

CUT TO:

INT. BATHROOM - CONTINUOUS

Tesa silent and tired ﬁlls her bathtub with water. She stares at the ripples from
the running water.

DISSOLVE TO:

EXT. DOCS - CONTINUOUS

A Close-up shows the ripples in the lake. Anthony and Joshua remain sitting on
the docs.

ANTHONY
I know you've given everything for
me, but I need one more favor from
you...

JOSHUA
Anything.

ANTHONY
Promise to take care of Tesa.

Joshua looks hard at Anthony.

JOSHUA
I promise.

DISSOLVE TO:

INT. BATHROOM — CONTINUOUS
Anthony holds out his hand to Joshua.

ANTHONY
Thanks for everything.

86

 

JOSHUA
Thank you for everything.

They shake hands.

ANTHONY
Guess this is it.

Anthony slowly enters the water.

ANTHONY
See you in awhile. Only this time I'll really
be seeing you.

JOSHUA
Yeah.

Anthony ﬂoats out towards the center of the lake. His eyes calm and cool, and
his countenance serene. His eyes glimmer under the starlit sky. He ﬂoats and
ﬂoats l the lake, every part of his body and soul is free in the water.

Joshua's face looks hard from holding back tears. He motions his body to turn
then stops. He turns back towards Anthony.

JOSHUA
Wait!

Joshua hurriedly enters the water and swims wit all his strength and with strokes
of desperation to reach Anthony as fast as he can. He reaches Anthony and
stops with heavy breath.

In the center of the lake they tread water and look at each other. Joshua and
Anthony can no longer hold back. Their eyes start to glaze. Soon they hug.

They let go and Anthony ﬂoats back and then down into the water. Only Joshua
is left in the water under the starlit sky.

INT. BATHROOM — CONTINUOUS

Tesa snaps out of her trance-like state. The build up of tears start to run down
her eyes. She slowly releases her necklace revealing a cross and also a blade in
her hand. She begins to cry as she holds the blade to her wrist. A Close-up
shows the blade touching her wrist.

87

NARRATOR
Run free like an evening tide under
the starlit sky. Stop for nothing
Ride, ride, ride.

CUT TO:
INT. STUDY ROOM - NIGHT

The room is dark and dimly lit. Anna’s teary eyes sparkle in the light. The
TICKING of the typewriter keys can be heard as she continues to type.

NARRATOR
That night Anthony found his
liberation and Tesa found hers.

CUT TO:
INT. BATHROOM — NIGHT

NARRATOR
But Tesa found a different liberation than
Anthony.

We slowly ﬂoat towards Tesa's eyes that are now relaxed and serene.

NARRATOR
It cam form something inside her she
realized she always had and will always
have. Something that no one can touch but
her.

A Close—up shows Tesa's hand dropping the blade leaving her wrist untouched.
We ﬂoat closer and closer towards Tesa's eyes.

NARRATOR
Her imagination.

We ﬂoat closer until we reach Tesa’s eyes.

DISSOLVE TO:

88

EXT. COURTYARD - TWILIGHT

Tesa walks down the path leading towards the courtyard where she ﬁrst met
Anthony. At the end of the path awaits Anthony on-Iooking the fountain. As she
reaches him, he turns and looks straight into her eyes.

Anthony’s eyes rhythmically study Tesa's face. He can see her.

He looks down and grasps her hand. He kisses her gently, then holds her tightly.

We start form afar down the path and ﬂoat closer and closer to Anthony and
Tesa as they hold each other.

NARRATOR
Her beautiful imagination.

DISSOLVE TO:
INT. BATHROOM - NIGHT

We ﬂoat closer and closer to Tesa. Her face now expressing freedom and a
moments happiness.

NARRATOR
A place where she is always free.

CUT TO:
INT. CHURCH — DAY
Tesa walks into a church, dips her ﬁnger in holy water then blesses herself.
She sits alone in a pew. A Close-up shows her face bright and relaxed. She
begins to jot down ideas for her next story in a notebook. The same notebook

Anna uses to jot down her thoughts.

We ﬂoat away from Tesa. As we get further away the church encompasses Tesa
more and more.

NARRATOR
Free like an evening tide.

CUT TO:

89

INT - STUDY ROOM - NIGHT

We see a close-up of the last page of the story as the letterhead punches in the
words 'Free like an evening tide. THE END.’

Anna pulls out the last page from the typewriter and adds it to her ﬁnished story.
She looks at the ﬁnished pages with warmth and accomplishment.

CUT TO:
EXT. DOCS — TWILIGHT

Anna carrying her story walks down the doc stopping half way to take in the
scene. The trees surround the docs as they do in her story Evening Tide.

She walks down to the end of the docs, looking into the water. Her tears are of
sadness and joy. She holds out her story for one last time and then sets it aﬂoat
into the water.

We see Anna now satisﬁed, free, and happy.

As we ﬂoat over the water and the story, it soon fades away into the water then
disappears forever.

FADE OUT.

90

‘I‘ -1]

illllllll Illllillllllll l

293 02504 298