x
x
x
x
INTRODU
I
SPLICING CROSS-FI “RECIPES F
II “SUBVERSIVE “CINEMATI
FURTHER IN
DUCTION
I + SCAVENGING ILM NARRATIVE FOR DISASTER” “PULPED” II E PROJECTION” IC SPEAKEASY”
INFORMATION
INTRODUCTION
This manual aims to explain and demonstrate the key processes behind FILMPUNK. FILMPUNK is a system for re-appropriating scenes from existing films. This aims to both question the holding of film as private property which cannot be edited, spliced or re-used; and to enable films to live a “second life” through these methods. There is a collection of splicing and collaging methods for film, which aim to project film itself in a different way; more similar to music; allowing it to be mashed up, mixed and ripped. These methods do not adhere to current film copyright law, and so a primary focus for the project has been to question the law as it stands, and speculate, through showings of films and visualisation, what the future may look like for this form of DIY film making. FILMPUNK is about seeing what can be developed from existing material; and about seeing film as the subject, not the medium: raw material, rather than a means to an end. The current role of film; as art, as entertainment, as a lucrative industry; is known. What film could become were it allowed to be treated as a raw material rather than a finished product, is very much unknown. All of these processes are possible to use through downloading YouTube clips, and loading them into iMovie. Examples can be found on FILMPUNK’s blog (details on final page). To continue on the theme of film as raw material, fig. 4 (pg. 8-9), explains the way in which the processes of FILMPUNK have been developed; through “Film Mining”.
Fig. 1: Projecting “PULPED”
Fig. 2: Crossing genres
Fig. 3: Showing of “PULPED”
PROSPECTING
SOURCING
DEVELOPING
Testing the territory and researching prior projects
Exploration of the raw material of existing film
Tools and processes, in order to mine the material from YouTube and implement it
REFINING
FINISHING
USE
Honing these processes, to successfully create new narrative material.
Streamlining the processes and beginning to understand how they will be received.
How these processes will be implemented in the outside world.
Fig. 4: Film Mining
SPLICING + SCAVENGING
To paraphrase academic Lawrence Lessig: “The film industry of Hollywood was built by fleeing pirates”. Hollywood was founded on stealing ideas and processes. Walt Disney, perhaps the most successful film-maker of all, stole the ideas for his childrens’ films from the Brothers Grimm; and the only reason Hollywood exists in California is because on the East Coast, commission would have to have been paid for the use of filming equipment. Much of the equipment was therefore illegally owned. The film industry is strict about the allowances it gives to freely use content. This seems ironic considering that laws were flouted in creating the industry in the first place. This is what FILMPUNK aims to start a conversation about; if Walt Disney cannibalised his childrens’ tales from existing stories, where does that leave an everyday citizen who wishes to create their own piece of filmic appropriation? There is a juxtaposition between how music and film’s copyright is dealt with. In the case of music; when you own a copy, you are given permission to rip, mix and burn it onto disc. The fact that this is a “permission” is important; the distributor reserves the right to remove these permissions whenever they see fit. With film, however, these permissions don’t exist in the first place. If you try and screenshot a film, this happens: (see fig. 5) Viacom, one of the largest broadcasters in the US, claim that YouTube freerides on the backs of content creators; despite being an entirely legal website. The claim that YouTube exploits those
Fig. 5: “Greyscreening”; screenshots are not allowed to be recorded from a bought copy of a film
Fig. 6: An edited piece of UK film copyright legislation
Fig. 7: iMovie
who create, by allowing freedom of expression through the curating of their own channel, seems paradoxical. YouTube has been the primary source of the clips used in developing and demonstrating FILMPUNK’s processes. Here a piece of existing copyright legislation has been amended to allow FILMPUNK’s activities (fig. 6). Later a future will be speculated upon in which FILMPUNK learns to cope better with the existing laws. Throughout the project, only iMovie has been used to edit film (fig.7). The ubiquitousness of iMovie has been beneficial in providing a basic and accessible platform with which to experiment; the same reason material has been sourced from YouTube. In some ways it has been a hindrance; it is sometimes unable to cope with a large amount of editing. Some limitations, however, are positive; as with the YouTube-sourced material; you must play the part of creative scavenger in order to salvage your own narrative.
CROSS-FILM NARRATIVE
Something established throughout the development of FILMPUNK’s processes is a “cross-film narrative”. This involves splitting a common filmic event into stages, and then taking each of those stages from a different film (fig.8). The idea of the cross-film narrative is valuable to keep in mind while splicing; in order to create a narrative, you must be aware of how the actions of the characters and the use of space in each of the clips you have chosen interlink with each other. RANDOMISER The first prototype system created for FILMPUNK was the Randomiser. Inspired by a similar project; Matthew Irvine Brown’s “Music for Shuffle” in which short tracks of music were composed to interlink in any order, the Randomiser used iTunes’ music video playlist function to create quick fire narratives (fig.9). 1. Drag the desired short clip into iTunes 2. Go to “Get Info” 3. Go to the “Options” tab 4. In the dropdown menu of media types, choose “music video” 5. Uncheck “skip when shuffling”. In this way, a playlist of small clips was compiled to be shuffled in the same way as the “Music for Shuffle” tracks.
Fig. 8: Cross-film narrative: events are storyboarded, sourced from films, and placed into one narrative 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Fig. 10: Reconstructing “Pretty Woman” from its outtakes
Fig. 11: Contrasting the “perfect” and “worst” film
While this system proved jerky and clunky due to the unsuitability of iTunes for showing film, it proved useful for inspiration and further exploration into splicing. CREATING FILMS FROM OUTTAKES Another process explored through YouTube was the act of recreating a film from its own outtakes (Fig. 10). This aimed to raise the question of whether it is more acceptable to steal deleted scenes than ones included in the final cut of the film. PERFECT & WORST MOVIES The algorithms discovered through research into Hollywood’s use of “script doctors” (people employed to gauge the probable success of a treatment, by using data from previous films), enabled the compiling of a list of what might make the perfect, and the worst, film (fig. 11). Successful films are often adapted from a previously successful book or play, and there tend to be two main problems that the protagonist deals with (one obvious and physical, the other something to overcome mentally). So what equals a flop? Apparently, bowling scenes, remakes and sequels.
“RECIPES FOR DISASTER”
Also developed was “Recipes for Disaster”. This process was a more specific, micro-version of the cross-film narrative explored with the randomiser, and through general splicing. Here the focus was splitting down specific action sequences within films into stages, in order to collage them more effectively. For instance, here the example of a shooting is used (fig. 12); across different films, as with many other “disastrous” plot devices, a shooting is presented in much the same way. Here it is shown in sequence; beginning with a provocation; next the gun is drawn; the gun is fired; the victim falls; and finally the aftermath, where the viewer sees the damage that has been done. “Recipes for Disaster” allows the splitting up of sequences into stages more easily, in order to reconstruct them into cross-film narratives. A more complex example of the system is the action of “Bomb Defusing” (fig. 13). This is also shown in a diagram; there are two distinct paths here rather than one definite way for the situation to pan out. These diagrams can be used to identify points at which a clip should be spliced in order to create an interesting new narrative.
Fig. 12: The process of a shooting (here exemplified using the film “Blade Runner”)
Fig. 13: “Bomb Defusing” diagram
“PULPED”
An important piece of process involved in FILMPUNK has been PULPED. This is a spliced film in which Quentin Tarantino’s “Pulp Fiction” is combined with other films. Every scene belongs to a different genre (fig. 14). This goes some way to demonstrating many of the processes I have explained so far; in order to understand these more fully, I would recommend viewing it, using this manual as a guide (a link is available at the rear of the manual). Pulp Fiction was a suitable choice as a base film, as it is already made up of many small storylines. This has been extrapolated to absurdity; every short scene is a micro-narrative. Many of the clips used have been selected for either their character dynamic, or in PULPED’s case, also for their genre. For instance, in the first scene of Pulp Fiction, where a couple intend to hold up a diner (fig. 15), the job was to assess what else a man and a woman sitting in a diner would be discussing within the context of film (in this case, the most obvious option is a break up). A conscious decision has been to use sound as a transitionary aid between scenes. In one instance, Pulp Fiction has been spliced with music from the Shining, which demonstrates how much effect a change of music has on the atmosphere of a scene; there is the distinct air of a horror film. The dynamic has been played with through the introduction of new characters into scenes in many cases; in this one, a voyeur (fig. 16). The addition of a character who acts as a watcher adds a dynamic of tension to the scene.
Fig. 14: Examples of genres used within “PULPED”: Romance, Suspense, Western
Fig. 15: Translating narrative cross-genre
Fig. 16: Inserting a voyeur
“PULPED� serves as an example of how existing films can be tweaked into being something entirely different.
SUBVERSIVE PROJECTION
As well as the processes developed for immediate use, consideration has been given to the possibilities of the future for FILMPUNK. Due to the law-bending nature of the processes documented, this has been imagined in a fully subversive and underground fashion. The idea of distorting the film was explored; as this is often used in practice when uploading full films to YouTube. The video is tampered with in some way, for instance it can be reflected, sped up or slowed down, to avoid being detected as an infringement of copyright (fig. 17). This was put into practice through experimenting with projecting the film onto different surfaces in order to distort it; then re-filming either the surface itself (fig. 18), or the ceiling of the room if the surface was reflective (fig. 19). This process is possible with many different materials and so is personal to the user.
Fig. 17: Example of tampering with video so it is uploadable to YouTube; in this case, darkening the picture so that it is undetectable
Fig. 18: FILMPUNK’s version of tampering
Fig. 19: Holographic projection; abstracting “PULPED” visually beyond recognition.
CINEMATIC SPEAKEASY
These explorations also resulted in speculation on the concept of the “cinematic speakeasy”; temporary constructed environments within the home where spliced films may be shown. This involved a prototype for a home-made projector (fig. 20), as well as visualisations of what this may look like (fig. 21). The most important aspect of FILMPUNK is what it exposes about what we are and aren’t allowed to do creatively with existing film. The fact FILMPUNK is an illegal creative process surely provides food for thought about the way creativity is viewed, and the strange paradoxes surrounding what forms of creativity are considered acceptable. In light of this, the future for FILMPUNK is as a tool for helping to reform these existing policies; either through developing it further to either fit through loopholes in the existing legislation, or to attempt to reform that legislation entirely.
Fig. 20: Homemade projector for use in the “Cinematic Speakeasy”
Fig. 21: Visualisation of the “Cinematic Speakeasy”
FURTHER INFORMATION
To find out more about FILMPUNK: filmpunksystem.tumblr.com
To watch “PULPED” and examples of all the processes documented here: vimeo.com/rhibowen/videos
For more information on current film copyright law: www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/5B
To find out more about FILMPUNK: filmpunksystem.tumblr.com
To watch “PULPED” and examples of all the processes documented here: vimeo.com/rhibowen/videos
For more information on current film copyright law: www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/ section/5B
L. Bender (producer) & Q. Tarantino (director). (1994). Pulp Fiction [Motion Picture]. US: Miramax. J. Blum (producer) & D. Chazelle (director). (2014). Whiplash [Motion Picture]. US: Sony. L. Gottlieb (producer) & E. Ardolino (director). (1987). Dirty Dancing [Motion Picture]. US: Vestron. O. Welles (producer & director). (1947). The Lady From Shanghai [Motion Picture]. US: Mercury. A. Milchan (producer) & G. Marshall (director). (1990). Pretty Woman [Motion Picture]. US: Buena Vista. B. Grazer (producer) & R. Howard (director). (1995). Apollo 13 [Motion Picture]. US: Universal.
CREDITS
S. Aubrey (producer) & C. Gillespie (director). (2007). Lars and the Real Girl [Motion Picture]. US/ Canada: MGM. M. Platt (producer) & N. Winding Refn (director). (2011). Drive [Motion Picture]. US: FilmDistrict. B. Krevoy (producer) & B. & P. Farrelly (directors). (1996). Kingpin [Motion Picture]. US: MGM. L. Turman (producer) & M. Nichols (director). (1967). The Graduate [Motion Picture]. US: United Artists. G. Marshall (producer & director). (1991). Frankie & Johnny [Motion Picture]. US: Paramount.
M. Deeley (producer) & R. Scott (director). (1982). Bladerunner [Motion Picture]. US: Warner Bros. L. Harris (producer) & N. Cassavetes (director). (2004). The Notebook [Motion Picture]. US: New Line Cinema. A. Hitchcock (producer & director). (1954). Rear Window [Motion Picture]. US: Paramount. C. Eastwood (producer & director). (1992). Unforgiven [Motion Picture]. US: Warner Bros. A. Lazar (producer) & G. Junger (director). (1999). 10 Things I Hate About You [Motion Picture]. US: Buena Vista.