The visual language presented in Witness is astounding and rivals Goldman’s work. The team of Kelley and Wallace evoke a vivid film in my mind as the language they use is so descriptive, clear and concise that my imagination needn't work too hard. What stuck me most about their style writing was that it contained most of the pleasing elements of Goldman’s style such as the great detail and camera composition. However, Witness read more like a standard script scene for scene.
Also, Kelley and Wallace’s use of time to depict events or situations is brilliant. For instance, in the first few scenes where it introduces one visual aspect such as the children’s faces or the one horse-drawn buggy and after time adds more or another aspect such as the other Amish and their clothing or the buggy falling in line with more buggies. They start small with individual but related elements and then build up through time to convey the overall effect or visual image of the scene.
Discussion questions:
1) What is the most favorable aspect of Kelley and Wallace's writing style to you?
2) If you were to write a feature length film, would you prefer a partner or not? Why?
2 comments:
No, I would not prefer a partner. I have had experience co-writing a short film with an equally talented writer and I absolutely hated it. The film turned out great, but there was always conflicts over what we wanted to convey. Not only that, we were also co-directing it, which brought even more problems. If you're working with someone who is equally or far more talented than you, then you find yourself fighting over ideas. It is not a fun way to work and I would not try it again. However, if I'm working with someone less talented than me, then I would not mind. They would bring good input into the film, but they would not challenge me on ideas. At least that is how I see it.
-Fernando Rosas
No partner. The simple fact is that people clash and by the end of it you have to struggle just to keep from wringing each other's necks
Post a Comment