FOR THE DURATION: Frank barratt's 'Provocative Competence'.

The concept of 'Provocative competence'

What methods shall we chose when we approach the making of a film?  How will we wrangle all the variables?  How can we make something visually original?  

Like all creative activities, filmmaking involves improvising, and tolerating discomfort, challenging ones normal habits in search of unique results. 

Here is an extract from 'Yes to the Mess' by Frank Barrett:

“Many veteran jazz musicians practice provocative competence; they make deliberate efforts to create disruptions and incremental re-orientations. This commitment often leads players to attempt to outwit their learned habits by putting themselves in unfamiliar musical situations that demand novel responses.  Saxophonist John Coltrane is well known for deliberately playing songs in difficult and unfamiliar keys because “it made [him] think” while he was playing and he could not rely on his fingers to play the notes automatically.  Herbi Hancock recalls that Miles Davis was very suspicious of musicians in his quartet playing repetitive patterns so he forbade them to practice.  In an effort to spur the band to approach familiar tunes from a novel perspective, Davis would sometimes call tunes in different keys, or call tunes that the band had not rehearsed.  This would be done in concert, before a live audience.  “I pay you to do your practicing on the band stand,” Hancock recalls Davis’ commitment to “Keeping the music fresh and moving” by avoiding comfortable routines.  “Do you know why I don’t play ballads anymore?” Jarrett recalled Davis telling him.  “Because I like to play ballads so much (Carr, 1992, p. 53).” [Barrett, 1998, p. 609]

Filmmakers can be informed by the practice of artists who work in other mediums.  Provocative competence seems like a good guiding principle to answer the questions posed at the beginning of this blog.

*The content of this blog was first posted in August 2018.
**I'm not a fan of Miles Davis.  I prefer Charlie Parker.

See 'Yes to the Mess' by Frank Barrett.

FOR THE DURATION: Locations.

The locations for the thesis film are finalised, and are as follows:

Shoot 1

1.       Menai Bridge streets              Grid ref. SH 55679 72105

2.       Alleyway in Menai bridge      Grid ref. SH 55679 72105

3.       Tregarth pedestrian tunnel  Grid ref. SH 60658 68218

Shoot 2

1.       Brewit bridge                             Grid ref. SH 61882 38326

2.       Coed Pennyglannau                Grid ref. SH 67469 39322

3.       Pipeline near Tyn-y-Coed     Grid ref. SH 66812 39223

Shoot 3

1.       Radio Mast                                 Grid ref. SH 47622 49363

2.       Caernarfon Road Tunnel       Grid ref. SH 47986 62589

3.       Armco Barrier Road                 Grid ref. SH 49683 53828

Shoot 4

1.       Slate Finishing Factory           Grid ref. SH 50238 53414

FOR THE DURATION : Films can confuse, and are great because of it.

I was chatting to a friend today, a bearded green woodworker, who is beginning to take on the role of 'hippy councillor' to the production.  I was sharing my plan/ideas, and expressing my anxiety regarding the lack of a coherent narrative for the thesis film.

He asked if I'd seen 'Performance' (Nicholas Roeg).  He said he understood the first half, as it had a standard narrative, but the second half made no sense at all to him, but that this was not important as it in no way detracted from his enjoyment of the film.

I saw this film many years ago.  I think the incoherence was intentional, and complemented the themes and characters.

This may well apply to my own film.  It is not intended to be a conventional 'Hollywood' film in terms of narrative.  I am interested in the theatre of the absurd, which deals with existential angst, felt when one realises that all meaning in life is constructed by the individual, resulting in a terrible burden of responsibility.

Where the hell is this, and why are you looking at it?

I think throwing the audience into a state of confusion is actually a valid device.  I discussed this with another associate (who happens to be a university lecturer), and she labelled it as 'lazy Avant Garde'.

However, the surest way to make a film sequence that confuses an audience (in terms of meaning) is to make it pregnant with metaphor/symbolism, but be unsure yourself as to its meaning.  The discomfort an audience feels is caused by the film maker requiring them to do some work, to fully engage with the film, rather than to sit back in their velvet seats and be spoon fed their popcorn.

Disquiet also arises in the audience from them being accustomed to everything in a film making sense.  NOT EVERYTHING IN LIFE MAKES SENSE.  A film that embraces nonsense can be more realist (and more entertaining) than one that makes perfect sense.

So, hail the hippy councillor for reminding me of the tyranny of the Hollywood narrative.