Morgan's ramblings about visual continuity, contrast, and the emotional quality of codecs.

I just read the post and decided that nobody could understand it without a little contextual information. It has always been the plan to shoot unicorns on multiple formats, in chapters, in order to take full advantage of the children's storybook conceit and to offer multiple perspectives. This last week we have been discussing the advantages and disadvantages of this and beginning to wrap our head around which format is going to be where and why. Most of our discussions have been about the emotional and political connotations that these formats and codecs have, and have been trying to pinpoint ways to fully realize their potential. This are my thoughts about the subject:

Visual storytelling – contrast creates tension, affinity creates lack of tension. As the tension in the script progresses, the visualization of that story adds more contrast in it's elements. Elements generally don't have any emotional quality on their own. Red can mean whatever you want it to mean, whatever you tell the viewer it means. Look at Pee Wee's Big Adventure. Burton creates a very contrasty, black and white spotlight motif to signify dreams. The same asthetic can be used to denote aloneness, or joy. It is the combination of the emotional quality and the mix of elements that creates mood – the placement and use of the elements that create tension.
Differing from other visual elements, formats have information hard wired in them. When we see 16 we think – when we see 35 we think – when we see Hi8 we think -. All of these elements can be exploited. Can they be exploited in the same piece? How can we maintain visual continuity and be constantly shifting formats – constantly commenting on and judging the characters by deciding in what format to shoot them. If one makes a movie in one format – one is making a singular statement – I am shooting on this format, it is commenting on the totality of my subject this way... But when one is constantly shifting – this dialog becomes as important as lighting, clothing, and the words that the actors are saying because it is always changing.
But how is this different from the other visual elements? How is format linked to line, shape, color, depth? We are assuredly not going to change the costumes just because we are shooting in 35 or change the dialog because we are shooting in Vidster are we? At what point are we at the mercy of the format? At what point does it stop being a tool and start being a symbol? Is it always a symbol?
Another question is... the change from one format from shot to shot adds it's own visual intesnity, some more than others. The jump from Vidster to 35 is more intense than the jump from Hi8 to DV. How can we use these formats and codecs as visual signifiers without the visual intensity of the piece being out of control, full blast, 100% all the time? Is that possible? Since the codec lives three lives (one as visual element, one as reproducer of the other visual elements always commenting on them, the last as a signifier in and of itself). How can we break these three aspects apart and make them into one unifying theme???

Morgan Dusatko - writer/director