Week Twelve: Rough Filmmaking, the "Rough Theater" of the Next Generation

Though I had already read, analyzed, and commented on Brooks’ article about the “rough theater,” I had not actually applied it to the class as a whole. This class, 6x1, has been experimental in many ways, just as “rough theater” would be. When I first read the article, I did not connect it to the class, but after the discussion in class on Monday, it clearly does apply to the class in very important ways. For one, just like “rough theater” would insert jokes depending on the audience or the location where the play is being performed, films made on campus at UNCW would have inside jokes that only students at UNCW or in Wilmington in general would understand. In 6x1, doing one minute films can sometimes limit the narrative ability of a film to tell a story, but the idea behind the class is that the experience of making the film creates the story, and like the rough theater, it is more of a personal connection to the film and being able to laugh at things that happened behind the scenes rather than what is actually taking place on screen. It is more of an interactive experience with the film.

In the same way that shows deemed “rough theater” shows would use flour to whiten faces to show emotions such as fear, we have to use the props that we have available to us, as well. Not many of us can afford to go out and spend hundreds of dollars on props, so we use what we have on hand. For instance, in the one shot that my group did, we bought books from our apartments/homes to choose from, we used a cell phone that we had, a portable radio/mp3 player that we had, and just wore street clothes. Not only did it save us money and time, but it allowed us to establish the characters in the one minute films by what they were doing instead of creating distinguishable looks for them. In the forty eight hour movie race, we are going to have to create a one minute film without using a standard video camera while still having to incorporate a mystery prop that we will not find out the identity of until right before the race begins.

Though it may be deemed “rough” filmmaking, it is no less worthy of being called filmmaking than a Hollywood production would be. It is simply a way of being creative and using the medium in an almost more organic way. It is simply more gritty and hands on, not less worthy of being called a film. At the same time, it is getting back to the basics of film before there were big budgets and super high tech equipment, which is similar to how “rough theater” got back to the basics of theater by simply engaging the audience and adapting the story to fit wherever they might be performing instead of making the performance all about spectacle. It is just truer to the art form.

At the same time, people sometimes forget that films do not have to be created for a general audience. Really, they do not have to be created for any audience at all. Films can be created simply for the entertainment of the filmmakers involved with the film or simply for the entertainment of filmmakers in general. Films made during one’s childhood with a simple camera and little to know editing might not be entertaining to anyone outside of the family, but that does not take away the fact that it is a form of movie making.

It really goes back to the simple saying that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Filmmaking, or appreciating film, is really left up to the eyes that are viewing a film. There does not always have to be a set audience, the film does not always have to be pretty, polished, and completely professional looking to be appreciated, and it is not always about “getting it right.” Sometimes experimenting and just having fun with the medium can bring about the best results, just as “rough theater,” as it was adapted for individual audiences, brought about the best results in a given venue.