It’s Tuesday night, and Tuesdays mean work all day so I can’t say that I’ve been thinking too much about my research. But sometimes that’s a good thing, letting the unconscious mind work on the problems that all too often consume my conscious mind. I can’t say that what I’m thinking about is any clearer today, but work has been a welcome distraction from the world of ethnography, auto-ethnography and concepts of epistemology. In truth all that is foreign to me, I sometimes feel like a complete fraud, a wolf in sheep’s clothing or in this case a sheep in wolf’s clothing. I feel like a vulnerable little lamb that’s going to be discovered at any moment in the lion’s (read wolf’s for the sake of the metaphor) den.
For the first time since I was at school I am being intellectually challenged, and I mean really really challenged, on a daily basis. It isn’t just my ability to mentally traverse the world these academics inhabit that concerns me. It is the day-to-day issues of conversation and general academic interaction that plagues me. While I have a decent relationship with my PhD supervisor, I am intimidated by his vocabulary and verbal dexterity. His choice or wording and sentence construction, while appropriate for an academic article, is such that confusion sets in very early on in a conversation. I’m not saying that I stand there stupified by the big words he’s spouting, I do actually understand what he’s saying, I just don’t grasp the detailed and often important finer points of a specific theoretical principle that he’s trying to convey. This is not only incredibly overwhelming, tiring, and time consuming in having to research everything I discuss with him, it is also very discouraging. In fact, short of the overall scale of the task ahead of me, this intellectual barrier feels like the biggest obstacle between me and my PhD.
While talking via MSN with a friend of mine this weekend I discovered that it isn’t just me that worries about such issues. The guy I was talking to isn’t involved in a similar project to mine but he is friends with an academic. During our discussion he made clear to me that he too has these issues when talking to his friend. I realised two things, first of all although he faces this barrier it obviously doesn’t deter him from communicating with his friend. Secondly, he tries to learn from his friend. This made me realise that while I currently feel like I’m sinking in the mire of intellectual flowery language, I am in fact heading in quite the opposite direction. I am actually ascending an incredibly steep learning curve.
Unlike my time as an Undergraduate the processes, writing styles, methods, methologies are completely different, not to mention that I now have to involve myself in debates pertaining to research ethics and philosophical issues surrounding my current research. These new areas of concern, while appearing limited, are in fact endless and all consuming in their depth and breadth. It will undoubtedly take time for me to adjust to these changes, I have indeed learnt so much already and my progress up that death defying learning curve isn’t as measly as I might imagine. The head of Postgraduate Research keeps reminding us that, “this will seem overwhelming until one day when everything appears clear.” That day feels a long way off. However she has advised that we begin making a research diary so that we can look back and realise when those moments of clarity arrive.
For now I will simply attempt to define the paramaters of my research, from there, later in my diary entries, I will detail my process of research.
My PhD thesis is in two parts, firstly a 60,000 word theoretical exploration of the role of the script in the process of generic change within genre. The genre in question will be neo-noir, my reasons for choosing this are numerous. Primarily the genre is extremely diverse in its application while multifaceted and ambiguous in its definition, secondly it provides a distinct new wave of films that have evolved from fairly ridgid classical roots. Also, the genre has clear literary roots; steeped in the hardboiled mythology that Cawleti discusses which provides an interesting case study on the importance of the written word in generic transformation. Finally, and very simply. I love the genre. Essentially my argument will surround the significance of the script in the changes that have taken place in the genre over the last fifty years. While the likes of Altman and Neale have sort to refine broad paradigms for genre revision, I will focus my argument on the internal mechanism of filmmaking, asserting that the script and therefore the screenwriter are key to the mechanisms of change.
The second part of my project is a feature length screenplay, while screenwriting is my passion I will reveal very little of the scripts contents on this site. Not, as some may think, because I am afraid of intellectual property theft but rather because I simply prefer to keep my creative process to myself. That being said, in this inital post, here’s tha basics:
Essentially the script is a neo-noir with dual protagonists, a female police detective in her mid-thirties and a male ex-police inspector turned private detective in his mid-fifties. The two work the same case, unaware to begin with that the other is working the same series of murders on the streets of Edinburgh. A serial killer is at large and from the state of the bodies and sexual nature of the attacks it would appear to be a long term abuser. These women, all with distinctive physical similarities, have been sexually abused and killed using knife strokes that dissect the body in the shape of a double headed cross. While the female detective suspects a religious motivation for these killings the male blood hound uses his contacts on the streets to dig out information on their killer.
The script is in the extremely early stages of development, but I’m keen to get working on it as soon as possible. Due to the thematics and plot of this script I am having to do more research that I have ever done for a script. It is very enlightening but at the same time extremely disturbing. Note to self, read:
Zodiac by Robert Graysmith
Anyway, that’s quite enough from me…. until next time.
K
Atonement is a truly beautiful film, gorgeous floating cinematography that allows the viewer to soak in the period of wartime for the duration of the film. For that, Cinematographer Seamus McGarvey deserves a standing ovation likewise the narrative, taken from Ian McEwen’s brilliant novel provided an unusual and refreshing approach to the storytelling process. And for this, screenwriter Christopher Hampton (The Quiet American, 2002) also deserves much praise for his visualisation of McEwens text. 
Recent Comments