Edited way passed my bedtime last night – got caught in the excitement of it all - everything clicked – the camera work, the direction – oh yeah - and the performances(!)
The edit is reaching a point where the film in my mind approaches (and becomes) the film on the screen…which is a special and unique place to be for any film maker.
I was tempted in sharing some footage with you all – but I’m going to be selfish and hang on to it for a little longer…in good time though I will have a cast and crew screening…
Edited way passed my bedtime last night – got caught in the excitement of it all - everything clicked – the camera work, the direction – oh yeah - and the performances(!)
Currently working on the edit (what else?) and approaching the 1/3 mark.
My feelings about the project grow more positive as I work on it - getting more and more footage into each scene.
At present, each scene /sequence has typically about 5-6 video tracks – at times more, if some shots/takes were exceedingly promising. This is just assembly remember – I haven’t even started the fireworks yet…
Some further thoughts on editing.
Some of the performances weren’t as good as I thought at first.
WTF? Where was the director?
Specifically – there were reactions shots that I would have wanted – that are just not there. I searched believe me - but we all seemed to be focused on capturing the actor who was talking that we forgot to get the reactions shots - anyway…
Again I chided myself - had I made more time for rushes maybe – but no, I couldn’t seen this even with rushes – it’s only when you start editing and developing a rhythm that you see what is missing.
No panic – can easily be fixed (cheated) - because of the one location, I can grab a shot from one scene and inserted in another – but it’s a little annoying that given the coverage I gotta cheat.
However, other aspects were better than what I had first thought or realised. There were reactions and looks that are very precise and worthwhile – maybe I’m just being hard on myself – maybe this is as good as it gets.
Anyway - I’m glad we go a lot of footage/coverage because in addition to the missing shot here and there - continuity is non-existent – and having lots of footage is making a great difference to the cuts/performances flow etc – mind you at times the sheer choices mean that it approached analysis paralysis.
I have been spoilt though – I am planning my next film and will need to go with two cameras at least just for comfort.
“I have come to believe over and over again that what is most important to me must be spoken, made verbal and shared, even at the risk of having it bruised or misunderstood.”
No Comment - Post a comment
Intellpuke: The following article is by Daniel J. Callahn and Marc P. Miles, the lawyers representing the families of four American contractors who worked for Blackwater and were killed in Fallujah. After Blackwater refused to share information about why they were killed, the families were told they would have to sue Blackwater to find out. Now Blackwater is trying to sue them for $10 million to keep them quiet. This article was first posted on AlterNet.org's website.The families of four American security contractors who were burned, beaten, dragged through the streets of Fallujah and their decapitated bodies hung from a bridge over the Euphrates River on March 31, 2004, are reaching out to the American public to help protect themselves against the very company their loved ones were serving when killed, Blackwater Security Consulting. After Blackwater lost a series of appeals all the away to the U.S. Supreme Court, Blackwater has now changed its tactics and is suing the dead men's estates for $10 million to silence the families and keep them out of court.
Following these gruesome deaths which were broadcast on worldwide television, the surviving family members looked to Blackwater for answers as to how and why their loved ones died. Blackwater not only refused to give the grieving families any information, but also callously stated that they would need to sue Blackwater to get it. Left with no alternative, in January 2005, the families filed suit against Blackwater, which is owned by the wealthy and politically-connected Erik Prince.
Blackwater quickly adapted its battlefield tactics to the courtroom. It initially hired Fred F. Fielding, who is currently counsel to the President of the United States. It then hired Joseph E. Schmitz as its in-house counsel, who was formerly the Inspector General at the Pentagon. More recently, Blackwater employed Kenneth Starr, famed prosecutor in the Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky scandal, to oppose the families. To add additional muscle, Blackwater hired Cofer Black, who was the Director of the CIA Counter- Terrorist Center.
They both use a Caesar shift.
The first cryptogram (with a shift of 3) is the first names of the actors:
Encrypted-text: gdqlhooh, oxnh, vzhhqhb, fkulv
Plain text: Danielle, Luke, Sweeney, Chris
The second one – with a shift of 4 - is the dummy title of the film:
qsqirx fc qsqirx
Moment by Moment
This site is very good - it will encrypt plain text using a Caesar shift.
Or this - this is easy now...
qsqirx fc qsqirx
Now that you are experts - solve this:
gdqlhooh, oxnh, vzhhqhb, fkulv
In cryptography, a Caesar cipher, also known as a Caesar's cipher, the shift cipher, Caesar's code or Caesar shift, is one of the simplest and most widely known encryption techniques. It is a type of substitution cipher in which each letter in the plaintext is replaced by a letter some fixed number of positions down the alphabet. For example, with a shift of 3, A would be replaced by D, B would become E, and so on. The method is named after Julius Caesar, who used it to communicate with his generals. The encryption step performed by a Caesar cipher is often incorporated as part of more complex schemes, such as the Vigenère cipher, and still has modern application in the ROT13 system. As with all single alphabet substitution ciphers, the Caesar cipher is easily broken and in practice offers essentially no communication security. Example:
The transformation can be represented by aligning two alphabets; the cipher alphabet is the plain alphabet rotated left or right by some number of positions. For instance, here is a Caesar cipher using a left rotation of three places (the shift parameter, here 3, is used as the key):
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ = Plain Alphabet
DEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZABC = Cypher Alphabet
When encrypting, a person looks up each letter of the message in the "plain" line and writes down the corresponding letter in the "cipher" line. Deciphering is done in reverse.
THE QUICK BROWN FOX JUMPS OVER THE LAZY DOG = Plain text
WKH TXLFN EURZQ IRA MXPSV RYHU WKH ODCB GRJ = Cyphertext
Some say that Kubric used a 1 shift when he named the computer HAL in his 2001: Space Odyssey.
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ = Plain Alphabet
BCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZA = Cypher Alphabet
If you work back one letter you get...
Shooting a film all on location: a city street - I felt a perfect joy.
It was only 5 people all up including cast and crew (!): DOP/cameraman, one producer/1AD, myself and two actors playing the lovers.
I somehow knew there was no script – just a few sketches of what each scene is about and ready to improvise the whole story. Very À bout de soufflé feel to it.
And a boy called Robin – who likes to steal fast cars.
And a hitman called Mr K – whose car they are in.
Labels: dreams and films
Did some major technical updates to the file system in FCP - and have sped up considerably the MXF files workflow. Essentially what I’ve done is limit the number of files imported and send off-line the unused MXF files. As soon as I figure how to, I will post a tutorial with screenshots etc.
I don’t like to overpromise to myself or others (and then risk to underdeliver – a recipe for disappointment) - but it does make it considerably easier/faster for me to assemble/edit the footage. So possibly move ahead of schedule or at least spend more time creatively – either option a positive.
The approach that I’ve taken so far is to do a standard edit first – i.e. as if we’re watching a normal drama – then go back to each scene/sequence and intercut the additional footage/angles to give the ‘thousand eyes’ feel (I might have already said this before…) – then go over once more to give the ‘this could be a dream/nightmare’ feel, which includes the most experimental component. This last part is aimed at overhauling and reinventing editing conventions (how’s that for a small ambition!) – so 3 levels of creative decision-making with a fireworks last effort.
It sounds a little mechanical (1-2-3; X-Y-Z?) – in reality it is more integrated – and in fact at times I’m doing all aspects at once. Plus, eye of the mind makes the movie – what’s inside my mind/soul/heart is desperate to reach the screen. And I’m not going to stick to rules – even my own.
I know – I know - I’m changeable and impulsive. But my ancestors were pirates and mercenaries (no hyperbole here – this is a historical fact) – so it’s in the blood - no apologies – because as the women who love me say, it’s my mercurial and relentless nature that gives me the X-factor…
So to date - parts of scenes already incorporate the multiple dimensions approach. Is it magic? Don’t know - but it is undeniably an interesting result…
Anyway - picking up speed…
Had wonderful time editing yesterday.
Spent over 6 hour uninterrupted and was able to edit three scenes and one sequence with multiple takes - multiple angles into – I reckon - a seamless whole - not without its challenges I might add.
There were scenes where the tail of one did not match the emotional intensity of the head of the next (great lesson learnt with regards to performances and direction of that performance across scenes shot out of continuity but which will then be cut together)
Thought I had it sorted – yet – there are small things like a body leaning in and then not leaning in – that I found jarring i.e. why would the character do that? And then you start to ask questions: how much time would need to elapse for the emotion to change to the next?
Also what can be done by un-synching audio from the visual? Namely, can the emotion be lessened if we only hear the words and see something else (not the body language)? The short answer is yes - but it depends!)
There were other takes where the emotional intensity – or whole performance really - changed mid scenes – but this was a plus as it enabled me to shift gears in the scene – which is the very essence of film making – the pure choices available to the director. – As I edit I must say that I am still spoilt for choice – yet to curse the director for not having covered this or that angle. Let’s hope it will all be this way.
As you read the above you can gather that I am moving beyond mere assembly and actually editing – oops – I was going to keep that a surprise.
The intention with regards to workflow was indeed to do a mechanical assembly but you know me - if you don’t you will now – ‘mechanical’ is not me - I just can’t resist temptation – after all ‘The path of excess leads to the tower of wisdom’
Or ‘If the fool would persist in his folly he would become wise.’
That William Blake was a wise man indeed…
However, this is still a (rough) rough cut – there are still many aspects that I haven’t even touched – yet it is far more than sticking things together.
Going very well - very good material - the shots are great - shame the performances are okay (kidding...) - choices - choices - choices.
The software (FCP v6) is a dream and easy to use. Can do special FX, soundtrack and cut all at once - too many choices - need to develop my own working methods so not to digress - ha but what fun digression...
To date - 5 scenes out of 30 are at assembly stage. At this pace reckon end of October for the full assembly - but I might be able to move faster as I progress and get better accustomed to the short-cuts of the software....
And having the many angles, one starts to ask the inevitable artistic questions: when do I cut? Why? What will this next cut reveal that the previous didn’t?
Am I cutting because I’m getting bored looking at the actor or actress or is there a motivation to the viewer to cut?
Great questions really – it s the very reason why I get so much out of film making – without taking anything away from the actors – it is the edit that makes the film.
And I haven’t even begun to talk about the soundtrack –whose voice is loudest? Why? What is the soundscape?
I’m a lucky man…
Yippie ya yay!!!!!!!
Finished the boring part of logging – although – still missing some footage from the HDV and the Sony (John!!!!) – nonetheless started to assemble/edit the Steganographer monologues using the footage from the 3x HVX’s – very good - lots of material /coverage – great performances – good-onya Sweeney.
The assembly (I call it assembly rather than edit, since it is a very rough 'stitching' together) is taking approximately 1 hr per minute of screen time. Subtle differences can be seen thanks to the many camera angles/choices available.
I suspect though that it will take longer when working with the other material with the need to cut across three actors performances (XYZ) instead of one – we’ll see. I could just focus on Deep (for those of you joing us now - Deep is a running gag - you'll need to read old posts).
I have done approximately 5 minutes of screen time. At this pace reckon should have something by end of October middle of November – so certainly not faster than expected…but it is exciting to start cutting – mind you as I said above - this is pure assembly – no finessing of cuts, post-colour, SFX ect…
Although I’m doing some experimentation on the side with Motion v3 – so that probably slows me down a bit (playing around, rendering, etc).
Having lots of creative fun - at last!!!
The photos are of two of my favourite actresses...
For those who live under a rock 0 that's Sofia (Loren) and Monica (Belluci)...
I have found a faster way to import the MXF files - I do this during the day when I'm working elsewhere or overnight since it takes time - but it requires less effort on my part as the computer takes over - the plan of course is then to go back to each take and analyse it for details like slate info and performance.
Given the large digital data available - it is critical to 'chunk' the process - so that I can focus on each scene/sequence - with its many angles/shots.
Estimate 2-3 weeks before I can actually start cutting.
Steganographic protocol: XYZ
Well some entries anyway...Well done to all those who submitted these – very imaginative and noteworthy.
I will reveal the real title in due course – but let me give you a clue – in all my communications there have been many clues…but you have to work at them – as Louis Pasteur put it better than me ‘Chance favours the prepared mind’.
Otherwise there’s suspense - suspense is fun…for me – for you? Dunno.
I'm getting better - no really - really good at copy files from one drive to another and then labeling each one with the right slate numbers...it is soooo much fun - fun- fun - oh look! butterflies! Pretty, pretty butterflies...
Okay - why does one lose his mind doing this?
Here's some maths - there are 62 cards for each camera x 4 cameras = 248 cards.
each card carries 4-6 takes/shots = between 1000-1500 shots to view and label...
No - I enjoy it - No, really - don't get up - I've got it sorted - would you like me to get you a drink while I'm up? San Pellegrino chinotto with ice and lemon?
I've got quiet good at it - when I see Deep (clapper) trembling - I know that there is really something special after the CLAP!
When he's too laid back - I just know there must be a plane or a dog - or pigeons or some other problem that will make the take NG (that's no good for those not familiar with the film world lingo) - so i just erase the take.
The problem is that many times he looks a little blank so I've gotta go through the whole take! Can you believe it - actually have to watch the footage!
(I kid I go through every take regardless - you never know when you can to discover the little diamonds in the rough - actors are funny creatures - sometimes you only see the truth before action and after cut).
1. Understand the urgency of the situation. Half-measures simply won't do. The only way to grow is to abandon your strategy of doing what you did yesterday, but better. Commit.
2. Remarkable doesn't mean remarkable to you. It means remarkable to me. Am I going to make a remark about it? If not, then you're average, and average is for losers.
3. Being noticed is not the same as being remarkable. Running down the street naked will get you noticed, but it won't accomplish much. It's easy to pull off a stunt, but not useful.
4. Extremism in the pursuit of remarkability is no sin. In fact, it's practically a requirement. People in first place, those considered the best in the world, these are the folks that get what they want. Rock stars have groupies because they're stars, not because they're good looking.
5. Remarkability lies in the edges. The biggest, fastest, slowest, richest, easiest, most difficult. It doesn't always matter which edge, more that you're at (or beyond) the edge.
6. Not everyone appreciates your efforts to be remarkable. In fact, most people don't. So what? Most people are ostriches, heads in the sand, unable to help you anyway. Your goal isn't to please everyone. Your goal is to please those that actually speak up, spread the word, buy new things or hire the talented.
7. If it's in a manual, if it's the accepted wisdom, if you can find it in a Dummies book, then guess what? It's boring, not remarkable. Part of what it takes to do something remarkable is to do something first and best. Roger Bannister was remarkable. The next guy, the guy who broke Bannister's record wasn't. He was just faster ... but it doesn't matter.
8. It's not really as frightening as it seems. They keep the masses in line by threatening them (us) with all manner of horrible outcomes if we dare to step out of line. But who loses their jobs at the mass layoffs? Who has trouble finding a new gig? Not the remarkable minority, that's for sure.
9. If you put it on a T-shirt, would people wear it? No use being remarkable at something that people don't care about. Not ALL people, mind you, just a few. A few people insanely focused on what you do is far far better than thousands of people who might be mildly interested, right?
10. What's fashionable soon becomes unfashionable. While you might be remarkable for a time, if you don't reinvest and reinvent, you won't be for long. Instead of resting on your laurels, you must commit to being remarkable again quite soon.
"The heights by great men reached and kept were not attained by sudden flight, but they, while their companions slept, were toiling upward in the night." Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
Moviemaker Michael Moore has decided to post his new political documentary online so fans can download it for free.
Slacker Uprising, which chronicles Moore's attempts to fire up the youth of America to vote during the 2004 election, will be available as a free download for three weeks from 23 September.
Moore says, "I thought it'd be a nice way to celebrate my 20th year of doing this, and also help get out the vote for November. I've been thinking about what I want to do to help with the election this year."
Moore's move marks the first time a major movie is released in such a way.
The director's last film, Sicko, was leaked online and downloaded illegally in large numbers.
Labels: online distribution
Still logging data...
and writing my next feature...
I had a great interview today with Google's economist-in-residence Hal Varian on the economics of free. He pointed me to a 2004 paper he wrote on the changing economics of content and copyright in a digital world. It includes 14 business models that allow content creators to make money even if they cannot stop the content from being distributed for free. Here they are:
"Most information is born digital and that digital information is typically very easy to copy and distribute, it is conceivable that copyright laws may become almost impossible to enforce. Are there ways for sellers to support themselves in such an environment? It is worth considering some of the options. Here is a brief list of business models that might work in a world without effective copyright.
Make original cheaper than copy. This is basically the limit pricing model described earlier. If there is a transaction cost for a copy-a direct cost of copying, an inconvenience cost, or the copy is inferior to the original in some way-then the seller can set the price low enough that it is not attractive to copy.
Make copy more expensive than original. The "cost of copying" is partially under the control of the seller, who could use a "digital rights management system," some anticopying technology, or threats of legal action which would increase the cost of copying and, therefore, increase the price that it could charge for its product.
Sell physical complements. When you buy a physical CD you get liner notes, photos, and so on. Perhaps you could get a poster, a membership in a fan club, a lottery ticket, a free T-shirt, as well. These items might not be available to someone who simply downloaded an illicit copy of a song.
Sell information complements. One can give away the product (e.g., Red Hat Linux) and sell support contracts. One can give away a cheap, low-powered version of some software and sell a high-powered version.
Subscriptions. In this case, consumers purchases the information as a bundle over time, with the motivation presumably being convenience and perhaps timeliness of the information delivery. Even if all back issues are (eventually) posted online, the value of timely availability of current issues is sufficient to support production costs.
Sell personalized version. One can sell a highly personalized version of a product so that copies made available to others would not be valuable. Imagine, for example, a personalized newspaper with only the items that you would wish to read. Those with different tastes may not find such a newspaper attractive. Selling works with digital fingerprints (encoding the identity of the purchaser) is an extreme form of this. (Playboy has allegedly put digital fingerprints in online images.)
Advertise yourself. A downloaded song can be an advertisement for a personal appearance. Similarly, an online textbook (particularly if it is inconvenient to use online) can be an advertisement for a physical copy. There are many examples of materials that are freely published on the Internet that are also available in various physical forms for a fee, such as US Government publications (e.g., The 9/11 Commission Report, or the National Academy of Sciences reports.
Advertise other things. Broadcast TV and radio give away content in order to sell advertisements. Similarly, most magazines and newspapers use the per copy price to cover printing and distribution, while editorial costs are covered by advertising. Advertising is particularly valuable when it is closely tied to information about prospective buyers, so personalization can be quite important. In an extreme form, the advertisement can be completely integrated into the content via product placement.
Monitoring. ASCAP monitors the playing of music in public places, collects a flat fee, which it then divvies up among its members. The shares are determined by a statistical algorithm. The Copyright Clearance Center uses a similar system for photocopying-a flat fee based on an initial period of statistical monitoring.
Site licenses. An organization can pay for all of its members to have preferred access to some particular kinds of content. University site licenses to JSTOR content, Elsevier content, or Microsoft software are examples. This is particularly relevant when there are strong network effects from adopting a common standard, such as in the Microsoft example.
Media tax. This a tax on some physical good that is complementary to the information product (i.e., audio tape, video tape, CDs, TVs, hard drives, etc.) The proceeds from this tax are used to compensate producers of content. For example, the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 imposes a media tax of 3 percent of the tape price.
Ransom. Allow potential readers to bid for content. If the sum of the bids is sufficiently high, the information content is provided. Various mechanisms for provision of public goods could be used, such as the celebrated Vickrey-Clarke-Groves mechanism. This could be used in conjunction with the subscription model. For example, Stephen King offered installments of his book The Plant on his web site. At one point he indicated he would continue positing installments if the number of payments received divided by the number of downloads from his site exceeded 75.6 percent. His experiment did not succeed, perhaps due to the poorly chosen incentive scheme.
Pure public provision. Artists and other creators of intellectual property are paid by the state, financed out of general revenues. This is not so different from public universities where research and publication is considered integral to the job.
Prizes, awards and commissions. Wealthy individuals, businesses or countries could commission works. The patronage system achieved some notable results in Europe for several centuries. The National Science Foundation or the National Endowment for the Humanities are examples of modern day state agencies that fund creative works using prizelike systems."
“I discovered that what's really important for a creator isn't what we vaguely define as inspiration or even what it is we want to say, recall, regret, or rebel against. No, what's important is the way we say it. Art is all about craftsmanship. Others can interpret craftsmanship as style if they wish. Style is what unites memory or recollection, ideology, sentiment, nostalgia, presentiment, to the way we express all that. It's not what we say but how we say it that matters.”
The transferring of files and the setting up of the project continues well – I still need to go back and log all the footage – namely, name each file with the scene number, shot number and take.
I catch little glimpses of the footage – it looks great. Itching to actually start editing but I reckon two more weeks of organising the files before I can get into it creatively.
The good news
The files copied over without fuss. Lots of space still available in the third 1TB drive
I have reconnected the media from the FCP file – so that it now references the files in the speedy Firewire drive (not the tortoise-like USB).
The plan is to split the film into 7 sequences – for the sake of processing speed – at present to load all the data at once takes about 15 minutes - hardly reassuring that when I start to play with clips the whole thing will hold.
With the split into sequences (each sequence will reference a specific set of MXF files) the workload becomes manageable. 7 sequences = 11 to 13 minutes per sequence.
I’d be editing short films really – then save them as QT files and stitch them together in a master file of sorts.
Other good reasons to use 7
We shot for 7 days
It’s a prime number
My lucky number - I wore it on my jersey back in the days of the world game.
1 comments - Post a comment
I’m going over this for two reasons:
First sympathy - I need a hug.
Secondly - for the sake of clarity - since many of you may be wondering what the f*&^ is Phillip doing instead of cutting his film?
Anyway – here’s how I spend my time - you tell me if it is the normal thing to do for a healthy young man…
Moved everything from the three 750 Gb hero drives (RGB) onto a 2TB Macpower Taurus LAN Gigabit NAS, SATA-II HDD.
This drive is considerably faster that the Phillips drives - since it uses FireWire 800 and not the USB port (Phillips drives). the Phillips drives we used do not have Firewire output and can’t be daisy chained.
The copying took well over 18 hours (overnight).
Why did you do this Phil - I hear you ask - and if you didn't - you should bloody ask...
Well - the USB port engages the CPU - so it slows down the machine – the Firewire doesn’t do this to the same degree - so faster read-write rates and better CPU performance – so say the experts. So given that Firewire 400 is even faster than USB too – you can do the math and assume that FireWire 800 is even faster still.
Disappointed that no one pointed this out at the onset when we were shopping for drives - as the USB drives we used have little post-production use as the system kept crashing…
The money keeps flowing out – I now have 7 drives that store the data but are pretty much useless in post.
More technology fun; the files are in MXF format – no one informed me that these files wrap the video and audio components into a single file that then unwraps in Final Cut Pro (FCP v6) – well they unwrap if you have the right software! Again I was left in the dark about this – so I had to shell out more moneys to purchase plug-in software to read them…
Tonight I need to review the data and check that all the files were indeed copied over before I start the organising of folders/files/shots and takes…We're talking about over 2000 files - this is of course before the actual film assembly!
Now – isn’t this fun – hands up who wants to be a film director!
This reminds me of the following Murphy's Laws:
- Nothing is as easy as it looks.
- Everything takes longer than you think.
- Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.
- If there is a possibility of several things going wrong, the one that will cause the most damage will be the one to go wrong. Corollary: If there is a worse time for something to go wrong, it will happen then.
- If anything simply cannot go wrong, it will anyway.
- If you perceive that there are four possible ways in which a procedure can go wrong, and circumvent these, then a fifth way, unprepared for, will promptly develop.
- Left to themselves, things tend to go from bad to worse.
- If everything seems to be going well, you have obviously overlooked something.
- Nature always sides with the hidden flaw.
- Mother nature is a bitch.
- It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious.
- Whenever you set out to do something, something else must be done first.
- Every solution breeds new problems.
In Greek mythology, the Labyrinth (Greek λαβύρινθος labyrinthos) was an elaborate structure designed and built by the legendary artificer Daedalus for King Minos of Crete at Knossos. Its function was to hold the Minotaur, a creature that was half man and half bull and was eventually killed by the Athenian hero Theseus. Daedalus had made the Labyrinth so cunningly that he himself could barely escape it after he built it.
Theseus was aided by Ariadne, who provided him with a fateful thread, literally the "clew", or "clue", to wind his way back again.
The term labyrinth is often used interchangeably with maze, but modern scholars of the subject use a stricter definition. For them, a maze is a tour puzzle in the form of a complex branching passage with choices of path and direction; while a single-path (unicursal) labyrinth has only a single Eulerian path to the center. A labyrinth has an unambiguous through-route to the center and back and is not designed to be difficult to navigate.This unicursal design was widespread in artistic depictions of the Minotaur's Labyrinth, even though both logic and literary descriptions of it make it clear that the Minotaur was trapped in a multicursal maze