Are there any directors out there telling stories?

[Melvin Harris]

if so, how?

How are you breaking down scripts?
How are you choosing your cinematographers?
How are you deciding where your narrative beats go?
How are you making decisions about storyboards?

How do you go about the craft?

 

[Rolf Silber]

Don't work in the USA but: Usually my decision for a cinematographer is based on a) the hope that he/she is a good "site foreman" who can organize him/herself and the technical crew to get the best artistic result b) a good cinematographer in a pure artistic sense clearly c) someone who respects me enough to listen to me and whom I respect enough so that I listen to him/her d) someone the actors feel comfortable with (very important, really!). All of this has to be taken into consideration together. Makes no sense to have the world's best photographer if she/he is an a-social monster.

Having worked in stop-motion animation I scribble my story boards myself - not very good artistically, but I rest assured: We had a the Kubrick exhibition at our film museum years ago and his story-boards did suck too.... ;-). From my experience I'd say most important is that you are able to throw your story-board away if the situation becomes different (probably better, probably worse) through certain events: Actor's ideas (good or bad), weather, light going away too soon, football-hooligans rampaging through the set or you or the cinematographer suddenly having a flash of genius ... but even a "thrown-away before shooting" story board is a good story board because it has at least once put you under the pressure to pre-visualize what you want to tell and how.... and...

For me one of the most important points in "breaking down" a script is to find out and/or make the decision which scene is "owned" by whom - more by the actors or more by the camera. Who dances to who's tune? It makes no sense to storyboard a - for instance - highly psychological scene where your actors should have more room to move freely.

Only my 0,02 €....... and if that's what you asked at all.

 

[Melvin Harris]

Yeah, that's exactly what I asked, thank you...
now, let me tell you why I asked...

I have been coming across more and more information that has shocked me about the process of directing and it has become clear to me that the discussions about directing here and in various groups and meetings that I have attended have come from a pretty technical, if not solely technical place. It seems that people are only interested in making pretty images, and while that is important, it is not the only thing in the craft. Now, I am not throwing stones because I can't surmise how directors here deal with actors or insipration because they don't talk about it much, and they don't talk at all about what they are trying to say and how they tried to say it visually. I think that Pedro Almodovar summed it up well in the book Moviemaker's Master Class (not affiliated with the magazine):

The problem with the younger generation in relation to [this] is that they have grown up in a world where the image has become omnipresent and omnipotent. Since their early years, they have been fed a diet of music videos and commercials... so young filmmakers today have a culture and mastery of the image much greater than they would have just twenty years ago. However, because of this, they have an approach to the cinema that emphasizes the form rather than the content, and I believe that this can be harmful in the long run.
​

My question was in response to that and it took nearly 10 days to get an answer to a question that was not about technology but technique. But if I asked about a cool move, or how to do something stylistic with a particular camera, dare I say, the answer may have been instantaneous.

Anyway, it's a fatal flaw in the directing forum and in the independent cinema community period that may or may not be rectified...

Thanks for the answer though, it was enlightening.

 

[Rolf Silber]

The problem you describe comes from a lot of different sources.

But yes, the over emphasizing of camera-work is one of it because for a lot of people it's hard to swallow that actually also a rather lousy shot movies can at times be tremendously successful - both or either artistically or economically - if the story, the story-telling and the actors are great. And there are a lot of pristinely photographed films around that are incredibly boring.

In theory a good story, story-telling and acting should be accompanied by great photography and every director worth his money should see that he balances what the different "components" demand for their work. I refused to work with some DoP's again whom I found hard to integrate into the work-flow - and, maybe, at times, this was my fault too because somehow we would not communicate good enough. I do not blame them.

Still, at times, I had to tell them that I am not willing to wait another hour for the lighting being perfected if the actors become worn out. For young directors it's also so much fun to have things moving around that have knobs and buttons to push - and I was a young director too once and so I know - we call them "metal movers" over here sometimes. "Oh, yeah, the mighty Ballhaus made his famous 360 degree travel-shot, I will do a 1080 degree shot in halve the time with two cameras on steady-cams and the operators on skateboards wearing pink undies.....".

It helps a lot to overcome the feeling that every director has at times: I do not know where I am or should be emotionally in the process of telling a story or do not know how to bring my idea into life.... give me a crane to hang my disorientation on to....

Good photography is an integral part of that process, yes, but it only saves your behind for ten to twenty minutes in a movie. After that, if not the story-telling kicks in mightily too, if not the audience falls in love with the actors, it becomes only the perfect dressing for an empty window. So to say.

 

[FilmBoy77]

it's a catch 22 to be honest. if you have a cool story, but poorly shot film then it could be the difference between somebody watching it all the way through and somebody cutting it off after the first 30 seconds because they just got finished watching 10 shorts with great audio and lighting shot on the AF100, Canon 7D or the RED cam. on the other hand, if it's shot well but the story is lame, most people will watch it all the way through or at least halfway, but will forget or never know what it was actually about almost immediately. i've always focused more on story and writing, because that's what i have the most experience in and it's what i've spent a majority of my time learning. a lot of people are on these forums for different reasons, everybody isn't exactly trying to be the next spielberg or nolan, some people are just trying to master the technical aspects and make a living from it. personally i'm more focused on the writing/directing and just want to know enough about the techincal aspects so that i can communicate that as well as the direction to the actors. i don't need to know the latest technology the day it comes out, but it can only help if you're at least aware of it and have a general understanding. everybody's strengths are normally in one place or the other, very few are equally strong in all areas.

My question was in response to that and it took nearly 10 days to get an answer to a question that was not about technology but technique. But if I asked about a cool move, or how to do something stylistic with a particular camera, dare I say, the answer may have been instantaneous.

i dont come here to collaborate and look for answers on the writing process and questions/solutions regarding story. i come here solely for the technical aspect. and also vice versa....on a screenwriting forum those people would be clueless to even the basic things that are discussed in these forums. you should try checking out forums dedicated to screenwriting if you have those types of questions regarding nontechnical things regarding story. a lot of times there are professional writers who work in the industry who can offer valuable advice.

 

[Melvin Harris]

You bring up a very good point.

i dont come here to collaborate and look for answers on the writing process and questions/solutions regarding story. i come here solely for the technical aspect. and also vice versa....on a screenwriting forum those people would be clueless to even the basic things that are discussed in these forums. you should try checking out forums dedicated to screenwriting if you have those types of questions regarding nontechnical things regarding story. a lot of times there are professional writers who work in the industry who can offer valuable advice.

I have been sitting and looking at this for a long time trying to formulate a response to this. I think that this would be the point that would effectively shut me up if this wasn't the directing forum. This is the place where we should be talking about the technical aspects of the craft of directing which becomes technique. It's not just about story, it's about how we interpret story, how we break down a script and create an image system, how we decide who takes ownership of the arc and what POV should be taken. I am really interested in why alot of the movies that I watch now are almost exclusively told in head shots whether or not it's going to be on TV. I am interested in why people are isolating parts of a frame that should be shown and if they have even considered what that does visually to their story in 30 minutes, when the story is missing something and that something could have been addressed in that frame.

I am starting to believe that we can help each other to progress toward the level of the greats. I mean really, if they had the DVXuser in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, and could share ideas instantaneously across the world, how would they have used it? It was the way bebop was invented... a bunch of guys in a room trading ideas, codifying a language, and them finding their own voice. Iron sharpens iron. I guess that I would just like to see more talk about directing in the directing forum that's all.

 

[FilmBoy77]

I have been sitting and looking at this for a long time trying to formulate a response to this. I think that this would be the point that would effectively shut me up if this wasn't the directing forum. This is the place where we should be talking about the technical aspects of the craft of directing which becomes technique. It's not just about story, it's about how we interpret story, how we break down a script and create an image system, how we decide who takes ownership of the arc and what POV should be taken.

i think you misread that quote. i never said this section of the forum was just about story. my entire response was really just in reply to your overall question and title of the thread "Are there any directors out there telling stories?" and also the basis of one of your comments regarding filmmakers focusing too much on form rather than content in the directing forum. all i'm saying is, they go hand in hand and some people focus more on one than the other because not everybody wants to be a director of film narrative.

 

[Melvin Harris]

Yeah, I get that. I was not disagreeing with you. In fact, I think that you have a really valid point. What I was getting at was, what I was trying to get at was the fact that when you say,

i dont come here to collaborate and look for answers on the writing process and questions/solutions regarding story. i come here solely for the technical aspect. and also vice versa....on a screenwriting forum those people would be clueless to even the basic things that are discussed in these forums.

you echo the sentiment of a lot of people. I think. However, I think there are many people who may be looking for something a little different here and may not find it because they are looking for answers to craft questions. There is no doubt that form and content have to go together, as you have said, but regardless of the production, or rather the type of production, there are universal things in "directing" that we could all be talking about besides either form or content, or solely form or content, that's all.

But I absolutely got the connotative and denotative meaning of your response... and I was just expressing that your answer, along with tipota's would have closed the thread if there still wasn't that missing element (IMO and only IMO) of the film narrative directing component- that's where I think there is a deficit.

Am I wrong?

 

[Melvin Harris]

In theory a good story, story-telling and acting should be accompanied by great photography and every director worth his money should see that he balances what the different "components" demand for their work.

This is the very heart of my argument. I think that there is an imbalance of discussion about these things.

Well put.

It helps a lot to overcome the feeling that every director has at times: I do not know where I am or should be emotionally in the process of telling a story or do not know how to bring my idea into life.... give me a crane to hang my disorientation on to....

Again, this is something that we could be discussing rather than constantly doing. There are many people guilty of this who, I honestly believe, don't know their way out of this endless circle drive. It's like National Lampoon's European Vacation, when Clark is stuck going in circles even though he knows he needs to get off; the problem is not finding an exit, the problem is all of the other people who are doing the same thing, are in the way, and are not letting him get off. Because we may see and admire the images of some, we begin to circle around that with everyone else and never get off that ride, so to speak.

Good photography is an integral part of that process, yes, but it only saves your behind for ten to twenty minutes in a movie. After that, if not the story-telling kicks in mightily too, if not the audience falls in love with the actors, it becomes only the perfect dressing for an empty window. So to say.

Well, this is the warning, isn't it? This is why, out of the thousands of films out there, only dozens, maybe hundreds, make it anywhere past an obscure festival and a local screening. This is the reason why theatrical release for many people is an unobtainable pipe dream, and for others is almost a certainty. It's both high concept and cheap and tawdry, an aspiration and a parlor trick... a good topic for discussion, yes?

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

I am starting to believe that we can help each other to progress toward the level of the greats. I mean really, if they had the DVXuser in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, and could share ideas instantaneously across the world, how would they have used it? It was the way bebop was invented... a bunch of guys in a room trading ideas, codifying a language, and them finding their own voice. Iron sharpens iron. I guess that I would just like to see more talk about directing in the directing forum that's all.

When one 'graduates' to the Pro level, the Director definitely becomes the program manager for the film. With a budget, the Director would then, depending on how detailed they are, would acquire the services of a storyboard artist, analyze the script, as the artist to develop images based on the Director's vision of that scene. The Director would get a casting director to get talent in for auditions. The Director would get an Art Director for the sets, a Wardrobe person... and on... well, technically the Producer would hire all those people... At some point the Director would hire a Director of Photogaphy, and with the storyboards, script analysis, communicate what the Director had envisioned to the DoP...

But at this level of this forum... there is no money for all that, and so very frequently the Director may also be the Writer, may also be the DoP, may also be the Sound guy, Storyboarder, Wardrober, Gaffer, and Latrine Cleaner... The Director may avoid manning the Craft services table by sending out for pizza...

For me, I've been looking for good digital storyboarding software at a price, like free, that I can afford... However, what I do is analyze the script for 'shots', that is points in the script that I imagine a frame, the talent situated in the frame, and the location as described by the script. (In fact, that's how I evaluate the scripts written by others... if I can't imagine the 'frame' of the movie... that's a point or two... or three off... for that scene... ).

There are mechanical techniques to do this, such as lining the script with 'shots', etc. I have done overhead diagrams of the location to get talent and camera placement. As I mentioned I don't have a good storyboarding package at the moment, so what I do is find movies that have shots I like, and use those as templates for compositions. You can take it that at the moment I am my on DoP.

For me the real importance of the storyboard is to communicate the Director's vision to the DoP, as well as others, but primarily to the DoP, so such questions as 'why was image element placed in such a way in
the frame', it can be attributed to the communication between Director and DoP. Some directors that I have read about, take a very hands off approach to the Shot, whereas others are much more involved, and in some cases do man the camera for some set of shots.

Because I am visually oriented, I can stand far more 'lack' in story, than the visuals. That's my aesthetic... I frequently watch shorts without sound, just to see if I can 'see' the story via the visuals alone. If the visuals are crappy I stop watching...

 

[FilmBoy77]

Yeah, I get that. I was not disagreeing with you. In fact, I think that you have a really valid point. What I was getting at was, what I was trying to get at was the fact that when you say, you echo the sentiment of a lot of people. I think. However, I think there are many people who may be looking for something a little different here and may not find it because they are looking for answers to craft questions. There is no doubt that form and content have to go together, as you have said, but regardless of the production, or rather the type of production, there are universal things in "directing" that we could all be talking about besides either form or content, or solely form or content, that's all.

But I absolutely got the connotative and denotative meaning of your response... and I was just expressing that your answer, along with tipota's would have closed the thread if there still wasn't that missing element (IMO and only IMO) of the film narrative directing component- that's where I think there is a deficit.

Am I wrong?

no you're right. we're on the same page.

 

[Melvin Harris]

Because I am visually oriented, I can stand far more 'lack' in story, than the visuals. That's my aesthetic... I frequently watch shorts without sound, just to see if I can 'see' the story via the visuals alone. If the visuals are crappy I stop watching...

Could you go into more of that? because I will frequently leave movies that are pretty but are lacking in story. Not my speed. I am not trying to start something but I think that there is a valuable lesson in attempting to understand this. I know a lot of people who are here, in this visual a little more than story place, or a "weak visuals absolutely can and will destroy any story" place, but they cannot articulate why. They have no reference.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

Could you go into more of that? because I will frequently leave movies that are pretty but are lacking in story. Not my speed. I am not trying to start something but I think that there is a valuable lesson in attempting to understand this. I know a lot of people who are here, in this visual a little more than story place, or a "weak visuals absolutely can and will destroy any story" place, but they cannot articulate why. They have no reference.

Since my art form has been 'photography', for most people when they see a photo in a gallery they have little or no 'context' in terms of some overarching story. The image is taken as a singleton. Further, if there is content that someone may make into a 'shot from a story'... like 'lonely figure, sunset, beach', many people will make up a 'story' as to why, wherefore, etc. for such a shot.

Hence, 'good visuals' will allow people to 'make up' perhaps things that are lacking in the 'story' as derived from the film, or in any case, they can watch the sequences of 'pretty pictures', which is entertaining in and of itself.

The analogy may be sort of like when the Wife and I go to a museum, and there are artworks by the greats with religious themes. Since the Wife was not particularly schooled in Bible stories, she is always asking me 'what does that mean', but beyond that, she appreciates the work in spite of not knowing the story context for which the work was originally intended.

 

[Rolf Silber]

It's both high concept and cheap and tawdry, an aspiration and a parlor trick... a good topic for discussion, yes?

Let me try to explain by an example: "Wings of Desire" (Der Himmel über Berlin) by Wenders and the American "version" of the same film "City of Angels" by Brad Silberling.

As a starter and a confession: I like both movies. I like them for what they are and have been in their time. Yet - it's no great wonder that the latter - while the first was an artistic success - was much more successful with an audience. And I do not mean the attractive cast and the mountain of money the American version of the story had more than the German original, the better distribution and, and, and....

Two decisions by Silberling and American writer Dana Stevens have been imho crucial for the success of the story and the story telling - if the angel who is the first to greet people who are dying in the "other world" and protect them is our hero, who should be the lady he falls in love with? Someone who fights to keep the people in the "real world" an protect them - a physician. Is that cheap? Tawdry?

Yes and no. If you are a Wenders fan you may find it disgusting. The thing is: It works. If you have swallowed and accepted the first contention of the movie that there are indeed angels in L.A. - there is no way this construction of the story does not get to you .... if it is accompanied by a good cast, good acting and... yes.... good photography and set-design and more....

The second decision is that if one angel crosses the line between the two worlds and becomes a human, the world is out of balance. And it can be out of balance only for a short time. And so not the angel goes back - but she has to die. Cheap? Tawdry? Not at all. By this decisions the movie has even more become a film about life and death (an love) than the original - but is built to tell the story to a bigger audience in a slightly more coarse way.

Now this two decisions alone - call them "strategic" - influence everything else. The tonality, the pace, the feeling that, yes, we see a nice & easy & fantastic & almost fairy-tale like romance (which is at times seemingly a bit... okay, cheap and tawdry) there is the deep underlying feeling that we also see a very approachable film about life & death. I like this decisions. Because they are indeed very intelligent consequences by able story-tellers how to change the backbone of a story towards a gripping, a bit more commercial but still great concept.

If you do not have such a backbone in a movie you have no story. And if you have it and do not work around that backbone as a director, develop the "statics" of your movie accordingly and/or try to bend it too much, it may break and you have an - probably well shot - empty shell. Photography is a function of story telling. Story, story structure, rules. If... and this is the crucial point... if your story goes over a certain distance of around 90 minutes or so. Shorter form can be totally different.

 

[Melvin Harris]

If you do not have such a backbone in a movie you have no story. And if you have it and do not work around that backbone as a director, develop the "statics" of your movie accordingly and/or try to bend it too much, it may break and you have an - probably well shot - empty shell. Photography is a function of story telling. Story, story structure, rules. If... and this is the crucial point... if your story goes over a certain distance of around 90 minutes or so. Shorter form can be totally different.

This is the crux of what I am asking and the point I am making. You have proved the point very succinctly... how are people doing this, how are they building their spines from the script in order to build the visuals; are they even taking time to do it, and if not, why?

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

Yes and no. If you are a Wenders fan you may find it disgusting.

No, but I do consider them different movies... "City of Angels"(1998) saw it once... "Himmel über Berlin"(1987) many times...

For a large number of films, when they are 'remade' there is quite a bit lost in the process. Of course the "City of Angels" story was shifted, tightened up, etc. to even have a chance at the US market... There is a certain amount of irony there... in comparing the two...

Now that Bernd Eichinger is dead, one wonders who will take up the mantel of producing german films in English...

 

[Patryk_Rebisz]

tipota, comparing those 2 films is like comparing a meal your mother would cook for you to a meal from McDonalds... where no one cares and only does it for the money. The German film is filled with poetry while American version can't for love of God get away from kitsch. I mean did they really need to show the gun robbery to get the very same point across? As far as form is concerned did they really need all those b-roll cut aways? Did they really need to cast two actors who are not strangers to whoring themselves out to crappy stories and directors but for sizable checks? Can one really do a poetic film in America?

 

[Melvin Harris]

Can one really do a poetic film in America?

Really?

 

[seanmcleod]

I think what you're running into on here, and what I've talked about before with some people, is this technophile age where technology has become so accessible that literally anyone has the tools to create a "film". They study up on gear and what it does, what's the newest hottest thing, etc. etc. So then they go out a shoot things, and when they do they say they directed it, and that they are directors. But realistically they are shooters, and the things they talk about are things that matter most to a shooter. I find it extremely rare when I post a clip or video or even a short that I get any notes on actors performance, story, pacing, etc... because people don't dedicate the kind of time to learning those ideas that they do to learning about gear.

I'll admit too that I've been a member here for a pretty long time but very rarely go into this section... so I'm just as much to blame although i do try to bring up these points when discussing other's work. I think what it boils down to is that a lot of people want to be directors, but few study the art of it, and what it means to actually be a DIRECTOR, and that's where we run off track. Also I think there's a reaction from an audience perspective that's only getting worse as better cameras are available for cheaper. A general audience will judge a book by it's cover, so if it looks terrible, with most people, you've already lost them. So there is an imbalanced emphasis on pretty pictures over story because of audience reaction.

 

[Kholi]

I think what you're running into on here, and what I've talked about before with some people, is this technophile age where technology has become so accessible that literally anyone has the tools to create a "film". They study up on gear and what it does, what's the newest hottest thing, etc. etc. So then they go out a shoot things, and when they do they say they directed it, and that they are directors. But realistically they are shooters, and the things they talk about are things that matter most to a shooter. I find it extremely rare when I post a clip or video or even a short that I get any notes on actors performance, story, pacing, etc... because people don't dedicate the kind of time to learning those ideas that they do to learning about gear.

I'll admit too that I've been a member here for a pretty long time but very rarely go into this section... so I'm just as much to blame although i do try to bring up these points when discussing other's work. I think what it boils down to is that a lot of people want to be directors, but few study the art of it, and what it means to actually be a DIRECTOR, and that's where we run off track. Also I think there's a reaction from an audience perspective that's only getting worse as better cameras are available for cheaper. A general audience will judge a book by it's cover, so if it looks terrible, with most people, you've already lost them. So there is an imbalanced emphasis on pretty pictures over story because of audience reaction.

Agreed on all points, especially the last one about the general audience.