Filmmaking course from Werner Herzog

Looks nice. Fun and informative.

"I do not use a storyboard. I think it's an instrument of the cowards."

Maybe this is being taken out of its context, but I have to disagree strongly with his opinion.
Storyboards are an incredibly useful pre-visualisation tool which can save a massive amount of time and aggro on set, and in my experience help me achieve superior results than if I had just walked in with no plan on paper.
An argument against storyboards would be that they fix the vision and could distract from seeing the potential of what's immediately in front of you, but I find that's not the case. For me, storyboards structure and guide my vision so I'm not preoccupied with it when I turn up on set - and free my mind to take in the immediacy of the location and see what can be used or how things need stretching around.

Some people just need a shooting script; some like storyboards too.
Werner has his opinions. That's good, but folks should take to heart only those that work for them. WH is great, but we don't need an army of clones.
 
Well, if he had a storyboard for Fitzcarraldo, it was tossed out rather quickly.

This brings up a point that some films like "Shining" or "In the mood for love" will have meandering story lines and endings that will swerve away from the original premise but are, at the same time, less predictable than a traditional three act structure. A couple of years ago, I stumbled onto a Russian film with no story arc whatsoever. The premise was about a circus illusionist, who disappears from the arena - after a puff of smoke, naturally - with an invited female audience member, picked randomly out of the crowd. And then no one can find them. He is not in his dressing room. She is not back with her date. And so people begin to search for them but, at some point, they give up. The expected payoff of finding out what happened to the couple isn't there. The film, in that regard, has no ending ... or it has sort of a "Soprano'ish" type of ending where life just goes on.
 
DLD said:
A couple of years ago, I stumbled onto a Russian film with no story arc whatsoever. The premise was about a circus illusionist, who disappears from the arena - after a puff of smoke, naturally - with an invited female audience member, picked randomly out of the crowd. And then no one can find them. He is not in his dressing room. She is not back with her date. And so people begin to search for them but, at some point, they give up. The expected payoff of finding out what happened to the couple isn't there. The film, in that regard, has no ending ... or it has sort of a "Soprano'ish" type of ending where life just goes on.
Click to expand...

interesting; could you remember the title of this Russian film?
 
Last edited:
Yeah, about storyboards - it's partially film dependent. If you have a loosely structured film where improvisation is key, and the story changes depending on the mood of the actors, the director and availability of locations, well, you are not likely to be able to storyboard in the first place. But for a film that is very structured, it can be the primary vehicle for realizing the director's vision - a good example was Hitchcock, who storyboarded everything down to the last detail. However, it's important to note that no film is 100% predictable, and even Hitchcock had to modify his vision - and consequently depart from his storyboard - when circumstances dictated. I think what Werner fears is that storyboarding might limit your vision and ability to see things with a fresh eye. That may be true to some extent, but it is really dependent on the director. There is the type of a person who thrives on the spur of the moment, who works best under pressure of immediate solutions, and there is the kind who is paralyzed by having to decide if they have not thought through all the options. Really director's styles and optimal functioning are along a spectrum - at one end you get the control freaks who like to pre-plan everything (Hitchcock/Kubrick etc.) to intermediate who like to storyboard, but are open to the unexpected on the set (Polansky), to those who like to improvise a ton on the spot and are inspired by the immediate situation (Jean-Luc Godard, Robert Altman etc.).

The thing about making pronouncements like "no storyboarding" is that it's not useful to make them absolutes. What may work to the strength of one director may not work for another and vice versa. I mean, say you are a short person - and if you said "no kid should try to learn basketball", that might work for some sports and be valid for those who are like you, but won't work for tons of people who are naturally advantaged and well-suited to playing basketball. The problem is that if you have had a lot of success in a line of work, you will tend to generalize your experiences as universally applying to everyone - which simply isn't true. Werner works best without storyboards - great for Werner and anyone who is like Werner. But it is not good advice for the budding Hitchcock or Kubrick - indeed, it is probably only valid for a relative minority of directors. In other words - different strokes for different folks.

Bottom line: it is dangerous to make all-encompasing absolute statements, because odds are they will not be true for everyone. One of the wisest observations about film ever was: "Nobody knows anything"*. That's just as valid about taking and giving advice about film too.

*Full quote from William Goldman is: Nobody knows anything... Not one person in the entire motion picture field knows for a certainty what's going to work. Every time out it's a guess and, if you're lucky, an educated one."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top