Innovative vs. Safe

Gohanto

Gohanto

Veteran
I'm a believer that the vast majority of directing is understanding scripts, being able to direct actors, and knowing the basic encyclopedia of what has worked vs. what hasn't worked in modern movies (example: when to use a medium shot, when to use high angles, long lenses,ect...).

Several directors rely on these skills alone and do pretty well with them (director of Cellular comes to mind), but a lot of other directors like Hitchcock, Welles, Scorsese, ext... take material that could be done in the conventional way and show something that's never been seen before. (i.e. Touche of Evil opening shot, Vertigo dolly-zoom, or Citizen Kane's first marriage sequence)

I understand all of these innovations come out of the script and only stand to support the story (reguardless of what later directors do with the techniques they invent, such as the love of dolly-zoom on any "oh crap!" moment recently), but I'm just curious if any of you ever go out of your way to find a unique way to film scenes that could otherwise be filmed rather normally and, in all honesty, safely, as cool techniques don't always work out like they do in your head.
Two extremes would be "Cellular" - nothing you wouldn't expect in it
vs. "Requiem for a Dream" where no scene uses so-called normal techniques.

Any opinions?
 
Well, I think people should first learn the basics. In my opinion, those "unique" styles should only be used to tell the story better.

I think innovative is always good but trying to be different for the sake of being different usually goes badly.
 
To add, I think an example of innovative was the film Waking Life; however, once A Scanner Darkly came out people (or at least me) stopped liking it because it was almost like he relied on the technique as a crutch to cover up weak filmmaking.

This holds true for most "innovative" techniques. Also true in writing. Tarantino started a huge trend of out-of-sequence story telling (though he wasn't the first to use it) and what was once innovative just became a crutch to cover up a bad story line.

Nobody likes being generic, but often it is the best way to tell a story.
 
Q: Is it safe?

A: Yes, it's very safe.

Q: Is it safe?

A: No no - it's not safe

>>Cue drill.<<

* It makes my teeth hurt just thinking about it.
Sorry for the temporary diversion, carry on.
 
I would say that you should try to do a combination of the two. Use convential shots but add your own twist. People are looking for new types of directing and that will make your story that much better. You can not cross the line and make every shot some sort of artsy statement of your philosophical view on life because people begin to get mad.

Darkness is only the absence of light. You gotta make your cool shots be appreciated by also having convential shots around them. Go look at all the classics and you will see that for every awesome shot/scenes there are 4 other average shots/scenes leading up to it.

Sure, it might not be the safest thing in the world to delve into a little creative expression but no risk no rewards.
 
i say shoot whatever the hell you want. you'll know in your gut if what you're doing serves the story and enhances the film or if it just looks like you're trying to show off.


to avoid major problems in editing, shoot your bigger scenes (and by bigger i mean more important) both safe and wacky if you've got the money, and just safe if you don't. at those points in your story, looking good takes a back seat to what's going on. during really big moments, the director needs to completely disappear. part of the reason scorsese's goodfellas tracking shots worked so well was because they were in not necessarily crucial moments of the story (like when they're walking into that restaurant and we get introduced to all the gangsters by henry). they had an effect, they gave you a really intuitive taste of the mobster lifestyle, but they didn't obscure the greater story. SPOILER when Tommy is killed and Jimmy breaks down in the phone booth, Scorsese is nowhere to be found. The direction is standard and we give all of our focus to Jimmy. the moment isn't covered up by a flashy camera move.
 
Innovation is really very important to the film industry and the art of film in general. So many movies are well made but extremely derivative, even with great actors. Can you imagine anyone wanting to see "Men of Honor" 10 or 20 years from now? I think you can label most of the older films that are still in vogue today as being very innovative for their time.

As far as types of innovation a lot of people will talk about innovation in film technique. Brian De Palma was a real wizard for this sort of thing. Sisters for me is probably the prototype De Palma film. I would highly recommend it to anyone for one scene alone which employs split screen masterfully. The problem with De Palma in my estimation is that his writing was never up to snuff.

This leads me to a different type of innovations, which I believe is more effective, innovation in narrative. A great example of this is Charlie Kaufman, I mean who can resist Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind or Being John Malkovich. Another example is the Blair Witch Project.

Safe, conventional movies often make money and are probably easier to get made, that's what they have going for them. With that being said, if you defy the audience's expectations and it works for them they will love you for it, and it is much more likely you'll be remembered. That should be the goal of every artist.
 
I believe that what makes those unique and innovative shots work is that they are serving the story and only the story. They aren't trying to show off, they are simply the best way to tell that particular story.

For the Vertigo example, that shot was there to further bring the character's perspective to the audience. Requiem for a Dream is a story about drug abuse, and so the way the story is told visually is fitting. That camera work wouldn't have worked for The Fountain. Same director, but he used the camera in such a way that furthered the communication to the audience.

Another great example for me is The Matrix. Bullet time makes sense for the world of the Matrix. Yes, it looks cool, yes it was innovative and relatively new (Blade did it first, but a bit different), but it fit the story. I hate seeing bullet time in action movies because it doesn't have anything to do with what's going on, it's just there to be flashy and expensive looking.

Film is a visual medium, and the best directors and DPs use that to their advantage to tell a better story. The not so best ones do it because it looks cool.

-DES
 
I had a small role on a TV show called Vegas back when I did some acting. I was at the hero's table in the Casino. It was a complex and unnecessary crane shot that I personally thought was a bad choice, and dangerous. But these people get paid a lot more than me to make those decisions so I just sat there and did my job.

Anyway, next thing you know the crane crashes into a chandalier, the DP falls 10-15 feet and all of us at the blackjack table are covered in glass. The DP was rushed to the hospital and everyone ended up okay, but later we found out the DP told the director, 'this is a dangerous shot.' The director insisted the creativity of it was a priority.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top