A good movie can never be credited as anything but the sum of its equally important artistic contributions. For those of us making independent films; whether it be shorts, features, web series or scene studies, it's important to understand where and how our budgets and production value can be stretched for FREE by simply utilizing smart film making techniques. A scene filmed one way might feel cheap, but filmed another way feels dynamic and up on par with the best of Spielberg or Scorsese. Of course, this means all sorts of thought and planning must precede the actual production.
A saying I have found myself repeating when meeting with new Directors and DP's is, "the script is for the actors, the subtext is for the camera". What I mean by this is: the way a scene moves, the way the colors and exposure and geometry of the environment lead your eye is something of great importance when it comes to connecting with characters and emotion in any movie. It is beyond me how any director can forsake this and leave it all in the hands of the DP because, as much as having your actors nail their lines, it's all tied into the telling of the story.
Roger Corman, bless his heart, was able to develop a style of shooting that allowed a production team to make a movie faster than anyone else. Shoot your master, get your coverage in a couple over the shoulders and maybe a closeup or two, and get out.
And why not? The actors are saying their lines and hitting their marks, the props are being manipulated, the sets are full of texture and detail, and in the end -- one might say that everything printed in the script has come to life. It looks like we have ourselves a movie!
The problem is just that, every word of the script is here and nothing more. There's no importance, something lacks in Corman's movies, that's why they call 'em "B" movies.
Whether they realize it or not, people watch films to be placed in the center of the stories we tell; they want us to take them away, absorb them in our drama, excite them through our action, depress them in our failures, and uplift them with our triumphs.
It's up to us as directors and DP's to use every tool at our disposal in uncovering the core beneath the ink on the page, to illustrate the human pulse which courses through every scene and every moment of our films -- THAT which continually drives the audience to this emotional connection.
So what are we talking about here? We watch movies and mostly forget that the way they are presented -- the angles, colors, lighting, and motion of the camera are NOT set in the script, nor is the blocking. No two people read scripts the same way. A dolly push for one director or DP could be a smartly blocked wide shot for another. So how and why do we shoot the way we do?
I can recall the first movie I shot as a DP. Leading up to the production, all the "rules" and musts that I'd absorbed over the years from film professors and self proclaimed movie buffs suddenly began climbing out to the gooey surface of my brain. "Don't EVER use a zoom", "keep the camera moving", "stay on one side of the line"...
They spoke of motivation prompting movement, and I thought I knew what it meant... So I dollied the camera when characters walked, jibbed the camera when they stood or fell, and never once did I touch the zoom control on my lens. I even tried the always moving Michael Bay shots for one scene. What I ended up with was a very nice looking, but incredibly meaningless first film.
What nobody helped me to understand is that blocking is a huge key to this puzzle, not the only key mind you, but a big one. The more complex we block our characters, the more EVERYBODY has room to become creative. Nobody explained that while you do want to keep your camera on one side of the 180 degree line, it's fully possible for that line to move, to change with new characters entering the scene, to EVOLVE with your blocking and by design -- actually MEAN something.
Take this scene from Scorsese's Cape Fear for example. Here Nick Nolte explains the trauma and fear he's feeling as a result of ex-con Max Cady stalking his family; followed by the big reveal that he knows just why Cady is doing it -- and Nolte is to blame. (I'm speaking only about the first scene in the video below)
Now, the blocking is not complex per se, but it easily could have been two men sitting across from one another at a desk. And if it were, if we lost that amazing tracking shot that ends on Nick Nolte's face filling frame, would we feel the same as we do when we watch it as it is? Would we have the innate understanding of the weight of what Nolte is saying if it were just a couple of mediums, wides, and a closeup from across a desk?
There are many things going on in this scene. Scorsese uses dolly pushes on the senior lawyer to establish the scene and accentuate the solutions this man is trying to provide, giving us an "Ah! The answer cometh" feeling, and assuring us he is very much on Nolte's side. Note that the two characters are staged at far ends of the room in the first wide shot we see.
The conversation is casual, boiler plate, and the distance reflects this. Once Nolte begins to explain that things might not be so simple, Scorsese starts his first blocking move.
Here, the blocking serves to help us as the audience FEEL that the conversation is shifting. Whereas a moment ago we were accustomed to the straight shots and dolly pushes between two men talking shop, this shot and its brilliant blocking now moves the characters, the conversation, and the camera in a completely different direction -- subverting our comfort. This shot tracks with Nolte, closing the distance between the two men as the information his character reveals becomes more intimate and dangerous.
We tilt down to catch the lawyer's response, Nolte's chest intimidating the left side of the frame and giving us a very uneasy feeling as he closes in on the lawyer's space. We finally tilt back up to Nolte's face, now in an extreme closeup as he reveals the hearing for his restraining order is in ten days.
Take a look at this frame. What is happening here? First, Scorsese and his DP really know how to shoot a face! In this frame dominating shot, Nolte is larger than life. His creased, bespectacled mug gives us the impression of a man with decades of experience, a serious contender -- not someone who'll take his family being threatened lying down. We are well inside his personal space as he shares a very guarded and personal secret he's kept for 14 years. They've managed to choose just the right angle and just the right lighting to give us a portrait of a man both intimidating and intimidated at the same time.
How do they do this? In this final frame, we are still feeling the overpowering presence Nolte has over the lawyer, but the camera is at a high angle, generally used to weaken a character's perceived position. One man towers over another, but the man who's not even there towers over both. Here established, Max Cady's presence dominates the entirety of the film.
The look on his face tells us Nolte knows a restraining order won't do a damn thing, the shot has become a window into this subtext.
Again, think about this moment. If we were watching this from a wide, or a medium shot from any other angle, if the blocking had not allowed for the motion of the scene to help us "feel" that something was amiss... would this riveting performance have the same impact? My point here is that no matter how strong the acting, it's shooting these moments with the right subtext that gives them power, even ft it means using a zoom.
Now we find ourselves in a whole new world. "How can I move the camera to do for my scenes what Scorsese did for his?" This is dangerous territory, because once we start learning about moving our cameras, it sure is hard to stop. What works for one scene, or one film for that matter may not apply to another.
There is no easy answer for what visual fertilizer a scene requires to flourish. Martin Scorsese has a heavy touch, Clint Eastwood has a light one... David Fincher is somewhere in between . Each of these filmmakers are precise, effective, and completely different, but their success as filmmakers comes because they know their material and they fertilize the seeds of their films just right.
It helps to remember, sometimes when you water your own seeds, you end up with a tree -- other times you end up with a shrub. The point is, no matter the watering, the seeds will always grow to be whatever it is they were meant to be, so don't try to pile on the fertilizer -- you'll just end up killing your plant.
In summary, the most important "rule" I've learned as a filmmaker over the years is there are no rules, simply suggestions, all of which boil down to you -- the director -- giving the audience what they want.
The question becomes, how do you know what they want?...
-Nick Harris
A saying I have found myself repeating when meeting with new Directors and DP's is, "the script is for the actors, the subtext is for the camera". What I mean by this is: the way a scene moves, the way the colors and exposure and geometry of the environment lead your eye is something of great importance when it comes to connecting with characters and emotion in any movie. It is beyond me how any director can forsake this and leave it all in the hands of the DP because, as much as having your actors nail their lines, it's all tied into the telling of the story.
Roger Corman, bless his heart, was able to develop a style of shooting that allowed a production team to make a movie faster than anyone else. Shoot your master, get your coverage in a couple over the shoulders and maybe a closeup or two, and get out.
And why not? The actors are saying their lines and hitting their marks, the props are being manipulated, the sets are full of texture and detail, and in the end -- one might say that everything printed in the script has come to life. It looks like we have ourselves a movie!
The problem is just that, every word of the script is here and nothing more. There's no importance, something lacks in Corman's movies, that's why they call 'em "B" movies.
Whether they realize it or not, people watch films to be placed in the center of the stories we tell; they want us to take them away, absorb them in our drama, excite them through our action, depress them in our failures, and uplift them with our triumphs.
It's up to us as directors and DP's to use every tool at our disposal in uncovering the core beneath the ink on the page, to illustrate the human pulse which courses through every scene and every moment of our films -- THAT which continually drives the audience to this emotional connection.
So what are we talking about here? We watch movies and mostly forget that the way they are presented -- the angles, colors, lighting, and motion of the camera are NOT set in the script, nor is the blocking. No two people read scripts the same way. A dolly push for one director or DP could be a smartly blocked wide shot for another. So how and why do we shoot the way we do?
I can recall the first movie I shot as a DP. Leading up to the production, all the "rules" and musts that I'd absorbed over the years from film professors and self proclaimed movie buffs suddenly began climbing out to the gooey surface of my brain. "Don't EVER use a zoom", "keep the camera moving", "stay on one side of the line"...
They spoke of motivation prompting movement, and I thought I knew what it meant... So I dollied the camera when characters walked, jibbed the camera when they stood or fell, and never once did I touch the zoom control on my lens. I even tried the always moving Michael Bay shots for one scene. What I ended up with was a very nice looking, but incredibly meaningless first film.
What nobody helped me to understand is that blocking is a huge key to this puzzle, not the only key mind you, but a big one. The more complex we block our characters, the more EVERYBODY has room to become creative. Nobody explained that while you do want to keep your camera on one side of the 180 degree line, it's fully possible for that line to move, to change with new characters entering the scene, to EVOLVE with your blocking and by design -- actually MEAN something.
Take this scene from Scorsese's Cape Fear for example. Here Nick Nolte explains the trauma and fear he's feeling as a result of ex-con Max Cady stalking his family; followed by the big reveal that he knows just why Cady is doing it -- and Nolte is to blame. (I'm speaking only about the first scene in the video below)
Now, the blocking is not complex per se, but it easily could have been two men sitting across from one another at a desk. And if it were, if we lost that amazing tracking shot that ends on Nick Nolte's face filling frame, would we feel the same as we do when we watch it as it is? Would we have the innate understanding of the weight of what Nolte is saying if it were just a couple of mediums, wides, and a closeup from across a desk?
There are many things going on in this scene. Scorsese uses dolly pushes on the senior lawyer to establish the scene and accentuate the solutions this man is trying to provide, giving us an "Ah! The answer cometh" feeling, and assuring us he is very much on Nolte's side. Note that the two characters are staged at far ends of the room in the first wide shot we see.
The conversation is casual, boiler plate, and the distance reflects this. Once Nolte begins to explain that things might not be so simple, Scorsese starts his first blocking move.
Here, the blocking serves to help us as the audience FEEL that the conversation is shifting. Whereas a moment ago we were accustomed to the straight shots and dolly pushes between two men talking shop, this shot and its brilliant blocking now moves the characters, the conversation, and the camera in a completely different direction -- subverting our comfort. This shot tracks with Nolte, closing the distance between the two men as the information his character reveals becomes more intimate and dangerous.
We tilt down to catch the lawyer's response, Nolte's chest intimidating the left side of the frame and giving us a very uneasy feeling as he closes in on the lawyer's space. We finally tilt back up to Nolte's face, now in an extreme closeup as he reveals the hearing for his restraining order is in ten days.
Take a look at this frame. What is happening here? First, Scorsese and his DP really know how to shoot a face! In this frame dominating shot, Nolte is larger than life. His creased, bespectacled mug gives us the impression of a man with decades of experience, a serious contender -- not someone who'll take his family being threatened lying down. We are well inside his personal space as he shares a very guarded and personal secret he's kept for 14 years. They've managed to choose just the right angle and just the right lighting to give us a portrait of a man both intimidating and intimidated at the same time.
How do they do this? In this final frame, we are still feeling the overpowering presence Nolte has over the lawyer, but the camera is at a high angle, generally used to weaken a character's perceived position. One man towers over another, but the man who's not even there towers over both. Here established, Max Cady's presence dominates the entirety of the film.
The look on his face tells us Nolte knows a restraining order won't do a damn thing, the shot has become a window into this subtext.
Again, think about this moment. If we were watching this from a wide, or a medium shot from any other angle, if the blocking had not allowed for the motion of the scene to help us "feel" that something was amiss... would this riveting performance have the same impact? My point here is that no matter how strong the acting, it's shooting these moments with the right subtext that gives them power, even ft it means using a zoom.
Now we find ourselves in a whole new world. "How can I move the camera to do for my scenes what Scorsese did for his?" This is dangerous territory, because once we start learning about moving our cameras, it sure is hard to stop. What works for one scene, or one film for that matter may not apply to another.
There is no easy answer for what visual fertilizer a scene requires to flourish. Martin Scorsese has a heavy touch, Clint Eastwood has a light one... David Fincher is somewhere in between . Each of these filmmakers are precise, effective, and completely different, but their success as filmmakers comes because they know their material and they fertilize the seeds of their films just right.
It helps to remember, sometimes when you water your own seeds, you end up with a tree -- other times you end up with a shrub. The point is, no matter the watering, the seeds will always grow to be whatever it is they were meant to be, so don't try to pile on the fertilizer -- you'll just end up killing your plant.
In summary, the most important "rule" I've learned as a filmmaker over the years is there are no rules, simply suggestions, all of which boil down to you -- the director -- giving the audience what they want.
The question becomes, how do you know what they want?...
-Nick Harris
Good stuff
ReplyDeleteGreat insight and good points regarding blocking, a very powerful, yet often undervalued tool in the director's arsenal. We can definitely learn more about blocking from stage directors...
ReplyDelete