I'm at that stage for my next short; my first to have any budget whatsoever. STORYBOARDING. I've done it before of course, for three or four shorts but I've simply concentrated on getting the story across clearly, a few 'cool' shots, but nothing too special. And most importantly nothing 'essential' nothing that means anything.

So how do you choose? For the last few weeks I've had a free ride back at home after a year away, I've been pandered to and pretty much spent every day at home with my collection of Kubrick's, Kurosawa's, Wes Anderson's and Fincher's-- films with cinematography I adore-- just sketching the sequence of shots that these directors use: for conversations, Long Shot (maybe dolly in), Shot-Reverse-Shot, Inserts, more Shot-Reverse-Shot, then maybe some close ups... you get the idea. I have a pretty good sense of how to compose a scene so that it looks formal. After you pay attention enough you pick it up, and storyboarding becomes instinctive.

But that's where I'm frustrating myself. I don't want to do it instinctively, I want to make artistic decisions that support the themes of the story through the mise-en-scene and the camera movement.

I can analyse that kind of stuff. At least I think I can, I've had papers graded highly on the subject of editing, where I've deconstructed the mise-en-scene of, for example, Taxi Driver. But to be honest I felt like I was being a little pretentious and that if Scorcese really attempted to achieve what I was accusing him of, he should be held in as high a regard as Da Vinci, or Mozart.

I've studied (to a level that any film student has) the work of Kuleshov and Eisenstein, and I think I understand it. (Like gravity) it's pretty simple when someone else has already discovered it.

Maybe I'm having a premature life-crisis (I'm sure that's common in this field), but I really don't know where to start choosing shots on their artistic merit.

[Maybe, even worse, I have ideas for 'cool' shots... such as a scene where one character describes another to yet another. The shot is an imagined picture of the discriptee and it changes using jump cuts with every added descriptive element... but my reasoning for this idea is it will look 'cool'. Not only is my idea of 'cool' not universal, it is not exactly based on an artistic choice.]

This is a call to anyone to post their thoughts on the matter.

even Kubrick said the camera angles shouldnt be decided until you're on location. I think if you plan anything out...then there's no point to storyboard it, its already in your head, save it for the day of shoot

quote:

Originally posted by Kyle Johnson:
even Kubrick said the camera angles shouldnt be decided until you're on location. I think if you plan anything out...then there's no point to storyboard it, its already in your head, save it for the day of shoot

Kubrick was a genius after all. He may be able to improvise stunning camera angles. But personally I need to know what I'm gonna shoot before hand. Otherwise I'll miss shots, especially when shooting out of sequence, which is the only way when your actors aren't all related to you.

I understand your need to have mastery in terms of cinematography but PLEASE don't get to academic with your work or it will come off cold! Alot of the theory is used to analyze work that is acheived instinctivly over time. Not accidental genius but success through experimentation. Kubrick is a good example as "The Killing is far less cinematic than say the Shining."

Your story will answer your questions, for example if your character is nervous or anxious you simply need to answer how you are going to communicate that, with Close ups? Clausterphobic framing? Movement? ect. But to apply a theory as an academic device will drive you mad! And don't be afraid to experiment!

Good luck!

quote:

Originally posted by REDking:

Your story will answer your questions, for example if your character is nervous or anxious you simply need to answer how you are going to communicate that, with Close ups? Clausterphobic framing? Movement? ect.

Thanks for your response and your concern. I know I know, I shouldn't be too academic about it. It has occured to me that all the academia comes after the fact anyway. But there is still a great many decisions that have to be made and the have to made on some grounds!

The ones you've suggested are great examples, and while I will work mostly instinctively with my storyboarding, if there is a place to wax academic, surely this is it.

There aren't too many people who will even listen to my concerns on this side of the pond, so I've been forced online to discuss it.

Thanks again.

I'm really interested in this aspect of filmmaking, so I thought if maybe I post a brief account of my upcoming project people could venture their thoughts more specifically.

It is about an over achieving youngster who escapes the attentions of his mother to go on an expedition with his grandfather (a renowned explorer) deep into the English countryside to prove the existence of a mythical creature.

It is a piece concenred with conservation (conSerVation not conversation)

A comedy. But conservation is a message that I want to support not just through the story but with the entire film.

A screenwriter is not the director. Camera angles shouldn't really be in scripts. If you want to jot down bursts of brainfarts that you have, that might be a good idea...but you can't really plan ahead unless you know exactly how it's going to look and have what you need in front of you.

quote:

Originally posted by funkbomb:
A screenwriter is not the director. Camera angles shouldn't really be in scripts. If you want to jot down bursts of brainfarts that you have, that might be a good idea...but you can't really plan ahead unless you know exactly how it's going to look and have what you need in front of you.

I understand that for a spec script you don't include camera angles. But many writer/directors do actually include director notes in their descriptive passages.

I plan to direct a script I wrote, but even then I didnt include any camera direction in my script, habit I guess.

Nevertheless, the script is written and know I'm wondering how best to direct it, I have many of locations in mind also. I didnt come here to ask how I should direct it, I just gave my idea as an example for people to refer to if they needed one. I came here to start a discussion on mise-en-scene, and montage, and the structure of shot sequences within scenes.

cheers

Hitchcock storyboarded everything. Its alright at this level where you yourself are you DP, Art Director, Production Designer. But storyboards are the perfect medium in communicating to other members of crew your vision. A lot of the time the storyboards dont represent the final product, but they provided you with details of the absolute essencial coverage you need to get. Heaps of other shots may be devised on set, and work better, but as it is best to ensure you have your base coverage as well as improvised shots.

Don't listen to anyone who tells you not to include camera angles in your screenplays or not to draw storyboards. At this stage (and beyond) writing down as much as possible to preserve your imagined concept of the film is essential.

I direct differently from most others I've seen - talk of "coverage" reminds me of a sports event or live concert. Film is not theatre. I always keep the visual element in the front of my mind, and therefore I don't need to get "coverage" and "make it work" in the editing room. Before a shoot a single frame the project's images are already laid out, but with minor tweaks or additions still left open for location shooting. When I'm shooting I don't have to worry about coverage because I already thought out the entire film and it has been carefully storyboarded. Give this method a try if you're visually inclined, as most of the great directors you mentioned in the first post were. Kurosawa and Andrzej Wajda both intended to be painters; the Criterion DVD releases of their works often include excellent storyboards that are quite detailed. Scorsese is terrible at drawing but gets the idea across with lively sketches on scraps of paper. Whatever works for you.

I'm glad to see that someone else on this site is concerned with rising above the level of "workmanlike" with regards to camera movement and shot placement.

I would say this. Plan it as much as possible (over the shoulder vs. wideshot) based on whatever criteria you use to decide, but be ready to toss that to the wind on location. Before shooting, walk around the whole scene once looking at angles. Then walk through the script, taking the positions of the actors. Then walk through the location one more time, camera in hand, looking for shots.