Young Directors Focus on 3 Things

Dolly move during scene 1I had a recent conversation with a young director who was about to shoot her first film. She was eager to make sure she wasn’t missing anything in prep and asked me to explain what a director does in prep, production and post.

The first twenty items rattled out of my mouth with ease and her face drained of color. She was overwhelmed and wasn’t ready to hear the remaining 80 – 90 items. She said, “To do all that, you’d have to be a businessman, psychologist, coach, artist, life-experienced decision maker … a lot of things.”

“Yes, and then some,” I said.

She understood. She also realized why there are few good directors that actually do the work of a director.

“Now I understand why there’s so many bad shows,” she said. Her head tilted in thought and within moments she regrouped. Her eyes lost that hazy fog and she brought clarity with one question. “As an inexperienced rookie who might not be able to handle the full job, what three things must I do to succeed?”

Here are my three responses:

  1. Read the script from top to bottom and notate your emotional experience.

The first read through is the most important, as the director can never have a second, first read. During the reading, the writer’s work will point out the key elements that will make the story succeed. If the director notates it and determines how to shoot it in a way that the audience can experience the same emotional line, the film has a chance at being great.

However, if the director doesn’t capture the emotional pulse of the story, none of the scenes will play out properly during the shoot. Since the director is the only one who will be able to spot the straying storyline during the shoot, he must capture and understand the emotional pulse of the story. Without it reduced to writing in his director’s notebook, he will be directing with a proverbial blindfold on.

  1. Pencil out a blocking diagram.

Independent productions cost about $5,000 – $25,000 per hour (I’m not talking about ultra low budget films). Rehearsals during prep week cost a fraction of that budget. Therefore its mandatory that a director comes to set prepared to share blocking instructions with the cast and DP (Director of Photography). A quick rehearsal will work out the kinks and the shoot can begin.

Many young directors think they are more creative by designing the blocking on the fly during an extended rehearsal prior to rolling the cameras. These moments become very costly and rarely integrate with the previous or subsequent scenes. Only the director has a full understanding of how the picture will come together before editing, so if he doesn’t do his homework, then no one knows in advance how the picture will look.

  1. Create a shot list.

Most single camera shoots today require 2-4 cameras to keep within budget. During a typical conversation between two characters, each actor has a close-up camera and an over-the-shoulder camera. This gives the director full latitude in making decisions during post. However, it can become sloppy and extend the editor’s cutting time three fold. To counter this delay, it’s important for the director to create a shot list for the DP, which will be reflected in the editor’s log.

Single camera shoots that only use one camera also require a shot list to make sure set-ups aren’t revisited. The shot list also pinpoints the most important shots in case the day runs long and shots have to be dropped. The list is the only way to guarantee that all the important shots are captured.

These three activities will assure that a new director has a fighting chance to survive. Without any one of them, the film will surely be a disaster in quality, budget or schedule. Not to mention the whole reason for creating the story will have evaporated from the set for lack of prepared vision.

© 2016 by CJ Powers

 

The 3 A’s of Story Movement

When I was a child, my dad told me that a motion picture was about movement. I said, “dah!” But later I realized he was profoundly right. I’ve seen too many films that were not about movement. I’m not talking about the physical motion you see on screen where either the camera is moving or the actor moves, although that is present in film.

I’m speaking about story movement.

Every great story has the triple A’s of story movement: Anticipation, Action, and Aftermath. It is no different than the beginning, middle and end, except for one small factor: It’s about building a question in the mind of a viewer that must be quenched by watching more of the show.

ANTICIPATION

The “what” of a story is typically known by the audience before watching the film. The key is to make sure the audience doesn’t presume the “how” of the story before it unfolds. However, to create story movement the director must build anticipation in the audience to see if things play out in the expected way. While the ending might turn out close to expectations, how the story unfolds must be new and unique.

Blog_AAA-1My picture of a character reaching for a flower is symbolic of anticipation. It causes the audience to wonder if the character will caress the flower and smell it, or pick it. Both possibilities have been seen before, so how it’s done tells a new story worth watching. Not knowing how things will play out causes the audience to anticipate several possibilities. The audience is compelled to continue watching to see the outcome.

ACTION

Blog_AAA-2The flower being picked confirms the anticipated event to be new or what was expected, but done in a fresh way. It also raises another question. The audience now wants to know what will happen to the flower. The action drives the viewer to seek the end of the scene. They need to know if the character will hand the flower to someone, put it in a vase, toss it over the neighbors fence, or maybe realize that picking it killed the poor thing and grieve. The possibilities are endless.

AFTERMATH

Blog_AAA-3The aftermath isn’t always negative, but many times it is, except for the midpoint and climax of the film. But it’s always emotional so the audience shares the experience and desires to know more about what will happen in the next scene. Many writers speak about this moment being critical to moving a story forward using a consequence or conflict.

Every scene must have the three A’s to drive the audience’s desire for more story. Without it, the film falls apart. The magic of the three A’s is that it works every time, keeping the story moving and raises questions in the audience’s mind about what comes next. Great stories compel the audience to watch every subsequent scene until the film’s resolving climax and epilog.

© 2016 by CJ Powers

Why Fuller House Campy Wins

Fuller_HouseTwitter was abuzz with the release of Fuller House, the Netflix reprise series based on the original Full House. Since Netflix doesn’t reveal the number of viewers watching, estimates can only be determined by social media activity. All standard media sources suggest that the new series is a large success – No surprise to anyone.

Conversely, there probably isn’t a single critic in the market that would recommend the campy 80’s styled sitcom, but they’d all admit the episodes are perfectly crafted for the show’s original fans. The polarized marketplace will probably not provide any new viewers, but the series had a very large initial fan base eager to watch the series again.

It was clear in the first episode that the cast played some of the jokes straight to the audience including the writer’s proverbial hand slap to Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen (who played Michelle Tanner) for not joining the cast. The media picked up on the controversy, which increased viewership.

The Olsen ladies are fashion experts and not in a position to leave their empire unmanaged. Nor do they consider themselves actors, which would make the long shooting days grueling rather than stimulating. But, the deciding factor would have been the dollars spent on their high salaries that are well above an Internet budget. Another deterrent might be their lackluster desire to look alike and take turns playing Michelle. Although some still hope they will appear for a cameo in a future episode.

However, the real question behind Fuller House is how can a campy 80’s styled sitcom be so successful in an era when dark motion pictures excel over cheeky? The answer to the question is also demonstrative in the faith-based markets. So, I thought I’d try to explain both.

Two factors attribute to the Fuller House success. The first are the beloved characters that fans grew up with. During the 80’s, the characters played “family” well. It was during a time when families were breaking a part with more divorces than any other time in the history of our country. The characters became role models for those seeking unity of family in a time when the family unit was being dissolved.

The second factor was about demonstrating what “love” looked like. In fact, the first episode of Fuller House dove right in and demonstrated that same sacrificial love for the sake of family that made the show great in the 80’s. Our society has been polarized in recent years between narcissists and those willing to make sacrifices for loved ones. Fuller House is capitalizing on those who long for someone to demonstrate true love to them, which they can vicariously receive, with hope, through the series.

Anyone thinking that it’s the cheese factor that attracts the audience is missing how powerful it is for a fan to receive life lessons from a beloved character. They may also be missing the fact that most people in our country no longer have anyone that is willing to share unconditional and sacrificial love with them. That void emotionally bonds the beloved characters  with the audience, making them a part of their family.

The successful faith-based films are the same way. It’s not the cheesy storylines that draw the audience, but the “born again” stars that drive the films. David A. R. White always plays an approachable character who lives his faith out loud for everyone to see. In real life, White does the same, completing the connection for audiences to adore his work. It’s not his acting skills that draw the audience, but his personal character and his role.

Fuller House’s Candace Cameron Bure also shares personal similarities with her D. J. Tanner character. Both live a wholesome life out loud for all to see and are held in high esteem as a role model. Her super fans played a large role in supporting and promoting her conservative ideas when she was on The View – Proving that campy wasn’t the key factor to her success.

The funny thing is that many think campy is the thing that works in both Fuller House and faith-based films. But it’s the campy that pushes the general public away from the moral based shows. Only those who already appreciate wholesome living are able to tolerate the campy and it’s been around forever.

The 40’s had Abbott and Costello. The 50’s had Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis. The 60’s moved campy to television with Batman. The 70’s campy shifted back to the silver screen with car films that allowed stars like Burt Reynolds to temporarily leave character and wink at the audience. The 80’s brought numerous campy series to television like Full House, The Facts of Life, Family Ties, Happy Days and many more. The 90’s saw the introduction of dozens of reality shows, which killed most campy shows.

Today campy is back, but not because people want to live in a delusional state, but because it’s the only shows that offer a demonstration on what family looks like and how to unconditionally share a sacrificial love with someone by putting them above oneself. Those two factors will continue to keep Fuller House a success until someone comes up with a realistic non-campy show that demonstrates the same.

Until then, get ready for more “cheeky,” as other shows from the top fifty 80’s sitcoms get re-launched on the Internet. And, expect more cheeky faith-based films to be released, while producers continue to think it’s the campy sweetness that makes the shows work.

© 2016 by CJ Powers