Standard

Posted by

Posted on

June 13, 2012

Posted under

Thoughts and Ideas

Comments

Leave a comment

Protecting Your Core Strength with Workflow

Businessmen, homemakers, pastors and filmmakers all have core strengths that must be protected. I’ve found that the easiest way to do so is by setting up workflows. Pastors and filmmakers sometimes find it difficult to establish a workflow, since their sensitivity to the spirit and their creativity desire fresh off-the-cuff responses that struggle against the logical norms of a structured workflow – Although most subscribe to some form of a disciplined routine.

Workflow ChartWhen I was a little kid, I’d watch my dad get ready for work. He followed the same simple tasks everyday like clockwork. The sheer repetition suggested he could ready himself in his sleep and I knew exactly when to hand him the electric razor so I wouldn’t alter his disciplined routine. When I was in sync with his workflow, he appreciated my help, but when I disturbed it, he wanted me out of the way. One thing was certain; his workflow reduced the time it took him to get ready to a mere 20 minutes including a shower.

By adapting a workflow, businessmen are freed up to focus their time on core activities rather than the onslaught of fires they have to put out. Homemakers are constantly fighting things that go against their planning to the point that systematic responses to certain activities can lighten the load and reduce the strain of battling hindrances. Both types of people find themselves forced into using project management skills daily and could take advantage of streamlining some of the more mundane or repetitive tasks into a simplified workflow.

When I write a screenplay, I spend most of my time determining the film’s structure and the key sequences needed to tell the story in the best way possible. I use a workflow that I developed after studying five great cinematic storytellers. The workflow allows me to progress quickly through the less creative steps in order to free my time for more creative opportunities.

The process I used to establish my workflow may be beneficial as a tool to establish your own productive workflow:

1. Brainstorm the important steps. Write every step in no particular order on a Post-It note or index card. Spread them arbitrarily out on a large table or attach them to a wall. Move them around to create a logical progression or outline of activities, making sure related elements are together. This is also the time to make sure elements that build on other elements are in the proper order so additional work or rework is reduced. This is know in corporate circles as mind mapping.

2. Group Steps into Sequenced Activities. Review the outline and determine what elements can be grouped together for efficiencies. This is the ideal time to think about a factory setting where you have multiple people handling portions of the activity. Ask yourself what functional person would handle what module of activities. The answer will help you to formulate chunks of work that can be done in tandem or a quick sequence, and give you numerous stopping points that don’t hinder progress. This is ideal when a project is longer than the amount of time needed in one sitting.

3. Test each Sequence of Steps. Using a mini project that touches all the modules or sequences, but takes no longer than a couple of hours, is ideal to verify that the process or new workflow is productive and effective.

4. Streamline the Process Based on Synergies. Drop the elements or the steps that are no longer needed due to the synergies gained from the groupings of activities. This is particularly hard for some people after they have built new habits around the workflow. However, this step is the one that gives you the greatest timesavings and helps you mature the process.

I chatted with one blogger who spent a few hours establishing a workflow that allowed him to publish a blog five days a week. While his structure lacks creativity, it is clear, concise and informative. The best part of his workflow is the freedom he gets to address issues he never thought possible, making him far more valuable to his audience.

I’d like to read about the types of workflows you have used and what made them successful. Please take a moment to comment.

 

Copyright © 2012 By CJ Powers
Photo © S.John – Fotolia.com
Standard

Posted by

Posted on

June 11, 2012

Posted under

Filmmaking

Comments

2 Comments

How to Determine Scene Length

Cinematic Story Telling Yesterday I read the “Indian Jones: The Last Crusade” screenplay. Having recently read “Avatar”, it was obvious that the length of scenes have greatly shortened over time. Audience attention spans being greatly reduced over the past two decades might have something to do with it, but even with the cutting edge action in “Indiana Jones”, many of the scenes would be considered too long by today’s audience.

During the screenplay workshops I’ve conducted worldwide, one question arises in the middle of every session, “How long should I make the scene?” No one likes my answer, “As long as it needs to be, in order to tell your story in the best way possible, but not long enough to bore your audience.” I’ve never been thanked for that advice, no matter how much they accept the truth of it.

So I’ve decided to create some guidelines to help writers calculate the answer for themselves:

  1. A scene should only make or reveal one key storyline point. Every writer I’ve met has struggled with this concept because most think that in order to make a great film every scene needs to be complex and filled with information. However, the simpler the scene, the easier it is for the audience to follow complex ideas. Therefore, it is better to break up a three point scene into three scenes.
  2. Focus on the Main Character’s goal. Most long scenes became long when the writer lost track of the actor’s goal and started developing a supporting character to the same level as the main character. We sometimes forget that the only reason a supporting character is in a film is to reveal something about the main character. By focusing on his goal, the story shifts our attention to only the things of importance, clarifying the message.
  3. Review the previous and next scenes. Every story has a pace and rhythm that shows up in the length of the film’s scenes. If the scene falls into a faster section of the story, the scene will be just as short as the ones surrounding it. If it is in the middle of more relaxed paced scenes, it too will conform to a similar length. The exception is when a scene is put in to change the pace. If during a high action sequence the writer feels a need to let the audience breath, he inserts a longer scene to accomplish the task (possibly the lull before the storm). The opposite can also be effective when a short scene is slipped in between scenes representing a more status quo type of pace (An emotional jolt to regain the audience’s attention).
  4. Everything is said that needs to be said. Expanding a scene just because the writer likes it, is the kiss of death, especially in Act 2 where stories have a tendency to die on their own. Once all the right information is in the scene, it is at the right length, unless the writer added in all kinds of additional information that’s irrelevant.
  5. Make the subtext clear. The more obvious the scene, the shorter it can be. However, the more subtext used, the more interesting the scene and the more length is required for the interchange. During the age of “the shorter the scene the better,” writers sometimes forget that a scene twice as long with great subtext feels shorter than a short scene written on the nose.

Motion pictures are a collaboration of the arts and sciences. This overarching fact gives rise to the screenwriter who must put his heart on the page, while scientifically structuring it in a way that the audience can receive the message and be moved by it. The same holds true for the length of scenes.

The writer must find the exact length that allows him to share his passionate message, while entertaining the audience. That perfect balance, which is only achieved by less than 10% of the screenplays I read annually, makes the difference between a great film worth watching numerous times and a common film.

Copyright © 2012 By CJ Powers
Standard

Posted by

Posted on

June 8, 2012

Posted under

Reviews

Comments

3 Comments

Review: Snow White and the Huntsman

Breaking $70MM in its first week wasn’t a problem for this artistic expression of Snow White. The real problem focused on the production company using tall actors to play the dwarfs. The decision to digitally shrink actors was ridiculed by the “Little People of America” organization, who blasted Universal Chairman Adam Fogelson, saying it’s “…the equivalent of Universal casting a white actor to play a role written for an African-American person and digitally changing the color of their skin.”

Snow White falls asleep after eating an apple Despite the use of special effects to resize the actors as dwarfs, the film has already made great inroads as a cultural phenomenon, causing animators to wonder how many more animated pictures will be redone as live action films. This instant popularity drove the announcement that the sequel “Snow White and the Huntsman 2” will begin development.

The film was made very well, but it’s not your child’s Snow White due to the dark production values. Still, aside from the dark forest, the film is rather tame with the exception of the CGI rendered battle scenes. Then again, the awesome mirror effect is a bit ominous and foreboding for younger viewers and down right cool for adults.

Kristen Stewart (Snow White), gave me a flashback when she was laid out in the sleep scene, because it was so similar to her “Twilight” death scene. She of course excelled at her pouty look and salted in several moments that made you believe she was Snow White, rather than a vampire.

Chris Hemsworth (The Huntsman), brought a very different performance to the screen compared to his Thor character from “Avengers” and his George Kirk character from “Star Trek.” I’m convinced this actor can play any role given the right direction and time to develop a character.

Cool CGI mirror effectCharlize Theron (Ravenne), was the consummate actor she’s always lived up to with great excellence. And yes, the milk bath scene raised a few eyebrows, but never pushed the film’s rating. What I found remarkable was how well integrated her aging CGI was with her true skin. Add to it her great performance, and she was believable young, middle aged, and decrepitly old.

If you haven’t seen it yet, the film is worth your time, although you may be fighting your childhood memories with this artistic version taking significant liberties. And, what I found more fascinating than the rebooting of my thoughts about the story, was how stylistically this version fits this generation, just as much as Disney’s version fit the generation viewing his classic for the first time 75 years ago.