Why not use the round wheels of filmmaking?

Changes don't always equal improvements

I'm a fairly conservative guy when it comes to Film Aesthetics. I don't mind people experimenting with the form and trying out new approaches . It is actually required to improve the art-form. What I really don't get though is how some of the world's current directorial hot-shots seem to let style getting in way of their stories. Surely storytelling is what directing is all about?

The problem

Yet, several "modern" directors go out of their wits to cram so much spectacle and fancy camerawork in there that it's bound to detract from the story. When watching films with excessive Camera Movements and edits that seem to be made simply to look "cool" I'm just annoyed. Huge vistas, helicopter fly-bys and some incredible effects-work is perfect to make great trailers, but have to be used with care if they're not to hurt the story.

So if it looks cool what's the problem? The problem is it pulls me out of the reality of the story. I dabble a bit with film-stuff myself and am generally interested in the technical side of things. Yet, I find that if a film works I never consciously notice the techniques while watching a film for the first time. (I probably will on second or third viewing). When I notice the filmmakers have failed in my book. It would be like reading a Crime Novel and then starting to think about how the sentences are built or perhaps what a brilliant font they've used.

The Wheel - it really works!

There are of course times when an author wants to attract attention to the language, but this is seldom the case in Thrillers where the narrative is the main focus. The odd bit is that there is a classic, well established language of film that seems to be lost on some contemporary directors. In many ways honed to perfection as early as 1941 with Orson Well's Citizen Kane. The choice of lenses, the lighting, composition and angles are all made to enhance the viewers understanding of the characters' psychological state. The brilliance of this is that it works on a subconscious level. If you want the viewer to empathize with a character you make sure that character is close to the camera and that we see the world through his or her eyes it. When the majority of the camerawork consists of huge battle-scenes shot from afar the viewer will eventually loose interest.

Watch the master

The guy who knows how

The thing that makes the situation even more absurd is the fact that the most successful director of the last 30 years does use this language. Steven Spielberg seems to have an incredible understanding of the psychological value of the camerawork. This is probably the reason why many will have a hard time pointing out what makes his films work so well. Witness the T-Rex attack on the car in Jurassic Park: Almost the entire scene is shot from inside the car. This way we, the audience, can feel the fear and despair experienced by the charcters. This is done despite having the coolest and most expensive animatronic T-rex available. Oh, how tempting it must have been to show off the beast in all its splendour! Yet, Spielberg obviously knew that this would work against the film.

Unfortunately a lot of the younger filmmakers today seem to have missed the point completely. While they are more than willing to let themselves be inspired by the fantastic premises of Spielberg's films the key to great filmmaking seems to elude them...

Why image quality in films doesn't really matter

Okay, that last sentence is a lie, but it got your attention didn't it? But while image quality does matter I am convinced that resolution and general image-quality is among the least important aspects of storytelling. The information the images contain and the look (composition, colours, lighting, etc.) is however vital if you want to succeed in telling your story.

To some of you the mere idea that resolution is unimportant is bordering on blasphemy. If you spend a large chunk of your money on home-theatre equipment and an equally large part of your time fine tuning the equipment you're probably fuming at these preposterous lies! And I understand. Really, I do. I own a Laserdisc Player for Pete's sake! I too prefer to watch films displayed in the best technical quality possible, but I've also found that good films work fine even when presented in more meager ways. If not, how did television ever succeed? It has never been able to compete with the vivid imagery found in the cinema.

Lo-fi Success Story

I recall watching badly made 3rd. generation VHS-copies of films like Aliens and Robocop without feeling any detraction from the enjoyment*. A more up to date example would be the incredible success of YouTube or some of the dodgy pirate-copies of films on miscellaneous torrent sites. Admittedly most people might wait for a higher quality version but only because it'll come along shortly. For the most eagerly awaited titles the fans seem to take whatever they can get. Surely, if image quality was really that important no one would bother with these low-quality options at all?

Sing, Sing, Sing

I am of course singing the age-old "story, story, story"-chorus: If the story is strong enough and it is told with the right use of visuals most viewers will soon forget the technical quality. This is something worth keeping in mind in an age when everyone is trying to sell us the latest Real-HD-1080p-BlueLaser-X-Camstation-3000-Videoplayer. Even more importantly than the consideration for our wallets: It is something for those of us dabbling with visual storytelling to be mindful of. By all means - get the best quality imagery you can, but don't let a few missing pixels prevent you from telling your story...

*Don't worry Hollywood I bought both on VHS and DVD later on.

Visual storytelling and the secret of greatness

This blog was eventually dedicated to visual storytelling simply because most of the posts I made had something to do with the subject. Reflecting over this made it clear to me that visual storytelling has always been a big part of my life. I've always been inclined towards the visual arts and traditional fairy-tales were a natural part of my upbringing. The last bit is something I as an adult find rather fascinating. The fairy-tales have been passed down through generations and are in many ways links to our forefathers. Their storyteller tradition is often referred to as an oral tradition but I find this definition a bit narrow.

What makes a great storyteller

The best storytellers have always been the ones who could paint the most vivid pictures. Surely these individuals used every trick they had up their sleeve. Acting out the different parts of their stories: An attacking boar. A sneaking hunter. Essentially creating visuals to enhance the experience.

Some of them might have used shadow-images on the cave walls and we know ancient men made beautiful cave-paintings, perhaps in an attempt to strengthen the impact of their words. The point I am trying to make is that we have always used visuals when telling our stories. It almost seems like it is an integral part of who we are as a species.

Think

It does not work without an effort though. Storytelling does not automatically become great simply because visuals are added. The imagery has to support the story. If the two competes for attention neither one will reach their full potential. In the same way abstractions may confuse the audience. We are however probably more advanced when it comes to reading complex visuals than ever. No surprise, as we are constantly bombarded with the stuff. TV-commercials, billboards, computer-games, magazines, websites and films. We couldn't avoid it if we wanted to.

Tough crowd

The flip side to this is of course that your audience is not so easily impressed. Some try to counter this with a more-is-more approach. I personally find this incredibly annoying. Spectacle will make a spectacle of you. You might keep your audience's interest for a while, but both you and your audience might loose track of the story in the process. While the correct use of great visuals will help the story become all that it can be - they cannot elevate a mediocre story to greatness.

The good thing about the omnipresence of advanced visual stimuli is of course that inspiration should not be hard to come by. Inspirational sparks from other people's works can be the starting point of greatness. We all have to find our ideas somewhere and can't all expect to have a divine muse available every time we feel a bit dried out creatively. I am of course not talking about copying the work of others.

Be great

The final piece of the puzzle is not exactly revolutionary: Work. We all want to be the best that we can be and most of us can't expect to have more than a couple of truly great ideas in a lifetime. We might have quite a few good and decent ones but greatness is hard to come by. But as a great idea can be buried by poor execution we owe it to ourselves to make sure our moments of inspiration reach their full potential.

So to sum up:

• Have something to tell.
• Enhance/tell it with visuals, but make sure the visuals are right.
• Work until you're satisfied it is as good as it can be.

Not the most original list of tips but certainly something it can be easy to loose track of. The first of these points is something that should be written on Hollywood Hill for every movie-executive to see...