Why should we care?

[npcoombs]

This is quite a specific question really. When watching a piece of fiction, how is it that the film establishes the need for you (the viewer) to continue to watching it?

How does a film establish that you care about a character and want to know more? How does a film establish that you should care about a situation? How long should it take?

[steve hyde]

...quite a difficult question too. A good one, but you may consider revising the way you have phrased it because "film" doesn't establish much of anything in the way of character. It is the dramatic writing that establishes that....It seems to me then that the question is really what kinds of dramatic constructions have the power to hook?

Answers are never as valuable as well-formed questions when it comes to learning things, so I will pose a few questions rather than trying to offer answers. (plus I don't know the answers anyway )

caring about a character usually means identifying with them. So the question becomes: How, in dramatic writing, is a character made archetypal?

Wanting to know more is usually the product of posing a problem and then showing the story of the choices the archetypal character makes in response to that problem... If it is an interesting (and archetypal) problem that is compelling, people will be interested to learn about how the character deals with it.

How long should it take? an interesting question because you are talking about something that is going on in the minds of the viewers. Consider iconography here. If you draw upon an iconic image it will take less time.
If you try to create an image it might never connect with your audience.
In the short-form film iconography might be a key ingredient because everything has to be short-hand.

Have you ever read Aristotle's "On Poetics"?

Steve

[mattias]

"film" doesn't establish much of anything in the way of character.

i disagree. unless you extend writing to all dramatic construction including mise-en-scene, cinematography and editing. and what about acting?

i just saw the science of sleep and it's easily the best film since the life aquatic and lost in translation. that should tell you something about how much i care about dramatic writing as long as there are cool people doing weird stuff. :-)

i'll have to think about the question a little. i'll get back with some thoughts soon.

/matt

[steve hyde]

...I do extend dramatic construction to mise-en-scene, cinematography, editing and etc., but that is not where characterizations originate.

Steve Zissou, by the way, is a very complex character.




...not just weird person doing weird things..

He is a deeply flawed man and a visionary.

[mattias]

Steve Zissou, by the way, is a very complex character... not just weird person doing weird things..

that's my point. to me that's not the result of dramatic writing. it's the result of an extremely clear directors vision and an even clearer actors vision. in my opinion. and it's always this that captures me and drags me along, even through stories i couldn't care less about.

/matt

[steve hyde]

Steve Zissou, by the way, is a very complex character... not just weird person doing weird things..

that's my point. to me that's not the result of dramatic writing. it's the result of an extremely clear directors vision and an even clearer actors vision. in my opinion. and it's always this that captures me and drags me along, even through stories i couldn't care less about.

/matt

....okay??? I'm confused now. How does a director communicate a clear vision to the cast and crew? I've always thought scripts were good for that. If the vision of the actor is not consistent with the vision of the director the characterizations are likely to become muddled.

Your argument does not make sense to me.. If all the actions of the cast and crew are not in the service of story, what then?? Fix it in editing? Shoot the scene over again? Do some fancy camera work? Turn it into a 90 minute music video?

Steve

[mattias]

How does a director communicate a clear vision to the cast and crew? I've always thought scripts were good for that.

scripts are notoriously *bad* for that. script analysis and interpretation is a tool though but that's deconstruction and more like the opposite of writing in my opinion.

If the vision of the actor is not consistent with the vision of the director the characterizations are likely to become muddled.

in a way, but as a director you must allow actors to go to places you don't know about.

Your argument does not make sense to me.. If all the actions of the cast and crew are not in the service of story, what then??

i don't know. call it magic. i wouldn't be a director if i though it had so much as only a little to do with carrying out the ideas of the writer.

in short: writing is about control, directing is about losing it. :-)

/matt

[steve hyde]

How does a director communicate a clear vision to the cast and crew? I've always thought scripts were good for that.

scripts are notoriously *bad* for that. script analysis and interpretation is a tool though but that's deconstruction and more like the opposite of writing in my opinion.

If the vision of the actor is not consistent with the vision of the director the characterizations are likely to become muddled.

in a way, but as a director you must allow actors to go to places you don't know about.

Your argument does not make sense to me.. If all the actions of the cast and crew are not in the service of story, what then??

i don't know. call it magic. i wouldn't be a director if i though it had so much as only a little to do with carrying out the ideas of the writer.

in short: writing is about control, directing is about losing it.

/matt

...Yes, well what ever works works, to be sure. My own evolving approach to filmmaking, despite its infancy, is very much being built around the idea that creative constraints and parameters are essential for thematic and character focus. For me the written script is a site for such constraints and parameters. While I have no experience, at all, directing actors, I do understand that actors need to invent characters, but the director needs to let the actor know if the acting serves the story in the way that the director and writer have envisioned.

While I don't agree with your philosophy on writing and directing, I do look forward to seeing how it works out for you and do hope it is working out well.

Steve

[super8man]

This is quite a specific question really. When watching a piece of fiction, how is it that the film establishes the need for you (the viewer) to continue to watching it?

How does a film establish that you care about a character and want to know more? How does a film establish that you should care about a situation? How long should it take?

It's their FACE...take Matthew McConahay (sp?) or that other surfer burnout dude I can't think of right now...you just can't stand those characters since they scream HOLLYWOOD and you simply don't buy into the movie.

Now take that poor soul who did The Gods Must Be Crazy - you really want to see what happens with that clickity-clackety fellow. Its his face.

Same too when Mel Gibson was on the screen in his Mad Max days...not now though - He had the right stuff back then.

The typical reason to care is you want to see that character overcome something - right a wrong, etc.

It should take the whole length of the movie!

That's just me. This coming from someone who thinks Bill Duke's face in the movie Car Wash (1976) and his role is a most under appreciated performance. Watch it again and see.

[mattias]

creative constraints and parameters are essential for thematic and character focus.

of course. That's exactly the director's job. I actually delete any such hints and exposition from my shooting scripts.

the director needs to let the actor know if the acting serves the story in the way that the director and writer have envisioned.

i never found the writer's vision very interesting. To me writing is about story while the director tells it. And how you tell it is what makes a film great, which is my answer to the original question.

I do look forward to seeing how it works out for you and do hope it is working out well.

thanks. I'm doing ok i guess since all my films have become little festival hits, but i'm still learning obviously. I'm really looking forward to seeing some of your work as well. You obviously have ideas and insights that are interesting. /matt

[npcoombs]

thanks. I'm doing ok i guess since all my films have become little festival hits, but i'm still learning obviously.

It will be interested to see what you come up with next. I've seen your shorts and whilst technically executed, well, perfectly, your work still seems like a director in search of a theme. Like little fragments in search of a wider narrative.

'I Love You' was by far the best, much better than 'Jag Bara Under' - which can only be a good thing.

I am very excited to see how I will be working with actors on my first narrative film, I expect it to be tough.

[mattias]

your work still seems like a director in search of a theme. Like little fragments in search of a wider narrative.

yeah, that has been my focus all the time. i'm not very fond of the short format for artistic expression. for me it's an experimentation and learning opportunity. "jag bara undrar" is a pretty complete work with a very conscious theme though, at least it was meant to be. some people see it and get it, some don't. the other two are pure fragments by choice. i'm saving the masterpiece i have inside me for my debut feature. :-) and while i said that tongue in cheek it's actually not a joke.

I am very excited to see how I will be working with actors on my first narrative film, I expect it to be tough.

it's fun. just let them know you know what you're doing (even if you don't) and that you trust them (even if you don't) and you'll be fine.

/matt