add tension to a scene?
- Thread starter teto29
- Start date
One good technique is the relaxation of tension, then its violent return.
For example, they both think they've succeeded in disarming the bomb, they relax, it looks like they've won, etc. When, of course, the worst is yet to come....
For example, they both think they've succeeded in disarming the bomb, they relax, it looks like they've won, etc. When, of course, the worst is yet to come....
Look up Hitchcock's "bomb theory", for ideas on raising tension.
Not sure how well that bodes for your bomb-experts' deaths, though.
You build all this tension. You must give them release.
Unfortunately all that is cliche and already done in every bomb disarming movie out there.
1. Why should we as a disinterested audience give a shit if these people live or die?
2. What are the stakes if they fail, beyond the characters already mentioned?
3. What if the character disarming the bomb wasn't a professional, and was merely being instructed from somewhere else?
4. What if some other scenario was present, such as a bomb vest that one can't remove, etc?
Do you have some intimate knowledge of a bomb squad, and is that why you chose to tell this story?
1. Why should we as a disinterested audience give a shit if these people live or die?
2. What are the stakes if they fail, beyond the characters already mentioned?
3. What if the character disarming the bomb wasn't a professional, and was merely being instructed from somewhere else?
4. What if some other scenario was present, such as a bomb vest that one can't remove, etc?
Do you have some intimate knowledge of a bomb squad, and is that why you chose to tell this story?
close ups do help i think. Close ups of a bunch of different wires that make the viewer look confused by looking at it. The actors could be screaming, that's always a sign of tension. The actors sweating could be a good thing to get, maybe shaky hands too. But don't make the entire scene close ups. I'd say music pretty much should cover the entire thing. Music really makes the feel for everything.
If you've ever seen The Dark Knight, there's tons of ticking bombs everywhere and there's a twist to every one of them. Some of the bombs blow up, main characters die. Maybe at some point, the characters know that they cannot disarm the bomb. So they try to escape from the range of the bomb or try to get out the building, but can't and so they die in the end.
Or maybe, again, they know that they can't stop the bomb, so one decides to try to run but the other stays. Maybe they can have some type of dialogue where the one that stays accuses the other of being a coward and giving up or something and that would just create more and more tension...just a few ideas.
Or maybe, again, they know that they can't stop the bomb, so one decides to try to run but the other stays. Maybe they can have some type of dialogue where the one that stays accuses the other of being a coward and giving up or something and that would just create more and more tension...just a few ideas.
Since Hitchcock came up (as he often does), I found a clip of him talking about this explosive tension. Just look up "Alfred Hitchcock On Mastering Cinematic Tension" on YouTube.
I was thinking... I don't know where your scene takes place, but if you could somehow bring a child to where the bomb is, this would be quite tense. I mean, one of the protagonists will have to carry her out of there. Close-ups will work.
It's all been done to death.
I was thinking... I don't know where your scene takes place, but if you could somehow bring a child to where the bomb is, this would be quite tense. I mean, one of the protagonists will have to carry her out of there. Close-ups will work.
It's all been done to death.
Last edited:
"Red Wire, Blue Wire, Red Wire Blue wire...Red Wire!"
"Riggs!" No explosion....
"Ah Roger?"
"Yea?"
"Grab the cat".
One of the better bomb building scenes (with humor!) that's I've seen: combination of music, dialogue and pacing. I also agree though-you have to give the people a reason to care about characters not blowing up.
Also agree with the Dark Knight example-they did a good job of keeping you guessing.
"Riggs!" No explosion....
"Ah Roger?"
"Yea?"
"Grab the cat".
One of the better bomb building scenes (with humor!) that's I've seen: combination of music, dialogue and pacing. I also agree though-you have to give the people a reason to care about characters not blowing up.
Also agree with the Dark Knight example-they did a good job of keeping you guessing.
Like everyone said, it's ripe for cliché.
But your scene description didn't say anything about the two people other than "protagonists." Maybe it's their relationship that is more important than external events and people? What if they are conflicted by the fact that if they succeed, things are*worse* in their lives! Damned if you do...
Sure gave yourself a challenge to make this different, fresh. I love this kind of challenge-- good luck and let us know what you come up with!
But your scene description didn't say anything about the two people other than "protagonists." Maybe it's their relationship that is more important than external events and people? What if they are conflicted by the fact that if they succeed, things are*worse* in their lives! Damned if you do...
Sure gave yourself a challenge to make this different, fresh. I love this kind of challenge-- good luck and let us know what you come up with!
Simple handheld shots work. And quick zoom style shots or whatever thats called, work as well. Think The Office, when they zoom in to the face, to convey a sense strong emotion.
Okay, lots of good comments on building tension. My comment is focused on motivation. It is very hard to get an audience to like a film where all the protagonists die. Many screened films have had their endings re-written before they are released because of audience complaints.
Now that doesn't mean it needs to be a Pollyana ending. What is often done is the protagonists sacrifice themselves for a higher purpose. Often that is tied into the cause of the tension--saving the kid, kitten, city, world, whatever. This is specifically when you kill the main characters whom the audience has been following. The deaths need to serve a greater purpose for the viewer to feel satisfied. It may seem crassly commercial but after 9/11, the Oklahoma City bombing, audiences are easily polarized. Build your tension, blow'em up, then follow up with the kid, kitten, etc. who are alive. Give them a brief memorial.
I was once told, "Kill off your protagonist at your own peril." Well, I don't totally buy that. But most successful movies do preserve a "karmic balance" in the ending. It's a triumph over adversity that the audience carries away with them. Just my two cents.
Now that doesn't mean it needs to be a Pollyana ending. What is often done is the protagonists sacrifice themselves for a higher purpose. Often that is tied into the cause of the tension--saving the kid, kitten, city, world, whatever. This is specifically when you kill the main characters whom the audience has been following. The deaths need to serve a greater purpose for the viewer to feel satisfied. It may seem crassly commercial but after 9/11, the Oklahoma City bombing, audiences are easily polarized. Build your tension, blow'em up, then follow up with the kid, kitten, etc. who are alive. Give them a brief memorial.
I was once told, "Kill off your protagonist at your own peril." Well, I don't totally buy that. But most successful movies do preserve a "karmic balance" in the ending. It's a triumph over adversity that the audience carries away with them. Just my two cents.