Have something happen in the shot.

I blog here mostly about short films, but all of us watch feature submissions during the week, and there are trends in features just as much as there are shorts. This year it seems like every other movie starts with a couple having sex in bed. Nothing wrong with that, but if you're writing your next script, you probably want to figure out a different way to start the story if you want to stand out from the crowd of people in bed.

But whatever you do, don't go back to the alarm clock tripping, being turned off, followed by a shot of feet hitting the floor. We've seen way too much of that, too.

Last night it seemed like all of the shorts were not – short, that is. Regular readers will know my constant advice to all short filmmakers: "Cut it in half." All of the movies last night, even the good ones, could have done with a cut down.

During one of these too-long affairs , a screeners came up with a great quote. "Have something happen in the shot." That's great advice. When I was studying acting, we had to write out a simple action for every line of dialogue. This could only be what we were doing. Not thinking, not feeling, not saying, but what we were physically doing. Filmmakers on the set should ask themselves, "what is the action of the shot?" "What is happening in this shot?"

If the answer is, "This shows the character feeling..." stop. If the answer is, "this is where he's thinking..." stop. What is the character DOING? If they don't have anything to do, give them something or cut the shot. You can't photograph a feeling or a thought. You can photograph a person putting on a good face despite their feelings. You can photograph a person desperately looking for a pencil and paper so they can write down their brilliant thought – or, stopping and changing direction because of their new thought.

Shoot verbs, not nouns.

Someone help me out in the comments, who said, "if a character pulls a gun, it had better go off"? Whoever it was, s/he was right. If you've written in a gun and it doesn't go off in your story, then cut the gun. Chances are the story will be better for it. If you can't cut it, figure out who you're going to shoot.

And for all of those Homeland Security web crawlers that just flagged this blog – we're talking about fictitious movies here. No one is really going to be shot.

-Robert Mellette Dances With Blogs
 
Many good points in OP, but the following is up for debate:

If you've written in a gun and it doesn't go off in your story, then cut the gun.


Hitchcock's bomb theory is quite the 180 on this. It's summarised as:

You must never let the bomb go off and kill anybody. Otherwise, the audience will be very mad at you.

Definitely worth lookin' up the whole thing.
 
Bombs pack a much larger emotional impact than firearms, that's why terrorists use them. That would explain the audience being less forgiving. That said, several television shows and films have used detonations to good effect.
 
"Someone help me out in the comments, who said, "if a character pulls a gun, it had better go off"? Whoever it was, s/he was right. If you've written in a gun and it doesn't go off in your story, then cut the gun. "

Most of the movies and TV shows people pointing guns at each other and no one shoots. It's a trend and they're copying each other. One film to the next is the same. Pull out gun, point it, have a dialog... or whatever, then do nothing, no shooting. It's stupid, especially when they point it to a victim who is tied up in a chair. It's one of those macho-things we see all the time.
 
I hate when two people pull a gun out on one another, barrels in their faces....and then they start talking.

Unrealistic from my POV, because if I draw a gun and point it at someone's face, and the other guy draws their gun and (attempts to) points it at my face, you'd better believe I'm going to shoot first. The whole macho standoff is just lame, and I will never use it in my films....if I have guns.
 
Chekov's gun theory can be summarized: If you show a loaded gun in the first act, it must go off by the third act. (There are several minor variations of this theme.)

The trick for writers/directors is to set up the thing that pays off later in a manner where the set up doesn't have a spotlight shining on it with a blinking sign reading, "THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT AND WILL MATTER LATER SO PAY ATTENTION TO IT!!!" On the other hand, when the payoff comes, the audience must not be confused as to where the thing in action came from. (i.e. "Where did that rocket-powered raccoon come from?!? Oh, wait, they showed him modifying them in the beginning.")

A recent example of an almost missed setup is in The Avengers when Captain America gives something to someone in the middle of the movie. For a moment, I was scratching my head as to what that was about, then I recalled a throwaway line earlier that was the setup. Super funny and just inside the clever/stupid line.
 
Back
Top